WASHINGTON, D.C. — It’s a question being asked more and more here in Washington as the coronavirus spreads: Is it safe for members of Congress to continue traveling here to legislate?
- Remote voting would allow members of Congress to work from home
- While not prohibited in constitution, it has never been agreed to
- Some Ohio lawmakers want to start it as coronavirus spreads; others don’t
Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) doesn’t think so.
“Whether it’s an act of terrorism or whether it’s bioterrorism or whether it’s a virus like this one, there may be instances going forward where Congress cannot or should not gather,” he said in an interview on Tuesday. “And in those rare cases, we ought to have the ability, in a safe and secure way, to be able to vote remotely.”
Portman and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) have introduced a resolution that would let Senate leadership allow remote voting for up to 30 days. If another 30 days were needed after that, the Senate would vote to renew the resolution.
At least 14 other senators have endorsed the idea — but party leaders have not.
On the House side, the rules committee issued this report on Monday that sys “remote voting would raise serious security, logistical, and constitutional challenges.”
I asked John Fortier, with the Bipartisan Policy Center, if the constitution or rules of Congress prohibit remote voting.
“It’s never been done and it is not anticipated by the rules,” he said. “It is not banned by the rules, but there are a lot of things both in the constitution, law and rules which presume that members of Congress will be here.”
But the coronavirus is causing a more serious discussion about it.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who has been driving back and forth from Ohio to Washington to avoid flying, told me that in a unique moment like this, most work can be done over the phone or video conference (like our interview that we taped on Tuesday).
“So we can do everything that way and there’s no reason we couldn’t vote that way too,” Brown said. “I wouldn’t want to make it our habit.”
And that’s a sticking point. Members of Congress like being able to come here to Washington, meet on the House and Senate floors, and debate and legislate in-person.
But the growing threat of the coronavirus is becoming hard to ignore, especially when the average age of a U.S. senator right now is 63 and for U.S. House members, it’s pushing 58, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Add to that the fact that, based on the little we know about the coronavirus so far, it seems the older you are, the more at-risk you can be.
I spoke with three of Ohio’s U.S. representatives over Skype and FaceTime and asked them about the idea of remote voting.
“While I wouldn’t support remote voting on an ongoing basis, during an emergency like this, I think it’s wholly appropriate,” said Rep. Steve Stivers (R, 15th Congressional District).
“We could do a very public vote right here,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D, 13th Congressional District) said. “I can do FaceTime live and say, ‘Hey, I’m a yes on this, on this particular vote.’”
“It would be a massive change to the way to operate,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R, 8th Congressional District). “And I just think there’s a lot of value in collaboration.”
So far, two House members and one senator have tested positive for the coronavirus; and a few dozen other lawmakers are in self-quarantine as a precaution. None of Ohio’s lawmakers are on that list, as of Wednesday evening.
And if you’ve been following the news from here in Washington and have heard the term ‘unanimous consent’ recently, that’s different from remote voting.
Unanimous consent is when every member of the House or Senate agrees to vote for something, without having to be in D.C. to do it.
Remote voting would require a way for every lawmaker to cast a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote while *not* on Capitol Hill.