The Filibuster Made the Civil Rights Act Possible It prevented Southern senators from blocking debate and created the conditions for consensus.By David Hoppe
The debate over the future of the Senate’s legislative filibuster has focused on the simple use of majority power to crush the opposition. While the future of America’s bicameral legislature and the balance of power created by the Founders is riding on this debate, many have lost sight of the true nature and value of the Senate, an institution that takes time and requires compromise to find long-term answers to major issues. Critics have linked the filibuster to Jim Crow segregation, but the tactic actually played a crucial role in passing civil-rights legislation and ensuring it was accepted by the South.
Rule 22, which establishes a procedure called “cloture” to end a filibuster, was created to provide a way to close debate with support of a supermajority in the Senate and move to pass legislation. The rule protected the minority’s rights while allowing a compromise to be achieved that would ultimately result in legislation being passed.
For the first 47 years after Rule 22’s enactment in 1917, there were only five successful attempts to cut off debate in the U.S. Senate. A few senators felt so strongly about their right to extended debate that they vowed never to vote for cloture, even for legislation they supported.
There were several successful filibusters of civil-rights legislation between 1917 and 1964. But after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to make the Civil Rights Act his chief legislative priority. He worked with Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to maneuver the bill through the challenges of senators who planned to filibuster.
It began with Mansfield meeting with Georgia Democrat Richard Russell, the leader of the senators opposed to the Civil Rights Act. Mansfield promised there would be no tricks and he would keep Russell fully informed of Mansfield’s actions as he guided the bill through floor debate. Some insisted the bill should be driven through and passed as quickly as possible, but Mansfield treated every senator equally and fairly. He believed legislation should be addressed “not in the seeking of short-cuts, not in the cracking of nonexistent whips, not in wheeling and dealing, but in an honest facing of the situation and a resolution of it by the Senate itself.”
Consideration of the bill, which had passed the House, began in February 1964. Throughout the following months the filibuster continued. Senators of both parties offered many amendments, some of which passed. A total of 543 hours, 1 minute and 51 seconds were consumed by the longest filibuster in Senate history. Most importantly, the Senate and the country saw an open process that allowed the minority every opportunity to debate and offer amendments. They saw the leaders of both parties in the Senate work to gather the 67 votes then needed to cut off debate and pass a bill that extended civil rights to black Americans across the U.S.
Writing in the Atlantic 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Michael O’Donnell observed: “In the years since, the act has been a remarkable success. Its acceptance in the south was surprisingly quick and widespread. In a stroke, the act demolished the rickety but persistent foundation for segregation and Jim Crow.”
Perhaps that had something to do with the way the act passed—not by a simple majority forcing its will on the minority but by allowing the two sides to argue their case at length, by allowing the legislative process of debate and amendment to proceed unhindered, by gathering the votes needed to show the country that it must change the law, by carrying the country along through the months of discussion and compromise, by fulfilling the highest expectations of the Founders, Mansfield, Dirksen and other senators built support for a law the country needed. In the words of Victor Hugo, quoted by Dirksen during the close of debate in 1964, “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.”
A bipartisan consensus seems like a distant dream in this divided country, but the filibuster is central to achieving it. Ramming legislation down the throats of the minority by a narrow margin or a single vote breeds animosity, distrust and unrest. The filibuster, by slowing down legislation and giving time to build a solid majority, achieves consensus where it seems impossible. By giving the minority time to be fully heard and negotiated with, passage of legislation with bipartisan support creates a path for a more stable, peaceful democracy.
Comments are closed.
