House Democrats Golden and Perez Face Potential Consequences After Voting with Republicans

<p>Two centrist House Democrats, Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), who voted with Republicans to advance a procedural motion, are facing possible disciplinary actions from party leaders. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) expressed his discontent publicly, indicating that the leadership was caught off guard by their votes.</p><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>Jeffries' approach has garnered support from some members of the party.</p><hr /><ul><li>Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) stated, "I 'effing love it. We have to draw a bright line here and kick some ass or this will be the new norm."</li><li>Another House Democrat remarked that Jeffries and his team are correct in wanting to set an example with the two members.</li></ul><p><strong>Catch up quick: </strong>Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez voted with Republicans to pass a procedural rule that sets the terms for House debate on a package of bills. This rule included a Republican resolution denouncing "socialism in all its forms," which upset many Democrats due to its inclusion of language supporting the GOP's SAVE America Act.</p><ul><li>While it is common for lawmakers to diverge from party lines on legislation, procedural votes typically align with party affiliations.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>In a joint statement, Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) indicated plans to address the situation.</p><ul><li>They stated, "The decision by two of our colleagues to blindside the entire House Democratic Caucus and join with the Republican majority to pass a procedural rule on the brink of failing represents a significant breach of trust. It necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order."</li></ul><p><strong>The other side: </strong>Golden defended his vote, noting that the procedural rule included a bill he co-authored aimed at protecting lobstermen from federal regulations concerning whales. He stated, "They couldn't possibly think I would vote against my own bill, right?" Gluesenkamp Perez echoed this sentiment, citing Golden's bill as the reason for her vote.</p><ul><li>Neither office responded immediately to requests for comments regarding the leadership's joint statement.</li></ul><p><strong>What we're hearing: </strong>Following the vote, discussions about potential consequences emerged among members. A House Democrat, who spoke anonymously, noted that while only a few explicitly mentioned punishment, the sentiment was widespread.</p><ul><li>Democratic leadership expressed frustration that the two members put their colleagues in a difficult position regarding upcoming votes.</li><li>Some lawmakers suggested stripping Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez of their committee assignments as a possible consequence.</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines: </strong>Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez are facing significant backlash from colleagues who believe their actions undermined the party's position ahead of the November midterm elections.</p><ul><li>One House Democrat stated, "Golden and MGP not only broke trust with our leadership and the caucus writ-large, it was also a deeply selfish act."</li></ul><p><strong>Reality check: </strong>Even those upset with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez acknowledged that any actions taken might be largely symbolic and could backfire politically, particularly for Gluesenkamp Perez, who is running for reelection in a Republican-leaning district.</p><ul><li>Golden is set to retire on January 3.</li><li>A moderate House Democrat mentioned that the response outlined in Jeffries' statement should be consistent across all factions of the caucus.</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines: </strong>While Jeffries and Clark issued a joint statement, there were reports of tension between their offices following the vote.</p><ul><li>Jeffries initially pointed to Clark for not being informed about the votes, while a spokesperson for Clark emphasized that she also did not receive prior notice of the votes.</li></ul><p><strong>The bottom line: </strong>Rep. Huffman concluded, "I think if you throw all of your colleagues under the bus by voting with the other party on a procedural rule vote, you should lose your committee assignments and get reassigned to the arts and crafts committee."</p>