If Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper get their way, Americans will start losing a critical protection in the U.S. Senate – all so Democrats can wrest away authority from states like Colorado concerning elections. While Democrats claim the Senate must rid itself of cloture and the filibuster to ensure “voting rights,” the long-term damage will be considerable.

The filibuster is a tactic used by opponents of a bill to prevent it from coming to the Senate floor for a final vote. Ending a filibuster requires 60 votes for cloture, the Senate procedure to limit debate to thirty hours.

Some argue these tools excessively slow progress, but they actually exemplify the Senate’s core function. As James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 62, the Senate must be an “impediment… against improper acts of legislation” and a “complicated check on legislation.”

The filibuster constitutes one of the last vestiges of true republican government. As originally constituted, the Senate had two senators per state, regardless of population, and they were chosen by state legislatures to represent the states themselves.

“The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions,” Madison explained.

When the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, senators were suddenly elected by popular vote. No longer do they represent their respective states; rather, they represent the people of their states. Consequently, senators are far more influenced by whims of the moment.

The filibuster tempers senators’ temptations to rush ahead with hasty, ill-conceived legislation. It encourages the Senate to consider bills diligently and thoroughly.

In a Senate speech in 2017, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), then minority leader, asserted the filibuster “is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House.”

“Without the 60-vote threshold for legislation, the Senate becomes a majoritarian institution like the House, much more subject to the winds of short-term electoral change,” he explained. “No Senator would like to see that happen, so let’s find a way to further protect the 60-vote rule for legislation.”

Schumer was right then. While he’s conveniently changed his mind for political purposes today, his words still ring true – and exemplify why Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) rejected President Trump’s calls for Republicans to abandon the filibuster to pass his agenda.

Soon, Senate Democrats are expected to hold a vote to change the filibuster rules and “carve-out” an exception for “protecting the right to vote.” The intent is to pass an “election and voting rights package” which would circumvent three Supreme Court decisions, restrict what states are able to do regarding election security and mandate that states abide certain election requirements, right down to how many polling places and their hours of operation.

“This debate in Congress… is really around federalism and who should control how elections are conducted,” Pam Anderson, Republican candidate for Secretary of State and former Jefferson County Clerk, summarized with me on KNUS radio. “I find, in my experience, that best innovation, best practices as we’ve experienced here in Colorado comes from the local level.”

Indeed, Colorado’s evolution to host one of the nation’s most robust and secure election systems took a great deal of time to work out with many legislative, regulatory and procedural fixes over many years. If Congress micromanages elections at the federal level, this will make Colorado less nimble and constrict our flexibility to continue making improvements.

There is no definitive case that Republicans are actually “suppressing the right to vote” nationwide. On the contrary, the question is entirely up for debate. Changing the filibuster to enable sweeping, nationwide action with a one-size-fits-all approach  -on a debatable issue – is as unwise as it is dangerous.

If Senate Democrats “carve-out” the filibuster for something they’ve deemed acceptable, it will likely spark a chain of events that will ultimately do away with the filibuster’s critical protection against impulsive legislation. Recent political history proves this.

Former Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) died last week at 82. Reid was responsible for executing the “nuclear option” as Senate Majority leader in 2013. That year, he led the Democratic majority under President Obama to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial nominees. While he excluded the U.S. Supreme Court from this change, the minority cautioned that Democrats would rue the day.

In 2017, when Republicans retook control of the Senate and the presidency, they decided to add SCOTUS to the list of filibuster exceptions. It was the logical next step: If every other nomination could avoid the filibuster, why shouldn’t the Supreme Court? Consequently, Trump and Senate Republicans put Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett on the bench – shaping a 6-3 right-leaning SCOTUS majority.

Now, Democrats claim that, because “voting rights are fundamental to our democracy,” a filibuster carve-out for their chosen bill is justified. Why stop with voting and elections?

And if Democrats have decreed their sweeping bill on “voting rights” deserves a filibuster exemption, why can’t Republicans do the same on “election integrity” when it’s their turn? Gun rights?

If Bennet votes for this so-called filibuster “reform,” he will dramatically weaken our nation’s system of checks and balances and enable Congress to perpetrate a massive federal power-grab of Colorado’s elections. Voters must then hold him accountable in November.

Jimmy Sengenberger is host of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” Saturdays from 6-9am on News/Talk 710 KNUS.  He also hosts “Jimmy at the Crossroads,” a webshow and podcast in partnership with The Washington Examiner.