Replies

In1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as “cloture.” The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 60 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.

In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.

A key part of that rule is that it requires 3/5 (60) of all sitting senators - not just those who are present. So to get cloture, you need the full 60 votes. On the other hand, you can 'call the question' with a simple majority of those present. Which means take an immediate vote. The issue then passes or fails with a simple majority of those present (as long as there is a quorum, 51 total present).

So the party that is filibustering the issue doesn't have to have anyone in attendance - so long as the party wanting to end debate can't get 60. Yet the party who wants to pass the issue (actually, who wants to end debate on the issue) always needs to keep a majority in the chamber, else the 'opposition party' will bring in enough to gain a majority of those present, call the question, and vote down the issue. And senators who don't want to be part of the quorum (to stop a vote from being held at, say, 3:00am some morning) can't just 'not show up' when a quorum is called. They can send the sergeant at arms after them and physically require them to come if they can find them, which means anywhere in the DC area.

That's why they don't do 'real' filibusters any more. It's too hard on the party that wants to end debate.

I still think the Republican leadership should require 'real' filibusters, even if it means they have to have people in the chamber or standing by. Make the party that wants to debate get up and talk - which will show how inane their arguments are.

But that would require actual leadership . . .

OK, thanks. I have always understood the filibuster and the needed 60 votes. I just did not realize that this applies to all proposed legislation. So, in effect, when a party has fewer than 60 seats, it does not really control the Senate. Democrats who say “Well, the Republicans control both houses and therefore it is their fault” when something is not passed, are speaking nonsense. It takes 60 votes to “control” things.