While Cory Booker was busy mounting a sorta-filibuster, there was also some drama over in the House, albeit of a rather different sort. At issue was proxy voting, in particular for members who are mothers and have recently given birth, and who would like to be able to represent their constituents without having to drag themselves out of a hospital bed, or else bring a nursing infant with them into the House chamber.
Before we tell you exactly what happened, let's do a quick review of the two sides of this discussion. The folks who support voting-by-proxy, particularly in this circumstance, see it as a matter of fairness. They observe that in the entire history of the House of Representatives, no male member has EVER had to choose between birthing/nursing an infant and showing up for work. So, there's an obvious gender dimension here. On top of that, childbearing is generally the province of the fairly young, and so there's a reverse ageism dimension, as well. Proponents of the voting-by-proxy proposal suggest that if Congress makes promising folks in their twenties and thirties choose between family and service to their country, some of them will choose family, and Congress will be poorer for it.
Meanwhile, the primary argument of the folks who oppose voting-by-proxy appears to be legalistic. That is to say, they propose that voting-by-proxy may not be consistent with the Constitution, and may open up the possibility of legislation facing legal challenges in the future on that basis. Now, there WAS voting-by-proxy during the pandemic, and none of that legislation has been overturned for that reason, but perhaps that's recent enough that we cannot be sure it won't happen eventually.
There is also a slippery-slope argument, along the lines of "If we allow proxy voting in [legitimate situation X] then eventually it will be used in [not-so-legitimate situation Y]." Slippery-slope arguments are generally pretty weak, and this one doesn't run contrary to that general trend, from where we sit.
We suspect there is also a trio of unstated reasons that some members oppose voting-by-proxy. First, and to be blunt, some of them presumably have dragged themselves to work while ill, or suffering from a broken leg, or things like that, and don't appreciate that giving birth is at a different level. Second, there are a lot of traditionalists in Congress, and those folks tend to be resistant to nearly any change in procedure. "If it was good enough for Henry Clay, it oughta be good enough for us," is the general idea. Third, and finally, sometimes an absent member or two makes all the difference between getting legislation passed and having it fail. That's particularly acute when there's a slim Republican majority, since most of the women in the House (especially the childbearing-age women) are Democrats.
OK, now that we know where the two sides are coming from, let's talk about who's on each side. In contravention of the point we made just 20 words ago, the driving force behind the vote-by-proxy proposal is actually a Republican woman of childbearing ageāRep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who gave birth to a child on August 27, 2023, in the midst of her first congressional term, and so knows a little bit about the strains that imposes on a member. She wrote the bill, and asked Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to bring the bill up for a vote. Johnson, who has... well, a Johnson, said "No, way." So, Luna went to her colleagues and got the necessary signatures (218) for a discharge petition. That would compel Johnson to bring the legislation to a vote, whether he likes it or not, and since 218 is a majority, the legislation would likely pass.
Under these circumstances, Johnson decided to mount a full-on counter-offensive. He pulled together a package of bills, one of which would have changed the rules for discharge petitions, and so would have yanked the rug out from under Luna. There was a key procedural vote on Johnson's package yesterday, and... Johnson came up short. All of the Democrats voted against the Speaker, and so too did nine Republicans. In addition to Luna, the other GOP aisle-crossers were Tim Burchett (TN), Kevin Kiley (CA), Nick LaLota (NY), Mike Lawler (NY), Ryan Mackenzie (PA), Max Miller (OH), Greg Steube (FL) and Jeff Van Drew (NJ). "It's the right thing to do," explained Burchett after the vote. Following this high-profile failure, Johnson pitched a fit, lambasting the nine Republicans who voted against him and declaring that the House would conduct no further business this week.
So, what are the lessons here? Well, to start, it's another reminder that the House Republican Conference is full of fractures, and struggles to work together. Luna is usually a bomb-thrower, but one on the opposite side from the Democrats, not the same side. She is so angry about the behavior of her fellow bomb throwers that she has quit the Freedom Caucus. She's also furious with Johnson. Her vote is presumably even less available to the Speaker than it was before the vote-by-proxy fight.
And speaking of Johnson, he continues to show that he's in over his head. Yes, he's moved a couple of very tough pieces of legislation, but that's been with Donald Trump whipping members furiously. When Johnson has to herd the cats by himself, he usually comes up short. Close may count in horseshoes and hand grenades, but not in votes on legislation. On top of that, his little temper tantrum afterwards is pure amateur hour. Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi doing something like that?
And finally, the party of family values continues (except for a handful of exceptions) to fail to put their vote where their mouth is when it comes to family values. We don't like to put it so starkly, but we follow politics very closely, and yet we cannot think of a major piece of legislation in the last 20 years that: (1) came from the Republican side of the aisle, and (2) was actually pro-family. The closest thing we can come up with is the first round of money that Congress gave out during the pandemic, while Trump was still president. Otherwise, the GOP seems to be opposed to anything that would help families and, in particular, anything that would help young/recent mothers. (Z)