House Republicans Pressure Senate to Force Vote on SAVE America Act
George Caldwell /
A group of House Republicans, accustomed to pressuring their own chamber’s leadership, is now publicly calling for the Senate to use a “talking filibuster” in order to pass voter identification legislation.
“I don’t think the votes are there [in the Senate] to eliminate the filibuster, but they might be there to actually force the Democrats to do what’s called the ‘talking filibuster,’ which is the way it was up until the 1980s,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., said in a recent Fox News appearance as he called for the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act.
The bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo identification to vote in federal elections. It has passed in the House but has not received a vote in the Senate.
A faction of Washington conservatives is calling for Senate Republicans to enforce Rule 19 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, under which senators are limited to two speeches per legislative question.
Under that strategy, Republicans would put the SAVE America Act on the floor, refuse to adjourn, and force Democrats to use up all their speeches. At the end of the process, Republicans could then vote on the bill and pass it with a simple majority.
It would be an alternative to the norm of overcoming the filibuster by seeking 60 votes to end debate and bring the bill to a final vote. That would be unlikely due to Democrats’ general opposition to the bill.
“You’re supposed to stand on the floor and debate the bill,” Harris continued. “You don’t just take a vote and walk off the floor … We want to hear the Democrats’ arguments that we shouldn’t ask for citizenship proof if you register to vote for a federal election or that you shouldn’t show a photo ID for a federal election.”
This is not to be confused with “nuking” the filibuster via a rule change, as it would be the enforcement of an existing rule.
Then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., reportedly considered the talking filibuster approach in 2022 to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
Senate Democrats ultimately tried another way to exempt the bill from the 60-vote cloture requirement, but failed with bipartisan opposition.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, formerly a chief of staff for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has also been making the case for the talking filibuster.
Roy argues that under this approach, the “worst-case scenario” would be that “Democrats filibuster to death an 85% issue like voter ID in front of the entire country.” He added that the “best-case scenario” would be that “Democrats filibuster an 85% issue, and we defeat them and it becomes law.”
However, some Republicans in Washington are opposing the strategy.
Michael Fragoso, former chief counsel for Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote in National Review that the approach would create an “unwinnable vote-a-rama,” in which Democrats could delay legislative action and push Republicans into uncomfortable votes by offering amendments.
“Democrats would be able to force Republicans on a series of death marches on popular issues of their choosing,” Fragoso wrote in one article.
For this reason, Fragoso has argued the approach “would actually require some rule changes to succeed.”
Meanwhile, some advocates of forcing the talking filibuster, such as Rachel Bovard of the Conservative Partnership Institute, believe that Democrat-backed amendments should not be a problem.
“Republicans need to be prepared to table (or kill) Democrat amendments, even if they are on issues some Republicans agree with, such as overturning President Donald Trump’s tariffs. This is called strategic voting, and senators do it all of the time,” Bovard wrote in a recent article for The Federalist.