By: Margo Rawlings
Editor-in-Chief
Recently, the usefulness of the Senate’s filibuster resurfaced as a topic of discussion among politicians and the American electorate. Politicians designed the filibuster, which they first used in Congress at the end of the 1800s. Congressman use the filibuster to delay the vote on a measure from ensuing by continuing debate. One of the filibuster’s most famous uses was in the delay of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Many politicians have called for the removal of the filibuster in the passing of certain, or even all, pieces of legislation, but without the filibuster, a crucial aspect of Congress may disappear.
The filibuster facilitates bipartisan conversation in the Senate that gives both the majority and minority equal opportunity to debate matters. To end the filibuster and begin voting on a measure, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to end the debate. With a 60-vote requirement, congressmen must work together to create legislation that satisfies the desires of both parties, as the filibuster essentially requires all legislation to have a supermajority to pass. In removing such a requirement, the need for compromise and cooperation becomes optional, and the Senate becomes a one-party legislative body, where the majority party dominates. Along with a lack of compromise, the US system of checks and balances would be disrupted because the majority would hold increased power over the minority, allowing for the passage to voting for any laws as long as any one party has even one more senator than the other. In today’s Senate, where Democrats hold the majority by a slim one-vote margin, it is unfair for such a large minority to have no say in different matters.
Moreover, the filibuster is crucial to slowing the passing of legislation, which gives senators time to relay the details of a bill to their constituents. A second purpose of this practice is to allow the electorate enough time to review the proposed legislation themselves and to convey their opinions to senators, who can then create new legislation that better represents the constituents’ opinions. With the removal of the filibuster, the Senate and the House of Representatives would assume the same purpose, eliminating the necessity for debate, which is core to the functioning of the Senate, and American democracy as a whole.
The US Senate should continue using the filibuster but must make certain reforms to ensure its integrity. Specifically at the end of the Jim Crow era, Southern Democrats halted many bills supporting civil rights using the filibuster, bills that majorities in Congress supported, as well as the White House. For example, Congress did not pass the Emmett Till Antilynching Act until 2022 after 240 attempts. This tactic extends to the present day, where many initiatives, including those to prevent climate change, have been rejected through the filibuster. To avoid the use of the filibuster in this manner, the Senate must weaken the power of the filibuster by banning it for particular motions, such as the motion to proceed, meaning to bring the matter to the floor. This would preserve Senates’ ability to continue debates on legislation,without delaying the start of the debate.
(Sources: Britannica, Brookings, NY Times, U.S. Senate)