That came just minutes after the House finally ended a three-week battle that culminated in the election of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) last fall. The House voted to remove former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from his position but not before thoroughly eliminating three other candidates for speaker.
I asked a House Republican leader what would be different if Johnson were in power.
What was the reaction?
The speakers will be different, but the members will be the same.
What are contingent elections and what would happen if one occurred in 2024?
And so here we are, nearly a year into the annual effort to avert a government shutdown by October 1st.
Late Wednesday morning, Johnson backed away from plans to fund the government until late March and require people to prove they are citizens to vote. Some MPs objected to a long-term stopgap spending plan that would have renewed all spending at current levels for another six months. But others had issues with including a citizenship clause in the spending package. Johnson is thought to have fallen 20 to 30 votes short of passing the bill. It is not an emergency. Parliament has two and a half weeks until the deadline.
So what did Congress accomplish this week? Nothing. In fact, this week has only highlighted the deep divisions within the Republican Party.
The speakers will be different, but the members will be the same.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, was pictured in front of the U.S. Capitol. (Getty Images/AP)
“We're going to continue to work on this issue,” Johnson said Wednesday after withdrawing the bill. “I want lawmakers from both parties to explain to the American people why only American citizens should be able to vote in American elections.”
That means there will be no vote this week, and it's anyone's guess whether Johnson can manage to get the bill through. Last week, he sounded confident a government shutdown could be avoided, arguing “there is no alternative. This is a fair fight.”
If Johnson had presented the bill to Congress on Wednesday, it would have been defeated. After all, “there is no alternative.” The Senate could have then shoved Johnson on a short-term bill that would have been effective until November or December. Johnson has no bargaining chips. By delaying the fight, Johnson hopes to prove to the right that he is fighting. He is also trying to impress former President Trump, who posted on Truth Social on Tuesday that Republicans should “stop this bill” unless they get “absolute assurances about the security of our elections.”
But some conservatives question how committed Johnson is to a bill that combines funding and citizenship verification. Johnson's nemesis, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, opposes the idea of a temporary spending plan, commonly known as a “continuing resolution,” or “CR.”
Senate to swear in Menendez's replacement following New Jersey senator's conviction and resignation
“What is Chairman Johnson going to do? Is he going to fight for this? If he's not going to fight for it, why are we voting for this?” Greene asked. “Otherwise, it's pointless. It's really a waste of everybody's time.”
Many conservatives expected Johnson to take a two-step approach: unveil a spending plan that would be filled with poison pills that would please the right, and perhaps even former President Trump, but would face disaster in the Senate. The question then was whether Johnson would be forced to face a “clean” bill from the Democratic-controlled Senate, or whether he would ultimately work with Democrats to pass a bill that would avert a government shutdown. Both options are anathema to many on the right.
The fact that former President Trump has intervened in the fight has some House Republicans worried.
“I disagree with President Trump on the government shutdown. The House margin is very small. I think a government shutdown could swing the House of Representatives in elections and we could lose the House,” Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) told Fox Business. “If we lose the House, President Trump is the Democratic speaker and we already know what's going to happen in that case. Democrats are just going to obstruct his presidency.”
Republican presidential candidate and former US President Donald Trump attends a Fox News town hall meeting with Sean Hannity at New Holland Arena in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 4, 2024. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Democrats believed the gaffe was emblematic of Republicans' struggle to run the House, whether under Johnson or McCarthy.
“I think the Republican majority has demonstrated over the last two years that they can't govern. They can't hold the party together. They can't hold the power together. They can't compromise within their own party, let alone the Democratic Party,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Some Republicans viewed Johnson's strategy as a sham – a “show” vote that will have no real impact on this fall's election, especially with early voting now beginning.
“There is no implementation that can affect federal election law in the next 53, 54-odd days, so to say this is going to have any effect as an adjunct to CR is a travesty,” fumed Rep. Corey Mills, R-Fla.
Journalist's Note: Why Foreign Policy Matters
Bipartisan defense hardliners opposed the plan because it would freeze all spending through March. The Defense Department gets more than half of the funding Congress appropriates each year, so the plan would hit the biggest beneficiaries of congressional spending the hardest.
“The military can't start or stop programs. It's a terrible idea to put the Pentagon in that position,” said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Republicans appear to be split into several camps: those who want a longer stopgap spending bill and the citizenship certification clause; those who want a shorter spending bill but keep the vote certification requirement; and defense hawks who worry that a long-term stopgap spending plan would endanger the military. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) shares Adam Smith's concerns. Some, like Corey Mills, think the voting clause is a smokescreen and unworkable. Others, like Greene, think it's just camouflage and Johnson will cave later. Finally, a small number of conservatives are opposed to any stopgap spending bill.
So you understand the problem.
But despite this impasse, Republicans can claim “election security” as a campaign issue, which appeals to MAGA voters and former President Trump. Moreover, talking about election security alludes to the porous US border, which therefore appeals to some Republicans.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) answers questions during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2020. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Democrats have refuted claims that illegal immigrants are voting.
“I think there are five documented cases. This is clearly not a big deal. It's a political issue,” said House Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nanette Barragan (D-Calif.).
“It's extremely rare for foreign nationals to vote,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.
But Johnson has to fight on this one. Many Republicans say he should, including former President Trump. And if he doesn't, the specter of Kevin McCarthy lurks in the hallways of Congress.
The only way to avoid a government shutdown on October 1 is to pass a joint Democratic-Republican bill. Everyone in Congress knows this. But such a move might not be good for Johnson.
Republicans are also itching to get home and campaign. The House is scheduled to stay in session until Sept. 27. It had been thought the House might be able to wrap up business and leave by Sept. 20, but that's not on the cards now.
Click here to get the FOX News app
So what happens?
It's a calculation. It comes down to which group of Republicans is bigger: the group that wants to go home and campaign, or the group that wants to fight over election security. Different chairman. Same members. And they have to make a decision.
