Majority Cloture for Nominations: Implications and the “Nuclear” Proceedings

Summary

On November 21, 2013, by overturning a ruling of the chair on appeal, the Senate set a precedent that lowered the vote threshold required by Senate Standing Rule XXII for invoking cloture on most presidential nominations. The precedent did not change the text of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules; rather, the Senate established a precedent reinterpreting the provisions of Rule XXII to require only a simple majority of those voting, rather than three-fifths of the full Senate, to invoke cloture on all presidential nominations except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The precedent does not eliminate the potential need for a cloture process for the Senate to reach a vote on a contested nomination. The time required to invoke cloture on a pending nomination remains as it was before the precedent. Specifically, nominations are still subject to Rule XXII’s requirement that (1) a cloture motion filed on a pending nomination lie over for two days of Senate session prior to the cloture vote, and (2) the nomination be subject to an additional 30 hours of post-cloture consideration prior to a vote on confirmation. For the 113th Congress only (pursuant to S.Res. 15), this post-cloture time limit is eight hours for most nominations and two hours for U.S. District Court judges; the limit is still 30 hours for high level executive nominations and the top judicial positions (see Table 1).

The only direct effect of the new precedent is to change the vote threshold by which the Senate can invoke cloture (and thereby eventually reach a vote) on these nominations from three-fifths of the Senate to a numerical majority of Senators voting (with a quorum present). However, to the extent that the change may effectively limit the floor leverage of Senators opposing a nomination, there may be implications for the pre-floor stages during which nominations are vetted.

In addition, the parliamentary circumstances under which the November 21 precedent was set will likely be examined for their implications for future attempts to change Senate procedures. A key element of the feasibility of such action is whether a Senate majority in favor of change can reach a vote to establish new procedures in the face of opposition. Reaching a vote to reinterpret existing rules, in a contested situation, might rely on steps that are novel or potentially are in contravention of existing rules and precedents; in addition, the effects of such actions could also undermine the existing procedural prerogatives available to Senators. Such proceedings have sometimes been called the “nuclear option.” In this context, an important feature of the proceedings of November 21 was the inability of opponents to extend debate on the appeal of the chair’s ruling.

This report explains the procedural context within which the precedent was set and addresses the precedent’s effects on floor consideration of nominations (as well as noting other potential effects on the nominations process). In addition, since the parliamentary circumstances under which the precedent was set fall within proceedings often called the “nuclear option,” the report concludes by briefly noting the precedent’s relevance for future proposals to alter or reinterpret Senate rules through the establishment of new precedent. An Appendix details the key procedural steps by which the precedent was set. This report will be updated if events warrant, or to add citations to additional CRS reports that address related issues.