Hubbry Logo
ClotureClotureMain
Open search
Cloture
Community hub
Cloture
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cloture
Cloture
Cloture
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer of 16 November 1919 reporting the first use of cloture by the United States Senate

Cloture (/ˈkloʊtʃər/,[1][2] also UK: /ˈkloʊtjʊər/),[3] closure[4] or, informally, a guillotine,[4] is a motion or process in parliamentary procedure aimed at bringing debate to a quick end.

The cloture procedure originated in the French National Assembly, from which the name is taken. Clôture is French for "the act of terminating something".

It was introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom by William Ewart Gladstone to overcome the obstructionism of the Irish Parliamentary Party and was made permanent in 1887.

It was subsequently adopted by the United States Senate and other legislatures. The name cloture remains in the United States.[3] In Commonwealth countries it is usually closure[3] or, informally, guillotine. In the United Kingdom[5][6] and Canada[7][8] closure and guillotine are distinct motions.

Australia

[edit]

In Australia, the procedure by which finite debating times for particular bills are set, or protracted debates are brought to a close, is referred to as a "guillotine" or “gag”. Generally, a minister will declare that a bill must be considered as urgent, and move a motion to limit debating time. The declaration and motion may refer to a single bill, or to multiple bills or packages of bills. A guillotine motion may not be debated or amended, and must be put to a vote immediately.[4]

Canada

[edit]

After a number of occasions where the opposition managed to delay or prevent passage of government bills, closure in Canada was adopted by the House of Commons in 1913 on the motion of Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden. The new closure rule was used by the government only a few days later, during debate at the Committee of the Whole stage of the Naval Aid Bill. Between 1913 and 1932, closure was invoked 11 times. It was used next time in 1956 during the passage of a bill to establish the Northern Ontario Pipeline Crown Corporation.[8] "Closure" is the term used in Canada; "cloture" and "guillotine" are not used.[citation needed] Closure was used to force the adoption of a single red maple leaf flag design on December 15, 1964.[9]

Procedure on closure in Canada is governed under Standing Order no. 57 of the House of Commons and consists of three parts: Notice of closure, a motion of closure, and a final period of debate before final voting on the bill being closured.

Notice of closure is an oral statement announcing intention to call for closure given by any Minister at a prior sitting of the Committee of the Whole. The notice need not be the day immediately prior to the sitting at which the bill will be closured, but cannot be in the same sitting as the final motion of closure.

The motion of closure, referred to as a motion "that the debate shall not be further adjourned", is passed by a simple majority of the House of Commons, although in the event of a tie, the Speaker of the House will apply Speaker Denison's rule to issue the casting vote.

Should the motion of closure pass, all members are given a single period in which to speak lasting no more than 20 minutes. If the final period of speaking to the bill has not been finished by 8:00 p.m. that same day, no MP may speak after that point, and the bill moves to a final vote.[10]

Time allocation

[edit]

A time allocation schedules the stages that a bill goes through. It also for much more specific control over the legislative process than closure, it can control the exact amount of time spent on each step of the legislative process. Time allocation is also known as guillotine.[7][8]

Provincial legislatures

[edit]

Hong Kong

[edit]

The first cloture in Hong Kong was introduced in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on 17 May 2012, by Tsang Yok-sing (President of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong), to abruptly halt filibuster during debate at the Committee of the Whole stage of the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2012.[11] The motion to end debate was submitted by Council member Philip Wong Yu-hong some time after 4 am Hong Kong time, after a marathon session that lasted over 33 hours. Wong stood up and suggested that legislatures in other countries have a procedure called "cloture motion", and suggested Council President should end debate immediately.

President Tsang agreed and said that he considered ending debate even without Wong's suggestion because he would not allow debate to go on endlessly. Cloture is not defined by any rule or precedent of the Legislative Council. Tsang made reference to Standing Order 92, which stated "In any matter not provided for in these Rules of Procedure, the practice and procedure to be followed in the Council shall be such as may be decided by the President who may, if he thinks fit, be guided by the practice and procedure of other legislatures".[12]

Standing Order 92 therefore may implicitly give Council President discretion on whether he should or should not follow the cloture rules of other legislatures, but this is up to debate. Legislative Council President Tsang chose to end debate without calling for a cloture vote, which is questionable. Council member Leung Kwok-hung then stood up and said that he had never heard of cloture without a vote anywhere else and suggested there should have been a cloture vote.

Cloture was again invoked by Tsang Yok-sing on 13 May 2013 to halt debate of the 2013 Appropriation Bill.

New Zealand

[edit]

In the New Zealand House of Representatives, any MP called to speak may move a closure motion. If the length of the debate is not fixed by standing orders or the Business Committee, the Speaker may decide to put the closure motion to a vote, which is carried by a simple majority.[13]

United Kingdom

[edit]

Procedures

[edit]

A closure motion may be adopted to end debate on a matter both in the House of Commons[5] and in the House of Lords[5] by a simple majority of those voting. In the House of Commons, at least 100 MPs (not counting two acting as tellers) must vote in favour of the motion for closure to be adopted;[5] the Speaker of the House of Commons may choose to deny the closure motion,[5] if insufficient debate has occurred, or that the procedure is being used to violate the rights of the minority.[citation needed]

In the House of Lords, the Lord Speaker does not possess an equivalent power. He must read a statement stating the motion should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and then asks the member if they wish to persist with moving it. If they do, then the motion is put immediately without debate.[14] Only one closure motion is permitted per debate.[5]

Specific to legislation, a guillotine motion, formally an allocation of time motion, limits the amount of time for a particular stage of a bill.[6] Debate ceases when the allotted time expires. A single vote is taken immediately to pass the stage of the bill and, in the case of a committee stage or report stage, to accept all undebated sections and government amendments. The use of guillotines has been replaced by the programme motion, where the amount of time for each stage is agreed after a bill's second reading.[6][15] Both guillotine motions and programme motions are specific to the Commons. The Lords does not permit time restrictions.[6][15]

History

[edit]

On 24 January 1881, the second Gladstone ministry attempted to move the first reading of the Protection of Person and Property Bill, a controversial response to the Irish agrarian disturbances known as the Land War.[16][17] The Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) under Charles Stewart Parnell responded with the most extreme example of its policy of obstructionism by filibuster. After two sittings lasting 22 hours and then 41 hours, the Speaker of the Commons, Henry Brand simply refused to recognise any further IPP MPs wishing to speak. In the early hours of 2 February 1881 he put the motion, which was passed.[17][18] The IPP MPs objected that this was an abuse by the speaker of their rights as members.[19] The government responded by formalising the process as an amendment to the standing orders, moved by Gladstone on 3 February 1881:[17][20]

That, if upon Notice given a Motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that the state of Public Business is urgent, and if on the call of the Speaker 40 Members shall support it by rising in their places, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question, no Debate, Amendment, or Adjournment being allowed; and if, on the voices being given he shall without doubt perceive that the Noes have it, his decision shall not be challenged, but, if otherwise, a Division may be forthwith taken, and if the Question be resolved in the affirmative by a majority of not less than three to one, the powers of the House for the Regulation of its Business upon the several stages of Bills, and upon Motions and all other matters, shall be and remain with the Speaker, until the Speaker shall declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent, or until the House shall so determine upon a Motion, which after Notice given may be made by any Member, put without Amendment, Adjournment, or Debate, and decided by a majority

Gladstone described it as "a subject of considerable novelty, and of the extremest gravity",[21] and many Irish members objected and were suspended from the House before the amendment motion was moved.[17][22]

In 1882, Gladstone proposed a major overhaul of the rules of procedure. On 20 February debate began on the first resolution, on "putting the question".[17][23] The session beginning in November 1882 was devoted entirely to the new rules.[24] The motion on putting the question was passed, after 19 days' debate, on 10 November 1882:[25]

That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of Ways and Means in a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, that the subject has been adequately discussed, and that it is the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee; and, if a Motion be made "That the Question be now put", Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under discussion shall be put forthwith: Provided that the Question, "That the Question be now put", shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than two hundred Members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than forty Members and supported by more than one hundred Members.

The rule was invoked only twice by Gladstone's ministry,[16] and the second Salisbury ministry secured its amendment, after six days' debate, on 1 March 1887:[17][16][26]

That, after a Question has been proposed, a Motion may be made, if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained, "That the Question be now put". Such Motion shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate: When the Motion "That the Question be now put", has been carried, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the consent of the Chair having been previously obtained) which, may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair; and also if a Clause be then under consideration, a Motion may be made (with the consent of the Chair as aforesaid) That the Question, That the Clause stand part, or be added to the Bill, be now put. Such Motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate: Provided always, That Questions for the Closure of Debate shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear by the numbers declared from the Chair, that such Motion was supported by more than Two Hundred Members, or was opposed by less than Forty Members, and supported by more than One Hundred Members

By 1909, the closure was applicable in committees and to motions as well as in the house and to bills.[17]

In 2000, the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended discontinuing the use of allocation of time motions for bills, and instead passing a programme motion to make a programme order.[27] This was accepted by the Commons on 7 November 2000.[27] One of the Cameron–Clegg coalition's most significant parliamentary defeats was in 2012, on the programme motion for the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. Some rebel MPs agreed with the substance of the bill but felt not enough time had been allocated to its debate.[28]

United States

[edit]
This article is part of a series on the
United States Senate
Great Seal of the United States Senate
Great Seal of the United States Senate
History of the United States Senate
Members
Politics and procedure
Places

History

[edit]
See also: Filibuster in the United States Senate and Nuclear option

On 8 March 1917, during World War I, a rule allowing cloture of debate was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 76–3[29] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson,[30] after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare.[31] This effort was led by Republican Senators Henry Cabot Lodge and Charles Curtis.[32] This was successfully invoked for the first time on 15 November 1919,[33] during the 66th Congress, to end a filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.[34]

The Senate's rules originally[35] required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators present and voting to invoke cloture.[36][37] For example, if all 100 senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 affirmative votes were required to invoke cloture. If some senators were absent and only 80 senators voted, only 54 would have to vote in favor.[38] In the early years of the cloture rule, it proved very difficult to achieve this. The Senate tried 11 times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture, but failed each time. Filibuster use was particularly heavy by Democratic senators from southern states to block civil rights legislation.[39]

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to attain a strength of 61 (with an additional independent senator caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn.[40] In practice, most bills cannot become law without the support of 60 senators.

Under the Senate rules and precedents, certain questions are nondebatable or debate time on them is limited, most notably bills considered under the reconciliation procedure or joint resolutions providing for congressional disapproval. Therefore, these measures cannot be filibustered and are not subjected to the supermajority cloture threshold. Although filing cloture on nondebatable measures is redundant, it has been done on occasion.[41]: 302 

On November 21, 2013, after many of President Barack Obama's nominees had been filibustered (most notably, Republicans refused to confirm any nominees to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit), Majority Leader Harry Reid raised a point of order that the threshold for invoking cloture on nominations, other than those to the Supreme Court of the United States, is a simple majority. The presiding officer overruled the point of order. The ruling of the chair was overruled by the Senate by a vote of 48–52, with all Republicans, as well as Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor, voting in favor of sustaining the decision of the chair.[42]

On April 6, 2017, following the filibuster of Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell raised a point of order that the 2013 precedent also applied to Supreme Court nominations. The presiding officer overruled the point of order. The ruling of the chair was overturned by the Senate by a vote of 48–52, with all Democrats voting to sustain the decision of the chair. As a result of these two precedents, the threshold for invoking cloture on nominations is now a simple majority.[43]

In the United States House of Representatives, the equivalent motion is the previous question.

Procedure

[edit]

The procedure for invoking cloture is as follows:[44]

  • A minimum of 16 senators must sign a cloture motion that states, "We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on [the measure]."
  • Any senator (generally the majority leader) may present the cloture motion at any time (including while another senator is speaking[41]: 282 ) while the question to which the cloture motion is directed is pending.
  • The Senate then often moves on to other business.
  • One hour after the Senate convenes on the second calendar day of session following the filing of the cloture motion (or at a time designated by unanimous consent), the cloture motion ripens, and the presiding officer directs the clerk to report the cloture motion.
  • The presiding officer directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum. In practice, this mandatory quorum call is almost always waived by unanimous consent.
  • The presiding officer puts to the Senate the question, "Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought to a close?"
  • The Senate votes on the cloture motion by the yeas and nays. A majority of three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there is no more than one vacancy in the Senate) is required for most questions. A two-thirds majority of senators present and voting is required to invoke cloture on a motion or resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate. Under the precedents set by the Senate on November 21, 2013, and April 6, 2017, a simple majority of senators present and voting is required to invoke cloture on nominations.[45]

After cloture is invoked, the Senate automatically proceeds to consider the measure on which cloture was invoked (if it was not before the Senate already). The following restrictions apply:

  • The clotured measure remains the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
  • No senator may speak for more than one hour. A senator may yield part or all of their one hour to a floor manager or leader, who may in turn yield that time to other senators. No manager nor leader may have more than two hours yielded to them by another senator.
  • The two-speech rule does not apply.[41]: 305 
  • Senators may yield back part or all of their one hour. This yielding does not reduce the total time available for consideration of the measure.[41]: 306 
  • No senator may propose more than two amendments until every senator has had the opportunity to do the same.
  • No amendment may be proposed unless it had been submitted in writing to the journal clerk by 1 o'clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion in the case of a first-degree amendment or one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote in the case of a second-degree amendment.
  • All amendments must be germane.
  • Senators may continue to offer amendments even if their time for debate has expired.[41]: 326 
  • No dilatory motions or quorum calls are in order.
  • After 30 hours of debate on the measure, the presiding officer puts the question on any pending amendments and the clotured measure. Under the precedent set on April 3, 2019, post-cloture time on all nominations, other than those to the Supreme Court of the United States, those to the United States courts of appeals and those to a position at Level I of the Executive Schedule, is two hours.[46]
  • Once post-cloture time has expired, the only motions in order are motions to reconsider and motions to table. One quorum call may also be demanded by a senator. Any senator who has not used nor yielded back ten minutes is guaranteed such time to speak to the measure.

Under rule XXII, paragraph 3, added in January 2013, a cloture motion signed by 16 senators (including the majority leader, minority leader, 7 other majority senators and 7 other minority senators) presented on a motion to proceed ripens one hour after the Senate convenes on the following calendar day. If cloture is invoked, the motion to proceed is not debatable.[47]

Under rule XXVIII, paragraph 2, added in January 2013, a cloture motion on a compound motion to go to conference ripens two hours after it is filed. If cloture is invoked, the compound motion is not debatable.[47]

Number of cloture motions filed, voted on, and invoked by the U.S. Senate, 1917−2014
Cloture voting in the United States Senate, 1917−2014[48]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cloture

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Cloture is the parliamentary procedure in the United States Senate whereby a supermajority vote ends debate on a bill, resolution, nomination, or other measure, overcoming tactics intended to prolong discussion indefinitely, such as the filibuster. Adopted as Senate Rule XXII in 1917 amid World War I pressures to curb obstruction, the original rule demanded a two-thirds majority of senators present and voting to invoke cloture, allowing each senator one additional hour of speech before a vote. The threshold was lowered in 1975 to three-fifths of the full 100-member Senate—typically 60 votes—reflecting efforts to balance minority protections with the need for decisive action on legislation. First successfully applied in 1919 against a on the , cloture has since become integral to operations, invoked hundreds of times for landmark measures like the after 83 days of debate, though failures were common until the mid-20th century due to the high bar. Its usage surged post-1975, particularly for nominations and partisan bills, fueling debates over reform, including 2013 and 2017 adjustments via the "nuclear option" that reduced thresholds to simple majorities for certain executive and judicial confirmations while preserving the 60-vote standard for most legislation. This evolution underscores cloture's role in mediating , where minority leverage via extended debate clashes with majority prerogatives, often amplifying partisan stakes in an institution designed for deliberation.

Definition and Core Principles

Purpose in Legislative Deliberation

Cloture serves as a procedural tool in legislative assemblies to impose a on , enabling the body to advance to a vote on pending measures rather than allowing indefinite prolongation. This mechanism addresses the inherent conflict in parliamentary systems between exhaustive —which safeguards minority viewpoints and ensures thorough examination of proposals—and the imperative for efficient , where unchecked debate could stall legislative progress and prevent resolution of public business. Without cloture, a determined minority could exploit extended debate to block majority-supported actions, undermining the assembly's capacity to legislate effectively. In practice, cloture promotes disciplined deliberation by requiring support to curtail , thus compelling proponents of closure to build broader consensus while still permitting the to overcome obstruction. This balances the deliberative ideal of open discourse, rooted in traditions like those of the U.S. Senate's predecessor bodies, with causal necessities of : legislatures exist to enact laws, not merely to discuss them eternally. For instance, the procedure ensures that remains germane post-invocation and allocates remaining time equitably among senators, fostering focused rather than dilatory exchanges. Historically, cloture emerged as a reform to mitigate filibusters—tactics of prolonged speechmaking designed to delay votes—without abolishing extended debate outright, preserving the minority's role in highlighting flaws or alternatives while preventing abuse that could render the body dysfunctional. In the , where it was adopted in 1917 amid pressures to end gridlock, cloture embodies a calibrated restraint: it does not favor hasty passage but enforces closure after sufficient airing of views, as evidenced by its requirement for three-fifths approval (60 votes in a full Senate) to reflect deliberate, not impulsive, overrides of debate. This threshold underscores the purpose's realism—majorities must demonstrate urgency and cross-partisan appeal to terminate discussion, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of ensuing votes.

Mechanisms and Voting Thresholds

Cloture is invoked through a formal motion under Rule XXII, requiring signatures from at least senators to petition for ending debate on a bill, resolution, , report, executive , or other matter pending before the body. Once the motion is presented and read into the record—typically during the morning hour or immediately following the Journal's approval—it yields to the underlying question but limits further dilatory motions, with the presiding officer recognizing only debate on the cloture motion itself for up to two hours. The Senate then continues regular business, but cloture consideration automatically ripens after the later of two calendar days or one intervening day of session, at which point a vote occurs without further debate on the motion. Successful invocation limits post-cloture debate to thirty hours of actual Senate proceedings, during which senators may speak only on the pending matter and amendments must be germane and pre-filed if applicable; no secondary amendments or dilatory tactics are permitted beyond this window. votes are conducted in batches to expedite proceedings, and any remaining debate time is equally divided between majority and minority leaders or their designees. If cloture fails, a new motion can be filed after one additional day, though repeated failures often signal procedural deadlock. The standard voting threshold demands an affirmative three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn—equating to sixty votes assuming full membership of one hundred—which has applied to most legislative and executive matters since a 1975 amendment lowered it from the prior two-thirds of those present and voting established in 1917. Exceptions persist for cloture on motions to amend standing rules, motions to suspend the rules, or certain constitutional points of order, where a two-thirds of duly chosen and sworn senators remains requisite. Subsequent rule changes via have reduced thresholds to simple majorities for specific nomination categories: executive and non- judicial nominees since 2013, and nominees since 2017, though these apply only post-invocation and not to the underlying cloture vote itself.

Distinction from Filibuster and Closure

Cloture serves as the procedural antidote to the in the United States , where a constitutes a tactic to extend indefinitely, thereby delaying or obstructing a vote on , nominations, or other measures. The relies on rules permitting unlimited absent , often manifesting as prolonged speeches or procedural delays rather than requiring continuous talking in modern practice. In contrast, cloture, established under Rule XXII in 1917, enables a —typically three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if no absences)—to invoke a motion limiting further to 30 additional hours, after which the proceeds to a vote without further obstruction. This distinction underscores that the is the obstructive strategy, while cloture is the formal vote to curtail it, preventing minority veto power from paralyzing business indefinitely. Cloture differs from closure, a related but broader in denoting a motion to abruptly terminate and force an immediate decision on the pending question. In the , for instance, a closure motion—such as "that the question be now put"—requires only a simple majority and, if carried, ends instantly without allocating post-closure time for further consideration, marking it as a more decisive and less forgiving tool than Senate cloture. closure is non-debatable and can be moved by any member when the Speaker deems sufficient debate has occurred, emphasizing expedition over extended post-motion deliberation. By comparison, cloture involves a preliminary signed by at least 16 senators, a two-day waiting period before voting, and structured time limits post-invocation, reflecting the Senate's emphasis on minority protections even in override scenarios. Thus, while both aim to resolve protracted , cloture's higher threshold and phased implementation adapt closure principles to the Senate's unique deliberative norms, avoiding the immediacy of Westminster-style closure.

Historical Origins and Evolution

Roots in Parliamentary Procedure

The procedure for ending debate, known as "closure" in British parliamentary tradition, originated in the as a countermeasure to obstructive tactics that prolonged discussions indefinitely. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, Irish nationalist members, led by figures such as , systematically delayed bills related to Irish and coercion measures through repetitive speeches and irrelevant digressions, effectively paralyzing legislative progress. This obstruction, which peaked during debates on the Protection of Person and Property Bill in , exposed the limitations of unwritten customs relying on voluntary restraint or Speaker intervention, prompting demands for formalized limits on debate to ensure the majority's ability to advance business. Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone's Liberal government responded by overhauling procedural rules in 1882, introducing closure as a standing order allowing any member to move "that the question be now put" to immediately terminate debate and proceed to a vote. Adopted amid fierce opposition—critics decried it as enabling "tyranny of the majority"—the rule required the Speaker's assent before putting the motion, which then needed a simple majority to pass, though early applications often demanded broader support to avoid perceptions of abuse. The first closure motion was successfully invoked on February 28, 1882, during consideration of an Irish-related bill, establishing a precedent that prioritized efficiency over unrestricted minority speech. This innovation balanced the traditional emphasis on exhaustive —rooted in 17th- and 18th-century precedents where could extend over days without formal cutoff—with the practical necessities of a modern handling complex agendas. Subsequent refinements, such as kangaroo closure in 1909 for selecting amendments, built on this foundation, but the 1882 rule fundamentally shifted parliamentary practice from consensus-driven endings to vote-enforced conclusions, influencing analogous mechanisms worldwide by affirming that minority obstruction should not intent.

Early Adoption and Challenges

The United States Senate adopted its first cloture rule, Rule XXII, on March 8, 1917, following a crisis precipitated by filibusters that blocked President Woodrow Wilson's proposal to arm American merchant ships in response to German U-boat attacks during World War I preparations. The rule allowed senators to file a motion to end debate on a pending measure, subject to invocation by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, thereby introducing a formal limit to the chamber's tradition of unrestricted debate while preserving its deliberative character. This adoption occurred after six hours of Senate debate, passing overwhelmingly by a 76-3 margin amid wartime urgency, though the supermajority threshold reflected a compromise to avoid more aggressive reforms. Early invocations proved challenging due to the stringent voting requirement and entrenched norms favoring extended debate as a safeguard for minority rights. The first two cloture attempts in 1917 failed to secure the necessary votes, and none succeeded in 1918, underscoring the rule's limited immediate deterrent effect on filibusters. The procedure's inaugural success came in November 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture by a 65-30 vote to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles, though this application ironically contributed to the treaty's ultimate defeat by enabling a final vote on rejecting it. Subsequent decades revealed persistent obstacles: the two-thirds threshold demanded broad bipartisan consensus, which filibustering minorities could exploit by withholding support, rendering cloture more symbolic than practical. From 1917 to 1970, annual cloture motions rarely exceeded eight, with only sporadic successes—such as in 1927 on an immigration relief bill—highlighting how the rule's design perpetuated filibuster leverage despite its intent to curb obstruction. This era demonstrated the tension between cloture's procedural innovation and the Senate's cultural reverence for unlimited debate, often allowing determined minorities to delay or derail legislation without fear of routine override.

Key Reforms and Threshold Adjustments

The adopted cloture under Rule XXII on March 8, 1917, establishing a threshold of two-thirds of senators present and voting to end debate on any pending matter. This requirement, calculated based on attendance rather than the full chamber, typically demanded at least 64 votes assuming full participation in a 100-member Senate. A significant threshold adjustment occurred on , 1975, when the amended Rule XXII during the 94th , reducing the cloture requirement from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn—60 votes in a full Senate for most and nominations. This change retained the two-thirds threshold specifically for motions to amend Senate rules themselves, preserving a higher bar for institutional alterations. The reform responded to escalating frequency in the mid-20th century, including obstructions on civil rights measures, by facilitating majority will while stopping short of a simple-majority standard amid bipartisan compromise. Subsequent proposals to further lower thresholds, such as during debates in the 113th (2013-2014), focused on procedural precedents rather than XXII amendments and are addressed separately in practice evolution. No additional formal threshold reductions to the 60-vote standard for legislative cloture have been enacted as of 2025.

Cloture in the United States Senate

Detailed Procedure and Requirements

To invoke cloture in the United States , a motion must first be filed by at least 16 senators, stating their intent to end on a pending bill, resolution, , motion, or other debatable matter under Senate Rule XXII. This motion is presented during a time when the is not actively considering the underlying matter, such as during a , and is immediately stated for the record by the presiding officer without immediate further on the motion itself. The cloture motion lies over until the second calendar day on which the is in session following its presentation, during which additional cloture motions may be filed but consideration of the original motion is deferred. On that second day, the or their designee calls up the motion, often after a to facilitate organization, followed by up to two hours of debate equally divided between supporters and opponents. The then votes on the motion, which requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn—typically 60 votes assuming no vacancies—to succeed. This threshold applies to most measures, though exceptions exist: a two-thirds vote of senators present and voting is needed to cloture debate on motions to change rules or on certain conference reports, while interpretations of Rule XXII via the "" have lowered the requirement to a simple majority for executive and judicial nominations (except justices until 2017). If cloture is invoked, post-cloture proceedings limit total to 30 hours, during which senators may speak for no more than one hour each (with the first 30 minutes undivided), amendments are germane and offered only in specified order, and dilatory actions such as quorum calls or motions to table are prohibited except under limited circumstances. After the 30 hours, the proceeds to a vote on the pending question without further , ensuring the matter advances or is disposed of efficiently. These requirements, codified in Rule XXII since its adoption in and amended notably in to reduce the threshold from two-thirds, aim to balance unlimited with the need for on business.

Historical Implementation and Data

The cloture rule, designated as Senate Rule XXII, was adopted on March 8, 1917, during a of the 65th , establishing a mechanism to end debate by a two-thirds vote of senators present and voting, following President Woodrow Wilson's urging amid concerns over unlimited debate obstructing armed ship legislation. In its inaugural congress, two cloture motions were filed, but none proceeded to a vote or invocation. The rule's first successful invocation occurred in November 1919, ending a on the by a vote of 65–30, though the treaty itself failed ratification shortly thereafter. Early implementation revealed the rule's limitations due to the supermajority threshold and entrenched traditions of extended debate; from 1917 to 1963, cloture was invoked only five times despite occasional motions. Notable early applications included failed attempts on restrictions in the and successful invocations on a 1927 farm relief bill and public utilities legislation in 1935. Usage remained sporadic, with southern senators frequently employing filibusters to block civil rights measures, as seen in repeated failures during the . A breakthrough came in June 1964, when cloture was invoked 71–29 on the after 83 days of debate, marking the first such success on civil rights . On March 7, 1975, the Senate amended Rule XXII to lower the threshold for most measures from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of fully seated senators (typically 60 votes), except for changes to Senate rules, which retained the two-thirds requirement; this reform, driven by frustrations over minority obstruction, passed narrowly amid threats of the nuclear option. The change catalyzed a surge in cloture activity, reflecting heightened partisanship and routine use to advance nominations and legislation. From 1917 through 1974 (65th to 93rd Congresses), 149 motions were filed, 91 votes occurred, and cloture succeeded 31 times; post-1975 (94th Congress onward), filings escalated to 2,465, with 2,132 votes yielding 1,657 invocations through the partial 119th Congress as of October 2025.
PeriodMotions FiledVotes on ClotureCloture Invoked
1917–19741499131
1975–present2,4652,1321,657
In recent decades, cloture invocations have routinely exceeded 100 per , driven by increased nominations and policy disputes; for instance, the 118th (2023–2024) saw 266 motions filed and 227 invoked, while the ongoing 119th had already recorded 159 invocations by mid-2025. This evolution underscores cloture's transformation from an exceptional remedy to a standard procedural tool, though success rates have hovered around 75–80% in modern eras due to strategic filing and partisan dynamics.

The Nuclear Option and Rule Changes

The refers to a procedural tactic in the U.S. whereby the party uses a simple majority vote to reinterpret or amend Senate Rule XXII, thereby lowering the cloture threshold from 60 votes to a simple majority of 51 for certain matters, bypassing the traditional two-thirds required for formal rule changes. This maneuver, first seriously contemplated in the modern era during debates over judicial nominations, has been employed to curb minority party filibusters on executive and judicial appointments. In 2005, Senate Republicans under Majority Leader threatened the to eliminate filibusters against President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, arguing that such obstructions violated the constitutional advice-and-consent role by requiring supermajorities not mandated by the . The effort targeted nominees like Priscilla Owen, whom Democrats had blocked via ; however, a bipartisan "" agreement among seven Republicans and seven Democrats on May 24, 2005, averted the vote by pledging to oppose filibusters except in "extraordinary circumstances" and allowing votes on three specific nominees. This compromise preserved the 60-vote cloture rule temporarily but highlighted growing frustration with minority obstruction. Democrats invoked the on November 21, 2013, when Majority Leader moved to change the rules via a , upheld by a 52-48 party-line vote, reducing the cloture threshold to a simple majority for most executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments below the level. The change addressed Republican filibusters against President Barack Obama's nominees, including those to the D.C. Circuit Court, which had left vacancies amid claims of politicized obstruction. This reform did not initially apply to nominees, maintaining the 60-vote hurdle there. Republicans extended the nuclear option on April 6, 2017, under Majority Leader , interpreting Rule XXII to require only a simple majority for cloture on nominations after Democrats filibustered Neil Gorsuch's confirmation, which failed 55-45 due to the 60-vote requirement. The procedural vote passed 52-48 along party lines, enabling Gorsuch's 54-45 confirmation later that day and fundamentally altering the balance for high-court appointments. These successive changes have streamlined nominations but intensified debates over , with subsequent confirmations—like those of Justices and —proceeding under the simple-majority rule.

Achievements in Enabling Legislation

Cloture played a pivotal role in the passage of the by terminating a protracted led primarily by Southern senators opposed to provisions banning in public accommodations, employment, and federally assisted programs. On June 10, 1964, the invoked cloture on the bill by a vote of 71–29, with support from 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans, marking only the second successful cloture invocation in history and the first for a civil rights measure. This action limited further debate, allowing the to approve the bill on June 19, 1964, by 73–27, which the House then concurred with, leading President to sign it into law on July 2, 1964. Similarly, cloture enabled the , which addressed systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the South through mechanisms like federal oversight of and elimination of literacy tests. On May 25, 1965, the voted 70–30 to invoke cloture, ending debate after weeks of obstruction and permitting passage the following day by 77–19. President Johnson signed the act on August 6, 1965, following approval, fundamentally expanding democratic participation by increasing Black rates from about 29% in 1964 to 61% by 1969 in affected states. These early successes demonstrated cloture's capacity to facilitate landmark reforms amid minority obstruction, though invocations remained infrequent until the late , with subsequent uses aiding bills on , , and where thresholds were met despite opposition. For instance, by the 1970s and 1980s, cloture invocations rose to enable defense authorization acts and budget resolutions, reflecting procedural adaptations that balanced debate limits with legislative progress.

Criticisms and Obstructionist Abuses

Critics of the cloture process argue that its 60-vote threshold, established in , has proven insufficient to deter the routine use of threats as a tool for minority obstruction, effectively granting a to a small number of senators on most and nominations. This requirement, they contend, deviates from the Constitution's implicit preference for in the , as evidenced by provisions like the clause mandating only a simple majority for business. Empirical data underscore this critique: cloture motions filed per year averaged fewer than eight from 1917 to 1970 but escalated to between 23 and 80 annually in subsequent decades, peaking at 336 during the 117th (–2022), reflecting a normalization of obstruction that burdens the chamber with repetitive procedural votes rather than substantive . Obstructionist abuses have manifested in both historical and contemporary contexts, often transforming the from an extraordinary delay tactic into a standard barrier. In the early , senators employed prolonged speaking marathons, such as the 1937–1938 filibuster by Southern members against an anti-lynching bill, which spanned 29 days and defeated cloture, thereby blocking federal intervention in state-level violence. Similarly, the 1964 faced a 60-day filibuster by , culminating in cloture on June 22, 1964, after exhaustive debate that tested the procedure's limits. In modern practice, "silent" or "procedural" filibusters—where senators merely signal intent to obstruct without holding the floor—have proliferated, forcing cloture filings on routine matters like judicial nominations; for instance, during the 111th (2009–2010), Democrats filed over 100 cloture motions to advance President Obama's appointees amid Republican holds. This evolution, critics note, inverts the original burden of proof, requiring the majority to prove its case repeatedly rather than the minority to sustain active delay. Such tactics have drawn bipartisan condemnation for fostering , with empirical analyses indicating that heightened use correlates with reduced legislative output and diminished time, contrary to claims of enhanced . For example, in the 117th , threats stalled bills on voting rights and labor protections, prompting accusations that the mechanism entrenches minority preferences over majority mandates, even as both parties have wielded it when in opposition—Republicans against Democratic initiatives post-2008 and Democrats against Republican priorities pre-1994. Proponents of , including senators from , argue this abuse undermines the Senate's constitutional role, as routine hurdles on non-budget matters lack explicit textual support and amplify partisan polarization. While historical precedents like civil rights obstructions highlight targeted abuses, contemporary data reveal a systemic shift where threats on over 90% of major bills necessitate cloture, consuming floor time equivalent to weeks of procedural maneuvering per session.

Comparative Practices in Other Legislatures

United Kingdom and Closure Motions

In the United Kingdom, the procedure analogous to cloture in the House of Commons is the closure motion, formally phrased as "that the question be now put," which terminates debate on a matter and compels an immediate vote. This mechanism, regarded as exceptional, ensures the House can reach decisions without indefinite prolongation of discussion, particularly when time constraints risk lapsing unresolved motions. Unlike the supermajority threshold in the U.S. Senate, closure requires only a simple majority of votes cast, provided at least 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) support it in the full House, reflecting the Commons' emphasis on majority rule tempered by procedural safeguards. The process begins when an MP rises to move the closure during , subject to the Speaker's to accept or reject it for a vote; the Speaker assesses whether sufficient has occurred and minority viewpoints have been adequately aired, declining if closure would unduly prejudice opposition rights. If accepted, the motion is put forthwith without or , and passage ends the original instantly, allowing no intervening until the underlying question is resolved. Variants include the "ordinary" closure during ongoing debates and the "Golding" closure, which curtails the opening speech to expedite proceedings. In public bill committees, a similar rule applies but requires only a alongside the , typically one-third of members. Historically, closure emerged in 1882 amid persistent obstructionism, notably by Irish nationalist MPs delaying government business under William Gladstone's Liberal administration, which had faced procedural gridlock in 1881 sessions over land and coercion bills. Adopted via new standing orders to restore efficiency without resorting to , it marked a shift from unrestricted traditions, complemented later by motions for timetabling bills. Usage remains selective: it occurs frequently on Opposition Days or Private Members' Bill Fridays to secure votes on time-limited motions, but sparingly elsewhere; for instance, it was invoked twice during 2011 proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and six times in a single day on 4 April 2019 amid withdrawal debates. In the , it is even rarer, underscoring the ' more adversarial dynamics.

Canada and Time Allocation

In the , time allocation serves as the primary mechanism to limit on public bills, functioning as a structured alternative to outright closure by establishing fixed timetables for legislative stages. Governed by Standing Order 78, it enables the government to allocate specific durations—often in hours or sitting days—for consideration of one or more stages of a bill, such as second reading or report stage, thereby preventing indefinite prolongation of . This procedure emerged in response to the contentious 1956 pipeline , which highlighted the need for tools to manage obstruction without resorting to the more draconian closure under Standing Order 57; it was formalized after procedural reviews in 1964 and 1969, with the first application occurring on December 20, 1971, to Bill C-259. The process varies by level of party consensus. Under Standing Order 78(1), unanimous agreement among all recognized parties allows a minister to move a non-debatable, non-amendable motion immediately, specifying the time without prior notice. Standing Order 78(2) requires concurrence from a of parties (including the ) for motions covering limited stages like report and third reading, also non-debatable since 1991 amendments. In the absence of agreement, Standing Order 78(3)—the most frequently invoked subtype—permits unilateral action after debate on a bill has commenced, with oral notice provided; it mandates a minimum of one sitting day (typically five hours) for the stage, followed by a 30-minute question-and-comment period allocated proportionally among parties before the motion proceeds to an immediate vote, potentially after a 30-minute bell. Debate on the bill halts upon the motion's introduction, resuming only within the prescribed limits, ensuring progression even amid opposition. Usage of time allocation has escalated over time, reflecting governments' prioritization of legislative efficiency amid polarized debates. From the 28th Parliament (1968–1972) to the 43rd (2019–2021), 331 such motions were adopted, with 302 under 78(3), 19 under 78(2), and 10 under 78(1); majority governments accounted for 96% of invocations, uncorrelated directly with overall bill passage rates. The peak occurred in the 41st Parliament (2011–2015) under Prime Minister , with 92 motions—all but one via 78(3)—followed by 65 in the 42nd Parliament (2015–2019) under Prime Minister . This trend intensified post-2001, with 181 motions compared to 150 earlier, driven by minority and contexts alike, though procedural rulings (e.g., 1978 and 1983) have upheld its application to avert filibusters without violating . In the , time allocation, introduced in 1991 under Rule 7-2, similarly restricts on business, predominantly bills, by capping time on motions or readings with minimums of six hours or one day. -initiated motions proceed without if consensual among parties; otherwise, they face up to 2.5 hours of before a vote, with no adjournments permitted during the allocated period, aligning the upper chamber's practice with the ' emphasis on orderly advancement while preserving some deliberative space. Unlike closure, which terminates abruptly, time allocation across both chambers balances executive agenda control against opposition input, though its routine deployment has drawn procedural scrutiny for potentially compressing scrutiny on complex .

Australia and Guillotine Procedures

In the Australian federal , guillotine procedures, also known as time allocation motions, enable the government to impose strict time limits on the debate of bills, ensuring their progression through stages such as second reading, committee consideration, and third reading to meet deadlines. These mechanisms address potential delays from extended opposition or filibustering tactics, though Australian parliamentary rules already impose individual speech limits unlike the unlimited debate possible in the . Guillotines require a simple majority to pass in both the and the , reflecting to facilitate legislative efficiency. In the , the procedure originated in 1918 under standing orders 82–85, allowing a minister to move a motion declaring one or more bills urgent and allotting specific times for each stage, typically before the second reading debate commences. The motion must detail the allocated times and cannot be amended except by government consent; if moved without prior notice, it requires an absolute majority (more than half of the total House membership), but a simple majority suffices with notice. Once adopted, proceeds under the fixed schedule, with any unexpired time forfeited at deadlines, and questions put forthwith; this has been applied to thousands of bills historically, peaking at 132 in 1992 amid Senate-related pressures, though usage has declined since the with the introduction of the Federation Chamber for concurrent debates and structured sitting calendars. The employs guillotines under standing order 142, where any senator—usually a minister—may move a motion to limit debate time on a bill's remaining s, often at the conclusion of sitting periods or to counter minority obstruction. These motions specify durations, such as one hour per stage or completion by a set time like 5 p.m., and require only a simple majority of senators present and voting; they can be moved with notice, by unanimous leave, or after suspending standing orders. No additional closure motions are permissible once a guillotine is in effect, and amendments must be circulated two hours in advance or with leave; this procedure ensures government priorities advance despite crossbench or opposition delays, as seen in frequent applications to multiple bills during end-of-year sittings.

Other Jurisdictions Including and

In 's , a closure motion under Standing Orders 137–139 enables a member to propose terminating prematurely, even if additional members seek to speak. The motion requires the member to rise and seek the presiding officer's attention, after which it is put to a vote; passage by simple majority ends the immediately and proceeds to the question. Such motions are invoked sparingly to avoid suppressing minority views, with the Speaker exercising discretion to reject them if deemed oppressive. In Hong Kong's , debate closure mechanisms include dilatory motions to adjourn under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which interrupt proceedings without notice, are debatable but non-amendable, and if passed, defer resumption until rescheduled. The President may also impose speaking time limits or adjourn the Council to prevent indefinite prolongation, particularly in response to filibustering tactics observed in the . Proposals to introduce a formal "closure motion" gained traction around amid efforts to curb extended obstructions, with the Rules of Procedure Committee discussing procedural amendments to enable swift termination by majority vote. The first such application occurred on 17 May , invoked by then-President Tsang Yok-sing to advance business.

Debates and Theoretical Implications

Arguments for Supermajority Protections

Supermajority requirements for cloture in the U.S. serve as a procedural safeguard for , preventing a simple majority from imposing without broader or consensus. This mechanism, requiring 60 votes to end debate under Senate Rule XXII, allows a minority of 41 senators to block measures lacking sufficient support, thereby guarding against hasty or faction-driven policies that could disadvantage dissenting states or viewpoints. Proponents argue this aligns with the 's design as a deliberative body, distinct from the , where unlimited debate traditions evolved to ensure thorough examination rather than rapid passage. By necessitating supermajority support to invoke cloture, the rule incentivizes and , as majority parties must negotiate with opposition senators to advance significant legislation. This fosters moderation, countering the House's tendency toward impulsive action, and has historically compelled cross-aisle coalitions for landmark laws, such as the , which overcame a via cloture on June 10, 1964, after 83 days of debate. Without this threshold, critics of reform contend, the Senate risks becoming a mere echo of the House, amplifying partisan swings and eroding incentives for coalition-building, as evidenced by the lower cloture invocations in earlier eras when thresholds were higher (two-thirds until 1975). The cloture standard reflects the Framers' intent for the to act as a stabilizing "cooling saucer" for , prioritizing over speed to mitigate transient majorities and factional excesses, as articulated in Federalist No. 62 and No. 63. emphasized checks against legislative impulsiveness to protect against "the effects of faction," a principle extended through the Senate's equal state representation and evolved rules preserving extended debate. Empirical patterns show that while cloture motions have increased—from 35 filed between 1917 and 1970 to over 2,000 since 1971—the requirement has sustained policy continuity, averting the volatility seen in simple-majority systems elsewhere.

Critiques of Gridlock and Majority Rule

Critics of the Senate's cloture rule contend that its 60-vote threshold perpetuates legislative , enabling a minority of senators to obstruct bills supported by simple and thwarting the electorate's mandate. This mechanism, they argue, has transformed routine Senate business into protracted battles, as evidenced by the routine filing of cloture motions on nearly all significant since the early , often failing to secure passage and resulting in stalled priorities like or voting rights reforms. Proponents of reform, including Senator , assert that this deviates from the constitutional norm of majority decision-making, replacing it with de facto veto power for 41 senators and fostering inefficiency that Hamilton critiqued in Federalist No. 22 as conducive to "tedious delays" and intrigue. Such critiques often emanate from progressive policy advocates who view as a barrier to advancing popular measures, though empirical analyses suggest filibusters may not enhance but instead amplify partisan obstruction amid rising polarization. In response, defenders of the supermajority requirement highlight critiques of unchecked , invoking the "" as a core risk where transient majorities could trample minority interests without deliberative , a concern Madison articulated in regarding factions overriding stable governance. They posit the filibuster as a safeguard for and individual rights, preventing entrenchment of partisan agendas that might erode constitutional balances, such as rushed judicial confirmations or expansive entitlements lacking broad consensus. These defenses draw on Tocqueville's observations in Democracy in America that democratic majorities pose unique threats through subtle conformity pressures rather than overt force, necessitating institutional friction to compel compromise and protect dispersed minorities. Originalist scholars further argue against entrenching supermajorities constitutionally absent explicit textual mandate, yet affirm procedural tools like cloture as pragmatic bulwarks against majoritarian excess, provided they do not ossify into absolute minority rule. This tension underscores broader debates: while gridlock critiques emphasize responsiveness to electoral shifts, majority rule skeptics warn that diluting minority protections invites instability, as supermajorities historically moderated impulses toward short-term populism in favor of enduring policy.

Empirical Impacts on Legislative Output

The cloture procedure has empirically constrained legislative output by imposing a 60-vote threshold to terminate extended , effectively granting minority parties veto power over most measures since the rule's 1975 amendment. Cloture invocations surged from an average of 8.4 per between 1917 and 1970 to 146.3 per from 2001 to 2010, reflecting heightened threats that necessitate repeated votes to advance bills. This procedural hurdle correlates with diminished productivity, as the enacted an average of 588 public laws per in the 1950s-1960s but only about 250-350 in recent decades, amid thousands of introduced bills. Quantitative analyses attribute part of this decline to the filibuster-cloture dynamic, which filters to only those garnering broad consensus, reducing overall volume while polarizing parties vie for leverage. Sarah A. Binder's study of intervals from to found that the supermajority requirement amplifies obstruction during periods of ideological divergence, resulting in fewer enacted statutes on salient issues, independent of unified or . For instance, in the 111th (2009-2010), despite Democratic majorities, only 288 public laws passed, with many priorities stalled by cloture failures requiring bypasses. Causal evidence suggests cloture's time costs further erode output: post-cloture debate consumes up to 30 hours per measure, diverting floor time from new legislation, as seen in the 113th where shortening this period for nominations boosted efficiency without broader gains. However, counterarguments note stable total statutory words (4-6 million per Congress since ), implying consolidation into fewer, more comprehensive bills rather than pure , though this masks failures on targeted reforms. Polarization remains the primary driver, with cloture serving as a tool that enforces minority influence but does not independently cause output drops absent partisan divides.

Potential Reforms and Future Prospects

Proposals to reform the cloture rule have centered on targeted exceptions or procedural adjustments to address legislative , particularly during fiscal crises. In October 2025, amid a affecting programs like SNAP benefits and military pay, several Senate Republicans advocated for carve-outs exempting continuing resolutions or spending bills from the 60-vote threshold, potentially achieved through the —a simple majority vote to reinterpret or amend Senate Rule XXII. Senators and indicated willingness to pursue such measures if Democratic filibusters persisted, citing the need to resolve immediate hardships from 11 failed funding attempts. Opposition within the Republican caucus, including from Majority Leader and Senator , emphasized preserving the to safeguard against future majoritarian overreach, viewing rule changes as a "bad idea" that could erode deliberative norms. Other floated ideas include reverting to a "talking ," requiring senators to hold the continuously rather than merely filing intent, or incrementally lowering the threshold to 55 votes for non-nomination matters, though these lack formal legislation in the 119th . Future prospects for cloture appear limited by bipartisan incentives to retain the 60-vote as insurance against minority status, with historical precedents confined to nominations—such as the and nuclear options reducing thresholds for executive and judicial confirmations—rather than legislative bills. The 118th (2023–2025) saw 266 cloture motions filed, reflecting heightened obstruction that fuels rhetoric, yet entrenched caucus divisions and the absence of crisis-level consensus in 2025 suggest incremental or crisis-specific tweaks, if any, over outright elimination. Persistent shutdown impasses could elevate pressure, but as Senator noted, any changes would require careful review to avoid unintended precedents.

References

  1. https://www.senate.gov/about/research-tools/glossary.htm
  2. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm
  3. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/senate-adopts-cloture-rule.htm
  4. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm
  5. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30360
  6. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/landmark-legislation/civil-rights-act-of-1964/cloture-and-final-passage-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-essay.htm
  7. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-20.pdf
  8. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/floor-statement-senator-chuck-grassley-how-senate-should-operate
  9. https://www.britannica.com/topic/cloture
  10. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/closure-motion/
  11. https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/tg3UWM89
  12. https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5154/the-closure
  13. https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_14_2-e.html
  14. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107109
  15. https://www.nytimes.com/1882/02/14/archives/mr-gladstones-rule.html
  16. https://www.nytimes.com/1882/03/31/archives/mr-gladstones-cloture-marriotts-amendment-rejected-by-a-good.html
  17. https://historyofparliamentblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/kangaroo-closure/
  18. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/28/1040916115/debt-ceiling-filibuster-cloture-senate-history
  19. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-the-filibuster/
  20. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-wilsons-own-rule-defeats-the-versailles-treaty
  21. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/case-against-filibuster
  22. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac//document.php?id=cqal65-1259772
  23. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41342
  24. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/98-425
  25. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-110/html/SMAN-110-pg20-2.htm
  26. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm
  27. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44819
  28. https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2013/11/the-senate-and-the-nuclear-option
  29. https://www.npr.org/2005/05/18/4656984/nuclear-option-overshadows-senate-judicial-nomination-debate
  30. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal05-766-20099-1042151
  31. https://www.confirmationtales.com/p/gang-of-14-agreement-preserves-senate
  32. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-nuclear-option-100199
  33. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/21/246597699/nuclear-option-vote-marks-tectonic-shift-in-senate-rules
  34. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/why-senate-went-nuclear-filibusters
  35. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option-236937
  36. https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation
  37. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm
  38. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal64-1304621
  39. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/voting-rights-act
  40. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2013/10/Bondurant_Article1.pdf
  41. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/filibustering-in-the-modern-senate
  42. https://www.history.com/articles/filibuster-bills-senate
  43. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/filibuster-explained
  44. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/does-filibuster-enhance-legislative-debate-senate-new-uchicago-research-says-no
  45. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/the-filibuster-strikes-again-how-it-inhibited-workers-rights-in-the-117th-congress/
  46. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Filibuster-Reform-is-Coming_Heres-How_Sept2021.pdf
  47. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/08/26/finding-60-votes-in-an-evenly-divided-senate-a-high-bar-but-not-an-impossible-one/
  48. https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/parliamentary-archives/evolution.pdf
  49. https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_14_3-e.html
  50. https://www.revparlcan.ca/en/governing-by-time-allocation-the-increasing-use-of-time-allocation-in-the-house-of-commons-1971-to-2021/
  51. https://sencanada.ca/en/about/procedural-references/notes/n7/
  52. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter10/Procedures_to_speed_the_passage_of_bills
  53. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_17
  54. https://www3.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/glossary/
  55. https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/speakers-rulings-2023-by-chapter/chapter-3-general-procedures/
  56. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/the-house/audio/2018905135/new-parliament-new-rules
  57. https://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/procedur/companion/chapter_10/chapter_10.html
  58. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/english/procedur/reports/crop-rpt20211027-e.pdf
  59. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/hc/papers/hc0518cb2-2138-1-e.pdf
  60. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-filibuster-protects-the-rights-all-senators-and-the-american-people
  61. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/defending-the-filibuster-the-last-safeguard-minority-rights
  62. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/
  63. https://www.merkley.senate.gov/why-supermajority-no-longer-works-in-the-senate/
  64. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/the-filibuster-must-go-restore-majority-rule-to-save-our-democracy/
  65. https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/preventing-the-tyranny-the-majority
  66. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/responsible-filibuster
  67. https://edsitement.neh.gov/curricula/alexis-de-tocqueville-tyranny-majority
  68. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/851/
  69. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/when-should-the-majority-rule/
  70. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X02030004003
  71. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
  72. https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2018/04/06/clipping-cloture-clears-confirmation-clogs-how-shortening-post-cloture-debate-time-increased-senate-efficiency-in-113th-congress/
  73. https://www.brookings.edu/books/politics-or-principle/
  74. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5566292-senate-republicans-filibuster-reform/
  75. https://www.notus.org/congress/filibuster-senate-republicans-shutdown
  76. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/118.htm
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.