Should Congress Embrace Remote Voting for New Parents

Discussion on Access and Convenience

Woody Allen once claimed that ninety percent of success is just showing up. This notion raises an important question: should the House of Representatives allow members to vote from home under specific criteria?

During the pandemic, Congress attempted a form of remote voting. Lawmakers dialed in their votes through proxy members present on the House floor. Those members sifted through index cards and announced whether each lawmaker was in favor or opposed to various bills and resolutions.

This method constituted the House’s voting process during a particularly challenging time. With COVID-19 spreading rapidly, social distancing measures prompted changes to traditional voting practices. It was essential to minimize the number of lawmakers gathering in the House, especially given the experiences of Representatives like Mario Diaz-Balart and Ben McAdams, who tested positive for the virus in March 2020, with McAdams requiring hospitalization for serious symptoms.

Adoption of Proxy Voting

Eventually, the House of Representatives adopted proxy voting as a temporary solution. Initially, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed hesitation about remote voting. However, as the pandemic worsened, proponents argued that bringing numerous lawmakers from across the nation to Washington was neither feasible nor safe.

Pelosi highlighted the crucial dilemma many faced: choosing between their health and their right to vote. She stated, “We should always be removing obstacles of participation to vote.” This sentiment resonated deeply with several members.

The Role of Health in Political Participation

Representative Don Beyer from Virginia often served as a surrogate for colleagues, casting votes on their behalf. On the other hand, Kevin McCarthy criticized proxy voting as an unprecedent practice in Congressional history. He noted that proxy voting had not been utilized for over two hundred years.

The debates surrounding this issue underscored a broader conversation about health and safety versus constitutional obligations. Article I, Section 5 states that a majority must be present to conduct business, and many Republicans criticized remote voting as unconstitutional. Despite this, some of those Republicans later participated in proxy voting.

Modern Challenges for New Parents in Congress

Fast forward to today. Concerns about balancing parenting with Congressional duties have become increasingly relevant. Representatives Anna Paulina Luna and Brittany Pettersen both welcomed new sons in 2023, highlighting the unique challenges facing new parents in office.

The intense demands placed on lawmakers often require them to be present in multiple locations simultaneously—meeting constituents, voting, and attending committee hearings. Adding to this pressure are legitimate health concerns. Medical professionals often recommend bed rest for expectant mothers, limiting their ability to travel.

Pettersen expressed her frustrations regarding this system. She stated, “I wasn’t actually able to fly from Colorado to DC to vote a few weeks before giving birth because of the medical restrictions.” Luna echoed these sentiments, expressing disappointment over the lack of accommodation for new parents.

A Proposal for Remote Voting

In response to these challenges, Luna and Pettersen teamed up to draft a resolution that would allow expectant mothers and new parents to vote remotely for three months. Luna explained that this proposal is not only about inclusion but also encourages family growth within Congress. She remarked, “It’s pretty much hard to get anywhere after eight months.”

Utilizing a parliamentary mechanism known as a discharge petition, Luna and Pettersen managed to collect enough signatures to compel the House to consider their proposal. The momentum toward this resolution represents a step forward in making Congress more accessible to regular people.

Challenges Ahead for Remote Voting

However, challenges remain. House Speaker Mike Johnson firmly opposes the concept of remote voting, expressing concerns over its constitutionality. Despite this, he has faced accusations of hypocrisy since he voted remotely during the pandemic multiple times.

Representative Jim McGovern responded to the current GOP pushback, highlighting the inconsistencies in their stance. He pointed out the number of times Johnson voted remotely, which he termed as contradictory to the arguments against proxy voting.

Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Burchett has voiced strong opposition, citing potential misuse of remote voting during the pandemic. He stated, “Members abused the practice during COVID,” asserting that instances of lawmakers attending fundraisers and vacations while voting remotely were unethical.

Nonetheless, the crux of the argument lies in balancing the needs of new parents with the structural realities of Congressional duties. The discharge petition initiated by Luna and Pettersen aims to facilitate this balance.

Upcoming Parliamentary Proceedings

If the House votes on the rule regarding remote voting, lawmakers will have the opportunity to debate its implications. However, the House leadership may postpone this discussion, prolonging the uncertainty surrounding remote voting.

The legislative landscape suggests that even if the rule is passed, it does not guarantee support from all members who signed the discharge petition. This situation may lead to extensive discussions and negotiations among members resistant to the proposed changes.

In conclusion, while the concept of remote voting introduces significant conversations about accessibility for new parents, the ultimate decision rests with Congressional members who will need to render their judgments in person. Navigating the complexities of parenthood while maintaining a commitment to their legislative duties remains a pivotal challenge for those in office today. Lawmakers are reminded that achieving balance may not be just about showing up; it involves providing essential support for families as well.