The Washington Post

This is what happened in the Senate Thursday, and what it means for the future

The Senate took a historic turn Thursday by eliminating filibusters for most presidential nominations and in doing so severely limited what the Republican minority can do.

This is a confusing topic even for lawmakers, their staffs and the most seasoned Capitol Hill reporters, but we'll try our best here to explain what went down:

What is a filibuster?

(Graph: Todd Lindeman; Data:

It's when a senator, or group of senators, attempts to block or delay action on a bill or nominee under consideration in the Senate. In order to stop the filibuster, Senate leaders can invoke a procedure called cloture.

So what happened on Thursday?

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his top lieutenants -- Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), orchestrated Thursday's votes. (AP)

The Senate changed its rules regarding filibusters on votes to confirm most judicial and executive branch appointments.

Under the old rules, at least 60 votes were required to invoke cloture, and if cloture passed, the filibuster would end.

But on Thursday, Senate Democrats took a series of steps to change how the filibuster applies to confirmation votes. Under the new rules, the vote to end a filibuster/invoke cloture only requires a simple majority vote of the 100 senators. Senators may still opt to delay a bill or nomination by filibustering the action, but only 51 votes will be needed to invoke cloture. (And yes -- 51 is required even if some senators are absent or seats are vacant.)

This change doesn't apply to nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the change doesn't apply to pieces of legislation -- under the current rules, at least 60 votes will be required to end the filibuster of a bill.

So what does this mean?

Looking to join Obama's Cabinet? Now you'll only need to 51 senators to say yes. (AP)

It means that federal judge nominees and executive branch appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been required for more than two centuries.

And why does this matter?

For starters, it's one of the most fundamental changes in Senate procedure ever.

In the short-term, it makes it much more difficult for Democrats and Republicans to work together on a host of issues -- the budget, the farm bill, a defense policy bill. Republicans once willing to negotiate on those measures now might resist because of the unilateral steps taken by Democrats.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who sought to stop the changes, said Democrats “are going to have trouble in a lot of areas, because there’s going to be a lot of anger.”

But Democrats say that Republicans were needlessly blocking qualified people from filling judicial vacancies and key government positions. In the words of Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), one of the senators pushing most aggressively for the change: "I think democracy is broken when the minority can hold up legislation or nominees with only 40 votes."

But Republicans are furious and say Democrats will learn to regret the changes when they eventually become the minority party.

"Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity," Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said Thursday. "This is a mistake, a big one for the long run....  I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way."

This also matters because it opens the door to more changes in Senate procedure. Murphy and other liberal senators now want the new 51-vote threshold to apply to cloture on all legislation. That would make the Senate another version of the House, where simple majority votes have always been the standard.

I’m totally confused by the filibuster. Should I feel bad?

Perk up -- you’ve got plenty of company. A 2010 Pew Research poll found that only 26 percent of Americans knew the number of votes needed to break a filibuster.

Paul Kane and Capital Insights polling analyst Scott Clement contributed to this report.

Ed O’Keefe is covering the 2016 presidential campaign, with a focus on Jeb Bush and other Republican candidates. He's covered presidential and congressional politics since 2008. Off the trail, he's covered Capitol Hill, federal agencies and the federal workforce, and spent a brief time covering the war in Iraq.



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
From clubfoot to climbing: Double amputee lives life of adventure
Learn to make traditional soup dumplings
Deaf banjo player teaches thousands
Play Videos
Unconventional warfare with a side of ale
The rise and fall of baseball cards
How to keep your child safe in the water
Play Videos
'Did you fall from heaven?': D.C.'s pick-up lines
5 ways to raise girls to be leaders
How much can one woman eat?
Play Videos
How to get organized for back to school
How to buy a car via e-mail
The signature drink of New Orleans
Next Story
Chris Cillizza · November 21, 2013

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.