Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Court’s Slaughter Decision Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

Court’s Slaughter Decision Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority

This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.

In its recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter, a divided Supreme Court approved an expansive use of presidential power that upsets the Constitutional balance between Congress and the President. The Court approved the President’s summary dismissal of agency leaders (in this case, commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission), notwithstanding a statute signed by a former President and the Court's own precedent specifically forbidding such dismissals. This decision will further politicize and weaponize much of our federal government.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclassifying Faith?: Inside the Department of War’s Revision to Its List of Religions
man holding his hands on open book
Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash

Reclassifying Faith?: Inside the Department of War’s Revision to Its List of Religions

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

How Are Religions Recognized in the U.S. Military?

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering

2018, a nonprofit worker in Michigan named Katie Fahey posted a message online asking if anyone else was tired of politicians drawing their own districts. She had no campaign experience and no political base.

Within two years, the ballot initiative she built, called Voters Not Politicians, had written an independent redistricting commission into the Michigan constitution. Hollywood eventually made a documentary about it, Slay the Dragon, which is a fairly accurate description of what she had actually done.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs outside of the Idaho statehouse.

Protesters rally for abortion rights outside of the Idaho Statehouse in downtown Boise, Idaho, on May 14, 2022.

Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman/AP

Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country

Idaho voters will weigh in on their state’s abortion laws this November. The secretary of state’s office certified a ballot measure that could, if passed, overturn one of the strictest bans in the country, the campaign to restore abortion rights in Idaho confirmed on Monday.

The measure would enact a new law establishing a state right to “reproductive freedom,” which it defines as allowing residents to make their own decisions in areas including fertility treatment, contraception and abortion. But it would not amend the state’s constitution, meaning it could still be overturned by the state’s Republican legislature. Currently, Idaho bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, with a narrow exception if staying pregnant threatens someone’s life.

Keep ReadingShow less