A debate over ending debate: Explaining the filibuster fight

With the Senate – and the nation – closely divided, frustration over the filibuster has grown. Those in the majority tend to see it as an obstacle to progress. For those in the minority, it’s about protecting their rights.

Perhaps no Senate rule is as famous as the filibuster, which starred in its own Hollywood film. In the Oscar-winning “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” Jimmy Stewart’s character holds forth on the Senate floor for almost 24 hours to delay a vote on a bill marred by political corruption. Although he collapses from exhaustion, his impassioned stand for principle ultimately wins the day.

Today, there is an intensifying debate about whether the filibuster is indeed a tool of principle, or rather one of partisan obstructionism. Supporters say the filibuster acts as a guardrail on American democracy by preserving a voice for the minority party and ensuring that major legislation has support from both sides of the aisle. But critics say the filibuster is being exploited to obstruct urgently needed government action, blocking the will of voters. They also cite its prominent role in the past in blocking civil rights legislation.

Here’s a look at the 215-year Senate tradition and its impact on lawmaking today.

The filibuster is a procedure that allows a minority group of senators to delay or block legislation from being passed. Traditionally this has been done by a “talking filibuster,” as Stewart’s character did. Today it can be done quietly, blocking progress on one bill while the Senate continues business on other matters. Either way, ending a filibuster requires 60 of the Senate’s 100 members, and is known as invoking cloture.

That means that bills, with only one major exception (see below), need at least 60 senators’ consent even to be put to a vote. In the current Senate, that requires Democrats – who, along with two independent members, hold 50 seats – to get the support of at least 10 Republicans.