Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority vote, but only through a specific procedural pathway that has been used successfully multiple times in recent decades.
Here’s how it works in practice:
Normal rule: Standing Senate rules (like the cloture threshold of 60 votes to end debate) require a two-thirds majority of senators present and voting to adopt changes (Senate Rule XXII).
The nuclear/constitutional option: At the start of a new Congress (or sometimes mid-session), a senator raises a point of order that a particular rule or precedent is unconstitutional or should be reinterpreted.
The presiding officer (usually a freshman from the majority party) rules against the point of order.
The majority leader appeals the ruling of the chair.
The appeal is then decided by a simple majority vote (51 votes, or 50 + VP).
This creates a new precedent that effectively changes or overrides the old rule.
Real-world examples where this was done with 51 votes:
November 21, 2013: Democrats lowered the cloture threshold from 60 to 51 votes for all executive branch nominees and most judicial nominees (except Supreme Court). Vote: 52–48.
April 6, 2017: Republicans extended the same 51-vote threshold to Supreme Court nominees. Vote: 48–52 (after party-line votes on the appeal).
The Senate parliamentarian and most scholars acknowledge this procedure is legitimate because the Constitution (Article I, Section 5) gives each house the power to determine its own rules, and nothing in the Constitution requires a supermajority to do so — the two-thirds requirement in Rule XXII is itself just a rule that can be changed by simple majority via this precedent-setting process.
Bottom line: Yes, the Senate can and has changed its rules with 51 votes when the majority is willing to use the “nuclear option” to establish a new precedent.
Yes, Democrats did use the nuclear option to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, but only for the final piece of it in 2010 — and it’s a bit more nuanced than a single dramatic vote.
What actually happened:
House passed the Senate bill (March 21, 2010)
The House passed the exact Senate version of the ACA (HR 3590) by a vote of 219–212. No Republicans voted yes. This avoided a second Senate filibuster.
Reconciliation “fix” bill (HCERA)
Both chambers then passed a separate reconciliation package (HR 4872) that amended the main bill with changes Democrats wanted (the “Sidecar” or “Fixes” bill).
Reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered — they only need 51 votes in the Senate.
The nuclear option moment (March 25, 2010)
Republicans filed over 40 amendments and dozens of procedural points of order against the reconciliation bill. Senate Parliamentarian ruled many Republican points of order were valid, which would have stripped key provisions and forced the bill back to the House.
Instead of accepting those rulings, Democrats voted 51–48 along party lines to overrule the Parliamentarian on multiple points of order. This was the first time in history a majority party overruled the Parliamentarian on budget reconciliation points of order to save major legislation. Contemporary sources (including the Senate GOP whip at the time) explicitly called this “the nuclear option for health care.”
Example: Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) on the floor:
“You are fundamentally changing the Senate rules by a simple majority vote… This is the nuclear option on health care.”
House passed the reconciliation bill (March 25, 2010)
The House then passed the amended reconciliation package 220–211.
Obama signed both bills
Main ACA bill: March 23, 2010
Reconciliation fixes: March 30, 2010
Why it’s called the nuclear option: The 2010 move was narrower than Harry Reid’s 2013 nuclear option (which eliminated filibusters for most nominees). But it was still a precedent-shattering use of raw majority power to override Senate rules and the Parliamentarian to force through Obamacare’s final provisions.Contemporary sources confirming this
Congressional Record, March 25, 2010 (Senate debate)
Politico, March 25, 2010: “Dems go nuclear on health care”
The Hill, March 25, 2010: “Senate Democrats use nuclear option to pass healthcare fixes”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (ranking GOP on Finance): “This is the first time ever that the Senate has used a simple majority to change the meaning of reconciliation rules.”
Short answer, yes. Democrats used a version of the nuclear option on March 25, 2010, to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian and save the Obamacare reconciliation bill when Republican points of order threatened to gut it. Without that move, the ACA as we know it would have died.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
