The Senate established the filibuster to prevent a tyranny of the majority. But in recent years, the filibuster, which effectively requires a supermajority for the Senate to even consider legislation, has become a tool for casual, lazy obstruction.
Rather than fostering debate, the filibuster rule has allowed the minority party to block legislation without meaningful discussion, undermining the democratic process. When a minority of Senators who may also represent a comparative fraction of the overall population can so easily thwart the interests of a large majority of the American people, something has gone awry.
The Senate should reform the filibuster to encourage debate and make it easier for legislation to reach a final vote in the chamber. This would help the Senate govern more effectively and increase accountability.
It would also address a significant imbalance in our constitutional system. Justices on the Supreme Court can be confirmed by a bare majority in the Senate; meanwhile, that same Court can overturn an act of Congress with a simple majority of just five votes. Yet, to address a Supreme Court decision, the Senate must still muster a supermajority to pass legislation.
The Senate has been referred to as the “greatest deliberative body in the world,” a status that has eroded in recent years. As the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government points out, since a rule change in 1975 that made it easier to filibuster legislation, the Senate has seen a significant uptick in the use of the filibuster.
Paired with normative and cultural changes in the Senate itself, this has left the Senate struggling to pass crucial legislation, including bare-minimum efforts like keeping the government funded. In recent years, the Senate has used the filibuster to block debate and a vote on legislation concerning voting rights, abortion rights, and in vitro fertilization, illustrating how its current use hampers efforts to vote on pressing issues.
It’s time to implement reforms that realign the filibuster with its original purpose: to prevent a small majority from rushing to pass legislation without room for debate. But the answer to this problem is not to instead let a minority bring the Senate to a grinding halt.
Restore the Senate’s status
There are four options the Senate should consider: making it easier to begin debate, restoring the speaking requirement, modifying the vote threshold, and creating a fast-track mechanism for legislation that responds to Supreme Court rulings.
At the very least, the Senate should eliminate the filibuster on the “motion to proceed,” or the ability to even begin debate on pending legislation. Filibusters are typically used to prevent debate rather than passage of an underlying bill. Allowing a simple majority vote — rather than a supermajority of 60 — to move forward would ensure that the Senate at least debates significant legislation. This would be a first step in restoring the Senate’s role as a functioning legislative body.
Reinstating the talking filibuster, made famous in the 1939 movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” would require senators who wish to filibuster to actively engage in debate. This change would ensure that those opposing legislation articulate their objections publicly and bear the cost of preventing the Senate from doing its job, fostering accountability to both their colleagues and constituents.
In addition, the Senate should reduce the voting threshold when ending debate. The current rules require three-fifths of all senators to invoke cloture (end the debate and proceed to a vote on the actual legislation), amounting to 60 votes even if not all 100 senators are present. We propose modifying this requirement and reverting to the pre-1975 rule requiring three-fifths of those “present and voting.” This reform would incentivize active participation in key votes and ensure that senators opposing legislation must publicly register their positions. Senators should not be allowed to block legislation by not showing up to work. In conjunction with our proposal to eliminate the filibuster on motions to proceed, these reforms would limit the supermajority requirement to stopping debate, not to beginning debate, as it is currently deployed.
Finally, under Senate rules, some bills dealing with taxes and spending are exempt from the filibuster. So, too, are votes on confirming executive and judicial branch nominees. The Senate could consider amending its rules to allow bills responding to Supreme Court decisions that interpret federal statutes to pass by simple majority. This is a modest exception that should not serve as pretext for more expansive legislative carve-outs related to other contentious topics. Implementing these reforms would not give the majority unchecked power to push through their agenda. Rather, they would facilitate meaningful debate and create opportunities for common sense compromise.
The Senate has a pivotal opportunity to enact essential filibuster reforms and reaffirm its status as our foremost national deliberative body. The current dysfunction is more than just a policy failure; it undermines our democratic institutions.
Senators must embrace these reforms, not merely to advance specific legislation but to ensure the Senate can effectively fulfill its responsibilities to the American public.
Danielle Brian is the executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan independent watchdog dedicated to rooting out government waste, corruption, and abuse of power.
The Democracy Solutions Project is a collaboration among the Chicago Sun-Times, WBEZ and the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government, with funding support from the Pulitzer Center. Our goal is to help listeners and readers engage with the democratic functions in their lives and cast an informed ballot in the November 2024 election.
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com