Understanding this political 'f'-word
If “filibuster” wasn’t part of the average news junkie’s daily vocabulary, it is now.
Apropos of its origin, “filibutor” or “flibutor” first appeared in English in 1587, describing rogues who stole from supply convoys, likely borrowed from the Dutch “vrijbuitor,” meaning pillager. A century later West Indies pirates were called “filibusters.”
In the classic film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” Jimmy Stewart passionately illustrated the modern filibuster: Hijacking debate by talking a Senate bill (or motion) into agonizingly slow unconsciousness, delaying or blocking its vote.
To Filibuster is to bully a trapped Senate audience with an avalanche of words, on literally any topic. Rules in the 435-member U.S. House limit debate, but in the smaller Senate, there's no time limit. The idea is that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.
According to Senate.gov, using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has been invoked by both major parties – generally when their position is a minority one - with some entertaining examples. Famous filibusters include attempts to block the Treaty of Versailles (terms ending WWI; 24 hours) and the Civil Rights Act (75 hours).
When debate on the merits hits a wall, filibuster topics have ranged from recitations from Shakespeare to family recipes. Both sides have used it, and both sides have tried to end the practice when it works against them, most often by trying to change the cloture rule.
That's happening again now.
Cloture, or Senate Rule XXII, ends debate on a bill if enough Senators vote to invoke it. While not immediate, cloture limits further debate to 30 more hours – but only one hour per senator, followed by a vote on the bill or motion.
Originally a simple majority in the Senate could force a vote, until 1806 when that rule was removed as a matter of housekeeping. As filibusters emerged, President Wilson suggested Rule XXII, adopted in 1917. At first it required a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture, but that was tough to get so they reduced it to three-fifths (60 Senators) in 1975.
It’s currently the only way to end a filibuster, effective about half the time it’s been tried.
Voices for reform have been vehement through the years, but change is difficult to accomplish. According to Rule XXII, changing a rule requires a two-thirds vote of senators present. Plus, opponents can ironically filibuster the motion to end the filibuster.
There’s another complicated but more likely way to ban the filibuster: The “nuclear” option, or setting a precedent. It’s kind of like in court cases, where a senator would “raise a point of order” claiming a rule violation, essentially a procedural end-run reinterpreting the rule. If the presiding officer (right now, that would be Kamala Harris, or Sen. Patrick Leahy in her absence) agrees, it’d be “reform by ruling,” as effective as changing the rule. If she disagrees, a simple majority (51 percent) of senators can overrule her.
The nuclear option was successful in 2013 and 2017, reducing the number of votes needed to end debate on judicial and executive nominations. Other suggestions have included "mini-nukes" limiting filibuster use to certain types of bills.
Why is it all over the news now? Power-sharing negotiations. An evenly divided Congress is a deadlocked Congress.
On one hand the filibuster is inefficient and frustrating, especially to taxpayers. Many think Congress should just get on with business without games. On the other hand, the filibuster is useful to minority positions, a way to empower the “little guy” against big voting blocks. And whom it favors shifts as often as the political wind.
Read Rule XXII at Rules.senate.gov.
• • •
Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network and former Congressional staffer. Email: Sholeh@cdapress.com.