McConnell says Congress has the power to vote by proxy

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Politico

08/17/2024 09:28 PM EDT


Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell is defending Congress’ ability to permit voting by “proxy” when members are absent, a practice adopted by House Democrats at the height of the COVID pandemic despite intense opposition from Republicans. In a brief filed Friday in federal court — authored by former Attorney General William Barr — McConnell says that despite his personal opposition to proxy voting, the House and Senate have total constitutional authority to determine the way they conduct business.

“Despite his fierce opposition to proxy voting, Senator McConnell believes it critical that courts nevertheless respect each house of Congress’ power to ‘determine the rules of its proceedings,’” Barr wrote on McConnell’s behalf. McConnell’s position puts him at odds with the vast majority of House Republicans, who spent years fighting a losing battle in court to overturn the practice, which was initiated in 2020 by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The House GOP leader at the time, Kevin McCarthy, sued to block the practice but was dealt defeats by two federal courts before the Supreme Court declined to take up the issue. However, in February, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled that the House’s use of proxy voting violated the Constitution, contending that it requires a majority of members to be physically present to conduct business. The ruling, if upheld by appellate courts, threatens to unravel large and complicated legislative packages adopted with decisive votes cast by absent members.

McConnell says the ruling is particularly problematic because it presumes courts have a role in judging Congress’ internal procedures. The district court judge — Trump appointee James Hendrix — never defined what it means to be “physically present” to cast votes, McConnell noted, and said establishing such an “ironclad” restriction would be “debilitating” for Congress.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/17/mcconnell-says-congress-has-the-power-to-vote-by-proxy-00174503

---

This was a bit of a buried story. The MAGat loons and their judges, are trying to dismantle the Constitution.

[Earthrise]

1. Nanci Pelosi instituted the policy and Republicans fought it, right?

One judge agreed with the GOP that it should be banned, but McConnell is making the point that the legislature should be independent of the judiciary.

How is this Republicans dismantling the constitution?

[BumRushDaShow]

2. "How is this Republicans dismantling the constitution?"

Because the issue of this part of the Constitution -

Article I

(snip)

Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

had been litigated many times before, all the way up to the SCOTUS, and whatever Congressional Rules for proceeding have been upheld. And then included multiple attempts by MAGat House members who refused to go through metal detectors and were fined and they appealed all the way up. And even before that, the Senate's use of "Pro-forma" sessions via a Rule, where they gavel in every 3-days so they are not "officially in recess", had been challenged by Obama, and he lost.

And yet ONCE AGAIN, a loon Judge wants to upend that, as I expect was missed from the OP article -

However, in February, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled that the House’s use of proxy voting violated the Constitution, contending that it requires a majority of members to be physically present to conduct business. The ruling, if upheld by appellate courts, threatens to unravel large and complicated legislative packages adopted with decisive votes cast by absent members.

Federal judge says House’s use of proxy voting to pass spending bill in 2022 unconstitutional

By Tierney Sneed, CNN
Published 10:08 PM EST, Tue February 27, 2024


CNN — A federal judge in Texas ruled Tuesday that the US House of Representatives violated the Constitution in how it used proxy voting to pass a major spending bill in late 2022.

US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the House violated the Constitution’s Quorum Clause when it did not have enough representatives physically present for a vote on the legislation and instead passed it by allowing lawmakers to vote by proxy, using a voting protocol that was put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“The Court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause,” wrote Hendrix, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.

Hendrix’s courthouse in Lubbock, Texas, has been the site of multiple lawsuits against the Biden administration brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the challenger in this case. With his ruling, Hendrix granted Paxton’s request to block the federal government from enforcing in Texas a provision in the massive funding bill known as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which mandates that some employers provide certain accommodations to pregnant workers.

(snip)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/politics/house-proxy-voting-spending-bill-unconstitutional/index.html

[Earthrise]

10. For whatever reason I thought you were being critical of McConnell - who like a stopped clock that's correct

on rare occasions - is criticizing the Hendrix ruling. Pelosi was right to allow proxy voting during the pandemic, but I wish it had been written as a temporary provision because I think Congress works better when they are required to be physically present. I hate watching CSPAN because they are typically talking to an empty chamber.

In sum: Pelosi and McConnell had/have positions in line with the constitution and the Hendrix ruling is an abomination.

Sorry. I believe I am a competent reader, but I messed up on this one.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Turtle is a hypocrite but an "institutionalist".

So I was surprised that he chose to uphold "the institution" in this case (despite ditching "institutionalism" by sitting on a VALID SCOTUS nomination by Obama for almost a year in order to have that nomination expire, and then ram through a GOP loon in that slot instead.

But yes - those GOP-filled courts (notably those in TX under the 5th Circuit) are trying to dismantle the Constitution.

[2naSalit]

3. They need to quit plugging him in at night...

So he can just STFU and die.

[paleotn]

6. Can't argue with that in principle, but this time he's right.

His loyalty lies with the institution of Congress and it's constitutional right to make its own rules. And not with the jackass wing of his own party that want to overturn the Constitution and generations of legal precedent by judge shopping in Texass, because they can never, ever achieve a majority in either house of Congress.

[Earthrise]

11. Yes! Thank you. (eom)

[former9thward]

18. "they can never, ever achieve a majority in either house of Congress."?

They have a majority in the House.

[AltairIV]

4. Pretty straight forward.

"Each House shall determine the rules of it's proceedings" Do these people not understand English?

[GB_RN]

5. They Do...

But only when it says what they want it to say. Otherwise, it’s gobbledy-gook.

[getagrip_already]

26. The constitution says what six old rw folk say it says...

And in words they choose to describe it.

Your lying eyes dont mean didly.

[paleotn]

7. The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about physical presence.

It does say that Congress has the right to make its own damn rules.

[FakeNoose]

8. In this case, Texas is the tail that is trying to wag the dog

... but the dog just refuses to play along.

I'll give Mitch McConnell credit for telling the Texas wacko's they got it all wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[jaxexpat]

12. I trust the constitution will stand strong, burying this controversy, like so many before it, in judicial confusion.

It seems to this poorly educated citizen that "the good old constitution" is, ultimately, a political document. It's simply set up so that the more profoundly an issue contends among the citizenry, the greater the political will required to resolve it. It's not even a "framework" so much as an organizational chart with fewer absolutes than most believe, much fewer than IKEA furniture assembly instructions.
It stands to assure there will be perpetual strife where those who thrive in current conditions struggle to confound those seeking to improve those conditions.................. and something about a more perfect union and promoting the public welfare.......and stuff.

[Voltaire2]

13. The constitution can't stand, sit, or lie down.

The text is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the highest court has repeatedly demonstrated that they will impose any meaning on the text that suits them.

[jaxexpat]

15. Just as I said but without the sarcastic allusion to animation with which you have no patience and apparently detest.

Will we, ever, recover from the profusion of comic book heroes?

[dlk]

16. Why show up for work if you can do your job while at the pool or beach?

How many paid days off do they have already.

[onenote]

29. So you oppose Pelosi allowing proxy voting and remote voting during Covid?

You would oppose giving parents on maternity or paternity leave the ability to vote by proxy or remotely?

Your position would be right in line with those of Mike Johnson, Ted Cruz, and other RW assholes.

[dlk]

31. Absolutely not - there was a pandemic

Slight difference… Rules can be written to include certain extenuating circumstances. However, as a general rule, I think representatives need to show up .

[onenote]

32. Some context about the case.

On its face, whether intended or not, your post mocked the very concept of allowing proxy voting. It drew no distinctions regarding the reason for allowing proxy voting or the issue in the particular case in which McConnell filed an amicus brief supporting the Biden administration's defense of the proxy voting rule adopted by the House during the pandemic and of certain specific legislation enacted via the use of proxy voting.

Some relevant facts: The proxy voting rule, which was adopted by the House during the pandemic, states as follows:
"at any time after the Speaker or the Speaker’s designee is notitified by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in consultation with the Attending Physician, that a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in effect, the Speaker or the Speaker’s designee, in consultation with the Minority Leader or the Minority Leader’s designee, may designate a period ( hereafter in this resolution referred to as a “covered period” ) during which a Member who is designated by another Member as a proxy in accordance with section 2 may cast the vote of such other Member or record the presence of such other Member in the House." This resolution was supported by 217 Democrats and opposed by 185 Republicans. Relying on this resolution, the House passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. There was not a quorum physically present for the vote on the bill and a majority of those present -- all republicans -- opposed the bill.

Texas sued to nullify portions of the Act -- specifically the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act -- on the grounds that the Constitution requires that a quorum be physically present in order for legislation to be voted on. The district court agreed holding that under no circumstances can the House adopt a rule that allows physically absent members who record their presence remotely be considered in determining whether a quorum exists. The effect of the ruling not only invalidated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, but would prevent the House or Senate from adopting a resolution allowing proxy voting under any circumstances, including another pandemic, a national emergency, etc.

The Biden Administration has appealed, arguing that the Constitution doesn't require physical presence and that the House has the constitutional authority to set its own rules as to how the presence of a quorum is determined. McConnell supports the appeal, not because he supported proxy voting during the pandemic -- he did not. But he believes, as does the administration, that the Congress, not the courts has the authority to decide the circumstances, if any, when proxy voting is appropriate and that the court's decision would hamstring future congresses from taking action to address emergency situations where requiring the physical presence of a quorum would interfere with Congress carrying out its responsibilities.

So, it never was about allowing members to avoid work. Indeed, as soon as the repubs re-captured the House, they repealed the pandemic-based proxy voting rule so that if the coronavirus were to reappear, no matter how virulent, the House could not conduct any business unless a quorum was physically present.

[dlk]

33. Appreciate the context

However, you assumed I was mocking, in error.

[LudwigPastorius]

17. The GOPers in Congress don't want to be there when...

the next Trump-fueled attack occurs.

[dlk]

22. No doubt

[onenote]

30. Actually, it is republicans that largely oppose proxy voting and Democrats that support it.

And it was a Trump judge that ruled that proxy voting was unconstitutional.
So maybe you might want to reconsider your post?

[PSPS]

19. Another trump judge

[thesquanderer]

20. re: " never defined what it means to be 'physically present' to cast votes"

Is there really some ambiguity about what it means to be "physically present"?

[reACTIONary]

23. Not on September 17, 1787....

.... Today, I'd say it's an open question.

But, even in 1787, nothing was said about "physicality "

[thesquanderer]

24. I don't think it's an open question today either.

I doubt anyone really thinks being on the phone or on zoom means you are "physically present" in the room. You use those things when you cannot be physically present.

(I am NOT arguing here for or against any rule requiring being physically present... I'm just saying that I'm surprised that anyone thinks the phrase is ambiguous.)

[reACTIONary]

25. I think its ambiguous....

.... that's my take on it. But the constitution doesn't mention physicality so I don't think it needs to be a consideration.

[Prairie Gates]

21. Sounds like a shell game

[marble falls]

27. Is that proxy for GOP legislaters in or going to be imprisoned?

[Cartoonist]

28. I hope they end the filibuster

so I can watch Mitch say they can't do that.