Filibustering

                To anyone with even a passing interest in American politics, it is surely obvious that obstructionism is more notable in the upper chamber than the House. The Senate is described with good reason as “the graveyard of good ideas.” One reason for this relates to the ability of a Senator (or group of Senators) to fillister proposed legislation. Perhaps the most well-known illustration derives from Strom Thurmond’s opposition to the Civil Rights Bill, a filibuster which lasted over twenty-four hours. At one point he read aloud a list of names from the telephone directory in order to highlight who would be disadvantaged by civil rights legislation. In the current congressional session, Senator Ted Cruz from Texas spoke for twenty-one hours to oppose funds being allocated to the ACA (including an eloquent piece on ‘green eggs and ham’).

                As is the case within all legislative assemblies, the whole purpose of a filibuster is to simply talk down a bill and deny proposed legislation sufficient time within that assembly. Rather than promote an alternative, a filibuster simply entails delaying tactics from the Senator (or group of Senators) engaged in such action. In doing so, the process of passing laws is made more complex. Such tactics can also be used in state legislatures. A notable mention here must go to Texas state senator Wendy Davis; who spoke for ten hours straight to deny sufficient legislative time for restrictions to be placed upon the maximum term for an abortion. The rules stipulate that she had to stand throughout, not lean on her desk or take any breaks.

 

In terms of Congress it should be noted that filibustering is not allowed in the House, but in the Senate a cloture motion can stop a filibuster. A supermajority of sixty votes is required in order to pass a successful cloture motion. If the motion is successful, the debate will end and the issue will be brought to a final vote (where a simple majority will suffice). Under the Obama administration, Republicans in the Senate have delayed a number of significant pieces of legislation including an attempt to overturn tax cuts for the wealthy and the DREAM Act (which would have enabled illegal immigrants to gain citizenship more easily). In both cases, members of the GOP in the upper chamber denied the Democrats the necessary votes required to pass a successful cloture motion.

Filibustering is one of the more negative aspects of congressional activity, and one rarely considered in a positive light by the voters. After all, they elect representatives to pass laws and represent their interests – whereas the only outcome of a filibuster is obstruction. In order to combat this, congressional party leaders might reach an informal agreement of some kind. For instance, under Harry Reid (D) and Mitch McConnell (R) the use of the filibuster on motions to proceed was limited. This is because congressional leaders such as Reid and McConnell have made it easier for the minority party to amend proposed legislation. Senators are also prevented from reading out amendments in their entirety, and can no longer delay the Senate anonymously via a hold. Having said this, the filibuster remains a feature of debate within the upper chamber. Indeed, Senators can actually talk down a proposed item of legislation without actually being in the chamber itself. This is called an invisible filibuster. A further delaying tactic used in the Senate is called unanimous consent. This occurs when a Senator requests to set aside a specified rule or procedure, so as to slow down the legislative process. If no Senator objects, the upper chamber permits the action. Under the Obama administration, Senator Jim Bunning used this tactic to delay extending unemployment benefits. This example exemplifies the extent to which Congress seeks to create an obstructionist system. The very fact that one elected representative can derail the legislative process is one of the more urgent problems facing the American system of governance. Until there is a collective will on both sides, it seems unlikely anything constrictive will ever be done.