Via
House Republicans are quietly discussing a proposal that could
fundamentally alter the way future speakers of the House are chosen,
according to multiple GOP sources, with the objective of avoiding a
repeat of John Boehner's embarrassing reelection vote in 2013.
The
rule tweak began as an informal discussion but has morphed into a
concrete proposal that is beginning to circulate in the House. According
to people briefed on it, any Republican who votes on the House floor in
January against the conference's nominee for House speaker—that is, the
candidate chosen by a majority of the House GOP during its closed-door
leadership elections in November—would be severely punished.
Specifically, sources say, any dissenters would be stripped of all
committee assignments for that Congress.
"There's
a real concern that there's between 30 and 40 people that would vote
against the speaker on the House floor, so they're trying to change the
conference rules to make sure that doesn't happen," said a GOP member
familiar with the proposal.
At
the same, time, according to sources, conservative lawmakers are
discussing something of a counter-proposal. Under their plan, the
November leadership elections would be pushed back until after the
lame-duck session of Congress ends in December. This idea was described
by one House conservative as a preemptive strike to warn leadership not
to consider any significant legislation during the 15-day "lame-duck"
period between November's midterm elections and the start of the new
Congress.
This
proposal, in light of the proposed pelaties for voting against the
speaker in January, could also be aimed at giving a challenger
additional time to organize supporters for the conference elections.
Even
if the first proposal is adopted, Republicans would still be allowed to
vote for anyone in those closed-door internal elections, during which
members choose their leadership officials for the next Congress. But
once a majority of the conference has voted for their candidate as
speaker, that decision will be final. When the House holds its
chamber-wide vote for speaker on the first day of the new Congress, all
Republicans will be expected to support the party's nominee. Next year,
barring any surprise development, Boehner will be that nominee.
It's
unclear the degree to which leadership is involved with pushing the
proposal. According to Republicans close to the situation, the plan was
not authored by or circulated within Boehner's team. Instead, they say,
the speaker's allies in the rank-and-file are promoting the idea as a
way to avoid another awkward display of intra-party rivalry at the start
of the 114th Congress. Still, it's difficult to imagine Boehner's
friends moving forward with such a drastic plan without his approval, if
not support.
"There are members frustrated with other members about what happened last time," said a senior Republican.
Twelve
House Republicans refused to vote for Boehner's reelection in January
2013 at the outset of the 113th Congress. This level of dissent was
insufficient to oust Boehner from the speakership, but served to
embarrass the speaker and publicly air the party's dirty laundry. The
incident infuriated Boehner's allies, who claimed no opposition was
voiced privately during the conference elections—an affront to the
traditional process of keeping internal campaigns private.
Still,
even with plenty of members still upset over that 2013 incident,
adopting this proposal won't be easy. A majority of House Republicans
must vote for any change to the conference rules, and some lawmakers
would certainly oppose the change. Such sweeping punitive measures would
be difficult to keep under wraps, such as Boehner and the Steering
Committee did in late 2012 when three outspoken conservatives were
kicked off committees for failing to support party initiatives.
"The
speaker at any one point in time has probably 90 to 100 votes, for
sure. So it's just a matter of making the case to a mere 20 folks or so
and get the rule changed. But I think there would be a lot of people who
would still vote for the speaker, but would have a real hard time with
that kind of rule change," said the first Republican member.
The
timing of this proposed rule tweak is especially interesting. Nobody is
expected to compete with Boehner for the speakership next Congress,
much less beat him. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the Financial
Services Committee, has quietly considered a campaign against Boehner.
But Hensarling's allies argue that Eric Cantor's resignation this
summer, which triggered a leadership shake-up and fortified Boehner's
position atop the conference, make it highly unlikely Hensarling will
seek the speakership.
"I
don't think you'll see that kind of drama," Rep. Paul Ryan, a close
friend of Hensarling, told National Journal earlier this month. "I think
Jeb would look at it if there were an open seat. But I don't think an
open seat is going to occur."
It
seems, then, the proposal is aimed more broadly at preventing another
contentious leadership election that feeds the narrative about divisions
within the GOP. And it may be aimed particularly at freshmen entering
the House next year, some of whom have said on the campaign trail that
they would refuse to vote for Boehner. Tea-party-aligned candidates in
Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina have already said they will not
support the speaker.
It
also comes as members close to the speaker have been circling the
wagons over the last few months. Reps. Devin Nunes, Pat Tiberi, and Tom
Cole, some of Boehner's inner circle, have been trying to force members
to pay their dues to the National Republican Congressional Committee,
and if they don't they don't get to sit on A-level committees, such as
Ways and Means.
On
that topic, Capitol Hill has also been abuzz in recent days about the
other potential procedural changes -- pushing back the conference
leadership elections.
Conservatives
could make the case that members won't have sufficient evidence by
which to judge the new leadership team that took over in late June. And,
indeed, some already have hinted that Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise
-- the new majority leader and majority whip, respectively -- should be
evaluated primarily by their decision-making during the lame-duck
period.
Still,
it's difficult to imagine a majority of the conference supporting such a
proposal. From a logistical standpoint, rescheduling the conference
elections—which traditionally overlap with freshmen orientation, so that
incoming members may participate—could prove impossible at this late
stage.
More
importantly, most Republicans are calling for unity heading into the
next session of Congress, and several leading conservatives acknowledged
Thursday that there likely won't be a contested leadership race anyway.
"I
don't see anybody right now going forward and mounting a challenge to
the speaker," said Rep. Raul Labrador, who lost his bid this summer for
majority leader.
The rule tweak began as an informal discussion but has morphed into a
concrete proposal that is beginning to circulate in the House.
According to people briefed on it, any Republican who votes on the House
floor in January against the conference's nominee for House
speaker—that is, the candidate chosen by a majority of the House GOP
during its closed-door leadership elections in November—would be
severely punished. Specifically, sources say, any dissenters would be
stripped of all committee assignments for that Congress.
