Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013 was an historic day in the United States Senate. Fifty-two senators, myself included, voted to change the rules of the Senate to eliminate the use of filibusters against the nomination of judicial and executive nominees, excluding those nominated to the Supreme Court. 

While I was campaigning last year, many of you heard me repeatedly call for filibuster reform. I was concerned about how the filibuster was being continually and inappropriately leveraged to stall nominations and prevent legislation from moving forward.

In January, the Senate passed a compromise reform package that sought to reduce abuse of the filibuster by limiting filibusters on motions to bring legislation to the floor, expediting the nomination process for judgeships and executive branch candidates, and making it easier for bills to enter conference between the House and Senate. While the package did not include some provisions I supported (such as a requirement that those who choose to wage a filibuster will actually have to speak on the floor rather than simply call in a filibuster threat) it marked what I had hoped would be a shift towards greater bipartisanship and compromise.

Unfortunately, that was not the case and in July we found ourselves in the same position. This time, a series of informal agreements helped to reduce the tension after an unprecedented meeting in the Old Senate Chamber where Senators from both sides of the aisle expressed a sincere desire to make this institution work. At that point, I remained optimistic that we were moving in the right direction and improved relations between the two parties would result from that historic evening. 

Yet abuse of the filibuster only grew worse. This month, three judicial nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, including Patricia Millett of Dexter, were blocked not on the basis of their qualifications, but rather because they were nominated by President Barack Obama. Similarly, Republicans have used procedural hurdles to block executive nominees resulting in a leadership vacuum at many of our federal agencies. Without stable leadership, federal agencies such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Federal Election Commission, and the Federal Financing Housing Authority are often left unable to make key personnel or policy decisions and effectively work on behalf of the American people. This hurts all of us.

Since the founding of our system of government, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of those have occurred in the last four and a half years. Of the 23 total filibusters on court of appeals nominees, 20 have occurred during President Obama’s term in office. This is ridiculous and a clear abuse of Senate rules.

The last time our country was faced with such immutable gridlock was in the late 1770s during the drafting of the Articles of the Confederation! The founding fathers were wary giving too much power to any single branch of government and purposefully included a system of checks and balances, which included the filibuster, to prevent a tyranny of the majority. However, their actions were based on the fundamental premise that those in government wanted to govern — an assumption that I no longer believe holds true today.

My vote in favor of the rule change, of finally invoking the nuclear option, reflects my belief that judicial and executive nominees deserve an up-or-down vote by the Senate, regardless of which party is in the majority, or which party controls the White House, and that we needed a structural adjustment to the rules so that the Senate could once again function.

On this issue, it is important to reflect on the language of the Constitution. Article II, Section 2, defines the president’s power to enter into treaties, make executive and judicial nominations, and the role of the Senate in this process.

Significantly, this provision specifies that the president’s power to enter into treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, while in the same sentence; no such super majority requirement is imposed in connection with presidential appointments. I believe the structure changes recently adopted are more fully consistent with the terms of the Constitution than the previous extra-Constitutional practice of imposing a super-majority requirement for these nominations through the use of a filibuster.

It is important to emphasize that this change still preserves protections for the minority party in the way of legislation, and only eliminates the filibuster of nominations, excluding those to the Supreme Court.

As we look forward, I hope my colleagues will see the importance and value of compromise in responsible governing. When we are not able to bridge the partisan divide, it is the American people who suffer — they deserve better. A significant amount of work lies ahead of us, and if the Senate, and Congress as a whole, is to accomplish anything, if we are to move the nation forward, we will need to find ways to work together more effectively.