COVID-19 could complicate Pelosi's path to Speaker next year

[Laura PourMeADrink]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/530945-covid-19-could-complicate-pelosis-path-to-speaker-next-year

As Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seeks the support to keep the gavel for another term, her allies are keeping close watch on a potential wild card that could complicate her path next month: COVID-19.

Pelosi is already facing a much slimmer majority in the next Congress, after Democrats were clobbered at the polls in November, meaning she can afford far fewer Democratic defections than the 15 who opposed her two years ago. And lawmakers must be present on the House floor to cast their vote for Speaker, precluding the option for members to vote remotely, as many have done throughout the pandemic.


The combination of factors creates the chance that Democrats could face a dilemma on Jan. 3 in which Pelosi locks up the Democratic support to remain Speaker, but coronavirus concerns — illnesses, quarantines or otherwise — prevent a sufficient number of them from being in the Capitol to log their votes.

More at link

[llashram]

4. thank you

my thoughts exactly. We must not let volume and minor factions keep us from the throats of the reptilians, metaphorically speaking of course. We, during these next 2-4 years, must diminish their perceived power WITH THE TRUTH. This truth hammered daily into the coffins of lies that give the Repthuglican their power over 70million plus jackasses who can't or won't see the truth standing in front of them. That truth being President-elect Joe Biden and his second vice-President elect Kamala Harris.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. You didn't read article huh

[Hortensis]

2. Huh, that's a thought. Must every challenge be much harder now?

Just looked, and from Roll Call also:

Opening of 117th Congress will be different due to pandemic: Speaker election and swearing in likely to be done in groups, amid other planning complications

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/11/23/opening-of-117th-congress-will-be-different-due-to-pandemic/

Steny Hoyer says those unable to be present can vote for the speaker by proxy, no prob, but no one can know that all will be well enough to do that much. Also, they don't have a legal procedure yet for being sworn in if not physically present. Can a member vote for speaker without being sworn in?

Members in Washington can be sworn in groups, Hoyer said. But the tricky part is figuring out how to accommodate those who are unable to travel for health reasons.

“The issue was raised before, and the parliamentarian ruled you had to be there. He ruled essentially you couldn’t be sworn through television,” Hoyer said. “So I don’t know exactly how we’re going to do it for people who are unable to come.”

While that hasn’t been resolved, Hoyer said he personally doesn’t see why swearing in couldn’t be conducted virtually “if we can vote virtually and make big decisions virtually.”

Under the Constitution, opening day of each Congress is supposed to be Jan. 3. In 2021 that falls on a Sunday, so leaders are likely to move the date to Jan. 4 or Jan. 5, which requires both chambers passing a resolution agreeing to the date change.

Isn't there a quote somewhere about fates of nations hanging on the availability of a safety pin?

No one complain about our representatives getting vaccinated. Plus, they're not the ones who told America Covid was a Democratic lie and blocked all action to contain it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. So the Hill article assumes rules won't change but Stoyer

assumes they will change (continue proxy voting).

[Hortensis]

16. Well, it is The Hill, 'nuf said for them? It's virtual swearing in

that has not been allowed in the past but will need to be for those who can't attend physically. What Hoyer did not address is that (I'm assuming!) they have to be sworn in to vote.

Seems like this could bite both parties.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. So you can or can't change rules now for next congress. Guess that

is a no. So people will have to be in DC to be sworn in. Let's just assume they physically go. If all our Dems go then no problem. They can vote for a leader as they normally would. Some against Pelosi, most for her.

This actually is a puzzle.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. But Pelosi has to get more than usual since the margin smaller

[Hortensis]

19. My take was that they can, Laura, but if and how members could be

sworn in distantly is still to be settled. That as far as our leaders are concerned, it needs to be revisited and a ruling made to allow it.

“The issue was raised before, and the parliamentarian ruled you had to be there. He ruled essentially you couldn’t be sworn through television,” Hoyer said. “So I don’t know exactly how we’re going to do it for people who are unable to come. While that hasn’t been resolved, Hoyer said he personally doesn’t see why swearing in couldn’t be conducted virtually “if we can vote virtually and make big decisions virtually.”

That said, I've read more than once that congressional rules and procedures in general are so byzantine (deliberately) that most members have no idea how to really use them and frequently get sucker punched by those who do. So I'd never assume anything I read gave any real understanding. There's always more.

The parliamentarian is required to be impartial and consistent in principle, but it's fortunate the current one was appointed by the current speaker (I just looked), so that's Pelosi, not Dirty McCarthy.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. The hill.... always so concerned with helping the dems

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Huh? How did this article hurt Dems?

[Demsrule86]

13. Stirring the pot.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. Hmmm. Not like a secret to repukes I bet

[MineralMan]

8. FUD from The Hill? Go Figure...

If there's something The Hill can stir up, it will be stirred up.

[edhopper]

12. Are the Democrats

in disarray again?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Hyperbolic... But need to handle the logistics of this for sure.

[tritsofme]

20. I'm not sure I understand the hostility toward discussing or acknowledging the logistical hurdles

brought about by a global pandemic and complicated by our razor thin majority? It’s just the reality we are dealing with, and the contingencies that leaders must plan for.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. Wow.. extremely we'll put.

[tritsofme]

23. Yes, do you disagree? The 117th Congress will begin with 222 Democrats, it takes 218 for a majority.