One Cheer for Anna Paulina Luna’s Proxy Voting Gambit

Congressional proxy voting is a terrible idea. It is patently unconstitutional. It is as slippery a slope toward corruption and abuse of power as can be imagined. And even if a proxy scheme worked as honestly as promised, it would still make Congress less representative and Washington’s special interests more entrenched. So House Republicans were absolutely right earlier this month to oppose Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-FL) proposal to allow members with infant children to vote by proxy.

And yet, I am grateful to Luna for introducing it. Because the debate she started has already made the U.S. House of Representatives better. In time, it could yield even richer, more humanizing reforms both within Congress and throughout America’s toxic political culture. 

Congress, after all, is not a machine. Nor is it a stage for political performance art. The Constitution is very clear that the Framers intended for Congress to be—and to act as—a community.

Article I insists on this point—to be together, in person, “in Congress, assembled,” to conduct the nation’s business. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention designed Congress to find and forge consensus on behalf of the sprawling, squabbling new American republic. They knew firsthand that the forming of a physical, human community was how a diverse nation with so many competing interests could nonetheless come together. Not for nothing did the Constitutional Convention have a quorum rule, too.

Even if proxy voting were constitutional, it would quickly be abused. If Congress allowed proxy voting for parents with infants, soon they would allow it for parents with any young children. The privilege would quickly expand to members with health problems, travel interruptions, fundraisers, and eventually just scheduling conflicts. That’s what happened when the House allowed proxy voting during the Covid pandemic. And it’s absolutely what would happen within months of the House adopting Luna’s rule change.

Finally, even if a proxy system could be abuse-proofed, it would still be bad for the country. It would inevitably empower those members of Congress most ensconced within the Swamp: the elites, party leaders, “cardinals,” and “old bulls.” Moreover, while Members of Congress might be casting their vote from afar, unelected staff, lobbyists, bureaucrats, and the rest of the special interest groups would still be “in the room where it happens.” The centralization of power would only increase into the hands of the few, further marginalizing change agents—including the young, conservative populists now realigning Washington and American politics.

Anna Paulina Luna is one of those young, conservative reformers. Like me—and like thousands of her constituents—Rep. Luna also has a baby at home. And not to put too fine a point on it, but Rep. Luna did run for this job. She knew about the long hours, the travel, the personal sacrifices that came with it. She knew that the Constitution to which she took her oath of office required her to be in Washington to vote. She spent $3 million of her supporters’ money to get elected, promising to work her tail off for her constituents—and only after winning insisted on being able to work from home.

Working parents all have these choices and make these kinds of sacrifices and trade-offs. We did this “Having It All” dance in 1988—it was fake then and it’s fake now. In the real world, prioritizing one’s career is going to limit family time, and prioritizing kids takes some time-intensive jobs off the table. I’ve made these same career trade-offs and decisions myself, as has virtually every young parent I know. Everyone else must make these choices—public servants can, too.

So, if proxy voting is constitutionally, practically, politically, and personally obnoxious, why give Rep. Luna’s proposal any cheers?

Because the House of Representatives’ response to her proposal showed exactly what Congress can accomplish when it behaves like the human institution it’s supposed to be. When Luna’s resolution passed, Speaker Mike Johnson put the House into recess—not as leverage or punishment, but just to give everyone time to talk.

Before long, a compromise was reached that accommodated Congress’s young moms within the Constitution’s framing. The House will soon bring back to its rules the immemorial practice of vote pairing, whereby a member in attendance will vote “present”—abstaining from a “yes” or “no” vote—to offset the absence of a member on the other side. Vote pairing advantages no party, region of the country, or faction within Congress. It’s a win-win compromise for Congress (especially its younger members) and the country.

Not surprisingly, the idea for this compromise came from former congressional staff who still remember when Congress functioned like a real community. Properly considered, making Congress more accommodating to new parents is not about “modernizing” the institution, but about restoring its small-c constitutional character. Properly applied, this human-scale approach to Congress’s work could have far-reaching benefits—including making American politics much more family friendly.

For instance, it could reverse today’s toxic norm of the commuter Congress, which is responsible for the institution’s embarrassing three-day work week, the centralization of power in party leadership, and untold strain on members’ families and marriages. Republicans and Democrats could agree to take the “He’s gone native!” insult off the table, and encourage their members to move their young families to Washington. They could just as easily redesign Capitol Building offices near the House and Senate chambers to create spaces for young members to feed their babies or change diapers. 

Making Congress more mom-and-dad-friendly need not make it less Congress. Physical communities and constitutionally functional institutions are actually pretty good at solving problems with creative win-wins. If Congress can start flexing those muscles again, there’s no telling how much good it could do—for itself, our political culture, and for the country.

Rep. Luna’s proxy voting idea certainly isn’t the answer. But the accommodating, humane public-spiritedness her proposal elicited really might be.