stake

Amid jostling for Biden energy roles, New Mexicans stake claim on Interior

The state’s Rep. Deb Haaland and Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich have become increasingly visible in pitching themselves as potential heads of the Interior Department, sources following the jockeying said.

Haaland, the vice chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, didn’t deny her interest in the role as she touted her potential inclusion in a potential candidates’ list as a historic first.

“I’m honored that people believe in my leadership in protecting our public lands and combating climate change,” said the first-term House member who previously served as the state’s Democratic Party chair. “It is also meaningful that our country has finally reached the point where having the first Native American Cabinet Secretary is a serious consideration. I am open to those opportunities where I can best serve New Mexico, Indian Country and our country at large.”

Udall’s office declined to comment, and pointed to his March 2019 announcement that he would not seek reelection to the Senate but that he was not done with public life.

“Now, I’m most certainly not retiring,” Udall said in that video. “I intend to find new ways to serve New Mexico and our country after I finish this term. There will be more chapters in my public service to do what needs to be done.”

A source familiar with Udall’s thinking told POLITICO he would consider the position if asked.

Udall comes from a storied political family. His father, Stewart Udall, led Interior for eight years under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations where he oversaw the dramatic expansion of millions of acres of public lands and assisted in passage of bedrock environmental statues, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Haaland’s backers are pushing for her to make history as the first Native American to serve in a presidential cabinet.

The House’s stake in filibuster reform

A spate of articles over the summer from Richard Arenberg, Norm Ornstein and Ronald Brownstein, as well as remarks by former President Barack Obama at the funeral of Rep. John LewisJohn LewisHillicon Valley: Productivity, fatigue, cybersecurity emerge as top concerns amid pandemic | Facebook critics launch alternative oversight board | Google to temporarily bar election ads after polls close Underwood takes over as chair of House cybersecurity panel Trump to pay respects to Ginsburg at Supreme Court MORE, have fueled a vigorous debate over the merits, liabilities and necessity of ending (or modifying) the Senate’s filibuster tradition. Should Democrats win this November’s trifecta and control the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate, precious little of a Biden agenda will see the light of day in any recognizable form if it must surmount Rule 22’s 60-vote supermajority in the Senate.

Historically, requiring a supermajority to end Senate debate was intended to provide the minority at least one step in the legislative process to flex its muscle and force concessions. But the filibuster no longer is employed to address the minority’s understandable frustration at being at a legislative disadvantage. Filled with what former Sen. Byron Dorgan described as “100 human brake pads,” the current filibuster doesn’t pause the process to allow the minority to engage; it kills the process dead in its tracks. What the Senate needs is fewer brake pads and more an ignition switch.

But even if it functioned as intended, the filibuster enables a dangerous and anti-democratic distortion of the functioning of Congress. The Senate is already a patently undemocratic institution merely due to its constitutional design. When the Constitution was ratified, the ratio between the largest and smallest states — each having two senators — was 17:1. Today, that ratio has swelled to 70:1,