What is a Filibuster?
When a bill is presented to the Senate floor, it needs 51% of the votes in order for it to be passed. Under ideal circumstances, bills pass directly through the House (after some modification and debate), and, when presented to the Senate, undergo some refinement and then are quickly voted upon. Filibusters serve the purpose of delaying this process by creating a debate that can only be ended when 3/5ths of the Senate (or 60 senators) agrees to vote on a bill. This is typically done as a means of preventing or delaying decision-making for passing a bill that stirs up strong disapproval by a senator or group of senators.
The process of conducting filibusters and cloture is a cyclical process. If a bill is brought to the senate floor, any senator has the ability to launch a filibuster. Other senators, particularly of the same party, will be notified before, but with a simple “I Object” a filibuster is able to be conducted during discussion about the legislation. A senator then has the option of explaining their reasoning for blocking the legislation, but also has the freedom not to. At this point, they enter a period of debate (though it’s questionable how much debating is always being done), and can only be ended by a cloture--where 3/5ths of the senators are in favor of voting. If a cloture passes, then senators have a maximum of 30 hours to debate the bill before voting occurs. If the cloture doesn’t pass and 60 senators don’t agree to vote, it remains in “filibuster limbo” and the bill is essentially neglected.
Where did filibusters come from?
Although filibusters were abolished in the 1800s in the House of Representatives, they’ve gone through multiple forms and are still allowed in the Senate. Modern filibusters were first seen during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, when some senators wanted to avoid passing legislation that would allow the US to enter World War I. After hours of debate that prolonged voting, it was ruled that this endless debate, or filibuster, could be ended with a 3/5ths majority agreeing to vote on the bill. For a while, filibusters were rare, but during the Civil Rights Era, senators used filibusters as a means of preventing Civil Rights Acts from passing. During this period and shortly beyond, senators would quite literally stand and talk for as long as 24 hours, trying to prevent serious debate and hold onto their minimum of 40 of Senators who agreed to not vote on a bill. Today, filibusters have been modified once again so that Senators don’t have to give these long speeches, that way the Senate can essentially delay dealing with a given topic and focus on other issues. The idea of this was to allow the Senate to be more efficient on other issues, but instead made it all too easy for the Senate to have an obstacle to block legislation from being passed.
Why are they especially important right now?
With Democrats holding only a slim majority in the Senate right now (a 50/50 split including VP Harris’ vote), the discussion on filibusters has recently reopened. Filibusters allow a way for the minority party to still have a powerful influence on the Senate, despite being fewer in numbers. For example, Republicans currently are the minority part in the Senate, but make up far more than 3/5ths of the Senate body. If a bill is brought to the Senate that Republicans are likely to strongly disagree with, a Senator could call for a filibuster, and it would be incredibly difficult to get the additional 10 senators to agree to vote on the bill, knowing that their party would likely wind up unsatisfied with the legislation. If enough Republican senators filibustered enough bills, it could prevent the Senate from being able to pass much legislation, despite Democrats holding a majority in the Senate.
Because of this, there is a lot of serious conversation about significantly changing or abolishing the filibuster. This is known as “the nuclear option”, since it would be a dramatic change to something that’s become an important piece of the Senate’s actions today. The most dramatic option would be to completely abolish the filibuster, but as of the time this is being written (Jan. 27th) Democratic Senators Joe Manchyn (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) are still against the filibuster’s elimination, which prevents the 50 senators needed to agree in order for this to pass. This creates another argument of simply modifying the filibuster to only require 55 votes instead of 60, or bringing back the rule of Senators being required to speak in order for a filibuster to remain in place. However, many still argue strongly in favor of the filibuster. Without it, it’s easy for the majority party to seamlessly pass legislation without the opportunity for the minority party’s objection. The filibuster heightens debate and discussion, and, when used properly, could allow a better avenue for compromise within the Senate.
For the time being, it looks as if the filibuster isn’t going anywhere. But with the party divides this tense, a 50/50 split within the Senate, and compromise being a difficult rarity, it’s important to watch what the filibuster’s future could look like.
If you have any comments, corrections, or questions feel free to contact The Margazine for more information!
Sources:
Comments