The Talking Filibuster’s Time Must Return (A Primer)

The House passed the SAVE America Act last week requiring proof of American citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to cast a ballot in federal elections. The bill enjoys between 80-90% support from the American people across the spectrum of polling from both the left and the right.

The bill now moves to the Senate where it has the support of a majority of Senators. The question now is will the Republican majority use the standing rules of the Senate to pass this bill? The path forward is clear: require a talking filibuster.

For most of its history, the United States Senate operated under a simple premise: bring a bill to the floor, debate it fully, and when debate is exhausted, vote the bill up or down by simple majority.

In 1917, the Senate added an additional rule, the cloture rule, requiring a supermajority to end an extended debate. But in modern practice there is no extended debate. The Leader brings it to floor, a few Senators then give performative speeches because the outcome has already been decided, and then they vote to invoke cloture at 60 votes. With a pre-decided outcome, there is no purpose for the debate here other than posturing.

Cloture began as a rarely used method of moving a few bills that enjoyed a high level of support through the Senate more quickly in the face of a determined opposition. Over time it has become the default hurdle for all legislation for what has become a lazy Senate.

The result?  Bills are discussed behind closed doors to get a consensus of 60, and there is rarely significant public debate or amendments. No marathon speeches allowing the American people to learn what is in a bill. No real floor fight. Just procedural gridlock and lack of transparency on bills that cannot reach that threshold, even when the overwhelming majority of America’s voters support the bill.

That wasn’t the original design. The talking filibuster still exists, and Majority Leader John Thune should use this standing Senate rule to bring the SAVE America Act to the floor for debate.

The last truly historic example of a sustained talking filibuster came in 1964, when the Democrat opponents of the Civil Rights Act held the floor for more than 60 days in a racially charged attempt to block passage of the bill. Senators spoke around the clock in one of the longest debates in Senate history. Ultimately, Republicans made their case and garnered the necessary votes to pass this landmark legislation recognizing equal rights for all Americans. It was grueling. It was public. It required effort.

The nation watched and agreed that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Civil Rights Act was forced through by popular demand.

The process is simple.

Under the Senate’s standing rules, Majority Leader Thune brings the bill to the floor, debate begins, and when debate is exhausted, it passes or fails by simple majority. Senators who want to block a bill can do so—but they must hold the floor. They must speak. Under Senate Rule XIX, they’re limited to two speeches on the bill. When opponents run out of speakers or relinquish the floor, the Senate votes. Since cloture was not invoked, there is no 60-vote threshold to end debate. The bill passes or fails by simple majority.

That’s the talking filibuster. And it still exists.

Floor management matters in this process, and one of the most important tools is the live quorum call. A quorum is the minimum number of Senators required to conduct business which is a majority of the Senate, or 51 members if all seats are filled (when there are no vacancies in the 100-seat Senate which is the case now). During a quorum call, the clerk calls the roll to determine whether that number is present. It can be used to pause proceedings, require members to return to the chamber, and ensure the Senate is ready to act.

In an extended debate scenario, quorum calls help the majority monitor the floor, maintain control of the schedule and be prepared to move to a vote the moment debate collapses.

Using the talking filibuster wouldn’t change the cloture rule. It wouldn’t be the “nuclear option” which means changing the cloture vote from 60 to 51. No one is asking for that. The talking filibuster would simply mean relying on the Senate’s original debate structure: argue your case, defend your position, and when the debate ends, take the vote.

A real talking filibuster restores transparency. If Democrat Senators feel strongly enough to stop the SAVE America Act, they should say so out loud, on the record, for as long as they can stand. Let the country hear their arguments against requiring proof of citizenship and a photo ID to vote in American elections. Let the public judge them.

It would also prove something many Americans suspect: that majorities can govern if they are willing to do the work. Managing the floor, holding continuous sessions, using live quorum calls—these are tools already available. They require effort, not rule changes.

Connie Hair was Chief of Staff to Congressman Louie Gohmert (Ret.) of Texas, serving 20 years as a congressional staffer on Capitol Hill. A native of Louisiana, she is the Louisiana State Director for the State Freedom Caucus Network.