Utah Sen. Mike Lee has reignited a debate on filibuster rules in the Senate as he pushes for a vote on his election security bill. But Republicans are divided on the topic — even within Utah’s own delegation.
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, reiterated his calls not to change filibuster rules, arguing Republicans should not pass agenda items “at the expense of our institutions.” His stance comes in contrast to Lee, who has pushed to revive what is known as the “talking filibuster” to circumvent the 60-vote threshold needed on most legislation to end debate.
“For those concerned in the House, I also oppose skirting around the filibuster,” Curtis said in a post on X, reposting a previous statement in November when he said: “The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate. Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t. I’m a firm no on eliminating it.”
The split comes as Lee engages in conversations with the White House and Senate Republican leadership to reinstate the talking filibuster, an alternative strategy to end debate and force a vote on certain legislation without needing to secure support from 60 senators. Doing so would allow Lee to use the original structure of a filibuster that requires senators to be present on the floor and actively talking in order to stall a vote.
Those Senate rules were updated in 1917 to allow for an alternative route known as invoking cloture, which would allow senators to vote on ending debate so long as they had significant support — which requires 60 votes under current rules.
Cloture has since become the norm in the Senate because it expedites voting schedules, although it often requires a bipartisan vote to pass any one piece of legislation. In the past year, that’s halted several Republican bills central to their agenda but that have failed to garner Democratic support.
Now, Lee is pushing Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to invoke the talking filibuster rather than using cloture to advance his bill — which would force Democrats to speak continuously on the floor in order to block it.
“It requires harder work on the part of the Senate, but it also reflects the fact that this is part of what enables and facilitates the idea of the talking filibuster,” Lee told the Deseret News. “We’ve grown so accustomed to cloture that we’ve forgotten that it’s not the only tool in the shed.”
Utilizing the talking filibuster wouldn’t eliminate current rules, Lee argues, and it wouldn’t require every bill to use the arcane method. In fact, Lee noted that cloture would likely still be the favored option because a talking filibuster could take weeks of debate just to schedule a vote compared to just a few days.
Thune said any decisions to use alternative filibuster rules were still premature, telling reporters on Tuesday there “weren’t any commitments made” to do so. Lee confirmed that no decisions had been made.
Talk of altering the filibuster or even doing away with it altogether became a flashpoint last year after President Donald Trump told Senate Republicans they should eliminate the procedure because it was the only way to advance their agenda without Democratic obstruction.
Democrats have previously floated getting rid of the filibuster in recent years when they held the Senate majority. However, both parties have so far refrained from doing so out of concerns the opposing party would later take advantage of it.