START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
1,788,975 people care about Politics

What is a Filibuster and Why Should It Be Reformed?

  • 2 of 2

What Changes are Democrats Proposing?

The changes that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is considering boil down to two changes. The first would eliminate filibusters on the Motion to Proceed — essentially, a motion to bring a matter up for debate. Right now, members can actually filibuster not just a measure, but even taking up a measure.

The more substantial change would be to return to some variation on requiring a vote of senators present, rather than the whole senate, in order to proceed. That would force the minority to keep members on the floor in order to keep a filibuster going, rather than forcing the majority to try to break it.

These two changes would not eliminate the filibuster, but they would require members to actually filibuster an act of Congress, rather than the idea of debate itself. It would also put the onus on the minority to keep the filibuster going once started — making it easier to break, and harder to sustain indefinitely.

Why Not Just Eliminate the Whole Thing?

If the filibuster is such an important part of gridlock, it may seem like a no-brainer to get rid of it. Still, there are reasons for both parties to be concerned about rule changes that affect the rights of the minority.

Democrats have held the Senate only since 2007. Prior to that, Republicans held the body for all but two years since 1995. Needless to say, your perspective on the filibuster changes once you’re in the minority. What had been a tactic to obstruct and delay now becomes a method to keep truly awful legislation from passing. One can imagine, five years from now, that a GOP-controlled Senate with just 52 Republicans could pass through anti-choice legislation, or reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, or repeal the Affordable Care Act. Without the filibuster, Democrats could complain, but they’d be powerless to stop the legislation.

Additionally, some Democrats are simply leery of playing around too much with Senate traditions. The Senate prides itself on its institutional consistency, and at least theoretically, senators like to believe that they put the Senate above mere partisan aims. The filibuster may do more harm than good, but it’s harm with a long and storied tradition.

There are also good reasons why a parliamentary body should allow the minority, or even one senator, to delay legislation through the use of debate. Strom Thurmond was absolutely, horribly wrong about civil rights, but nobody can say that the Senate did not take note of his objections, nor that his complaints were stifled. In a democracy, free and open debate is not a luxury, but a necessity. Even when it makes it hard for you to get things done.

Why Now?

Filibuster reform has been held up in no small part because Senate rules require two-thirds support to amend them. Since the minority party benefits from the filibuster’s ability to stop the majority, Senators in the minority have been loath to support filibuster reform. With 40 votes against reform, any changes to the rules are blocked.

There is a time when that could change, however. The Senate has by long custom continued its rules from session to session, under the theory that two-thirds of senators were not up for re-election in the previous year, so the Senate, as an institution, has not changed. This stands in contrast to the House of Representatives, which adopts new rules at the start of each session.

There is not, however, any particular reason why the Senate must continue its rules at the start of a new Congress. The standing rules say they continue, but a new Congress could, in principle, simply author new rules, and declare that they need not be bound by the old ones.

That gives Democrats an opportunity. On the first day of the session in January, a majority of Senators could change the rules, or chuck them out and start over. The vote could even be structured to block a filibuster on the measure itself.

If Democrats decide not to change the rules, then they lose their chance until 2015 — meaning that the GOP would be free to continue to obstruct and delay. There’s no guarantee that Democrats will still hold the Senate at that point, either.

That is one more reason why Democrats may hesitate to change the rules altogether. Once the precedent is established that a majority can change the rules, there’s nothing stopping Republicans from changing the rules once they regain control of the Senate. Reid and his caucus have to balance the significant damage done by the filibuster with the prospect of further changes affecting them when they’re in the minority again.

Can the GOP Stop This?

Probably not. If the Democrats want to go ahead, there’s not much the Republicans can do to stop it. They can, however, retaliate with a series of parliamentary tricks, which could, in the short-term, cause more havoc than the filibuster.

Democrats who support changing the filibuster are hoping that the changes are minor enough that Republicans stop short of all-out war, and it’s likely they are. Still, saber-rattling is about all the GOP can do in the short term. The decision to go forward with filibuster reform is up to the Democrats, and they alone will have to decide whether the gain from erasing it is enough to outweigh the costs.

Watch the Video

Related Stories

Common Cause Sues to Fix the Filibuster

Republicans Filibuster Cordray At Consumer Protection Bureau

GOP Filibusters Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

  • 2 of 2

Read more: , , , , ,

Image Credit: Boston Public Library

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
4:58AM PST on Dec 11, 2012

The Democrats yelled about it when the Republicans wanted to do this.

6:21PM PST on Dec 4, 2012

Of course they'll do anything they can to stop reform of ANY thing.

The filibuster is from the days of civilization not rule by the oligarchy who seem to have no scruples or morals.

2:11PM PST on Dec 3, 2012

Recall all Republicans!

9:49AM PST on Dec 3, 2012

Members of the Senate are our EMPLOYEES. Should we continue paying them for refusing to do their job? Isn't this a perceived entitlement that, like their salaries, retirement/health insurance benefits, speaking fees, etc., should be on the economic chopping block?

1:39AM PST on Dec 3, 2012


1:38AM PST on Dec 3, 2012

Interesting, thanks!

1:27PM PST on Dec 2, 2012

@Susan A

Okay, I did misunderstand, as it seemed like you were saying the dems were intending to end the filibuster. Incidentally, you used the term nuclear option, which is not really accurate. The GOP threatened a nuclear option in 2005, which would have actually ended filibusters. This was dodged through a bi-partisan committee determining that filibusters would be limited to special, undefined circumstances, and so far as I recall this magic scenario never occurred so it essentially did end filibusters.

The telling detail that should be added to your table of congressional effectiveness is the percentage of bills, which are signed into law. Truman's "do nothing congress" produced about 22% of its bills, this year's 112th passed less than 3%.

9:02AM PST on Dec 2, 2012

Leonard T., not sure if you misunderstood my post or not since you directed yours to me, but I don't disagree with you in the least bit. I agree wholeheartedly. The reasons for my posts were three-fold. First, I wanted to give a little history of the filibuster; second, I wanted to show what pitiful congresses the 111th and the 112th have been by showing how they have passed no legislation and have used the filibuster to keep from doing so; and thirdly, the videos were posted to show certain of these congress critters for the treasonous bastards they actually are. The last video was just a bonus video to show the last few republican presidents, as well as the party, to be the scum they are. I am all for reforming the filibuster so as to ensure each bill receives the full attention and discussion it warrants. I don't believe one senator should have the right to just threaten a filibuster, thereby killing the legislation without any discussion or action whatsoever. I do not believe that was ever the intent of the filibuster. Filibustering simply went that way so as to not tie up the senate floor, thereby causing inaction on any other legislation. The problem is, at this point, that just wouldn't matter because the republicans are filibustering practically all legislation and so there is no action to hold up on any other legislation.

11:48PM PST on Dec 1, 2012

@ Susan A

No one is trying to end the filibuster. Despite all the hand wringing from the right, the only rules change that's sought, which I've heard about at any rate, is changing back to what was required before 1977, such that when one filibusters, he or she must actually hold the floor, talk until they're hoarse, piss in a bottle, that sort of thing. Like in 1957, Strom Thurmond spoke for 24 hours to try and block a civil rights law. He was a sorry ass excuse for a human being, but willing to stand for his sociopathy. The real anomaly is the pretend filibuster that's been allowed since the late '70s, in which a senator merely states that they are putting a hold on a piece of legislation, and nothing more is required of them. It's often done in secret so the public isn't even aware who is conducting the filibuster. That's what would change, and it would largely stop filibusters only because today's GOP are so craven, inarticulate and lacking in the courage of their faux convictions.

4:49PM PST on Dec 1, 2012

Jim, thanks for the link. Interesting article. Would love to move to Canada if I but could :(

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.