Filling the Amendment Tree: Majority Party Control, Procedures, and Polarization in the U.S. Senate

• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17744173
• Date: 01 July 2018
• Author: Neilan S. Chaturvedi
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17744173

American Politics Research

2018, Vol. 46(4) 724 –747

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17744173

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Filling the Amendment

Tree: Majority Party

Control, Procedures,

and Polarization in the

U.S. Senate

Neilan S. Chaturvedi1

Abstract

Harry Reid is often lauded by fellow Democrats as one of the most powerful

Senate Majority leaders in modern history. One tactic that he used to

usher in legislation was a parliamentary procedure known as “Filling the

Amendment Tree.” Amendment trees are diagrams that demonstrate the

amendment process for legislation, but Reid often limited the number

of amendments that could be offered on a piece of legislation using this

procedure. From the majority’s perspective, this procedure helps usher

in legislation and protects vulnerable moderates from having to vote on

controversial legislation. Still, others argue that the restrictive procedure

limited the ability of moderate Democrats to distinguish themselves from

their party leadership, making them vulnerable to attacks. In this article, I

find that filling the amendment tree did not limit moderate Democrats from

proposing amendments. In fact, although moderate Republicans shied away

from the process of filing amendments in protest, there was no statistical

relationship between ideology and the number of amendments filed for

Democrats. Still, upon examination of voting data, the use of the procedure

homogenized the voting records of moderate Democrats in the 112th and

113th Congresses. Furthermore, it forced moderate Republicans to vote

1California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Neilan S. Chaturvedi, Assistant Professor of Political Science, California State Polytechnic

University, Pomona, 3801 W. Temple Ave, Pomona, CA 91768, USA.

Email: nschaturvedi@cpp.edu

744173APRXXX10.1177/1532673X17744173American Politics ResearchChaturvedi

research-article2017

Chaturvedi 725

more often with the Democrats in each of the Congresses in which Reid

employed the procedure.

Keywords

Congress, Senate, parliamentary procedures, filling the amendment tree,

Harry Reid

The Senate is often referred to as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” That

is a phrase that I wince at each time I hear it, because the amount of real

deliberation, in terms of exchange of ideas, is so limited.

—Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) (Packer, 2010).

Senator Merkley’s objection to the often-used description of the U.S.

Senate as the greatest deliberative body is descriptive of the general state of

the Senate today. Plagued with increased polarization and partisan maneuver-

ing, the modern Senate has struggled with the legislative process. Indeed,

ideologically, the Senate players have moved to their respective poles leaving

few moderates willing to cross party lines (Bond, Fleisher, & Stonecash,

2009; Mayhew, 2005; McCarty, Poole, & Rosenthal, 2006; Sinclair, 2006;

Theriault, 2008). Still, Lee (2009) finds that the process is increasingly parti-

san, as each caucus maintains homogeneity on voting in the modern era.

Regardless of the nature of division, the Senate has transformed from an

individualistic body known for deliberation and moderation to one of divi-

sion and obstruction. In their book on agenda control, Den Hartog and

Monroe (2011) paint the picture of an adversarial Senate in which the major-

ity party has considerable strategic advantages over the minority party. As

Smith (2007) notes, the increase in division has led to a more party and lead-

ership-centric chamber in which members of both the majority and minority

coalesce around the leadership. Indeed, members of the minority party have

often formed a monolithic bloc in opposition of the majority party. Even

presidents focus their attention mainly on party leaders rather than pivotal

voters (Beckmann, 2009). Perhaps, the most well-known method of obstruc-

tion is the filibuster, in which a minority of 41 senators can delay or obstruct

voting on legislation indefinitely (see Koger, 2010; Wawro & Schickler,

2007). Indeed, as Koger (2010) finds in his book, the number of filibusters

used in the Senate has steadily increased since the 1960s. Another method of

obstruction is the proposal of amendments, an unregulated aspect of lawmak-

ing when compared with the United States House of Representatives. Unlike