What is a filibuster?
A filibuster is a procedural tactic, most associated with the United States Senate, in which a senator or group of senators prolongs debate on a bill to delay or prevent a vote, typically requiring a supermajority vote, cloture, to formally end debate and force a vote to proceed.
Last reviewed . Not yet independently reviewed.
Core tenets
- Extended debate as delay
- A senator or group of senators speaks or otherwise prolongs floor debate specifically to prevent a bill from coming to a final vote.
- Cloture as the ending mechanism
- Ending a filibuster and forcing a vote generally requires a cloture vote, which under current Senate rules requires 60 votes for most legislation.
- Chamber-specific rule
- The filibuster is a function of Senate rules on debate, not a constitutional requirement, and does not exist in the House of Representatives, which limits debate through other rules.
How it works in practice
The modern filibuster rarely involves the sustained floor speeches historically associated with the tactic, more often functioning as a routine procedural threshold requiring 60 votes to advance most legislation.
- Talking filibuster
- A senator holds the floor with sustained speech, historically required to maintain a filibuster, now rarely used in practice.
- Procedural filibuster
- The mere threat of a filibuster, without an actual sustained speech, is treated as requiring 60 votes to proceed, the more common modern practice.
Common variants
- Legislative filibuster
- Applies to ordinary legislation, generally requiring 60 votes for cloture.
- Filibuster exceptions
- Certain matters, including budget reconciliation bills and, since rule changes made in the 2010s, most nominations, are exempted from the 60-vote cloture threshold.
What it is often confused with
The filibuster is often assumed to be a constitutional feature of American government, but it is a product of Senate rules specifically, not the Constitution, and has changed significantly over the chamber's history.
Criticisms and debates
Criticism of the filibuster centers on whether requiring a supermajority for ordinary legislation appropriately protects minority input or simply enables obstruction.
Minority-protection defense
Argues that requiring a supermajority to pass most legislation protects the minority party and forces broader consensus, preventing a bare majority from imposing significant policy change without wider buy-in.
Response: Critics respond that this same requirement allows a minority to block legislation with majority public and congressional support, and that the modern procedural filibuster requires no real cost or effort from those using it.
Obstruction critique
Contends that the routine, low-effort use of the modern procedural filibuster has made ordinary legislative business dependent on a 60-vote threshold never intended by the chamber's founders, contributing to legislative gridlock.
Response: Defenders of the current rule argue that eliminating it entirely would remove an important check on rapid, narrow-majority policy swings between different governing majorities.
Historical examples
- Civil Rights Act filibuster, 1964
- A lengthy, historically significant filibuster attempting to block civil rights legislation, ultimately overcome by a cloture vote.
- Nuclear option, 2013 and 2017
- The Senate changed its own rules by simple majority to exempt most nominations from the 60-vote cloture threshold, a widely cited example of the filibuster rule itself being altered.
Sources
- 1.Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XXII.
- 2.Congressional Research Service. Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate.
- 3.Encyclopaedia Britannica. Filibuster.