A core question in analyzing political institutions is how these institutions themselves change. This thesis seeks to understand how the institutional procedure change of multiple tracks affects the functioning of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. The data utilized are Washington Post discussions of the filibuster before and after the implementation of multiple tracks. Descriptive statistics, analyses of mean differences, and OLS regression are utilized to test how this change altered the functioning of the filibuster in the Senate. Ultimately, this thesis finds that the implementation of multiple tracks does not affect the functioning of the filibuster, but does alter the duties of the majority leader within the chamber in relation to managing filibusters. This finding is linked to classical and contemporary examples of the filibuster to illustrate how the role of the majority leader changes in practice.