Considering how slim the majority is and how there are several outgoing Republicans who lost their primaries and would have nothing to gain by trying to ratfuck democracy in favor of the people who screwed them over, it seems unlikely they’d even want to try this scheme in the first place.
You might be right but what if Johnson fired the current clerk before the election. I’m sure he, Trump, Blanche or Miller could come up with some BS to justify getting rid of McCumber now rather than after the election. That would make it easier to get the desired toady in place.
Of course, it would require them actually being clever/evil enough to plan that far in advance. I suspect of those 4 Miller is the only one who might have that much foresight.
If they want a new clerk in place for the new Congress they’d have to get it done during the lame duck period, while the outgoing Rs will still have a vote.
I am pretty sure the Speaker can fire the Clerk of the House at will. So Johnson could do it tomorrow if he wanted. As it says in the article I linked, which I’m sure you read, the current Clerk was appointed by McCarthy. The office carries over from session to session.
But as you yourself said, the replacement then needs to be approved by the majority of the House, which is what makes it far too difficult to attempt this scheme with a slim majority and scorned outgoing Congressmen who would have to cooperate with a scheme they gain nothing from.
Maybe.
The thing with outgoing Republicans is that while they have instincts telling then to stand up a bit against Trump, but they also will not admit they were (and are) wrong to back him. I can see them thinking that giving Johnson the clerk he wants is fair while ignoring the reason Johnson wants a new clerk. That’s because if they focused on the reason Johnson wants a new clerk, it would challenge their entire political belief system in which Trump is normalized. The vote will be close.
Which is why it makes more sense to manufacture a reason to dismiss someone like McCumber NOW since he has demonstrated he is nonpartisan in the execution of his duties. A campaign of lies to destroy his reputation or question his ethics would be easy for these weasels. If the charges are horrible enough they might be able to get him to resign! They have weeks to hammer away at him and ruin him. Getting the majority of GOP House members to vote in a replacement BEFORE the election would be easier.
BUT, as the quote I shared above, having the position sit empty could serve to create chaos and endless fighting after Jan 3. That would have a certain appeal to these losers as well.
Whether it’s before or after the election makes no difference if you want a new clerk in time for the new Congress to be seated - you still have the same problem - getting a new clerk approved with a razor-thin majority that includes outgoing congressmen who’ve been burned by Trump and Johnson and have no reason to aid them in the scheme.
If the outgoing congressfolk view it that way you are correct. But as I have mentioned more than once, Johnson et al may see an advantage to simply having the office sit empty.
I thought I saw something about in such a case Johnson could appoint an acting Clerk until a new Congress could vote on it. Can’t find it right now but that would definitely have the potential to gum up the works.
The Supreme Court wasn’t reluctant to wade into an election in 2000.
I’ll agree they haven’t been issuing decisions already. But that’s part of the process. Any rules for elections they declare now might end up hurting the Republicans.
The plan is to wait until the election has been held. Declare that there’s a problem and seize the ballots. Quickly sort through them and see which set of ballots will produce Republican victories. Declare that a bunch of Democratic ballots should not be accepted because they violate some rule you just made up. If the majority of mail in ballots are for Democrats, for example, declare that mail in ballots are unconstitutional and shouldn’t be counted. But if the majority of mail in ballots are for Republicans, declare that mail in ballots are legal and should be counted.
The point isn’t to have a set of rules in place before Election Day. The point is to wait until after the election is over and then decide what set of rules would retroactively produce the outcome you want.
Then when the Democrats protest against they way you made up a set of rules so you could declare the Republicans won, offer to turn the dispute over to a neutral party - the Supreme Court - and let them decide what the rules were.
That just puts us back in “Trump is going to orchestrate a coup” territory and isn’t germane to the scenario being addressed by OP.
Here is a link to an Election Law Blog post about how this business with the Office of the Clerk of the House may work out.
The Role of the Clerk in Organizing the House
History shows that the role of the Clerk in organizing the new House after each congressional election is where serious problems can arise if the two parties dispute which one of the two has a majority of Members-elect. I have written about the two most significant episodes of this nature in U.S. history in Ballot Battles (as I mentioned in the previous post about French’s column): the Broad Seal War of 1838-1839 and the Civil War midterms of 1862.
Sorry, I apparently misunderstood the topic. I thought we were discussing various scenarios whereby the Republicans could keep control of the House after the upcoming election, with the OP offering up one such example. I didn’t realize that specific scenario was intended to be the sole topic.
That’s cool. Why not read the OP and the link in it? I think you may find it interesting given your posting history.
I’ll be honest. The scenario in the OP seems like one of the less plausible scenarios.
Now if Trump is running the steal, that’s not a factor. Trump would wait until the election is over and the results are declared before he would be motivated to do anything. We saw that happen in January 2021. That’s how Donald Trump tries to steal an election.
But the scenario you describe in the OP would involve Mike Johnson.
Johnson may be spineless but he’s not as dumb as Trump. He knows that firing the Clerk of the House and replacing him with a “MAGA toady” who will present an alternative slate of Congressmen would be seen as a blatant illegal coup. Everybody would see the Republicans were just seizing power, much as would have been the result if the January 6 rioters had somehow succeeded. Nobody would view the resulting government as legitimate.
That’s why I feel the 2000 scenario is more plausible. It maintained the form of a legitimate election. People couldn’t clearly say that the Republicans had stolen the election. Republicans could argue that they had won legally. And it worked; when it was all over, most people accepted George W. Bush as the legitimate President.
I believe the Republicans are making plans for overturning a Democratic victory in 2026. But I feel they are basing their plans on the success of 2000 rather than the failure of 2021.
You miss the point. Rep Morelle is ranking member of the House Administration Committee. Of course you know that since you read the link in the OP, right?
Morelle is trying to prepare a way to fight back against the scenario described in the article linked in the OP. Johnson is is Christian Nationalist and wants to impose a Christian Nationalist authoritarian government.
Most of your remaining post is not relevant to this thread and would never succeed.
Yes, I’m aware who Joe Morelle is. He’s my Congressman.
I don’t know why you feel the scenario I described would never succeed when it did succeed in 2000.
:sigh:
This thread is about how the GOP could screw with the House results in 2026.
Your comments about 2000 (a Presidential election) are irrelevant to this topic.
I don’t understand why you’re saying that. The Republicans are not required to come up with a new method for each election. A method that was used to screw with a past election could be re-used to screw with the upcoming election.
But as I wrote, I seem to have misunderstood the topic you intended. You appear to want to discuss one particular method of screwing with an election. That’s fine. I’ve posted my views on that particular method (I think it’s not likely to be used because it’s too blatant) so I guess I’ve exhausted what I want to say on this topic.
The problem (among many) of a civil war is - Where in the hell do we draw the lines? I live in a purple state. I have NO idea of my neighbors politics.
I only know the positions of long time friends. We don’t do political signs around here. And I’ve never seen any Trump gear.
There are a few American flags on the street. I’ll fly mine when Trump is gone. There is NO reason to be proud to be an American right now. I’ve also got some fun celebratory lights.