This Change to Senate Rules Could Impact the Future of Voting Rights

Illustration of a blue donkey and red elephant

Illustration by Corinne Brown/KCM

A 19th-century rule is the center of a fight between Republicans and Democrats.

President Biden has been making a major push for affirming voting rights, and now he’s pulling out all the stops to get it done. During an impassioned speech on Tuesday, he called to end a decades-old legislative procedure known as a filibuster to pass key bills supported by Democrats

“Today, I’m making it clear,” the president said during an impassioned speech in Atlanta. “To protect our democracy, I support changing the Senate rules, whichever way they need to be changed, to prevent a minority of senators from blocking action on voting rights.”

Biden has previously been skeptical of changing the centuries-old filibuster procedure. Just last month, the president said he’d only support changing the current rule if it were truly necessary. But in Tuesday’s speech, he declared that time has come, saying he was “tired of being quiet.”

So what exactly is this centuries-old rule? We explain all that and more below.  

First, what’s a filibuster?

The name of this 19th-century procedural rule is actually derived in part from the Spanish word “​​filibusteros,” which was used to refer to pirates, and it has long been used as a delay tactic. 

How does it work?

The Senate’s procedural rules stipulate that voting on a bill can begin only after a recognized speaker’s time has expired, which means senators can talk for hours at a time to put off an official yes-or-no vote. For instance, you might remember Texas Sen. Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham in order to oppose then-President Obama’s continued funding of the landmark law known as the Affordable Care Act. 

The only way to break this seemingly never-ending speech is for 60 senators to agree to proceed to a final vote on the legislation at hand. That means that even if one party has a majority in the chamber — enough to pass said legislation — members can’t actually get to that vote without at least 60 supporters in the 100-person Senate.

Why are there calls to get rid of the filibuster?

For centuries, there have been opponents of the filibuster on both sides of the aisle, and they’ve attempted to curtail the practice in various ways. In more recent years, Democrats voted to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations (except for Supreme Court justices) in 2013, and Republicans responded by getting rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court justices in 2017.

What’s the case for changing it now? 

Democrats are hoping to make some legislative victories ahead of this year’s midterms, including passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. But in the evenly split 50-50 Senate, they see little bipartisan cooperation, and Republicans have actively used the filibuster to block both bills.

What would it take to make a change?

In order to change the rules now, Democrats would need total unity from all 50 of their members, but not everyone’s on board. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema have both been supportive of the 60-vote filibuster. 

“We need some good rule changes to make the place work better,” Manchin said. “But getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better.” In an op-ed, the West Virginia Democrat even warned that such a change could “set a dangerous precedent” by giving the party in power the ability to enact their agenda without any minority input. 

Could there be any repercussions?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already vowed to retaliate against Democrats if they change the filibuster rules, and he warned that such a move would “silence the voices of millions and millions of Americans.” These threats could cause some major headaches if Republicans decide to make daily legislative tasks, such as setting or allowing committee meetings, difficult or even next-to-impossible.

“We will make their voices heard in this chamber in ways that are more inconvenient for the majority and this White House than what anybody has seen in living memory,” McConnell said.