Why does filibuster work

The longest filibuster ever recorded, by South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of , lasted for more than 24 hours. Anytime a group of 41 or more senators simply threatens a filibuster, the Senate majority leader can refuse to call a vote. Critics of the filibuster have pointed to its racist history — including its early uses in the 19th century by pro-slavery senators including John C.

Calhoun of South Carolina, who used it to protect the interests of Southern white landowners who depended on slave labor. The enactment of Rule XXII in gave rise to the modern filibuster, which has also been used to block civil rights legislation, especially during the Jim Crow era. In fact, this was one of the primary uses of the filibuster during the 20th century. According to a study conducted by political scientists Sarah Binder and Steven Smith, of the 30 measures that were derailed by the filibuster between and , exactly half of them involved civil rights.

Filibusters blocked measures such as anti-lynching bills proposed in and ; the Civil Rights Act of ; and legislation that would have prohibited poll taxes and outlawed discrimination in employment, housing, and voting.

The use of the filibuster, once reserved for only the most controversial issues, has increased dramatically in recent years alongside growing polarization in Washington.

There have been more than 2, filibusters since ; about half have been in just the last 12 years. Critics argue that this increased use has slowed business in the Senate to a halt, often entangling the chamber in procedural maneuvering instead of substantive debate and, ultimately, lawmaking. However, the budget reconciliation process is limited in scope, and analysts argue that it was not designed to handle the sweeping scale of legislation that marks its current use.

Critics of the modern filibuster have argued that the maneuver undermines the Senate as a governing body and its reputation as a consensus-building chamber. The mere threat of a filibuster silences debate and removes incentives to work toward compromise.

Overuse of the filibuster magnifies problems of representation endemic to the Senate, where small and large states alike are each represented by two senators. However, the population disparity between the largest and smallest states has increased significantly since the founding. Today, the 26 least populous states are home to just 17 percent of the U. S population. This means that a group of senators representing a small minority of the country can use the filibuster to prevent the passage of bills with broad public support.

Filibuster abuse also threatens checks and balances between the branches of government. As Senate gridlock persists, calls for eliminating the filibuster altogether have grown louder, especially given its historical complicity in perpetuating Jim Crow laws and thwarting civil rights legislation and voting reforms. But I think I can explain it somewhat simply.

Extra nerdy note: The filibuster and cloture can be used more than once on a single bill. After that lawmakers can then block any amendments to the bill. Finally, they can block the bill itself.

Exactly what legislation can pass with 51 [votes] and what must have 60? From Nancy Moeller. Related question from Bekah Curtis-Heald.

Nearly all legislation in the Senate now faces the vote hurdle. There is one way to pass major legislation with just a majority vote and it involves another arcane tool: budget reconciliation. So it is limited. Would throwing mashed potatoes at each other be more effective and cleaner than a filibuster?

From Brian Rashap. Unlikely to be more effective. The Senate chamber is 9, square feet in area. It would take giant vats of mashed potatoes to impact that space. However, potatoes could be used strategically to unite or divide delegations from, say, Maine and Idaho. It would certainly be messier. Needless to say, mashed potatoes are delicious and should not be wasted. What filibuster is being discussed—all kinds? From Parker Schnell. What else would it block? See below. Could you explain the nuclear option.

Can the party in power extend it at will? From Al Anderson. Shinesomelight2 and Meg Lamme had related questions. We are now at the heart of the matter. It is so named because the nuclear option blows up the filibuster rule and destroys some of the basic structure of the Senate.

It is the ultimate procedural bomb. They removed the vote threshold and moved to majority votes for most nominees, except to the Supreme Court. Republicans followed suit in , triggering the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees as well. Technically, yes. But it is a precarious move, especially in years of closely divided Senates. While the party in power now may gain enormously from the nuclear option, they would lose their main tool in the Senate down the road if they find themselves in the minority again.

In addition, it is seen as breaking faith with the members of the other party, something that has profoundly raised tension and led to further divisions in the chamber. Proponents of the nuclear option have pointed out that it restores majority rule, which they feel was the idea envisioned in the Constitution. Any chance that two or more Republican senators might so vote? From A36Roger. Related question from 1TonUpstate. Senators Joe Manchin, D-W.

BUT, note the wording here. Some would-be reformers argue that the filibuster need not be eliminated but could simply be lowered or changed. Perhaps 55 votes instead of 60? After all, the threshold was two-thirds, or 67 votes, until The move to 60 votes was a compromise between 67 votes and Smith Goes to Washington.

Here is the rule to remember. But senators have changed the filibuster rules before. Harry Reid of Nevada changed the rules to set a simple vote threshold for confirming people in those positions. Republicans under Sen. While several Democrats and advocacy groups call for ridding the Senate of the filibuster on legislation, there does not appear to be enough support from Democratic senators at this time to do so. The idea has support from Democrats who see it as a possible alternative to fully ending the filibuster practice.

But it still poses risks, and Democratic leaders have been reluctant to move toward that option. Several Republican senators, particularly those considering running for president in , might see political advantage to seizing the floor to rail endlessly against White House priorities. At the same time, many Democrats are ready to take that chance to end the filibuster, realizing their slim majority is fragile, and Republicans might do away with it anyway to advance their priorities the next time they control the Senate and the White House.

Sections U.