Fact check: What specific Senate rules did Harry Reid change in 2013?

1. What supporters said they changed — a targeted kill of the nomination filibuster

Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, moved to alter Senate practice so that cloture on executive and lower-court judicial nominees could be invoked with a simple majority rather than the 60-vote threshold that had been used to overcome filibusters for decades. Proponents framed the change as correcting what they described as unprecedented obstruction of presidential appointments and argued the rule change restored the Senate’s ability to carry out its constitutional advice-and-consent role without chronic minority blockade. The legislative action was widely described in contemporaneous coverage as eliminating the filibuster for most nominees while leaving other Senate procedures, including legislative filibusters, formally intact ^{[1] [3]}.

2. How the Senate actually implemented the change — procedure and vote

The change was implemented through the so-called “nuclear option,” a parliamentary maneuver that reinterpreted Senate precedent by a simple majority vote rather than the traditional two-thirds agreement to change standing rules. The chamber approved the new precedent in a 52–48 roll-call that legally set cloture for most nominations at a simple majority, making it binding precedent for subsequent chamber action. Senators voting and statements at the time framed the vote as an assertion of majority authority to set procedural precedent when the minority used filibuster tactics to block routine confirmations ^{[2] [4]}.

3. What was and was not included — the explicit scope and the Supreme Court carve-out

The change specifically applied to executive-branch appointments and federal judicial nominees below the Supreme Court level, allowing them to reach an up-or-down confirmation vote with only 51 votes. Importantly, the 2013 action did not extend to Supreme Court nominations, a limitation emphasized in reporting and by some supporters who sought to narrow the move’s institutional impact. Critics labeled the maneuver a “power grab” precisely because it redefined long-standing Senate norms and because opponents feared a slippery slope toward broader erosion of the 60-vote standard ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

4. Why Democrats said it was necessary — obstruction narrative and constitutional duty

Senate Democrats justified the change as a response to what they described as escalating and unprecedented Republican use of filibusters to block routine confirmations, producing practical gridlock that hampered presidential staffing and the functioning of courts and agencies. The argument linked the rule shift to restoring the Senate’s constitutional duty to advise and consent, asserting that the minority had effectively veto power over appointments through sustained use of procedural holds and filibusters. Reporting at the time framed the move as a culmination of mounting partisan clashes over nominations that had intensified since the 1990s ^{[6] [7]}.

5. How opponents framed it — “nuclear option,” power shift, and forewarnings

Republicans and some institutionalists characterized the 2013 change as the “nuclear option,” warning it represented a major institutional shift that concentrated power in the majority and eroded the Senate’s consensus-building incentives. Opponents argued the move would deepen partisan escalation by removing a key tool of minority leverage, with contemporaneous coverage emphasizing fears of reciprocal action and long-term institutional degradation. Reporting reflected both the immediate political disagreement—Republicans called it a power grab—and broader concerns about precedent, even as supporters insisted the change was a limited correction aimed at restoring functionality ^{[8] [5]}.