Sarah was a regular volunteer for the Democratic Party after she
moved to Nevada from the South. She first became aware of Harry Reid
when he was running for lieutenant governor, and she had done some work
on a couple of his campaigns over the years.

One evening in 2004, Sarah (not her real name) was at the county
Democratic headquarters when she overheard some other workers talking
about Reid’s efforts to protect the filibuster in the Senate
against Republican efforts to invoke a “nuclear option” to
stop filibusters. She couldn’t believe her ears, and the other
volunteers were also confused by Reid’s actions. For as long as
Democrats could remember, opposition to the filibuster had been basic
Democratic Party doctrine. Nor was it just dogma to Sarah—as an
African-American from the South, she had grown up seeing the filibuster
used to keep her down. Now a man she had helped elect was leading an
effort to preserve it. Tears welled up in her eyes, and she soon
departed the office. She rarely came to party headquarters after

Sarah might have reacted even more strongly if she had known that
the filibusters Reid was trying to save were imaginary.
Imaginary—but terribly destructive of

Majority rule ended

Some of the most polarizing issues of the era have been approved by
narrow votes in the Senate.

The war over Kuwait was authorized by the Senate in 1991 on a 52-47

Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was
approved on a 52-48 vote that same year.

Two years later, President Clinton’s economic program won
approval with 50 votes—including a tie breaking vote by Vice
President Al Gore—against 49 in opposition.

But that was then. Today those simple majorities would doom their
measures. In this century, legislation with solid majority support

In the second year of George W. Bush’s administration, 56 of
the 100 senators voted for an economic stimulus package, which
therefore failed to pass.

In 2008, 51 senators voted for a windfall profits tax on oil, which
failed to pass. This was shortly after 58 senators voted for a Senate
rule against tax hikes, which also failed to pass.

The reason is the U.S. Senate’s devotion to a procedure called
the imaginary filibuster. It has undercut the body’s ability to
legislate, but senators seem unwilling to drop it.

The filibuster—the real one—has been with the
Senate for 203 of the nation’s 233 years. Though Reid and others
like to describe it as a tradition established by the founders,
that’s nonsense. Originally, the founding Senate and House both
could cut off debate with a simple majority vote, much like most
governing bodies. But in 1806, the Senate—without, scholars say,
fully realizing the implications for ending debate—dropped the
procedure that made it possible to operate that way. Thereafter,
senators could talk as long as they wanted to, and there was no way to
stop them.

During World War I when appointed senators were giving way to
popularly elected senators, and there was Progressive sentiment for
more democratic processes, a rule was finally adopted under which
filibusters could be ended with a two-thirds vote. All during the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Democratic Party leaders tried to reduce that
threshold or do away with filibusters altogether. That sentiment is
still strong at the Democratic grass roots around the nation, where the
filibuster is identified with racism. In 1964, a Senate filibuster
against the Civil Rights Act lasted for 57 working days, including six
Saturdays. But Democratic congressional leaders have made their peace
with the procedure, though they did succeed in reducing the threshold
to three-fifths, which in today’s 100-member Senate is 60

A real filibuster can be dramatic. Senators who want to hold the
floor have been known to strap small urinals to their legs. Cots may be
brought in so senators can sleep near the hall.

But all that applies to actual filibusters. What is clogging
up the Senate these days is threatened filibusters that
don’t actually happen. This is the imaginary filibuster, also
called the trivialized filibuster (by scholar Jean Edward Smith) and
the phantom filibuster (by scholar David RePass).

In 1975, party leaders in the U.S. Senate adopted a new procedure to
deal with filibusters. In order to keep the Senate floor clear for
other business, if senators merely threatened to filibuster, the
body would automatically impose a 60-vote limit on cutting off debate.
No one would have to actually filibuster, and the Senate floor would be
kept clear for other business. And bills with majority support would
die. For the price of a threat, the votes needed to pass a bill could
be raised from 50 to 60. We are not making this up.

It’s not clear why no one foresaw what would eventually
happen, but soon the number of alleged “filibusters” was
rising. Delighted senators found they had a new tool to stop
legislation. With just a threat to filibuster, a senator could
stop a bill cold even though the Senate supported it—and without
having to actually filibuster. A single senator can unilaterally make
it more difficult to enact legislation.

fiction lawmaking

Even during what racist Southern senators would consider the glory
days of the filibuster, it was never used so frequently as to exceed a
single digit number in any year. During the titanic struggle to break
the 1964 Civil Rights Act filibuster, there was a total of one

Today, as abuse of the 1975 system grows, the number of alleged
filibusters each year is routinely in double digits—and in the
last Congress the number rose to heights never seen before—three
digits. Where once filibusters were limited to major pieces of
legislation like a civil rights act, today ordinary bills like S. 1023,
the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, must collect 60 votes to break an
imaginary filibuster.

It’s a little like the “Taste of Armageddon”
episode of Star Trek in which Capt. Kirk and the crew of the
Enterprise go to a planet where war for centuries has been
imaginary but the casualties real. In order to allow the society to
continue functioning on other things, a long war was turned over to
electronic strategy and tactics and played like a video game. Citizens
are electronically designated as casualties and turn themselves in at
execution chambers to be killed—all without the disruption to
society that normally accompanies war.

The imaginary filibuster has produced nothing but disruption.
It frustrates majority rule by putting power in the hands of the
minority. When voters elected a Republican Senate, the Democrats were
empowered to control the chamber on vote after vote. Majorities of 58
or 59 votes were blocked by 41 or 42. After the Democrats regained a
majority, the minority GOP can now decide what gets out of the Senate.
Democrats watered down health-care reform repeatedly until it was
toothless to get Republican and conservative Democratic votes (and
still didn’t get them).

“By the time of the Carter and Reagan administrations, the
frequency of filibusters had increased to 20 per year,” according
to Marshall University scholar Jean Edward Smith.

“It was during the Clinton years that the dam broke,”
Smith wrote in 2009. “In the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), 32
filibusters were employed to kill a variety of presidential initiatives
ranging from campaign finance reform to grazing fees on federal land.
Between 1999 and 2007, the number of Senate filibusters varied between
20 and 37 per session, a bipartisan effort.”

The last column shows the number of cloture votes thus far this session. And there’s a long ways to go.

These were, remember, filibusters that didn’t actually happen.
It is an indication of how well congressional leaders have spun this
process that even Smith refers to filibusters, as though they
actually happened, rather than filibuster threats. The same
terminology afflicts news coverage.

Just during Harry Reid’s time as majority leader—January
2007 to now—144 votes have been needed to cut off filibusters
that never happened. (Cloture is a vote to end debate). All this
has made the Democratic grass roots under President Obama restive. They
want the imaginary filibuster system ended, or at least that those who
threaten filibusters be required to actually strap on the urinals, line
up the cots and filibuster. During the stimulus debate, “make
them filibuster” became a common cry among Democratic activists.
With health care being held hostage by an imaginary filibuster, those
cries have become louder. On Sept. 1, the number of hits for the phrase
“make them filibuster” jumped from 109,000 to 111,000 on
Google within 10 hours. It is now at 117,000.

The imaginary filibuster is a special problem for Democrats because
it confirms the old charge of “Democrats can’t
govern” (168,000 Google hits compared to 134,000 for
“Republicans can’t govern”), a charge often made by
Democratic entities like the New Republic magazine. And the Democrats
have played their assigned role. After the 2008 election when it
appeared the party had 58 votes in the Senate, they started trying to
lower expectations of whether Democratic policies would actually be
enacted by the Senate.

After election challenges and recounts were settled, and the
Democrats achieved 60 votes, the pace of alibis increased instead of
slackened. Now it was their own blue dogs who were the problem. The
upshot, though, is that an overwhelming majority of Democrats in what
they claim is the “greatest deliberative body in the world”
cannot function as well as a city council by passing measures by
majority vote. It is the Democrats who allow themselves to be stymied
by a handful of blue dogs or a minority of Republicans when all they
really needed to pass the stimulus or health care reform is 51 votes.
Without the imaginary filibuster, the Democrats would have the votes
necessary for their entire program—health care, climate change,
etc.—without the blue dogs and Republicans. (The legislation
extending jobless benefits and renewing and expanding an $8,000 tax
credit for first-time home buyers needed three votes against
imaginary filibusters before it passed the Senate.)

Professor Smith calls the imaginary filibuster the Senate’s
“self-inflicted wound.” Columnist E.J. Dionne describes the
Senate as “a procedural torture chamber. … The House is
not the problem.” He notes the Senate this year has needed
nearly 60 cloture motions and more than 30 roll call votes.

The imaginary filibuster isn’t even a Senate tradition.
Not only did the founders not envision the imaginary type of
filibuster, but it is a relatively recent innovation—34 years

Whose Senate?

Some scholars argue that the Constitution carefully limits the use
of supermajorities, and filibusters on all kinds of random things
aren’t included. “The phantom filibuster is clearly
unconstitutional,” wrote Professor David RePass. “The
Founders required a supermajority in only five situations: veto
overrides and votes on treaties, constitutional amendments, convictions
of impeached officials and expulsions of members of the House or
Senate. The Constitution certainly does not call for a supermajority
before debate on any controversial measure can begin.”

Senators respond that the founders also allow the Senate to write
its own rules. But when the News & Review tried to find the rule
covering imaginary filibusters, it didn’t exist. According to the
Senate Historical Office, the rules have never been changed to reflect
the 1975 innovation: “The only rule that the Senate has regarding
filibusters and cloture is Rule 22, which sets a 3/5ths vote for
cutting off debate, which was adopted in 1975. The
‘two-track’ process is simply a leadership tactic and is
not codified in the rules.”

In other words, the imaginary filibuster is not a Senate
requirement. That makes returning the Senate to majority rule a minor
matter. It can be ended simply by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
announcing that he is discontinuing the tactic. Suddenly passing
legislation will go back to being a matter of 51 votes. If he had done
so at the start of this Congress, the Democratic program would already
be enacted.

Others say Reid, if he does not want to act that directly, has
another option: Require actual filibusters. Because conducting an
actual filibuster is such a burdensome task, that will drop the number
of filibusters back to the old level fast.

“It is up to Mr. Reid,” according to RePass. “He
can do away with the supermajority requirement for virtually all
significant measures and return majority rule to the Senate.”

When he first ran for the Senate, Reid said he was flatly opposed to

“I’m personally against the filibuster in the
Senate,” Reid said. “It’s crazy. One man can kill
anything he wants to. One man can stop the process of government.
That’s not right. I think the rules of Congress have to be

But Reid, as a state legislator, gambling regulator, and member of
Congress, has never been a reformer—he tends to work with the
governing mechanism he finds in place when he arrives. Once in
Washington, he changed his mind about the filibuster, and by the time
Senate Republicans during the Bush administration threatened to invoke
a “nuclear option” to end filibusters against judgeship
nominations, Reid was on board. Back in Nevada, rank- and-file
Democrats did not understand why Reid didn’t jump at the chance
to do away with all filibusters for good. Nor did some Washington
observers, such as Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly.

In his 2008 memoir, Reid actually wrote that doing away with the
filibuster “would be the end of the United States Senate.”
He was not alone in such hyperbole. Evangelical political leader James
Dobson said the “future of democracy… actually depends on
this struggle.” It’s useful to remember that what they were
discussing was whether the Senate would begin conducting its business
like nearly all governing bodies in democratic societies, from the
Churchill County Mosquito Abatement District Board to the U.S. House of
Representatives. And all of those governments function more efficiently
than the United States Senate.

Some members of the Senate don’t like to talk about its
internal workings, and some act as though such matters are not the
public’s business. When asked about the imaginary filibuster,
they get vague or avoid the issue. When we asked Reid’s
spokesperson, Tom Brede, for a statement from the senator on whether he
intended to require actual filibusters, we got a statement that kept
the issue away from Reid and filibusters, attributable only to
his spokesperson, not to the senator himself. It its entirety, the
statement reads:

“Sen. Reid has earned a reputation for working with Democrats
and Republicans alike to address the challenges facing Nevada and the
nation. It’s too bad that some Republicans are attempting to
block everything that comes their way, but that won’t stop Reid
from working with anyone and everyone on behalf of Nevada. Because of
his leadership, this has been the most productive congressional session
since FDR. Because of the work we have done, equal pay for men and
women is the law, Nevada’s sales tax deduction is permanent, and
we have made investments in clean energy that are creating good-paying
Nevada jobs and reducing our reliance on foreign oil.”

Even one of Reid’s pet bills—the Travel Promotion
Act—had to survive a cloture vote.

Restoring majority rule

Not surprisingly, the House of Representatives also sometimes gets
restless over the Senate’s indirection. In February, Politico
reported that House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer—who had been
hearing from his angry members—was upset with the stimulus
package being hacked up at the behest of three GOP senators and pushed
Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stop tolerating the Senate’s constant
concessions. Politico quoted one House Democrat about the three
Republican senators “dictating terms to 250” House

A few days later, Reid’s office put out a memo claiming that
there was no way for him to force the Republicans to actually
filibuster. It said one Republican senator could be “forced to
sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation
for a finite period of time, according to existing rules, but he/she
can’t be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of

But that is premised not on “existing rules” but on the
oft-abused 1975 system of imaginary filibusters being kept in place as
a political tactic, not a rule. Dropping that tactic and going back to
majority rule and rare filibusters would solve that problem.

Some advocates of the filibuster say it protects the right to
debate. Real filibusters prevent debate. As for imaginary filibusters,
Reid last week complained that the GOP was refusing to debate on health
care, meaning they would not support cloture on the imaginary
filibuster against health insurance changes.

Last week, labor leader Richard Yeselson compared the Senate’s
inability to function on major issues to California’s ballot
initiative plague: “We are living through the Californiafication
of America—a country in which the combination of a determined
minority and a procedural supermajority legislative requirement makes
it impossible to rationally address public policy challenges. And thus
the Democratic president and his allies in Congress are evaluated on
the basis of extreme compromise measures—supplicating to
dispassionate Wise Men like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, buying
Olympia Snowe a vacation home, working bills through 76 committees and
countless ‘procedural’ votes—rather than the
substantive, policy achievements of bills that would merely require a
simple majority to pass.”

At the moment, the issue before the Senate is health-insurance
changes, which drifted for weeks as Reid searched for 60 votes. In a
few weeks, it will be climate change. On and on it will go, majority
rule being subverted by procedure.

The Senate has become a parliamentary Skull and Bones, worshipping
pointless ritual instead of serving the public’s needs—and
that is the real misfortune for the public, that its leaders are so
immersed in procedure that they have forgotten that there are good
people, hard-working people who are slipping backward, who look to the
Senate to take their problems seriously, and the senators are playing
sanity-challenged parliamentary games that eat up time and go

Avatar photo

Dennis Myers

Dennis Myers was the news editor of the Reno News & Review. He was a journalist for more than four decades. In 1987-88 he was chief deputy secretary of state of Nevada. He was coauthor of Uniquely...