GOP Doesn’t Need To ‘Change’ Senate Rules To Pass SAVE Act

The Senate is set to bring the SAVE America Act to the floor this week, and the impending action has prompted corporate media to deploy deceptive talking points about upper chamber rules. The election integrity measure, whose key components on voter ID and proof of citizenship are widely popular with Republican, independent, and Democrat voters, has faced a headwind of false narratives since its introduction.

Now some members of the propaganda press are misleading readers about what it would take to pass the legislation, with several outlets framing the issue as though Republicans would need to “change” Senate rules in order to pass the bill with a simple majority (which would likely be the only way the legislation is passed).

The Hill’s Jared Gans wrote that “Trump and conservatives in Congress have pushed for Republicans to change Senate rules to implement a ‘talking filibuster.’”

The Washington Post claimed the legislation “faces unified opposition from Democrats, meaning that the Senate can’t pass it unless Republicans change the rules and eliminate the filibuster.”

NBC News’ Sahil Kapur and Frank Thorp V reported that “years ago, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., explored the possibility of using a ‘talking filibuster’ when Democrats were in charge of the Senate and frustrated by relentless Republican filibusters. He eventually concluded that it wasn’t feasible to get around the 60-vote threshold without changing the Senate rules.”

But Rachel Bovard, vice president of programs at Conservative Partnership Institute, told The Federalist that that portrayal fundamentally misunderstands how Senate procedure works.

“So everything in the Senate prior to cloture being filed on it is at simple majority,” Bovard told The Federalist. “What a filibuster is, is you’re forcing them to actually come physically delay the vote.”

At that point, she explained, there are two ways to end that delay. One option is filing cloture, which requires 60 votes under Senate Rule 22 to cut off debate. The other is to force senators of the minority to hold the floor continuously and keep talking. That’s what is known as the talking filibuster.

“I think a lot of reporters and a lot of Americans think bills pass at 60 votes. Every bill passes the Senate with a simple majority; it’s just a question of how you break the filibuster,” Bovard explained.

“You can either do it mechanically under the Senate’s Rule 22 by invoking cloture at 60 votes, or you can break a filibuster by physical exhaustion [a talking filibuster]. Either way, bills always pass at simple majority once the filibuster has been broken.”

It’s the same point made by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, in an exclusive letter obtained by The Federalist. Roy explained that so long as all Senate Republicans who support the legislation are present (that number being 50), and there is a quorum, the Senate must either be voting or a member must be speaking — aka the “talking filibuster.”

“If Republicans stick together, and the minority exhaust their opportunities to speak in opposition or give up, a final vote on passage of the bill occurs automatically at a majority threshold,” Roy said.

In other words, the Senate’s own existing rules allow for this process, and there is no rule “change” required.

Bovard said a talking filibuster would also force the Senate to do what it is supposed to do best, that is, deliberate and negotiate.

“A talking filibuster forces the Senate to start seeing if it can shake loose a deal that seven Democrats might support,” Bovard said. “It’s about forcing the minority to talk to the majority on a bill where both sides would never engage otherwise.”

In that scenario, Republicans may be able to get the 60 votes needed for cloture, but the talking filibuster would also give Republicans another way to pass the legislation without having 60 votes.

Bovard says one reason for the misconception about changing the rules could be due to Democrats’ 2022 effort to use a talking filibuster to pass their election legislation. Then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to ram through Democrats’ Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. In a bid to avoid Republicans using a talking filibuster (which under current Senate rules would, in part, permit each senator to speak on two separate times for as long as they can physically do so) to prolong or delay a vote, Schumer suggested changing the rules that would limit each senator to two speeches on the final passage of the legislation while stopping other tactics like adding amendments, motions, or points of order (which would give Senators additional speaking time).

Bovard said because of Schumer’s efforts to actually change filibuster rules to make it easier for Democrats, there are “a lot of people who say, ‘Well, because Democrats tried to propose a rules change to do this, then a rules change must be required now.’  But that is not true at all. A talking filibuster has always been a part of the Senate’s architecture, since the Senate’s inception. In 2022, Democrats realized how physically and procedurally difficult it would be, and tried to change the rules to make it easier on themselves. But Republicans are not proposing that now — they’re just proposing using the procedure as the institution currently allows.”

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2