Republicans are divided over employing a rarely used Senate procedure to pass a voter ID bill ahead of November’s midterm elections.
Many Republicans want to force Democrats to use what’s known as a talking filibuster against the SAVE America Act, a bill requiring Americans to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote, then to present photo ID at the polls. The bill, which passed the House and is championed by President Donald Trump, faces obstruction by Senate Democrats.
Republicans such as Utah Sen. Mike Lee want to get around that by moving to a talking filibuster, a lengthy process that would force opposing Democrats to speak for hours on end and grind the Senate to a halt.
Why We Wrote This
In the Senate, Democrats are in the minority but can stand in the way of the SAVE America Act. Republicans, despite pressure from President Donald Trump to pass the bill, don’t appear likely to take advantage of the talking filibuster – even though some in their party are pushing to do so.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota says he won’t do that. Instead, Republicans plan to hold up debate for the next week or so to force Democrats to go on the record and publicly defend their opposition before voting on the bill. This wouldn’t be a talking filibuster and is expected to lead to a failed vote. The Senate is expected to kick off this process Tuesday.
Here’s how a talking filibuster would work, and why it’s causing so much controversy.
What’s the difference between a talking filibuster and a regular filibuster?
You won’t actually find the word “filibuster” in the Senate rules. It refers to a long-standing Senate practice of holding up debate to block a law’s passage or prolonging debate before a vote.
Most bills require a simple majority – 51 votes – to pass the Senate. But the chamber requires three-fifths of the senators – or 60 lawmakers – to first agree to wrap up debate and vote on the bill in question. That’s where the filibuster comes in.
If a majority leader knows his party doesn’t have the support of 60 members, the leader typically won’t bother putting a bill forward, because it won’t get past debate. But there’s an alternative: letting debate play out for as long as it takes to wear down a bill’s opponents.
A talking filibuster generally starts when the majority leader moves to bring a bill to the floor. If a simple majority passes the motion, the floor is open for debate. Under Senate rules, each member has at least two opportunities to take the floor. They can speak as long as they want, provided they can remain standing without eating or using the bathroom.
During this time, senators who oppose the bill in question can present as many amendments as they like, and each amendment can have its own period of debate.
It’s a battle of endurance that can last weeks or even months. But if the party pushing the bill can wear out its opponents instead of trying to get 60 votes to wrap up debate early, it can move forward and pass the bill on a simple majority. This hasn’t been done successfully in modern history.
Why is this such a challenge for Republicans?
President Donald Trump has been one of the SAVE America Act’s most vocal supporters. He’s threatened not to sign most legislation until the bill passes, while adding new demands such as a ban on most mail-in voting. The act is designed to curtail voting by noncitizens, which data shows does occur but is rare enough not to influence election outcomes.
Democrats argue that the bill will disenfranchise millions of voters who aren’t able to produce the required citizenship documents.
The pressure from the president is putting Mr. Thune in a bind. He insists the math is not there for Republicans to pass the bill, even if they did use a talking filibuster.
If each Democratic senator used their allotted time for two 12-hour speeches, a talking filibuster would last 47 days. During that time, the Senate could not move forward on other business – such as passing a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
The talking filibuster presents another thorny problem for Republicans: At least 51 would have to stay near the Senate chambers while Democratic members were speaking. That’s so a Democrat couldn’t earn themselves a break by calling a quorum, a move that would require a majority of senators to come to the floor and confirm enough members are present for the Senate to keep doing business.
“In practice, a dedicated minority can quite easily obstruct the majority,” says Steven S. Smith, professor emeritus of political science at Washington University in St. Louis.
Mr. Thune says the challenge of keeping 51 GOP senators unified over weeks – and the cost of missed business in the meantime – makes the talking filibuster a nonstarter. He has faced strong backlash from many Republican senators, who say the SAVE America Act is important enough to warrant a try. House Republicans are also threatening to oppose any Senate bills until the bill passes.
The Senate’s top Democrat, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, reportedly said on Sunday that Democrats are ready for “every single thing” Republicans might do to try to pass the bill.
What does this mean long-term?
The dispute about the talking filibuster highlights a change in what used to be a signature aspect of the Senate: open debate. For many, the filibuster embodies the ideal that one party must make an effort to get the other on board. In short, the filibuster might force the majority to debate – and work with – the minority party to get 60 votes, encouraging compromise instead of purely partisan lawmaking.
“The self-image of the Senate is set back in the 1930s,” says Gregory Koger, the author of “Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate.” Members prided themselves on having “great debates about the issues of the day.”
While some conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation, have called for a return to the open-debate style of the talking filibuster, saying it would promote transparency, other experts and lawmakers say the Senate has moved on.
The government’s size and scope have expanded over the centuries, and that’s reflected in senators’ growing workload. Air travel has also accustomed members to spending less time in Washington and more at home with their families and campaigning in their districts.
“Senators’ schedules are way too packed, and nobody wants to really go through the pain and suffering of a talking filibuster, whether you’re in the majority or the minority,” says Gregory Wawro, the co-author of an analysis on the causes and consequences of filibusters.
Lately, even the more modern “silent” filibuster – in which leaders won’t bring a bill to the floor without the support of at least 60 senators – has come under scrutiny. Mr. Trump has called for ending it multiple times, as have both Democratic and Republican senators.
Despite this, a majority of senators, particularly Republicans, support maintaining the tradition, saying it protects the minority party’s opinions and encourages compromise.
