Last updated

Headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer of November 16, 1919, reporting the first use of cloture by the United States Senate. Cloture headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer.jpeg
Headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer of November 16, 1919, reporting the first use of cloture by the United States Senate.

Cloture ( UK: US: /ˈklər/ , [1] [2] also UK: /ˈkltjʊər/ ), [3] closure, [4] or, informally, a guillotine [4] is a motion or process in parliamentary procedure aimed at bringing debate to a quick end. The cloture procedure originated in the French National Assembly, from which the name is taken. Clôture is French for "the act of terminating something". It was introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom by William Ewart Gladstone to overcome the obstructionism of the Irish Parliamentary Party and was made permanent in 1887. It was subsequently adopted by the United States Senate and other legislatures. The name cloture remains in the United States; [3] in Commonwealth countries it is usually closure [3] or, informally, guillotine; in the United Kingdom closure and guillotine are distinct motions. [5] [6]



In Australia, the procedure by which finite debating times for particular bills are set, or protracted debates are brought to a close, is referred to as a "guillotine". Generally, a minister will declare that a bill must be considered as urgent, and move a motion to limit debating time. The declaration and motion may refer to a single bill, or to multiple bills or packages of bills. A guillotine motion may not be debated or amended, and must be put to a vote immediately. [4]


Closure in Canada was adopted by the House of Commons in 1913 by Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden. The new closure rule was immediately tested by the government only a few days after its adoption during debate at the Committee of the Whole stage of the Naval Aid Bill. [7] "Closure" is the term used in Canada; "cloture" and "guillotine" are not used.[ citation needed ]

Procedure on closure in Canada is governed under Standing Order no. 57 of the House of Commons and consists of three parts: Notice of closure, a motion of closure, and a final period of debate before final voting on the bill being closured.

Notice of closure is an oral statement announcing intention to call for closure given by any Minister at a prior sitting of the Committee of the Whole. The notice need not be the day immediately prior to the sitting at which the bill will be closured, but cannot be in the same sitting as the final motion of closure.

The motion of closure, referred to as a motion "that the debate shall not be further adjourned", is passed by a simple majority of the House of Commons, although in the event of a tie, the Speaker of the House will apply Speaker Denison's rule to issue the casting vote.

Should the motion of closure pass, all members are given a single period in which to speak lasting no more than 20 minutes. If the final period of speaking to the bill has not been finished by 8:00 p.m. that same day, no MP may speak after that point, and the bill moves to a final vote. [8]

Hong Kong

The first cloture in Hong Kong was introduced in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on 17 May 2012, by Tsang Yok-sing (President of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong), to abruptly halt filibuster during debate at the Committee of the Whole stage of the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2012. [9] The motion to end debate was submitted by Council member Philip Wong Yu-hong some time after 4 am Hong Kong time, after a marathon session that lasted over 33 hours. Wong stood up and suggested that legislatures in other countries have a procedure called "cloture motion", and suggested Council President should end debate immediately. President Tsang agreed and said that he considered ending debate even without Wong's suggestion because he would not allow debate to go on endlessly. Cloture is not defined by any rule or precedent of the Legislative Council. Tsang made reference to Standing Order 92, which stated "In any matter not provided for in these Rules of Procedure, the practice and procedure to be followed in the Council shall be such as may be decided by the President who may, if he thinks fit, be guided by the practice and procedure of other legislatures". [10] Standing Order 92 therefore may implicitly give Council President discretion on whether he should or should not follow the cloture rules of other legislatures, but this is up to debate. Legislative Council President Tsang chose to end debate without calling for a cloture vote, which is questionable. Council member Leung Kwok-hung then stood up and said that he had never heard of cloture without a vote anywhere else and suggested there should have been a cloture vote.

Cloture was again invoked by Tsang Yok-sing on 13 May 2013 to halt debate of the 2013 Appropriation Bill.

New Zealand

In the New Zealand House of Representatives, any MP called to speak may move a closure motion. If the length of the debate is not fixed by standing orders or the Business Committee, the Speaker may decide to put the closure motion to a vote, which is carried by a simple majority. [11]

United Kingdom


A closure motion may be adopted to end debate on a matter in both the House of Commons [5] and in the House of Lords [5] by a simple majority of those voting. In the House of Commons, at least 100 MPs (not counting two acting as tellers) must vote in favour of the motion for closure to be adopted; [5] the Speaker of the House of Commons may choose to deny the closure motion, [5] if he or she feels that insufficient debate has occurred, or that the procedure is being used to violate the rights of the minority.[ citation needed ] In the House of Lords, the Lord Speaker does not possess an equivalent power.[ citation needed ] Only one closure motion is permitted per debate. [5]

Specific to legislation, a guillotine motion, formally an allocation of time motion, limits the amount of time for a particular stage of a bill. [6] Debate ceases when the allotted time expires; a single vote is taken immediately to pass the stage of the bill and, in the case of a committee stage or report stage, to accept all undebated sections and government amendments. The use of guillotines has been replaced by the programme motion, where the amount of time for each stage is agreed after a bill's second reading. [6] [12] Both guillotine motions and programme motions are specific to the Commons; the Lords does not permit time restrictions. [6] [12]


On 24 January 1881, the second Gladstone ministry attempted to move the first reading of the Protection of Person and Property Bill, a controversial response to the Irish agrarian disturbances known as the Land War. [13] [14] The Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) under Charles Stewart Parnell responded with the most extreme example of its policy of obstructionism by filibuster; after two sittings lasting 22 hours and then 41 hours, the Speaker of the Commons, Henry Brand simply refused to recognise any further IPP MPs wishing to speak, and in the early hours of 2 February 1881 he put the motion, which was passed. [14] [15] The IPP MPs objected that this was an abuse by the speaker of their rights as members, [16] and the government responded by formalising the process as an amendment to the standing orders, moved by Gladstone on 3 February 1881: [14] [17]

That, if upon Notice given a Motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that the state of Public Business is urgent, and if on the call of the Speaker 40 Members shall support it by rising in their places, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question, no Debate, Amendment, or Adjournment being allowed; and if, on the voices being given he shall without doubt perceive that the Noes have it, his decision shall not be challenged, but, if otherwise, a Division may be forthwith taken, and if the Question be resolved in the affirmative by a majority of not less than three to one, the powers of the House for the Regulation of its Business upon the several stages of Bills, and upon Motions and all other matters, shall he and remain with the Speaker, until the Speaker shall declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent, or until the House shall so determine upon a Motion, which after Notice given may be made by any Member, put without Amendment, Adjournment, or Debate, and decided by a majority

Gladstone described it as "a subject of considerable novelty, and of the extremest gravity", [18] and many Irish members objected and were suspended from the House before the amendment motion was moved. [14] [19]

In 1882, Gladstone proposed a major overhaul of the rules of procedure, and on 20 February debate began on the first resolution, on "putting the question". [14] [20] The session beginning in November 1882 was devoted entirely to the new rules, [21] and the motion on putting the question was passed, after 19 days' debate, on 10 November 1882: [22]

That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of Ways and Means in a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, that the subject has been adequately discussed, and that it is the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee; and, if a Motion be made "That the Question be now put", Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under discussion shall be put forthwith: Provided that the Question, "That the Question be now put", shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than two hundred Members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than forty Members and supported by more than one hundred Members.

The rule was invoked only twice by Gladstone's ministry, [13] and the second Salisbury ministry secured its amendment, after six days' debate, on 1 March 1887: [14] [13] [23]

That, after a Question has been proposed, a Motion may be made, if the consent of the Chair has been previously obtained, "That the Question be now put". Such Motion shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate: When the Motion "That the Question be now put", has been carried, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the consent of the Chair having been previously obtained) which, may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair; and also if a Clause be then under consideration, a Motion may be made (with the consent of the Chair as aforesaid) That the Question, That the Clause stand part, or be added to the Bill, be now put. Such Motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate: Provided always, That Questions for the Closure of Debate shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear by the numbers declared from the Chair, that such Motion was supported by more than Two Hundred Members, or was opposed by less than Forty Members, and supported by more than One Hundred Members

By 1909, the closure was applicable in committees and to motions as well as in the house and to bills. [14]

In 2000, the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended discontinuing the use of allocation of time motions for bills, and instead passing a programme motion to make a programme order. [24] This was accepted by the Commons on 7 November 2000. [24] One of the Cameron–Clegg coalition's most significant parliamentary defeats was in 2012, on the programme motion for the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012; some rebel MPs agreed with the substance of the bill but felt not enough time had been allocated to its debate. [25]

United States


On 8 March 1917, during World War I, a rule allowing cloture of a debate was adopted by the Senate on a 76–3 roll call vote [26] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, [27] after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare. [28] This was successfully invoked for the first time on 15 November 1919, [29] during the 66th Congress, to end a filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles. [30]

The Senate's cloture rule originally [31] required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof. [32] [33] For example, if all 100 senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some senators were absent and only 80 senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor. [34] However, it proved very difficult to achieve this. The Senate tried 11 times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster use was particularly heavy by Democratic senators from southern states to block civil rights legislation. [35]

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to attain a strength of 61 (with an additional independent senator caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). [36] However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those senators "present and voting" to those senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would take only 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass. [34]

The new version of the cloture rule requiring three-fifths (60%) rather than two-thirds (66.7%) approval, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. Even so, a successful cloture motion on legislation is uncommon.

Bills considered under the reconciliation process established in 1974 (certain bills concerning spending and the budget) cannot be filibustered and therefore don't require a supermajority cloture vote.

The U.S. House of Representatives does not have a cloture procedure, since filibustering is not possible in that body.


The three-fifths version of the cloture rule does not apply to motions to end filibusters relating to Senate Rule changes. To invoke cloture to end debate over changing the Senate rules, the original version of the rule (two-thirds of those Senators "present and voting") still applies. [37]

The procedure for "invoking cloture", or ending a filibuster, is as follows:

After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:

Cloture voting in the United States Senate since 1917. US Senate cloture since 1917.png
Cloture voting in the United States Senate since 1917.

See also


  1. cloture in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
  2. "cloture: definition of cloture in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)". . Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  3. 1 2 3 "cloture - definition of cloture in English from the Oxford dictionary". . Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  4. 1 2 3 Brief Guide No. 14 - Debating legislation under time limits (PDF), Parliament of Australia - Senate, 5 June 2009, retrieved 14 March 2012
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Closure motions". Glossary. UK Parliament. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  6. 1 2 3 4 "Allocation of time motions". Glossary. UK Parliament. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  7. "House of Commons Procedure and Practice - Second Edition, 2009". Parliament of Canada . Retrieved 24 June 2011.
  8. "Standing Orders of the House of Commons, Chapter VIII (Motions)". Parliament of Canada . Retrieved 28 September 2018.
  9. "Legco president sets vote deadline". RTHK. 17 May 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
  10. Procedure if Rules of Procedure do not Provide The Legislative Council -- Procedures
  11. "Chapter 3: General procedures". Parliament of New Zealand. 23 November 2011. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
  12. 1 2 "Programme motion". Glossary. UK Parliament. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  13. 1 2 3 Koß, Michael (2012). ""The Legitimate Secret." On the Evolution of Parliamentary Agenda Control in Germany" (PDF). pp. 11–15. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lee, Colin (2015). Besly, Nicolas (ed.). "Archibald Milman and the procedural response to obstruction, 1877–1888" (PDF). The Table. Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments. 83: 22–44 : 37–43. ISSN   0264-7133.; Redlich, Josef (1908). "The Urgency Procedure and the Introduction of the Closure (1881-1888)". The procedure of the House of Commons; a study of its history and present form. I. Translated by Steinthal, E. Ernest. Introduction and a Supplementary Chapter by Courtenay Ilbert. London: Archibald Constable. pp. 164–185.
  15. Lyons, F.S.L. (4 October 2005). Charles Stewart Parnell, A Biography: The Definitive Biography of the Uncrowned King of Ireland. Gill Books. p. 159. ISBN   9780717163960 . Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  16. "ORDER—PRIVILEGE—PROTECTION OR PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL—CLOSURE OF THE DEBATE THIS MORNING". Hansard. 2 February 1881. pp. HC Deb vol 258 cc7–43. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  17. HC Deb vol 258 cc.155–6
  18. HC Deb vol 258 c.69
  19. "RULES OF DEBATE—DIVISIONS-SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS. (Hansard, 3 February 1881)". HC Deb vol 258 cc.68-156. Hansard. 3 February 1881. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  20. "PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—THE FIRST RESOLUTION (PUTTING THE QUESTION)". Hansard. 20 February 1882. HC Deb vol 266 cc1124-95. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  21. "PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.—RESOLUTION". Hansard. 24 October 1882. HC Deb vol 274 cc45-69. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  22. "Parliament—Business of the House—the New Rules of Procedure—First Rule (Putting the Question) [Adjourned debate.][Nineteenth night.]". Hansard. 10 November 1882. HC Deb vol 274 cc1206-87. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  23. "Business of the House (Rules of Procedure)—Rule 1 (Closure of debate).—Resolution. Adjourned Debate. [Sixth night.]". Hansard. 1 March 1887. HC Deb vol 311 cc916–79. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  24. 1 2 "I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions (,)". Hansard. 7 November 2000. HC Deb vol 356 cc213–80. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  25. "Lords reform: Coalition suffers biggest rebellion". BBC Online . 11 July 2012. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  26. 55 Congressional Record p. 45 (8 March 1917)
  27. "Filibuster and Cloture". United States Senate. Retrieved 5 March 2010.
  28. See John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage (chapter on George Norris) for a description of the event.
  29. "The Senate and the League of Nations". United States Senate. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  30. "Filibuster and Cloture". United States Senate.
  31. Koger, Gregory Cloture Reform and Party Government in the Senate, 1918-1925, Journal of Politics, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Aug 2006), p. 708-719.
  32. Times staff, wires (18 November 2008). "Q&A: How does a filibuster work?". St. Petersburg Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2009. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  33. "Democrats still in the quest for 60 Senate seats". CNN. 4 November 2008. Retrieved 19 November 2008.
  34. 1 2 Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, Richard S. Beth and Stanley Bach, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress: 23 March 2003, p. 13.
  35. Loevy, Robert D. (1997). The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law that Ended Racial Segregation SUNY Press. p. 29.
  36. "What is Rule 22?" Archived 21 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine , Rule22 Blog, 5/28/2011.
  37. Invoking Cloture in the Senate, Christopher M. Davis, 4 June 2007, page 2.
  38. Davis, Christopher. "Invoking Cloture in the Senate" . Retrieved 25 May 2011.
  39. Davis, Christopher M. (24 April 2015). "Invoking Cloture in the Senate" (PDF). CRS Reports. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
  40. "Virtual Reference Desk - Cloture". United States Senate.
  41. "Rules of the Senate". United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  42. "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate", Valerie Heitshusen and Richard S. Beth, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress: 7 April 2017 p.17
  43. "Senate Action on Cloture Motions". United States Senate. Retrieved 22 November 2013.

Related Research Articles

Filibuster Parliamentary procedure where debate over a proposed piece of legislation is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on the proposal

A filibuster is a political procedure where one or more members of parliament or congress debate over a proposed piece of legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision being made on the proposal. It is sometimes referred to as "talking a bill to death" or "talking out a bill" and is characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. This form of political obstruction reaches as far back as Ancient Roman times and could also be referred to synonymously with political stonewalling. Due to the often extreme length of time required for a successful filibuster, many speakers stray off topic after exhausting the original subject matter. Past speakers have read through laws from different states, recited speeches, and even read from cookbooks and phone books.

Lok Sabha Lower house of the Parliament of India

The Lok Sabha, or House of the People, is the lower house of India's bicameral Parliament, with the upper house being the Rajya Sabha. Members of the Lok Sabha are elected by adult universal suffrage and a first-past-the-post system to represent their respective constituencies, and they hold their seats for five years or until the body is dissolved by the President on the advice of the council of ministers. The house meets in the Lok Sabha Chambers of the Sansad Bhavan, New Delhi.

Congressional Debate is a competitive interscholastic high school Debate event in the United States. The National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA), National Catholic Forensic League (NCFL) and many state associations and national invitational tournaments offer Congressional Debate as an event. Each organization and tournament offers its own rules, although the National Forensic League has championed standardization since 2007, when it began to ask its districts to use one of a number of procedures for qualification to its National Tournament. The Pakistan Student Congress event is a conference, and not interscholastic competition.

Markup is the process by which a U.S. congressional committee or state legislative session debates, amends, and rewrites proposed legislation.

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Congress that expedites the passage of certain budgetary legislation in the United States Senate. The Senate filibuster effectively requires a 60-vote super-majority for the passage of most legislation in the Senate, but reconciliation provides a process to prevent the use of the filibuster and thereby allow the passage of a bill with simple majority support in the Senate. The reconciliation procedure also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but reconciliation has had a less significant impact on that body.

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.

The Gang of 14 was a phrase coined to describe the bipartisan group of Senators in the 109th United States Congress who successfully, at the time, negotiated a compromise in the spring of 2005 to avoid the deployment of the so-called "nuclear option" by Senate Republicans over an organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats. The term alludes to the phrase "Gang of Four", used in China to refer to four ex-leaders blamed for the abuses during the rule of Mao Zedong.

In parliamentary procedure, the previous question is generally used as a motion to end debate on a pending proposal and bring it to an immediate vote. The meaning of this specialized motion has nothing to do with any question previously considered by the assembly.

The Standing Rules of the Senate are the parliamentary procedures adopted by the United States Senate that govern its procedure. The Senate's power to establish rules derives from Article One, Section 5 of the United States Constitution: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."

A committee of the whole is a meeting of a deliberative assembly according to modified procedural rules based on those of a committee. The committee includes all members of the assembly, except that some officers may be replaced. As with other committees, the activities of a committee of the whole are limited to considering and making recommendations on matters that the assembly has referred to it; it cannot take up other matters or vote directly on the assembly's business. The purpose of a committee of the whole is to relax the usual limits on debate, allowing a more open exchange of views without the urgency of a final vote. Debates in a committee of the whole may be recorded but are often excluded from the assembly's minutes. After debating, the committee submits its conclusions to the assembly and business continues according to the normal rules.

In the United States Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor.

Numerous bills have been filed in the U.S. Congress to abolish or reduce the power of the Electoral College.

Deliberative assemblies – bodies that use parliamentary procedure to arrive at decisions – use several methods of voting on motions. The regular methods of voting in such bodies are a voice vote, a rising vote, and a show of hands. Additional forms of voting include a recorded vote and balloting.

In parliamentary procedure, a motion is a formal proposal by a member of a deliberative assembly that the assembly take certain action. Such motions, and the form they take, are specified by the deliberate assembly and/or a pre-agreed volume detailing parliamentary procedure, such as Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised; The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure; or Lord Critine's The ABC of Chairmanship. Motions are used in conducting business in almost all legislative bodies worldwide, and are used in meetings of many church vestries, corporate boards, and fraternal organizations.

Patricia Ann Millett is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She formerly headed the Supreme Court practice at the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Millett also was a longtime former assistant to the United States Solicitor General and served as an occasional blogger for SCOTUSblog. At the time of her confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, she had argued 32 cases before the United States Supreme Court. In February 2016 The New York Times identified her as a potential nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

United States Senate Upper house of the United States Congress

The United States Senate is the upper chamber of the United States Congress, which, along with the United States House of Representatives—the lower chamber—constitutes the legislature of the United States. The Senate chamber is located in the north wing of the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

<i>Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice</i> book by Erskine May, 1st Baron Farnborough

Erskine May is a parliamentary authority originally written by British constitutional theorist and Clerk of the House of Commons, Thomas Erskine May.

Filibuster is a tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote by means of obstruction. The most common form occurs when one or more senators attempt to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" vote to bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

Odisha Legislative Assembly Unicameral state legislature of the Indian state of Odisha

The Odisha Legislative Assembly is the unicameral state legislature of Odisha state in India. The seat of the Legislative Assembly is at Bhubaneswar, the capital of the state. The Legislative Assembly comprises 147 Members of Legislative Assembly.. It was announced by Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik that the Sachivalaya or the Secretariat building in Bhubaneswar will be called Lok Seva Bhavan.