Skip to main content

House Party Majority and Impeachment

Having a party majority in the House of Representatives provides the majority party with an arsenal of powerful political tools that can help the majority party members achieve goals on behalf of their party and their constituents.  The most notable perk of holding the House majority is having the ability to elect a member of your party to the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. Because the Speaker of the House is the presiding member of the body, they are able to use their powers as Speaker to forward the agenda of their party. However, the Speaker of the House also has a strong responsibility to keep their party in power in the House. Part of the reasoning behind this is that the Speaker of the House won't get to keep their position and the power that comes with it if their party doesn't keep the majority. This is explained in Matthew Green's article "Evaluating the Pelosi Speakership" which stated that: "Speakers are party loyalists first and foremost, and they can’t keep the job if their party loses power".  The Speaker of the House also has a responsibility to help their party stay in power because they are much more visible to the public than their fellow House members.

A strong example of this can be seen through Nancy Pelosi's Speakership and her attitude and actions towards the impeachment proceedings of Donald Trump.  Speaker of the House Pelosi has used her position in her party and in the house to caution her party against prematurely rushing into impeachment proceedings. She urged her party to wait until they had more reasons and evidence for pursuing impeachment before they formally opened the process. Speaker Pelosi's reasoning for waiting on impeachment was to protect the members of her party who had more vulnerable seats in the house from losing their seats in the next election due to backlash from members of their district that opposed opening impeachment proceedings. The house members from the democratic party that are pushing the hardest for impeachment tend to be from strongly democratic districts that practically ensure the safety of their seat, allowing them to seek impeachment without much fear for their seat. However, many democratic house members have less secure seats and have followed Speaker of the House Pelosi's advice regarding impeachment proceedings in order to protect their seats and their majority. The graph below made by Sarah Binder demonstrates the relation between how democratic a house member's district is and how committed they are to impeachment proceedings.

Democratic members of the House from safer districts are more likely to favor impeachment. (Sarah Binder)


As shown in the graph there is a strong correlation between how democratic and how securely democratic a district is and how committed the house member elected by that district is to the impeachment proceedings. Nancy Pelosi counseling all of her party against aggressively seeking impeachment until there was more public support for it was intended to protect the seats of the party as a whole.  While the majority party can direct agenda, especially with the strong majority the Democrats have in the house, outnumbering the Republicans over 2 to 1, there can be good reasons for the majority party to refrain from taking aggressive actions (Party Breakdown).  In the case of impeachment, it is prudent for all or most of the democratic members of the house to wait for more of the public to support impeachment proceedings before the house members formally commit to impeachment proceedings. The actions of a party member or several party members deviating from the consensus of the main party can damage the "party brand" and further weaken the party's hold on already vulnerable seats. Despite the value of party unification in the case discussed here it can be difficult for the Speaker of the House to unify the entirety of their party on issues, especially now as "a growing number of lawmakers are less attached to traditional notions of what a party in congress means" and in following party mandates to the letter (Adler, et al. 233). The speaker of the house can attempt to obstruct or impede party members that do not act with the party by publicly censuring them or refusing to support them but their options can be limited despite the power held by the Speaker of the House.



Adler, E. Scott, et al. The United States Congress. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.
Binder, Sarah. “Analysis | Here's Why Pelosi Won't Allow the House to Pursue Impeachment - at Least Not Yet.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 15 June 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/15/heres-why-pelosi-wont-allow-house-pursue-impeachment-least-not-yet/.
“Column: Why Democrats Shouldn't Impeach Trump - Yet.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 24 Apr. 2019, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-democrats-impeachment-trump-20190424-story.html.
“Evaluating the Pelosi Speakership.” Mischiefs of Faction, https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/evaluating-pelosi-speakership.
“Party Breakdown.” House Press Gallery, US House of Representatives, 1 Oct. 2019, https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown.

Comments

  1. KaitlynAndersonOctober 22, 2019 at 12:12 PM

    This post was very interesting and very well written. The Speaker is arguably one of the more powerful positions in government. What Pelosi is doing by putting off an impeachment vote to protect her majority is very smart. I did not know that that is why she was refusing to take an impeachment vote, but that is very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mary LeonardOctober 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM


    Great job! I think that there is often a misconception of the Speaker’s priorities. Many don’t realize that their priority is not specifically to keep their job, but instead to keep their party in the majority so that they can indirectly keep it, as you mentioned. Speaker Pelosi was harshly criticized for postponing impeachment trials, but it seems to be that she didn’t do it for personal reasons, but instead to help out her party, as you mentioned. I like that you were able to find a graph that showed the correlation between strength of seats and commitment to impeachment. It is interesting to see the wide-ranging opinions of the Democratic party on the matter, especially because the media has a tendency to make it seem like they all are mostly in agreement.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more