Home / World News / Opinion | How to Reform the Senate Filibuster

Opinion | How to Reform the Senate Filibuster

In the beginning, from 1789 to 1806, debate in the Senate could be ended at any time by majority vote. In 1806, the Senate abolished that rule, leaving no way to cut off debate. This decision gave birth to the filibuster to delay or block legislative action. This involved a senator holding the floor continuously, as Mr. Smith did (not easy), or to act in carefully choreographed relays with like-minded colleagues (also not easy) and prevent a vote on the merits.

Still, a few successful filibusters were maintained, most notoriously to block anti-lynching and other civil rights legislation, but only when opposition was so passionate that senators were willing to endure the physical and logistical rigors of seizing the Senate floor and refusing to let go. In 1917, opponents of the United States’ entry into World War I were able to sustain such a speaking filibuster, blocking widely supported legislation that would have enabled merchant vessels to arm themselves. An angry Senate reacted by adopting formal rules that allowed an end to debate by a vote by two-thirds of the senators present on the floor.

Opinion Debate
What should the Biden administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress prioritize?

  • Jamelle Bouie, Opinion columnist, writes that Democrats need to end the filibuster: “The first step toward victory is a government that can act.”
  • Burt Neuborne and Erwin Chemerinsky write that while abolishing it may prove difficult, restoring the more difficult “speaking” filibuster could protect “the conscience of the minority without turning the Senate into a super-majoritarian body.”
  • Michelle Goldberg, Opinion columnist, argues that the Biden administration’s Covid-19 vaccine goals must be far more ambitious — two million vaccinations per day — to show “that it’s being as bold as this terrifying, miserable moment demands.”
  • Bret Stephens, Opinion columnist, argues that “a dissidents-first foreign policy” supporting pro-democracy activists repressed by their governments “would immediately revive America’s moral leadership after its squandering under Trump.”
  • Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, writes that by easing sanctions and returning to the nuclear deal, Biden could “create a new atmosphere that will help ease tensions in the region and beyond.”

From 1917 to 1975, with tweaks in 1949 and 1959, the Senate operated under the two-thirds rule, but the real constraints on filibustering were three self-limiting aspects of the 1917 rule. First, a motion to end debate (known as cloture) froze the Senate, forcing the body to vote on the motion before proceeding with any other business. Second, maintaining a speaking filibuster required a senator to hold the floor, individually or in relays. Third, supporters of the filibuster needed more than one-third of the Senate as allies to be present on the Senate floor to head off a surprise cloture vote. Once again, if opposition was passionate enough, successful filibusters were maintained, especially of civil rights legislation, but the difficulties of mounting a filibuster placed a lid on the number of times one could be successfully sustained.

Beginning in 1975, though, the original speaking filibuster was transformed into the modern version. First, Southern senators agreed to confine the filibuster to a short period in the morning session, allowing the Senate to move on to other business in the afternoon. Then they agreed to a reduction of the cloture number to a fixed 60 votes, from two-thirds present and voting, or 67 votes if the entire Senate was present.

All of a sudden, the self-limiting factors that had kept the filibuster in check since 1806 disappeared. There was no longer an institutional cost since the Senate could conduct business as usual during most of the day. A filibustering senator no longer had to hold the floor speaking for long periods of time. And most important, supporters of the filibuster no longer had to worry about being in the Senate chamber because it was the job of opponents to marshal the fixed 60 votes to end debate. Supporters of the filibuster could stay home in bed.

About brandsauthority

Check Also

Opinion | Europe Failed Miserably With Vaccines. Of Course It Did.

Smaller member states had more modest ambitions. They hoped that a collective strategy would ensure …

%d bloggers like this: