Dem
51
GOP
49
We got many, many questions this week about the Speaker election. So, we're going to turn the whole Q&A over to that subject, and will resume normal order (including the reader question of the week) next week.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: What is to stop Matt Gaetz, Laurent Boebert and company from calling a no confidence vote on Kevin McCarthy next week to make sure the Speaker is really and truly humiliated? That seems to be the entire focus of this whole stunt—although in fairness, McCarthy seems to be enjoying each heap of humiliation they pile on him. Very, very unhealthy relationships! Seriously, why is McCarthy laughing and grinning like a hyena at all this? Do you think he secretly is enjoying it? Do you think his acting like this is a huge fun party is only verifying in people's eyes that he is not ready for prime time, or even a cable-access channel out of Aurora, IL? I've often heard that people in positions of power like to be treated in a submissive abusive manner in the bedroom—seems like it's true with Ol' Mac, except he's getting his kicks live on C-SPAN!
V & Z answer: It's possible, but we don't think it's likely. The MAGA crew wants to use the threat of a motion to vacate as a weapon, and if they cheapen it by going to the well too early or too often, that won't fly. Further, as we note above, it's not clear what threats were used to get Gaetz & Co. to fall in line. They might be risking serious consequences if they engage in any more shenanigans in the near future. And finally, if the far-right succeeds in getting rid of McCarthy, they might get someone "better," but there is a serious risk of getting someone far less amenable to their demands.
As to McCarthy's demeanor, he was surely regretting the agreement made to grant C-SPAN's request to put its own cameras into the House chamber temporarily, so as to get "candid" footage. In any case, he's a chameleon, and he undoubtedly presents himself the way he thinks people want him to present himself. That said, he is not a good enough actor to hide the anxiety that was tearing him to pieces. Undoubtedly, he was giving new meaning to the term "sphincter boy."
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Just watched Kevin McCarthy clinch this. The pundits are saying that he promised the freedom caucus this "Church" committee to investigate any aspect of the government. Can you explain more about that and how that differs from the other committees that we know will be engaged in all the bogus investigations?
V & Z answer: In 1975, not long after the Watergate fiasco, the U.S. Senate formed a select committee under Frank Church (D-ID). Its purpose was to look into potential bad behavior by the CIA, FBI and IRS. There was considerable reason to think that an investigation was called for, and the primary outcome was that the wings of the CIA were clipped in various ways (for example, Gerald Ford issued an executive order that said "no more assassinations of foreign leaders").
The Freedom Caucusers, who are part of a political movement that believes there is a deep state embedded within those agencies, apparently want to form something similar. It would be therefore be like the Select Committee on 1/6. The investigations into Hunter Biden's laptop, by contrast, will be conducted under the auspices of the standing committees, probably the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
G.R. in Iqaluit, NV, Canada, asks: I keep seeing in the media that Kevin McCarthy has caved to demand to allow a single representative to call a snap vote on his speakership, but what does that mean exactly?
V & Z answer: What would happen is that a member would introduce a privileged motion to vacate the chair. That would mean that the matter would have to be taken up in short order (although it could be referred to the Rules Committee). If and when the motion reaches the floor, there would be a straight up and down vote on the matter. If a majority of members present voted in favor of the motion, then the Speaker would be removed from his office.
As a practical matter, the difference between "five members needed for a motion to vacate" and "one member needed for a motion to vacate" really isn't much. For the motion to vacate to be successful, it would generally require at least five Republican votes. Further, it's not entirely clear that the Democrats would vote unanimously to cashier McCarthy under those circumstances. They might be unwilling to enable the MAGA crowd, or they might be concerned about the risk that McCarthy is replaced with someone worse.
Z.C. in Beverly Hills, CA, asks: Would Democrats also be able to move to kick out McCarthy at any time? Even though it's the right-wing hardliners demanding the rule, couldn't the Democrats or moderate Republicans plausibly use that rule, should they find a McCarthy-led house ungovernable?
V & Z answer: Reportedly, the rule is written in such a way that only members of the Republican Conference can invoke it. But there is certainly the possibility that if the non-MAGA Republicans grow exasperated with the MAGA Republicans, and with constant kowtowing by McCarthy, the non-MAGA Republicans could end up being the ones to make a motion to vacate.
That said, keep in mind that doing this is, in effect, a mutiny. And mutineers who fail generally end up as outcasts. Politicians are almost universally risk-averse, particularly politicians who regard themselves as moderates. So, the moderates would surely have to be pushed well beyond the breaking point before they might pull something like this.
D.G. in Centreville, VA, asks: With Kevin McCarthy allowing for a single member to call for a vote to vacate, how long do you think it will take for that to happen? And what happens at that point? I'd assume the house could go about its normal business, since everyone would be sworn in at that point.
V & Z answer: We've had numerous requests to poll the readership on this question, so why not? Here is a poll, should readers care to weigh in. There are 725 days left in this sitting of the Congress, so you can pick exactly how many days you think it will be until a motion to vacate is filed. If you think there won't be one, then pick 725. We'll reveal the results on Friday.
And, as we noted above, the motion to vacate would be privileged, which would mean that McCarthy couldn't bury it by putting it at the end of the queue. However, it would not bring the House to a grinding halt, either, and normal business would continue.
J.C.A. in Shepherdsville, KY, asks: Could Kevin McCarthy refuse to seat Matt Gaetz? Or would it take a majority vote to refuse to seat him? If so, would a majority refuse to seat him? If not, what other retaliations could we expect to see against him?
V & Z answer: McCarthy cannot refuse to seat Gaetz; only a majority of the House can do that. About all McCarthy can do without majority backing is assign Gaetz to crummy committee seats.
However, we think it is unlikely that any punitive actions will be taken. Gaetz clearly has some supporters in the House, McCarthy was elected by the skin of his teeth, and it would not be wise for the Speaker to rock the boat. Also, as much as Democrats loathe Gaetz, they may not be willing to help set a precedent that members can be punished or expelled solely for their political maneuvering. Historically, members have only been expelled as punishment for committing crimes.
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: I read a little about Kevin McCarthy online this week and I see his House district is very ethnically diverse. Almost 60% of his district is comprised of ethnic minorities. Since (Z) lives in California, I thought he might know the answer to this: How does he keep winning that district so easily and what do residents like about him so much there?
V & Z answer: McCarthy is pretty good at the back-slapping aspect of politics. He circulates in the community, and has friendly relationships with a lot of people there.
As to the diversity, most of the minority voters in McCarthy's district are Latinos. And not just any Latinos, but Central Valley Latinos. As is the case in portions of Texas, many of the Latinos in the Central Valley have been in California a long time, are prosperous, and lean politically conservative.
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, asks: Why is Kevin McCarthy the establishment Republican nominee for speaker? Was he the most senior member of the caucus who actually wanted the job?
V & Z answer: As a general rule, folks in leadership work their way up the ladder by first serving in higher-hassle, lower-glamour jobs first. Speaker emerita Nancy Pelosi, for example, was House Democratic whip before she became minority leader, and then speaker. McCarthy was House Republican whip before he became minority leader, and then speaker.
It is certainly possible for someone to go straight from "member" to "speaker," but it's not very common. In those lower-ranking jobs, would-be speakers learn useful skills and make useful connections, both inside the House and out. Further, politicians tend to prefer that things be orderly. If there were 50 possible speaker candidates, as opposed to one, then the House would often have train wrecks like the one that just unfolded.
L.K. in Sherman Oaks, CA, asks: The speeches the Republicans have been giving have me concerned. They seem to be uniformly against voting for another omnibus budget bill.. The reason the appropriations bills are combined is partly so that all the departments can get funding. If they are separated, the Republicans could simply refuse to fund the Department of Education or the Environmental Protection Agency, etc. Do you think we may see no budgets passed in the next two years? And if that is the case, will the government just run on an endless stream of continuing resolutions? Is that possible? Or will we get to a point where they refuse to pass those and the Democrats have to choose between zero education funding or a possibly years-long government shutdown?
V & Z answer: McCarthy might have given all sorts of promises about the budget, but he is well aware of certain realities. Any spending bill has to get past a Democratic-controlled Senate and White House, and they are not going to let, for example, the EPA be shut down. Further, there are plenty of Democratic votes in the House available for reasonable budget proposals. For example, McCarthy could go to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and say: "I will put forward a bill that raises the debt limit if you and your caucus agree not to support a motion to vacate, should one be put forward in response." That arrangement would neuter the MAGA militia.
The most important reality of all, however, is probably this: Far and away, the two biggest chunks of the budget are defense and entitlement spending (Medicare, etc.). Cutting defense is a nonstarter for many Republican politicians, and cutting entitlement spending is a nonstarter for the aging voter base the Party is now dependent upon. So, there isn't going to be some sort of "budget revolution," no matter how much the MAGA crew thinks they can force one.
J.L. in Glastonbury, CT, asks: All a McCarthy-led House will do is pass legislation that won't pass the Senate, and do stupid performative oversight hearings. Failure to pass a new budget just means the old one continues, right? And inability to raise the debt ceiling gives Biden an excuse to mint some billion-dollar coins. So what is wrong with the status quo? Why shouldn't we prefer this clown show to any other?
V & Z answer: If the budget expires (which it will do on Oct. 1 of this year), and there is no resolution in place to extend spending temporarily, then the federal government (excepting essentials, like defense) shuts down. And as to trickery meant to get around the debt ceiling, it's possible, but it would come with consequences, like spooking the stock market.
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, asks: Watching the speaker votes, I wonder why they bother to nominate people each round? The first round showed that people can get votes even if they are not nominated, and everyone knows that Kevin McCarthy and Hakeem Jeffries are candidates, so why keep re-nominating them round after round?
V & Z answer: House members rarely get to give a speech with their colleagues in attendance (normally, speeches happen before a near-empty chamber, and are given just for the record). They even more rarely get to give a speech with their colleagues in attendance and millions of people watching on TV. So, even if the nominating speeches are not necessary, they are a glorious opportunity for those members given the chance to deliver one of them.
S.G in Newark, NJ, asks: During the votes for speaker, I noticed that most of the time, if members had the same surname, the names were called using the convention [Surname] of [State]. But occasionally, some members were called as [First Name] [Surname]. For some common surnames, the first couple were called out with [First Name] and then the next with [State]. Why the variance? Are there that many instances of multiple representatives with the same surname from the same state?
V & Z answer: There are indeed several instances of multiple representatives with the same surname from the same state. For example, California has both Mike Garcia (R) and Robert Garcia (D). In addition, the clerks added additional information when members had similar-sounding names. For example, instead of reading "Golden" and "Goldman," they read "Golden of Maine" and "Goldman of New York."
K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI, asks: Why did they keep holding votes for Speaker of the House when it was obvious there had been no change since the last one? Who determines when a new vote is called? I would think that if it were up to Kevin McCarthy, he would have postponed them until he'd obtained at least a few more votes, so he could show progress. Repeated votes with little to no change in the tally just seems like they've just spinning their wheels.
V & Z answer: Without a speaker or rules in place, there were only two tasks the House could do: vote for speaker or adjourn. The Republicans did not want to adjourn for multiple days (or more) because they felt that even spinning their wheels was a better look than doing nothing. And the Democrats did not want to adjourn for multiple days (or more) because they wanted to keep the pressure on the Republicans.
D.L. in Springfield, IL, asks: Suppose the impasse over choosing a Speaker of the House happened following a presidential election, instead of a midterm. What would happen if the House had not chosen a speaker when the time came to count the electoral votes?
V & Z answer: Then there would be a constitutional crisis. The Constitution quite clearly says that the House has to participate in counting the electoral votes, and if there is no House, there is no counting. This is part of the reason that new sessions of Congress commence two-plus weeks before the inauguration.
So, is this a possible loophole that could allow the nutters to hijack the next presidential election if Joe Biden or some other Democrat wins? Technically, yes, but pragmatically, no. First, there has to be a president. And if the House Republican Conference conspired to keep a president from being seated, then the job would just devolve upon the president pro tempore of the Senate (currently Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA). Second, and more importantly, there is simply no way that the full Republican conference would be part of such a scheme. Some of them, maybe, but not enough to pull it off.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, asks: There was an episode of The West Wing which seemed to make clear that if the speaker became president because of presidential incapacitation, he would have to give up his House seat, and therefore would not just go back to being speaker when the incapacity was overcome. I realize that this is fiction, but that show was usually correct with those sorts of technicalities.
My question is, since (apparently) the speaker doesn't have to be a House member, couldn't the Republican majority have given their old speaker his position back after the president became the president again, even if he or she was no longer a member of the house? In fact, couldn't he have kept the speakership even while acting as president?
Inquiring minds want to know.V & Z answer: If a speaker takes over as president, then they do indeed have to give up their seat in the House. If their service as acting president is brief enough, they could of course be reelected to the seat in the special election that is held.
And even if they did not reclaim their seat, then yes, the House could indeed re-install that person as speaker. What is not possible is for an acting president to retain the speakership. Only one person is legally allowed to hold office in multiple branches of the federal government at the same time, and that person is the vice president/president of the Senate.
J.R. in Atlanta, GA, asks: I've seen and heard several times this week that the members of the House are actually still just members-elect, as they have not been sworn in. Normally, this status ceases on the first day of a new Congress after they are sworn in, but without a Speaker elected, that did not happen until Friday. Does this mean that the tenure of members elected in 2020 or earlier is officially interrupted until they are sworn in, as their previous terms expire on Tuesday? Or does it not matter, because the swearing-in only formalizes a status that automatically commenced with the new Congress?
V & Z answer: For all purposes except the exercise of constitutionally delegated powers, the new members' terms began on Tuesday, and the terms of members who were reelected were uninterrupted.
T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: Are the members of Congress being paid at the moment? I know you wrote that congressional aides are not.
V & Z answer: Everyone will be paid starting with Tuesday of this week. What we wrote is not that congressional aides were not being paid, but instead that their payroll could not be processed. Had Congress continued to spin its wheels through Jan. 13, then congressional staffers would have gotten a double paycheck on Jan. 31.
S.W., Orland Park, IL, asks: How many physical seats are in the House of Representatives chamber? Watching the multiple speaker votes, you can see that there is enough space for each party to stick to its own side. There are also plenty of empty seats, even with the large number of guests present (lots of kids being forced to sit through the past couple days of inaction). Plus, we know that there has to be room for additional attendees for the State of the Union address. So what's the actual seating capacity of the House?
V & Z answer: There are 448 seats on the floor of the House, another 500 on the second level (the gallery level), and roughly two dozen on the dais. The reason you saw so many empty seats (most of the time) was that members were either standing in the back of the chamber or were popping in and out.