The Senate could end the filibuster in one of two broad ways, each with political and procedural hurdles:
- Formal rule change (the hard, constitutional route): Change Rule 22, the cloture rule, to require fewer votes to end debate on legislation. This would typically entail amending the standing rules through a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to adopt a new rule. In practice, achieving 67 votes for a rules change on contentious legislation is unlikely, making this path improbable in a highly polarized environment. This option would officially rewrite the text of the rules and permanently alter how debate is limited.
- Procedural path or “nuclear option” (the easier, but still risky, route): Establish a new precedent or interpretation of the rules through a majority vote, typically by invoking a point of order and appealing a chair’s ruling until a majority overturns the chair. This method relies on the Senate's long-standing use of precedents and the possibility of a simple majority creating a new interpretation of how cloture can be applied. It has been used in the past to expand or restrict filibuster-related powers for nominations, and proponents argue it can reduce or eliminate the practical effect of the filibuster without a formal rule change. Critics fear it could undermine Senate norms and increase instability in how rules are applied.
Additional context and considerations:
- What ends up being targeted: The filibuster’s practical impact is tied to cloture votes on legislation and on nominations. If the goal is to allow passage with simple majorities, reforms could apply to most legislation, while some nominations (e.g., Supreme Court) have historically been protected or subject to different treatment, depending on the year and ruling coalitions. The specific scope of reform (legislation only, or both legislation and nominations) shapes the strategic considerations.
- Public and political dynamics: Any move to eliminate or curb the filibuster will hinge on the current Senate composition and the willingness of a core group of senators to alter long-standing norms. Even with substantial majorities, breaking with established practice can provoke strong opposition from minority-party members and activists who view the filibuster as a check against rapid partisan change. This tension has been evident in past attempts and scholarly analyses.
- Representative sources and analyses: Comprehensive explanations of how such reforms could unfold, including the feasibility and procedural steps, are available from the Senate’s own explanations of filibusters and cloture, as well as analyses from major think tanks and outlets. These sources discuss the distinction between formal rule changes and the nuclear option, and they outline historical precedents where majority coalitions altered how cloture operated for nominations.
If you’d like, I can pull specific excerpts from current sources that explain the exact procedural steps, historical precedents, and the political considerations for each path, or compare the arguments for and against each approach.
