The Hastert Rule

Politics & Elections
1

The Hastert Rule is the informal rule that the Speaker of the House won’t schedule a vote on any legislation that doesn’t have the support of a majority of Representatives from his party. While I can see how this benefits the Speaker and helps to further his party’s agenda, I don’t think the rule is in the best interests of the country. It makes it harder to pass moderate legislation, works against bipartisan compromise, and makes the House less representative of the actual will of the People.

Under the rule, if the Republicans control 54% of the House, then no law can pass without the support of one of the most conservative 27% of Representatives, even if the other 73% support it. So while the House itself is intentionally set up so that its makeup reflects the political makeup of the country (proportional representation and all that), the actual legislation it can pass is skewed significantly further to the right. The 217 most Conservative members can pass legislation, but a 316 member coalition of all but the most conservative 116 members can’t.

So what’s the alternative? Since it’s not a real rule, the Speaker could just choose not to follow it… but he has a strong incentive not to do that, as he would risk losing the support of the majority of his party, and losing the Speakership.

I think it would be better if the House were to change its rules so that if the minority leader calls for a bill to be voted on, then the Speaker would be required to schedule a vote on it within a certain period of time. Of course this is unlikely to ever happen, because it means the majority willingly giving more power to the minority. But I think it would be better for the country.

(Obviously I’m biased because I’m a Democrat and the House is currently under Republican control. But even as a fairly liberal Democrat I’d be OK with making it easier to pass moderately conservative legislation when the House is under Democratic control, in exchange for making it easier to pass moderately liberal legislation when the House is under Republican control.)

2

In other words the rule does exactly what it’s intended to do: benefit the speaker and advance the party’s agenda. The party thinks its agenda is what’s best for the country, so they probably don’t see any contradiction there.

3

Or maybe the House can simply bring back the rule, changed right before this debt ceiling fight by the GOP House, that says that in an impasse, any House member can file a petition of discharge and get a bill voted on even against the wishes of the Speaker. The GOP made that rule change to be less democratic and less representative of the people, big shock :rolleyes:

4

Advancing the party’s agenda isn’t everything, though. Especially when the extreme wing of the party has a disproportionate influence in setting that agenda. And regardless of your political affiliation, I think most people can recognize that “advancing your party’s agenda” isn’t necessarily better for the country than “advancing the interests of democracy”.

Stupid example: Giving the House the power to pass legislation without the approval of the Senate or the President would advance the Republican agenda. But I think most Republicans would admit it wouldn’t be good for the country, because it would undermine our democracy and our system of checks and balances.

Realistic example: Even if a majority of Republicans knew that shutting down the government was a bad idea, that doesn’t mean there are 51% who are willing to defy the Tea Party and risk a primary challenge from the right. If Nancy Pelosi could have introduced a clean CR and passed it with the unanimous support of the Democrats and just a handful of Republicans, the country would be better off.

But like I said, I realize the majority is unlikely to give power to the minority. I’m trying to debate that it would be better if they did, because it’s better for the country if legislation that most people want can’t be held up by the most extreme 27% of Representatives on one side (or the 27% most vulnerable to being primaried by extremists on that side).

5

It certainly isn’t. But from the point of view of politicians who feel they were elected to advance that agenda it’s another story.

6

Nitpick: We manifestly do not have proportional representation. We have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all, district-based representation.

If we had proportional representation, the Democrats would (barely) hold the House, since they won a small majority of total votes cast in House races in 2012.

7

Dennis Hastert, 2013: there is no Hastert Rule: “That was a misnomer at a press conference. One time they asked me about immigration legislation, why don’t I just use Democrat votes? I said, well I’m never going to not have a majority of my own party go along with me. If you do that, then you’re not using your own policy. And [the press] blew that up as the Hastert Rule. The Hastert Rule, really, was: If you don’t have 218 votes, you didn’t bring the bill to the floor,” he explained. And: “Generally speaking, I needed to have a majority of my majority, at least half of my conference,” Hastert said. “This wasn’t a rule. I was speaking philosophically at the time…The Hastert Rule is kind of a misnomer.”

“The real Hastert Rule is 218,” he added. “If we had to work with Democrats, we did.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-speaker-hastert-negates-hastert-rule-it-never-really-existed/

Back during the 1950s - 1990s, legislation would routinely be supported and opposed by a mix of Democrats and Republicans. The majority party had agenda setting capability, but they would generally keep a close eye on congressional centrists. Boehner faces a tricky objective situation, but he’s also a weak man.

8

Yes, but the number of representatives assigned to each state is based on population. So it’s not entirely proportional, but it’s certainly far more proportional than the Senate.

9

And yet, he’s also criticized Boehner for not following the rule: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/dennis-hastert-warns-boehner-on-his-rule-85721.html

10

The Hastert rule is garbage. I wouldn’t want Democrats to hold up legislation that has majority support when Republicans are in the minority.

11

Thank you for putting your finger on the problem, here.

12

Well, it’s a strictly intra-party rule. In fact, AFAIK, it’s a strictly Republican rule with no Dem analogue.

13

Actually, this goes too far for my taste. “Holding up” is fine, if the majority wants to edge the law in their direction. “Blocking” is not, IMHO. And budgets need to be passed every year.

Majorities should seek 218. If they go to their caucus first to acquire votes, that’s fine. But if they can’t pass a budget (in a practical, not technical, sense) and negotiate with the Senate, they should be condemned and ousted for their incompetence. I’m not saying Republicans are intrinsically incompetent (really!): I’m guessing that the problem is that their base doesn’t hold them to any sort of standard other than purity.

Good point. I’m not sure what Hastert is thinking. I suppose there might be a way to square that circle. Might be worth another interview.

14

Eh, I think if you did this, you’d end up with the Minority scheduling a bunch of votes on stuff they know won’t pass, either to embarrass the Majority by making them vote against stuff that sounds good or just to gum up the works and limit the time the Majority has to pass their agenda.

In any case, the Hastert rule is basically just an excuse Boehner uses when he needs an excuse for not bringing something to the floor. He’s broken the “rule” plenty of times, so its obviously not something he actually feels any obligation to stick to.

15

It strikes me a little ironic that a bill that has bipartisan support to win would be blocked by the party that cites as a value strict adherence to the constitution’s original intent. What is the constitutional role of the polictical party?

16

It is silent on the matter of political parties, so there is no “strict adherence” to be had. I’m not seeing the irony in something that doesn’t exist.

17

They need to simply allow any party leader to bring up a vote. Let both Pelosi and Boehner bring bills to the floor, maybe with a caveat that the minority party leader can only bring X amount per month, or something like that. It would completely prevent the minority party in the House that has no filibusters to be unable to essentially filibuster a vote. If the Founders were so great as the Tea Baggers like to claim, let them recognize that they did not want a filibuster in the House. Almost all bills originating from there should be put to the floor eventually without the option to block it

18

I would support almost any rule that means congress can enact less legislation.

19

You guys are confusing House procedure with politics.

There is already a House procedure by which any member of the House of Representatives can bring a bill to the floor for a vote, over the Speaker’s objection. It’s been referenced in this thread–it’s the discharge petition. If a majority of the House votes in favor of the discharge petition, then a vote on the matter is immediately held.

In fact it’s been pretty common for Nancy Pelosi to have a discharge petition going during most of these showdowns. I do not know if she had one going this time, but she had one sitting there in the days prior to the Fiscal Cliff at the beginning of the year.

Note that the legislation ending the Fiscal Cliff had support of about the same number of Republicans that voted to end the shutdown/raise the debt ceiling. So that legislation had majority support. Yet the discharge petition was not passed. Why? Because supporting a bill, is not the same thing politically as supporting the bill over the objection’s of your party leadership.

Imagine that any member of the House or the Minority Leader could “demand” a vote without a discharge petition being necessary. What leads you guys to believe enough Republicans would vote for it to get it passed?

Here’s the scenario we had prior to this recent fiasco:

100% of Democrats and obviously 85-odd Republicans were willing to pass the legislation. But Boehner would not allow it to come to the floor until the very end, after it had been fought over for two weeks while the government was shut down. Those Republicans that favored the bill could have signed on to a discharge petition and brought the bill to a vote the day the shutdown began or the day before. They never did. Why? Because doing that would piss off the party leadership and mean immediate political consequences.

Here’s the scenario if we had a situation where say, the Minority Leader could bring any bill she wanted to the floor for a vote:

100% of Democrats and obviously 85-odd Republicans are willing to pass the legislation in general. But Boehner tells his caucus that no one is to vote for the bill, if they do, there will be serious political consequences. The same Republicans that favored the bill all along in the real scenario, but never had the nerve to vote for a discharge petition will likewise not have the nerve to vote on a bill against the orders of the party leadership. The bill would lose a straight-line vote, and nothing would be resolved.

The only way these proposals make sense is if you believe that Congressmen who do not have the political backbone to vote on a discharge petition for some reason would have the political backbone to vote on the legislation itself over leadership objections.

20

It appears Pelosi did start a discharge petition in this instance as well, and it was not passed because even the Republicans willing to vote on the ultimate legislation were not willing to sign the discharge petition.