Senators often lament that the 60-vote threshold prevents them from passing legislation. At the same time, however, they state the 60-vote rule is necessary because it prevents endless delays and filibusters, protects the minority party in the Senate, and is a tradition of the Senate. But there are three other reasons why senators favor the 60-vote threshold. To understand them, one must first accept that the Senate’s inability to pass some bills can serve senators’ personal interests.
For a Senate bill to become a law, a two-step process must occur: a vote to invoke cloture and a vote on the bill itself. In the first step, which must be satisfied before a vote on legislation can occur, the Senate must find 60 votes to pass a cloture motion to end debate. After that, senators vote on the bill itself, with a simple majority (or plurality) required for passage.
The obstruction created by the cloture motion allows senators to please both voters and donors when these groups have opposing views on a bill. If voters support a bill but donors do not, a senator can vote for cloture, knowing that the motion will fail. The cloture motion also helps senators avoid taking responsibility for new legislation. A successful bill, after all, threatens to create a system which will affect millions of people, possibly for years to come — unless, that is, the bill does not have a chance of becoming law. In that case, actions no longer have such monumental consequences.
Third, the cloture motion lessens senators’ workload. If it were abolished or reduced to a simple majority vote, senators would have a much more difficult job. More bills would be brought to the floor because they would have a greater chance of passage. Compromise and negotiations would have to take place due to the lower voting threshold and the increased value of each senator’s vote.
Finally, and most importantly, a simple-majority Senate would lay bare all senators’ true beliefs on legislation, which can be hidden in a system that requires 60 yes votes to pass. The votes would not just be for show, but on the bill itself. Senators would not have the cloture mechanism by which they could simultaneously please constituents and donors. Senators’ votes would reveal their actual viewpoints.
The Senate has, at times, bypassed the cloture motion by using the nuclear option or the budget reconciliation process. These maneuvers have been used for high-ranking judicial appointments and large initiatives such as parts of Obamacare and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It seems that the Senate is willing to go to majority rule on votes that are highly visible and very meaningful to the party’s base.
A mechanism is necessary to end debate on a bill. Rather than the cloture motion, the Senate should simply accept a time limit on debate. This rule would be based on giving each senator a certain amount of time to speak on the bill (i.e., one hour per senator). This change would eliminate the disadvantages of the cloture motion, and it would increase Senate efficiency.
Michael Abramson is an adviser with the National Diversity Coalition for Trump.
