It’s time to reform the filibuster and make the Senate a “deliberative body” again

The Senate instituted the filibuster to prevent majority tyranny. But in recent years, the filibuster, which effectively requires a supermajority for the Senate to even consider legislation, has become a tool of casual, lazy obstructionism.

Instead of encouraging 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 comparatively small portion of the general population, can so easily thwart the interests of a large majority of the American people, something has gone wrong.

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. Supreme Court justices can be confirmed by a narrow majority in the Senate; Meanwhile, the same court can overturn an act of Congress with a simple majority of just five votes. But to address a Supreme Court decision, the Senate still needs to muster a supermajority to pass legislation.

The Senate has been called the “largest deliberative body in the world,” a status that has been eroded in recent years. As the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government points out, the Senate has seen a significant increase in the use of the filibuster since a rules change in 1975 that made it easier to filibuster.

Coupled with normative and cultural changes in the Senate itself, this has resulted in the Senate struggling to pass major legislation, including minimal efforts such as keeping the government funded. In recent years, the Senate has used the filibuster to block debate and a vote on legislation on voting rights, abortion rights and in vitro fertilization, This highlights how its current use hinders voting on pressing issues.

It’s time to implement reforms that will restore the filibuster to its original purpose: to prevent a small majority from rushing into law without room for debate. But the answer to this problem is not to allow a minority to grind the Senate to a halt.

Restore Senate status

The Senate should consider four options: making it easier for debate to begin, restoring the speaking requirement, changing the voting threshold and creating a fast-track legislative process that responds to Supreme Court rulings.

At a minimum, the Senate should eliminate the filibuster on the “motion to continue” or ability to balance start Debate about upcoming laws. Filibusters are typically used to prevent debate, not passage of an underlying bill. Allowing a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority to move forward would ensure that the Senate at least debates major legislation. This would be a first step toward restoring the Senate’s role as a functioning legislative body.

Reintroducing the talking filibuster, made famous by the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” would require senators who want to filibuster to actively participate in the debate. This change would ensure that bill opponents publicly articulate their objections and bear the costs of the Senate’s inability to do its job, and promote accountability to both their colleagues and their constituents.

In addition, the Senate should lower the voting threshold at the end of the debate. Under current rules, three-fifths of all senators must invoke cloture (ending debate and proceeding to voting on actual legislation), which equates to 60 votes even if not all 100 senators are present. We propose to change this requirement and return to the pre-1975 rule of three-fifths of those “present and voting” to be “present and voting”. This reform would incentivize active participation in key votes and ensure that senators who oppose legislation must publicly announce their positions. Senators should not be allowed to block legislation by not showing up for work. Combined with our proposal to eliminate the filibuster on continuance motions, these reforms would limit the supermajority requirement to stop Debate, not too Beginning debate as it is currently being conducted.

Finally, under Senate rules, some bills dealing with taxes and spending are exempt from the filibuster. This also applies to the votes on the confirmation of candidates for the executive and judicial branches. The Senate could consider changing its rules to allow bills responding to Supreme Court decisions interpreting federal law to pass with a simple majority. This is a modest exception that should not be used as a pretext for broader legislative exceptions related to other contentious issues. Implementing these reforms would not give the majority unfettered power to push through its agenda. Rather, they would facilitate meaningful debate and create opportunities for reasonable compromise.

The Senate has a critical opportunity to make significant filibuster reforms and reaffirm its status as our most important national deliberative body. The current dysfunction is more than just a political failure; it undermines our democratic institutions.

Senators must embrace these reforms, not just to advance specific legislation, but to ensure that the Senate can effectively meet its responsibilities to the American public.

Danielle Brian is executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan independent watchdog agency dedicated to combating government waste, corruption and abuse of power.

The Democracy Solutions Project is a collaboration between the Chicago Sun-Times, WBEZ and the University of Chicago Center for Effective Government, with funding from the Pulitzer Center. Our goal is to help listeners and readers engage with the democratic functions in their lives and cast an informed vote in the November 2024 election.

Send letters to [email protected]