Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What was the 2013 and 2017 precedent for changing filibuster rules by majority?
Executive Summary
The 2013 and 2017 actions are the two Senate precedents commonly cited for changing filibuster-related rules by majority vote: in 2013 Senate Democrats led by Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked what was called the “nuclear option” to lower the cloture threshold for most executive and judicial nominations (excluding the Supreme Court), and in 2017 Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell extended that same majority‑vote approach to Supreme Court nominations, allowing confirmation of a justice with a simple majority. These events are described across contemporaneous and retrospective accounts as precedent-setting shifts in Senate practice that replaced a 60‑vote cloture norm for nominations with a majority rule in two distinct steps [1] [2] [3].
1. How 2013 actually changed the game — Democrats broke the 60‑vote norm
In November 2013 the Democratic majority, under Senator Harry Reid, voted 52–48 to change Senate precedents so that a simple majority could invoke cloture on most executive‑branch and federal judicial nominations, specifically excluding Supreme Court nominees at that time; that move is widely referred to as the first formal use of the “nuclear option” in the modern era and it replaced the prevailing 60‑vote practice for those categories of nominees [2] [1]. Contemporary explanations and later scholarly summaries emphasize that the 2013 action was framed as a targeted, pragmatic change to overcome persistent obstruction to confirmations for administration appointees and lower‑court judges, and sources show it was explicitly limited in scope—Congressional leaders described it as applying to executive and lower‑court judicial nominees rather than legislation or the Supreme Court [1] [4].
2. The 2017 extension — Republicans finish the job for the Supreme Court
In April 2017 Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, voted to extend the majority‑vote precedent to include Supreme Court nominations, removing the 60‑vote cloture threshold for nominees to the high court and enabling the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch by a simple majority; observers and retrospective accounts treat this as the decisive extension that eliminated the filibuster for all federal judicial appointments [1] [3]. Analyses written after 2017 frame the move as building directly on the 2013 change: where 2013 narrowed the supermajority requirement for many nominees, 2017 completed the shift by encompassing the Court itself, transforming the Senate’s confirmation dynamic and setting a broader procedural precedent for future majorities [2] [4].
3. How journalists and scholars frame the precedents — continuity and escalation
Media and academic sources present the two actions as a sequence: 2013 established a majority‑vote pathway for many nominees and 2017 escalated that pathway to the Supreme Court, illustrating both continuity in method and escalation in scope. Coverage from multiple outlets and institute analyses characterizes the pattern as changing Senate precedent by majority vote rather than by formal amendment through supermajority rule, and commentators note that both changes were justified as narrowly tailored responses to partisan gridlock though critics framed them as weakening minority protections [3] [5]. These sources emphasize that the institutional effect was cumulative: the 2013 move normalized the tactic, and the 2017 vote normalized its use for the Court, producing a durable precedent that subsequent majorities could cite [1] [4].
4. Limits of the precedent — what the 2013 and 2017 steps did and did not do
Primary accounts stress that the 2013 action explicitly excluded Supreme Court nominees, which is a crucial limiting detail used to distinguish the two events; this limitation was then removed in 2017 when the Republican majority extended the rule to the Court, meaning the original 2013 change did not by itself abolish Supreme Court filibuster protections [1] [2]. Analysts also point out that both moves were implemented through majority votes changing Senate precedent rather than via a formal rules amendment process requiring a supermajority, which demonstrates how majorities can use procedural rulings to alter longstanding norms without codifying a new standing rule with cross‑party buy‑in [3] [5].
5. What sources agree on and where perspectives diverge
Contemporary news summaries and institutional analyses agree on the factual sequence—2013 narrowed cloture for many nominees, 2017 extended that to the Supreme Court—and they cite the same procedural mechanism, the so‑called nuclear option, as the vehicle for change; this consensus appears across the sources provided [1] [2] [3]. Divergence arises in framing and emphasis: some sources treat 2013 as targeted and modest while viewing 2017 as a more consequential escalation that broke a final taboo, while others emphasize the cumulative institutional impact and warn that both actions reflect a broader erosion of Senate minority leverage; both framings are present in the documentation and together explain why these precedents remain central in debates over future filibuster reform [4] [3].