See subject line. What is the purpose of allowing filibusters?
And then the other question: what the hell did Wendy Davis talk about for the 11hours of her filibuster earlier this week? Is there a summary somewhere online that describes in a general way what subject matter she presented during that time period?
I know that Davis had asked for women who were helped by having abortion access to send her their stories so she would have material to present, and she read a lot of those.
One of the “strikes” against her was called when she discussed RU-486, which the chair deemed to be off-topic.
Has to do with procedures in the Senate vs the House, if I understand correctly.
The House votes on how much to to talk, then they talk, then they vote.
In the Senate, they talk until they’ve all had a say, then they have a cloture vote.
A cloture vote is a vote to stop talking and start voting. Filibustering gets around that.
By continuing to talk, a vote is postponed. But you have to keep talking, or somebody will call for a vote.
ETA- so why is it allowed? Both sides find it useful every now and then.
The purpose of a rules of order (ROO) or parliamentary procedure is to ensure proper debate so that the best decision can be made.
To that end, ROO usually have means to make sure debate is not short circuited. E.g., if you know that 51% of the body agrees with you, you can say, “Hey, let’s stop talking and just vote on it RITE NAO!” Well, that doesn’t give the minority a chance to have their say, or sway you or your allies, or improve your plan with amendments. And so, the ROO will make it difficult to cut off debate (called a move for cloture). This can be accomplished by several tactics:
[ul]
[li] requiring a set amount of time to elapse before a vote can be taken[/li][li] requiring the opportunity for a certain number of those opposed to speak[/li][li] requiring a supermajority (2/3rds or 3/4ths, e.g.) to move cloture[/li][li]allowing someone to speak as long as they want or can handle[/li][/ul]
The U.S. Senate, and many other legislative bodies often require the supermajority for cloture. So, in the Senate, it takes 60 votes to end any debating session under their current ROO. Which is being leveraged by the Republicans pretty much non-stop since Obama was elected.
In the Texas body that Davis is part of, the Democrats can normally block legislation relatively easily under normal rules. But, the Governor (Rick Perry) called a special session where the ability for a minority to block legislation is decreased under the special ROO for a special session. And so, the Democrats did not have enough votes to prevent cloture, they only had the rules specific to this body that allowed unlimited speechifying as long as some other rules were followed (e.g., being on topic [being ‘germane’], not taking a break, must stand freely, etc…).
And so Davis went on the unlimited spechifying route. But she was called on not being germane three times which ended her speech with only a few hours to go before the special session ended. (BTW, the special session was previously being filibustered by citizens lining up for non-stop testifying, which the Republican controlled committee ended by adjourning and meeting secretly.) So, with a few hours left, the chess match of parliamentary tactics looked like a win for the Republicans… but not so fast. The Democrats came up with another ROO stalling tactic: non-stop questions regarding the ROO (called points of order). Add to that a viewing gallery that was non-stop shouting so that nobody can hear anything, the Democrats won…
for now. Rick Perry is about to call another ‘special session.’
Oh, that’s a classic move!
It’s right up there with the bunt as far as random and unexpected goes. If done correctly. 
Filibuster is a time-honoured tradition in many democratic institutions. The legislature or whatever has a time limit of some sort - quit at midnight, session closes for the season at midnight, etc.
Typically, if a bill fails to make it through the legislature in a session, it must start ovr from scratch next session, reopening the whole debate. If your Texas Leg. is like Canadian and UK parliaments, a bill has:
-First reading, it is introduced in the house and given a reading. (Considering many laws now run into the thousands of pages, this is probably a matter of presnting the material and saying “read it yourself”.
-it is then sent ot committee where the relevant committee(s) will examine it in detail. Changes may be made at this time. The committee members are dedicated to say health, or Finances, or Justice, so they ar more likely to find and repair the flaws, add extra pieces, and tack on pork barrel projects that have no relevance. (Something not allowed in the British system). delegations of lobbyists may appear to make their suggestions and critique the bill.
During the full house debate, eah member may have a shot at talking about the bill, theoretically to persuade other members. In fact, they get to listen to the sound of their own voice and cerate sound bites for the media, and propaganda they can quote for their next campaign. In fact, in both US congress and Canadian parliament, apparently a member could appear at the record office (Hansard, here) and “edit” their speech to add whatever they want. Much of what is in the COngressional Record probably was not actually said.
Many legislatures have a schedule - session ends at X. many also don’t have time limits on speaking; but they have rules of order. A filibuster means running out the time by talking until the end of time so no vote can happen. It usually happens when the losing side recognizes they don’t have the votes, so they resort to stall tactics.
So for the filibuster - once the member is recognized, they "have the floor’ and can speak until they stop. the rules for Texas were mentioned - she could not lean, be propped up, etc. - she had to stand on her own. Her speach had to stay on topic - the topic being what the bill was about. As mentioned, when she started talking about RU-486 (abortion pill) instead of medical abortion clinics, someone objected (“point of order”) and she lost the “floor”.
The US Senate has gotten lazy - apparently instead of an actual filibuster, they just have to notify the speaker they intend to. Then, unless the senate votes 60+ to proceed anyway, the bill is stalled. hence, a major cause of deadlock in Washington. There are always rumblings that they may change that rule, but it’s too convenient for both sides…
This would seem to clearly violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. So two questions does the ADA override state legislature rules? And, assuming it does, who gets to say exactly what disability entitles the member to sit while filibustering?
Don’t know about Texas but the national legislature is immune to laws like that. Workplace safety laws too.
Perhaps in the olden days rules demanding no leaning or propping weeded out the elderly bourbon-filled lushes who would bore the audience rigid.
Nitpick: she was warned about non-germaneness twice, and receiving aid (someone helped her put on a back brace) once.
So after Senator Davis was ruled out of order, why didn’t another Senator opposed to the bill rise to speak and conduct their own filibuster? Is there some rule that only one opposing senator is allowed to speak? Why was it all up to just one senator?
In a pit thread, I was told that it was because the presiding officer refused to recognize any other speakers. But if he had that power, why did he recognize Senator Davis? It was well known that she was going to filibuster even before she started.