Short answer: There are two broad paths commonly discussed to eliminate or curb the filibuster in the U.S. Senate: change the formal rules (Rule 22) with a supermajority, or establish a new precedent via the nuclear option that lowers the vote threshold through Senate practice. In practice, both faces significant political hurdles, but the nuclear-option route has been used in the past to reduce the protection the filibuster offers, while a formal rule change would require broad support to amend the rules. Overview of the main approaches
- Formal rule change (amending Rule 22)
- What it is: Amend the text of Rule 22 to set a lower threshold (often a simple majority) to invoke cloture and end debate.
- What it would entail: A formal rule change requires a two-thirds vote of those present and voting to adopt the change, which effectively means 67 votes if all 100 senators participate. This is a high barrier and has historically been hard to achieve for abolition, making this the “hard” route in practice.
* Political reality: Because it requires a broad, bipartisan consensus, a full abolition is unlikely under deep partisan divides.
- Nuclear option (reform by ruling / new Senate precedent)
- What it is: Instead of changing the written rules, a majority of the Senate uses its power to interpret or reinterpret procedures through a ruling by the presiding officer, then appeals and majority votes to establish a new precedent.
- How it works: A majority can overturn a chair’s ruling on an appeal, thereby creating a new practice that lowers the voting threshold for cloture in specific contexts. This has been used previously to change how cloture votes are counted for nominations (notably in 2013 and 2017).
* Political reality: It only requires a simple majority at the moment of the ruling and appeal, but it depends on the given political dynamics and the Senate’s willingness to set a new precedent. It is therefore seen as a more feasible, though still contentious, path.
- Partial reforms and alternatives
- Some proposals seek to reform the filibuster without full abolition, such as limiting its use, requiring live filibuster participation, or applying the filibuster differently to different types of legislation (budgetary issues, for example). These ideas aim to reduce the frequency and impact of obstruction while preserving some minority protections.
* Advocacy groups and think tanks differ on whether reform is preferable to abolition, with arguments focusing on legislative efficiency, minority rights, and institutional norms.
Key considerations and caveats
- Historical precedent matters: The Senate has used the nuclear option in the past to trim the filibuster for nominations, establishing that simple majorities can prevail in certain procedural contexts. This demonstrates the plausibility of a precedent-based reform, though each instance depends on the specific political moment.
- Legal and procedural limits: A formal Rule 22 change would be a constitutional-like alteration of Senate procedures and thus requires substantial consensus, making it inherently difficult in a highly polarized environment.
- Strategic dynamics: Any move to eliminate or weaken the filibuster reshapes bargaining power in Congress and can have long-term implications for party strategy, judicial appointments, and policy outcomes.
If you’d like, I can tailor this to a specific scenario (e.g., for a hypothetical new Congress, or focusing on nominations vs. legislation) and summarize the key steps, political feasibility, and potential impacts for each route.
