by Mary Curtis

Created on: May 03, 2009

Will the US Senate change its filibuster rules which currently require that most legislation pass with a 60-vote majority - in order to speed up the process of lawmaking?

The answer is no, the US Senate will not change how it does things, at least for now or probably into the near future.

There are two primary reasons for why the Senate's rules will remain the same:

The first reason is that, as things stand now, the US Senate would not be able to achieve the 66 votes necessary (or two-thirds majority) to be able to make any changes to its rules.

But the real reason for not changing the rules is unspoken, at least according to one critic of the Senate: that the Senators prefer the rules the way they are now because its sets them apart and keeps them above the usual legislative process.

US diplomat George Kenney, in an essay critical of the Senate, says that the Senators, including members from both parties, enjoy the feeling of "being insulated from the rough-and-tumble of national politics" and that they look at these rules requiring a super-majority of 60 as a way to "help spread the political risk on controversial decisions." Kenney likens the US upper house to the British House of Lords because they view themselves, he claims, as "elite."

Kenney is not the only one to criticize. There are other voices in the public arena who are asking for change; but these others voices are more temperate in their criticism and are more in favor of change that would continue to protect the value of minority opinion.

While some call filibuster a form of obstructionism because the word's origins come from "pirate" and some view it as hijacking legislative proceedings, the rules as they currently stand, to be fair, allow for free and open debate on the Senate floor.

Unlike the House, which limits the amount of time a person can speak and limits discussion, the US Senate does not censor discussion. Any Senator, even just one Senator in the minority, is allowed to speak on any issue unlimited except under special circumstances. This is a good thing because it allows open debate which the House limits.

But it is this unlimited speech, or unlimited control of the floor in the US Senate, which becomes the filibuster; the filibuster will end only if the Senator cedes the floor or if the Senate is able to muster the 60 votes to end it and pass the legislation.

The process of negotiating solutions to bring votes together for the required 60, which will end debate, can help to refine and improve legislation, so there is advantage to the process, even though it sometimes appears to be moving at a snail's pace.

With Specter from Pennsylvaniaswitching to the Democrats and assuming that Al Franken will be declared the winner in Minnesota, the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate of 60.

At this point, if and when that magic number of 60 is reached, it would be a good idea for the Democrats to look at the possibility of changing the rules. Not so every bill receives just a simple majority of only 51 votes because that would deny a fair process of involving the minority. But by perhaps reducing the required filibuster-proof votes to 54 or 55.

Reaching this sort of solution would speed the process of important legislation, still protect minority opinion, and, could be achievable because the Democrats would probably be able to muster 6 more votes, either from Republicans or Independents, to reach the 66-vote requirement for rule change.

Learn more about this author, Mary Curtis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.