At his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President Donald Trump made his latest push for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act to overhaul elections by falsely claiming that “the only way” Democrats get elected “is to cheat.”
And he appeared to single out Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., by adding, “We have to stop it, John.”
Thune and Senate Republicans have been under an avalanche of pressure from the right as they face a daunting path to overcoming the 60-vote hurdle to pass the legislation. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, as well as House Republicans and online influencers recognize the votes aren’t there to abolish the 60-vote rule, but they want Republicans to use a “talking filibuster” to try and outlast Democrats and pass the measure.
“We want to get to the SAVE Act,” Thune told reporters on Wednesday, while cautioning that other Republican priorities like funding the Department of Homeland Security and pursuing a housing bill are “harder to do once you’re in the throes of a talking filibuster.”
Thune also gave his most skeptical comments to date about the practicality of using a talking filibuster to send the House-passed SAVE America Act to Trump’s desk. The bill would require new proof-of-citizenship rules to register to vote, photo ID to cast a ballot in person or by mail, and other nationwide changes.
“The talking filibuster issue is one on which there is not, certainly, a unified Republican conference, and there would have to be,” Thune added after a Senate GOP meeting. “If you go down that path, you’re talking about the need to table what are going to be numerous amendments and an ability to keep 50 Republicans unified, pretty much on every single vote. And there’s just not, there isn’t support for doing that at this point.”
Thune isn’t alone in his skepticism: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he supports the SAVE America Act but that “there are a lot of questions” about whether the talking filibuster is “feasible.”
“My understanding is would require 51 votes to table amendments. So number one, you need 51 senators on the floor, and you need all of them willing to vote to table the amendment. That obviously can be problematic from a number of standpoints,” Cornyn told NBC News. “One, you might not be able to defeat them. And secondly, this process could go on for literally weeks, if not months, and still not be successful.”
A talking filibuster under current rules would require 51 GOP senators in or near the chamber at all times, while Democrats would need just one member to hold the floor to sustain the filibuster, and would have the luxury of rotating among themselves. If the number of Republicans dips below a majority, or a “quorum,” a single Democrat could move to adjourn.
“The majority needs more than votes to prevail during a ‘talking filibuster.’ Intensity, commitment, and energy matter just as much. Why? Because Senate rules put the burden on the majority to maintain a quorum of 51 senators. If you lose your quorum, the Senate adjourns and the talking stops,” said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
“What’s more, as a talking filibuster drags on for days, if not weeks, all the rest of the majority’s agenda — bills and nominations alike — is put on hold. The majority can’t win the endurance test if it’s not willing to go the distance — possibly for weeks on end,” she added.
That’s a tall order: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has slammed the SAVE America Act as “an abomination” and vowed that Democrats will do “everything” in their power to stop it.
“The SAVE Act is dead on arrival in the Senate,” said Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga. “Its goal is to narrow the electorate, and I can understand why Donald Trump doesn’t want the American people to vote. His proposals are decidedly unpopular.”
Years ago, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., explored the possibility of using a “talking filibuster” when Democrats were in charge of the Senate and frustrated by relentless Republican filibusters. He eventually concluded that it wasn't feasible to get around the 60-vote threshold without changing the Senate rules.
“A talking filibuster is much harder on the majority than the minority,” Merkley said in an interview. “It has never once changed the outcome of a vote in American history. So as long as the rules aren’t changed, I’m confident that we will defeat it.”
Lee, the Utah Republican senator and chief Senate sponsor of the bill, has taken to social media to rally conservatives behind the cause and put pressure on his Senate colleagues.
His office didn’t directly comment when asked if he’s aware of any examples where a talking filibuster was used to defeat the 60-vote threshold against determined minority opposition.
“President Trump asked us to pass the SAVE America Act without delay, identifying it as our top legislative priority,” Lee said in a statement to NBC News, when asked about GOP skepticism. “Requiring and exhausting a Democrat speaking filibuster is the only plan to pass the bill. While that approach would require an investment of time and effort by Senate Republicans, victory would prove more than worth the hard work.”
The mechanics of a talking filibuster present additional problems for the Republican majority.
Democrats would be allowed two speeches per member for the bill and for unlimited amendments they may offer at a simple-majority threshold. Among those amendments could be issues that have majority-support in the Senate, such as revoking Trump’s tariffs or restoring Obamacare subsidies. If those amendments pass, it would effectively scuttle the bill.
“The majority has to keep a quorum on the floor, while the minority only has to keep, basically, two people on the floor. I say two, because you want one person ready to speak if there’s a gap in speaking, and you want one person paying attention in case anyone asks unanimous consent for something,” Merkley said. “So imagine this. You’re going through the night, and the majority has to keep 51 people there. And the minority keeps two people there. It’s a hell of a lot easier to keep two, than 51.”
In 2022, Democrats tried to change the rules to assure a 51-vote threshold on their own sweeping voting rights proposal but failed to secure the votes to trigger the “nuclear option.”
Thune vowed that the Senate “will have a vote on the SAVE Act.”
“The context of that, the process in which we consider still an open question, but one that we’re having conversations about,” he said, adding that there is “clearly not a unified position, at least among Republicans in the Senate” on how to proceed.
In the end, Thune acknowledged that it may not succeed unless the 53-member GOP majority secures 60 votes.
“Obviously, I think that’s a very real possibility,” he said.
