Senate G.O.P. Faces Pressure to Force 'Talking Filibuster' for Voter ID Bill

[In It to Win It]

Gift Link
NYT

Senate Republicans are coming under intense pressure from President Trump and right-wing colleagues to embark on an old-fashioned filibuster fight in an effort to ram through a voter identification bill that their party regards as crucial to salvaging their dimming chances of winning the midterm elections.

The move, which Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican and majority leader, has been reluctant to undertake, involves using tactics that haven’t been employed for decades, and could paralyze the Senate indefinitely with no guarantee of success.

But with 50 Republican senators now officially behind the legislation, its backers are escalating calls for their party to force Democrats who have promised to block the bill to wage a so-called talking filibuster. That process would involve occupying the floor continuously and engaging with Republicans in a procedural war of attrition, if they want to prevent the legislation from becoming law.

“It is literally a pressure cooker, and the ball is 100 percent in their court,” Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida and a leading proponent of the legislation, said of G.O.P. senators. “I think at this point in time, even Thune realizes this is kind of a political hand grenade if they don’t act.”

In a recent social media post, Mr. Trump insisted the bill had to pass “one way or the other,” even if it meant resorting to “a Talking Filibuster, à la ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”

i say let them do it. if i were a senate democrat i would relish the opportunity to let the country know that republicans don't think you should vote if you are a married woman www.nytimes.com/2026/02/21/u...

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) 2026-02-21T19:08:18.994Z

[questionseverything]

1. Democrats can use the time to read the Epstein files into the congressional record

I’m all for it!

[Wiz Imp]

2. What do they think that would accomplish?

Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page says it would be a stupid thing to do.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-hot-air-of-the-talking-filibuster-b3643289?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqd8lCdtTDZV9_drwaHxIhVHuA6y_AJjjcOMRNk9lewLHxnn6dtduhPXIPv2NeM%3D&gaa_ts=69960244&gaa_sig=6wG31k_Na8eiuq4_zp59VzxAM3I1xDj4AZRmt0l4Q_RpI9KBusQD8cusML0RhzJbDc3NXG8oJVBeB0la5kfZ0A%3D%3D

The Hot Air of the Talking Filibuster
As Washington grows ever more gridlocked, members grow ever more interested in testing the filibuster. With most Republican senators adamant that they won’t abolish the procedure outright (which is for the good), some in the activist base are instead demanding Senate leaders change it, by reviving the “talking” filibuster.

Specifically, Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (with support from conservative senators, like Utah’s Mike Lee) want Majority Leader John Thune to ditch “cloture,” the longstanding process that ends debate—and a bill’s progress, if there is not 60 votes. Democrats would instead be forced to actively talk to stall a vote on the SAVE Act, a House bill requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote and photo ID at the polls. Mr. Lee summed it up: “Return to Senate tradition. Require filibustering senators to (gasp) actually speak. Using existing Senate rules. Pass the SAVE America Act.” His X post contained (surprise, surprise) nostalgic video of Jimmy Stewart waging his one-man filibuster battle against corrupt Washington.

Talking by turns: Senate Democrats are pretty much united against the SAVE Act. So it won’t be one Jimmy Stewart “holding” the floor: it’ll be 47. Under talking-filibuster rules, Democrats get two speeches apiece—each of unlimited length—simply to oppose moving on to the bill. In a total opposition scenario, that’s 94 speeches. If each Democrat spoke for, say, eight hours at a time—each twice—that’s about 750 hours (31 days) of talking. Under traditional talking-filibuster rules, there is no way to end this torture.

Then again . . . and again: Democrats can easily take turns eating, sleeping and flying home during this marathon. Only one of them needs to be on the floor giving a speech. The GOP, by contrast, will need to maintain almost all its members on the floor at all times. At any moment, Schumer might demand a quorum call—which demand 51 senators. Schumer could also move to adjourn, which would restart the legislative day—providing Democrats a whole new round of 94 speeches. Indeed, any new question or point sparks another round of speeches. What is the left’s top priority in 2026? Blocking entirely the GOP agenda. A talking filibuster provides Democrats a pain-free, headline-friendly way of taking the Senate (and by extension the entire GOP Congress) offline for a very long period.

[mzmolly]

3. Which would only require a simple majority to pass the

bill after the song and dance. No thanks!