The old adage goes, “Majority rules but minority rights.” Nothing can be more relevant to the case found with the United States Senate. One party tends to have power of the chamber, while the other must be in the minority. However, the minority party has the option of “filibustering” legislation thereby preventing the majority party from exerting its total will power over the entire body. The purpose of this paper is to discuss what it means to filibuster, why it is available as a tool, a few criticisms of its existence, how it is used in common practices, and to provide an example of how party leaders within the Senate both attempted to use and sway a filibuster in 2009 with the health care legislation. The examples for the health care bill will be found in video clips from the C-SPAN archives and referenced to when necessary.
To begin, the definition of filibuster is, “the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority” (Random House). In the U.S. Senate, this is commonly done by the minority party when controversial legislation is presented that goes against the goals or aspirations of said group. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have used this tactic in an effort to keep their interests protected. Especially given they must answer to constituents who voted the member into office in the first place. Leaders who fail to properly maintain the status quo or change the status quo as deemed necessary by their respective parties may very well find themselves out of a job. The only way to overcome a filibuster if one is called for is to have what is called a “supermajority.” The Senate must find a two-thirds majority to prevent one. If one were doing some simple math, they would solely require sixty of the one hundred senators to vote for a bill to go forward in some fashion for a filibuster to be overturned.
The main reason for its existence should be obvious. The sole purpose is to prevent a bill from reaching the floor for a vote or as simple as a debate on the proposed law itself. The fact the Senate has such a rule has been rather controversial in many cases during peaks of partisan disagreement. Many Americans feel as though it does not allow room for anything to actually get done at the legislative level on the Senate side. One of the common criticisms of the U.S. Senate is it is where bills go to die. The House of Representatives has limits on how long it will sit on a bill before it will schedule a vote. The Senate does not have such requirements. If a filibuster happens long enough, the proposal can lose support from senators, and be dropped from the agenda. Such an occurrence is not common, but for highly publicized laws the public tends to be more akin to what Washington D.C. is up to and where bills stand in the place of becoming laws (Ulrich).
The public has called for reform regarding a filibuster. Some groups have called for the practice to be abolished altogether, but not much has happened in light of it. The senators will detest the process of making laws, but they will rarely do anything to change the process because they never know when they will need to have such steps in place for themselves. It is advantages for the members to act as though they are separate from the muddle in Washington (Ulrich).
The actual practice of a filibuster is much more strenuous than one might initially imagine. Ironically, it can be as simple as making a long speech about nothing important while refusing to yield the floor. Refusing to yield the floor means the member can talk for as long as they wish, so long as they keep talking. However, the struggle arises when longevity comes into play. One runs the risk of causing physical harm to themselves by not using the restroom as needed, not eating properly, or even weakening their immune system from stress and lack of sleep. Typically, most occasions today usually require the members to have enough present to have a quorum. The majority may try to inconvenience the minority party by calling up non-present members late at night to be present for a roll call vote.
There have been several examples of the use of a filibuster in previous congresses. None was more key in recent memory than that of the heated 2009 debate over reforming the health care system. The House of Representatives barely passed their version of a bill with a few votes. The Democrats who were the key players behind wanting to pass the legislation into law had a supermajority in both houses.
This did not mean the bill leapt right on through though. It required a vast amount of meetings and arm twisting of House members by then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) just to get the proposal to the Senate. Even with her efforts, 39 Democrats joined the Republican members in voting against it. The House needed 219 votes for a majority, and it received 220 ayes and 215 nays.
It was clear from the get go this bill deemed The Affordable Health Care for America Act, was going to need the sixty votes for passage for debate on the Senate floor. The Republicans, who were led by Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), were outright against any form of the bill making it to the floor, thus he promised a filibuster if possible. The reason being, he only had reign over forty Republicans, while Senator Reid had fifty-eight Democrats and two Independents who caucused with the Democrats. However, there was so much commotion about the law; it did not look like the Democrats could present a united front in preventing a filibuster (Frates).
Unfortunately for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), some senators were uneasy about voting on such a controversial bill. This called for some back room talks, arm twisting, and last minute add-ins for each dissenting Democrat to have something to bring home to their district. These “sweetheart” deals earned nicknames from the press such as the “Cornhusker Kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase” as references to the benefitting senators’ states (Frates).
As seen in the first clip shown below, each leader of both the majority and minority are given time to make their last minute pleas to the body regarding how they feel towards the bill being brought to the floor for debate. It was known beforehand how the voting would go, but Senator McConnell could only hope one Democrat would break party ties to vote against it, thus causing the filibuster to continue. Senator Reid makes the case in clip titled “Clip 1” for members to at least allow a debate to go forward.
The members did eventually get to a vote where the Democrats and Independents all voted “Yay.” This was opposing to the Republicans who all voted “Nay.” The only Republican who was not present to vote was Senator Voinovich (R-OH). This should not be a surprise because it was not expected for the Democrats to change their minds after all the deal making that took place. The final vote tally was sixty to thirty-nine. This prevented a filibuster from being able to take place with the minimum sixty votes by the Democrats.
The reaction following the vote is seen in “Clip 2” and “Clip 3” with both sides doing press conferences. In clip 2, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is seen making his opinion for why the bill moved forward. He briefly mentions the discontent amongst his party members, but then he swiftly jumps to the union found by the, “Vast, vast majority,” of the contents. This helps to demonstrate the influence the leaders can have in preventing a filibuster by making last minute deals.
Finally, the last clip contains Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell admitting the defeat in the passage of the act into the next step of the elongated governmental process. He does not back down in discussing how they can still try to stop the health care proposal from making it to the finish line. This validates the aftermath seen when a filibuster fails under the will power of the majority to suppress any opposition to a much sought for goal.
The effort was not fruitless though. The fact the Republicans opposed the health care legislation, which eventually became law after another long fight, was a major component in helping garner votes in the 2010 election. The public perception of the newly passed law was not favorable, and it did cost some Democrats seats in office.
In conclusion, the process of stopping a bill from becoming a law is a hard fought one. It takes skill, determination, and a fair amount of compromising to reach the final objective. The purpose of this paper was to discuss what it means to filibuster, why it is available as a tool, a few criticisms of its existence, how it is used in common practices, and to provide an example of how party leaders within the Senate both attempted to use and sway a filibuster in 2009 with the health care legislation. This was done through defining filibuster, citing some critiques of the process, and conferring over the practice of the filibuster. As it was finally mentioned, the clips were meant to help verify the process of the practice by showing the before and after effects. It is highly unlikely there will be any changes to the ability of senators to filibuster. Both parties have used it in the past, and they will certainly continue to threaten its use in the future.
