When the 115th Congress convenes in January, the House of Representatives may vote on a rules package that guts a powerful tool that allows members of the lower chamber to keep the speaker in check.
In September, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., proposed a change to the rules of the House that would dissolve the privileged status of the “motion to vacate the chair,” which allows any member of the House to introduce a resolution to depose the speaker. Under the current rules of the House, the resolution must receive a vote by the full chamber.
The proposal put forward by Nunes would require a majority of either party’s conference to support the motion before it can move forward. Because party conferences are controlled by either the speaker or the minority leader, the motion to vacate the chair would essentially become an empty threat.
There’s no question that this is what Nunes wants.
Sadly, it’s part of a pattern from the California Republican. Nunes has expressed his contempt on more than one occasion for his conservative colleagues in the House, calling them “lemmings with suicide vests” and “right-wing Marxists.” He also referred to Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., a principled constitutional conservative and opponent of domestic-surveillance programs, as “al-Qaeda’s best friend in Congress” and raised money for Amash’s unsuccessful 2014 primary challenger.
With Republicans like Nunes, who needs Democrats?
The motion to vacate the chair is the sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of whoever happens to hold the office. If a speaker begins to lose his or her way and act in a manner that harms the House, this procedural tool serves as a vital accountability mechanism.
Not used since March 1910, when Democrats unsuccessfully attempted to remove Republican Speaker Joseph Cannon, the motion to vacate the chair is part of Jefferson’s Manual, written by Thomas Jefferson, and which, in 1837, was adopted by the House as its guide to parliamentary procedure.
The motion was almost used against Speaker Newt Gingrich by members of his own conference in July 1997.
More recently, in July 2015, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., introduced a resolution to remove Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, from office. The resolution blasted Boehner for several infractions, including consolidating power, punishing members for voting their consciences,and using the legislative calendar to govern by crises.
The House never voted on Meadows’ resolution to remove Boehner, but it’s likely that enough Republicans would have voted for another candidate for speaker to force a second ballot. Boehner resigned rather than lose what would have been a vote of no confidence.
Before assuming the speakership, Paul Ryan, R-Wis., suggested that the motion to vacate the chair be changed. “No matter who is speaker,” Ryan’s spokesman said in October 2015, “they cannot be successful with this weapon pointed at them all the time.” Ultimately, Ryan agreed to delay a discussion about the rule.
Ryan hasn’t said anything publicly about Nunes’ proposed rule change, but there’s little question that Ryan could put an end to the controversy if he came out against it. House conservatives, though, are already making their opposition to the rule change known. “[I]t’s clearly a move to protect the existing power structure. It goes in the opposite direction of what we need,” Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., said recently. “We need total accountability across the board.”
The rules of the House are typically adopted on a party-line vote when a new Congress begins. But with a diminished House Republican majority expected in the 115th Congress, any rules package that guts the motion to vacate the chair would create unnecessary tension in the House Republican Conference and lead to the defeat of the rules on the floor.
All Ryan has to do to avoid this is come out against Nunes’ proposal. It’s as simple as that.
Adam Brandon is the president and CEO of FreedomWorks. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
