We the People VS. The Filibuster — An Indictment * * by Jim Hᴏft

Guest post by David De La Paz, Esq.

Senate Republicans have the numbers to pass the Save America Act but are choosing not to act. This is not leadership; it is a retreat. Here is an analysis of a majority that shirks its authority.

Is the Senate prioritizing the filibuster over the will of the American people?

The answer becomes evident when comparing election results with legislative outcomes. Over 77 million votes were cast for Donald Trump in the presidential election, granting him Republican majorities in both Congressional chambers. A key priority for him was election integrity.

Case in Point: The Save America Act — 80% Support Still Isn’t Enough

The Save America Act mandates voter photo ID, supported by 80% of Americans according to Pew Research Center and Gallup polls, and proof of citizenship to vote, backed by 83% of Americans, according to Gallup.

On July 16, Trump made a primetime television address urging Congress to pass the Save America Act. However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer proclaimed that the Act was “dead on arrival in the Senate.”

The Hill reported on June 10, that Thune stated, “It’s a well-known fact around here, . . . we don’t have the votes.” But is minority opposition the sole reason?

The truth is that despite broad support across political lines, the people’s will cannot overcome the filibuster’s high threshold.

Indictment: Surrendering Majority Rule

Why can’t Republicans in Congress and President Trump pass the key issues they were elected on? It’s because the Republican Senate majority values the filibuster more than the core issues that led to their election. For all their defense of the filibuster, ask yourself if any senator campaigning for re-election ever promised to forego essential issues to maintain it. The filibuster serves as their opposition’s veto, yet look at what they sacrifice to uphold it.

Despite constant disappointments, history shows they prefer it this way. Republican senators often blame the opposition, claiming they can’t surpass the filibuster’s 60-vote barrier. Yet, this self-defeating mechanism is maintained by a simple majority vote under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, allowing each new Senate to set its own rules. According to the Washington Examiner in November 2025, twenty-four senators (45% of the Republican conference) have publicly stated they do not support abolishing the filibuster.

Senator Thune’s attempt to deflect responsibility with the phrase “we don’t have the votes” doesn’t fully explain why the Save America Act is “dead on arrival.” Many Senate Republicans are willing to let it die a slow death — disregarding election integrity. The blame for failing to overcome the filibuster lies not with the opposition, but with those in the majority who refuse to lead without opposition’s consent. It’s time to hold accountable those Republicans afraid to lead unless constrained by the minority.

The filibuster is not sacred nor constitutionally mandated. The Founders included supermajorities in the Constitution only for exceptional circumstances: overriding vetoes, treaties, House and Senate impeachments, constitutional amendments, and expelling members from Congress. Remember this when alarmists describe conducting ordinary Senate business as the “nuclear option.”

This nation is supposed to be governed by the consent of those we elect, who are to be accountable to the people. Yet, the filibuster nullifies that accountability, undermining our democratic system.

The Defense and Rebuttal

Some argue that the filibuster is necessary for maintaining tradition and protecting minority rights. However, any mechanism that renders the majority powerless on critical issues is not defensive but offensive. Issues shaping election outcomes should not be decided by the party not chosen to lead.

Others claim that if the filibuster is removed, the opposition will eliminate it when they regain power. Their solution is to submit to the minority now to mitigate damage when the roles reverse. This is based on fear, not leadership. Senators using this rationale signal their weakness and reluctance to pursue anything the opposition disapproves of, despite their rhetoric that they will “fight for you.”

This assumption suggests they understand politics, adversaries, and human nature more than the Founders who designed our Constitution with checks and balances. Yet, the Constitution’s endurance demonstrates its stability and adaptability through generations of flawed leaders and opportunists.

Expert Witnesses: Hamilton and Madison

Alexander Hamilton warned of this danger in Federalist 22, stating that supermajority requirements for ordinary legislation can “subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number” and “destroy the energy of government.” He foresaw “the impracticability of obtaining a concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction” unless the majority yielded to the minority, even at the cost of public good. Hamilton’s warning precisely illustrates the filibuster’s tyranny.

James Madison echoed this in Federalist 58, arguing that requiring supermajorities for standard business would reverse free government’s fundamental principle. “. . . the majority would no longer rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

The framers feared a tyranny of the majority, believing unchecked majority rule could oppress minority rights. Ironically, today’s filibuster has flipped that fear, creating a persistent tyranny of the minority. The filibuster is a precise tool for a tyrannical minority, devastating against a weak and fearful majority.

Evidence: A Weak and Fearful Majority

The Save America Act exemplifies how the filibuster has rendered the Senate majority ineffective, even on fundamental issues like requiring American citizenship to vote. How can we expect such inherent weakness to address pressing concerns like Social Security, Medicare solvency, or reducing national debt?

The filibuster has become a scapegoat for poor public policy and risk-averse behavior in the Senate majority. It allows them to blame the opposition for positions they secretly hold against their constituents. Is it surprising that secretive backroom deals are now common? If the filibuster is truly an institutional tradition, why do senators act secretly? Lawmaking is public business, and secrecy has no place in it.

Victims: The American People

Imagine how much lower our national debt and spending could be without years of omnibus bills, debt-limit deals, and government shutdowns to secure nine extra votes. But the real cost for Americans has been their voice in government and their right to the government the Founders intended.

Tragically, this cost wasn’t borne by them alone. Many Americans died defending the system the Framers built, knowing what they were fighting for. It wasn’t for a procedural device that cripples that system. Today, the majority’s fate lies with those aiming for their defeat.

Closing Statement: Tyranny Must End

Those who defend the filibuster call its elimination the “nuclear option,” but this view wrongly assumes that majority rule in regular Senate business is extreme, while minority obstruction is not. In reality, the filibuster is the true nuclear weapon. It replaces the system the Framers designed with one they opposed. It holds election outcomes in contempt. It is time to abolish the filibuster and end minority tyranny before we lose the last remnants of majority rule and representation.

The filibuster has become a tool used against what people voted for, turning electoral victories into losses. The public deserves leaders who will lead, not ones who yield their power to the minority and fear future losses.

Verdict: Guilty

Any senator prioritizing the filibuster over the electorate does not merit their seat, your trust, or your vote.

David De La Paz, Esq. is a former felony prosecutor and former senior counsel to several Florida House Speakers, advising on constitutional structure, legislative process, and public policy.