How Quorum Rules Govern Congress

Quorum-busting, or walkouts, have been used for centuries by minority groups to block the adoption of measures they oppose. In the United States, Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution sets a quorum as a simple majority of members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is currently 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate. However, the Twelfth Amendment states that a quorum shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states in cases where no candidate for President of the United States receives a majority in the Electoral College. In other countries, the quorum is set at one-tenth of the total number of members, as in India, or one-third, as in Australia.

Explore related products

Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate (Princeton Studies in American Politics)

$27.58 $47

Puig Quorum for Men Eau de Toilette Spray, 3.4 Ounce

$17.89

Quorum Sensing Bacteria: The United States Congress, Virulence and Pathogenicity

$34

The Quorum's Child: and the Constitution-Challenging Election of 2020

$17.76

Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845: A Documentary History

$25 $25

State Legislatures Today: Politics under the Domes

$30.89 $39.6

Quorum-busting

In the United States, Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business. This means that, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, a quorum is a simple majority of their respective members (currently 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate). The Twelfth Amendment outlines exceptions to this rule, stating that in cases where no candidate for President of the United States receives a majority in the Electoral College, the election is decided by the House of Representatives, and a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states (a possible quorum as low as 34).

While quorum-busting has been used for centuries, legislative bodies have also adopted rules to discourage the practice. For example, the call of the house procedure allows for the compulsory attendance of members to obtain a quorum. This procedure is authorized by Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that each House shall be the judge of "the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". While this procedure is rarely used in modern Congress, it has been employed in the past to prevent quorum-busting.

In one notable example of quorum-busting, members of the Texas Senate fled to New Mexico to avoid being counted for a quorum. This incident brought to light the tradition of quorum-busting within the U.S. Senate. While the framers of the Constitution sought to prevent such behavior, they left it up to each chamber to determine how to enforce attendance. In 1877, in response to proliferating filibusters that employed quorum-busting tactics, the Senate began to adopt rules to enforce attendance, such as sending the sergeant-at-arms to round up missing members.

The US Constitution's quorum requirements

The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution outlines exceptions to this rule. In cases where no candidate for President receives a majority in the Electoral College, the election is decided by the House of Representatives, with a quorum consisting of "a member or members from two-thirds of the states". This could be as low as 34 members. Similarly, if no candidate for Vice President receives a majority in the Electoral College, the election is decided by the Senate, with a quorum requirement of two-thirds of the states.

The US Constitution also provides that a minority of members may "compel" the attendance of absent colleagues to ensure a quorum is met. This procedure is outlined in Article I, Section 5. While each chamber has the power to determine how to enforce attendance, it is rarely used in modern Congress.

The tactic of "quorum-busting" or walkouts has been used by minority groups to prevent a quorum from being met and block the adoption of measures they oppose. This has been addressed by legislative bodies, with rules such as the call of the house procedure, where members who are absent without excuse may be arrested and brought in, and charged a fee.

The determination of a quorum has been a point of contention, with the Supreme Court ruling on the issue in the case of United States v. Ballin in 1892. The Court held that the Constitution requires only the presence of a quorum, and that members present but not voting can be counted towards determining a quorum.

Quorum in other legislatures

Quorum-busting, or a walkout, is a tactic used by a minority group to prevent a legislative body from attaining a quorum and block the adoption of a measure they oppose. This generally only occurs when a quorum is a supermajority, as a simple majority usually suffices for both the quorum and the passage of a bill.

State legislatures in the United States require a specific number of members to be present to conduct official business. Of the 50 states, 45 define a quorum as a majority of members, meaning the majority party can usually maintain a quorum without the minority party. Massachusetts defines a quorum as less than a majority of members: two-fifths in the Senate and three-eighths in the House. Four states—Indiana, Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas—define a quorum as two-thirds of members, requiring the presence of both majority and minority party members to conduct legislative business, unless one party holds a two-thirds majority.

In the Texas Legislature, the minority party has engaged in walkouts to prevent a quorum and the passage of controversial bills. In 2003, House Democrats left the state to prevent a quorum from being present during a redistricting bill that would have favored Republicans. In 2021, Democratic House Representatives fled the state to block a bill that would change voting rules.

In Oregon, 11 Republican members of the State Senate did not attend a legislative session in 2019 to prevent a quorum and block a cap-and-trade climate bill.

Outside the United States, the quorum requirements vary. The Constitution of India stipulates that at least 10% of the total number of members of the House must be present to constitute a quorum. The Constitution of Pakistan states that at least one-fourth of the Assembly must be present, or the meeting must be adjourned or suspended until a quorum is present. In the Philippines, half of the membership is needed to muster a quorum. In Australia, the quorum for the House of Representatives and the Senate is set at one-third of the whole number of MPs and senators, respectively, but Parliament can change this by ordinary legislation.

Explore related products

State Legislatures: An Owner's Manual

$19.95 $19.95

Accountability in State Legislatures (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

$25.68 $32.5

State Legislatures Today: Politics under the Domes

$104

A Complete Practical Guide to California’s Legislature and Its Legislative Process

$24.99

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

$12

Understanding American Legislatures (Routledge Series on Interpretive Methods)

$140 $48.99

The role of the board president

The board president plays a crucial role in ensuring the effective functioning of the board and maintaining the integrity of its decision-making processes. One of the key responsibilities of the board president is to ensure that the board meets its quorum requirements.

A quorum refers to the minimum number of board members that must be present for official business to be conducted. The presence of a quorum is essential for valid decision-making, as it ensures that a diverse range of perspectives and talents are brought to bear on the issues at hand. It also helps prevent a small group of members from exerting undue influence over the board's decisions. In the context of the United States Congress, a quorum in both the House of Representatives and the Senate is constituted by a simple majority of their respective members. This is currently set at 218 for the House and 51 for the Senate.

The board president is responsible for verifying that a quorum is present before proceeding with any official business. This includes confirming the attendance of members in person or through teleconferencing, as allowed by the organization's bylaws. If a quorum is not met, the board president may need to adjourn or suspend the meeting until a quorum is achieved. In some cases, the board president may be empowered to compel the attendance of absent members to ensure a quorum, although this power is rarely used in modern times.

Additionally, the board president should be vigilant against quorum-busting tactics, where a minority group of members intentionally prevents a quorum from being met to block the adoption of measures they oppose. The board president should be familiar with the organization's bylaws and procedures to effectively address such situations and ensure that the board's business can be conducted efficiently and in accordance with established rules.

Furthermore, the board president has a duty to ensure that all members present during a quorum are eligible to participate and that their participation complies with the organization's bylaws. This includes verifying the validity of proxy votes, if applicable, and ensuring that only authorized individuals are involved in decision-making. By fulfilling these responsibilities, the board president helps maintain the integrity of the board's decisions and ensures that the organization's bylaws and procedures are adhered to.

The impact of not following quorum protocol

In the United States Congress, a quorum is a simple majority of members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives must have 218 members present, while the Senate requires 51 members for a quorum.

• Legislative Delay: Failing to meet the quorum requirement can cause significant delays in the legislative process. Without a quorum, official business cannot be conducted, potentially stalling important decisions and causing legislative backlog.
• Centralization of Power: If quorum protocols are not followed, there is a risk that a small group of members may gain too much power. This could result in decisions being made that do not represent the interests of the whole legislative body or favour only certain groups.
• Quorum-Busting: Minority groups within the legislature may intentionally prevent a quorum from being met as a tactic to block the adoption of measures they oppose. This strategy, known as quorum-busting, has been used throughout history and can significantly disrupt the legislative process.
• Inconvenience and Inefficiency: Not meeting the quorum requirement can result in inconvenience and inefficiency, as members may need to be "compelled" to attend, or meetings may need to be adjourned or rescheduled. This can waste time and resources and slow down the legislative process.
• Legal and Procedural Issues: Failing to meet quorum requirements can have legal implications and impact the validity of decisions made. In the United States, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the importance of quorum requirements, underscoring the potential consequences of not following quorum protocols.

It is important to note that legislative bodies may adopt rules to discourage quorum-busting and enforce attendance, such as the call of the house procedure, where members who are absent without excuse may be arrested and charged a fee. However, not following quorum protocols can still have significant impacts on the efficiency, fairness, and functionality of the legislative process.

Frequently asked questions