
While Republicans spent the last several months threatening to filibuster the Democrats' health care reform bill in the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrambled to secure 60 votes -- only to have the whole fragile arrangement blow up when Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts senate election last week -- we kept hearing that the relatively recent rise in filibuster threats was a bipartisan phenomenon. Both parties are guilty of this when they're in the minority, we heard.
It's true that there has been a decades-long uptick in the use of cloture filings -- often to overcome filibuster threats -- by whichever party is in the majority, but the best measurement of that trend shows an explosion since Republicans were consigned to minority status after the 2006 election.
Check this out:

These are the numbers on cloture over the last several decades. Often, but not always, cloture is employed by senate majority leaders in response to filibuster threats from the minority. Cloture isn't always necessarily correlated with filibusters, but broadly speaking, the two often go hand in hand.
What's particularly striking here is the GOP's use of filibuster threats, and the correlated increase in Democratic cloture motions. Take, for instance, the huge spike in cloture motions filed from the Republican-led 109th Congress in 2005-2006 to the Democratic-majority 110th in 2007-2008.
"It is the most striking in history," American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Norm Ornstein told TPM.
What happened, Ornstein says, is that during the last two years of President George W. Bush's second term, Republicans offered "no initiatives to speak of."
The initiatives were coming from the Democrats, and the Republicans wanted to kill 'em, or slow things down.
Republican filibuster threats, Ornstein said, were "like throwing molasses in the road."
Of course, not all cloture motions are direct responses to explicit filibuster threats. Sometimes majority leaders use cloture filings to do preliminary headcounts and try to avoid wasted time on legislation that can't muster enough votes.
Still, Ornstein largely attributes the stark rise in cloture motions in the 110th Congress to Republican delay and obstruction tactics.
"You're not gonna see that sharp jump up just because you're tracking heads," he said.
This is a very real change in the culture of the Senate.
Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at George Washington University, told us that it's not just Republicans who employ delaying and obstructionist tactics that the Democratic majority tries to overcome with cloture.
"Both Democratic and Republican minorities have been willing to exploit the rules pretty aggressively," she said, adding that "it certainly seems that Republicans are more aggressive with it."
Filibusters in the Senate require a 60-senator cloture vote to overcome -- before the mid-1970s, cloture required a 67-senator cloture vote.
For decades, beginning with the introduction of cloture as a formal procedure more than 90 years ago, it was rare for senate majority leaders to file for cloture. As Senate historian Donald A. Ritchie told us Monday, it was just too tough to secure 67 votes -- and thus very difficult to force the end of filibusters through cloture. From 1919 to 1970, cloture was never filed for more than seven times in a two-year Congress. You can see the Senate's breakdown of the numbers here.
Things heated up about 35 years ago, when the Senate voted to change its cloture rules, lowering the filibuster-ending requirement from 67 votes to 60.
At the same time, the Senate was becoming more partisan than it had ever been, Ritchie said. Before the cloture change, strict party-line votes were relatively rare. But in the years that followed, the ideological spectrum of each party began to shrink, leading up to today, when, as Ritchie put it, "we have much more party discipline right now than we've ever had."
With senators closely toeing the party line in a way that Ritchie said they rarely had before, senate majority leaders of both parties have in recent decades begun filing for cloture more and more frequently -- largely as a way to gauge whether they have 60 votes for a bill before they expend time and effort on it on the Senate floor.
While Ritchie went to great pains in our discussion Monday to paint the rise of cloture as a bipartisan phenomenon, it's not entirely clear that's true. For instance, the two largest spikes in cloture filings in the last 20 years seem to be motivated, at least in part, by Republican obstructionism.
When Republicans were a Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture filings. When President Clinton took office, with Republicans remaining the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994.
When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008.
It's important to note that there's not a direct and complete correlation between cloture and filibusters.
"We don't know, always, whether these jumps in cloture are because there's more obstruction or because majority leaders need it to lend some degree of predictability to the floor," Binder said. "In reality, it's probably a bit of both."
But clearly, Binder said, "the behavior of the minority is largely responsible for what the majority is doing here."
So while it isn't the whole picture, the rise of party-line filibuster threats has at least contributed to the increasing frequency with which majority leaders have employed cloture.
"Nothing in the Senate changed," Ritchie said. "It's just that the people that voters elected have changed."
Moose49
January 27, 2010 1:08 PM
That is a stunning graph. One of the things that stands out for me is that both times the Democrats have taken over the Senate, there has been a large spike in cloture votes in their first year in power. But both times the Republicans took over the Senate, the number of cloture votes during their first year in power was quite close to the previous year's.
Further evidence -- as if any is needed -- that the Republicans try to win at any cost, while the Democrats try to respect process. In an ideal world, where there were consequences for bending or breaking the rules, I would admire the Democrats for their high-mindedness. But in this world, where the media and pundits reward winning rather than rule-following, the Democrats just look like suckers and fools.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
January 27, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to Moose49
I think we both know the Democrats wouldn't be able to get away with what the Republicans do. They'd be treated as obstructionists, ruthless, and unpatriotic
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ronik
January 27, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to dtOZONE
They'd be painted as obstructionist, ruthless, and unpatriotic b/c the Republicans would be screaming that on every teevee channel and media outlet they could find. It's not the Democrats who are making this info known, but it should be. this is the way the Democrats actually are weak - by not framing the debate by exposing the truth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 27, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to ronik
Very true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
January 27, 2010 5:20 PM in reply to Moose49
It's the narrative--stories are always more engaging than boring facts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
January 27, 2010 6:41 PM in reply to ronik
Um... No.
Democrats can yell to the rooftops, but when the Corporate Mass Media only pay attention to the Ref&clican memes and declare the Dems all whiny for complaining, it becomes a total waste of breath and blood pressure.
This very minute I'm listening to Ed Schultz, no uber-righty (though he has a conservative past), letting Mike Pence complain that this administration and this congress has completely shut-out Ref&clicans in the bill-boiling process. And Ed lets this line go without personally challenging it.
Really. With 170 Ref&clican amendemnts in the senate bill that the Ref&cks refused to vote for... that is being "shut out."
Right. No, really. Right. That's how that meme-ized "liberal" CMM leans. It's a pretty heavy thumb on the scales of public discourse, and seeps into headlines, news reporting and comments even here, as though it's real.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bar Kafka
January 27, 2010 6:51 PM in reply to ronik
It's not that Democrats are weak, necessarily, but more that the GOP will always get the favorable narrative from a comfortably deregulated media industry that will do whatever it must do to stay that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 27, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to dtOZONE
Would be? They are. They have been. That was the primary charge levelled at Tom Daschle in the runup to the 2004 election--even though there's actually a slight drop in the graph for that year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
January 27, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to dtOZONE
Accused yes. Wether it would stick, I don't know. Anyway, that's a narrative that needs to be challenged and overcome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 27, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to Moose49
I noticed the same thing -- the Republican party is the engine that rachets the cloture voting up. The number spikes when they move to the minority. When control of the Senate flips back to them, there's no spike, but the number doesn't go down, either. Democrats continue with what has become the new norm. And the next upward spike occurs at the next Democratic takeover.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dreampod
January 27, 2010 7:54 PM in reply to slb
Interestingly, that approach very much resembles a Tit for Tat strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat) from game theory which is one of the most successful long term strategies.
Unfortunately it is a strategy that really only works when facing a rational opponent....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
January 27, 2010 1:16 PM
If the Republicans take control of the Senate this year, they won't be filibustering as a matter of course. A narrow GOP majority might allow the Senate to be more productive
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
January 27, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
"A narrow GOP majority might allow the Senate to be more productive"
Possibly, but I shudder to think what they'd produce.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chuck DC
January 27, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
they would likely produce nothing that a D House or the president would support. SO the Senate might be more 'productive' but the end result would be even less than what we have now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
January 27, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
Kind of how eating more fiber makes you more productive, in a manner of speaking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 27, 2010 4:01 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
Heavens they're tasty and expeditious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
January 27, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to Schmed
I wish the Dems would have the courage to get up and do what needs to be done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
January 27, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
In all the wrong directions. You don't turn control over a destroyed economy and a largely destroyed Constitution back to the original wrecking crew just because they "get things done." Yes. They do. We're living in the middle of exactly what they "got done" the last time.
Following that line of logic adheres to the overused definition of what it means to be insane (doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Robert
January 27, 2010 2:04 PM
So, besides the bankruptcy-mortgage cramdowns and the debt commission vote yesterday, how many cloture votes on legislation have actually failed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 27, 2010 2:22 PM
Nice work. Thanks for summarizing all of this.
This needs to be pointed out, again and again and again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
January 27, 2010 3:54 PM
The Democrats need to learn how to play offense --- if they keep doing things the same way they'll be back to playing defense for a long time.The old Durocher baseball line about nice guys finishing last needs to be revised for political application to nice guys are finished or in this case don't even get started.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
January 27, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to ejg3
No, the Senate Dems should simply get rid of the fillibuster via the "nuclear" option (i.e., ruling on a point of order from the chair, followed by a majority vote). Since the Senate Dems have no cajones to fillibuster on a regular basis anyway, the exitence of the fillibuster is by far, far more useful to the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alffy
January 27, 2010 4:17 PM
In 2005 I was of the thinking that the Nuclear Option to eliminate the filibuster was bad politics all around. I thought it was excessive to eliminate a Senate tradition for the purpose of passing through a few conservative judges, especially since Bush's judicial appointment ratios were as high or higher than previous President's. I also predicted if it happened it would result in a snap-back effect on the Republicans. This graph demonstrates it would have been just that.
Now though, I am a convert to the idea of Nuking the filibuster. I still think there will be some political ramifications, and the Dems may well regret it soon enough, but this device is a bit of an anachranism that has had it's value come to pass. Health Care and Jobs bills are important enough legislation to employ the Nuclear Option on (as oppossed to those few judges). The country is not what it was over the last couple centuries; there have been tremendous changes. Why should the Senate's rules be what they were in the 19th and 20th Centuries?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
January 27, 2010 7:05 PM in reply to alffy
"The country is not what it was over the last couple centuries."
Yes indeed. The Ref&clicans were not being cute in referring to the "Reagan Revolution." They were seriously waging a long, silent revolution against the underpinnings of that "We The People" government of ours.
They've been waging war all along and it's just now becoming clear how serious they are about their revolution now that the middle and left are attempting to reassert control over the country once more.
There is zero serendipity, nada coincidence that there has been such rabid hate talk from the Right, urging their authoritarian followers to stock up on guns and ammo and labeling anyone who doesn't conform to their radical vision of a corporatocracy ruling subservient masses as Hitler, Nazi, Socialist, Stalinist, Terrorists' Pal or any other title that begs the response "and we know what Hitler deserved... !"
So far, because we fail to recognize they are conducting war on us, we have been bringing knives to a gun fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
January 27, 2010 4:45 PM
I'm all for a nook-you-lar option to kill the filibuster . . . as long as both Democratic and Republican legislators and all of their staff are provided equal opportunity to be in the immediate blast radius.
We need to break the strangle-hold that these two Corporations have on our country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bej
January 27, 2010 4:49 PM
Does anybody know where/how to find the # of cloture motions filed for the most recent year, 2008-09? (It's not on the graph.)
Also, I'd like to see how many have been filed so far in the 2009-2010 year already. One last question, in which month does the legislative year begin?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
January 27, 2010 5:18 PM
What that graph shows me is that the Senate is getting progressively less effective since 2/3 was changed to 3/5.
Of course trying to change the rule, unless the Senate was split 50/50 would cause an uproar about unfair advantages about the majority party. But one can dream, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readerOfTeaLeaves
January 27, 2010 5:37 PM
Nice work, TPM!
It's nice to see a focus on the data, rather than simply partisan posturing.
This is a hugely important issue right now, and I think that many of us are disgusted beyond patience with the inability of the GOP to negotiate. I say 'the GOP,' because the health care thing dragged out, and dragged out, and dragged out in the name of 'bi-partisanship', while at the same time Grassley was scaring grandmas while wailing that he'd been shut out of 'the process'.
There has been so much 'political analysis' that fails to actually look at the **data** that I'm really heartened to see your focus on data-based analysis here.
There is also a demographic layer to this: 9 states hold 50% of the US population.
Only 13 states hold 60% of the US population.
Which means that there is a very, very long 'statistical tail' of small state senators (both GOP and Dems like Ben Nelson) jerking the rest of us around and extracting lucre from the rest of the nation.
Great job -- keep at it, please!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 27, 2010 5:39 PM
We may as well admit it.
The Democratic strategy to try to get 60 votes on major legislation in the Senate has failed miserably.
When it became obvious after the Stimulus battle last February and March that the Republicans were going to filibuster everything, regardless (Limbaugh: "I want him to fail"), the nuclear option to remove the filibuster should have been invoked.
Then we wouldn't be here today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
January 27, 2010 5:40 PM
Gridlock is good for the country. Filibuster is fine & dandy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
January 27, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
...except when the American way of life is at stake sailor.
Starting an unnecessary war or two based on lies is one of those exceptions, tax cuts for the rich to pay for it (by boosting the economy as Dubya promised would happen), bailouts of investment banks and Wall Street, approving wiretapping anyone in the country, and expressing total solidarity with the government of Israel and their right to take over any land or housing they so desire and defend themselves against teenagers with rocks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eponymous
January 27, 2010 7:08 PM
Your graph has some problems.
You should at least adjust for the number of bills under consideration each year. That is, give a percentage instead of absolute numbers.
Also it would be interesting to see the party breakdown for each Congress. Put it as a ration (e.g., 60/40) above each bar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jacob.coxey
January 28, 2010 1:57 AM
Time for an end of this archaic antidemocratic measure. it's a tradition to give the minority a check on majority rule-- if the twenty-one smallest states representing less then 12% of american's actual population wanted to vote as a block to stop a bill that the 58 senators of the largest states representing 88% of American's population supported -it can be blocked by this stupid senate RULE (not a constitutional rule) yet if the 19 largest states representing over 66% of the nation's people felt they needed a fillibuster they couldn't protect themselves with the rule. It's an undemocratic JOKE, vote on the bills, vote on the ammendments and stop the games american's are fed up, the senate may be pushing american's to a new constitutional convention and that would be so divisive it would make the civil war look like a picnic
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
luagha
January 28, 2010 2:23 AM
Alas, these numbers are skewed.
The Bush administration was perfectly capable of interpreting signals from the Democrat minority in the Senate, which they would confirm with, like, actual communication.
One famous example was when Bush began attempts to deflate the housing bubble safely in 2005. Sen. Charles Schumer, on the banking committee, had all the Democrats on the banking committee vote against, display unity, and making it clear that the measure would be filibustered if it ever got to the Senate. Since the Bush administration and the Republicans knew they couldn't break the filibuster, they didn't even try... and so the attempted vote wasn't taken, and it doesn't show in the statistics above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 5, 2010 10:54 PM
Democrats can yell to the rooftops, but when the Corporate Mass Media only pay attention to the Ref&clican memes and declare the Dems all whiny for complaining, it becomes a total waste of breath and blood pressure.
This very minute I'm listening to Ed Schultz, no uber-righty (though he has a conservative past), letting Mike Pence complain that this administration and this congress has completely shut-out Ref&clicans in the bill-boiling process. And Ed lets this line go without personally challenging it.
Really. With 170 Ref&clican amendemnts in the senate bill that the Ref&cks refused to vote for... that is being "shut out."
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?