| Chapter 1: | Introduction |
|
|
list, these more recent works have made a substantial contribution to the existing literature on delay in the chamber.
Nevertheless, although Beth's list has been invaluable to scholars of the Senate, it is not without its shortcomings—which Beth himself readily identifies and acknowledges. First, the list was aggregated from previously existing accounts of Senate filibusters that were compiled by researchers at different points in time using varying methodological approaches in identification. Indeed, only 94 of the 293 filibusters included on Beth's list relied upon “new research for [the] memorandum” or “new information from secondary sources” (Beth 1994, 20). The other 199 filibusters included on the list were taken primarily from other secondary sources, including previous Congressional Research Service memoranda and Burdette (1965). Because there is no way to know if the various researchers employed the same criteria for classifying an action as a filibuster, it is impossible to be certain that Beth's 1994 list of filibusters is internally consistent, much less accurate or exhaustive. Nevertheless, it has been treated as both by subsequent scholars who have used his list in their research.
Second, Beth's list is an incomplete historical record, stopping in 1993. Thus, the nearly ten years of Republican control of the Senate between 1995 and 2004, and several years of contentious Democratic control since then, are not represented on Beth's list. This is problematic because these time periods are marked by an increase in dilatory behavior on the part of senators.
Finally, and most importantly, Beth's list does not identify which senator or senators led the filibusters that appear on his list, which makes individual-level analyses of filibustering behavior impossible. This is problematic because in the absence of a clear leader or leaders, it is less likely that a filibuster is taking place. As Beth (1994) noted, intentionality is important. A filibuster cannot be said to be taking place simply because a lengthy amount of time has been spent debating a question. Instead, a senator or senators must intend to delay the process of consideration. Thus, if a leader cannot be designated, it cannot be said that a filibuster has actually taken place, regardless of how much time the Senate may have