Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.)., speaks during her weekly news conference in Washington on Thursday, March 12, 2020. (Photo: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Apr 23, 2020
Progressive frustration with Democratic leadership continued to mount this week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday tabled a rules change that would have allowed members to use proxy voting to legislate during the coronavirus pandemic.
Pelosi indicated that the House would take the matter up when it reconvenes on May 4 after Republicans, the minority party in the House, objected to the change.
"This is unbelievable," tweeted Lindsey Boylan, a candidate for Congress in New York's 10th District, running against incumbent Rep. Jerry Nadler in the Democratic primary.
\u201cYes, why don\u2019t you announce a bipartisan commission to study the issue of remote voting instead of saving lives?! This has got to be one of the most irresponsible & ridiculous things I\u2019ve heard recently. Get your head out of your ass! This is unbelievable. https://t.co/lYm73uHHf5\u201d— Lindsey Boylan (@Lindsey Boylan) 1587576916
The abrupt about-face came days after House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), as Common Dreams reported, expressed in a letter to the caucus Tuesday his vocal support for the rule change and for a more substantive change to allow remote voting.
"Beyond implementing the proxy voting as a first step, we ought to use this time as an opportunity to prepare for Congress to be able to work according to its full capabilities even with social and physical distancing guidelines in place," Hoyer wrote.
Hoyer later on Tuesday told reporters that he wanted a bipartisan solution.
Pelosi pulled the change Wednesday morning, claiming that the change needed bipartisan approval and citing an hour-long conversation with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) Tuesday on the proposal as changing her mind on proceeding with a vote.
\u201cLast Thursday, Pelosi signed off on House Rules Committee's plan for proxy voting: https://t.co/LT5atFYzEk\n\nOn Monday, Hoyer said they'd vote on it this week: https://t.co/ThxjszvFlT\n\nToday: Pelosi says no Thursday vote. She's convening a bipartisan panel to "review" it instead.\u201d— Daniel Marans (@Daniel Marans) 1587588125
On Thursday, Pelosi told members on the floor that she hoped that the chamber would decide to vote on a solution to the problem on May 4--if they return that early.
"Hopefully about the time we return, if that's May 4th, we'll have an opportunity to vote in bipartisan way on how we can do that," Pelosi said.
\u201cPelosi on proxy voting:"Hopefully abt the time we return if that's May 4th,we'll have an opportunity to vote in bipartisan way on how we can do that..We have be sure that is consistent w/wishes of mbr of Congress who's yielding a proxy & his/her representation of their district."\u201d— Craig Caplan (@Craig Caplan) 1587650650
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), chair of the House Rules Committee, said Thursday that while he respected the wishes of the Speaker, the clock is ticking.
"The status quo, in my opinion, is unacceptable and dangerous," said McGovern.
\u201cRules Chair McGovern begins debate on coronavirus crisis subcmte addresses the remote voting issue:"I have always believe that whenever possible any changes to our rules should be bipartisan.I still believe that however, the status quo,in my opinion,is unacceptable & dangerous."\u201d— Craig Caplan (@Craig Caplan) 1587650650
The creation of a biparitsan committee to look into the matter did not fill The Week's Ryan Cooper with confidence, who said it was "where legislation goes to die."
In a tweet, Demand Progress campaign director Robert Cruickshank questioned why Pelosi was allowing Republicans to dictate the terms of rule changes in the House.
"Forgive me for asking, but who won control of the US House in the 2018 election?" Cruickshank asked sarcastically.
A few hours after it was revealed that the Speaker had reversed her caucus on a rule change because of objections from the minority party, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne published an opinion piece claiming that "From now on, Pelosi is playing hardball."
For journalist Jeff Spross, the sentiment that this time--after capitulating on the rule change and Democratic priorities in coronavirus relief legislation--Pelosi would fight was one that just didn't pass muster.
"I mean, I hope so," said Spross. "But I'm not holding my breath."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Progressive frustration with Democratic leadership continued to mount this week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday tabled a rules change that would have allowed members to use proxy voting to legislate during the coronavirus pandemic.
Pelosi indicated that the House would take the matter up when it reconvenes on May 4 after Republicans, the minority party in the House, objected to the change.
"This is unbelievable," tweeted Lindsey Boylan, a candidate for Congress in New York's 10th District, running against incumbent Rep. Jerry Nadler in the Democratic primary.
\u201cYes, why don\u2019t you announce a bipartisan commission to study the issue of remote voting instead of saving lives?! This has got to be one of the most irresponsible & ridiculous things I\u2019ve heard recently. Get your head out of your ass! This is unbelievable. https://t.co/lYm73uHHf5\u201d— Lindsey Boylan (@Lindsey Boylan) 1587576916
The abrupt about-face came days after House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), as Common Dreams reported, expressed in a letter to the caucus Tuesday his vocal support for the rule change and for a more substantive change to allow remote voting.
"Beyond implementing the proxy voting as a first step, we ought to use this time as an opportunity to prepare for Congress to be able to work according to its full capabilities even with social and physical distancing guidelines in place," Hoyer wrote.
Hoyer later on Tuesday told reporters that he wanted a bipartisan solution.
Pelosi pulled the change Wednesday morning, claiming that the change needed bipartisan approval and citing an hour-long conversation with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) Tuesday on the proposal as changing her mind on proceeding with a vote.
\u201cLast Thursday, Pelosi signed off on House Rules Committee's plan for proxy voting: https://t.co/LT5atFYzEk\n\nOn Monday, Hoyer said they'd vote on it this week: https://t.co/ThxjszvFlT\n\nToday: Pelosi says no Thursday vote. She's convening a bipartisan panel to "review" it instead.\u201d— Daniel Marans (@Daniel Marans) 1587588125
On Thursday, Pelosi told members on the floor that she hoped that the chamber would decide to vote on a solution to the problem on May 4--if they return that early.
"Hopefully about the time we return, if that's May 4th, we'll have an opportunity to vote in bipartisan way on how we can do that," Pelosi said.
\u201cPelosi on proxy voting:"Hopefully abt the time we return if that's May 4th,we'll have an opportunity to vote in bipartisan way on how we can do that..We have be sure that is consistent w/wishes of mbr of Congress who's yielding a proxy & his/her representation of their district."\u201d— Craig Caplan (@Craig Caplan) 1587650650
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), chair of the House Rules Committee, said Thursday that while he respected the wishes of the Speaker, the clock is ticking.
"The status quo, in my opinion, is unacceptable and dangerous," said McGovern.
\u201cRules Chair McGovern begins debate on coronavirus crisis subcmte addresses the remote voting issue:"I have always believe that whenever possible any changes to our rules should be bipartisan.I still believe that however, the status quo,in my opinion,is unacceptable & dangerous."\u201d— Craig Caplan (@Craig Caplan) 1587650650
The creation of a biparitsan committee to look into the matter did not fill The Week's Ryan Cooper with confidence, who said it was "where legislation goes to die."
In a tweet, Demand Progress campaign director Robert Cruickshank questioned why Pelosi was allowing Republicans to dictate the terms of rule changes in the House.
"Forgive me for asking, but who won control of the US House in the 2018 election?" Cruickshank asked sarcastically.
A few hours after it was revealed that the Speaker had reversed her caucus on a rule change because of objections from the minority party, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne published an opinion piece claiming that "From now on, Pelosi is playing hardball."
For journalist Jeff Spross, the sentiment that this time--after capitulating on the rule change and Democratic priorities in coronavirus relief legislation--Pelosi would fight was one that just didn't pass muster.
"I mean, I hope so," said Spross. "But I'm not holding my breath."
Progressive frustration with Democratic leadership continued to mount this week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday tabled a rules change that would have allowed members to use proxy voting to legislate during the coronavirus pandemic.
Pelosi indicated that the House would take the matter up when it reconvenes on May 4 after Republicans, the minority party in the House, objected to the change.
"This is unbelievable," tweeted Lindsey Boylan, a candidate for Congress in New York's 10th District, running against incumbent Rep. Jerry Nadler in the Democratic primary.
\u201cYes, why don\u2019t you announce a bipartisan commission to study the issue of remote voting instead of saving lives?! This has got to be one of the most irresponsible & ridiculous things I\u2019ve heard recently. Get your head out of your ass! This is unbelievable. https://t.co/lYm73uHHf5\u201d— Lindsey Boylan (@Lindsey Boylan) 1587576916
The abrupt about-face came days after House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), as Common Dreams reported, expressed in a letter to the caucus Tuesday his vocal support for the rule change and for a more substantive change to allow remote voting.
"Beyond implementing the proxy voting as a first step, we ought to use this time as an opportunity to prepare for Congress to be able to work according to its full capabilities even with social and physical distancing guidelines in place," Hoyer wrote.
Hoyer later on Tuesday told reporters that he wanted a bipartisan solution.
Pelosi pulled the change Wednesday morning, claiming that the change needed bipartisan approval and citing an hour-long conversation with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) Tuesday on the proposal as changing her mind on proceeding with a vote.
\u201cLast Thursday, Pelosi signed off on House Rules Committee's plan for proxy voting: https://t.co/LT5atFYzEk\n\nOn Monday, Hoyer said they'd vote on it this week: https://t.co/ThxjszvFlT\n\nToday: Pelosi says no Thursday vote. She's convening a bipartisan panel to "review" it instead.\u201d— Daniel Marans (@Daniel Marans) 1587588125
On Thursday, Pelosi told members on the floor that she hoped that the chamber would decide to vote on a solution to the problem on May 4--if they return that early.
"Hopefully about the time we return, if that's May 4th, we'll have an opportunity to vote in bipartisan way on how we can do that," Pelosi said.
\u201cPelosi on proxy voting:"Hopefully abt the time we return if that's May 4th,we'll have an opportunity to vote in bipartisan way on how we can do that..We have be sure that is consistent w/wishes of mbr of Congress who's yielding a proxy & his/her representation of their district."\u201d— Craig Caplan (@Craig Caplan) 1587650650
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), chair of the House Rules Committee, said Thursday that while he respected the wishes of the Speaker, the clock is ticking.
"The status quo, in my opinion, is unacceptable and dangerous," said McGovern.
\u201cRules Chair McGovern begins debate on coronavirus crisis subcmte addresses the remote voting issue:"I have always believe that whenever possible any changes to our rules should be bipartisan.I still believe that however, the status quo,in my opinion,is unacceptable & dangerous."\u201d— Craig Caplan (@Craig Caplan) 1587650650
The creation of a biparitsan committee to look into the matter did not fill The Week's Ryan Cooper with confidence, who said it was "where legislation goes to die."
In a tweet, Demand Progress campaign director Robert Cruickshank questioned why Pelosi was allowing Republicans to dictate the terms of rule changes in the House.
"Forgive me for asking, but who won control of the US House in the 2018 election?" Cruickshank asked sarcastically.
A few hours after it was revealed that the Speaker had reversed her caucus on a rule change because of objections from the minority party, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne published an opinion piece claiming that "From now on, Pelosi is playing hardball."
For journalist Jeff Spross, the sentiment that this time--after capitulating on the rule change and Democratic priorities in coronavirus relief legislation--Pelosi would fight was one that just didn't pass muster.
"I mean, I hope so," said Spross. "But I'm not holding my breath."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.