The Filibuster in Parliamentary Procedure

How One US Senator Can Delay the Business of the Senate

Oct 19, 2009 Michael Streich

Popularized in the mid-19th Century, the filibuster gives Senators, individually or in groups, the power to stop all Senate floor business.

The filibuster has been an active part of the United States Senate’s rules of procedure since the mid-19th Century, yet few Americans understand it. Derived from earlier terms meaning “pirate” or “freebooter,” the filibuster represents a parliamentary maneuver by the minority party to delay Senate votes on pending legislation through lengthy, often meaningless speeches. On the surface, this seems contrary to majority government, yet as a necessary evil the filibuster often forces bipartisan solutions and further committee action on important legislation.

Historical Uses of the Filibuster

The US Senate, since its inception, permitted lengthy speeches by its members. Some of these orations, such as the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830, were reprinted in newspapers and salient sections were memorized by school children. The notion of unlimited speaking time, however, began in the mid century. Senators could end a filibuster by calling for cloture, a measure requiring a two-thirds vote. Because early filibusters tended to occur at the end of the Congressional session, with many senators already traveling to their home states, cloture was seldom successful.

Filibusters were used – or threatened – to wind down the Congressional clock. The most serious 19th Century filibuster threat was in 1877 when both house of Congress met to certify the electoral votes in the Election of 1876. Historian Lloyd Robinson writes that after the special Electoral Commission gave all the disputed votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, leaders of the House, controlled by Democrats, threatened a last minute filibuster that would have resulted in a Constitutional crisis.

During the early New Deal years, Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long frequently employed the filibuster to prevent voting on measures that he felt favored the wealthy. Long read from the Bible and Shakespeare. His longest filibuster lasted 15 hours. This, however, did not compare to South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, whose anti-Civil Rights filibuster lasted for 24 hours and 18 minutes, the longest filibuster in the history of the Senate.

Other Uses of the Filibuster

In 1919 Republican senators, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, used the filibuster to delay votes in the lame duck session that would end in May. The motive was very clear: Republicans had gained control of the Senate in the mid-term elections and men like Lodge and William Borah of Idaho were opposed to the idealism of President Woodrow Wilson, notably the Versailles Peace Treaty which included Wilson’s “covenant of the League.” By stopping all Senate business, a new Republican-controlled Senate could pursue a vastly different agenda.

Filibusters are used to delay votes on judicial nominations as well as ambassadorial appointments. Frequently, senators have used the filibuster to oppose legislation not favorable to their region. During the 1950s, anti-segregation and anti-lynching laws were filibustered by Southern senators seeking to preserve the “separate but equal” principle that had been the norm in the South since the end of the Civil War.

Initial Civil Rights Acts were significantly watered down by party leaders in order to avoid contentious filibusters. Much of this changed as liberal democrats were elected to the Senate in the North. These new men could not be counted on to stave off attempts at cloture.

Contemporary Use of the Filibuster

Over the last two decades, the filibuster, although frequently threatened, was balanced by the necessary two-thirds majority needed for cloture. In the current Congress, the Democratic Party, having achieved impressive gains during recent elections, is very close to a “filibuster-proof” majority but still cannot count on the necessary votes to sustain a motion for cloture.

Additionally, bipartisan approaches to judicial appointments and controversial legislation have produced outcomes in which the filibuster may not be necessary. Both parties in recent years have threatened to change the rules on filibusters to favor their majority status. Thankfully, the filibuster remains as a parliamentary tool that gives fleeting power to one senator whose opposition or caution may be a necessary evil of US government.

Sources:

• Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005)
• John P. Patrick and others, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government (Oxford University Press, 2001)
• Lloyd Robinson, The Stolen Election (Tom Doherty Books, 2001)

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing in any form required the written permission of Michael Streich