Next week, Democrats will be siding with a Republican that they’ve derided as being slavishly loyal to Donald Trump, wedded to evangelical Christian nationalist beliefs, opposed to LGBTQ+ rights, and a danger to American democracy.
Some of them haven’t decided whether that person is Speaker Mike Johnson or Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The Georgia congresswoman remains poised to trigger a vote on ousting Johnson sometime next week. Democratic leaders have said that they will vote to table Greene’s motion, indicating that the vast majority of rank-and-file House Democrats will follow, and that Johnson’s job is essentially safe.
But for progressives in particular — many of whom are weary of being seen as helping to prop up a Republican speaker — it’s likely to be a tough vote. After all, House Democrats voted unanimously with Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida to oust then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy in October.
“I’ll likely vote present,” said Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, pointing to Johnson’s record of opposition to LGBTQ+ rights as the key reason for his break from party leadership.
“I’m not going to support MTG’s silliness, but I don’t want to support the most homophobic speaker in American history,” said Pocan. “This is their problem. I’ll just eat popcorn and vote present.”
Three other prominent progressives — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and Greg Casar of Texas — also indicated in interviews this week that they remained undecided on how they would vote. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has yet to meet to discuss the topic.
“Mike Johnson shouldn’t be speaker,” said Casar, the CPC whip, saying that he wished Democrats had produced a “list” of concessions in exchange for their votes.
“I’m not inclined to to save him, I don’t think we do these things for free,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
The New York congresswoman said on CNN in March that she was “not inclined to vote for an individual for speaker who doesn’t believe in women’s rights, doesn’t believe in bodily autonomy, who has supported overturning a presidential election.”
There’s a procedural distinction here that may make the difference for some lawmakers. When Greene calls up her “motion to vacate” against Speaker Mike Johnson, the first vote will not be on the actual vote to oust Johnson, but on a motion to table the vote.
While voting to table Greene’s motion — which most Democrats and Republicans are expected to do — can be explained as a mere procedural step, it’s also the case that doing so would, in effect, protect Johnson from an ouster.
“Here’s the thing — you’re not even being on record for Johnson,” Ocasio-Cortez said of the tabling vote. “You’re just being on record as to whether holding this vote right now is the most productive use of our time.”
“I think tabling could just mean that we get back to doing the work of the people,” said Omar, who also said that she “probably would vote to vacate” if the motion to table somehow failed, and lawmakers had to vote directly on Greene’s motion.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna of California — like other mainstream Democrats — has argued that Johnson deserves to keep his job as a result of not just passing Ukraine aid, but because he essentially split the Senate-passed foreign aid bill into individual votes on Israel aid and Ukraine aid, something progressives had long supported.
“I’m a progressive Democrat, and I think you would have a few progressive Democrats doing that,” Khanna said on ABC’s “This Week” in April, referring to tabling the motion to vacate. “I disagree with Speaker Johnson on many issues and have been very critical of him, but he did the right thing here, and he deserves to keep his job until the end of his term.”
