Stay Strong, GOP — Proxy Voting Undermines the Integrity of Congress

For more than two centuries, Congress has served as a deliberative entity, where its members adhere to traditions and constitutional responsibilities that require them to gather in person to engage in discussions and vote on the laws that shape our country.

This legacy is now at a crossroads.

Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has initiated a heated public dispute with colleagues from her own party as she advocates for permitting select House members to vote via proxy.

This contentious issue has brought to the forefront a crucial question: Will Congress maintain its foundational role or weaken it under the pretext of providing modern convenience for new parents?

Luna, who was already a member of Congress when she had a child in 2023, teamed up with Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.), another new mother, to advocate for a rule modification that permits new House parents to assign their votes to colleagues for a duration of 12 weeks postpartum.

On the surface, this proposal appears reasonable; however, a closer look reveals deeper implications.

This movement goes beyond merely supporting parenthood; it seeks to revive a COVID-era measure, initially introduced by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi in May 2020 and subsequently ended by House Republicans under Speaker Kevin McCarthy in 2023.

What started as a temporary provision devolved into a convenient tool, jeopardizing the fundamental principle of legislative accountability.

For over 200 years, through wars, crises, and even the burning of the Capitol in 1814, the House has convened in person.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution explicitly states: “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year,” as envisioned by the Founders to facilitate a physical gathering for fulfilling its responsibilities.

The pandemic disrupted this norm, introducing remote voting, which peaked in 2021 when nearly 10% of House votes were cast by proxy that year, amid a 97.8% participation rate among representatives.

Critics, including former Minority Leader McCarthy, denounced the practice as unconstitutional. He terminated proxy voting upon assuming the speakership—a choice that must remain in effect.

The pandemic proxy voting experiment illuminated its shortcomings.

Rather than being limited to the “public health emergency,” it evolved into a catch-all justification for lawmakers citing COVID while instead engaging in campaign appearances, vacations, or simply dodging travel.

Votes were recorded from conferences, cars, and even during a celebrity wedding in France, which were stark deviations from the original intent of the measure.

If proxy voting is reinstated for new parents, what is to stop its expansion into other areas—illness, family events, or bad weather?

Congress already convenes infrequently: The House met just 117 days in 2024, while the Senate convened for 154 days.

Allowing more remote voting options would further dilute a responsibility that necessitates presence, not mere participation.

History provides compelling insights.

When Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) became the first sitting senator to give birth in 2018, she brought her newborn Maile onto the Senate floor for votes—without needing a proxy.

Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) managed her House responsibilities while raising three children born during her congressional service.

These women, alongside Luna and Pettersen, illustrate how congressional duties and parenthood can successfully coexist without compromising the integrity of the institution.

Indeed, these young mothers encountered missed votes and difficult decisions while serving.

However, their experiences strengthen the argument against proxy voting, showcasing that resilience and commitment have historically upheld legislative responsibilities.

Reinstating proxy voting for new parents would open a precarious gateway—one that history suggests may only widen.

The pandemic demonstrated that convenience can lead to misuse.

Members cast votes from campaign trails and leisure trips long after the crisis subsided.

Congress is not a remote-work organization. As the foundation of representative governance, physical presence is vital to a legislator’s role, promoting debate and ensuring accountability.

The responsibility now lies with Speaker Mike Johnson and his House colleagues, particularly women, to inform the public about what is at stake.

This is not merely a discussion about pro-family policies.

It pertains to whether the institution should be permanently and fundamentally transformed for the sake of convenience and flexibility.

The Founders crafted the Constitution through in-person collaboration, not distant proxies.

Today’s legislators should respect that legacy.

To protect the essence of our democratic republic, the House must reject this proposed rule change—or risk further eroding its own legitimacy and authority.

Carol M. Swain is the author of “The Gay Affair: Harvard, Plagiarism, and the Death of Academic Integrity” and founder of Real Unity Training Solutions.