There are a lot of committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Some are very prestigious. The Ways & Means Committee handles taxes and entitlements. The Finance Committee oversees Wall Street. The Judiciary Committee has a wide mandate and is responsible for looking into impeachable offenses. Obviously, there are weighty responsibilities involved with serving on the Armed Services Committee. In normal times, there isn’t much prestige or even advantage associated with serving on the House Administration Committee.
They spend most of their time overseeing management of the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution and National Zoo, the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police, the Government Publishing Office, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services. In addition to that, they’re also responsible for providing the funding to other committees and individual members of Congress.
But they have one other responsibility that is periodically a very big deal.
The Committee’s jurisdiction over federal elections requires it to consider proposals to amend federal election law and to monitor congressional elections across the United States. The Committee was instrumental in the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter called the most meaningful improvement in election laws and voting safeguards in a generation. This law provided more than $3 billion dollars for the upgrades of voting equipment and procedures to make the voting process more accessible and to guard against fraud.
The current chairman of the committee is Republican Gregg Harper of Mississippi, a state with possibly the worst and most violent historical record on voting and civil rights in the country. A former chairman of the Rankin County, Mississippi Republican Party, Harper was assigned as an observer during the 2000 Florida presidential recount. He’s only served as chairman since the beginning of this Congress in January 2017. On the Democratic side, former chairman and current ranking member Bob Brady of Philadelphia is retiring. As next in seniority, it’s likely that Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California will serve as the chairperson of the committee when the next Congress convenes in January 2019. Fortunately, she has plenty of experience and has been overseeing implementation of the Help America Vote Act for over fifteen years.
That is likely to come in handy as Florida heads to a reprise of the 2000 debacle, this time with numerous offices on the line, including the seats for governor and U.S. Senate. Just north, in Georgia, all manner of shenanigans have been employed by Secretary of State Brian Kemp in his effort to win the governorship. And in Arizona, and several congressional races around the country, we could be headed to recounts that expose flaws and injustices and security breaches in our voting systems.
Even before it became clear that we are headed for the same kind of controversies that surrounded the Bush v. Gore race in 2000, the House Democratic leadership was expressing a desire to use their new majority status to make a priority out of outlawing “gerrymandering of congressional districts and restoring key enforcement provisions to the Voting Rights Act.” It appears that Rep. Lofgren will spearhead that effort.
She is uniquely placed for the job because in addition to having the gavel on the House Administration Committee, she’s also a senior member of the Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction on the Voting Rights Act.
You may see her play other prominent roles. The House Administration Committee oversees sexual harassment rules and training and can even determine things like the number of changing tables that are installed in the Capitol complex’s bathrooms. As the likely chairperson of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Control, she will surely have some hearings on the Trump administration’s child separation policy and other criminal acts related to shoring up their support with white nationalists. But it’s on voting issues that she’s going to be perhaps the most influential and important member of Congress.
It has been a long climb. Lofgren was first elected to Congress nearly a quarter century ago, in 1994. Back in September, I wrote A Good Progressive With Seniority Beats a Good Progressive Without It to make the point that people are putting too much faith in the freshman class of newly elected congresspeople to bring about change. I was thinking at the time about the ouster of Massachusetts representative Michael Capuano in a primary, but I was also thinking about people like Zoe Lofgren.
There are a lot of exciting people who will be entering Congress for the first time in January, but they will struggle to have much influence because that’s the nature of how Congress works. Rep. Lofgren put in 24 years of work to get to the point where she can drive American policy on elections and voting rights. She’s been working on these issues in an oversight role for decades now and has a wealth of knowledge and experience to work with. Would it have been better to vote her out in a primary just so we can have new blood or someone who is perhaps better on this or that issue important to progressives?
There is something at least a few of the freshmen congresspeople can do though. Because no one really wants to serve on the House Administration Committee since it doesn’t directly serve a home district or attract a lot of political lobbyist money, there will be a few slots available for anyone wise enough to ask. We have freshmen members from South Florida like Donna Shalala and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. Lucy McBath was just elected in Georgia’s 6th District in the Atlanta suburbs. Maybe they’d like a seat at the table when the House convenes and gets to work on reforming our electoral system once again.
Rep. Lofgren can use their help and I’m sure she’ll make a good mentor.
Excellent diary. Please do more of this type, which educate us on who is who, and how their positions, while not getting the media attention other positions do, are very important for the reforms that are vitally needed.
.
since you’re talking about my neighborhood now I will nitpick, Lofgren is from Palo Alto originally but represents a district 20+ miles south of there, including most of San Jose.
she’s the only one of the 3 south bay reps who has never represented me, but I got the idea that she’s pretty smart. and i had that idea before i read her bio and saw she went to Stanford. I’m looking forward to seeing what she can do as Chair.
. . . cemetery visit and ceremony.
Everybody seems to be credulously chasing after that “official story” excuse (i.e., rain/weather) for the cancellation, with decent folks mocking and condemning him for it (justifiably, if that were the real reason for the cancellation).
But I think (and I think Ockham would approve) that eschaton commenter PSB’s friend sussed out the real reason here.
Makes a lot of sense that DJT refused to go because his name was not on the plaque.
But he would have known this before the trip was arranged, no?
Neither did he get the military parade!
And he is not staying for the 3 day meeting!
Then why did he agree to the trip in the first place?
I certainly would not assume so. In fact that looks very plausibly like the sort of thing his handlers would have kept him in the dark about. Which, when he found out, would then just have added to the fit of pique leading to the cancellation.
But did he know about that in advance, either?
Lofgren can and should start to do the heavy lifting — hold hearings, solicit public comments, etc. — for legislation in 2021, to guarantee voting rights across the country. Before 2021, the Senate and President are obstacles to fixing the broken voting systems.
There’s a much longer list of needed reforms, including as notable examples:
There’s a long list of problems, unfortunately.
I like the list – we need to do this.
We should try to prioritize and also look for low-controversy or bipartisan opportunities. Conflict of interest rules, an independent commission in charge of ongoing standards development and auditing – more on this.
The election commission is going to have to have a big IT and physical security component, to hold voter registration rolls, voting transactions, voting machines, and other aspects of vote handling to an acceptable but high standard. It’s going to have to write and review these rules, and then implement regular auditing. 2 separate agents?
What can we do to kill off the right wing’s illegal alien voter meme? We need policy and technique that can assure the reasonable that non-eligibles can’t vote without creating a massive burden for voters and taxpayers.
I think Congress can only regulate federal elections, hopefully States will follow with their elections to make it easier and cheaper to be in compliance.
I would rather have Adam Schiff – my former representative – lead the House investigations than any newcomer.
However, given the chaos that will surely come in the lame duck session, and all the obstacles that the agencies under investigation will throw up for the next Congress, it’s not clear how much of any of this will be effective (a la the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings).
Even if say Lofgren’s committee recommended voting rights measures, who will implement them?
And even if laws are passed, will the administration find ways to thwart it ( a la ignoring the court’s orders about separated children)?
Until people start ignoring unlawful orders, I don’t see a way out of this.
This is a great post on this sometimes seemingly obscure committee. The electoral system and specifically the relentless corruption aand gaming of the system to preserve their minority rule is their single most important tool for transforming the country into an authoritarian police state. That’s why electoral reform must be paramount in 2021 if the Democrats take over unified government. Unfortunately, the Roberts majority is militantly against electoral reform and will probably rule against any measure. Which will mean court packing will be the only way out for democracy in Amrica.
Can the House do all these things concerning voting on their own or must the senate agree?
The Senate must agree.
However, you can build momentum for things with good hearings, including investigatory on-site hearings.
Terrific post, Booman. Lots of good history, detail and analysis.
Just want to point out that sometimes losing a veteran legislator who knows their way around can end up as a benefit for a party.
Liz Holtzman’s 1972 primary upset of longtime Judiciary Committee chairman Manny Celler is one example. Not only did Holtzman prove to be a solid MOC, but her victory cleared the path for Peter Rodino (who had “only” 24 years of seniority) to preside over the committee’s impeachment hearings and votes—something he did much more effectively than Celler likely would have. http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2018/6/27/13555/4669
HAVA meant the end of paper ballots in my part of Texas.
I hope that next time around, the reform is a bit more helpful than that.