Will procedural votes cost 2 House Democrats their committee assignments?

On Sept. 1, two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) had the audacity to vote in favor of a special rule without first informing their leaders of their intentions.

The top three House Democratic leaders — Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Calif.), were enraged and issued a terse joint statement : “The decision by two of our colleagues to blindside the entire House Democratic Caucus and join with the Republican majority to pass a procedural rule on the brink of failing represents a significant breach of trust.” The statement concluded that the action “necessitates a serious response,” and called on the caucus’s Committee on Caucus Rules “to take this up in short order.”

What caused such a brouhaha over a vote on a simple procedural resolution? Ordinarily, such rules providing for the consideration of legislation are adopted along strict party-line votes, the exceptions more recently being a handful of Republicans who stray from the pack on rule votes. In this instance, however, the rule was narrowly adopted, 210-208, with the votes of the two Democrats providing the winning margin for Republicans.

Moreover, one of the measures the special rule made in order was a simple House resolution clearly designed to put House Democrats in an embarrassing box. It read, “Resolved, that the House of Representatives condemns and denounces socialism in all its forms, including the Democratic Socialists of America, and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States.”

With democratic socialist movement candidates winning surprising election victories in several states, including Democratic primaries, more moderate Democrats have been fumbling for ways to differentiate themselves from the taint of socialism.

Both offending members are moderates. Gluesenkamp Perez, in her second term, is co-chair of the Democratic Party’s centrist Blue Dog Coalition. Golden, a fourth termer, is retiring at the end of this Congress , but was lured by the inclusion in the same special rule of a bill titled, “The Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act” — a crustacean near and dear to his fellow Mainers.

As of this writing, the Democratic caucus rules committee had still not come forward with a recommendation on how to deal with the two defectors. There was considerable talk among angry colleagues, however, about stripping them of their committee assignments. For Golden, who serves on the Armed Services and Natural Resources committees, that would not be a major setback, since he’s retiring next January. For Gluesenkamp Perez, on the other hand, it would be a major blow, as her sole committee assignment is on the prestigious and powerful House Appropriations Committee.

What is curious, though, is why the disciplinary ball has been tossed into the court of the 13-member caucus rules committee chaired by Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.). Its sole responsibility (until now), has been to recommend codifications and revisions of the caucus rules, “as circumstances may indicate, and, if necessary, recommend action to the caucus.”

Ordinarily, committee membership issues are handled by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, chaired by the Speaker (or, when in the minority, the party leader). Among other things, the committee “is vested with the authority to recommend vacating committee chairs and removing members from committees by majority vote, subject then to a final vote by the full caucus.” Even if the caucus recommends removal of a member, that decision must be finalized by a vote of the full House which elects (and de-selects) all committees and their members.

It may be that the leadership already has some lesser form of admonishment in mind, such as a reprimand. After all, there is no current caucus rule barring members from voting against their party’s wishes. How can you punish someone for violating a rule that doesn’t exist? It is unlikely the caucus rules committee will attempt simultaneously to propose and then enforce such a rule retroactively.

There was a time when House Democrats had a rule that empowered their caucus, by a two-thirds vote, to bind members’ floor votes on specified legislation. That was later repealed as the party became more diverse and charges against abuses of “King Caucus” began to bite back.

I suspect this episode will not result in removing the two defectors from their committees. Instead, it will more likely result in a new rule (or at least an informal one), advising Democratic members to inform their leadership in advance of their intention to vote against the party’s stated position on designated matters.

Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee. He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial,” and “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays.”