Kelly needs to weigh in on ending filibuster

With just 11 days to go until early voting begins in Arizona, Democrat Mark Kelly is still bobbing and weaving when it comes to what may be one of the most important issues of the campaign.

Where, sir, do you stand on ending the filibuster?

It seems only fair that voters know whether Kelly is in favor of dramatically changing the Senate rules.

Whether he would support clearing the way for Democrats to expand the Supreme Court and pretty much do whatever else they want should they win the Senate and White House in November.

Unfortunately, mum’s the word in Camp Kelly.

For those who don’t closely follow this stuff, this isn’t the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington maneuver, nobly immortalized in the movies.

Basically, it’s a procedural Senate rule that requires 60 votes, rather than a simple majority, to pass most legislation.

Depending on your point of view, it’s either a check in the system that prevents the majority party from running roughshod over the minority party without any attempt to achieve bipartisan cooperation.

Or it’s brick wall erected by the minority to obstruct the will of the majority.

It was used in the 1950s and early 1960s by southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. More recently, Republicans used it to obstruct President Barack Obama’s agenda, compromising the design of the Affordable Care Act and eliminating the possibility of passing climate change or immigration reforms.

The Dream Act would have passed in 2010 if not for the filibuster. Three years later, a bipartisan bill requiring background checks for private gun purchases died because only 54 senators would support it.

During Trump’s term, Democrats have used the filibuster to ensure Republicans couldn’t pass legislation to build a border wall or cut legal immigration. Most recently, they used it to stop a GOP police reform bill, believing it did not go far enough.

Now, with Democrats potentially poised to take control of both the Senate and the presidency, the party’s left wing is pushing to do away with the filibuster. They’re looking to make it easier to pass a progressive agenda to reform gun and immigration laws, address climate change and usher in Medicare for all — basically, to pass laws they cannot pass unless Republicans are swept out of the way.

The idea gained steam in Democratic circles this week as Republicans announced they would rush to replace Justice Ruth Ginsburg before the election. Democrats are furious that Re

publicans plan to cement in place a conservative court for decades to come just as the country potentially swings left. And suddenly the idea of getting rid of the filibuster and expanding the court is gaining momentum.

Obama is calling for an end to the filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is open to it, as are a number of Democratic senators.

“We have a moral imperative to the people of America to get a whole lot done if we get the majority, which, God willing, we will, and keep it in the House, and Biden becomes president, and nothing is off the table,” Schumer recently said.

Joe Biden, long skeptical of eliminating the filibuster, also is open to it though he has said he would prefer to get bipartisan buy-in for his agenda.

“If there’s no way to move other than getting rid of the filibuster, that’s what we’ll do,” he said in August.

It would take a simple majority of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster.

So where, you might wonder, does Mark Kelly stand, should we send him rather than Republican Martha McSally, to the Senate?

Here is Kelly, in an August interview on the The Gaggle, The Arizona Republic’s political podcast, when asked whether he would support doing away with the filibuster:

“I’ve studied the issue, clearly,” he said. “It’s a big decision. I think everybody recognizes it as a big decision. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s been used to stop progress by both parties. So it’s something I will take very seriously. And I’ll look at both sides.”

This, of course, is a total dodge.

Kelly has been running for well over a year and he wants us to believe that he’s still studying the issue? That he has no position on a major rule change that could clear the way for fundamental change in this country?

Sorry, I just don’t buy it.

It’s now been well over a month since Kelly’s nonanswer to The Republic’s reporters. So I called his campaign spokesman on Tuesday, pressing for an answer to a perfectly legitimate question.

Here’s what I got:

“I don’t think I’ll have much to expand beyond that answer, but I’ll circle back around to you,” spokesman Jacob Peters told me, referring to Kelly’s Gaggle interview.

He’s apparently still circling and the rest of us are still waiting for an answer.

Meanwhile, early voting begins on Oct. 7 and those all-important moderate voters — the ones who will decide this race — have a right to know where Kelly stands.

Given his background as a combat pilot, it’s understandable that the Democratic nominee knows how to bob and weave.

On the campaign trail, however, that trait is getting a little old.