It seems to make common sense, right? A member of Congress has a baby and they cannot come to the floor to vote for a period of time, so, why not allow proxies?
Johnson weighs options after ‘stubborn’ Luna forces vote on ‘unconstitutional’ parental proxy voting
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is weighing his options after a bipartisan group led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) garnered enough support to force a floor vote on legislation to allow proxy voting for new parents — an idea the Speaker called “unconstitutional.”
A discharge petition to force a floor vote on Rep. Brittany Pettersen’s (D-Colo.) bill to allow proxy voting for new parents hit the minimum 218 signatures needed Tuesday, setting the stage for the legislation to come to the floor.
Pettersen gave birth to a son in January and brought him to the Capitol for two high-profile votes in recent weeks. Luna had a son in 2023, months into her first term in the House.
Asked by The Hill on Wednesday about the successful discharge petition effort, Johnson — who is known to oppose proxy voting and previously filed a brief with the Supreme Court against the practice — said he is against the idea.
“I’m afraid the whole thing is unconstitutional,” Johnson said in the Capitol. “I’ve tried to discuss this with Anna, and she’s pretty stubborn about it, so we’ll see what happens. But I’m not in favor of it. I filed a brief to the United States Supreme Court explaining that proxy voting is clearly unconstitutional so, you know, I have a real concern about it.”
If he allows the vote to go through, and this is very much bipartisan for support (I’m surprised there wasn’t more support), he’s also concerned that this would cause proxy voting for other reasons. Got the flu. Busted an ankle. Hey, what about doing video calls? They could set a tablet up for individual, or, how about a big screen where those out for real reasons, not because Survivor or a hockey game is on, can Zoom in.
Unfortunately, The Hill fails to explain why Johnson says it is unconstitutional. Nor do any of the other articles. Google being Google, I’m having a tough time finding what Johnson may have stated previously on the subject, it’s page after page of the above issue or unrelated information. Except this, which I found on page 12
Federal judge says House’s use of proxy voting to pass spending bill in 2022 unconstitutional
A federal judge in Texas ruled Tuesday that the US House of Representatives violated the Constitution in how it used proxy voting to pass a major spending bill in late 2022.
US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the House violated the Constitution’s Quorum Clause when it did not have enough representatives physically present for a vote on the legislation and instead passed it by allowing lawmakers to vote by proxy, using a voting protocol that was put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic.
“The Court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause,” wrote Hendrix, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.
And that’s the heart of it. All those votes taken during COVID where people were not there were unconstutitonal Article I Section 5
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
And what is a quorum?
the minimum number of officers or members of a body that is required to be present at a given meeting (as to transact business)
Most definitions are identical. It means people who are present. So, does this mean physically, or, could a Zoom call or similar count? That is the question. Proxy voting would be 100% out of the question. Some say quorum means physically present. Others say that that the rules could be modified to include video calls. There was a law passed in 1890 which said it was a quorum of those physically present, then a Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin, which also determined that it was those physically present. But, the House and Senate can determine rules for being present, so, could it be stretched to mean a video call? I’d like to say yes, but, they would have to pass the rules to only apply to certain situations.
I wonder if Johnson has considered this with video calls? I wonder if he has considered running it up through a federal court, or asking the advice of the Supreme Court?
[…] Pirates Cove covers Voting by Proxy […]