WASHINGTON — House Democratic leadership publicly criticized Representatives Jared Golden and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez for breaking party lines to support Republicans on a key procedural vote on Tuesday. The two Democrats voted in favor of a GOP rule, which is necessary for determining how bills will be considered, after Republicans faced enough defections to defeat the measure. The vote passed 210-208.
Bipartisan votes for rules are uncommon in the House of Representatives. If Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Golden (D-Maine) had not voted with Republicans, the House would likely have stalled, hindering the Republican agenda for the week.
“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,” House Democratic leadership stated in a joint statement on Tuesday. “It necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order.”
As a result of their votes, Democrats were compelled to take a challenging vote on a resolution denouncing socialism, which 192 Democrats opposed. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is positioned to become House Speaker if Democrats regain control of the House after the upcoming midterm elections.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was known for maintaining party discipline, and this incident highlighted the challenges Jeffries may face in managing the Democratic Party. “Voting for the rule is something that I, as Speaker, never— We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” Pelosi told Politico in response to the defections. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”
Some Democrats have proposed various punitive measures against Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden, including removing them from their committee assignments for the remainder of the year. Golden is not seeking reelection, while Gluesenkamp Perez is running in a highly competitive race.
Both representatives indicated that their votes were influenced by the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act, which was part of the bills that the procedural rule allowed for consideration. “They want people to always vote yes or no on procedural votes, even if it were like cutting off their own nose to spite their face,” Golden stated to reporter Natalie Fertig afterward. The lobster legislation postpones the implementation of new fishing regulations aimed at protecting whales until 2035. Golden noted that without the bill, approximately 18,000 jobs in Maine could be at risk.
“When I first got into Congress, lobstermen were terrified at the scale of these proposed new regulations [to protect whales],” he recounted. “It was unworkable to the point where there would be hard discussions in communities about which families get to keep fishing and which had to give it up.”
Gluesenkamp Perez expressed similar sentiments, criticizing the disconnect between Washington and the needs of working people in coastal areas. “Nature is not a terrarium—and you don’t get effective environmentalism without the input of people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water—whether we’re talking about lobsters or sea lions—working people need a seat at the table,” she wrote following the Democratic dispute.
The Post reached out to Golden’s and Gluesenkamp Perez’s offices for comments. Prior to the unexpected procedural vote, the House had passed a measure to prevent a government shutdown, ensuring government operations continue through December 11. This was achieved under a procedure known as suspension of the rules, which requires two-thirds support to pass. House GOP leadership faced challenges over the summer from several Republican representatives who disrupted rules and effectively stalled the House floor.