Last night the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously agreed to the formation of a special committee to investigate alleged parliamentary shenanigans that may have altered the outcome of a vote, the Washington Post reports.
The move capped a remarkable day that started with Republicans marching out of the House in protest near midnight Thursday, was punctuated by partisan bickering, and ended with Democratic hopes for a final legislative rush fading. Even a temporary blackout of the House chamber's vote tally board led to suspicions and accusations of skullduggery.
While Democratic leaders hoped to leave for their August recess on a wave of legislative successes, the House instead slowed to an acrimonious crawl that threatened to stretch the legislative session into next week.
The agreement to form a special committee was extraordinary. Such powerful investigative committees are usually reserved for issues such as the Watergate scandal and the funneling of profits from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s.
"I don't know when something like this has happened before," said House deputy historian Fred W. Beuttler. He called the decision "incredible."
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) accepted GOP calls for an investigation. "I do not believe there was any wrongdoing by any member of the House. I do believe a mistake was made," he said. "And I regret it.
Politico.com has lots more here and here. Republicans are also distributing video that, they claim, supports allegations that the vote was "stolen."
Of course, when Republicans controlled the House, there were shenanigans as well. Most infamously, a vote was kept open so Tom Delay would twist arms to ensure a victory. As with earmarks, it seems the new boss is much like the old boss.
UPDATE: Congressional Quarterly has a particularly thorough account of the vote:
The floor confusion arose when, with the tally tied at 214-214, two politically vulnerable Democrats, Nick Lampson of Texas and Harry E. Mitchell of Arizona, went to the well of the chamber to switch their votes to “no.” The buddy system would prevent Democrats who voted “no” from being targeted as the deciding vote in future campaign ads. Moments later, three Cuban-American Republicans from south Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, moved to change their votes to “aye.”The five vote switches were called out by the House reading clerk. The two Democratic changes put the tally at 212-216. Ros-Lehtinen’s switch made it 213-215. Lincoln Diaz-Balart evened it at 214-214, but a tie vote fails. As the reading clerk called out Mario Diaz-Balart’s new vote, the Speaker Pro Tempore, Rep. Michael R. McNulty, D-N.Y., banged the gavel, apparently unaware that the second Diaz-Balart’s vote had yet to be counted.
McNulty had his eyes on the electronic scoreboard, which still read 214-214. But almost as soon as the gavel came down, the scoreboard registered Mario Diaz-Balart’s vote, pushing the tally to 215-213. The scoreboard showed those numbers and the word “FINAL.”
Within a minute or so, a flurry of post-gavel vote switches by Reps. Zack Space of Ohio, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Jerry McNerney of California — resulted in an official outcome of 212-216. Boehner was observed switching his vote — a common way to preserve the right to seek reconsideration, and an aide confirmed that the tally board at that point should have read 211-217.
“Shame! Shame!” Republicans chanted across the aisle. Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, R-N.C., thumped the seat of a chair in rhythm with the chant. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Ohio, repeatedly covered his mouth with his hand, pretended to cough and bellowed a barnyard epithet.
McNulty, whom Democrats often tap to preside over contentious debates, could be heard on television insisting “I called it 214-214.”
Related Posts (on one page):
- Congressional Shenanigans:
- Disorder in the House:
Yes, the old boss surely would have unanimously agreed to an investigative committee.
Looks like the GOP was trying to play a few games of their own, which were answered by Democratic games, which the voting system and/or the presiding officer didn't let play all the way out.
At the same time, Democrats had some of their people vote "YES" with Republicans purely for political/electoral reasons, and then had them try and switch their votes to "NO" at the last second to counter the Republican switches. The controversy seems to be over who got their vote switch counted and who did not before the vote was gaveled closed.
Either way, the entire thing would have been avoided if members of both parties would cast their votes based on their own conscience rather than playing so many games and tricks. Appalling on both sides.
To their credit, Democratic leaders did offer to have an immediate re-vote, and Republicans objected and moved to adjourn instead. If everyone had voted their real convictions, it should come out exactly the same as it did 15 minutes before, shouldn't it?
Are you implying that's a bad thing?
Allowing members to cast a vote based on their perception of whether the question will pass or fail does a real disservice to the citizens.
As long as the citizens get to see how people voted after the votes were counted that would be ok. But how are you possibly going to enforce a secret vote when everyone voting is in the same room with each other?
Imagine the uproar the media would have caused had a Republican majority pulled shenanigans like this. We'd be hearing about it all the way through the '08 election. The Democrats, however, get away with barely a peep. The MSM needs to be honest and just become a registered political party already.
The Republicans refused to go back and do a re-vote simply because they suspected they would lose.
Look, let's face it. People who are lead by GW Bush are simply not good for America.
So, given the reality of the process, I understand why Republicans wouldn't want a re-vote. Aside from the possibility that their victory on this might have been a fluke of timing, a re-vote would certainly fail to break for the Republicans. Why? Because after what happened, any democrats that voted with the Republicans would be giving the Democrat leadership a severe black eye. Do that, and you can kiss your earmarks, amendments, and overall agenda goodbye. Oh, and forget about DNC help on your re-election campaign.
That said, I think the Democrats admitting a mistake and accepting an investigation is good damage control. I doubt the Delay led house would ever have admitted such an error or allowed an open investigation of what happened. I don't think it will do any good, mind you. Nor am I completely sure what "good" in this case would be.
Josh
Why don't you mention the fact that the vote you are referring to by the Republicans -- the Prescription Drug Giveaway to the Pharma companies -- has been repealed by the House Dems, but that the Republicans in the Senate are filibustering it.
You remember filibusters, don't you Adler??? You used to write so much about how bad they were, but now when the Republicans are filibsutering a measure that could literally save the US government billions and billions a year (repeal of the provision in the Px Drug Bill not allowing the government to negotiate with the drug companies on price), you have nothing to say about it. This isn't some little earmark, this is something that could save the US billions and billions of dollars -- more money than would be saved by any plan to privatize social security or other "conservative ideas." Funny how Instaclown and Adler have nothing to say about this.
Further, since Adler is such a proponent of the free market, you think he would be in favor of allowing the goverment to, you know, NEGOTIATE prices. But no. Nothing about this filibuster preventing it.
Again, hactacular, Adler.
Oh, I shouldn't criticize you, becuase you write for a serious magazine like the National Review, I forgot, my bad.
If you're going to accuse me of an "outright lie" you should at least try to find something in my post that is inaccurate.
As for all the extraneous stuff you rant about, 1) my primary concern about the filibuster has always been about its use against nominations; I don't believe I've ever complained about its use against substantive legislation by either party (and I feared the so-called "nuclear option" could lead to the complete elimination of the filibuster), 2) I never supported the GOP prescription drug plan but did support the GOP mavericks who opposed it (and who Delay tried to strong-arm during that infamous vote); 3) repealing the prescription drug plan would be more "free market," but allowing de facto government price controls on pharmaceuticals through "negotiation" would not be.
Now that I've addressed your off-topic points, care to identify my purported "lie" or inaccuracy? Or do you just prefer to spew venom?
JHA
This "old boss is just like the new boss" and the "I never supported x &y" but support Republicans because hey, they are all the same. It's a way to have deniability for supporting the utter disaaster wreaked on this country for the time when Bush had a lapdog Congress that did nothing but run up the budget deficit to absurd levels. But I am sure they are just like Clinton to you -- because destroying the budget, politicizing the DOJ to unprecedented levels, blowing two wars, etc. is just as bad as getting a blow job to people like your eyes. I am sure you supported the impeachment of Clinton but when Bush and Co. do stuff 100's of times worse, you say zilch, except for something here and there with the little "old boss is just like new boss" scthick. It got old a long time ago. And people like me, who used to subscribe to views that were probably more in common with yours than Pelosi's, can see right through you. But in a few years, you will have your little deniablitty with posts like this to your friends in academia, and you will also be able to continue collecting wingnut welfare from the National Review and, hey, maybe you one day will get a job at a thinktank or something.
You're still not being responsive. I wrote:In other words, in these two respects -- parliamentary shenanigans and earmarks -- the new Congress seems much like the old. You've still provided nothing -- nada, zilch -- to suggest this is not true, let alone an "outright lie" (i.e. a deliberate falsehood). You keep focusing on the fact that Republicans passed a bad prescription drug bill -- a bill that I did not support -- but so what? They also spent too much, passed stupid ag bills, passed a stupid energy bill -- all with the support of the Bush administration. Again, so what? It has nothing to do with this post.
Just because you think the prescription drug bill was worse than earmarks does not make talking about earmarks, and the failure of the Congressional leadership to make due on their promise to end the practice, hackery or an "outright lie." Nor does my purported failure to join the chorus condemning those things that you think are most important.
I don't always support Republicans -- either in the ballot box or in print -- and I care far more about the policy failures of both this and the prior administration than I do about either President's sexual habits -- but I still see no need to cover the waterfront with my occasional blogging. Also, FWIW, My gig with NRO (where I've criticized the administration on many issues) hardly pays enough to constitute "wingnut welfare" and I've done my time with think tanks already, so you'll have to find some other nefarious motivation to explain my failings -- but you still have offered nothing to justify your hyperventilation or substantiate your charge of an "outright lie."
JHA
Naw, I suspect something a little different (worse?) On highly contentious issues, the folks who favor your vote will figure they had it coming, and those you voted against will become your eternal enemies. So....
"Here are five of us. We will vote no UNLESS you come within five votes of winning, and then we will switch. If the measure fails, you will not hold it against us, because we were there if you needed us." That way, at least if it fails, the legislator pleases both sides, since he seems to oppose it but has placated its supporters, too. Alternately -- "you tell us if and when our vote is needed, but only do it if needed."
But when the vote is almost even, and sways back and forth, chaos ensues as both GOP and Dems are rushing up to switch votes in accord with the deals they made.
Here further confused by voting in blocs of 2-3 to avoid being named as the tie-breaker, and by a chair who is letting the vote run overtime and watching the vote count for an auspicious moment to bring the gavel down.
So, the Republicans really weren't interested in having this fixed, because they know they would have lost the vote, anyway. They're just using the fluke of timing as a way to try to make the House leadership look bad.
The vote-switching at the end is tedious, but it isn't really the issue. The issue is that the Dem leadership recognized the timing problem and offered to completely re-do the vote, but the Republicans, who know they lost the vote, refused and instead decided to try to turn it into a smear.
I think it takes a remarkable amount of willful obtuseness and cognitive dissonance to seriously suggest the Dems and the Repubs are ethically equivalent in this case. I certainly know which kind of treatment I'd rather receive.
Does anyone know what the vote was on?
I do, now, but it's really a sidenote to this politics^2 discussion. Go ahead and find out, but I bet most people won't — this is really more of a reason to hate the other side than anything substantive.
And, come on. A representative named LaTourette "bellowed a barnyard epithet." Not even one mention? You guys are depressing.
A Democrat senator... went too far in trying to get one of her bills through the lower house. She infamously pressed the "aye" button for Houston -- a Republican. Republicans were furious. source
She waited until the Republican senator had stepped away from his voting button, then surreptitiously snuck over and voted for him. But she was caught in the act.
So, Mr Sucher... care to recant?
You don't get redos on votes. There is usually a chance to vote again later, but you have to live with the first vote, once it has been gaveled.
What a shockingly honest and revealing (if indirect and inadvertant) admission. Why not just call it 0 to 0, or Z to Z, or llama to llama? Why not do it ahead of time? Sheesh.
Usually, when there is an article about national politics, and the procedural 'niceties' involved, it is best to cite to other national politics.
Not to local politics.
Not by using language (Democrat senator, lower house) that makes it appear to be Congress.
Also, when you refer to the 'Democrat Senator', approximately 25% of the country (last throes, all that) may continue to take you seriously. The rest? Not so much. For the purposes of civil discourse, I recommend the correct terminology, and not some unfamiliar talk radio ebonics.
You're basically making a broad-sided attack by using a very broad definition of the term "shenanigans." You do this all the time -- frame the issue at a sufficiently vague level of abstraction to make a targeted political point, leaving yourself enough room to backtrack and make it look like you're either attacking both sides or taking a neutral position when someone calls you out on specifics. It doesn't rise to the level of the usual NRO hackery, but it's a valid criticism.
My apologies, I assumed the article made that clear. My intent was to show that similar ethics permeate the Democratic Party regarding this issue. If Republicans do it [and I'm not a Republican], please cite.
Shenanigans with the gavel are strictly secondary.
There is nothing "free market" about the government taking over 15% of the economy and then "negotiating" prices with those who supply it. "Negotiate" here just means implementing price controls.
Democrats are falling all over themselves registering illegal aliens; aiding, abetting and participating in the most massive voter fraud in the history of this country. They are salivating at the prospect of millions illegals voting in the next election.
It should be a strict requirement that in order to register to vote, prospective voters must prove beyond doubt that they are U.S. citizens.
Try getting that requirement past the Democrat Party.
There is a reason why Congress is sitting at an approval level half that of GW Bush. Bush is an unpopular president, but this is an spectacularly unpopular congress, and this isn't going to help. If the Democratic congress keeps this up, it may start to jeopardize the chances of the Democratic presidential candidates to take the White House in 2008.
Ignoring the subject matter of the bill, I would suggest that this ultimately rebounds to the disadvantage of the Democrats in the House more than the Republicans. Which is why the investigation is very astute politics. This just smelled bad from the Democrats who came back into control of the House partially on a platform of cleaning up corruption.
On the other hand, if the Democratic leadership in the House had not launched the investigation so quickly, it might have rebounded to the Republicans' favor, esp. given the subject matter of the amendment. The Republican shenanigans here did two things - made it look like the Democrats were using their majority to cheat (regardless of merit), and it highlighted that the issue was them refusing to cut off illegal aliens from government benefits. But at least the former is effectively countered by the investigation.