The last two decades of American politics have been marked by obstruction. That is, politicians from both major parties, as well as outside actors [1] like lobbyists and the January 6 insurrectionists, have worked tirelessly to rewrite the traditional rules of policymaking to achieve their own legislative ends. At the center of this obstruction is the once-seldom [2] used filibuster, and fierce debate abounds [3] over its future.
The filibuster, simply, is a legislative mechanism in which members of a deliberative body can indefinitely perpetuate debate to prolong or prevent a vote on a motion or bill. In the United States, a bill can pass the House of Representatives or Senate with a simple majority; that is, if 218 of 435 House members vote for a bill’s passage, and if 51 of 100 Senators do the same. The Senate, known as “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” is the only chamber of Congress that still features the filibuster (the House got rid of it in 1842). Some consider the filibuster the “Soul of the Senate” because it maintains the sanctity of debate.
The filibuster allows a Senator to speak indefinitely on any topic they choose. So, a Senator or Senators can filibuster and essentially “talk a bill to death,” delaying it so long that the Senate cannot hold a vote. Bernie Sanders, for instance, filibustered in 2010 for 8 hours and 37 minutes against the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Despite his efforts, the bill passed.
The use of the filibuster in the early Senate prompted the need for “cloture,” a mechanism that brings debate to a hasty end. However, invoking cloture requires 60 Senators, down from the 67 Senators it required when it first appeared in 1917. In an ever-polarizing [4] Senate, however, reaching that benchmark is immensely difficult, especially as the frequency of filibusters and clotures have increased dramatically since the early 1990s.
Indeed, many bills now require at least 60 votes to pass, since that will protect it from the obstructive power of the filibuster. Even the threat of a filibuster is enough to delay a vote, as the party in the Senate majority may prefer to cover new business, or hold votes on bills they know will pass, rather than suffer the headache of a filibuster.
Today, the roots of the filibuster are under serious scrutiny. Not only does it allow one Senator to stop the proceedings of a bill that is supported by over half of the Senate, but it also traces its history to racism and exclusivity. For over 24 hours in 1957, Strom Thurmond, who represented South Carolina in the Senate from 1956 to 2003, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first federal civil rights bill signed into law since 1875.
Critics of the filibuster argue that it is used too often as a tool for exclusion and obstruction, while supporters defend it, saying that it preserves the Senate’s deliberative quality and protects against the tyranny of a simple legislative majority. In either case, the filibuster is a controversial legislative mechanism, and debates about its use will persist.
What do you think? Is the filibuster necessary for deliberation, or is it too easily exploited? Does your country’s government have a similar legislative procedure?