The short answer is that it depends on the type of bill and the circumstances. Generally, the Senate requires a simple majority (51 votes if all 100 senators vote) to pass most bills and resolutions. However, the Constitution provides that the Senate must have a two-thirds majority to accomplish certain things, such as:
Overriding a presidential veto
If the President vetoes a bill passed by Congress, Congress can override that veto. But to do so requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that if the President does not approve a bill, he must return it to Congress “with his Objections.” Congress must then re-pass the bill with a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override the President’s veto and enact the bill into law.
Ratifying treaties
The Constitution also requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify treaties negotiated by the President. Article II, Section 2 states that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” This provision gives the Senate power to block treaties if at least one-third vote against ratification.
Removing federal officials via impeachment
After the House of Representatives impeaches a federal official, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to actually convict and remove that official from office. Article I, Section 3 states “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present” in an impeachment trial.
Expelling senators
To expel one of its own Members, the Senate requires a two-thirds majority vote. Article I, Section 5 states “Each House may … punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” This allows the Senate to remove a Senator who has engaged in serious misconduct or crimes.
Amending Senate rules
The Standing Rules of the Senate protect the minority party by requiring a two-thirds majority vote to change the rules. For example, Rule XXII currently requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. This rule could only be changed if two-thirds agreed.
Overcoming a filibuster
As just mentioned, since 1975 the Senate has required a three-fifths majority (usually 60 votes) to end debate on legislation and bring a bill to a vote through a process called “invoking cloture.” This allows a minority of senators to filibuster a bill they strongly oppose.
Amending the Constitution
After two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve a constitutional amendment, three-fourths of the states must ratify it to amend the Constitution. So while passing an actual amendment requires more than just the Senate, the initial two-thirds majority vote is designed to create a high barrier to changing the nation’s fundamental law.
Approving certain resolutions
Certain rare resolutions require a two-thirds majority in the Senate. For example, a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to prohibit flag burning was passed with a two-thirds majority in the Senate in 2006 (it failed to pass the House). Earlier, resolutions to amend Senate rules to end the filibuster also required two-thirds majorities.
Overcoming urgent points of order
Under a rarely used provision, if a Senator raises an urgent point of order that a measure violates Senate rules, the presiding officer may submit the question to the Senate for decision by a majority vote. However, if two-thirds of Senators present vote in the affirmative, the presiding officer’s ruling can be overturned.
Conclusion
In summary, while the Senate only requires a simple majority vote to pass routine legislation, the Constitution and Senate rules require supermajorities of either two-thirds or three-fifths to accomplish several important objectives, such as overriding a presidential veto, ratifying treaties, amending Senate rules, expelling members, invoking cloture to end a filibuster, convicting and removing impeached officials, and amending the Constitution.
The Framers of the Constitution instituted supermajority voting requirements to ensure that certain monumental decisions have broad consensus before they are made. While this has been criticized for giving a minority veto power, it also encourages deliberation and compromise in passing major policies that significantly impact the country.
Historical Background
When the Constitution was drafted at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, there was considerable debate over how much power to give the legislative branch vis-a-vis the executive. Some delegates feared making Congress too powerful compared to the presidency, while others worried about ceding too much authority to the executive.
As a compromise, the Framers instituted supermajority voting thresholds to allow the president to check an act of Congress by exercising veto power, while allowing Congress to override that veto and enact laws without the president’s approval if it had overwhelming consensus.
Alexander Hamilton explained the rationale behind this in Federalist No. 73, writing that the veto would seldom be exercised against bills passed with broad agreement, but would provide a “check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good.”
Similarly, the two-thirds requirement for treaties helped ensure that the president could not make binding international commitments for the country without broad agreement in Congress. While initially treaties required two-thirds of senators present, the Constitution was amended in 1804 requiring two-thirds of all senators to ratify.
Rules Allowing Filibusters
For many decades, the Senate did not have a formal rule or requirement for ending debate (invoking “cloture” in Senate parlance). But in 1917, Rule XXII provided that debate could be ended if two-thirds of senators voting approved. This allowed filibusters to block legislation unless a supermajority wanted to proceed to a vote.
In 1975, the rule was amended to require 60 votes to invoke cloture and end debate. Filibusters became much more common in recent decades, requiring a three-fifths majority vote to pass controversial legislation. Efforts to amend rules and reduce filibusters have been controversially applied to judicial confirmations.
Recent Examples and Important Votes Requiring Supermajorities
Here are some recent examples and notable cases where legislation required a 60-vote majority or two-thirds vote in the Senate:
- In 2010, the DISCLOSE Act to impose new campaign finance rules failed to pass a cloture vote to overcome a Republican filibuster.
- In 2013, bipartisan immigration reform that passed 68-32 in the Senate did not get a House vote.
- Obamacare was passed in 2010 through budget reconciliation rules that avoided the 60-vote cloture requirement.
- Supreme Court nominees Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed with fewer than 60 votes after cloture rules were amended.
- A proposed constitutional amendment to allow Congress to prohibit flag burning failed a Senate vote of 66-34 in 2006 (it needed 67 to pass).
- An effort to establish a bipartisan debt reduction committee with special powers in 2011 passed 74-26.
- A 2008 amendment to provide legal immunity to telecoms that participated in warrantless wiretapping passed 68-29.
- The Senate overrode President Nixon’s veto of the War Powers Resolution in 1973 with a 75-18 vote.
- Senate convictions in impeachment trials for federal judges have nearly all required two-thirds supermajorities.
As these examples illustrate, while the Senate frequently passes legislation and resolutions with simple majority votes, supermajority hurdles come into play for many major votes, especially when overcoming filibusters. This gives the minority party power to block bills and nominations they adamantly oppose.
Arguments For and Against Supermajority Requirements
Proponents of rules like the filibuster argue that they encourage moderation and bipartisanship, forcing the majority party to compromise since they need votes from the minority. They contend it also guarantees the minority a voice and means their interests cannot be ignored.
Critics counter that supermajority rules allow a small minority to obstruct the will of the majority. They argue it results in gridlock, prevents addressing major issues and cripples governance. Some advocate amending Senate rules to lower vote thresholds and curb filibuster abuse.
Arguments For Requiring Supermajorities
- Prevents partisan legislation opposed by half the chamber.
- Encourages consensus-building since the majority must compromise.
- Gives the minority power to prevent being steamrolled.
- Protects the rights and voices of the minority party.
- Leads to moderation since extremist legislation can be blocked.
- Changes in rules require bipartisan agreement.
Arguments Against Requiring Supermajorities
- Allows obstruction by an extreme minority.
- Reduces accountability since majority is stymied.
- Contributes to partisan gridlock and stalemate.
- Obstructs addressing major issues and challenges.
- Paralyzes governance and ability to make policy.
- Gives minority veto power over majority will.
Prominent Senators’ Views on the Filibuster Debate
| Senator | View on Filibuster Reform |
|---|---|
| Mitch McConnell (R-KY) | Strongly defends the filibuster, argues it protects minority rights and forces compromise. |
| Chuck Schumer (D-NY) | Has pushed for filibuster reform but argues outright elimination goes too far. |
| Dick Durbin (D-IL) | Has stated the filibuster is making the Senate dysfunctional and open to filibuster changes. |
| Joe Manchin (D-WV) | Firmly opposes eliminating the filibuster, argues it would worsen partisan divisions. |
| Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) | Also strongly opposes filibuster reform or elimination to protect Senate tradition. |
As the debate over the filibuster continues, there are persuasive arguments on both sides about its impact on the legislative process. There does not appear to be sufficient support for outright eliminating it. But majority frustration with filibusters could lead to additional procedural changes in the years ahead.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Senate usually requires just a simple majority vote to pass bills, constitutional and Senate rules provide that a supermajority 60-vote threshold or two-thirds majority is needed for several crucial legislative actions. This includes ending debate to overcome a filibuster, ratifying treaties, overriding presidential vetoes, approving constitutional amendments, convicting federal officials in impeachment trials, expelling members, and changing Senate rules.
Proponents believe these higher vote margins encourage moderation, force bipartisan compromise and protect minority rights. Critics argue they lead to obstructionism and partisan gridlock. Striking the right balance continues to be debated as the Senate grapples with enacting its agenda in a closely divided partisan environment.
