Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The U.S. Senate operates under rules that can make or break major legislation. Two procedures—the filibuster and cloture—sit at the heart of how America’s laws get made, or more often, how they get blocked.
These aren’t just obscure parliamentary tricks. They shape everything from healthcare reform to Supreme Court nominations. One allows a minority to stop legislation cold. The other provides a way to break through that obstruction, but only with a supermajority.
What Is a Filibuster?
More Than Just Marathon Speeches
A filibuster is any tactic designed to delay or block a Senate vote. The Senate’s own definition calls it “action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote.”
This isn’t limited to senators talking for hours on end. It includes any move to obstruct the legislative process.
The Senate’s Unlimited Debate Tradition
The filibuster exists because Senate rules place few limits on senators’ speaking rights. Once recognized to speak, a senator can hold the floor as long as they want.
There’s no simple majority vote to cut off debate on most matters. This tradition dates back to the Senate’s founding in 1789.
As early as September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary about Virginia senators trying to “talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”
The filibuster isn’t explicitly granted by any rule. It emerges from the absence of rules that would restrict debate. This procedural vacuum makes its use subject to political pressures and evolving norms.
From Pirates to Politics
The term “filibuster” comes from the Spanish “filibustero,” derived from the Dutch “vrijbuiter”—meaning “freebooter” or pirate.
In the mid-1800s, “filibuster” described unauthorized American military adventurers who fomented rebellions in Latin America. The word entered politics in the 1850s to describe senators who used long speeches to stall proceedings.
The comparison was deliberate. Filibustering lawmakers were like pirates, “raiding the institution for their own political gain.” The name itself suggests disruptive, even illegitimate action.
How Filibusters Work
The Talking Filibuster
The classic filibuster involves senators speaking for extended periods to prevent a vote. Under Senate Rule XIX, a recognized senator generally has the right to speak without interruption.
Senators can speak twice on any single question on the same legislative day. Creative senators get around this by introducing amendments to create new debatable questions.
Famous talking filibusters include:
Strom Thurmond spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, reading from state election laws and Supreme Court decisions.
Huey P. Long conducted a 15-hour filibuster in 1935, reading from the Constitution and sharing recipes for fried oysters.
Wayne Morse spoke for 22 hours and 26 minutes against the Tidelands oil bill in 1953.
More recently, Chris Murphy held the floor for nearly 15 hours in 2016 advocating for gun control legislation, and Ted Cruz spoke for over 21 hours in 2013 trying to defund the Affordable Care Act.
The Modern Silent Filibuster
Today’s Senate rarely sees marathon speeches. The “silent” or “threatened” filibuster is more common.
Since it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture (end debate), 41 senators can effectively block a bill by signaling they’ll vote against cloture.
If the Majority Leader can’t secure 60 votes to end debate, they may not bring the bill up at all. This “assumed filibuster” moves obstruction off the Senate floor.
The burden shifts. Instead of the minority actively obstructing, the majority must prove they have 60 votes to overcome potential obstruction.
This evolution from talking to silent filibusters has lowered the cost of obstruction. The talking filibuster required substantial effort and public display. The silent version needs little more than a whip count and communication of intent.
Other Obstruction Tactics
Filibustering includes any dilatory tactics to block a measure. These can include:
- Introducing multiple procedural motions or amendments
- Repeatedly “suggesting the absence of a quorum,” which temporarily halts proceedings
- Filing numerous amendments to consume floor time
Most bills face at least two potential filibusters: first on the “motion to proceed” (bringing the bill to the floor), then on the bill itself after debate begins.
Complex bills might face filibusters on key amendments too. This creates a legislative gauntlet where each stage requires overcoming a supermajority threshold.
What Is Cloture?
The Formal End to Debate
Cloture is the procedure that allows the Senate to vote to limit debate time, overcoming a filibuster and moving to a final vote.
Senate Rule XXII establishes this formal process. It’s the only way the Senate can end debate without also rejecting the underlying measure.
Without cloture, a determined minority could block all Senate business indefinitely.
From French Closure to Senate Procedure
The term “cloture” comes from the French word for “closure.” It provides a definitive end to unlimited debate.
Before 1917, the Senate had no formal way to force an end to debate. Rule XXII’s adoption was a direct response to paralyzing filibusters, particularly during national emergencies.
The rule allows up to 30 additional hours of consideration after cloture is invoked. This isn’t an immediate halt but a transition to structured, time-limited deliberation.
How to Invoke Cloture
Filing the Motion
A cloture motion must be signed by at least 16 senators. The standard language reads: “We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate upon [the specific measure].”
This motion can be presented almost anytime, even by interrupting a speaking senator, though it doesn’t remove them from the floor.
The Waiting Period
Once filed, there’s a mandatory waiting period. The Senate typically votes on cloture on the second day of session after the motion is made.
If filed on Monday, the vote usually occurs Wednesday (assuming the Senate is in session Tuesday and Wednesday).
One hour after the Senate convenes on the scheduled day, the Presiding Officer puts the cloture motion to a vote.
The Vote Threshold
The votes required to invoke cloture vary:
General Legislation: Three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn—typically 60 votes out of 100.
Senate Rules Changes: Two-thirds of senators present and voting.
Nominations: Simple majority due to the “nuclear option” changes (discussed below).
The 60-vote threshold for legislation is particularly significant. While final passage only requires a simple majority (51 votes, or 50 plus the Vice President), the frequent need to invoke cloture first makes 60 votes the de facto requirement for controversial legislation.
This transforms the Senate into a supermajority body for significant actions, fundamentally different from the majoritarian House of Representatives.
After Cloture Passes
If cloture succeeds, debate doesn’t end immediately. New rules govern the final phase:
Time Limit: Further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, covering all debate, votes, quorum calls, and other actions.
Amendment Restrictions: Only germane amendments may be offered. All amendments must have been submitted in writing before the cloture vote. First-degree amendments generally must be filed by 1:00 p.m. the day after the cloture motion is filed. Second-degree amendments must be submitted at least one hour before the cloture vote.
Speaking Time: Each senator is typically limited to one hour during the post-cloture period.
Enhanced Powers: The Presiding Officer can rule dilatory motions or non-germane amendments out of order.
Final Vote: After 30 hours expire (or sooner if time is yielded back), the Senate proceeds to a final vote requiring only a simple majority.
These rules make the final 30 hours productive and focused while preventing new forms of obstruction.
A Century of Evolution
Early Days: No Way to End Debate
In 1789, the Senate operated with few debate limits. A key moment came in 1806 when the “previous question” motion—used in the House to cut off debate—was removed from Senate rules.
Vice President Aaron Burr reportedly suggested this change, considering it redundant. This seemingly minor housekeeping inadvertently laid the groundwork for unlimited debate by removing the primary mechanism for majority rule on ending discussion.
Birth of Cloture (1917)
World War I created the crisis that led to formal cloture rules. President Woodrow Wilson grew frustrated with filibusters delaying critical wartime measures, including his proposal to arm merchant ships.
Wilson denounced filibustering senators as “a little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, [who] have rendered the great Government of the United States helpless and contemptible.”
On March 8, 1917, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, establishing cloture for the first time. The original rule allowed ending debate on “any pending measure” with two-thirds of senators present and voting.
This high threshold proved difficult to meet. Over the next four decades, cloture was successfully invoked only five times.
Adjustments and Lowering the Bar
The cloture rule underwent several modifications:
1949: The requirement briefly became more stringent, demanding two-thirds of the entire Senate membership (64 senators at the time).
1959: The rule generally reverted to two-thirds of those present and voting.
1975: The most significant change reduced the threshold from two-thirds of those voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn—60 votes in a 100-member Senate.
This change made cloture more achievable while retaining a supermajority requirement for ending debate on legislation.
The Nuclear Option
Recent decades saw increasing use of filibusters to block presidential nominations. This led to the controversial “nuclear option”—a procedural maneuver allowing the Senate to override standing rules with a simple majority by establishing new precedent.
The process involves a senator raising a point of order, the Presiding Officer ruling against it based on existing rules, then another senator appealing that ruling. If a simple majority votes to overturn the Presiding Officer’s ruling, new precedent is set.
This tactic was used twice for nominations:
November 2013: Senate Democrats under Harry Reid lowered the cloture threshold for all executive branch nominations and federal judicial nominations except Supreme Court to a simple majority.
April 2017: Senate Republicans under Mitch McConnell extended this simple majority threshold to Supreme Court nominations.
These changes dramatically altered the confirmation process, making it easier for the party controlling the White House and Senate to confirm nominees with minimal minority party support.
Major Rule Changes Timeline
| Year | Change | Vote Threshold | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-1917 | No formal cloture rule | Unlimited debate prevailed | Previous question motion removed in 1806 |
| 1917 | Senate Rule XXII adopted | Two-thirds of senators present and voting | First cloture procedure established |
| 1949 | Cloture rule temporarily tightened | Two-thirds of entire Senate membership | Made cloture harder to achieve |
| 1959 | Partial reversion of 1949 change | Two-thirds of senators present and voting | Restored for most matters |
| 1975 | Threshold significantly lowered | Three-fifths of all senators (60 votes) | Made cloture more achievable for legislation |
| 2013 | Nuclear option for most nominations | Simple majority | Applied to executive and most judicial nominations |
| 2017 | Nuclear option extended | Simple majority for Supreme Court | Covered all presidential nominations |
Arguments For and Against
The Case for Filibusters
Supporters argue the filibuster serves crucial functions:
Promotes Compromise: The 60-vote requirement can compel the majority party to negotiate with the minority, seeking broader consensus. The Heritage Foundation’s Rachel Bovard argues it “actually forces compromise.”
Protects Minority Voice: The filibuster prevents “tyranny of the majority” where a slim majority could enact far-reaching changes without broader support.
Encourages Deliberation: The Senate was envisioned as more deliberative than the House. The filibuster slows the process, allowing thorough review and public input.
Guards Against Extremism: By making it harder to pass legislation with narrow support, the filibuster can prevent radical or hastily considered laws.
Ensures Reciprocity: Parties in the majority remember they may one day be in the minority and want filibuster protections.
The Case Against
Critics contend the modern filibuster impedes effective governance:
Promotes Obstructionism: The filibuster is often used not to foster deliberation but to block popular legislation for partisan gain, contributing to gridlock and cynicism.
Empowers Minority Rule: The 60-vote threshold means 41 senators can veto measures supported by a majority of senators and potentially the American people. Due to equal state representation, these 41 senators could represent a small fraction of the U.S. population.
Prevents Meaningful Debate: The rise of the silent filibuster means actual debate often doesn’t occur. The mere threat is enough to halt a bill.
Lacks Original Intent: Opponents argue the modern filibuster wasn’t envisioned by the Framers and developed more by accident than design. The Constitution explicitly prescribes supermajority votes for specific actions like treaty ratification, implying simple majority should suffice for ordinary legislation.
The Civil Rights Shadow
No filibuster discussion is complete without acknowledging its troubling history with civil rights legislation. For decades, Southern senators systematically used filibusters to block federal laws ensuring equal rights for African Americans.
Specific examples include:
- Anti-lynching bills repeatedly filibustered in the 1920s and 1930s
- Bills prohibiting poll taxes
- Employment, housing, and voting discrimination measures
- The Civil Rights Act of 1957 faced Strom Thurmond’s record-setting filibuster
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 endured a 60-working-day filibuster
This history led former President Barack Obama to call the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic.” Critics argue its continued use to block voting rights legislation perpetuates this problematic legacy.
The debate isn’t just procedural but has profound moral dimensions. This historical burden makes it difficult to frame the filibuster solely as a neutral tool for protecting minority rights.
Historic Filibusters and Cloture Votes
Treaty of Versailles (1919)
Following World War I, President Wilson advocated for ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, including League of Nations provisions. The treaty faced a filibuster, leading to the first successful cloture vote in November 1919.
Despite ending debate, the treaty failed to secure the necessary two-thirds vote for ratification. This demonstrated that cloture could force an end to debate but didn’t guarantee passage.
Strom Thurmond vs. Civil Rights (1957)
The Civil Rights Act of 1957, focusing on voting rights, met fierce Southern resistance. Senator Strom Thurmond conducted the longest single-person filibuster in Senate history, holding the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
During his marathon speech, Thurmond read from state election laws, the Declaration of Independence, and George Washington’s Farewell Address. While his filibuster didn’t prevent the bill’s passage, it became a powerful symbol of Southern defiance against federal civil rights efforts.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
The legislative battle over the comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 stands as one of the most significant filibuster confrontations. The bill aimed to outlaw discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Southern senators launched a coordinated 60-working-day filibuster. Senator Robert Byrd spoke for over 14 consecutive hours as part of this effort.
The turning point came June 10, 1964. After extensive bipartisan negotiations led by Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey and Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, the Senate successfully invoked cloture by 71 to 29—four votes more than the required two-thirds.
This marked the first time the Senate had ever invoked cloture on a civil rights bill. Nine days later, the Senate passed the bill, which President Johnson signed into law.
Other Notable Instances
Huey Long’s Performances (1930s): The Louisiana Senator frequently filibustered against legislation he believed favored the wealthy, entertaining colleagues with recipes and Shakespeare readings.
Robert La Follette’s Anti-War Filibuster (1917): Senator La Follette filibustered against Wilson’s proposal to arm merchant ships, helping prompt creation of the cloture rule.
Failed Civil Rights Cloture Votes: Between 1938 and 1957, at least eight cloture motions on civil rights issues failed, demonstrating the filibuster’s effectiveness as sustained minority obstruction.
Abe Fortas Nomination (1968): President Johnson’s nomination of Justice Fortas for Chief Justice was withdrawn after a filibuster and failed cloture vote, significantly impacting Supreme Court composition.
The Filibuster Today
Increased Use and Partisanship
The most significant modern trend is the dramatic escalation in filibuster use. Political polarization has made what was once reserved for momentous issues into a routine Senate feature.
Some analyses indicate more than half of all filibusters since 1917 have occurred in just the last 12-15 years. This increased frequency means the 60-vote supermajority has effectively become the minimum threshold for most major legislation.
Senate Majority Leaders may decide not to bring bills to the floor if they lack 60-vote support, effectively killing legislation due to anticipated filibusters.
Exceptions to the Rule
Despite the legislative filibuster’s prevalence, several exceptions allow certain measures to advance with simple majorities:
Budget Reconciliation: Established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this process allows certain budgetary legislation to pass with simple majorities and is protected from filibusters. However, the “Byrd Rule” imposes strict limitations, generally requiring provisions to have direct budgetary impact.
Nominations: The nuclear option changes mean all presidential nominations now require only simple majorities for cloture.
Statutory Exceptions: Congress has occasionally written specific procedural rules into law for particular legislation types that bypass filibusters. Examples include certain trade agreements under “fast-track” authority, military base closure processes, and some arms sales agreements. The Brookings Institution found 161 such exceptions created between 1969 and 2014.
These exceptions demonstrate that when political will becomes sufficiently high, pathways are often found to circumvent the filibuster’s supermajority constraint.
Reform Proposals
Frequent filibuster use and resulting gridlock fuel persistent calls for reform or elimination. Proposals include:
Restoring the Talking Filibuster: Requiring senators to physically hold the floor and speak continuously, increasing the “cost” of filibustering.
Lowering the Cloture Threshold: Reducing votes needed from 60 to 55, or implementing a “ratcheting” threshold where required votes decrease over time.
Shifting the Burden: Requiring 41 votes to sustain a filibuster instead of 60 to end it.
Exempting Certain Legislation: Carving out specific types like voting rights bills or climate measures.
Eliminating Motion to Proceed Filibusters: Allowing debate to begin with simple majorities while maintaining filibusters on final passage.
Challenges to Change
Formally amending Rule XXII is difficult since such changes could themselves be filibustered and require two-thirds of senators voting to invoke cloture.
While the nuclear option remains theoretically possible for legislative filibusters, deploying it would be immensely controversial with far-reaching institutional consequences.
The Stakes
The filibuster debate reflects fundamental disagreements about majority-minority power balance in a divided, partisan nation. It pits procedural ideals like minority rights and deliberation against desires for substantive outcomes and majority rule.
Political actors’ positions often reflect current circumstances and whether their party controls the majority, suggesting pragmatic calculations frequently influence principled stances.
The future of the filibuster—whether maintained, reformed, or eliminated—will significantly shape American policymaking. In a system designed with multiple veto points, the Senate’s supermajority requirement for most legislation represents perhaps the highest hurdle for policy change.
As political polarization continues and parties alternate control, pressure on the filibuster will likely persist. Each party faces the choice between advancing its agenda when in power or preserving tools for influence when in the minority.
The Senate’s unique role in American democracy—as both a check on majoritarian House impulses and a potentially obstructionist institution—hangs in the balance. How this tension resolves will determine whether the chamber remains a “cooling saucer” for democracy or becomes either a graveyard for needed reforms or a casualty of majoritarian efficiency.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.