随着20世纪80年代后投票权和选举改革问题的升温1月6日国会大厦袭击周年纪念日在2022年中期选举之前，民主党人希望改变参议院的规则通过立法他们说这对维护美国民主至关重要。
与此同时，共和党人警告说，即使参议院60票门槛的一个例外来推进立法——这一规则被称为阻挠议事——也将对民主和少数党的权利构成危险(尽管两党在过去十年中都使用了所谓的“核选择”——例如，需要51票来确认所有行政部门和司法部门的提名)。
参议院共和党人用阻挠议事的方式阻止了两个关键投票法案——《投票自由法案》和《约翰·刘易斯投票权提升法案》——民主党人和乔·拜登总统的当务之急——在参议院50-50的平均分裂中仍然停滞不前。
虽然拜登在国会服务了36年，为阻挠议事辩护，但他在接受美国广播公司新闻“今晚世界新闻”主播大卫·穆尔采访时表示上个月面试他支持为投票权破例，预计他会提出这一论点佐治亚州周二随着参议院多数党领袖查克·舒默期待在几天内就改变规则进行投票。
两党多年来一直在考虑取消阻挠议事的想法，以使多数党更容易实现其优先事项。以下是关于阻挠议事的一些信息:
什么是阻挠议事?
阻挠议事是19世纪参议院的一项程序规则，允许任何一名参议员通过延长辩论来阻止或推迟对法案或其他事项的行动。
虽然参议院的最终投票需要51票的简单多数，但需要60票的绝对多数才能开始或结束立法辩论，以便进行最终投票。
因此，即使一个政党在参议院拥有微弱多数，它仍然需要绝对多数才能推进立法——这对一个超党派的华盛顿来说是一项艰巨的任务。
众议院不使用阻挠议事的方式。相反，简单的多数可以结束辩论。
如何结束阻挠议事?
参议院的规则允许辩论无休止地继续，直到五分之三的议院——或者100名参议员中的60名——投票结束阻挠议事。
只有当至少60名参议员投票结束辩论时，参议院才能考虑一项措施，并最终进行最终投票。
为此，参议员们已经站在地板上谈了几个小时，意图阻止事情向前发展。
南卡罗来纳州参议员斯特罗姆·瑟蒙德保持了最长阻挠议事的记录，他发言24小时18分钟反对1957年民权法案。
近几十年来，一名参议员仅仅表明他或她有意阻挠一项立法就足以阻止对一项法案的行动。领导人知道这项立法缺乏60名参议员的支持，可能会放弃考虑这个问题，转而考虑其他问题。
阻挠议事是怎么发生的?
1806年，当时的副总统艾伦·伯尔带头取消了参议院的一项规则，该规则类似于众议院的规则，可用于切断辩论，无意中允许立法者无限制的辩论来拖延程序。
19世纪40年代，民主党参议员约翰·卡尔霍恩利用这一漏洞，连续几个小时谈论阻止他担心会削弱南方蓄奴州权力的法案。
自那以后，参议院的规则已经改变了几次，以使少数人更容易克服阻挠议事。
1917年，在民主党总统伍德罗·威尔逊的敦促下，参议院通过了第二十二条规则，该规则使得以三分之二的票数打破阻挠议事成为可能，这就是所谓的决定性投票。
1972年，多数党领袖迈克·芒菲尔德，蒙特。，引入了“双轨”制度，在这种制度下，参议院可以搁置一项分组法案，转而处理其他事务，从而消除了参议员留在会场辩论自己观点的动机。这促使立法者更加阻挠议案通过，因为参议员当时所要做的就是让领导层知道他或她的阻止议案的意图。
然后，1975年的一项规则改变使得大多数人更容易结束阻挠议事，要求现代的100人议院中五分之三的参议员，或者60名参议员，而不是三分之二。
阅读更多
据英国《金融时报》报道，自1917年以来，已有超过2000起阻挠议事事件布伦南正义中心。近一半发生在过去12年。
如何改变阻挠议事规则?
参议员们之前已经为阻挠议事的规则制定了例外条款。
这样做的一个选择叫做“去核化”——当参议员推翻一个现有的规则，比如结束辩论所需的票数。这通常是通过将结束阻挠议事所需的门槛降低到50票来实现的。
2012年，当时的参议院多数党领袖哈里·里德(Harry Reid)破例将门槛降至简单多数51票，以确认时任总统巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)的司法提名。(如果没有100人参加投票，可能会少于51人。)
几年后的2017年，时任参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔(Mitch McConnell)，R-Ky。，消除了对最高法院提名人的阻挠，为时任总统唐纳德·特朗普的第一位提名人获得确认扫清了道路。
许多人警告说，如果阻挠议事被取消，执政党将能够在不考虑少数人的情况下执政，为协商民主树立了一个危险的先例。
为什么现在呼吁变革?
在过去的50年里，阻挠议事越来越多地被用来扼杀重大立法。随着拜登的议程陷入僵局，民主党人呼吁通过投票权立法。去年，至少有19个州通过了34项限制投票的法律布伦南正义中心。
例如，如果结束对法案辩论的门槛降低到50票，民主党人可能会结束对其投票改革法案的辩论，并最终进行最终投票，副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯将在参议院以50比50的票数打破僵局，通过该法案。顺便说一句，哈里斯作为参议院主席，将在任何潜在的规则变化中发挥关键作用。她将担任主席，并主持任何规则变更行动。
政治学家诺姆·奥恩斯坦在最近的一次论坛版在《华盛顿邮报》标题为“阻挠议事的五个神话”的文章中，他提醒说，参议院不是建立在绝对多数的要求上的，当这个机构成立时，阻挠议事甚至不存在。
奥尔斯坦写道:“例如，民主党人提议要求参议员实际上在地板上发言，或者推翻标准，使参议院需要41票才能继续辩论，而不是60票才能结束辩论。“这些阻挠议事的改革不会削弱参议院，但会让它在我们的政治体系中恢复应有的地位。”
创始人怎么说?
许多人为阻挠议事辩护，认为创始人支持绝对多数的观点，这从美国民主的制衡中可以明显看出。
然而，国会研究服务学者沃尔特·奥卢泽克辩论，“总的来说，制宪者普遍倾向于简单多数票决策。他说:“在参议员‘平分秋色’的情况下，授予副总统投票权(第一条第三款)支持了这一观点。
此外，亚历山大·汉密尔顿在《联邦党人文件》中写道，允许少数人推翻多数人将会造成“乏味的拖延;持续的谈判和阴谋;公共利益的可鄙妥协。”
民主党人怎么说?
拜登上个月在接受美国广播公司新闻节目《今夜世界新闻》主播大卫·穆尔的独家采访时表示，他将支持修改参议院规则，以允许投票权立法继续进行——但前提是必须如此。
当被缪尔问及他是否支持一个例外，还是支持阻挠议事——参议院长期以来的程序，需要60名参议员投票才能推进一项法案——拜登说他支持——作为最后手段。
“我认为我们可能不必走那么远，”总统说，“但如果这是，如果这是——在获得投票权立法通过和不获得通过之间唯一的障碍是阻挠议事，我会的，我支持为阻挠议事排除投票权。”
舒默誓言，如果共和党人继续阻挠投票权立法，修改参议院规则的投票即将到来。在一个信周一，他在给同事的信中写道，他打算在1月17日马丁·路德·金纪念日当天或之前，强行就修改规则进行投票。
这位少数党领袖周一晚间重申，如果共和党人再次像预期的那样阻止民主党人就选举改革法案进行投票的尝试，舒默将开始就阻挠议事和可能的规则修改进行辩论。
舒默说:“如果共和党人拒绝本着两党合作的精神加入我们，如果他们继续劫持参议院的规则，将这个会议厅变成一个深冷柜，我们将考虑恢复参议院所必需的适当步骤，”尽管他似乎没有改变规则的投票权。
共和党人在说什么?
参议院少数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔(Mitch McConnell)先发制人地警告称，去年民主党赢得多数席位时，他威胁反对结束阻挠议事，这是他坚定支持的立场，尽管最高法院提名人使用了核选项。
在民主党人本周推动投票改革之前，麦康奈尔指责参议院民主党领袖试图“欺负”他们的成员，如果他们的投票权法案未获批准，就改变参议院的规则。
麦康奈尔周一在一次现场演讲中说:“参议院民主党领导人试图用一个‘大谎言’来恐吓和斥责他们自己的成员食言、违反规则和破坏参议院。"每一个歇斯底里的宣称我们的民主正处于危机之中的说法听起来都是空洞的。"
麦康奈尔补充说:“破坏参议院本身并否决阻挠议案将导致整个州数百万美国公民的大规模政治停电。
他警告说，对阻挠议事的任何改变不仅会改变参议院，还会改变美国人的生活。
“几十年来，参议员和公民都能够理所当然地认为，每个人都有发言权，即使他们没有一个分裂的政府。如果参议院的这一独特特征被放大，数百万美国人的声音将不再在这个会议厅中被听到，”麦康奈尔说。“这将永远摧毁美国政府的一个关键特征。双方的参议员都知道。”
民主党人曼钦、西内马压力越来越大
虽然来自西弗吉尼亚州的温和派民主党参议员乔·曼钦(Joe Manchin)和亚利桑那州的基斯顿·西内马(Kyrsten Sinema)表示支持投票权改革，但他们也赞同麦康奈尔的观点，即阻挠议事是为了保护少数群体，民主党人破例是危险的。
西内马在《华盛顿邮报》上写道:“如果我们取消参议院60票的门槛，我们失去的将比我们得到的多得多。”论坛版去年。
“阻挠议事是保护这种投入和我们的民主政府形式的重要工具。这就是为什么我以前说过，现在还会再说一遍，以消除任何一丝疑虑:在任何情况下，我都不会投票消除或削弱阻挠议事的行为。”论坛版他自己的。
曼钦坚持认为，任何规则的改变都必须得到两党的支持。
但是像民主党众议员吉姆·克莱伯恩这样强大的众议院民主党人正在向这些参议员施加压力，打破这些争论。
“如你所知，我是一个黑人，是美国宪法第15修正案赋予投票权的人的后裔。第15修正案不是两党投票。这是一个单一党派的投票，给了黑人投票权，”克莱伯恩说在“福克斯新闻频道星期天”
他补充说:“曼钦和其他人需要停止这样说，因为有人暗示美国宪法第15修正案不合法，因为它没有得到两党的认可，这让我感到非常痛苦。
这位西弗吉尼亚州参议员周二告诉记者，“我们需要一些好的规则改变来让这个地方更好地运转，但结束阻挠议事并不能让这个地方更好地运转。”
但上周，曼钦似乎稍微偏离了他的强硬立场，拒绝排除在共和党拒绝谈判的情况下，在投票权问题上采取只针对民主党的解决方案。
他在与记者的争吵中称通过对参议院规则的修改是“沉重的负担”，并强调他的“偏好”是共和党的支持，但没有称共和党的支持为“红线”
还有一点
根据美国参议院的说法网站，单词“filibuster”来源于荷兰语中的“freebooter”和西班牙语中的“filibusteros”——用来形容海盗。
What is the Senate filibuster? And why the calls to change it?
With the issue of voting rights and election reform heating up in the wake of theJan. 6 Capitol attack anniversaryand ahead of the 2022 midterms, Democrats are looking to change a Senate rule in orderto pass legislationthey say is vital to preserving American democracy.
Republicans, meanwhile, have warned even a single exception to the Senate 60-vote threshold to advance legislation -- a rule known as the filibuster -- would be dangerous to democracy and the rights of whichever party is in the minority (although both parties have used the so-called "nuclear option" in the last decade -- requiring 51 votes to confirm all executive branch and judicial nominees, for example).
With Senate Republicans using the filibuster to block twokey voting bills-- the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act -- a top priority for Democrats and President Joe Biden remains stalled in an evenly split 50-50 Senate.
While Biden, having served in Congress for 36 years, has defended the filibuster, he told ABC News "World News Tonight" Anchor David Muir in aninterview last monththat he supports making an exception for voting rights, an argument he's expected to press inGeorgia on Tuesdayas Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer looks to a vote on changing the rule within days.
Both parties have toyed with the idea of eliminating the filibuster over the years to make it easier for the majority party to achieve its priorities. Here's what to know about the filibuster:
What is the filibuster?
The filibuster is a 19th-century procedural rule in the Senate that allows any one senator to block or delay action on a bill or other matter by extending debate.
While a final vote in the Senate requires a simple majority of 51 votes, a supermajority, or 60 votes, is needed to start or end debate on legislation so it can proceed to a final vote.
Therefore, even if a party has a slim majority in the Senate, it still needs a supermajority to even move forward with legislation -- a tall task for a hyper-partisan Washington.
The House of Representatives does not use the filibuster. Instead, a simple majority can end debate.
How to end a filibuster?
Senate rules allow for debate to continue without end until three-fifths of the chamber -- or 60 out of 100 senators -- votes to end the filibuster.
Only when at least 60 senators vote to bring debate to a close can the Senate move forward with consideration of a measure and, eventually, final votes.
To that end, senators have stood for hours talking on the floor with the intention of blocking something from moving forward.
The record for the longest filibuster is held by Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
In recent decades, a senator merely signaling his or her intent to filibuster a piece of legislation has been enough to stop action on a bill. Leaders, knowing the legislation lacks the support of 60 senators, might drop the issue from consideration and move on to other matters in the meantime.
How did the filibuster come about?
In 1806, then-Vice President Aaron Burr led the charge to eliminate a Senate rule, similar to one seen in the House, that could be used to cut off debate, inadvertently allowing lawmakers unlimited debate to delay proceedings.
In the 1840s, Democratic Sen. John Calhoun exploited this loophole by talking for hours on end to block bills he feared would diminish the power of Southern slave-holding states.
The Senate rule has changed several times since to make it easier for the minority to overcome a filibuster.
In 1917, at the urging of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted Rule XXII that made it possible to break a filibuster with a two-thirds vote -- known as a cloture vote.
In 1972, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., introduced the "two-track" system in which the Senate can set aside a filibustered bill and move on to other business, subsequently eliminating the incentive for a senator to stay on the floor and argue their point. This prompted lawmakers to filibuster even more, since all a senator had to do then was make his or her intent to block a bill known to leadership.
Then, a rule change in 1975 made it slightly easier for the majority to end a filibuster, requiring the modern-day three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 senators, of the 100-member chamber, instead of two-thirds.
Since 1917, there have been more than 2,000 filibusters, according to theBrennan Center for Justice. Nearly half have been in just the last 12 years.
How can the filibuster rule be changed?
Senators have carved out exceptions to the filibuster rule before.
One option to do so is called "going nuclear" -- when senators override an existing rule, such as the number of votes needed to end debate. This is usually done by lowering the threshold needed to end a filibuster to 50 votes.
In 2012, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., carved out an exception to lower the threshold to a simple majority 51 votes to confirm then-President Barack Obama's judicial nominees. (It could be less than 51 if 100 aren’t present to vote.)
A few years later, in 2017, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, clearing the way for then-President Donald Trump's first nominee to be confirmed.
Many warn that, if the filibuster is eliminated, the party in power will be able to govern without regard for the minority, setting a dangerous precedent for a deliberative democracy.
Why a call for change now?
In the last 50 years, the filibuster has been used more and more to kill major legislation. And with Biden's agenda stalled, Democrats are calling for a carveout to pass voting rights legislation. In the last year, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting, according to theBrennan Center for Justice.
If the threshold to end debate on a bill is lowered to 50 votes, for instance, Democrats could end debate on their voting reform bill and eventually move to a final vote, with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as a tie-breaking vote in the 50-50 Senate to pass the legislation. Incidentally, Harris, as president of the Senate, would play a key role in any potential rules change. She would be expected to occupy the chair and preside over any rule change action.
Political scientist Norm Ornstein, in a recentop-edin the Washington Post titled "Five myths about the filibuster," reminded that the Senate wasn't built on supermajority requirements and that the filibuster didn't even exist when the body was founded.
"Democrats have proposed, for example, requiring that senators actually speak on the floor, or flipping the standard such that the Senate would require 41 votes to continue debate rather than 60 to end it," Ormstein writes. "These reforms to the filibuster would not weaken the Senate, but would restore it to its rightful place in our political system."
What did the founders say?
Many defend the filibuster by arguing the founders supported the idea of a supermajority as evident by the checks and balances in American democracy.
However, Congressional Research Service scholar Walter J. Oleszekargues, "Overall, the Framers generally favored decision-making by simple majority vote. This view is buttressed by the grant of a vote to the Vice President (Article I, section 3) in those cases where the Senators are 'equally divided,'" he said.
Additionally, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that allowing minorities to overrule the majority would make for "tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good."
What do Democrats say?
Biden said last month in an exclusive interview with ABC News "World News Tonight" Anchor David Muir that he would support changing Senate rules to allow voting rights legislation to proceed -- but only if necessary.
Asked by Muir if he supported an exception, or carveout to the filibuster -- the long-standing Senate procedure that requires 60 senators to vote to allow a bill to move forward -- Biden said he did -- as a last resort.
"I don't think we may have to go that far," the president said, "but I would be if that's, if it's -- the only thing standing between getting voting rights legislation passed and not getting passed is the filibuster, I support making the exception of voting rights for the filibuster."
Schumer has vowed that a vote on changing the Senate rules is coming if Republicans continue to block voting rights legislation. In aletterto colleagues on Monday, he wrote that he intends to force a vote on changing the rule on or before Jan. 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
The minority leader reaffirmed on Monday night that if Republicans, again, block Democrats' attempt to hold a vote on an election reform bill, as is expected, Schumer will open debate on the filibuster and possible rules changes.
"If Republicans refused to join us in a bipartisan spirit, if they would continue to hijack the rules of the Senate to turn this chamber into a deep freezer, we're going to consider the appropriate steps necessary to restore the Senate," Schumer said, despite not appearing to have the votes to change the rules.
What are Republicans saying?
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell preemptively warned of a "scorched earth" last year when Democrats won their majority to threaten against ending the filibuster -- a stance he had firmly stood behind, despite using the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees.
Ahead of Democrats pushing voting reforms this week, McConnell accused Senate Democratic leaders of trying to "bully" their members into changing the Senate rules if their voting rights bills aren't approved.
"The Senate Democratic leaders are trying to use a 'big lie' to bully and berate their own members into breaking their word, breaking the rules and breaking the Senate," McConnell said in a floor speech Monday. "Every hysterical claim that our democracy is in crisis rings hollow."
"Breaking the Senate itself and nuking the filibuster would cause a massive political power outage for many millions of American citizens of entire states," McConnell added.
He warned that any changes to the filibuster would not only change the Senate -- but American lives.
"For decades, both senators and citizens have been able to take for granted that everybody gets a voice even when they don't have a divided government. If this unique feature of the Senate is blown up, millions and millions of Americans voices will cease to be heard in this chamber," McConnell said. "It would destroy a key feature of American government forever. And senators on both sides know it."
Pressure builds on Democrats Manchin, Sinema
While moderate Democrats Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona say they support voting rights reforms, they have echoed McConnell's arguments that the filibuster is designed to protect the minority and that it's dangerous for Democrats to carve out an exception.
"If we eliminate the Senate's 60-vote threshold, we will lose much more than we gain," Sinema wrote in a Washington Postop-edlast year.
"The filibuster is a critical tool to protecting that input and our democratic form of government. That is why I have said it before and will say it again to remove any shred of doubt: There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster," Manchin wrote in anop-edof his own.
Manchin has maintained that any rules changes must be done with bipartisan support.
But powerful House Democrats like Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., are turning up the pressure on those senators and breaking down those arguments.
"I am, as you know, a Black person, descended of people who were given the vote by the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 15th Amendment was not a bipartisan vote. It was a single-party vote that gave Black people the right to vote," Clyburnsaidon "Fox News Sunday."
"Manchin and others need to stop saying that because that gives me great pain for somebody to imply that the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution is not legitimate because it did not have bipartisan buy-in," he added.
The West Virginia senator on Tuesday told reporters, "We need some good rule changes to make the place work better, but ending the filibuster doesn't make the place work better."
But last week, Manchin appeared to move slightly off his hardline stance, refusing to rule out a Democratic-only solution on voting rights if Republicans refused to negotiate.
He called passing a change to the Senate rules a "heavy lift" during a gaggle with reporters and emphasized that his "preference" would be Republican buy-in, but stopped short of calling Republican support a "red line."
One more thing
According to the U.S. Senatewebsite, the word "filibuster' is derived from a Dutch word for "freebooter" and the Spanish "filibusteros" -- used to describe pirates.
