Sens Tillis, Curtis, Murkowski won’t agree to use talking filibuster to pass the SAVE Act

According to Punchbowl, Tillis said he would vote "no" to pass the SAVE Act with the talking filibuster. Curtis, when asked about the prospect, said, “I’ve been absolutely clear. Breaking the filibuster is breaking the filibuster. So the reason or method doesn’t matter, it’s breaking the filibuster." Murkowski opposes the SAVE Act altogether.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said on Wednesday that there is not a "unified Republican conference" in order to use the talking filibuster rule on the floor of the Senate in order to pass the SAVE Act—a law that would require voters to prove their US citizenship in order to vote in federal elections nationwide.

He said that there have been active discussions in the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, but not all Republicans are in support of using the talking filibuster to do so.

https://twitter.com/tpostmillennial/status/2027074473245975021?s=12

"We're having conversations about it, but it's not a unified position among Republicans in the Senate," Thune said. "We want to get to the SAVE Act. We also, as I mentioned, we've got a housing bill that we can pivot back and forth to if we get a deal to open up the government. That's harder to do once you're in the throes of a talking filibuster. The talking filibuster issue is one on which there is not certainly a unified Republican conference, and there would have to be."

"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. As I've said, and we will get on it and we will have a vote on the SAVE Act. The context of that, the process in which we consider it, is still an open question," Thune added.

Thune has been facing pressure from conservative senators, President Donald Trump, as well as the Republican base to pass the SAVE Act using the talking filibuster.

The talking filibuster, in simple terms, is requiring that when there is opposition against a bill which does not have 60 votes to pass, a senator has to be speaking to prevent a vote taking place in the chamber. Although this is traditionally what people imagine a filibuster being, since the 1970s the "silent" filibuster is usually in effect, meaning the threat of at least 41 senators to conduct a filibuster.

But if the talking filibuster is invoked, the minority party, in this case the Democrats, must occupy the Senate floor for an extended period, and be speaking in opposition to the bill. This usually leads to long Senate sessions until either side cedes on the issue. If those in the minority stop their filibuster, the bill can pass with a simple majority of 51 votes.

If that takes place, Democrats would likely propose numerous amendments to the bill, as Thune mentioned. Although he said that there is not a unified position from the GOP to use the talking filibuster, GOP strategist and VP of Programs at Conservative Partnership Institute Rachel Bovard said in response to Thune, "The Senate Rs routinely vote to kill non compliant amendments during reconciliation, even on issues they agree with, to protect the privilege of the bill. In 2007, Senate Rs killed an amnesty bill by voting for a Dem amendment they didn’t agree with. IT’S CALLED STRATEGIC VOTING AND SENATORS DO IT ALL THE TIME."

https://twitter.com/rachelbovard/status/2026778898726326562?s=20

"Not having conference discipline *on this specific exercise,* but having it during the two budget act vote-a-ramas in the last year, is a choice."

Holding a vote-a-rama would take up a large amount of time on the floor, which appeared to lead some to slam Thune over his comments when the senators hosted a dog parade on Thursday instead of holding a vote for the bill.

https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2026928558921208039?s=20