The Elusive Impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: A Tale of Math and Miscalculations

The elusive impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has been a topic of intense debate and political maneuvering in the US House of Representatives. Despite numerous attempts, the House has failed to impeach Mayorkas, making him the sole US cabinet official who has not been impeached. This article delves into the reasons behind the House’s inability to impeach Mayorkas, exploring the role of math, miscalculations, and unexpected events.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Why Republicans Failed to Impeach Mayorkas

The impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas has been a touchstone issue for the House Republicans since the beginning of the 119th Congress. They have brayed about the border, Mayorkas’ performance, and a myriad of other grievances. However, when it came time to vote, the House GOP stumbled.

The House failed to impeach Mayorkas due to a lack of votes. The vote was tight, with 215 yeas and 215 nays. Three Republicans, Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), and Ken Buck (R-Colo.), voted against impeachment. But by House rules, a tie vote loses. Suddenly, House Republican Conference Chairman Blake Moore (R-Utah), the fifth highest-ranking GOPer, switched his vote to nay. This flip gave the Democrats the votes they needed to prevent Mayorkas’ impeachment.

Why Moore Switched Sides

Moore’s change of heart was not the reason for his vote. Instead, he wanted to preserve the Republican gambit to potentially impeach Mayorkas in the future. House rules allow any member on the prevailing side of a roll call vote to move to reconsider a vote. In this case, Moore was on the losing side as a yea voter. But by switching to nay, he became part of the winning side and could potentially summon the Mayorkas impeachment vote again.

The Math of Impeachment

The House’s failure to impeach Mayorkas highlights the importance of math in politics. The House took two roll call votes earlier in the day, with a total of 425 members casting ballots. After the debate on impeaching Mayorkas, the House was set to hold another vote series. However, Republicans decided not to vote on impeachment first. Instead, they voted on the “Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission Extension Act.”

This decision proved to be a tactical error by the GOP. Putting the canal bill first created a false sense of security about the Mayorkas vote. The House approved the bill about the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal with 427 votes, raising the total number of members casting ballots to 429. However, two absences, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), were not accounted for.

Green’s Surprise Participation

Green, who was out for surgery, was rolled into the Capitol in a wheelchair, wearing a blue hospital gown and tan footies. His participation in the vote came as a surprise to both parties. The universe of members casting ballots suddenly swelled to 430, with Green casting his ballot against impeachment. This unexpected development forced the House to either let the vote fail or safeguard their options for later. The GOP chose the latter.

The Future of Impeachment

The House has only defeated articles of impeachment once before, in December 1997, when they adopted only two of the articles of impeachment leveled against former President Clinton. Republicans may try impeaching Mayorkas again in the future, but the learning curve of governing effectively is a long one. The unpredictability of attendance in the House makes the prospect of impeachment a challenging one. For now, Mayorkas can rest easy, knowing that he has eluded the impeachment process.

In conclusion, the elusive impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is a tale of math and miscalculations. The House Republicans’ failure to impeach Mayorkas highlights the importance of understanding the rules of the House and the role of unexpected events in politics. The future of impeachment remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the math will always be a crucial factor.