Interesting Roll Call Votes on DK's Impeachment Resolution

[garybeck]

Thanks to David Swanson afterdowningstreet.org for this
(note, this is from a live blog, so the order of events is reversed)
=======================================================

4:41 The motion to send it to the Judiciary Committee passed with only about 5 Dems voting No and 3 Republicans voting Yes. Presumably the 86 Dems who voted No on tabling believed that to be enough to appease their constituents, while 5 Dems actually had integrity enough to put the Constitution ahead of Pelosi and Hoyer. There was no discussion of a time limit for the Judiciary Committee to report back (even though there are precedents for insisting on one with impeachment resolutions). This bill has, of course, ALREADY been in the Judiciary Committee for months, and that committee has done nothing with it.

You'd think if offense (rather than defense) ever entered Pelosi and Hoyer's heads, they'd want to put an hour of Cheney-bashing debate on TV. But they want at all costs to avoid impeachment, and you can't debate the substance of the charges against Cheney without making an obvious case for impeachment.

Roll call. These 5 Dems voted right: Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Waters, Towns.
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1039

----------

4:19 p.m. There is now a 5-min vote underway on whether to refer to the House Judiciary Committee.

-----------

4:18 p.m. The procedural vote passed just barely (218-194). Of the 218, 3 were Republicans.

Roll call. These 5 Dems voted right: Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Waters, Watson.
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1038

------------

4:14 p.m. The motion to table having failed, Hoyer moved to refer the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. Kucinich tried to avoid that and get a vote on the resolution, but - unable to do that - asked for a vote on the decision to refer to committee. Hoyer withdrew his motion and then unwithdrew his motion. Boehner asked for 40 minutes of debate. Serrano as chair seemed clueless for a while, and then ordered a procedural vote on whether to vote on sending to committee. If this new 15-min vote passes, then they will vote on whether to send to committee.

-------------

4:02 p.m. Over an hour into this 15 min vote, 78 Dems are voting Nay on tabling, joined by 164 Republicans in an apparent stunt to surprise the Dems and bring the issue to the floor -- which the Republicans will regret if the Democrats actually debate it and debate it well (admittedly a remote possibility). They will say over and over and over that this has divided the Democrats. Not outside the Beltway it hasn't. Over 3/4 of Dems want Cheney impeached.

Currently 142 Dems to table, 78 not to , 13 not voting; 28 Repubs to table, 164 not to, and 9 not voting. Most of the Republicans switched their votes, and for some reason the leadership kept the vote open for over an hour, allowing them to do so. No doubt the Republicans want to get the Dem leaders on tape on the floor defending Cheney against impeachment. But how smart is it of them to allow the topic to gain attention? The evidence, after all, is overwhelming that Cheney has committed impeachable offenses.

Roll call. It turns out 86 Democrats voted the right way:
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1037

Abercrombie, Allen, Baca, Baldwin, Braley (IA), Capps, Capuano, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Cohen, Conyers, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeFazio, Dicks, Doggett, Doyle, Ellison, Farr, Filner, Green, Al; Green, Gene; Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hare, Hinchey, Hirono, Hodes, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Inslee, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson (GA), Jones (OH), Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Maloney (NY), McCollum (MN), McDermott, Meeks (NY), Michaud, Miller (NC), Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Napolitano, Ortiz, Pallone, Pascrell, Perlmutter, Price (NC), Rangel, Richardson, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Schakowsky, Scott (VA), Serrano, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Slaughter, Solis, Stark, Stupak, Sutton, Thompson (CA), Tierney, Towns, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Watt, Weiner, Welch (VT), Wexler, Woolsey, Wu, Wynn

There's a lot of overlap between the above list and the list of cosponsors in 2005 of H Res 635. These are congress members with medium grade willingness to put their constituents ahead of Pelosi and Hoyer.

As Linda Boyd points out, several members of the Judiciary Committee who are not cosponsors of H Res 333 voted against tabling: Conyers, Scott, Watt, Wexler, Gutierrez, Sherman, Weiner, Davis.

And 65 Democrats who are not cosponsors of H Res 333 voted against tabling: Abercrombie, Allen, Baca, Braley, Capps, Capuano, CONYERS, Crowley, Cummings, DeFazio, Dicks, Doggett, Doyle, Al Green, Gene, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hare, Hinchey, Hirono, Hodes, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Inslee, Jackson (IL), Jones (OH), Kanjorski, Kapptur, Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Maloney, mcCollum, Meeks, Michaud, Miller (NC), Moore (WI), Napolitano, Ortiz, Pallone, Pascrell, Perlmutter, Price, Rangel, RICHARDSON, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Scott, Serrano, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Slaughter, Solis, Stark, Stupak, Sutton, thompson, Tierney, Towns, Valazquez, Watt, Weiner, Welch, Wexler, Wu.

[demnan]

1. It was surreal

I didn't fully understand until I got home. I was there on the Hill and the aides in Denny's office didn't understand what was going.

Well Denny thought they would table immediately. You have to thank the Republicans for this one (and that's very strange)!

[ClassWarrior]

2. As for those 65 Democrats who are not cosponsors of H Res 333...

...but voted against tabling, I know at least one voted that way because a local IMPEACHMENT group has been educating her, and she's just beginning to understand.

NGU.

[garybeck]

4. then did she vote against sending to the committee?

that doesn't make sense to me.

that's what my rep did.

[ClassWarrior]

8. What I'm saying is an energized local IMPEACHMENT group can have an effect...

...but I'm not sure how she voted on the committee matter. I'll have to look that up.

Anyway, we're making a difference. Visualize IT. And...

NGU.

[garybeck]

3. I don't understand something

why would so many Dems first vote AGAINST tabling, but then AGAINST sending to the Judiciary Committee?

do they want to kill it or not?

maybe I need to ask my congressman, he's one of them.

[mmonk]

6. Cheney's dems wanted it to die in someway, but it wouldn't.

Others got confused and a few knew what they were doing (after the republicans began switching votes).

[onenote]

7. Only five Democrats voted against the referral to Judiciary

Look, the whole thing was a charade. Iniitially, the Democratic leadership hoped to table the resolution and figured that the repubs would go in that direction as well. But even those who opposed tabling didn't really expect or want an hour debate on DK's resolution followed by a vote. As Steve Cohen, who is one of DK's co-sponsors has said, voting on impeachment after one hour of debate would look like a "kangaroo court". The option of referring the matter back to Judiciary was always available. Why that wasn't the first option chosen is something I haven't been able to figure out. But once that was the option, virtually every Democrat, including almost all of DK's co-sponsors joined in rather than keep the resolution of the floor for a vote. Indeed, if all of DK's co-sponsors had opposed the referral, DK's resolution would've gotten its hour of debate followed by a vote (where it would've been resoundingly defeated).

Again, this was mostly something down to bring attention to the issue, not to actually get DK's resolution voted on.

[garybeck]

9. now I guess i'm really confused

Am I wrong in thinking that sending it to the Judiciary Committee is GOOD? ARen't we glad the committee is going to have to deal with it now?

Why does D.S. say that the 5 Dems who voted against sending it to the committee are the ones who voted right?

[ClassWarrior]

10. I think it's good that it's in committee. They haven't disposed of it...

...which would have happened after an hour's debate. The way I see it, it's still alive.

NGU.

[garybeck]

11. so why does DS say that voting to send it to committee was wrong?

if the alternative was to keep it on the floor and then it would have died... shouldn't we be supportive of those who voted to send it to committee, rather than letting it die on the floor?

[ClassWarrior]

15. Who's DS?

NGU.

[onenote]

13. sending the resolution to committee kept it alive (barely)

DS thinks that the five who voted against sending it to the committee are right because DS isn't bothered by the fact that if the resolution hadn't been sent back to committee it would've gotten one hour of debate and then been voted down overwhelmingly in a bi-partisan vote. Maybe he thinks that there would be a benefit in getting members "on the record" on whether to impeach. But the fact is that there was no chance -- none whatsover -- that a majority of the house was going to impeach cheney after one hour of debate. And even co-sponsors of DK's resolution concede this.

Thus we know what would've happened if the motion to refer had been defeated. Any further chance of impeachment hearings/investigations by Judiciary would be dead and gone, never to come back. If the whole house had voted and rejected DK's articles, it would be game, set, match on impeachment.

On the other hand, by sending DK's resolution to committee,the impeachment process still clings, albeit barely, to life. There is absolutely no guarantee that DK's resolution will get a hearing in Committee, but at least its a possibility. In addition, the door remains open for the committee to pursue impeachment through the more common procedure, which involves presening a motion to the full House seeking authorization, funding etc. for an impeachment inquiry by the Judiciary, which could then lead to articles, drafted and approved by the Judiciary Committee, being sent to the floor for consideration. Do I think this will happen? Probably not. But if the co-sponsors of DK's resolution hadn't jumped ship and supported referral over immediate consideration, DK's resolution, and any future consideration of the impeachment question would be dead and buried.

[garybeck]

14. thanks, that explains some of it for sure

it definintely seems surreal, almost like fate is playing into the game somehow.

[MrCoffee]

5. Marcy Kaptur (OH 9) is a good rep

i lived in her district when i was in law school.

[suffragette]

12. "for some reason the leadership kept the vote open for over an hour"

This has been confusing to me. I see it mentioned frequently, but have yet to see a reason why this occurred.
The implication from it seems to be that a choice was available there, to keep the vote open or to have shut it down at some point, which means it could have been shut down by the Democrats when it was first noticed that the Republicans were switching votes , but before they had switched enought to make a difference. If that is really what the leadership wanted, or did they?

So,
was this an error made by the Serrano?
was it done on purpose for some reason?
is there some rule not being mentioned that impacted this?

Can someone who knows more explain this?