A CASE AGAINST THE REDUCTION OF KEVIN MCCARTHY’S POWER AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

by GIANNA GRANT STAFF WRITER

On January 7, 2023, Kevin McCarthy was elected as Speaker of the House; what was expected to be a swift transition of power became one of the longest Speaker elections in U.S. history due to fifteen rounds of voting. This was largely due to backlash from far-right conservatives who questioned McCarthy’s allegiance to the Republican party and believed that the newly elected Speaker was not conservative enough. This rhetoric caused McCarthy to make concessions regarding his power as Speaker. More specifi- cally, conservatives in the Freedom Caucus advocated for changes such as the institution of term limits for Congress members, the creation of a process that would make the Speaker easier to depose, and raising the nation’s debt ceiling. This election illuminates a larger discussion of the amount of power that the Speaker should hold. As second in line to the Presidency and the leader of 435 representatives, the powers of the Speaker should remain intact.

As defined in the Constitution, the primary role of the Speaker is to uphold the rules of the House. The political role of the Speaker is not ex- plicitly defined; historically, speakers have ranged between nonpartisan to pursuing their own policy agenda. But, as the House’s presiding officer, administrative head, and party leader, the Speaker should be able to put their own agenda aside in order to act in the best interest of the country. Moreover, the Speaker should hold enough power to distinguish the role from the other 434 House members.

The decentralization of power as a result of the concessions that conservatives suggest prevents the Speaker from effectively fulfilling their role in maintaining order. The Speaker must ensure that policy decisions are made efficiently. By giving House members at least seventy-two hours to review bills before voting and allowing them to depose the Speaker