Demand that our MoCs convene remotely to provide immediate oversight against Trump's abuses
Note: only one of the following two Congresswomen represents you. To find out which one, click here.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
SF Office: (415) 556-4862
DC Office: (202) 225-4965
Email Contact: https://pelosi.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
Call the SF office first, but try the DC office if you can’t get through. If you get voicemail, hang up and try a few more times to talk to a real person. Don’t give up! Short direct messages are most effective. Hate the phone? Resistbot is your friend.
Rep. Jackie Speier
San Mateo Office: (650) 342-0300
DC Office: (202) 225-3531
Email Contact: https://speier.house.gov/email-jackie
Keep calling if you don’t get through. Voicemails are logged daily into a central report across offices. Hate the phone? Resistbot is your friend.
Note: Due to shelter-in-place orders during the Covid-19 emergency, it may be more effective to use email or Resistbot to contact the MoC’s office. It is important to use your own words in emails to elected officials, but feel free to use our sample script below as a guide.
Call Script
My name is __________. I am a constituent, and my zip code is _______. I am a member of Indivisible SF.
With Trump unilaterally firing the congressionally-mandated Inspector General who was to oversee the $2 Trillion emergency relief funds, and Republicans excluding Democrats from decisions regarding the next phase of government response, it is more crucial than ever that Democrats resume full-functioning immediately. This is no time to be Missing in Action. The House has to be allowed to work and vote remotely. Therefore, I strongly urge [the Representative] to change their rules so that they can swiftly resume their oversight and legislative duties.
Background
We rely on Congress for legislation and oversight, but in the last few days Republicans have moved forward on their own to shape the next phase of economic-relief, Trump has fired the Intelligence Inspector General because he revealed Trump's effort to strong-arm the Ukrainian government to create a fake investigation of Biden's son, he issued a signing statement for the 3rd Emergency Relief bill that essentially gutted Congressional oversight, he then unilaterally removed the congressionally-mandated Inspector General who was to oversee the $2Trillion emergency relief funds. The Democratic House has to respond forcefully with more than public statements by Pelosi but it cannot do so if it cannot work and vote remotely.
Congress is not scheduled to reconvene from its recess until April 20. That's four days after U.S COVID-19 deaths are predeicted to hit their apex (if all goes well), with Maryland not peaking until April 28 and Virgina on May 20. Are they actually going to physically gather on that day in DC and resume their duty? Unlikely in the extreme. The NY Times and Washington Post have both run editorials demanding that Congress allow remote voting and work. But Pelosi and McConnel remain opposed despite the fact that state legislators in AZ, NJ, PA, and SD are already doing remote voting.
Congressional expert Daniel Schurman recently wrote: "The unwillingness to give Congress the option of remote voting has undercut leadership priorities. Spkr. Pelosi’s declaration that she’s creating a Coronavirus Select Committee is tantamount to a press release, as she lacks the power to create a select committee without a vote, and the only votes that can happen right now require unanimous consent, which isn’t likely. Similarly, all the talk about another rescue package is happening against the backdrop that committees cannot meet ... If Spkr. Pelosi and Maj. Ldr. McConnell do get to move this business forward, it is only by further centralizing power, which is a significant driver of congressional dysfunction."
We must put continuous pressure on our MoC to demand that they resume their duties through remote work and voting.
House and Senate rules currently prohibit members of Congress from casting votes remotely by video-conference or some other secure means. Those rules can be changed at any time by a majority vote in each chamber. The rules already allow members of congress to perform work outside DC, and Cold War national defense laws provide for convening Congress at alternate locations. Therefore, it's not a big or radical step to permit secure remote-voting during a national emergency via technologies that were not in existence a decade ago but are now in wide use.
Speaker Pelosi and other congressional leaders argue that remote voting is unconstitutional, raises security issues, and would require difficult and complex rule-changes that could only be enacted by an in-person session.
Constitutional Issues
The Constitution uses words like “meet” “assemble” “attend” and “present,” but nowhere is there any explicit requirement for MoC to be physically in the same space because until the 21st Century that was inherent in those words. But now, with modern technology those words can be interpreted differently. And all over the world businesses, institutions, and organizations have been conducting online meetings for years even though their charters, bylaws, and constitutions were written using language and concepts that predated such technology.
“Originalist” and “Strict Constructionist” conservatives have long argued that the Constitution has to be interpreted based on the original understanding of the founders at the time it was ratified. But liberals usually take a “Living Constitution” stand that the Constitution has to be interpreted in the context of current times and realities, even if such interpretation is different from the original assumptions at the time it was written. If times ever called for a Living Constitution it's during a global pandemic.
It's likely that there would be court challenges to any congressional action adopted via online methods – but so what? Almost everything Congress does is challenged by someone in some court on some grounds. House and Senate rules are internal congressional matters, and so far SCOTUS has pretty consistently ruled that they have no jurisdiction to intervene in congressional affairs. (Of course, those were mostly in cases where such rulings benefited the Republican Party.) Worst-case, allow remote-voting, fight it out in court for years while decisions go forward, and if in the end the unlikely occurs and the rule-change is deemed invalid by then the pandemic will (hopefully) be over and whatever legal complexities arise can be dealt with then.
Security Problems
While the “security” argument may initially sound impressive it doesn't hold water for very long. “National security” evokes concepts and emotions about troop movements, military strategies, and classified technologies – knowledge of which would aid an enemy. But how does that apply to domestic measures taken to address a health/economic emergency? Anyone with access to a news source knows what we (and everyone else on the planet) is facing. None of it is secret. The content of bills being voted on by Congress is already public knowledge. So the only thing confidential is their private conversations and deal-making. If a foreign adversary – or for that matter a domestic news reporter – was able to electronically eavesdrop on congressional deliberations that are usually conducted in back rooms, how does that compromise our national security?
Surely Congress can figure out how to have private online conversations. But if they can't secure their communications, then the worst that will happen is that they'll be politically embarrassed with their constituents. In this emergency, that seems a risk worth taking to maintain continuity of government.
Rule-Changes in a Time of Pandemic
Historically, Congress has always proven the old adage, “Where there's a will, there's a way.” When they want something done, they've always found a way to do it.
Last Thursday (3/23) the House Committee on Rules Office of the Majority issued a report “Examining Voting Options During the COVID-19 Pandemic”. It discussed a wide range of options for Congress continuing to function during the pandemic, including remote voting, provisional changes to quorum rules, paired-voting (as used to be the common practice), changes to Unanimous Consent, proxy-voting, and so on. All of the various options had complexities and problems, upsides and downsides, arguments for and against. But clearly there are options that could be considered – and that need to be considered promptly.
For an example of the kinds of possibilities examined in the report, if the barrier to changing the rules to allow remote voting is assembling a quorum to vote in the new rules, according to the report, clause 5(c) of rule XX was added to the rules in the wake of the 9/11 attack. It provides that if a traditional quorum cannot be achieved due to a “... natural disaster, attack, contagion, or a similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House... ” the House can proceed with only those members who are able to return to the Capitol.
“Where there's a will, there's a way.”