This market will resolve to "Yes" if there is a change in U.S. Senate rules or precedent that lowers the threshold for cloture for any legislative action whose threshold for cloture at the time the market was created is three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn.
Modifications to budget reconciliation rules will not resolve the market to "Yes".
Update 2025-05-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the Congressional Review Act (CRA):
The standard use of the CRA to overturn a regulation will not, by itself, qualify as weakening the filibuster for this market. This is because the CRA has historically not been subject to filibuster, and its use therefore does not inherently change Senate rules or precedent to lower the cloture threshold from its original state for legislative actions.
However, a CRA-related action could still qualify if a resolution passed using it (e.g., by a majority vote) goes broader than the CRA's established assertion of authority. This would be the case if such an action creates a new precedent that effectively lowers the cloture threshold for legislative actions that were previously subject to the filibuster.
Update 2025-05-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified a specific scenario that will resolve the market to Yes:
If the Senate conducts an official vote to overrule the parliamentarian (or the chair acting on the parliamentarian's advice) on the basis that the parliamentarian's ruling is deemed incorrect, this action will be considered a weakening of the filibuster for the purposes of this market.
Update 2025-05-22 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If there is ambiguity as to whether the parliamentarian or the chair has been overruled, this market may resolve partially.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,937 | |
| 2 | Ṁ254 | |
| 3 | Ṁ182 | |
| 4 | Ṁ143 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
People are also trading
@traders I'd additionally like to note that I was very surprised to see that I had traded on this market as it is normally my policy not to trade on a market that could have any ambiguity. While I am certain that I resolved this market in an impartial way (given that I didn't realize that I had been on this market until I resolved it) to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I will be taking my Ṁ254 in profit and sending it to people who lost money on this bet in a proportional amount to how much they lost to disabuse anybody of the notion that I resolved this for my own personal interest.
@traders Last night, the Senate overruled the chair's position, which was backed by the parliamentarian, and established a new president of the Senate allowing more bills to be considered under the congressional review act. This constitutes a change in the president of the Senate that lowers the voting threshold for some legislative actions accordingly, this market results to YES. See the attached image. If you have any problems with this resolution, please respond to this comment.
This should qualify if it happens: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/20/congress/senate-will-vote-on-nixing-california-clean-air-waivers-thune-says-00358472
@Balasar I need to review the ruling of the parliamentarian before I decide whether this qualifies. It looks like it might, but I’m not 100% sure.
@Balasar @traders after reviewing all of the available information and the rules I've reached the following conclusion about using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the California car rules: While it might not be consistent with the filibuster rule to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn California's car rules as it proposed it does not constitute a weakening of the legislative filibuster rules for the purposes of this question. The rules of this question required that the rules or precedent of the Senate be changed to lower the threshold for closure from where it was when this market was created. Using the Congressional Review Act to invalidate a rule or regulation has never been subject to the filibuster. The fact that is being used for a questionable purpose may violate the Congressional Review Act, but does not lower the threshold for closure under the rules or precedent of the Senate. This might still qualify for this market if the resolution passed by a majority vote goes broader than in the assertion of authority in the Congressional Review Act.
@traders if there are any issues or disputes with this decision, please respond to this comment
@AaronSimansky You do understand that the Senate parliamentarian has said that this is not a valid application of the CRA, right? So they’re not using the CRA for anything, they are changing the rules of the chamber to call something (the California emissions waivers) a CRA-relevant “rule” that isn’t one under the existing Senate rules. If the parliamentarian rules that this isn’t a valid rule subject to simple majority approval under the CRA, then what has to happen is that the Senate must vote to overrule the parliamentarian’s decision. If that vote occurs then a thing that would have required a vote for cloture according to the Senate rules no longer requires a cloture vote, which is the resolution criteria of this market.
@AaronSimansky This happened last night
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/senate-filibuster-gas-vehicles-california.html
"Engaging in a complicated procedural dance, Senate Republicans asserted the chamber’s power to set its own rules and declared they were within their rights to skirt a filibuster and muscle through measures to deny California the authority to set emissions requirements that exceed national standards on simple majority vote, rather than a 60-vote threshold."
@Balasar I have yet to see a vote, specifically overruling the parliamentarian or the chair. When that happens I'll resolve the market
@AaronSimansky They created a new procedural sidestep that allowed them to not have to explicitly overrule the parliamentarian. It's the same thing - obviously weakening the filibuster - but I don't trust this market so I've left.
@Balasar I understand your position, but the rules of the market have always been clear. The decision of whether the filibuster's weekend is whether there is a change in the rules or precedent of the Senate that results in a lower threshold for closure on legislative action. I still see that there is a real possibility that this criteria is met however, it is simply not been met yet. Additionally, if it's ambiguous as to whether the parliamentarian or the chair has been overruled this market may resolve partially.
@AaronSimansky The rules of this market were clear. The market is supposed to resolve YES if "a change in U.S. Senate rules or precedent that lowers the threshold for cloture for any legislative action whose threshold for cloture at the time the market was created is three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn." The action that was taken last night was an action that was subject to the filibuster according to an unofficial ruling of the parlimentarian. The distinction without a difference you are splitting hairs about is just that the Senate preempted an official ruling of the parlimentarian by declaring that the action taken actually did fall under the CRA, before the official ruling was made. The only thing that changed here is that the Senate didn't wait to overrule the parliamentarian, instead, it acted to prevent the parliamentarian from ever issuing such a ruling. Obviously, this is "a change in U.S. Senate rules or precedent that lowers the threshold for cloture for any legislative action whose threshold for cloture at the time the market was created is three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn." Specifically, a rule was changed that lowered the threshold for cloture on the class of things that previously weren't CRA-relevant and now are.
@AaronSimansky The initial rules of this market never mentioned anything about the parliamentarian, and were much broader. The narrow focus on an explicit ruling by the parliamentarian ignores that the Senate has effectively unlimited options to skirt a filibuster that would clearly work just as well (including other things like just firing the parliamentarian and installing a partisan one).