We’re breaking from our look at the federal departments to discuss an ever-present debate in American politics, the filibuster.
As a disclaimer, we might need another column at another point to fully delve into the history, provisions, and debate around the filibuster and its associated practices – although we think this is a good start.
What is the Filibuster?
A filibuster in general is defined by Oxford Languages as “an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.”
More specific to U.S. government and politics, particularly the U.S. Senate, the filibuster is a tactic used to delay or even block a vote on a measure by preventing the debate on the measure from ending.
Because the Senate has few rules on debate, unlike the rigid rules of the U.S. House, debate is essentially limitless. If no other Senator has the floor, a Senator who seeks recognition to speak is generally allowed to speak for as long as he/she wishes. Formal debate only ends naturally or by invoking cloture, which we’ll discuss briefly.
The Senate has fewer rules than the House mainly because it is a much smaller body and Senators represent entire states, rather than equally-proportioned districts. The Senate has 100 members, two from each state, whereas the House has 435 members, with state delegations sized proportional to population. In a much larger body, stricter rules are enforced to aid the flow of legislative progress.
In the Senate, however, the lengthier and more subjective process is employed so as to craft legislation in what’s often its final form before it heads to the president’s desk for his signature or veto. Moreover, Senators were originally elected by their states’ legislatures, acting as a lobbying arm for state governments in Washington, not directly for the millions they would otherwise represent. Upon the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators began being elected directly by the people within their states. Despite the fundamental change, the Senate still serves as the de facto coliseum for states as a whole to have their say.
How Does a Filibuster End?
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate permits the Senate to vote to limit debate by invoking cloture on the question. Cloture is just that – the vote on whether or not to end debate and proceed with the legislative process.
The filibuster remains a contentious aspect of American government due to the three-fifths majority required of the Senate in order to invoke cloture. This requires 60 Senators to enact. This empowers even a minority of Senators to block a measure and/or continue debate, even if cloture has the support of a simple majority.
In Senate majorities like the current one, this can be a crucial chokepoint. Republicans have a 53-seat majority, while Democrats have a 47-seat caucus to make up the majority. Even if a cloture vote rests on those party lines, it’s still south of the 60-vote threshold to end a debate, giving Democrats the ability to derail legislation via filibuster.
A filibuster can, however, continue after cloture on a section of debate is invoked. There’s nothing preventing another Senator from gaining recognition and staging another filibuster, this time requiring yet another cloture vote.
If a debate ends on its own merits, a cloture vote is not necessary.
The Realistic and Cynical Takes on the Filibuster
This is where much of the debate around the filibuster is found. Exactly how and when it’s employed often warrants scrutiny from the disadvantaged side, with calls to “abolish the filibuster” perhaps more present than ever in modern political discourse.
The realistic views of the filibuster are to delay legislation that could be considered harmful, oppressive, and/or consisting of change too fundamental for the nation to bear. Additionally, the virtually limitless debate allows for every single line of the action in question to be read aloud, challenged, and/or substantiated. It allows for a heuristic analysis of the legislation and offers the chances for minds to be changed, amendments to be presented, and disastrous courses of action to be avoided.
However, these positive aspects of debate aren’t always employed for what many would describe as “the right side of history.” We’ll dig into this momentarily.
The cynical take is that the filibuster can be used to simply delay, stall, or antagonize debate. The eventual support of the full Senate and president of an action or legislation might already be a foregone conclusion, but if the minority party – or even a disgruntled maverick from either caucus – has no other tools at his/her disposal, the filibuster is the last stand to make the rest of the session a nightmare for the rest of the chamber.
The delay tactic can be grueling, as filibusters are known to carry on for hours and even days, with the Senate’s dispersal disallowed until a vote has been reached. Debate can carry on throughout the night, putting the entire chamber at the mercy of just one Senator. To the cynics, the filibuster is only about pettiness and wasting time.
The filibuster is also often used as a lightning rod against the liberal rules of the Senate, often prompting calls for reform to make the Senate’s procedures stricter and more predictable.
Notable Filibusters
The original rules of the Senate did not provide for a cloture vote to end debate. This prompted a filibuster during the very first session of the United States Senate. Senator William Maclay, of Pennsylvania, wrote of a September 22, 1789, hearing that the design was to “talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”
The pre-Civil War period saw less filibustering than expected, mainly because the Northern Republicans were intent on preserving the Union and keeping the Southern Democrats from seceding.
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson (D-NJ) urged the Senate to allow for cloture to end debate. The rule was adopted in a 76-3 vote of the Senate. The first cloture vote was taken in 1919 to end debate on the Treaty of Versailles.
One of the first contentious filibusters was staged in 1946, in which five Democratic Senators opposed a bill that would have prevented workplace discrimination. That bill was proposed by Senator Dennis Chávez (D-NM). The filibuster endured for weeks, prompting Chávez to pull the bill after a failed cloture vote, despite a majority of Senators having supported the bill.
The first record filibuster was set in 1953 by Senator Wayne Morse (I-OR), who spoke for 22 hours and 26 minutes in protest of the Tidelands bill, which outlined states’ ownership of their bordering tidelands – particularly as it pertained to oil and gas leases. That filibuster record was quickly broken in 1957 by Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), who protested the Civil Rights Act for 24 hours and 18 minutes. Thurmond read laws of different states and even George Washington’s entire farewell address. The bill ultimately passed.
As of 2026, this is the longest single-person filibuster in U.S. history. It was also the longest single-person speech in Senate history until 2025, when Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) spoke uninterrupted for 25 hours and 5 minutes.
The late 1950s and early 1960s saw the most famous and contentious filibusters, all pertaining to civil rights legislation. Southern Democrats, led by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) – for whom the previously discussed Byrd Rule was named – attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The continuous 75-hour filibuster included a 14-hour-and-13-minute address from Byrd. Sixty days of debate ensued, ending in a 71-29 cloture vote, only the second such successful vote since 1927.
The Two-Track System
Because of the lack of business conducted by the Senate during the Civil Rights Era, the two-track system was developed by Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) and Majority Whip Byrd. This allows the Senate, by unanimous consent, to set aside the measure being filibustered and consider other business. However, this caused filibusters to become more common and more bills to become deadlocked. An effective supermajority is now required to pass any legislation.
The “Nuclear Option”
This term has been heard more commonly in the last twenty years or so. In 2005, Republican Senators led by Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) proposed that filibusters against judicial nominees were unconstitutional. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) first used the term “nuclear” to describe the option. The term is now widely used to describe a rule change by setting a precedent that conflicts with the plain language of the rules.
In 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to set the cloture thresholds to a simple majority for all judicial nominations, except those nominated to the Supreme Court. Democrats claimed that filibustering had been utilized against the Obama Administration.
In 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated that sole exception to extend to Supreme Court nominees, so as to appoint Justice Neil Gorsuch (R-CO) to the seat. A bipartisan letter of 61 Senators was sent to then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urging for the preservation of the filibuster.
