Loren Lippincott
The filibuster became part of the Nebraska Legislature’s procedures in 1937, when the one-house Unicameral first convened. Nebraska’s filibuster operates through unlimited debate, which can be ended only by a cloture motion requiring a two-thirds majority (currently 33 out of 49 senators) to cease debate and force a vote. This supermajority requirement for cloture — making minority obstruction possible — stems from the Unicameral’s design which hopes to promote thorough discussion and protect minority views in a nonpartisan system.
The formal cloture rule allowing a vote to end debate after time limits have expired, has existed since the rules were adopted in 1937. Refinements, like automatic cloture votes after eight hours on general file, were added in 1990 and clarified in 1994. Prior to 1937, Nebraska’s bicameral legislature lacked a comparable supermajority cloture mechanism, relying more on majority rules. The filibuster’s prominence has grown over time, and became a key tool for compromise in the nonpartisan Unicameral, akin to the U.S. Senate but unique among states.
Nebraska closely mimics the U.S. Senate rules, so perhaps we should look closely at the kerfuffle happening in D.C. Unfortunately our Unicameral is following the same obstructionist path.
Here are some of the primary arguments commonly made in favor of abolishing the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. They illustrate how the filibuster rule undermines democratic processes and efficiency. Note that the filibuster refers to the procedural requirement that typically needs a 60-vote (3/5) supermajority to end debate (cloture) and advance most legislation.
First, it is undemocratic and anti-majoritarian, to allow the minority to block the will of the majority. The filibuster enables as few as 41 senators — potentially representing far less than half the U.S. population — to halt bills that have majority support, violating the principle of majority rule embedded in the Constitution, which specifies supermajorities only for limited cases like treaties or impeachments. This is exacerbated by the Senate’s existing structure, where small states are over-represented. (By 2040, projections show two-thirds of Americans will be represented by just 30 percent of senators, making the filibuster a tool for “minority tyranny.”) As George Washington said, “The fundamental principle of our Constitution requires that the will of the majority shall prevail.”
Secondly, it promotes gridlock, partisanship and inefficiency rather than deliberation. Contrary to claims that it encourages debate, the modern “silent” filibuster (post-1975 reforms) requires no actual floor speech to block action, reducing overall Senate debate by up to 28 percent and wasting resources without changing outcomes. Filibuster usage has exploded since 2006, with cloture motions doubling and productivity plummeting (e.g., passing under 4 percent of bills recently vs. 52 percent in 1947), leading to legislative paralysis on popular issues like healthcare and immigration. This allows the minority party to obstruct without a mandate which forces executives to bypass Congress via administrative actions.
It also blocks urgent and popular reforms, making the government unresponsive. The filibuster routinely stalls majority-backed priorities, such as democracy enhancements (e.g., automatic voter registration, campaign finance limits, gerrymandering fixes under bills like H.R. 1), economic policies and infrastructure updates. In a polarized era, it disproportionately benefits parties with narrower agendas, while frustrating broader public mandates and contributing to crises like recent government shutdowns, where it prevents quick resolutions on funding for workers and services.
The filibuster is not constitutionally required and has been changed before, proving reform is feasible. The Constitution leaves Senate rules to the body itself and favors simple majorities. Therefore, legal scholars argue the filibuster is unconstitutional. Not part of the original design, it emerged accidentally in the early 1800s, and has been modified multiple times such as reducing cloture from 67 to 60 votes in 1975 and carve-outs for nominations via the “nuclear option.” So full abolition could occur similarly via rule changes or precedents, without needing a supermajority.
These arguments have gained traction with the debacle of the recent government shutdown. Calls to end the filibuster aim to break deadlocks and advance popular agendas like repealing the failed Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Partial reforms like lowering thresholds or requiring active talking filibusters, are often dismissed as inadequate, with full elimination seen as necessary for a functional U.S. Senate.
Perhaps our Unicameral should consider this as well.
Loren Lippincott represents Legislative District 34 in the Nebraska State Senate. Read his column in the Nance County Journal.