Filibuster

A filibuster is a parliamentary procedure where debate over a proposed piece of

legislation is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a
vote on the proposal. It is sometimes referred to as "talking out a bill" or "talking a bill
to death"[1] and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decisionmaking body. The English term "filibuster" is derived from the Spanish filibustero, itself
deriving originally from the Dutch vrijbuiter, "privateer, pirate, robber" (also the root of
English "freebooter"[2]). The Spanish form entered the English language in the 1850s, as
applied to military adventurers from the United States then operating in Central America
and the Spanish West Indies such as William Walker.[3][4]
The term in its legislative sense was first used by Rep. Albert G. Brown, (D-MS) in
1853, referring to Abraham Watkins Venable's speech against "filibustering"
intervention in Cuba.[5]

Ancient Rome[edit]
One of the first known practitioners of the filibuster was the Roman senator Cato the
Younger. In debates over legislation he especially opposed, Cato would often obstruct
the measure by speaking continuously until nightfall.[6] As the Roman Senate had a rule
requiring all business to conclude by dusk, Cato's purposefully long-winded speeches
were an effective device to forestall a vote.
Cato attempted to use the filibuster at least twice to frustrate the political objectives of
Julius Caesar.[6] The first incident occurred during the summer of 60 BC, when Caesar
was returning home from his propraetorship in Hispania Ulterior. Caesar, by virtue of
his military victories over the raiders and bandits in Hispania, had been awarded a
triumph by the Senate. Having recently turned forty, Caesar had also become eligible to
stand for consul. This posed a dilemma. Roman generals honored with a triumph were
not allowed to enter the city prior to the ceremony, but candidates for the consulship
were required, by law, to appear in person at the Forum.[6] The date of the election,
which had already been set, made it impossible for Caesar to stand unless he crossed the
pomerium and gave up the right to his triumph. Caesar petitioned the Senate to stand in
absentia, but Cato employed a filibuster to block the proposal. Faced with a choice
between a triumph and the consulship, Caesar chose the consulship and entered the city.
Cato made use of the filibuster again in 59 BC in response to a land reform bill
sponsored by Caesar, who was then consul.[6] When it was Cato's time to speak during
the debate, he began one of his characteristically long-winded speeches. Caesar, who
needed to pass the bill before his co-consul, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, took
possession of the fasces at the end of the month, immediately recognized Cato's intent
and ordered the lictors to jail him for the rest of the day. The move was unpopular with
many senators and Caesar, realizing his mistake, soon ordered Cato's release. The day
was wasted without the Senate ever getting to vote on a motion supporting the bill, but
Caesar eventually circumvented Cato's opposition by taking the measure to the Tribal
Assembly, where it passed.

Westminster-style parliaments[edit]
United Kingdom[edit]
In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, a bill defeated by a filibustering manoeuvre
may be said to have been "talked out". The procedures of the House of Commons
require that members cover only points germane to the topic under consideration or the
debate underway whilst speaking. Example filibusters in the Commons and Lords
include:

In 1874, Joseph Gillis Biggar started making long speeches in the House of
Commons to delay the passage of Irish coercion acts. Charles Stewart Parnell, a
young Irish nationalist Member of Parliament (MP), who in 1880 became leader
of the Irish Parliamentary Party, joined him in this tactic to obstruct the business
of the House and force the Liberals and Conservatives to negotiate with him and
his party. The tactic was enormously successful, and Parnell and his MPs
succeeded, for a time, in forcing Parliament to take the Irish Question of return
to self-government seriously.

In 1983, Labour MP John Golding talked for over 11 hours during an all-night
sitting at the committee stage of the British Telecommunications Bill. However,
as this was at a standing committee and not in the Commons chamber, he was
also able to take breaks to eat.

On July 3, 1998, Labour MP Michael Foster's Wild Mammals (Hunting with

Dogs) Bill was blocked in parliament by opposition filibustering.

In January 2000, filibustering directed by Conservative MPs to oppose the

Disqualifications Bill led to cancellation of the day's parliamentary business on
Prime Minister Tony Blair's 1000th day in office. However, since this business
included Prime Minister's Question Time, William Hague, Conservative leader
at that time, was deprived of the opportunity of a high-profile confrontation with
the Prime Minister.

On Friday 20 April 2007, a Private Member's Bill aimed at exempting Members

of Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act was 'talked out' by a
collection of MPs, led by Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes and Norman Baker
who debated for 5 hours, therefore running out of time for the parliamentary day
and 'sending the bill to the bottom of the stack.' However, since there were no
other Private Members' Bills to debate, it was resurrected the following Monday.
[7]

In January 2011, Labour peers, including most notably John Prescott, were
attempting to delay the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and
Constituencies Bill 2010 until after 16 February, the deadline given by the
Electoral Commission to allow the referendum on the Alternative Vote to take
place on 5 May. On the eighth day of debate, staff in the House of Lords set up
camp beds and refreshments to allow peers to rest, for the first time in eight
years.[8]

In January 2012, Conservative and Scottish National Party MPs used

filibustering to successfully block the Daylight Savings Bill 201012, a Private
Member's Bill that would put the UK on Central European Time. The
filibustering included an attempt by Jacob Rees-Mogg to amend the bill to give
the county of Somerset its own time zone, 15 minutes behind London.[9][10]

In November 2014, Conservative MPs Philip Davies and Christopher Chope

successfully filibustered a Private Member's Bill that would prohibit retaliatory
evictions. Davies's speech was curtailed by Deputy Speaker Dawn Primarolo for
disregarding her authority, after she ordered Davies to wrap up his then hourlong speech. A closure motion moved by the government, which was agreed to
600, failed due to being inquorate.[11][12]

The all-time Commons record for non-stop speaking, six hours, was set by Henry
Brougham in 1828, though this was not a filibuster. The 21st century record was set on
December 2, 2005 by Andrew Dismore, Labour MP for Hendon. Dismore spoke for
three hours and 17 minutes to block a Conservative Private Member's Bill, the Criminal
Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill, which he claimed amounted to
"vigilante law."[13] Although Dismore is credited with speaking for 197 minutes, he
regularly accepted interventions from other MPs who wished to comment on points
made in his speech. Taking multiple interventions artificially inflates the duration of a
speech, and is seen by many[weasel words] as a tactic to prolong a speech.
In local unitary authorities of England a motion may be carried into closure by
filibustering. This results in any additional motions receiving less time for debate by
Councillors instead forcing a vote by the Council under closure rules.[citation needed]
Northern Ireland[edit]
A notable filibuster took place in the Northern Ireland House of Commons in 1936
when Tommy Henderson (Independent Unionist MP for Shankill) spoke for nine and a
half hours (ending just before 4 am) on the Appropriation Bill. As this Bill applied
government spending to all departments, almost any topic was relevant to the debate,
and Henderson used the opportunity to list all of his many criticisms of the Unionist
government.

Australia[edit]
Both houses of the Australian parliament have strictly enforced rules on how long
members may speak, so filibusters are generally not possible.[14][15]
In opposition, Tony Abbott's Liberal National coalition used suspension of standing
orders in 2012 for the purposes of filibustering, most commonly during question time
against the Labor government.[16][17]

New Zealand[edit]
In August 2000, New Zealand opposition parties National and ACT delayed the voting
for the Employment Relations Bill by voting slowly, and in some cases in Mori (which
required translation into English).[18]

In 2009, several parties staged a filibuster of the Local Government (Auckland

Reorganisation) Bill in opposition to the government setting up a new Auckland
Council under urgency and without debate or review by select committee, by proposing
thousands of wrecking amendments and voting in Mori as each amendment had to be
voted on and votes in Mori translated into English. Amendments included renaming
the council to "Auckland Katchafire Council" or "Rodney Hide Memorial Council" and
replacing the phrase powers of a regional council with power and muscle.[19][20]

India[edit]
The Rajya Sabha (Council of states) which is the upper house in the Indian bicameral
legislature allows for a debate to be brought to a close with a simple majority decision
of the house, on a closure motion so introduced by any member.[21] On the other hand,
the Lok Sabha (Council of the people) the lower house leaves the closure of the
debate to the discretion of the speaker, once a motion to end the debate is moved by a
member.[22]

Ireland[edit]
In 2014, Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter performed a filibuster, he was perceived to
"drone on and on" and hence this was termed a "Drone Attack".[23]

Canada[edit]
Federal[edit]
A dramatic example of filibustering in the House of Commons of Canada took place
between Thursday June 23, 2011 and Saturday June 25, 2011. In an attempt to prevent
the passing of Bill C-6, which would have legislated the imposing of a four-year
contract and pay conditions on the locked out Canada Post workers, the New
Democratic Party (NDP) led a filibustering session which lasted for fifty-eight hours.
The NDP argued that the legislation in its then form undermined collective bargaining.
Specifically, the NDP opposed the salary provisions and the form of binding arbitration
outlined in the bill.[24]
The House was supposed to break for the summer Thursday June 23, but remained open
in an extended session due to the filibuster. The 103 NDP MPs had been taking it in turn
to deliver 20 minute speeches plus 10 minutes of questions and comments in order
to delay the passing of the bill. MPs are allowed to give such speeches each time a vote
takes place, and many votes were needed before the bill could be passed. As the
Conservative Party of Canada held a majority in the House, the bill passed.[24][25] This was
the longest filibuster since the 1999 Reform Party of Canada filibuster, on native treaty
issues in British Columbia.[26][27]
Conservative Member of Parliament Tom Lukiwski is known for his ability to stall
Parliamentary Committee business by filibustering.[28][29] One such example occurred
October 26, 2006, when he spoke for almost 120 minutes to prevent the Canadian
House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
from studying a private member's bill to implement the Kyoto Accord.[30][31][32] He also
spoke for about 6 hours during the February 5, 2008 and February 7, 2008 at the

Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

meetings to block inquiry into allegations that the Conservative Party spent over the
maximum allowable campaign limits during the 2006 election.[33][34][35][36][37]
Another example of filibuster in Canada federally came in early 2014 when NDP MP
and Deputy Leader David Christopherson filibustered the government's bill C-23, the
Fair Elections Act at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.[38] His filibuster lasted
several meetings the last of which he spoke for over 8 hours and was done to support his
own motion to hold cross country hearings on the bill so MPs could hear what the
Canadian public thought of the bill.[39] In the end, given that the Conservative
government had a majority at committee, his motion was defeated and the bill passed
although with some significant amendments.[40]
Provincial[edit]
The Legislature of the Province of Ontario has witnessed several significant filibusters,
[41]
although two are notable for the unusual manner by which they were undertaken.[42]
The first was an effort on May 6, 1991, by Mike Harris, later premier but then leader of
the opposition Progressive Conservatives, to derail the implementation of the budget
tabled by the NDP government under premier Bob Rae. The tactic involved the
introduction of Bill 95, the title of which contained the names of every lake, river and
stream in the province.[43] Between the reading of the title by the proposing MPP, and the
subsequent obligatory reading of the title by the clerk of the chamber, this filibuster
occupied the entirety of the day's session until adjournment. To prevent this particular
tactic to be used again, changes were eventually made to the Standing Orders to limit
the time allocated each day to the introduction of bills to 30 minutes.[41]
A second high-profile and uniquely implemented filibuster in the Ontario Legislature
occurred in April, 1997, where the Ontario New Democratic Party, then in opposition,
tried to prevent the governing Progressive Conservatives' Bill 103 from taking effect. To
protest the Tory government's legislation that would amalgamate the municipalities of
Metro Toronto into the "megacity" of Toronto, the small NDP caucus introduced 11,500
amendments to the megacity bill, created on computers with mail merge functionality.
Each amendment would name a street in the proposed city, and provide that public
hearings be held into the megacity with residents of the street invited to participate. The
Ontario Liberal Party also joined the filibuster with a smaller series of amendments; a
typical Liberal amendment would give a historical designation to a named street. The
NDP then added another series of over 700 amendments, each proposing a different date
for the bill to come into force.
The filibuster began on April 2 with the Abbeywood Trail amendment[44] and occupied
the legislature day and night, the members alternating in shifts. On April 4, exhausted
and often sleepy government members inadvertently let one of the NDP amendments
pass, and the handful of residents of Cafon Court in Etobicoke were granted the right to
a public consultation on the bill, although the government subsequently nullified this
with an amendment of its own.[45] On April 6, with the alphabetical list of streets barely
into the Es, Speaker Chris Stockwell ruled that there was no need for the 220 words
identical in each amendment to be read aloud each time, only the street name.[46] With a
vote still needed on each amendment, Zorra Street was not reached until April 8.[47] The

Liberal amendments were then voted down one by one, eventually using a similar
abbreviated process, and the filibuster finally ended on April 11.[48]

Other[edit]
On 28 October 1897, Dr. Otto Lecher, Delegate for Brunn, spoke continuously for
twelve hours before the Abgeordnetenhaus ("House of Delegates") of the Reichsrat
("Imperial Council") of Austria, to block action on the "Ausgleich" with Hungary,
which was due for renewal. Mark Twain was present, and described the speech and the
political context in his essay "Stirring Times in Austria".[49]
In the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly, Independent member Dr Ahrn Palley
staged a similar filibuster against the Law and Order Maintenance Bill on 22 November
1960, although this took the form of moving a long series of amendments to the Bill,
and therefore consisted of multiple individual speeches interspersed with comments
from other Members. Palley kept the Assembly sitting from 8 PM to 12:30 PM the
following day.
In the Senate of the Philippines, Roseller Lim of the Nacionalista Party held out the
longest filibuster in Philippine Senate history.[citation needed] On the election for the President
of the Senate of the Philippines on April 1963, he stood on the podium for more than 18
hours to wait for party-mate Alejandro Almendras who was to arrive from the United
States. The Nacionalistas, who comprised exactly half of the Senate, wanted to prevent
the election of Ferdinand Marcos to the Senate Presidency. Prohibited from even going
to the comfort room, he had to relieve in his pants until Almendras' arrival. He voted for
party-mate Eulogio Rodriguez just as Almendras arrived, and had to be carried off via
stretcher out of the session hall due to exhaustion. However, Almendras voted for
Marcos, and the latter wrested the Senate Presidency from the Nacionalistas after more
than a decade of control.[citation needed]
On December 16, 2010, Werner Kogler of the Austrian Green Party gave his speech
before the budget committee, criticizing the failings of the budget and the governing
parties (Social Democratic Party and Austrian People's Party) in the last years. The
filibuster lasted for 12 hours and 42 minutes (starting at 13:18, and speaking until 2:00
in the morning),[50] thus breaking the previous record held by his party-colleague
Madeleine Petrovic (10 hours and 35 minutes on March 11 in 1993),[51] after which the
standing orders had been changed, so speaking time was limited to 20 minutes.[52]
However, it didn't keep Kogler from giving his speech.

United States[edit]
Senate[edit]
Main article: Filibuster in the United States Senate
The filibuster is a powerful parliamentary device in the United States Senate, which was
strengthened in 1975[53] and in the past decade has come to mean that most major
legislation (apart from budgets) requires a 60% vote to bring a bill or nomination to the
floor for a vote. In recent years, the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by

moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture
have failed.[54] Defenders call the filibuster "The Soul of the Senate."[55]
Senate rules permit a senator, or series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and
on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[56]
(usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under
Senate Rule XXII.
The removal or substantial limitation of the filibuster is called the constitutional option
by proponents, and the nuclear option by opponents. Under current Senate rules, a rule
change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting
(as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the
filibuster.[56] Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.[57]
On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted, in a 52 to 48 vote, to require only a majority
vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including
Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required. A 3/5
supermajority is still required to end filibusters unrelated to those nominees.[58][59]
State Legislatures[edit]
Main article: Comparison of U.S. state governments
Only 13 state legislatures have a filibuster:

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

Connecticut

Florida

Hawaii

Idaho

Maine

Nebraska

South Carolina

Texas

Utah

Vermont

House of Representatives[edit]
In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited
debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was
created. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until Speaker
Thomas Brackett Reed eliminated it in 1890. As the membership of the House grew
much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the
delay and blocking of floor votes.

France[edit]
In France, in August 2006, the left-wing opposition submitted 137,449 amendments[60] to
the proposed law bringing the share in Gaz de France owned by the French state from
80% to 34% in order to allow for the merger between Gaz de France and Suez.[61]
Normal parliamentary procedure would require 10 years to vote on all the amendments.
The French constitution gives the government two options to defeat such a filibuster.
The first one was originally the use of the article 49 paragraph 3 procedure, according to
which the law was adopted except if a majority is reached on a non-confidence motion
(a reform of July 2008 resulted in this power being restricted to budgetary measures
only, plus one time each ordinary session i.e. from October to June on any bill.
Before this reform, article 49, 3 was frequently used, especially when the government
was short a majority in the Assemble nationale to support the text but still enough to
avoid a non-confidence vote). The second one is the article 44 paragraph 3 through
which the government can force a global vote on all amendments it did not approve or
submit itself.[62]
In the end, the government did not have to use either of those procedures. As the
parliamentary debate started, the left-wing opposition chose to withdraw all the
amendments to allow for the vote to proceed. The "filibuster" was aborted because the
opposition to the privatisation of Gaz de France appeared to lack support amongst the
general population. It also appeared that this privatisation law could be used by the leftwing in the presidential election of 2007 as a political argument. Indeed, Nicolas
Sarkozy, president of the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP the right wing
party), Interior Minister, former Finance Minister and former President, had previously
promised that the share owned by the French government in Gaz de France would never
go below 70%.

Hong Kong[edit]
The first incidence of filibuster in the Legislative Council (LegCo) after the Handover
occurred during the second reading of the Provision of Municipal Services
(Reorganization) Bill in 1999, which aimed at dissolving the partially elected Urban
Council and Regional Council. As the absence of some pro-Establishment legislators
would mean an inadequate support for the passing of the bill, the Pro-establishment
Camp filibustered along with Michael Suen, the then-Secretary for Constitutional
Affairs, the voting of the bill was delayed to the next day and that the absentees could

cast their votes. Though the filibuster was criticised by the pro-democracy camp, Lau
Kong-wah of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong
(DAB) defended their actions, saying "it (a filibuster) is totally acceptable in a
parliamentary assembly."[63]
Legislators of the Pro-democracy Camp filibustered during a debate about financing the
construction of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link by raising
many questions on very minor issues, delaying the passing of the bill from 18 December
2009 to 16 January 2010.[64] The Legislative Council Building was surrounded by
thousands of anti-high-speed rail protesters during the course of the meetings.
In 2012, Albert Chan and Wong Yuk-man of People Power submitted a total of 1306
amendments to the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill, by which the government
attempted to forbid lawmakers from participating in by-elections after their resignation.
The bill was a response to the so-called 'Five Constituencies Referendum, in which 5
lawmakers from the pro-democracy camp resigned and then joined the by-election,
claiming that it would affirm the public's support to push forward the electoral reform.
The pro-democracy camp strongly opposed the bill[citation needed], saying it was seen a
deprivation of the citizens' political rights. As a result of the filibuster, the LegCo
carried on multiple overnight debates on the amendments. In the morning of 17 May
2012, the President of the LegCo (Jasper Tsang) terminated the debate, citing Article 92
of the Rules of Procedure of LegCo: In any matter not provided for in these Rules of
Procedure, the practice and procedure to be followed in the Council shall be such as
may be decided by the President who may, if he thinks fit, be guided by the practice and
procedure of other legislatures. In the end, all motions to amend the bill were defeated
and the Bill was passed.
To ban filibuster, Ip Kwok-him of the DAB sought to limit each member to move only
one motion, by amending the procedures of the Finance Committee and its two
subcommittees in 2013. All 27 members from pan-democracy camp submitted 1.9
million amendments.[65] The Secretariat estimated that 408 man-months (each containing
156 working hours) were needed to vet the facts and accuracy of the motions, and, if all
amendments were admitted by the Chairman, the voting time would take 23,868 twohour meetings.

Italy[edit]
In Italy the filibustering has ancient traditions and is expressed overall with the
proposition of legal texts[66] on which interventions take place.[67]

Iran[edit]
In Iranian oil nationalisation, the filibustering speech of Hossain Makki, the National
Front deputy took four days [68] that made the pro-British and pro-royalists in Majlis
(Iran) inactive. To forestall a vote, the opposition, headed by Hossein Makki, conducted
a filibuster. For four days Makki talked about the country's tortuous experience with
AIOC and the short comings of the bill. Four days later when the term ended the debate
had reached no conclusion. The fate of the bill remained to be decided by the next
Majlis.[69]

South Korea[edit]
South Korean opposition lawmakers started a filibuster on February 23, 2016 to stall the
Anti-Terrorism bill, which they claim will give too much power to the National
Intelligence Service and result in invasions of citizens' privacy. As of March 2, the
filibuster completed with a total of 193 hours, and the passing of the bill.[70]