SEPTEMBER 25, 2013––Republican Senator Ted Cruz concludes a speech on the Senate floor that clocks in at an astonishing 21 hours and 19 minutes. During his marathon oration, the Senator reads to the crowd Dr. Suess’s Green Eggs and Ham, in its entirety... Ask Cruz about the near day-long speech and he'd insist that every second was justified. Ask the Democrats who sat across the aisle and they'd tell you it was a massive waste of time. So who's right? Who's wrong? Or maybe the question we should be asking ourselves is: why was it even allowed? 

HISTORY 

In 1801, Thomas Jefferson, and, less notably, others, drafted the House Rules and Manual, the nation's first rule book on parliamentary procedure. With Jefferson's framework for procedural behavior, Senators & Representatives had bounds of reason to be kept within. Thereafter, voting on legislature was to be kept orderly and efficient—emphasis on efficiency. Then, three years later, in 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr found himself on the wrong side of history, again... Burr was an outspoken opponent of the Previous Question Motion (PQ motion), a motion within the House Rulebook that allowed debates to be called to an immediate vote. With a PQ motion, Senators could expedite lengthy debates and protect against intentional verbosity, a tactic often used by members of the minority party to delay voting on an inevitable bill. Burr, the sitting Vice President at the time, held the belief that the PQ motion was unfair and stifled minority viewpoints, arguing that Senators deserved unrestricted time to express themselves on the Senate floor. Burr feared that the PQ motion silenced dissenting voices and gave an unfair advantage to majorities. 

Given his position of influence over the Senate, Burr's stance on the matter ultimately led to the elimination of the PQ motion altogether. Though he had hoped that the elimination of the PQ motion would bring fairness to the Senate, it instead led to an even greater evil... the creation of the filibuster. 

FILLIBUSTERS 

As it turns out, when there are no restrictions on how long a senator can debate, they tend to debate for as long as they can! Since Burr's abolishment of the PQ motion, the tactic of "talking a bill to death", or filibustering as it is now known, has become ingrained in American politics. During the 1950s, South Carolina's Strom Thurmond broke the record for longest individual filibuster, clocking in at an impressive 24 hours and 18 minutes, delaying the the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Then, in 1964, a group-led filibuster stretching over 57 days again stalled the progress of the Civil Rights Act in the Senate. Fast forward to 2013 and Senator Cruz is giving Senator Strom a run for his money with his infamous Green Eggs and Ham filibuster speech—a true masterclass in deliberate time-wasting. The elimination of the PQ motion mutated into the modern filibuster. What was once meant to be a protector of political minorities is now an impediment to progress. 

When the Senate is faced with a filibuster, the only combatant is motioning cloture, a legislative motion similar to the PQ motion, but only attainable by attaining the votes of 60 Senators (three-fifths supermajority) all agreeing to end debate on a bill. When invoked, Cloture can be quite effective, like in 1919 when a vote of cloture ended a filibuster during the Treaty of Versailles. That said, the process of invoking cloture can be both difficult and tedious, given the division in the Senate. Finding bi-partisan agreement in today's political climate is difficult as is. Acquiring 60 votes from Democrats and Republicans alike? Highly unlikely...

CHANGE

Filibustering has infected the Senate and both political parties shoulder the blame for its exploitation. In 2021-2022, Congress filed for cloture 286 times, with Republicans and Democrats alike contributing to that total. These filibusters have occupied days, weeks, and even months of the Senate’s time. In turn, senatorial efficiency has plummeted. The 116th Congress, America’s Congress from 2019-2020, enacted 283 laws within its two-year term, marking the fewest amount by any Congress since Harry Truman’s presidency in 1948. When Congress is inefficient, bills sit on the Senate floor. When bills sit on the Senate floor, change is delayed. When change is delayed, the American people suffer. For instance, stubborn Senators deliberately filibustering bills that have the potential to remedy our increasingly urgent gun-control crisis... 

PESSIMISM

Last week, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that bars the sale of semi-automatic weapons to people under the age of 21 and bans the sale of large-capacity magazines. Though the first half of our legislative branch has pulled its weight, many Americans remain pessimistic. Why? Because they know that far too many members of the Senate place their ties and affiliations with the NRA above passing stricter gun laws. Therefore, it is safe to assume that filibustering will ensue. 

Following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the Senate was tasked with voting on a gun safety bill that mandated universal background checks on gun purchases. Though the bill had an approval rating of over 90 percent, filibustering was employed to pirate debate until 46 Senators ultimately voted against the bill (43 of whom accepted money from the NRA). Now a decade removed, the American people have come to expect more of the same from their elected officials. I'd be willing to bet that filibustering will again delay a gun safety bill from being voted on...

Following the most recent mass shooting in Uvalde, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 59 percent of registered voters found it very important or somewhat important that lawmakers pass stricter gun laws. Even before the Uvalde mass shooting, gun control was a pressing issue on the minds of many Americans. In 2021, PEW Research Center concluded that 48 percent of Americans found gun violence to be a very big problem. We as citizens have demanded that our elected officials pass safer gun laws, and yet, filibustering continues to delay voting on such bills.

Aaron Burr may be directly responsible for the creation of the filibuster, but he isn't culpable for its exploitation in modern politics. Culpability lies in the laps of those who abuse this loophole in our political system to delay voting on bills that we as Americans demand be passed. 

-M.A