House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), center, looks at Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), right, as McGovern speaks during a news conference on Monday, March 9, 2020. (Photo: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images)
House to Vote on Allowing Members to Use Proxies, Opening Door for Full Remote Voting
"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."
The House is expected on Thursday to vote on a measure allowing members to vote remotely via proxies for the duration of the coronavirus outbreak crisis, a proposal that could be a solution to legislative gridlock exacerbated by the House's extended recess due to the pandemic which has made it unsafe for Congress to meet.
Rules Committee chair Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) explained the proxy rules change to the New York Times in an interview last week.
"This is what we're comfortable with doing now that I think poses the least amount of risk," McGovern told the Times. "For those who feel they want to be here and engage in debate, they can come back, but for those members who are in states where they are instructed not to leave their homes or not to travel, they can still participate."
House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), in a letter to the chairs of the House Committee on Rules and the House Committee on Administration, said he sees the implementation of the new rule as a first step in virtual, remote voting for Congress.
"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," wrote Hoyer.
Hoyer acknowledged challenges and security risks to the process, but expressed confidence that lawmakers could find a solution.
But, as the Washington Post reported Tuesday, there are technological hurdles in front of representatives.
"Many members of Congress probably couldn't handle two-step authentication from their laptops," a senior House Democratic aide told the Post. "We have conference calls where people can't even mute themselves or get off mute. There's a big tech gap that's going to be problematic."
And even if the House can manage to make the virtul meetings work, the aide added, there are Constitutional concerns.
"If this is challenged in the courts and we've passed 40 laws that have been enacted and the Supreme Court invalidates them all," said the aide, "that's a nightmare."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The House is expected on Thursday to vote on a measure allowing members to vote remotely via proxies for the duration of the coronavirus outbreak crisis, a proposal that could be a solution to legislative gridlock exacerbated by the House's extended recess due to the pandemic which has made it unsafe for Congress to meet.
Rules Committee chair Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) explained the proxy rules change to the New York Times in an interview last week.
"This is what we're comfortable with doing now that I think poses the least amount of risk," McGovern told the Times. "For those who feel they want to be here and engage in debate, they can come back, but for those members who are in states where they are instructed not to leave their homes or not to travel, they can still participate."
House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), in a letter to the chairs of the House Committee on Rules and the House Committee on Administration, said he sees the implementation of the new rule as a first step in virtual, remote voting for Congress.
"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," wrote Hoyer.
Hoyer acknowledged challenges and security risks to the process, but expressed confidence that lawmakers could find a solution.
But, as the Washington Post reported Tuesday, there are technological hurdles in front of representatives.
"Many members of Congress probably couldn't handle two-step authentication from their laptops," a senior House Democratic aide told the Post. "We have conference calls where people can't even mute themselves or get off mute. There's a big tech gap that's going to be problematic."
And even if the House can manage to make the virtul meetings work, the aide added, there are Constitutional concerns.
"If this is challenged in the courts and we've passed 40 laws that have been enacted and the Supreme Court invalidates them all," said the aide, "that's a nightmare."
The House is expected on Thursday to vote on a measure allowing members to vote remotely via proxies for the duration of the coronavirus outbreak crisis, a proposal that could be a solution to legislative gridlock exacerbated by the House's extended recess due to the pandemic which has made it unsafe for Congress to meet.
Rules Committee chair Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) explained the proxy rules change to the New York Times in an interview last week.
"This is what we're comfortable with doing now that I think poses the least amount of risk," McGovern told the Times. "For those who feel they want to be here and engage in debate, they can come back, but for those members who are in states where they are instructed not to leave their homes or not to travel, they can still participate."
House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), in a letter to the chairs of the House Committee on Rules and the House Committee on Administration, said he sees the implementation of the new rule as a first step in virtual, remote voting for Congress.
"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," wrote Hoyer.
Hoyer acknowledged challenges and security risks to the process, but expressed confidence that lawmakers could find a solution.
But, as the Washington Post reported Tuesday, there are technological hurdles in front of representatives.
"Many members of Congress probably couldn't handle two-step authentication from their laptops," a senior House Democratic aide told the Post. "We have conference calls where people can't even mute themselves or get off mute. There's a big tech gap that's going to be problematic."
And even if the House can manage to make the virtul meetings work, the aide added, there are Constitutional concerns.
"If this is challenged in the courts and we've passed 40 laws that have been enacted and the Supreme Court invalidates them all," said the aide, "that's a nightmare."