Skip to main content

Despite the fact that Senate procedural tactics are almost never interesting to most Americans, one in particular has been getting a significant amount of media and public attention of late- the filibuster.  This is, in large part, due to the growing perception that Republicans are abusing the tactic to derail the Democrat's political agenda.  In response, several Senators have recently called for the reform or elimination of the procedural obstacle.

Members of both political parties are fond of accusing the opposing party of being the "obstructionist party" in what often turns into a "he did it first!" debate.  While it isn't particularly useful, in general, to wander into that type of debate (but if you are interested, our numbers show Republicans are more to blame), a historical review of the filibuster's use is helpful in at least one regard: it shows just how abused the procedural tactic has recently become.  Many, such as myself, have argued that the filibuster can serve a valuable purpose.  That said, the evidence suggests the filibuster is being used with a profligacy never before seen at a time when the Senate's action on key legislation is perhaps needed the most.

I haven't yet discovered an authoritative source listing the number of times the filibuster has been used by the minority party in any given Congress.  The closest I have found is a table (published by the Senate itself) listing the number of motions filed for cloture for each Congress since 1919 (the 66th Congress).  While useful, there isn't a perfect correlation between the use of the filibuster and the number of motions filed for cloture.  Often, a majority leader may be aware that he does not have sufficient votes to invoke cloture, and a motion may never be filed.  Other times, a majority leader may suspect a minority party Senator will filibuster a bill, motion or amendment and preemptively make a motion for cloture.  Furthermore, the filibuster is just one of many obstructionist weapons in a Senator's arsenal.  Others, such as the hold (which often precedes a filibuster), can be equally devastating (and are often anonymous).  Consequently, the information below won't be a perfect analysis of the level of obstructionism of each Congress' minority party, but it does give at least a rough outline.

The table below shows the party controlling the Senate for each Congress since 1991 (Clinton's first year in office), the number of cloture motions filed during that Congress, and the average approval percentage for that Congress (according to Gallup polls taken during the relevant period):

Year Party Controlling Senate Number of Cloture Motions Filed Net Change in Cloture Motions Filed From Prior Congress Average Approval Rating of Congress
2009-2010 (111th) Democrats 75 +11** 28.8%
2007-2008 (110th) Democrats 139 +71 23.2%
2005-2006 (109th) Republicans 68 +6 30.3%
2003-2004 (108th) Republicans 62 -10 44.3%
2001-2002 (107th) Democrats 72* +1 55.2%
1999-2000 (106th) Republicans 71 +2 45.1%
1997-1998 (105th) Republicans 69 -13 42.4%
1995-1996 (104th) Republicans 82 +2 32.0%
1993-1994 (103rd) Democrats 80 +21 23.5%
1991-1992 (102nd) Democrats 59 +22 30.6%

*There were 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans until May 24, 2001 when Sen. Jeffords (VT) announced he would become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, giving Democrats a one-seat advantage.

**This figure assumes the 111th Congress will file 75 cloture motions in 2010 (the same number filed in 2009) for a total of 150 cloture motions.

Since the 101st Congress (1991-1992), Democrats and Republicans have each controlled the Senate five times (if you include the 107th Congress in the Democratic column after Jeffords' switch).  When Democrats were the minority party (i.e., the filibustering party), there were an average of 70.4 cloture motions filed by the Republican majority.  When Republicans were the minority party (i.e., the filibustering party), there were an average of 100 cloture motions filed by the Democratic majority (assuming 150 total motions will be filed for the 111th Congress).  If you remove the 111th Congress from the calculation (because it isn't yet finished), the average cloture motions filed by the Democratic majority for the remaining four Congresses with a Republican filibustering minority would be 87.5.  Those numbers suggest (inconclusively) that Republicans have tended to use the filibuster more than Democrats since Clinton's first year in office with most of the difference being due to Republican filibusters during the 110th and 111th Congress.

Additionally, on average, Congresses with a Republican minority (i.e., the filibustering party) have seen an average increase of 25.2 cloture motions filed by the Democratic majority over the number of cloture motions filed by the immediately preceding majority party.  Congresses with a Democratic minority (i.e., the filibustering party) have seen an average decrease of 2.6 cloture motions filed by the Republican majority over the number of cloture motions filed by the immediately preceding majority party.  If we assume the 111th Congress will not file another cloture motion in 2010 (which would be inconceivable), those Congresses with a Republican minority (i.e., the filibustering minority) would still see an average increase of 10 cloture motions filed by the Democratic majority over the number of cloture motions filed by the immediately preceding majority party.  This suggests the Republican party has tended to increase the use of the filibuster over prior minority party uses while the Democratic party has tended to decrease its use over prior minority party uses (at least since 1991).  As mentioned above, however, this is only a partial picture of party obstructionism during any particular Congress.

The inverse correlation between Congressional approval ratings and the net increase in the number of cloture motions filed over the prior Congress is also not perfect (as expected- there are many factors affecting Congressional approval ratings), but it is interesting at least to note that the five Congresses which increased their cloture motion filings the most over the prior Congress (indicating an increase in the use of the filibuster over the prior Congress) are the same five which have had the lowest average approval rating since 1991.  This isn't particularly surprising, as the filibuster slows the progress of the Senate and suggests a higher level of partisanship (neither of which are particularly popular results).

Perhaps what stands out the most in the table above is the dramatic increase in the filing of cloture motions (indicating a rise in the use of the filibuster) from and after the 110th Congress.  Cloture motions increased by 71 from the 109th Congress to the 110th and appear on pace to increase by an additional 11 for the 111th Congress to an all-time high of 150 motions filed.  This begs the question: what next?

The current trends of filibuster use are not sustainable, particularly when combined with other non-formal procedural obstacles (like Senator Shelby's blanket hold on all Obama nominees, for example).  It is easy to believe that during a major crisis, both parties could unite on a common solution, but recent history seems to disprove that theory.  The nation is facing its most troubled economic fortunes since the Great Depression and obstructionism is clearly increasing rather than decreasing.  The system has created a perverse incentive for the minority party.  When Americans are most desperate for government assistance, the minority party is able to obstruct passage of most legislation while simultaneously convincing the public that the majority party just can't get the job done (so the public should vote the bums out).  But what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Why should we expect that the majority party, once it loses control of the Senate and becomes the new minority party, will cooperate with the new majority party?  Aren't they equally incentivized to obstruct as a mechanism to regain control?

The system cannot long function in this cycle.  The filibuster must be revised (see my thoughts on how to revise it here).  That won't fix all of our problems, but it is a step in the right direction.

Check us out at

Originally posted to thefourthbranch on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:15 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, amyzex, dolfin66, princesspat

    by thefourthbranch on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:15:08 AM PST

    •  We know this from reading.... (0+ / 0-)

      the newspaper every day; not is such fine detail, but in overall understanding of day-to-day events.  I think we should just let the Republicans filibuster their pink asses off.  Let the people of this country see who the obstructionists are and why they obstruct progress in our Congress.  Let the people see what fools really look like.  Of course, while this filibuster is on camera on C-SPAN or whatever, you'll be able to superimpose corporate logos on the suits of the filibuster blabbers such that they'll look like NASCAR race drivers.  

      "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

      by dolfin66 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:24:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your table is very interesting and useful (0+ / 0-)

      For example, it shows that the low point of Congressional approval since 1994, when the Repubs took over, was actually in the last Congress, not the current one.  If Congressional approval is going up, perhaps the Dems aren't headed for a complete wipeout this fall.

      When the United States becomes a low wage country, only bobbleheads shall go forth from American soil.

      by amyzex on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:38:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So...the filibuster must be revised. (0+ / 0-)

  •  Nobody cares... (0+ / 0-)

    ...they probably should but they don't, which is why no one will care if we pass medicare for all via reconciliation.

    •  Come on. (0+ / 0-)

      You can't be that sad, can you?

      "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

      by dolfin66 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:25:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why does that statement make me sad? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It doesn't seem to get very many people upset. Senate procedure is not what gets under peoples skins, it's a fact.

        If Repubs defeat HCR via the filibuster Americans are not going to be upset with them, they will just think Dems can't get anything done.

        If Dems pass it via reconciliation, no one is going to cry foul, accept the Repubs, but the average American won't even know what reconciliation means.

        That's sad of me to think? Did you read beyond my headline?

        •  Actually, I did. (0+ / 0-)

          And I think you're mistaken in that you give so little credit to idiots like me who are out there busting their ass to inform people of the truth instead of taking a hopeless stance.  

          The people are fed up with the Republicans too.  Why do you think the tea baggers came about?  They are old school conservatives who didn't like the radicalization of the far right.  So far, the republicans aren't doing anything to change that.  

          Of course the republicans will bitch and moan about anything and everything that the democrats introduce or try to get done.  They are COMPELLED to be obstructionist because their corporate patrons tell them to be.  They are banking on mass ignorance to carry the day.

          So, are you and I going to let them get away with it by throwing our hands in the air and saying nothing can be done?  Not me.

          "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

          by dolfin66 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:49:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I appreciate your points... (0+ / 0-)

            ...but my answer to the Re-buster-cans is to pass what we want via reconciliation, not to throw our hands up.

            And I appreciate your efforts in getting truth out, my intent was not to crap on it.

            •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

              Reconciliation is another term for intelligent debate.  With the likes of McConnell and Boehner "leading" the republipukes, we're not going to get any of that.  Their minds are so tiny that they can't get them around the concept that they have a responsibility to the American PEOPLE, not just their f***ing party.  

              Keep fighting the good fight.

              "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

              by dolfin66 on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:31:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Most Americans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dolfin66, princesspat

    don't know that everything is being filibustered.  They still think of a filibuster as being when a Senator has to stand on the floor of the Senate and speak.

    Therefore, if they don't see this being done, they are going to blame the ones in charge for not getting anything done.

    The simple change for this would be to go back to the old rules that requires a Senator to speak.  There would be no political price to pay for this, because the public expects the Senate to work this way anyway.  

    In fact, the Republicans would look like whiners for complaining about the requirement.

    Hello, Democrats....anyone out there listening?

    An honest man in the White House is a threat to crooks and liars

    by AppleP on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:23:50 AM PST

  •  cloture votes |= filibusters (0+ / 0-)

    While the number of cloture votes is indicative of the amount of filibusters happening, it is not definitive of it.  

    Cloture votes are expensive, and the majority leader, facing an item that will be objected to unanimous consent must decide whether he likely has 60 affirmative votes to invoke cloture before expending precious majority time to schedule such a vote.

    Or he can decide to drop the item, delay it, or try to negotiate with those who would object to unanimous consent.

    Those last are much harder to measure, but still provide a lot of real impact to the use of the filibuster, even if only 1 senator is blocking something.  They make your analytical measurments problematic.  Unless we can count objections to unanimous consent (something not published AFAIK), we don't truly know how much of this goes on.

    It's not enough to reform the filibuster with Harkin's proposal or some other decrease in the margin for cloture.  Requiring unanimous consent for so many things is a serious problem.  Individual senators should not be able to extract so much from the majority leader.

    Help build the Progressive Governing Majority at Open Left

    by Scientician on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:47:33 AM PST

    •  I acknowledge that very point several times above (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Unfortunately, I reach the same conclusion you reach- there isn't a better measuring stick which is publicly available (to my knowledge).

      Regardless, the data is interesting (at least to me), even if not conclusive.

      by thefourthbranch on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 10:51:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  one metric worth comparing (0+ / 0-)

        Would be the confirmation rate for the various kinds of nominations.  Apples to apples might be difficult in terms of whether a President was 1st or 2nd term, and whether the Senate was his party or not, but if Obama is getting fewer nominations through the Democratic Senate than Bush got through the 2001-2002 Senate (where the majority even switched), that would be an interesting marker of minority obstruction.

        Help build the Progressive Governing Majority at Open Left

        by Scientician on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:15:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site