Speaker Johnson, Luna Strike Deal on Proxy Voting

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., have struck a deal on her push to have the chamber vote on a resolution allowing new parents to vote by proxy.

“Speaker Johnson and I have reached an agreement and are formalizing a procedure called ‘live/dead pairing’ — dating back to the 1800s — for the entire conference to use when unable to physically be present to vote (for instance new parents, bereaved, emergencies),” Luna wrote in a post on the X social media platform late Sunday afternoon.

She also thanked President Donald Trump for his guidance, “as well as all of those who worked to get this change done.”

She added, “This is becoming the most modern, pro-family Congress we’ve ever seen.”

Johnson suffered a political defeat early last week when he tried to use a procedural gimmick to prevent Luna’s discharge petition from coming to a vote on the House floor.

Instead of achieving the outcome he expected, Johnson was left to stand by helplessly as nine Republicans joined with the chamber’s Democrats to keep the petition alive.

As a result of the votes, the procedural gambit shut down the Republicans’ agenda for the week, and Johnson had no choice but to tell members to go home.

On Thursday the pressure grew on Johnson, who opposes proxy voting on constitutional grounds, when Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he likes the idea of proxy voting.

“I’m going to let the speaker make the decision, but … I’m in favor of that. I would agree with that.”

Noting that he’d spoken to Luna the day before, Trump added, “I don’t know why it’s controversial.”

As part of the deal, Luna has reportedly promised not to force a vote on her discharge petition, which would have allowed members who are new parents to have another lawmaker vote for them for up to 12 weeks.

At the same time, Johnson has said he’s looking for ways to make the Capitol more amenable to young mothers, including establishing a nursing room in the building.

According to the Congressional Research Services, under House Rule XX, clause 3, the practice of “pairing” involves having a member who is going to be absent during a vote arrange with a member on the opposite side of a specific question and present, to “pair” their votes, “thus allowing the absent member to have recorded how he would have voted had he been present.

“This particular type of pair, where one member is absent and the other present for the vote, is referred to as a ‘live pair,’ although the term no longer appears in the House rules,” the research service says. 

Prior to a rules change at the start of the 106th Congress in 1999, the House recognized, in addition to a live pair, two other types of pairs. 

In a “specific pair” (also called a “special” or “dead” pair) both members were absent, but they made their positions on a vote known beforehand, and their names were listed in the Congressional Record following the vote. 

The third type of pair, a “general pair,” was shown in the Congressional Record without an indication of the positions of the members.

As of Monday morning it was unclear which of these methods will ultimately be adopted by the current Congress.

Under current House rules, a pair remains an option only under the specific circumstances stated in Rule XX, clause 3. 

This rule enables the speaker to “direct the clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call by call of the roll. … members appearing after the second call, but before the result is announced, may vote or announce a pair,” the research service says.

In practice, the present member casts a vote, then withdraws it, announces that he or she has a pair, identifies the absent member of the pair, and announces the opposing positions on the vote. 

The initial vote of the present member is then withdrawn, and the vote does not count in the vote total. 

Because two of the three previous forms of pairing are no longer allowed and a third form is permitted only under the limited conditions stated in Rule XX, clause 3, the Congressional Research Service notes an alternative to pairing was established.

Under this scenario, a member who is absent or otherwise unable to vote may announce to the House how he or she would have voted had he or she been present. Such announcements take the following form:

Member: Madame Speaker, on roll call 123, I was unavoidably detained as a result of __________. Had I been present I would have voted “aye.” I ask unanimous consent that this statement appear in the Congressional Record following the announcement of the vote.

A member may also submit a signed statement through his or her party cloakroom, a long, narrow room at the rear of the House or Senate chamber where members meet for private conversations, phone calls, and snacks, for printing in the Congressional Record without announcing intent to do so on the floor. 

Such explanations appear immediately following the missed vote in the Record if it is received on the same day as the vote. 

If the explanation is submitted in this way rather than stated on the House floor, the explanation will appear in distinctive type when it is printed in the Congressional Record, the research service says.

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and @DanMcCue