Speaker of the House Election January 6: Procedure

[Demeter]

The Election of the Speaker: The Procedural Facts

Constitutional Requirement. Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution states that, “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers.”


Timing.

By law (2 USC Sec. 25), the Speaker must be sworn prior to any other business. As a result, the election takes place at the start of each new Congress, as soon as a quorum has been established. For the upcoming 114th Congress, it is scheduled to occur on Tuesday, January 6, 2015.

Process.

The Clerk of the House accepts nominations from the floor. A member of each Leadership—the respective conference and caucus chairmen—nominates one candidate from each party.

Reps. John Boehner (R-OH) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will receive these party nominations in the 114th Congress. The Clerk then asks the rest of the House whether there are any further nominations. Once the slate of nominees is set, the Clerk begins the roll call vote which proceeds in alphabetic order by surname. When called upon, members respond orally with their vote (viva voce).

Required Vote Threshold.

According to the precedents of the House, an absolute majority of “the total number of votes cast for a person by name” is required to elect a Speaker.

Abstentions, “present” votes, and of course, missed votes are not counted towards the total number of votes cast for a person.

For example, voting present lowers the total number of votes needed for a nominee to achieve a majority. If the full House is sworn in and voting, a majority of the full membership is 218. (Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) will not be sworn in for the 114th Congress as a result of his resignation, but a majority of the full members is still 218.)

Again, a plurality is not sufficient to be chosen Speaker. If a majority is not obtained on the first ballot, there are subsequent ballots until a winner receives enough votes.

No Voting Restrictions.

There are no restrictions for whom Members may vote. They do not have to vote for the nominees or even a Member of the House of Representatives (the Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member, although it always has).

For instance, in 2013, Rep. Boehner received 220 votes, Rep. Pelosi received 192 votes, while Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Jim Cooper (D-TN), John Dingell (D-MI), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Raul Labrador (R-ID), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), and non-Members Colin Powell, David Walker, and former Rep. Allen West all received votes.

Potential Impact of Democrats.

Since they comprise the Majority party, as long as Republicans vote for some candidate by name (i.e., not missing the vote or voting present), the Democrat nominee cannot be elected without GOP votes simply because there are multiple candidates receiving votes.

And in the unlikely event that a large group of Republicans missed the vote or voted present, the result would be quickly reversed by the full Republican Majority by vacating the Speaker chair and starting anew. There is no way that Rep. Pelosi will be the Speaker in the 114th Congress without Republican votes.

Potential Impact of Republican Dissenters.

A sufficiently large block of Republicans—29 Members with the current political composition of the House (246 GOP-188 Democrats)—can prevent their party’s nominee from achieving the necessary majority to be elected Speaker.

For instance, in 1923, the progressive wing of the Republican Party blocked a Republican from being Speaker until some of their procedural demands were adopted. This occurred over three days and nine different ballots. Similarly the House has seen lengthier delays in electing the Speaker. In 1849, the House required over 59 ballots and 19 days to elect a Speaker. In 1856, more than 129 ballots were required.

WHO SENT ME THIS INFORMATION? MY FUNDIE-RELIGIOUS-WHACKO TEA PARTY AUNT.

HAVE YOU EVER HAD SUCH INFORMATION FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? WHY NOT?

THINK ABOUT IT. WE HAVE TO DO BETTER. FOLLOWING THE TEA PARTY'S LEAD IN MASTERING THE LEVERS OF POWER WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO START.

THE SECOND STEP WOULD BE FORMING STRATEGIC ALLIANCES WITH THE TEA PARTY ON ISSUES WE BOTH SUPPORT: SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, ETC.

[whereisjustice]

1. From Democratic Party I got an email about DWS' sad dog... apparently only money makes it happy

[Demeter]

3. Who or what is DWS?

[whereisjustice]

6. Debbie Wasserman Schultz - DNC Chair, one of the "new" "realistic" Democrats (updated)

who are really Republicans but don't agree with Republicans on certain social issues like abortion. Other than that, it's hard to tell them apart without a very powerful microscope.

They devised a strategy to take over the Dem Party from the inside by soliciting money from Wall Street in return for favors and abandoning "working family" principals when they conflict with corporate interests.

As a result, the Dem Party flops around like a fish out of water and can't even bring itself to speak out on issues like Ferguson for fear of making their rich benefactors uncomfortable.

When not hawking corporate entitlements, the Bush Doctrine for foreign policy, NSA spying and an aggressive police state, they consider themselves pro-gay rights and pro-choice, so many Democrats find this an acceptable compromise to take leadership of the Democratic Party.

Obviously, I don't. I believe a candidate should have a clear, consistent set of principals leading to legislation. But the "new" Democrats call that a purity test. They believe principals are something traded in the "free market" to benefit the "Party" i.e. Party over all. However, that's why many would be voters are so confused about the Democratic Party. Historically, the Party First idea is not much different than a self-serving cult that NEVER serves in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Instead those with wealth and power find themselves lavished with benefits. Those without the means to purchase favors, go without.

Rather than rely on principals, New Democrats aka Third Way aka Neo-Liberals, views are carefully calculated for political gain as in the case of Hillary Clinton who found her long standing anti-gay marriage views no longer paying dividends. They will refactor as necessary for political gain of the moment, and will go the other way just as quickly. In the case of HRC, her Wall Street constituency and Kissinger-like foreign policy views are being called into question, so we may see a sudden "re-enlightenment" on these views as well (guaranteed to be abandoned AFTER her election).

[Enthusiast]

7. DWS is dead to me.

[Enthusiast]

8. Excellent post and entirely accurate.

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. Harsh but fair ;~)

[corkhead]

2. the "progressive wing of the Republican Party":

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. I agree about STRATEGIC ALLIANCES

But don't know how we can address the very large fundie church movement.

[Demeter]

5. How about : "Hello, neighbor! Good morning, cousin!" ?

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Goooooooooooooo Looooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuiiiieeeeee!

Mark me down as "aye" for Loony Louie Gohmert.