Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Big rules changes required, and quick, for Capitol Hill to respond to coronavirus

Opinion

Big rules changes required, and quick, for Capitol Hill to respond to coronavirus

"The rapid spread of coronavirus has made it unsafe and unwise for members of Congress — many of whom are among those most likely to become grievously ill — to convene in person," argue Daniel Schuman & Marci Harris.

Philip Rozenksi/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Schuman writes the First Branch Forecast weekly newsletter and is policy director for Demand Progress, a nonprofit group advocating for civil liberties, civil rights and government reform. Harris is a former House aide and CEO of Popvox Inc., an information and resources platform for civic engagement and legislating.

The rapid spread of coronavirus has made it unsafe and unwise for members of Congress — many of whom are among those most likely to become grievously ill — to convene in person.

Current rules, however, require members to be physically present to vote on the floors of the House and Senate. If our legislative branch is to respond effectively to this crisis and play its vital constitutional role as a check on the executive and judicial branches, it must act now to give itself the option to convene in a temporary emergency remote session.

As speaker, Nancy Pelosi has the power to convene the House outside of the chamber if the public interest requires it; Senate leaders have similar powers. Whether the House or Senate could convene online in virtual session, however, is a different matter and likely would require each chamber to vote — and in person — to amend their rules in advance.

The unique circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic make it necessary for the House and Senate to do so now.


By Friday, members of both chambers will leave Washington for a long-scheduled week of working in their districts or states, a time when no official votes are held. (All congressional travel has been canceled for next week.) With multiple governors declaring states of emergency and the spread of the virus accelerating, we may face worse circumstances than now by the time Congress is set to reconvene in 10 days. That may include a federal emergency declaration and the invocation of presidential emergency powers; the situation ahead will likely require legislation and congressional oversight concerning the emergency response, in addition to Congress' normal duties.

Most likely, it will be difficult to safely bring members back to Washington. That is why Congress must act before the week is over to permit its leadership to temporarily convene the chambers in emergency remote sessions — where members are deemed present even if they participate online — and to direct relevant committees to set rules and provide mechanisms for legislative functions to be done virtually. And that should include voting.

This will not be easy. Congress has underinvested in its own technology for decades, and online deliberations and voting requires both money and technological improvisation to adapt congressional and private sector tools. While many organizations are transitioning to remote work, Congress is not a business. Legislating is a relationship-driven process and in-person votes are where much work is done.

And so this emergency measure should be time-limited and require regular votes for renewal. Any effort must ensure that the public and media have access to all official deliberations.

All Americans hope these fears are overblown, that current efforts to mitigate harm will be successful and that our health system will meet the needs of those impacted by the virus. But in the tragic event these hopes do not bear out, Americans expect their elected officials to make wise decisions — including maintaining their own health and safety so they collectively can carry out their duties and fulfill their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less