Skip to main content

The Globe and Mail

What you can't do if you want to keep filibustering

Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, centre, who tried to filibuster an abortion bill, holds up a no vote as time runs out on an abortion bill vote, Wednesday, June 26, 2013, in Austin, Texas.

Eric Gay/AP

Filibustering legislators are back in the news again after a Texas senator stood and talked for close to 11 hours straight on Tuesday in a successful bid to derail a draconian new anti-abortion bill. Now the one thing everyone wants to know is: How do they pee?

The answer is: They don't – not if they want to keep filibustering. In fact, the single biggest limit on a filibustering lawmaker's ability to continue is his or her capacity to impose closure on their bladder and prevent amendments to their underpants.

The basic rules of filibustering allow a person or a party to continue speaking on a proposed bill until they have either exhausted themselves or, if there is a preset time limit on speeches, their supply of legislators. In the U.S. Senate, a filibusterer is allowed to continue as long as he or she doesn't stop talking, sit down or leave the chamber – rules that preclude micturition.

Story continues below advertisement

Another recent newsworthy filibuster, this one by Republican senator Paul Rand in March, ended after 12 hours for reasons the senator was happy to explain. "I would go for another 12 hours," Rand said toward the end of his marathon. "But I've discovered that there are some limits to filibustering, and I'm going to have to go take care of that in a few minutes."

That prompted another Republican senator, Gabriel Gomez, to make the unusual boast that his Navy SEAL-trained bladder would have allowed him to outlast Rand.

The record for the longest one-person filibuster in U.S. history is held by Strom Thurmond, the long-serving senator from South Carolina. In 1957, while he was still a Democrat, he held it in for a sphincter-bending 24 hours and 18 minutes in a grandstanding show of defiance against a civil rights bill that gave blacks the right to vote.

According to the Associated Press, Thurmond prepared for his marathon by repeatedly visiting the Senate steam room in order to dehydrate himself as much as possible. He started talking at 8:54 p.m. and continued to 9:12 the next evening, fortifying himself with throat lozenges and sips of water. Aides reportedly waited in the Senate cloakroom with a bucket; the plan was that if Thurmond absolutely had to go, he could keep one foot in the chamber while he relieved himself.

He apparently never resorted to the bucket, but he did give his voice a rest by letting other senators ask him questions and make comments, and he was allowed to sit at times. Among the things he read to keep talking were the U.S. criminal code and the Declaration of Independence. Thurmond's filibuster had no impact on the bill; it passed easily, and the senator subsequently joined the Republican party in disgust.

Democrat senator Wendy Davis's filibuster was more successful, helping to force the vote past the end of the legislative session and temporarily halting the bill. Her filibuster was brought to an end by Republican opponents who claimed she had broken the rules, however, not by her bladder. Still, 11 hours ... Impressive.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading…

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.