Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
WASHINGTON — In response to Kevin McCarthy’s removal as House speaker, initiated by a lone Republican member of Congress, a few Texas Republicans are now attempting to modify the rules to prevent any future occurrences.
In January, rules were negotiated during McCarthy’s chaotic initial election, allowing any member of the House to make a motion to remove the speaker, which would trigger a vote. This process remained in place until 2019 when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it more difficult to remove the speaker. However, this week, U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a highly conservative Republican from Florida known for his animosity towards McCarthy, initiated a vote to remove McCarthy. This marked the first instance in American history where a speaker was actually ousted through this measure.
However, there are Texas Republicans who have grown weary of the influence the rule has exerted on the conference, arguing that it has allowed the most radical right-wing party members to take control of leadership.
“I voted NO on the rule in January due to the 1 member threshold to vacate the chair. After electing a Speaker, a rule change needs to be the first order of business,” U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio, posted on social media Friday morning. Gonzales also said in January he opposed the rules package out of concern that an accompanying agreement to lower federal spending could impact defense funding.
A host of other Republican members, including U.S. Reps. Dan Crenshaw of Houston and Michael McCaul of Austin, signed onto a letter Thursday to the rest of the party demanding the conference “address fundamental changes to the structure of our majority to ensure success for the American people.”
The letter stated that we are ashamed and embarrassed by the events that took place on the Floor this week. We are determined not to let the eight members who abandoned and undermined our Conference have complete control over policy and personnel decisions for the rest of this Congress, including the upcoming selection of the Speaker of the House.
The letter received signatures from forty-five individuals, which included influential McCarthy allies who advocated for him during the January rules negotiations. It was circulated among members of the Main Street Caucus, a group of Republicans who identify themselves as pragmatic.
This concern is not new. Speaker John Boehner’s resignation in 2015 was largely influenced by the one-member threshold, and McCarthy made sincere efforts to prevent a similar situation for himself. In January, McCarthy reluctantly agreed to the one-member threshold as one of the final concessions to appease ultraconservative members who opposed his speakership. They demanded significant rule changes to amplify the far-right’s influence.
At that moment, Crenshaw expressed his profound unease towards the modifications in the rules and his frustration with the far right’s tactics of prolonging the election of a speaker in order to wield more influence.
Crenshaw expressed in a January interview that it is important to acknowledge that the Democrats have the potential to employ similar tactics and hinder our initiatives. He further mentioned that he believes they may not fully contemplate the consequences of their actions.
During a Texas Republican delegation lunch on Wednesday, he restated his point, emphasizing that “many members” still hold concerns regarding the rules.
But the far-right members who first negotiated the rules package, which a handful of Texans had a key role in negotiating, don’t want it touched, saying it took back power from a tightly knit group of party leaders and is better in line with how the founders wanted the House to function. U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud, a Victoria Republican who was one of the far-right members demanding concessions during the January speaker race, said Wednesday that the rules changes were meant to “rewrite the muscle memory of Congress.”
Cloud expressed in a short interview that he has high hopes for certain things to endure beyond his term and even his tenure. Therefore, any attempts to revert the rules back would be worrisome for him, something that he wakes up with concerns about each day.
On Tuesday, no Texas Republicans cast their votes in favor of removing McCarthy.
During Pelosi’s tenure, a motion to vacate required the majority of a party caucus to support it in order for a vote to be conducted on the floor. After observing Boehner’s departure and facing her own challenge in 2019, where 15 Democrats either voted against her speakership or voted present, Pelosi established a stricter threshold. Despite securing enough votes to be elected that year, she made a commitment not to serve as speaker for more than four additional years. This year, Pelosi relinquished her position in party leadership and passed the baton to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
After the House elects its new speaker, a fresh vote regarding the rule updates will need to take place. Republicans have scheduled a House-wide vote for Wednesday to fill the position, although there is no assurance that it will conclude smoothly within a single vote or day.
There are currently three Republican contenders openly competing for the position: Steve Scalise, the House Majority Leader from Louisiana, Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Chair from Ohio, and Kevin Hern, the Republican Study Committee Chair from Oklahoma. Scalise, who already holds a leadership role, has prior experience as McCarthy’s right-hand man. Jordan is associated with the far-right House Freedom Caucus and has received an endorsement from former President Donald Trump. As of now, neither Scalise nor Jordan have provided any comments regarding their approach to a potential rule change for the motion to vacate.
Hern stood by the rule as a precedent and expressed his lack of intention to alter it, while remaining receptive to considering arguments in favor of any potential changes.
“Hern claimed that for 200 years, things had been that way until Pelosi altered the situation for her personal benefit and to implement unfavorable policies.”
