Dear Mr. Hamster:

Thank you for contacting me about the Senate filibuster. I always appreciate hearing from Arizonans about issues facing our state and country. It is important that we have conversations about topics that matter to you and your family, and I hope you will continue to reach out to me and share your perspectives and suggestions.

The United States Senate is one of two chambers of Congress. In addition to debating and approving legislation, members of the Senate are responsible for considering and voting on all executive branch nominees and judicial nominees. Unlike in the U.S. House of Representatives, where debate is limited, the Senate has no limit on the length of debate. In the past, senators could prolong debate and prevent a vote on any piece of legislation or nominee. This tool is called a filibuster. Though Senate rules began permitting filibusters in 1806, the first filibuster did not occur until 1837, and it remained infrequently used for more than 100 years. During that time, any single senator could prevent a vote by simply speaking on the floor, or engaging in a so-called standing filibuster. When the filibustering senator or group of senators finished speaking and yielded the floor, a vote could occur. 

In 1917, the Senate changed its procedures to allow a supermajority, or two-thirds of all voting senators, to bring an end to a filibuster. This is called a cloture vote. Despite adoption of the new cloture vote rule, filibustering remained an effective means of preventing legislation from receiving a vote, due to the difficulty of achieving a two-thirds majority vote. In the 1970s, the standing filibuster practice gave way to the virtual filibuster. This new tactic allowed any senator to filibuster without speaking on the floor by indicating to the Senate majority leader that there was enough opposition to thwart a cloture vote. In 1975, the Senate again changed its rules to reduce the number of votes needed to invoke cloture and end a filibuster from two-thirds of senators to three-fifths, or 60 senators out of the 100 senators that currently comprise the full Senate. In the wake of these changes, filibusters were used more frequently, and most matters required 60 votes to reach the cloture threshold and receive a final votein the Senate.

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), changed the rules to lower the number of votes needed to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except those nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, from 60 to a simple majority of 51. This procedural change is also known as the nuclear option, due to its significance. On April 6, 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) invoked the nuclear option and extended the 51-vote cloture threshold to Supreme Court nominees. On April 3, 2019 Senate Majority Leader McConnell again invoked the nuclear option to cut debate for lower-level nominees from 30 hours to two hours.

Though all nominees may now be confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate, the 60-vote threshold to overcome filibusters on legislation has, so far, been preserved. Proponents of also lowering that threshold to a simple majority, effectively eliminating the filibusterentirely, argue that doing so is necessary to overcome gridlock and pass major legislation. Opponents maintain eliminating the filibuster on legislation runs contrary to the deliberative nature of the Senate, and would afford too much power to the majority party. 

I have long said that I oppose eliminating the filibuster for votes on legislation. Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, it’s meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans. Therefore, I support the 60-vote threshold for all Senate actions. Debate on bills should be a bipartisan process that takes into account the views of all Americans, not just those of one political party. Regardless of the party in control of the Senate, respecting the opinions of senators from the minority party will result in better, commonsense legislation. My position remains exactly the same now that I serve in the majority. While eliminating the filibuster may result in some short-term legislative gains, it would deepen partisan divisions and sacrifice the long-term health of our government. I will continue working across the aisle with my colleagues in the United States Senate to ensure our legislative process upholds the integrity of our democracy.

Thank you for sharing your view on this issue with me. Please do not hesitate to contact our office with any future questions or comments. Additionally, if you would like to stay connected to our office with the latest news, legislation, and other useful information, please visit our website, sinema.senate.gov.

Sincerely,



Kyrsten Sinema
United States Senator