And while Democrats are ready to save him from Greene’s (R-Ga.) first deportation attempt next week, they are clear that their mercy won’t necessarily be permanent if the Georgia rioter, or anyone else, tries again. They also have little political incentive to give Johnson more permanent protection unless he opens broader negotiations over possible power-sharing in the House of Representatives. That price is too high for the speaker to pay.
“I don’t know how you put that genie back in the box,” Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) said of amending the so-called motion to vacate the speakership, the revision of which he supports, this year.
It leaves Johnson virtually powerless to officially confront one of the biggest threats to his leadership — even as he has criticized the low threshold for voting on removing a speaker for “harming this office and the majority.” – and opens the door for more dissatisfied colleagues. try to force a confrontation with him in the coming months.
Not to mention that most Republicans doubt Johnson or the Democrats have much to gain from arguing about changing the rule. With just over six months to go before the next round of leadership races, a growing number of Republicans are already predicting that Johnson would not win the top spot again if he were to run. Trying to protect the speakership from its disgruntled hardliners only invites more of them to lash out, making the speaker’s future path to remaining in leadership even more difficult.
“There would be too much pushback” if Johnson tried to raise the threshold to force a referendum on him, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) said, advising Republicans to focus until Election Day on issues as the border rather than on the “distraction” of a fight to change rules.
“November is just around the corner,” he added. “The opportunity to revise the rules as a whole is just around the corner.”
Internal backlash over a possible change to the rules for removing speakers is already affecting Johnson, thanks to preemptive threats from some conservatives that they would side with Greene in favor of firing him if he pursues such a change. Notably, Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) both warned Johnson late last month that they could support impeachment if he tried to reform the motion to evict.
The Louisianan wants none of that drama in November as he tries to keep the conference interested in legislation that will unite Republicans and give them tools to win battlefield battles critical to his chances of retaining the majority.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats are already planning to make it harder to fire a speaker if they win back the House of Representatives in January. Until then, they see it as the Republicans’ responsibility to come up with an offer to solve a problem created by the Republicans. Moreover, Democrats can identify the political reality: more chaos from the Republican Party can only help them on the campaign trail.
“I’m not a cheap date. … Our job is not to bail out Republicans every time they try to topple their president,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). He made clear that deal-making would be necessary for several Johnson bailout votes, adding that “if it comes to that, that’s a discussion he and Hakeem [Jeffries] have to have.”
McGovern is not the only progressive grumbling about the lifeline Democrats are offering to Johnson, whose conservatism makes him the party’s natural ideological enemy. Many of them are also not really in the mood to get the Republicans out of future problems.
“I would see this as another step to help Mike Johnson, who supported overturning the election and has been an advocate for crazy right-wing ideas in the country,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said of changing the rules for a voice that dismisses the speaker.
Democrats have already outlined the kind of power-sharing they could pursue with the Republican Party in exchange for more lasting support for Johnson. In an op-ed last year, Jeffries wrote broadly that “the House of Representatives should be restructured to promote consensus governance and facilitate up-or-down votes on bills that have strong bipartisan support,” including changes to the rules that “reflect the inescapable reality that Republicans depend on Democratic support to do the basic work of governing.”
Last fall, a bipartisan coalition tried to reach a deal that would have prevented McCarthy’s impeachment in exchange for adjusting the partisan makeup of the powerful Rules Committee, which controls which bills come to the floor, and raising the motion to raise the threshold to vacate. Those conversations ultimately came to nothing.
But as the threat from Greene looms, Republicans have increasingly floated the idea of a rule change in private meetings — including with Johnson. The speaker said last month in a post on
However, the idea is still discussed, including during a lunch for pro-government Republicans, according to a member present. In addition, Republicans in the business-oriented Main Street Caucus personally urged Johnson at a recent meeting to change the rule as soon as possible, according to the two Republicans present at that meeting.
One of those Republicans, North Dakota Rep. Kelly Armstrong, characterized his speech to Johnson at the Main Street rally as: “I don’t know how you can get a one-vote motion overturned when you have a one-vote majority. ”
To help Johnson move away from the horse-trading involved in a rule change proposal, such a blueprint would likely come from rank-and-file members, not party leaders. But many of Johnson’s allies acknowledge that if Democrats make too many demands, it will likely close the door to changing the rules until January.
“That will probably require some compromises with Democrats, and I’m not sure the speaker wants to do that,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), pointing to issues such as potentially changing the balance of power. on committees.
Democratic interest in compromise is also likely to further confuse centrist Republicans, who were furious for months after McCarthy failed to get help from the other party. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus and a longtime McCarthy ally, argued that Democrats should not demand concessions in exchange for changing a rule that arouses bipartisan distaste.
Fitzpatrick pointed out that “very few people in the House” think the one-vote threshold for a motion to evict is a “good idea” and predicted that would change next year, regardless of which party gets the majority.
“Doing the right thing should be reason enough to support something,” he said.