Fixing the Senate by Fixing Its Rules
The Senate is dysfunctional by any measure. Partisan bickering and procedural brinksmanship pervade all stages of the legislative process. Meaningful floor debate is nonexistent, and senators routinely rely on unorthodox parliamentary procedures to block amendments and pass major bills without changes. Democratic and Republican majorities alike presently use these procedures preemptively in anticipation of opposition to limit the other party’s ability to slow or defeat their agenda. However, doing so limits the ability of all senators – especially those in the minority party – to adjudicate their constituents' concerns and offer amendments to legislation on the Senate floor. Consequently, Senate minorities justify using the rules to obstruct legislation by pointing to the majority's management of the institution and their resulting inability to debate and amend bills on the floor.
A Rules Reform Package
Four rule changes would address concerns voiced by both parties. Adopting these reforms as a package could make the Senate more deliberative and productive for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Limit debate on the motion to proceed
Prohibit filling the amendment tree
Authorize a previous question motion
Require votes when talking stops
Senators should adopt these reforms together. Each one addresses a specific problem with the Senate's current operation and promises to make deliberation more effective. In doing so, the reforms directly address the frustrations of senators from both parties, fostering a more functional and responsive chamber.
Majority-party senators, for example, are regularly frustrated by the minority’s willingness to filibuster the motion to proceed (i.e., the motion to begin debate) on a bill. In recent decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have complained that the other party forces them to file cloture on virtually every major measure once they take control of the chamber. That is a problem because the cloture process consumes valuable floor time and makes it harder for either party to advance its agenda, even when it has won a majority.
Minority-party senators are frustrated by the majority’s use of rules to block amendments and push legislation through with limited debate. When in the minority, both parties have criticized the majority for filling the amendment tree to prevent proposals on the floor. They object to the practice of filing cloture preemptively to speed major bills before debate finishes.
Taken together, these complaints reveal why the Senate is dysfunctional. The problem is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans trade places and grievances when control of the Senate shifts. Today’s majority condemns obstruction. Tomorrow’s minority condemns exclusion. The parties swap frustrations, but the problems remain.
That is why the Senate should adopt a rules reform package. These proposals address the persistent concerns senators in both parties have about how the Senate works. Adopted together, they would make it easier for the Senate to deliberate and legislate.
Change the Rules Instead of Ignoring Them
Democrats and Republicans have tried in recent years to address their frustrations with the Senate unilaterally, by ignoring its rules rather than changing them. At different points, majorities in both parties have created new precedents or adopted standing orders that explicitly contradict the Senate’s Standing Rules. Rule XXII, for example, states clearly that invoking cloture on any “measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate” requires the affirmative vote of “three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting.” Yet Democrats explicitly violated Rule XXII in 2013 when they used the nuclear option to exempt all nominations except those to the Supreme Court from the filibuster without following the procedures established by the rule. Republicans violated the same rule in 2017, extending it to Supreme Court nominations. They did so again in 2019, using the nuclear option to reduce the time for post-cloture debate on nominations before a final confirmation vote.
In each case, senators established a new precedent inconsistent with Rule XXII. And in each case, the Senate continued following that precedent without ever amending the rule itself. Rule XXII still requires “three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn” to end debate on presidential nominations. It still limits post-cloture consideration of a nominee to “no more than thirty hours” before a final vote. The written rule remains, but the Senate increasingly operates as though it does not.
A Senate majority has the constitutional authority to change its Standing Rules. But each time senators ignore the rules rather than amend them, they weaken those rules. If current trends continue, it is likely that both parties will use the nuclear option whenever convenient. The problem is not just the specific changes they result in. Repeated use of the nuclear option shows growing indifference to the importance of written rules as a framework for debate.
That indifference comes at a cost. The nuclear option undermines the integrity of the Senate’s Standing Rules. The Senate needs those rules to function. Senators cannot predict everything that will happen during a debate. Outcomes are shaped by the actions senators take as debate unfolds. Lawmaking is a collective activity. It involves 100 senators who represent diverse constituencies and competing interests. The rules make that process manageable. They empower senators to participate in debate, structure the available choices, and create stable expectations for how the Senate will operate in the future. Those expectations, in turn, help senators accept suboptimal outcomes now and compromise when necessary.
For that reason, senators should stop breaking rules or pretending they don’t apply when inconvenient. When the rules no longer work, senators should amend them openly and in accordance with the Senate’s established procedures. This approach is harder than ignoring the rules, but it is the only way to keep them legitimate. A reform package designed for both majority and minority senators would make it easier to assemble the necessary supermajority coalition. By pursuing reform through the rules, senators strengthen the institutional framework and reaffirm their commitment to it.
The Takeaway
These four reforms will not fix everything that is wrong with the Senate. But they would address some of the chamber’s most persistent problems in a way that addresses concerns from both parties. They would do so by changing the rules instead of ignoring them. That matters because the Senate cannot function as a deliberative institution if its written rules are treated as optional whenever they become inconvenient. The goal is not to eliminate conflict. It is to restore a system in which conflict is channeled through rules that enable debate, amendment, and decision.