The Senate on Tuesday set forth into territory so wild and trackless that the expedition may make Rudyard Kipling’s “Around the World in 80 Days” look like a flawlessly executed itinerary. In a narrow vote of 51-48, the Senate voted to open debate on the SAVE America Act. Under usual procedure, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) would have immediately filed a “cloture” motion to end debate and proceed to a vote. Instead, knowing that he lacks the votes to proceed, Thune chose instead to leave the debate open for an unknown amount of time.

Thune’s decision to elongate debate came amid pressure to reimplement a “talking filibuster” in order to pass the SAVE America Act.

Under Senate rules, a talking filibuster would allow each member of the minority party two speeches of unlimited length — two minutes, an hour, or even 25 hours for those who really want to show off their hatred for President Trump’s agenda. Multiply that times 47 Democrats (or 94 speeches), and the result would only hand Democrats the keys to a bulldozer to push more sand into the Senate’s procedural gears. It would also give Democrats the opportunity to propose unlimited amendments, which need not have anything to do with the subject at issue.

But such a rule-change would require a Senate vote, and Thune has said that “the votes aren’t there to do a talking filibuster.” Thus, without triggering the ill-advised procedural change, forcing a prolonged debate is a way to demonstrate to Americans what shenanigans would ensue were the Senate to bust yet another norm.

Thune also has to contend with a caucus that tolerates far more ideological diversity than the progressive purity exacted among Democrats. Despite Republicans’ 53-47 majority in the Senate, Thune just barely managed to win a vote to even begin debate on the bill. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined every Democrat in voting against the measure. Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) missed the vote but would have been a “no.” And former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told colleagues he opposed the bill but agreed to vote to open debate as a courtesy to Republican leadership.

For a group reliant on voters to keep their jobs, this landscape is strangely at odds with the preferences of voters themselves. “Eighty percent of Americans believe in voter ID. Seventy percent of Democrats want voter ID,” cited Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) on “Washington Watch.” Yet “only two out of 47 senators [who are] Democrats have said they support voter ID.”

Supporters of voter ID can prefer different forms of legislation, but still 71% of registered voters support the SAVE American Act in particular, according to a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll. “It requires proof of citizenship when you register. It requires proof of ID … when you vote. And then we basically verify who you are when it comes to mail-in ballots and put some guardrails around that,” Marshall mentioned.

“The Senate often considers complex, divisive issues,” Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) declared on the Senate floor. “Protecting the votes of American citizens is not one of them. It is a simple task, and the American people are united: Pass the SAVE America Act.”

Americans are concerned about election integrity because of “the number of illegal immigrants that are coming into this country. … Out of 300 million people, 50 are non-American citizens — some legal, some illegal — and now they’re being registered to vote in four states,” Marshall said. “There [are] a lot of people out there worried, ‘Is my vote going to be canceled? Is my vote going to be canceled by an illegal voter?’”

In any normal landscape, a policy supported by 70% of U.S. voters would likely enjoy the support of their elected representatives. But in the Twilight Zone through which the Senate is now meandering, not only are opponents of the bill bipartisan, but they are also somehow confident of victory.

“If MAGA Republicans want to bog down the Senate over a debate on voter suppression, Democrats are ready,” exclaimed Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). With Democrats entrenched, Republicans not united, and a 60-vote threshold to cross, realistic Republican senators see little to no possibility that their quest will ever reach Mount Doom. However, they hope that by making the attempt, it will at least expose the bill’s opponents as the Boromir of the quest.

Despite the vanity of this quest, Senate Republicans have been forced to embark upon it by the combined pressure of House Republicans and President Trump. On Sunday, President Trump insisted that passing the SAVE America Act “must be done immediately. It supersedes everything else. MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE.” Trump promised not to sign other legislation that reached his desk before the SAVE America Act and declared he would not accept a “watered-down” version of the bill.

In a Wednesday letter, 25 House Republicans led by Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) made a similar pledge “to vote NO on any Senate bill on the House Floor. Consider this our filibuster.”

“It is imperative that we reassert a foundational principle. Only American citizens should vote in our elections,” the letter contended. “Anyone who wants to participate in that most sacred tradition must provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to vote and a photo ID for voting. This is not a controversial position. An overwhelming majority of every demographic — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents; White, Black, and Hispanic; men and women — share this same view.”

The point that only American citizens should vote in American elections is well-taken, as that is part of the very definition of a citizen, going back to ancient Greece. As for the particular documents demanded, those are a more recent application of the principle, as photo IDs did not exist until long after the founding era.

Yet another foundational principle is that each chamber of Congress is sovereign over its own affairs, and neither the House nor the president can strong-arm the Senate into passing a bill the Senate does not want to pass, simply by a threat to sabotage all other legislative business. In fact, another foundational principle of America’s system of government is that the Framers constructed the Senate as a brake upon legislation that sailed through the House, giving the House even less legitimacy to bully the Senate over its own business.

It’s not difficult to imagine how the 100 or so Democratic members of the progressive caucus, if their party takes control of the House in the next Congress or any future Congress, would abuse such a precedent to insist upon a whole raft of legislation: a bill dismantling voter integrity, the Equality Act, the Green New Deal, statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C., and any other new spending packages that come to mind.

Thus far, Senate Republicans have at least resisted demands to further erode their own institutional norms, even if a few of them have shown less support for voting integrity than might be expected. However, by opening up the floor for practically unlimited debate, they have embarked upon an adventure of unknown date or destination. It remains to be seen whether their voyage will meet the triumphant homecoming of Odysseus or the watery grave of Captain Nemo.