Share and Follow
Thanks to the efforts of Senators Mike Lee from Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Eric Schmitt from Missouri, along with other steadfast Republican colleagues, the SAVE America Act has finally been introduced on the Senate floor this week.
The proposed legislation enjoys overwhelming support, resonating with voters from both sides of the political spectrum. Polls indicate that a vast majority of Americans back the initiative, making it a straightforward choice for many.
Yet, true to form, Congress often finds itself standing in the way of widely supported, commonsense legislation and the interests of the American public.
In Washington, it’s not unusual for debates to shift focus from the substance of a bill to the intricacies of the legislative process.
By now, you may have come across discussions about the complex parliamentary tactic known as the talking filibuster, which has become a focal point in the legislative process.
By now, you’ve no doubt heard at least something of the intricacies of a parliamentary maneuver called the talking filibuster.
When I began hearing this media description, having spent some substantial time as a dirty, money-grubbing lobbyist myself, I found it curious, as the filibuster has become a kind of shorthand for pronouncing legislation dead on arrival.
SEE ALSO: Leavitt: The SAVE America Act Does Not Prohibit Anyone From Voting Except Illegal Aliens
To the extent that Real America is familiar with it, their mental image is likely “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” with a disheveled Jimmy Stewart flailing to-and-fro as he vainly tries to hold the Senate floor against the evil D.C. interests, while reading the Constitution, the Bible, the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, or even as an old teacher of mine used to joke, the Sears and Roebuck catalog.
But filibuster as a pronouncement of legislative death is predicated on another D.C. article of faith: to pass a bill in the Senate requires 60 votes. This is due to another parliamentary process known as cloture. Invoking cloture is the standard process for ending debate in the Senate. But it’s not the only one.
If every Senator desiring to speak about a question (the SAVE America Act in this case) is recognized by the presiding officer and does so twice, debate may be ended by a SIMPLE MAJORITY vote, as all Senators seeking recognition would have exhausted all their time. In shorthand, this is what the talking filibuster is referring to.
The irony is that it is not, in fact, a filibuster in the sense anyone actually thinks of it at all – it is a method, granted a very time-consuming and protracted one – to KILL a filibuster. A filibuster is the actual act of holding the floor, as typified by Stewart, or (in real life), more recently, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) against Obamacare about thirteen years ago. While not quite the same thing, as House rules are dramatically different, the leaders’ “magic minute,” in which Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08) held the House floor in 2025 against the Big Beautiful Bill for nearly nine hours, is a roughly similar lower-chamber tactic.
No wonder the misnomer – the last thing D.C. politicians generally want to do is their jobs, especially when they require something beyond the usual (or even better, minimal) effort. Obviously, among lawmakers, filibuster has a generally negative connotation in that it’s a delaying tactic, meant to inflict political, rhetorical, and whatever other types of non-physical pain it can, with the purpose of aborting (or negating) the legislative process.
So Senate party leaders have, over time, come to presume in general that a bill without 60 votes is dead. As we all know, politicians live to brag about what they have done. The threat of a filibuster, and the process of a talking filibuster required to kill the threat, has become much too daunting for them to consider. So they’ve retreated under the 60-vote justification.
And probably more times than not, all softball politician jokes and sarcasm aside, it is probably the correct call.
But given the turmoil that our elections have seen – not just through COVID and January 6 and the Georgia and Arizona and other attendant electoral controversies of the Trump era, but even back to Bush v. Gore – the election process in this current era has fully earned public distrust.
RELATED (VIP): Thune’s Refusal to Fight for the SAVE America Act Gets a Swampy New Backstory
If a time ever called for a “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” moment, this is it. Only this time the “interests” opposing Mr. Smith come in the form of filibustering Democrats opposing clean elections – and America is rooting for breaking them. And as conservatives frequently find themselves saying these days, extraordinary measures such as the talking filibuster are what we voted for.
President Donald Trump, by promising no bill signings until this one is passed, as usual, is here for it. It’s high time for Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), as urged by Mike Lee and company, to step up.
America knows it’s hard. So what? DO YOUR JOBS.
Editor’s Note: The Democrats are doing everything in their power to undermine the integrity of our elections.
Please help us tell the truth about the SAVE America Act and how it will prevent voter fraud. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.