US President
Joe Biden wants to suspend filibusters – why is the blockade attitude so controversial in the Senate?
Joe Biden pronounced it on Tuesday in a speech in Atlanta for the end of the filibuster
© Peter Zay / Picture Alliance
In the dispute over the reform of the electoral law, US President Biden threatened the Republicans on Tuesday with the end of the filibuster rule. What about the blockade strategy in the Senate and why a rule change is so controversial.
US President Joe Biden has threatened the Republicans in the Senate with a change in the voting rule in order to enforce an extension of the franchise. If the Republicans continue to block the vote with the so-called filibuster, he would work on changing the Senate rules, Biden said at an appearance in Atlanta on Tuesday.
The US President criticized the fact that the method was now being abused as a political weapon. It would no longer be possible for the elected majority to vote for the protection of democracy. The chances of success of Biden’s endeavors are highly uncertain. After all, the dispute over the filibuster divides not only Republicans and Democrats, but also the political camps within Biden’s party.
Super majority and marathon speeches: this is how the filibuster works
Actually, a legislative text in the Senate needs a simple majority to be passed. However, before a vote can be taken, the debate on the proposal must first be closed. In the procedural vote required for this, a “super majority” of 60 of the 100 senators is again required. Conversely, this means that a legal text can be blocked with a blocking minority of 41 votes.
If a party makes use of this strategy, it is called a filibuster. The term goes back to the French word “flibustier” for privateer.
In the past, senators gave marathon speeches to prevent the debate from ending and a final vote. This is no longer common. The 60-vote rule is much more effective – and less strenuous.
Reconciliation or “nuclear option” as alternatives
A super majority of 60 votes in the Senate is not necessary in all cases. In 2013 it was decided to switch to a simple majority for the confirmation of members of the government and federal judges. In 2017, this was expanded to include candidates for the Supreme Court.
There is also a special method known as “reconciliation” for budgetary issues, for which a simple majority is sufficient. Such an approach is only possible in the case of laws that deal with issues such as taxes, government spending and the debt ceiling.
The filibuster can be restricted through certain procedures with a simple majority, as happened in 2013 and 2017. This is known colloquially as the “nuclear option” because it fundamentally changes the rules of the Senate – and is perceived by the minority in the House of Lords as a kind of political declaration of war.
Change plans meet with criticism
Critics of the filibuster argue that the blocking minority enables the opposition to block Congress and thus torpedo the work of the president and his reform projects. Defenders of the rule, however, argue that the filibuster is forcing Democrats and Republicans to compromise and thus promoting bipartisan understanding in the Senate.
The problem with a circumcision of the filibuster is that the party with the Senate majority could find itself in the minority after the next election. Then the adopted rule changes could take revenge, because the new majority falls back on the same means.
At the moment, however, there are still strong doubts as to whether the Democrats can even restrict the filibuster. Given the tight majority in the Congress Chamber, all Democratic senators would have to vote for a rule change. However, some representatives of the conservative Democratic wing have raised concerns. Democrats and Republicans each have 50 senators. In stalemate situations, Vice President Kamala Harris, who by virtue of her office is also Senate President, has the casting vote.