The motion to table plays a prominent role in many scholarly accounts of policymaking in the Senate. Scholars have argued that it is used with several other motions to allow majority party leaders to bias policy outcomes on the chamber floor. Others maintain it provides bill managers with a means of more efficiently managing the floor. We examine how the motion was utilized both prior to and during the development of Senate floor leadership. Our evidence suggests that in the absence of such leaders, majority party members used the motion to defend the floor from both opposing and fellow party members.
AldrichJ. H.RohdeD. W. (2000). The consequences of party organization in the house: The role of the majority and minority parties in conditional party government. In BondJ. R.FleisherR. (Eds.), Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (pp. 31-72). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
3.
ArnoldR. D. (1990). The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
BinderS. A.MadonnaA. J.SmithS. S. (2007). Going nuclear, Senate style. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 729-740.
5.
BinderS. A.SmithS. S. (1997). Politics or principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6.
CampbellA. C.CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2002). Agenda power in the U.S. Senate, 1877 to 1986. In BradyD. W.McCubbinsM. D. (Eds.), Party, process, and political change in congress: New perspectives on the history of congress (pp. 146-165). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
CarsonJ. L.MadonnaA. J.OwensM. E. (2013). Partisan efficiency in an open-rule setting: The amending process in the U.S. Senate, 1865-1945. Congress & the Presidency, 40, 105-128.
8.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2001). Agenda setting in the U.S. House: A majority-party monopoly?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26, 185-210.
10.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2002). Agenda power in the U.S. House of representatives, 1877-1986. In BradyD. W.McCubbinsM. D. (Eds.), Party, process, and political change in congress: New perspectives on the history of congress (pp. 107-145). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of representatives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CrespinM. H.MadonnaA. J.SievertJ.Ament-StoneN. (2014). Coordination, not coercion: Party policy committees and collective action in the United States Senate. Social Science Quarterly, 96, 1-296.
13.
Den HartogC.MonroeN. (2008). Agenda influence and tabling motions in the U.S. Senate. In MonroeN. W.RobertsJ. M.RohdeD. W. (Eds.), Why not parties: Party effects in the United States Senate (pp. 142-158). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Den HartogC.MonroeN. (2011). Costly consideration: Agenda setting and majority party advantage in the U.S. Senate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
ElliottR. R. (1983). Servant of power: A political biography of Senator William M. Stewart. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
16.
EllisE. (1956). Henry Moore teller: Defender of the west. Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers.
17.
EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1996). The partisan paradox and the U.S. Tariff, 1877-1934. International Organization, 50, 301-324.
18.
FinocchiaroC. J. (2008). Credit claiming, party politics, and the rise of legislative entrepreneurship in the postbellum congress [Typescript]. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
19.
FinocchiaroC. J. (2010). Constituent service, agency decision making, and legislative influence on the bureaucracy in the post-civil war era [Typescript]. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
20.
FinocchiaroC. J.RohdeD. W. (2008). War for the floor: Partisan theory and agenda control in the U.S. House of representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33, 35-61.
21.
GailmardS.JenkinsJ. A. (2007). Negative agenda control in the Senate and house: Fingerprints of majority party power. Journal of Politics, 69, 689-700.
22.
GailmardS.JenkinsJ. A. (2008). Minority party power in the Senate and House of Representatives. In MonroeN. W.RobertsJ. M.RohdeD. W. (Eds.), Why not parties? Party effects in the U.S. Senate (pp. 181-197). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
GammG.SmithS. S. (2002a). The consequences of Senate party leadership. In BradyD.McCubbinsM. D. (Eds.), Party, process, and political change in congress: New perspectives on the history of congress (pp. 287-311). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
GammG.SmithS. S. (2002b). Emergence of Senate party leadership. In OppenheimerB. D. (Ed.), U.S. Senate exceptionalism (pp. 212-240). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
25.
GoodmanC. (2010). Managing the Senate chamber: Motions to table as a means of agenda control [Typescript]. Lubbock: Texas Tech University.
26.
HansenJ. M. (1990). Taxation and the political economy of the tariff. International Organization, 44, 527-551.
27.
HansonP. (2014). Too weak to govern: Majority party power and appropriations in the U.S. Senate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HoarG. F. (1903). Autobiography of seventy years. New York, NY: C. Scribner’s Sons.
29.
HurleyP. A.WilsonR. K. (1989). Partisan voting patterns in the U.S. Senate, 1877-1986. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 225-250.
30.
ICPSR. (1997). Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, and Carroll McKibbin. Roster of United States Congressional Officeholders and Biographical Characteristics of Members of the United States Congress, 1789-1996: Merged Data [Computer file] (ICPSR07803-v10). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
31.
KingA. S.OrlandoF. J.RohdeD. W. (2012). Beyond motions to table: Exploring the procedural toolkit of the majority party in the United States congress. In StrausJ. (Ed.), Parties and procedure in the United States congress (pp. 173-194). New York, NY: Roman & Littlefield.
32.
KogerG. (2010). Filibustering: A political history of obstruction in the house and Senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LeeF. E. (2009). Beyond ideology: Politics, principals, and partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
LynchM. S.MadonnaA. J. (2013). Viva voce: Implications from the disappearing voice vote, 1807-1990. Social Science Quarterly, 94, 530-550.
35.
MadonnaA. J. (2011). Winning coalition formation in the U.S. Senate: The effects of legislative decision rules and agenda change. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 276-288.
36.
MarshallB. W.PrinsB. C.RohdeD. W. (1999). Fighting fire with water: Partisan procedural strategies and the Senate appropriations committee. Congress & the Presidency, 26, 114-132.
37.
MeinkeS. (2008). Institutional change and the electoral connection in the Senate: Revisiting the effects of direct election. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 445-457.
38.
MonroeN. W.RobinsonG. (2008). Do restrictive rules produce nonmedian outcomes? A theory with evidence from the 101st-108th congresses. Journal of Politics, 70, 217-231.
39.
OleszekW. J. (2014). Congressional procedures and the policy process (9th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
40.
OppenheimerB. D. (1985). Changing time constraints on congress: Historical perspectives on the use of cloture. In DoddL. C.OppenheimerB. D. (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (3rd ed., pp. 393-413). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
41.
PooleK.RosenthalH. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
RipleyR. B. (1969). Power in the Senate. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
43.
RobertsJ. M. (2010). The development of special orders and special rules in the U.S. House, 1881-1937. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35, 307-336.
44.
RobertsJ. M.SmithS. S. (2007). The evolution of agenda-setting institutions in congress. In BradyD. W.McCubbinsM. D. (Eds.), Party, process, and political change, Volume 2: Further new perspectives on the history of congress (pp. 182-204). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
45.
RohdeD. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
RothmanD. (1966). Politics and power in the United States Senate 1869-1901. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
SageL. (1956). William Boyd Allison: A study in practical politics. Iowa City: Iowa State Historical Society.
48.
SinclairB. (1983). Majority leadership in the U.S. House. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
SinclairB. (1989). The transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
50.
SmithS. S. (1989). Call to order: Floor politics in the house and Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
51.
SmithS. S. (2007). Party influence in congress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SmithS. S. (2010). The Senate syndrome. Issues in Governance Studies, 35, 1-30.
53.
SmithS. S.FlathmanM. (1989). Managing the Senate floor: Complex unanimous consent agreements since the 1950s. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 14, 349-374.
54.
SmithS. S.OstranderI.PopeC. M. (2013). Majority party power and procedural motions in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 38, 205-236.
55.
StephensonN. W. (1930). Nelson W. Aldrich. New York, NY: C. Scribner’s Sons.
56.
TieferC. (1989). Congressional practice and procedure. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
57.
WawroG.SchicklerE. (2006). Filibuster: Obstruction and lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
