A smiling face. A neutral background featuring the U.S. Capitol. And a politically charged question emblazoned across the image: “Do you agree that the Democrat-appointed Senate Parliamentarian should be replaced?”

This seemingly simple question cuts into one of the most overlooked but powerful roles in American government: the Senate Parliamentarian. Though rarely in the headlines, the individual who holds this position wields significant influence over the legislative process. Recent rulings and decisions have reignited calls from both sides of the aisle to reevaluate the parliamentarian’s role—and in some cases, to outright remove them.

But before diving into whether the current parliamentarian should be replaced, it’s important to understand what the position entails, why it matters so much, and how it has become a focal point in America’s modern political gridlock.

What Does the Senate Parliamentarian Actually Do?

The Senate Parliamentarian serves as the official advisor on the interpretation of the chamber’s complex and often arcane rules. This unelected figure provides guidance to the presiding officer of the Senate (often the Vice President or a senior senator) on procedural issues—especially on what can or cannot be included in certain types of legislation, such as budget reconciliation bills.

This advice isn’t legally binding, but it’s almost always followed. In practice, the parliamentarian acts as the gatekeeper of legislation, determining what provisions can bypass filibuster rules and move forward with a simple majority vote.

In an era of closely divided Senates, this power can determine whether a sweeping policy—like immigration reform, tax credits, or healthcare expansion—succeeds or dies quietly in committee.

Why Is the Current Parliamentarian Under Fire?

The current Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, was appointed in 2012 and has served under both Republican and Democratic majorities. Though widely respected in legal and procedural circles, MacDonough has become a controversial figure in recent years due to several high-profile rulings that have frustrated progressive lawmakers.

Most notably:

• In 2021, she ruled that Democrats could not include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in a budget reconciliation bill. This blocked one of the most ambitious immigration reforms in decades.

• She also rejected proposals related to raising the federal minimum wage through reconciliation, stating it did not meet the strict criteria required under Senate budget rules.

To progressives and immigration advocates, these decisions were not just disappointing—they were infuriating. Some lawmakers called for her to be overruled or replaced, accusing her of standing in the way of policies with widespread popular support.

A Debate Over Procedure or Power?

Critics argue that giving an unelected staffer the ability to derail major policy initiatives is anti-democratic. They believe that when the stakes are high and the will of the majority is clear, the parliamentarian’s opinion should be overruled or the office should be restructured altogether.

They point out that the role is intended to be advisory, not authoritative. In fact, the Vice President, as President of the Senate, has the constitutional right to ignore the parliamentarian’s advice—though doing so could provoke institutional backlash.

On the other hand, defenders of the parliamentarian stress the importance of procedural consistency and legal integrity. Without someone to enforce the Senate’s rules, even loosely, the chamber could devolve into chaos—setting dangerous precedents and eroding public trust in legislative governance.

Historical Precedent: Parliamentarians Have Been Replaced Before

This is not the first time the role has sparked political tension.

In 2001, then-Majority Leader Trent Lott dismissed Parliamentarian Robert Dove after he issued rulings that restricted what Republicans could pass through reconciliation. Dove’s firing was met with outrage from Democrats, who accused Republicans of undermining Senate norms.

Now, decades later, it is Democrats facing the same temptation.

This cyclical debate illustrates the fragility of institutional norms in a hyper-partisan environment—and the blurred line between procedure and politics.

Is There a Better Way Forward?

Rather than eliminating or replacing the parliamentarian, some scholars have suggested reforms to increase transparency and accountability in the office. For instance:

• Publishing detailed reasoning behind rulings

• Creating a bipartisan review process for controversial decisions

• Formalizing the boundaries of the role within Senate rules

Others argue for limiting the use of budget reconciliation altogether—a tool that was never intended to pass massive policy packages but has become a legislative workaround for decades of filibuster deadlock.

Still, others advocate for eliminating the Senate filibuster itself, which would render many of the parliamentarian’s rulings less impactful by removing the 60-vote threshold for most legislation.

Public Opinion and Political Optics

The image circulating with the bold caption—suggesting that the parliamentarian is simply a “Democrat appointee” who must be removed—plays into a broader narrative about unelected bureaucrats obstructing elected leaders. It feeds into public frustration about Washington’s inaction and the perception that shadowy figures control the levers of government.

However, the truth is more nuanced. The parliamentarian serves regardless of party control and provides rulings based on Senate precedent and rule interpretations, not personal ideology.

Still, in a political climate where optics often matter more than nuance, it’s easy to see how a technical advisor becomes a political scapegoat.

Conclusion: Should the Senate Parliamentarian Be Replaced?

The answer depends on whether one values procedure over outcomes or believes that rules should bend when political will is strong.

To some, replacing the parliamentarian would restore power to elected officials and accelerate progress on long-overdue reforms. To others, it would signal a dangerous disregard for institutional integrity and set a precedent that would haunt both parties in future Congresses.

Ultimately, the debate about the Senate Parliamentarian is about more than one individual—it’s about how America’s legislative machinery works, who it serves, and how it should evolve in the face of 21st-century political realities.