Two House Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, are facing intense criticism from their party after voting with Republicans on a crucial procedural measure. The move, which allowed Republican leaders to advance several bills, surprised and angered Democratic leadership, who described it as a "significant breach of trust" that "necessitates a serious response."
The vote in question was on a "rule," which dictates the terms of debate and amendments for legislation on the House floor. Typically, the majority party is responsible for securing the passage of these rules, and bipartisan support is rare, especially without prior consultation.
Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez defected on a procedural vote that would have otherwise failed due to Republican defections. Their votes, combined with Republican support, allowed the House to proceed with debate on measures including a resolution condemning socialism, the SAVE America Act, and a plan to aid the lobster industry. The rule passed by a narrow margin of 210-208.
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., confirmed that neither Golden nor Gluesenkamp Perez had alerted Democratic leadership to their intended votes. "They surprised us," Clark stated. This lack of communication led to frustration among some Democrats, with Rep. Tim Kennedy, D-N.Y., remarking, "There’s a lot to be said for that" when discussing the political adage to "stab someone in the front" rather than "in the back."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., along with Whip Clark and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., issued a joint statement condemning the vote. "It’s a mistake to vote against our caucus. We have to be unified," said Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa.
Golden stated his vote was to protect Maine's lobster industry, which he described as the "backbone" of many coastal communities in his district. "In some towns, 20 to 40 percent of residents hold a lobster license," Golden said.
Despite the explanation, some lawmakers are calling for consequences. "I think there should be consequences," said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., suggested that House Democratic leadership, particularly Jeffries, should have anticipated such defections and engaged with potentially dissenting members beforehand. "You would know who would be the five to eight Democrats who would leverage that [vote]," McCarthy said. "You would have reached out to them."
Jeffries has since spoken with Golden and had a conversation with Gluesenkamp Perez. "Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and myself were able to talk in a very forward looking way about how to make sure that we're all on the same page as we approach the midterm elections and beyond," Jeffries said, describing the discussion as occurring "in a very forward looking way."
When pressed about the implications of the vote for caucus unity and his leadership, Jeffries responded cryptically with the Latin phrase "Res ipsa loquitur," meaning "the thing speaks for itself." The response left some questioning the nature of the promised "serious response" and whether it would be sufficiently forceful to satisfy rank-and-file members demanding accountability.
The situation is particularly delicate as Democrats aim to regain the majority in the upcoming elections, and Gluesenkamp Perez's vote is considered crucial for securing that majority. Furthermore, if Democrats gain control, Jeffries would likely need her support to be elected Speaker in a closely divided chamber.