New York Post President Trump’s task force has been working hard to fight the coronavirus pandemic and open up America. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has been silent — AWOL, you might say.
Even as the Senate returns to work this week, the House remains shuttered. And now, feeling the heat for their prolonged absence, House Democrats are floating plans that would upend centuries of legislative precedent and concentrate power in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hands.
One Democratic idea would allow a representative to ask a colleague to cast a vote on her behalf, known as a proxy vote. And this proxy vote would count for purposes of a quorum, the majority needed to proceed with business. If implemented, this brainstorm would create a procedural fiction in which a representative would be considered “physically” present in the Capitol when she is home with her freezer full of gourmet ice cream.
The insult to suffering Americans is unmistakable. Farmers are still planting crops. Truckers still deliver goods. Grocers still stock shelves. Front-line health workers work around the clock. These Americans don’t have the luxury of sending a “proxy” to do their jobs. And neither should Congress.
Physical presence is essential to effective, accountable and transparent legislating. Proxy voting would only increase the likelihood of massive omnibus legislation crafted exclusively by the Democratic leadership behind closed doors and presented to other lawmakers as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. This approach puts power in the hands of a small group of Democrats crafting the legislation — and shuts out other voices.
Remote voting also raises concerns about potential abuse. For example, a representative could be considered “present” for official business in the House while simultaneously conducting campaign activities, a potential violation of ethics rules that separate the two. By its very nature, proxy voting separates a representative from the ancient act of casting her vote, diminishing accountability and increasing the potential for coercion or intimidation.
It might also be unconstitutional. The Constitution mandates that each legislative chamber have a majority of members present to do business. In 1892, the Supreme Court ruled that the House can decide for itself how it will count members for a quorum, so long as the body doesn’t “ignore constitutional restraints.” And the high court spelled out what that means: Members must be physically present.
Pelosi acknowledged as much in April, admitting: “There is a constitutional requirement that we vote in person.”
