House Republicans are so divided over who they’d like to succeed Kevin McCarthy as speaker that they can’t decide whether it’s better to push for a floor vote or continue duking it out behind closed doors.
The internal disagreements come as House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who House Republicans narrowly nominated Wednesday by secret-ballot as the party’s speaker nominee, struggled to lock up enough support from detractors during yet another closed-door conference meeting Thursday afternoon. Scalise lacks the requisite 217 votes to secure the gavel, even after House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, whom Scalise defeated in a 113-99 conference vote Wednesday, announced he will back the Louisiana Republican’s speakership bid. Roughly twenty Republicans were telling reporters this afternoon that they are firmly opposing Scalise at the moment, while others remain in the lean-no or undecided camp.
Thursday’s largely unproductive meeting follows a failed effort spearheaded by Representative Chip Roy earlier this week to require that any speaker candidate reach 217 votes temporarily in conference before the party proceeds to a floor vote. The amendment would establish a lengthy process to nominate a candidate, first by secret-ballot then by roll-call vote along with question-and-answer periods to hash out disagreements behind closed doors. But House Republicans passed a motion to table that amendment Wednesday.
Now, members are divided about how to proceed. “I personally prefer we not bringing it to the floor. But I think we can have roll call votes in conference and figure out who can get there,” Representative Andy Ogles, who is supporting Jordan and not Scalise, tells National Review. “That’s what we were advocating for yesterday and that idea was shot down.”
A handful of members are so frustrated by House Republican holdouts’ refusal to unify behind Scalise that they’re calling for a floor vote to hold members accountable for not getting in line.
“We need to go to the floor,” says Representative John Rutherford (R., Fla.). “Nobody wants to go to the floor and be embarrassed… as we can hide out behind closed doors in anonymity of a closed room. Nobody’s gonna be held accountable so nobody’s going to change their mind. I want the American to be able to see who’s voting for whom and let them explain why they’re not following the rules.”
But the counter-argument is that a floor vote may only reward detractors for their opposition with fundraising efforts and media attention, much like the party saw in January when McCarthy secured his gavel after an excruciating fifteen rounds of voting on the floor.
“There are a couple of people that think somehow that sunshine will be an antiseptic enough to kind of push it along. I’m not convinced of that,” Representative Bill Huizenga (R., Mich.) tells National Review “Frankly, the experience from January showed that those who were doing that got positive feedback.”
“I do not think we should go to the floor,” says Byron Donalds (R., Fla.). “We have some members who want to. I just don’t agree with them on that. This is a different situation than January. We are where we are. I think you got to give Steve the opportunity to fix that. He’s trying to do that now we’ll see if he can.”
Given the unproductiveness of Thursday afternoon’s closed-door session, Roy’s rule-change proposal could gain momentum over the next few days should members continue to dig in their heels in opposition to Scalise—though at this point anything is on the table.
Morale is in the gutter. The fate of the House Republican conference is so uncertain at this point that members are openly calling into question their colleagues’ motivations for stalling the process.
“I have no idea what their endgame is,” Representative Dan Meuser tells National Review “If you shoot for the stars, sometimes you’ve got to settle for the moon.”
This is a developing story