What is the Role of the Senate Parliamentarian?
The parliamentarian and their staff provide nonpartisan advice to the presiding officer, chamber and committee leaders, individual senators, and staff about Senate rules, precedents, and statutes as they pertain to Senate proceedings.
The current parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has served since 2012 under the leadership of both parties, underscoring the nonpartisan nature of the position.
When was the Office of the Parliamentarian Established?
For much of congressional history, senators had no designated advisor on rules and precedent and spent much of the chamber’s time debating procedures on the floor. The Office of the Senate Parliamentarian was established in 1935 to formalize a position that had been unofficially occupied by Assistant Secretary of the Senate Charles Watkins for more than a decade. Watkins served as parliamentarian until 1964, and five individuals have held the office since. The parliamentarian is appointed by and serves at the discretion of the majority leader, and the nonpartisan office operates within the larger office of the Secretary of the Senate.
Why does the Senate have a Parliamentarian?
The parliamentarian’s most important role is to provide procedural advice to the presiding officer during floor proceedings. The presiding officer facilitates day-to-day proceedings by recognizing members to speak, maintaining order and decorum, and ruling on points of order or the appropriateness of amendments, measures, or motions. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer of the Senate, but in his or her absence these duties fall to the president pro tempore of the Senate or another senator designated to stand in for him or her.
For routine or anticipated events, the parliamentarian typically provides scripts for the presiding officer to easily facilitate chamber business consistent with Senate norms, precedents, and rules. When the chamber confronts more unusual or unexpected situations, the parliamentarian can be seen providing verbal advice to the presiding officer about how they should proceed.
It is important to remember that the scripts and verbal advice provided to senators by the parliamentarian are merely advice, not rulings. Adherence to the parliamentarian’s advice is meant to create a predictable standard for doing business. The procedural rules of the road maintained by following the parliamentarian’s advice help to structure senators’ negotiations with one another. Without this consistency, how the chamber conducts its day-to-day business would vary wildly, causing confusion and likely delaying or halting business. This is why virtually all legislative bodies around the world have a parliamentarian or other similar position.
Beyond guiding floor procedure, the parliamentarian also acts on behalf of the majority leader to manage the process of referring bills to committee in a way that maintains carefully defined committee jurisdictions. The parliamentarian’s office is also responsible for maintaining the record of precedents of the Senate.
What Guides the Senate Parliamentarian’s Advice?
The parliamentarian consults a variety of sources to inform how they advise senators to proceed. There are four pillars that define and guide Senate procedure: the standing rules of the Senate, chamber precedents, expedited procedural statues, and unanimous consent agreements.
The Senate operates as a continuous body, meaning that its rules carry over from one Congress to the next (unlike the House, which must approve a new rules package at the beginning of each Congress). As a result, changes to Senate practice are more commonly accomplished through a change in Senate precedent rather than a change in the standing rules.
Though a publicly available record of precedents has not been updated for many years, the office of the parliamentarian documents and archives all new precedents that are created to inform future procedural guidance.
Can the Senate Ignore the Parliamentarian’s Advice?
Yes. The presiding officer can choose to ignore the advice of the parliamentarian on any matter they choose, which has happened several times before.
The parliamentarian exists to advise the chamber on existing procedures, but it is the presiding officer’s duty to make rulings. However, any senator may raise a point of order challenging the ruling of the presiding officer for not following the correct procedure. The dispute would then be put to a vote of the chamber. Ultimately, senators themselves are responsible for deciding the outcome of all parliamentary questions, even if they go against standing rules and precedent.
What is the Parliamentarian’s Role in Budget Reconciliation?
Budget reconciliation is a legislative procedure created by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that allows for expeditated consideration of changes in law to align spending, revenue, and the debt limit with agreed-upon budget targets. Reconciliation is one of the “expedited procedural statutes” referenced above and means that the measure is not subject to stalling procedural tactics or a filibuster.
Under these procedures, the parliamentarian evaluates policy proposals to determine whether they comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule and other unique procedures that guide the reconciliation process. It is important to remember that here, like with other procedural questions, the parliamentarian provides advice on what is allowed or not under existing rules and precedents. What is acceptable policy under the reconciliation process is a matter for senators themselves to decide.
Has a Parliamentarian Ever Been Dismissed?
Majority leaders from both parties have replaced the parliamentarian before. During the 1980s, partisanship and procedural warfare began to escalate in the Senate, causing leadership of both parties to favor certain individuals within the parliamentarian’s office. As a result, the parliamentarian position alternated between Robert Dove and Alan Frumin for over three decades depending on which party was in the majority.
It is important to note that their dismissals had more to do with personal working relationships with various party leaders and senatorial reaction to certain rulings rather than because either of these individuals were partisan in the advice they provided.
