What happens if the Democrats lose their house majority in the middle of the year? We know the next speaker will be a Democrat. The Dems have a majority in the house. But it is very small and will temporarily get even smaller once Biden seats his cabinet. What if a couple of Democrats leave office in the middle of the year and that gives the Republicans a majority? Can the Republicans call a snap election and get a Republican speaker installed? Can they force changes in committees? Can they force votes on the floor even if they don’t have the speakership?
To add to my question, a discharge petition in the house requires the signatures of an absolute majority. In the house, is an absolute majority defined as the majority of all sitting members ignoring vacancies? That is, if there are vacant seats in the house, does the number of votes required to achieve an absolute majority shrink?
You can see how this would upend Democratic control in the house. Even if the speaker continues for the term with a minority, discharge petitions would force bills through the house regardless of the leadership.
I believe the Speaker can be replaced by majority vote at any time. But surely someone will come along with a citation.
You know, the Speaker does not have to be a House member. And if Republicans take control, there’s a certain orange-skinned blond that has some free time coming up…
Your mention of the term “snap election” indicates a misunderstanding about how the U.S. House works. In short, no, there would not be a way for the entire House to have to stand for reelection as happens in most parliamentary systems. Members of the House are elected to serve two year terms. If they leave their post for any reason there is a special election held to fill the seat. Other than for them resigning or being removed (rare) they serve their two year term. My understanding is rules for how special elections are held vary from state to state. There is the possibility the seat remains vacant for a period of time.
The majority party is the party that has the majority of members at that given moment. In the new Congress the Ds have a 10 seat majority in the House. I think that’s the number. Anyway, if a sitting President were dumb enough to appoint 6 members of the House to positions in his administration under this circumstance then yes, his party would lose the majority in the House and the opposing party would be able to vote in a different Speaker, at least until the special election to fill those seats were held. I can’t imagine a scenario where that would happen.
According to the US Constitution, no, that wasnt specified per se… But all have been- tradition is pretty strong in congress, and a Speaker who wasnt a member would have many issues. And then there is this:The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members …The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; that indicates that the Speaker must be a member, altho that is not spelled out.
Also note the Constitution does not spell out a Senate Majority leader. Should Harris decide to sit in the Senate and run it as the Chair, she could ignore Moscow Mitch. wiki By Senate precedent, the Presiding Officer gives the Majority Leader priority in obtaining recognition to speak on the floor of the Senate.
If the dems dont win in GA, and Mitch starts to get obstreperous and block things from coming to a vote, Harris can just take over the seat as Chair, and make everything come to a vote. No more Garland debacles, each Senator would have to vote, whether McConnell liked it or not.
I don’t think that’s correct. From wiki:
“The vice president, as president of the Senate, has the authority ( ex officio , as he or she is not an elected member of the Senate) to cast a tie-breaking vote. Other than this, the rules of the Senate grant its president very little power (in contrast to the powerful office of speaker of the House of Representatives).”
That is true, very little power. But it is right there:By Senate precedent, the Presiding Officer gives the Majority Leader priority in obtaining recognition to speak on the floor of the Senate.
The Presiding Officer is usually the President pro tem, when the Veep isnt sitting.
However, note that the Constitution gives no power or authority whatsoever to the Senate Majority leader. His power is purely traditional.
Here is what the Constitution sez:The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
It is right there- the Veep is the President of the Senate. She shall choose who gets to speak. She can ignore Mitch and force votes. Now sure, Mitch can corner fellow Republicans and vote down a "new Garland " candidate, but he cant stop the vote.
And I am not making this up myself, there was a editorial about this not to long ago.
The majority leader’s power is derived from the fact that his colleagues defer to him to order the chamber’s deliberations. But the leader’s ability to do that job depends on his being recognized first by the President pro tempore (or the Vice President depending on who is presiding).
Since any member can technically make a motion to consider legislation or a nomination under the Senate’s rules, being the first to do so enables the majority leader to set the schedule and control the agenda to a limited degree.
Priority of recognition also allows the leader to block votes on undesirable amendments. The ability to be recognized first before other members enables the majority leader to “fill the amendment tree,” or offer the maximum allowable number of amendments to legislation, and file cloture on a bill before other senators have a chance to debate the measure and offer amendments.
The right of recognition is thus the foundation on which leadership power is based in the contemporary Senate.
Yet the majority leader’s priority of recognition ultimately depends on the Vice President.
I don’t see how any Senate President can choose who gets to speak, let alone force votes.
" During debates, senators may speak only if called upon by the presiding officer. The presiding officer is, however, required to recognize the first senator who rises to speak. Thus, the presiding officer has little control over the course of debate."
I read the question as asking if there can be a snap election for the Speakership if the Dems lost their majority in the House.
That is, is Ms Pelosi elected Speaker for the term of the upcoming Congress, regardless of changes in the House membership? or if the membership changes, can the Republicans force a new election for Speaker?
The position of Speaker of the House is voted on by all House members at the start of each term (i.e., every two years). If, during this past election, the Democrats had lost their majority in the House, then Pelosi would, at this point in time, be a lame-duck Speaker – her term as Speaker would undoubtedly end when the next Congress convenes, as the Republicans would then hold the majority, and choose a Republican as Speaker.
But, as that didn’t happen, my understanding is that the only ways that Pelosi would lose her seat as Speaker are if she resigns it, or if the other members of her own party become dissatisfied with her, and force her to not stand for re-election.
In the Senate, by tradition, the Majority leader is always called upon first. But that is not a rule and Harris doesnt have to do that. She can indeed call upon the first to rise.
A Senator could appeal from the decision of the chair and overrule the presiding officer’s ruling about procedure.
That is the answer to my question. President Biden is picking a lot of cabinet officers from the House. Until the special elections are called, and many of these people are coming from Republican states, those seats will be vacant. My question assumes that Biden winnows down the size of the Dem majority confident that Dems will win the special elections. Hypothetically, illness can take away other representatives at any time. That happens. If it does, it is possible that the Republicans might achieve an unexpected and temporary majority. Just long enough to do some damage given a Republican Senate. Of course the President could stop any bills from becoming law, but it would be a difficult time. If an absolute majority of the House can call for an election of the speaker at any time, this is a possibility.
Even if they are from “Republican states,” Representatives are elected from a district within a state (unless you’re in one of the seven states with only one House district), and only voters in that district vote for them. As long as those districts are pretty reliably blue, and as long as the replacement candidates are any good, I don’t think I’d be too concerned about those seats flipping in large numbers.
It used to be. If there is one thing republicans have taught us these past years is if there is no explicit rule against some thing, and it is in your interests to do that thing, then go ahead and do that thing.
As I understand it, in 1910, there was a motion to declare the Speaker’s office vacant vice Joseph Cannon. The vote failed, but as I understand it, it has since (and perhaps before) been accepted that the House could declare the office vacant by resolution. Cf. this Ballotpedia article.
What is Sen. Schumer going to do? Tackle Sen. McConnell to prevent him from rising first?
Rise before him. Or any Dem.
Look, currently and with the GOp presiding, Mitch always gets first. Always.
With Harris presiding, he has 1 chance in a 100 of getting first.
Actually, Sen. Grassley almost always rises first. After the prayer and the pledge, a junior Senator takes over the chair, and Grassley rises to speak for one minute, as if in morning business.