Breaking (down) the filibuster
Polygraph | Newsletter n°300 | 29 Apr 2025
IN THIS NEWSLETTER: I explain what the filibuster is in one paragraph and how to eliminate it.
Filibuster
If you filibuster a bill, you’re indefinitely delaying a vote on it. The word isn’t always used in a legislative context (e.g., My cat filibusters potential romantic encounters, so how about we meet at your place.), but it usually is. In the US Senate, it effectively increases the number of votes needed to pass a bill by nine. Here’s my best attempt to explain the filibuster in one paragraph.
In theory, it only takes 51 votes (a simple majority, to be precise) to pass most bills in the Senate. But before a bill can be considered for final passage, it may first be subject to a debate period. Filibusters can stretch this debate indefinitely, preventing legislation from reaching the final vote, where it can pass with a simple majority. You can end a filibuster with a motion for cloture — the procedural step to end debate on a bill — but you need 60 votes (three-fifths) for it to be enacted. If no cloture motion is filed or the motion fails, the filibuster continues, and the legislation remains in purgatory.
There’s a common narrative that filibuster use has increased over time. You may have seen graphs showing a rapid escalation in cloture motions filed — a proxy for filibuster use — in recent years. However, these graphs often fail to account for the variance in the number of items that can be filibustered each congressional session, specifically legislation considered on the Senate floor or nominees reported out of committee to the full Senate. While filibuster use has increased, what about the filibuster rate? Are filibusters really happening more frequently?
Yes. In the image below, I’ve tallied the number of filibusters in the top graph (green) and calculated the filibuster frequency in the bottom one (purple). For whatever reason, I was expecting my brilliant filibuster rate calculation to reveal that the simple tally was misleading. It didn’t, though — the purple graph just looks like I tried to draw the green one by hand.
^Alt text for screen readers: Filibuster use has tripled since the early 2000s. This image has a green line graph showing filibuster use stacked on top of a purple one showing the percent of legislation and nominations filibustered, from 1982–2024. Both increased steadily and began rapidly increasing with the 110th Congress from 2007–2008. Filibuster use means cloture motions filed. Filibuster rate means cloture motions divided by the sum of legislation considered and nominations reported. Data: congress.gov, senate.gov.
Reconciliation
Reconciliation is the process you use to make your bill filibuster-proof. Legislation advanced through the reconciliation process caps the debate period to 20 hours — there’s no way to extend the debate on the bill indefinitely.
So why doesn’t the majority party pass everything through reconciliation? Because bills must meet specific criteria to be passed through this process, and those requirements limit what the bill can do and for how long. One key rule is that the bill cannot increase the deficit beyond a 10-year budget window; it has to be “paid for.” The official who determines whether legislation complies with reconciliation rules is the Senate parliamentarian (or Elizabeth, if you’re on a first-name basis).
How to (basically) eliminate the filibuster
You can ignore the parliamentarian. Now think for a moment about what would happen to the filibuster if both parties started doing this. Without rules governing reconciliation — the filibuster workaround — you could pass everything through reconciliation. Debate would be capped at 20 hours, eliminating the possibility of indefinite obstruction. The theoretical number of votes required to pass legislation in the Senate (51) would replace the 60 votes needed in practice because of the filibuster. Ignoring the parliamentarian effectively eliminates the filibuster.
So why are Republican and Democratic party leaders reluctant to do this? Leave me your thoughts in the comments.
SPECIAL THANKS TO: Abe B., Alan F., Amin, Andrew R., AT., BartB., BeepBoop, Ben, Ben C.,* Bill S., Bob N., Brett S., Byron D., Chris, Chris G., Cole H., D. Kepler, Daniel M., David J., David S.,* David V.,* David M., Elizabeth R., Errol S., Foundart, Francis M., Frank R., Gary W., Gladwyn S., Graham P., Griffin R., Hunter S., Irene B., Isaac, Isaac L., Jacob, James H., James N., Jcowens, Jeff, Jennifer, Jennifer J., Jessica S., Jerry S., Joe R., John, John, John A., John K., John M., Jonathan S., Joseph B., Joshua R., Julia G., Katrina H., Kheng L., Lea S., Leah A., Leila CL., Linda B., Linda H., Lindsay, Lindsay S.,* Lora L., Mapraputa, Marie R., Mark L., Mary Z., Marty, Matthew H.,* Megan., Melanie B., Michael S., Mitchell P., Nick B., Noah K., Norbert H., Omar A., Omar D.,* Peter M., Phil, Philip L., Rosemary K., Sari G., Scarlet, Scott H., Silversurfer, Soh, Springseep, Stan C., TBE, Teddie G., Theresa A., Themadking, Tim C., Timbuk T., Tony L., Tony T., Victor S., Wayne H., William P.
* = founding member