According to this answer, only a simple majority is needed to change the Senate's rules not a supermajority.

Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. when this occurs, a new precedent is established [...]

Before this, the previous [change to the cloture rule occurred in 1975]Broken link removed, when the Senate reduced the requirement for cloture on all matters except future rules changes:

Before 1975, two-thirds of the Senators present and voting (a quorum being present) was required for cloture on all matters. In early 1975, at the beginning of the 94th Congress, Senators sought to amend the rule to make it somewhat easier to invoke cloture. However, some Senators feared that if this effort succeeded, that would only make it easier to amend the rule again, making cloture still easier to invoke. As a compromise, the Senate agreed to move from two-thirds of the Senators duly chose and sworn (normally, and at a maximum, 60 votes) on all matters except future rules changes, including changes in the cloture rule itself.

How many senators approved the amendment to the cloture rule in 1975? (i.e. was it 2/3rds, 3/5ths, a simple majority)

See: Changing the Senate Cloture Rule at the Start of a New Congress for more recent information, including reference to the change in 1975.


1 Answer 1


The amendment to the cloture rule (Rule XXII) was approved by a two-thirds supermajority, 56-27

In 1975 the Senate followed their rules in passing S.RES.4: Resolution to amend Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The resolution passed 3/7/1975:

Measure passed Senate, amended, roll call #55 (56-27) (Provisions of S.Res. 93 included in passage).

  • The "nuclear option" followed the rules of the Senate - it just followed a convoluted path through those rules, rather than the straightforward one. It's also entirely irrelevant to answering the question as asked.
    – Bobson
    Nov 26, 2013 at 15:11
  • @Bobson, I disagree with that interpretation and so does Senator Reid, former senator Biden, former senator Obama, [...]. While the Senate can set a new precedent, they can only do so by not following the previous rules. Why do you think they ask the parlitarian, "what is the rule?" (I call that breaking them, you call it bypassing them potatoe=potato). Do you think it is possible to set a new precedent, by following your original agreed to rules/procedures? I can't understand the kind of tortured logic necessary to believe that.
    – user1873
    Nov 27, 2013 at 15:43
  • See my answer to your other question. The rule specifically only affected cloture votes related to changing it. The rule was changed without a cloture vote. Therefore, the rule was not "broken". It's equivalent to the SE set of rules: "You can't upvote your own question. If your question is edited enough, it becomes community wiki. You can upvote community wiki questions. Therefore, under a specific set of circumstances, you can upvote your own question without violating the rule on upvoting your own questions."
    – Bobson
    Nov 27, 2013 at 17:35
  • If you want to call it "broken", you can. It certainly violates the intent of the rule and "breaks" it in the sense that it no longer has meaning. But if it truly violated the actual rule, it wouldn't have any force. I'll go edit my other answer to clarify terminology.
    – Bobson
    Nov 27, 2013 at 17:38
  • Side thought: I suggest removing the bias from this answer as per your own meta suggestion.
    – Bobson
    Dec 1, 2013 at 7:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .