1. One problem with a tennis court scenario, or really anything other than challenged Ds standing aside, is that it goes against everything we know about Ds, and everything they've shown us since Trump was elected.
2. They already conducted a test run. And, while everyone breathed easier when it ended with a nice photo op in Johnson's office, they made their point - it ended when Mike Johnson said it ended. (We had initiated litigation, but who knew where that would go?)
3. We hear a lot of law prof types insisting that Callais actually isn't partisan, because, while it will help Rs this year, the long-term effect is unpredictable. If true, I think this misses the point. It can still be partisan because they do not intend for the long-run to include such things as fair elections. Those are only a short-term problem, and now they aren't that, either.
God you people are delusional, it is the Democrats that have no respect for rules, norms, and now the law (see The democrats illegal disenfranchisement of white people in Virginia) and their hair brained ideas to avoid following the law. It is clear that the authors of the substack are inflected with advanced narcissism. Keep it up you will have an appointment with a passed room before you know it.
This is the MAGA technique: I see it over and over again. Lynn cries “Dems are delusional” based on some fake atrocity (disenfranchisement of white people). Then people (like yourself) make an honest inquire into the dastardly deed. When did this disenfranchisement happen? How did it happen? Please give details, Lynn.
But there are no details because all Lynn can spout off at is “Dems are delusional” so that the fake trope is now out there and causes doubt in peoples’ minds. That’s what Lynn wants. Just like trump. Lie, distort, manipulate, denigrate and on and on. It never ends. There is no “disenfranchisement of whites” in VA. Lynn is a troll who wants to upset the apple cart. And notice all the personal attacks that “it is clear” the writer is narcissistic. Based on what? Lies. Endless lies. Never any facts. Never any evidence. Just lies, lies and more lies.
Democrats' focus on issues like racial justice, reparations, favoring minorities "of color or ethnicity", for jobs, healthcare initiatives, education, tuition assistance,
Economic initiatives favoring minority communities making small business loans more accessible to minorities and twice as difficult to obtain for an average middle class white male.
Changes in district boundaries have diluted the voting power of certain groups, including white voters in some areas, California being a prime example, as well as numerous other states with Zero republican representatives.
"Prioritizing" the needs of illegal aliens, minorities and other fringe groups over traditional white middle-class concerns and needs.
But, if redistricting based on "race" was the norm, there would also be discussion of districts, for Asian, Latino, Muslim, Russian, Italian, Polish, or vietnamese as nearly every large city and some smaller towns have a "little Italy", or "china town" which is a wonderful way to integrate into America, without losing their beautiful traditions and culture....
BUT, IF we are ALL Americans, then race, color of your skin or ethnicity should Not be a factor or an issue in our daily lives, in American culture, in our workplaces, our educational institutions or Government.
We should seek to destroy and eliminate that "division" that "singling out" not feed into it.
Democrats focus on what their constituents favor as their representatives. Republicans focus on what their constituents want as well. Unfortunately, if you are a MAGA head and don’t like the outcome of what majorities favor (abortion rights, civil rights, human rights, gay rights, equal, rights under the law, adherence to the law and the constitution, due process, civil liberties, etc…) then you tend to cry “foul” and “dissolution of power” and “disenfranchised white voters” and all the other maga cries of alarm that are dubious. And maga pretend to want “unity” and “color blindness” all the while promoting white Christian nationalism (per Pete Hegseth) and pedophilia (Epstein files still not released thanks to maga republicans) and turning away from the rule of law (while the dear leader trump is up to his ears in corruption and pardoning of felons who assault police, rape women and molest children) and claiming they want NO Wars (as their dear leader is killing children and blowing up ships). Get real! All this bull shit about “all being Americans” as the fascist MAGAs “anti-democracy” cult try to take our government down. Why do 30% of Americans still support trump? They want all that he promotes in his fascism and unlawfulness.
Under the Federal Contested Elections Act (2 USC 381 et. seq.) I would think the lame duck Congress would actually be able to challenge and rule ineligible any members from VRA districts before the new House organizes. They would just need House Administration to refer the challenges to the floor and a simple-majority floor vote, so they could do it on party lines in one committee and the floor of this Congress. This is even more dangerous since it would prevent any clerk from including challenged representatives-elect on the roll and thus prevent such representatives-elect from even voting for Speaker.
Democrats would not be able to convene elsewhere because of Article One, Section 5, clause 4 which bars either house of Congress from meeting anywhere other than the Capitol without the consent of the other house. This is why when Congress met for an official session at Federal Hall in 2002 (as a symbolic act after 9/11) they had to pass a resolution in advance. Instead I think Democrats would need to stay on the floor and attempt to assert their authority... somehow. This is dangerous, but the only course of action I could see at that point.
FCEA doesn't work for doing that during the lame duck for a couple reasons. First is just the strong constitutional objection that the text allows each house to judge its "own" members qualifications and returns, and that doesn't cover the next Congress. But also FCEA's timeline effectively precludes it. The challenge can only be made by a defeated candidate, and has to be after the state has certified the result. That pushes it into mid-late November or into December, depending on the state. California for example, the ripest potential target, is the Friday before the first Monday in December = Dec 4, 2026. FCEA then has a 30-day window for the challenged member / member-elect to respond. That alone pushes it past Jan 3 for at least some states, and probably any state where certification has been delayed by litigation. But then there's an additional cycle of 30 days for the contestant and after them another 30 days for the contestee (+ another 10 for the contestant to do responses) to do depositions and witness testimony. All that at a minimum has to be completed before House Admin can act. So even if the contestant rushes their side of it and gets their parts done on the first day of their windows, the contestee can draw it out for at least 60 days after certification, which at the soonest state is 7 days after election day. There are only 61 days from election day to Jan 3, as it works out this time. In other words, the challenged contestee will always be able to push it past Jan 3 even if the constitutional argument is ignored by the lame duck House.
As for "place," there are precedents for reading that more broadly than it has to be the exact same building. Rather it's the seat of government = DC. When the British burned the Capitol in the War of 1812, Congress reconvened in another building without any such resolution. The House Practice manual makes this explicit, copy-paste: "" Under article I, section 5, clause 4 of the Constitution, neither House may, without consent of the other, adjourn ``to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.'' The requirement for consent has been interpreted to apply to the seat of government, which has been, since 1800, the District of Columbia. Therefore, the House may convene sit in another place within the District of Columbia without the consent of the Senate. Deschler Ch 1 Sec. 4.1. ""
So the convention center or a hotel ballroom or anything like that within DC would suffice. This came up on Jan 6, 2021, the place of convening clause wouldn't have been an obstacle to meeting at their back-up location within DC, but in the end leadership decided not to because of the symbolism of getting back into the Capitol.
“districts which had previously guaranteed Black voters real representation in Congress”
So a non-Black representative can’t “really” represent a Black voter in Congress?
That’s obvious nonsense. Start thinking of people as individuals instead of stereotypes.
And the truth is that Dems are worried about protecting Black-majority districts not to protect the right of Blacks to Black representation, but to guarantee election of a Dem—but that only works until more Black voters wake up to the fact that Dems don’t actually care about them but only care about power and lining their own nests.
“The result would be a legitimacy crisis without precedent in American history.” If you memory hole 2020 Color Revolution and the vote counting halt 1030 PM-3AM election night then yes. The rest of the world hasn’t. Interesting to raise January 6, 2021 vote objections in Congress. An objection was raised but just then the Capitol Police opened the Ropes - before the objection could be subject to even a second or a vote- a state of emergency declared by Pelosi that lasted until the election was certified two weeks later. Unlikely that mistake will be made again. Now all that is happening is your party is losing power and is flailing and trying to do as much damage as possible on their way out.
Malice Oblige; your motive is malice towards those who deny you power by not voting for you. The Deplorables.
Would be wise to slink away… Trump doesn’t pursue anything but success unless he has to - the rest may not be so forgiving. Trump will let you walk as he’s a builder not a Butcher; however his bench is Deep and many of the young men very dark. Take the deal and walk.
I am glad to see that there are some who are "war-gaming" the different scenarios of what Republicans may try to keep control of the House. There are too many Democrats who are still naive enough to think that all they need to do is get more votes than the Republicans. I am hopeful that all this gerrymandering will backfire on Republicans who may be cutting the margin too thin in their redistricting ploys. But that may just be the impetus they need to try something more egregious such as that which you have laid out. There are currently many Democrats who are sure that they will prevail because the voters are so upset by the current administration. They need to wake up and keep thinking of all the guardrails that have been dismantled and how any that are left can also be destroyed and - more importantly - how they will answer these challenges.
Another issue that Democrats don't seem to be considering has to do with the announcement by the US Postal Service last month where they said that the day you drop something in the mail might not be the day it gets postmarked. During the election, in majority Democrat districts, it is possible that large piles of ballots that are dropped off on the last day don't get postmarked on that day and are therefore not counted. Democrats need to urge voters to a) get their ballots in earlier than the last day or better yet put them in a drop box so that the Elections officers pick them up and take the USPS out of the loop altogether.
Stop giving them ideas, I remain convinced that many of the things Trump attempted in the lead up to Jan 6 he only got the idea because he saw some liberal somewhere write about it as a hypothetical. Never forget how dumb this man is and how stupid the people he has surrounded himself with are, these are not the type of people who come up with ideas like this, but once seen in the wild they are more than happy to steal the ideas, so stop doing their thinking for them please
So just trying to get this straight... IF "Our electoral system is remarkably fire-proofed against tampering and too decentralized to be rigged from above"
Then why all this talk of creating a shadow government?
Isn't that the very thing Democrats fought "against" on j6?
You stated:
"They should leave the chamber, find somewhere else to meet, achieve a quorum, elect a speaker, and assert that they are the real House. The constitutional crisis would be extreme, Congress itself in dispute between dueling claims. But if push comes to shove, that will be the fight we must have."
So is this statement is calling for violence against the government of elected lawmakers?
If so, the that makes Democrats worse than what happened on J6 because this is not spontaneous, it is premeditaded.
So how does that make "Our electoral system remarkably fire-proofed against tampering and too decentralized to be rigged from above"?
This might work (maybe a 10% chance) if Trump wasn't historically unpopular. But he is, so it's incredibly unlikely that anything even close to what you envision will happen.
We need to be very careful here. This is like a game with no ref, which will break down if the players can’t agree on the rules. Remember that Democrats can object to seating Republicans just as easily as vice versa. So there is a deterrence factor against what Andy is suggesting.
For example, one can imagine Democrats objecting to seating Republicans from Virginia on the ground that they were elected in contravention of the referendum just held. There are some logical problems with this argument, just as there would be in the hypothetical Republican argument (if the districting is illegal, aren’t all the districts in the state therefore illegal?), but there is no authority to decide the question.
It isn’t clear that a member-elect whose credentials have been challenged has the right to vote on the question. Brian Kalt argued in a law review article a few years ago that this should be the rule, but that is not the rule the House has followed (nor to my knowledge is it clear this is just a “norm” as opposed to a binding rule). And if the rule/practice is changed, wouldn’t that just change the focus to the Clerk’s preparing the roll of members-elect?
Bottom line: the risk is less that the House majority will be determined by objections to seating members than that the process will break down and we will end up with dueling Houses. And that would be playing right into the hands of Donald Trump and other anti-institutionalists.
I think Andy laid it out clearly enough. Individual members CAN object to the seating of other members. Traditionally, the challenged member(s) have not participated in the vote on their own status. Say the Democrats are +10 on January 3, and GOP members challenge 12 Democrats, who then follow tradition and allow the now GOP +2 House to vote on their status: They would then be rejected (the grounds for rejection, constitutionally, can in fact be so flimsy as to be arbitrary, as Article I makes each chamber the judge of the qualifications of its members and no standards are provided).
So the key move is for the Democrats who are challenged to be prepared to refuse to "stand by," and rather to act on their right to participate in the vote(s) on their own status.
You can easily see how this could spiral into chaos and even violence. Which of course is a GOP/MAGA trump card -- literally, as it would give Trump justification/pretext for invoking one or another form of martial law, and in essence reifying the coup.
This is but one of several vectors that have non-zero potential to move in that direction. If you are wondering why Trump/MAGA/GOP don't seem especially motivated to win the hearts and minds of more voters, THIS is one reason: They've already planned for a post-democratic, power-based game, in which they believe they hold all the cards.
Still won't work. Only sworn in members of the House can object to other House members. And at the start of the new Congress there are no sworn in members. Everyone gets sworn in at the same time. Then they elect a Speaker and get to business.
I'm not saying you're wrong on this, but there *have* been objections to seating specific members in the past (Andy cites a couple from the record). Can you explain how these objections were levied, and at what point in the proceedings, if there was, in effect, a mass swearing in? I do know that there's been quite a bit of gaming out of the Jan. 3, 2027, scenario on both sides, and that the Constitution is clear that each chamber of Congress is the judge of its members' qualifications. So at what point, in your view, would the GOP drop the hammer (assuming they're in the minority among the new House's members-elect)? Thx.
After a Congress is sworn in they can then proceed to question/take action on the qualifications of a member. If the Rs don't have a majority of the new Congress then they can't do squat other than bring motions that get voted down quickly.
Is it, then, a mass swearing in -- where basically every new member-elect is sworn in simultaneously? That is crucial. I had thought it was individual, in either state or alphabetical order, as read out by the clerk. If that is the case, then the first Republican(s) to be sworn would then be tasked with challenging the targeted Democrats as their names came up.
So I guess the question is whether you know for a cold, hard fact that the swearing in is collective/simultaneous. If not, then worth researching, including whether that protocol is mandated or discretionary. If discretionary, then presumably Johnson's new lickspittle clerk could alter protocol and swear in individually, giving the Republicans the opportunity to object in real time before the full House is seated. I assume that's the scenario Andy is contemplating.
And they're, sadly, not wrong. Or not sadly, but unfortunately. Ds have a higher percentage of blue-button-pushers, to use a meme that's floating around. Blue-button-pushers are good people. But they're bad at self-preservation. We want more people like Ds. The problem is, we don't have them, and Ds being perceived as weak creates fewer, not more.
Great, sobering piece.
A few thoughts:
1. One problem with a tennis court scenario, or really anything other than challenged Ds standing aside, is that it goes against everything we know about Ds, and everything they've shown us since Trump was elected.
2. They already conducted a test run. And, while everyone breathed easier when it ended with a nice photo op in Johnson's office, they made their point - it ended when Mike Johnson said it ended. (We had initiated litigation, but who knew where that would go?)
3. We hear a lot of law prof types insisting that Callais actually isn't partisan, because, while it will help Rs this year, the long-term effect is unpredictable. If true, I think this misses the point. It can still be partisan because they do not intend for the long-run to include such things as fair elections. Those are only a short-term problem, and now they aren't that, either.
Guaranteed. They have no intention of letting the House change hands because they intend to use the House to hold onto the White House in 2029.
God you people are delusional, it is the Democrats that have no respect for rules, norms, and now the law (see The democrats illegal disenfranchisement of white people in Virginia) and their hair brained ideas to avoid following the law. It is clear that the authors of the substack are inflected with advanced narcissism. Keep it up you will have an appointment with a passed room before you know it.
How did they disenfranchise white voters? I have not heard of this.
This is the MAGA technique: I see it over and over again. Lynn cries “Dems are delusional” based on some fake atrocity (disenfranchisement of white people). Then people (like yourself) make an honest inquire into the dastardly deed. When did this disenfranchisement happen? How did it happen? Please give details, Lynn.
But there are no details because all Lynn can spout off at is “Dems are delusional” so that the fake trope is now out there and causes doubt in peoples’ minds. That’s what Lynn wants. Just like trump. Lie, distort, manipulate, denigrate and on and on. It never ends. There is no “disenfranchisement of whites” in VA. Lynn is a troll who wants to upset the apple cart. And notice all the personal attacks that “it is clear” the writer is narcissistic. Based on what? Lies. Endless lies. Never any facts. Never any evidence. Just lies, lies and more lies.
Damn lies, too.
How did they disenfranchised white voters?
Democrats' focus on issues like racial justice, reparations, favoring minorities "of color or ethnicity", for jobs, healthcare initiatives, education, tuition assistance,
Economic initiatives favoring minority communities making small business loans more accessible to minorities and twice as difficult to obtain for an average middle class white male.
Changes in district boundaries have diluted the voting power of certain groups, including white voters in some areas, California being a prime example, as well as numerous other states with Zero republican representatives.
"Prioritizing" the needs of illegal aliens, minorities and other fringe groups over traditional white middle-class concerns and needs.
But, if redistricting based on "race" was the norm, there would also be discussion of districts, for Asian, Latino, Muslim, Russian, Italian, Polish, or vietnamese as nearly every large city and some smaller towns have a "little Italy", or "china town" which is a wonderful way to integrate into America, without losing their beautiful traditions and culture....
BUT, IF we are ALL Americans, then race, color of your skin or ethnicity should Not be a factor or an issue in our daily lives, in American culture, in our workplaces, our educational institutions or Government.
We should seek to destroy and eliminate that "division" that "singling out" not feed into it.
To Turbulent Friction:
Democrats focus on what their constituents favor as their representatives. Republicans focus on what their constituents want as well. Unfortunately, if you are a MAGA head and don’t like the outcome of what majorities favor (abortion rights, civil rights, human rights, gay rights, equal, rights under the law, adherence to the law and the constitution, due process, civil liberties, etc…) then you tend to cry “foul” and “dissolution of power” and “disenfranchised white voters” and all the other maga cries of alarm that are dubious. And maga pretend to want “unity” and “color blindness” all the while promoting white Christian nationalism (per Pete Hegseth) and pedophilia (Epstein files still not released thanks to maga republicans) and turning away from the rule of law (while the dear leader trump is up to his ears in corruption and pardoning of felons who assault police, rape women and molest children) and claiming they want NO Wars (as their dear leader is killing children and blowing up ships). Get real! All this bull shit about “all being Americans” as the fascist MAGAs “anti-democracy” cult try to take our government down. Why do 30% of Americans still support trump? They want all that he promotes in his fascism and unlawfulness.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/at-least-10-pardoned-insurrectionists-face-other-criminal-charges/
Virginia Democrats redrew the congressional map to disadvantage Republicans. Some call that disenfranchising white voters.
Good article, but a couple things.
Under the Federal Contested Elections Act (2 USC 381 et. seq.) I would think the lame duck Congress would actually be able to challenge and rule ineligible any members from VRA districts before the new House organizes. They would just need House Administration to refer the challenges to the floor and a simple-majority floor vote, so they could do it on party lines in one committee and the floor of this Congress. This is even more dangerous since it would prevent any clerk from including challenged representatives-elect on the roll and thus prevent such representatives-elect from even voting for Speaker.
Democrats would not be able to convene elsewhere because of Article One, Section 5, clause 4 which bars either house of Congress from meeting anywhere other than the Capitol without the consent of the other house. This is why when Congress met for an official session at Federal Hall in 2002 (as a symbolic act after 9/11) they had to pass a resolution in advance. Instead I think Democrats would need to stay on the floor and attempt to assert their authority... somehow. This is dangerous, but the only course of action I could see at that point.
FCEA doesn't work for doing that during the lame duck for a couple reasons. First is just the strong constitutional objection that the text allows each house to judge its "own" members qualifications and returns, and that doesn't cover the next Congress. But also FCEA's timeline effectively precludes it. The challenge can only be made by a defeated candidate, and has to be after the state has certified the result. That pushes it into mid-late November or into December, depending on the state. California for example, the ripest potential target, is the Friday before the first Monday in December = Dec 4, 2026. FCEA then has a 30-day window for the challenged member / member-elect to respond. That alone pushes it past Jan 3 for at least some states, and probably any state where certification has been delayed by litigation. But then there's an additional cycle of 30 days for the contestant and after them another 30 days for the contestee (+ another 10 for the contestant to do responses) to do depositions and witness testimony. All that at a minimum has to be completed before House Admin can act. So even if the contestant rushes their side of it and gets their parts done on the first day of their windows, the contestee can draw it out for at least 60 days after certification, which at the soonest state is 7 days after election day. There are only 61 days from election day to Jan 3, as it works out this time. In other words, the challenged contestee will always be able to push it past Jan 3 even if the constitutional argument is ignored by the lame duck House.
As for "place," there are precedents for reading that more broadly than it has to be the exact same building. Rather it's the seat of government = DC. When the British burned the Capitol in the War of 1812, Congress reconvened in another building without any such resolution. The House Practice manual makes this explicit, copy-paste: "" Under article I, section 5, clause 4 of the Constitution, neither House may, without consent of the other, adjourn ``to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.'' The requirement for consent has been interpreted to apply to the seat of government, which has been, since 1800, the District of Columbia. Therefore, the House may convene sit in another place within the District of Columbia without the consent of the Senate. Deschler Ch 1 Sec. 4.1. ""
So the convention center or a hotel ballroom or anything like that within DC would suffice. This came up on Jan 6, 2021, the place of convening clause wouldn't have been an obstacle to meeting at their back-up location within DC, but in the end leadership decided not to because of the symbolism of getting back into the Capitol.
“districts which had previously guaranteed Black voters real representation in Congress”
So a non-Black representative can’t “really” represent a Black voter in Congress?
That’s obvious nonsense. Start thinking of people as individuals instead of stereotypes.
And the truth is that Dems are worried about protecting Black-majority districts not to protect the right of Blacks to Black representation, but to guarantee election of a Dem—but that only works until more Black voters wake up to the fact that Dems don’t actually care about them but only care about power and lining their own nests.
“The result would be a legitimacy crisis without precedent in American history.” If you memory hole 2020 Color Revolution and the vote counting halt 1030 PM-3AM election night then yes. The rest of the world hasn’t. Interesting to raise January 6, 2021 vote objections in Congress. An objection was raised but just then the Capitol Police opened the Ropes - before the objection could be subject to even a second or a vote- a state of emergency declared by Pelosi that lasted until the election was certified two weeks later. Unlikely that mistake will be made again. Now all that is happening is your party is losing power and is flailing and trying to do as much damage as possible on their way out.
Malice Oblige; your motive is malice towards those who deny you power by not voting for you. The Deplorables.
Would be wise to slink away… Trump doesn’t pursue anything but success unless he has to - the rest may not be so forgiving. Trump will let you walk as he’s a builder not a Butcher; however his bench is Deep and many of the young men very dark. Take the deal and walk.
Or not.
I am glad to see that there are some who are "war-gaming" the different scenarios of what Republicans may try to keep control of the House. There are too many Democrats who are still naive enough to think that all they need to do is get more votes than the Republicans. I am hopeful that all this gerrymandering will backfire on Republicans who may be cutting the margin too thin in their redistricting ploys. But that may just be the impetus they need to try something more egregious such as that which you have laid out. There are currently many Democrats who are sure that they will prevail because the voters are so upset by the current administration. They need to wake up and keep thinking of all the guardrails that have been dismantled and how any that are left can also be destroyed and - more importantly - how they will answer these challenges.
Another issue that Democrats don't seem to be considering has to do with the announcement by the US Postal Service last month where they said that the day you drop something in the mail might not be the day it gets postmarked. During the election, in majority Democrat districts, it is possible that large piles of ballots that are dropped off on the last day don't get postmarked on that day and are therefore not counted. Democrats need to urge voters to a) get their ballots in earlier than the last day or better yet put them in a drop box so that the Elections officers pick them up and take the USPS out of the loop altogether.
Gerrymandering ? It’s reverse gerrymandering.
Try getting more votes than the Republicans instead. That’s what elected office means.
Elected.
After 2020 that any of you can appeal to the vote shows you are past shameless and into schizophrenia.
This is an utterly terrifying possible scenario!
Stop giving them ideas, I remain convinced that many of the things Trump attempted in the lead up to Jan 6 he only got the idea because he saw some liberal somewhere write about it as a hypothetical. Never forget how dumb this man is and how stupid the people he has surrounded himself with are, these are not the type of people who come up with ideas like this, but once seen in the wild they are more than happy to steal the ideas, so stop doing their thinking for them please
So just trying to get this straight... IF "Our electoral system is remarkably fire-proofed against tampering and too decentralized to be rigged from above"
Then why all this talk of creating a shadow government?
Isn't that the very thing Democrats fought "against" on j6?
You stated:
"They should leave the chamber, find somewhere else to meet, achieve a quorum, elect a speaker, and assert that they are the real House. The constitutional crisis would be extreme, Congress itself in dispute between dueling claims. But if push comes to shove, that will be the fight we must have."
So is this statement is calling for violence against the government of elected lawmakers?
If so, the that makes Democrats worse than what happened on J6 because this is not spontaneous, it is premeditaded.
So how does that make "Our electoral system remarkably fire-proofed against tampering and too decentralized to be rigged from above"?
This might work (maybe a 10% chance) if Trump wasn't historically unpopular. But he is, so it's incredibly unlikely that anything even close to what you envision will happen.
We need to be very careful here. This is like a game with no ref, which will break down if the players can’t agree on the rules. Remember that Democrats can object to seating Republicans just as easily as vice versa. So there is a deterrence factor against what Andy is suggesting.
For example, one can imagine Democrats objecting to seating Republicans from Virginia on the ground that they were elected in contravention of the referendum just held. There are some logical problems with this argument, just as there would be in the hypothetical Republican argument (if the districting is illegal, aren’t all the districts in the state therefore illegal?), but there is no authority to decide the question.
It isn’t clear that a member-elect whose credentials have been challenged has the right to vote on the question. Brian Kalt argued in a law review article a few years ago that this should be the rule, but that is not the rule the House has followed (nor to my knowledge is it clear this is just a “norm” as opposed to a binding rule). And if the rule/practice is changed, wouldn’t that just change the focus to the Clerk’s preparing the roll of members-elect?
Bottom line: the risk is less that the House majority will be determined by objections to seating members than that the process will break down and we will end up with dueling Houses. And that would be playing right into the hands of Donald Trump and other anti-institutionalists.
You're pissing in my Post Toasties this morning, Kathleen.
Do it! And then finally you might get the supreme court and electoral system any modern nation deserves.
This can't work. All members of Congress are sworn in at the same time every other January. There is no way for them to object to D members.
I think Andy laid it out clearly enough. Individual members CAN object to the seating of other members. Traditionally, the challenged member(s) have not participated in the vote on their own status. Say the Democrats are +10 on January 3, and GOP members challenge 12 Democrats, who then follow tradition and allow the now GOP +2 House to vote on their status: They would then be rejected (the grounds for rejection, constitutionally, can in fact be so flimsy as to be arbitrary, as Article I makes each chamber the judge of the qualifications of its members and no standards are provided).
So the key move is for the Democrats who are challenged to be prepared to refuse to "stand by," and rather to act on their right to participate in the vote(s) on their own status.
You can easily see how this could spiral into chaos and even violence. Which of course is a GOP/MAGA trump card -- literally, as it would give Trump justification/pretext for invoking one or another form of martial law, and in essence reifying the coup.
This is but one of several vectors that have non-zero potential to move in that direction. If you are wondering why Trump/MAGA/GOP don't seem especially motivated to win the hearts and minds of more voters, THIS is one reason: They've already planned for a post-democratic, power-based game, in which they believe they hold all the cards.
Still won't work. Only sworn in members of the House can object to other House members. And at the start of the new Congress there are no sworn in members. Everyone gets sworn in at the same time. Then they elect a Speaker and get to business.
I'm not saying you're wrong on this, but there *have* been objections to seating specific members in the past (Andy cites a couple from the record). Can you explain how these objections were levied, and at what point in the proceedings, if there was, in effect, a mass swearing in? I do know that there's been quite a bit of gaming out of the Jan. 3, 2027, scenario on both sides, and that the Constitution is clear that each chamber of Congress is the judge of its members' qualifications. So at what point, in your view, would the GOP drop the hammer (assuming they're in the minority among the new House's members-elect)? Thx.
After a Congress is sworn in they can then proceed to question/take action on the qualifications of a member. If the Rs don't have a majority of the new Congress then they can't do squat other than bring motions that get voted down quickly.
Is it, then, a mass swearing in -- where basically every new member-elect is sworn in simultaneously? That is crucial. I had thought it was individual, in either state or alphabetical order, as read out by the clerk. If that is the case, then the first Republican(s) to be sworn would then be tasked with challenging the targeted Democrats as their names came up.
So I guess the question is whether you know for a cold, hard fact that the swearing in is collective/simultaneous. If not, then worth researching, including whether that protocol is mandated or discretionary. If discretionary, then presumably Johnson's new lickspittle clerk could alter protocol and swear in individually, giving the Republicans the opportunity to object in real time before the full House is seated. I assume that's the scenario Andy is contemplating.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30725
And they're, sadly, not wrong. Or not sadly, but unfortunately. Ds have a higher percentage of blue-button-pushers, to use a meme that's floating around. Blue-button-pushers are good people. But they're bad at self-preservation. We want more people like Ds. The problem is, we don't have them, and Ds being perceived as weak creates fewer, not more.