menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

House absenteeism can imperil vote results, especially in a narrowly divided Congress

18 13
30.05.2024

Member absenteeism is not a new thing. The First Congress in 1789 was supposed to convene in New York City’s Federal Hall on March 4. But the House had to wait until April 1 before it could muster a quorum to conduct business. It was the victim of bad weather, bad roads, illness and travel distances.

After electing a Speaker on the first day, the next day it appointed a select committee on rules to recommend a body of rules by which the House could operate. The four rules reported on April 13 were on the “Duties of the Speaker,” “Decorum and Debate,” the “Committee of the Whole” and “Bills.” The second rule contained a section on voting that, when finally adopted a few days later, simply required members to be present each day, and, if not, either have leave or be sick. Otherwise, they were to be taken into custody by the sergeant-at-arms.

The select rules committee was fleshing out the clear dictates of the Constitution in Article I, section 5, which provides that “a majority of each [House] shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day-to-day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent Members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.”

That rule survives today in House Rule III, clause 1, on........

© The Hill


Get it on Google Play