The speaker of the House is third in line to the presidency, yet we know more about how the next Miss America is selected than we do the next speaker. The process for choosing a House speaker and other leadership is inexplicably opaque and secretive. It doesn’t need to be.
For the body supposedly meant to function as "The People’s House," there has traditionally been little transparency in the way the Speaker is chosen. The final vote tally may be public, but the real selection happens behind closed doors. The election is usually sewn up before the vote ever comes to the floor.
Perhaps the top priority for nominating a speaker should be less about how much money they raise and more about what they would do as speaker.
HOUSE VOTES TO REMOVE KEVIN MCCARTHY AS SPEAKER IN HISTORIC FIRST
Republicans can demonstrate their commitment to improving the institution of Congress right out of the gate by opening the process to greater visibility for the public. I called for these changes back in 2018 when Speaker Pelosi first took back the gavel. Democrats changed nothing. But Republicans should.
Typically, the GOP Conference gathers in a closed meeting where candidates are nominated and seconded. No candidate speeches are given. Members are asked to vote secretly in this meeting. Ultimately, the vote tallies are not even shared with the members. All of this takes place before there is even a floor vote.
Democrats and Republicans try to pre-bake the outcome before they ever get to the floor.
The re-election of John Boehner as House Speaker in 2013 sparked no small amount of outrage among my base back in Utah. My colleagues got the same response in their districts. But Boehner ostensibly had no challengers. On the floor, there were no other Republicans to vote for that year. That decision had already been made in a closed meeting.
This time, each candidate should be given an opportunity to share their vision in a public forum where other members can ask them questions. All of this should be visible to the public.
Republicans should require that a list of those seeking consideration be made public well in advance of the vote. Keep in mind – the speaker of the House does NOT have to be a sitting member of the House of Representatives. The parties can nominate anyone they believe has the leadership skills to get the job done.
Releasing that list in advance gives the members, the media, interest groups, and the public a period of time to vet and research the various candidates.
Prior to the internal nomination of a candidate by the parties, a public debate should be held and broadcast. In addition to questions about policy priorities, candidates may be asked to defend their party’s process for assigning committee chairmanships or their ideas for improving the broken budget process.
Bringing these questions out into the open may force Congress to deal with problems that have long been ignored. There are many important questions that should be answered in the light of day.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Further, you should be able to see who your Representative voted to support in the leadership races. You can see all their votes on bills, why not in the leadership nomination process?
Republicans should demonstrate what openness and transparency really look like. Why shouldn’t members have to answer to their constituents? This is one of the most powerful positions in all of government.
When we elect a president and a vice president, we engage in a prolonged cycle of discussion, news coverage, public debates, and years of campaigning. A new Supreme Court justice is subjected to months of vetting, a public hearing, a committee vote and an open and transparent floor vote.
But the speaker, majority leader, and minority leader? Not so much.
Too much is at stake for these elections to continue to be done in secret. Instead, the leadership races should be brought out into the open. Previous leadership has hated this idea. But it would be an important step toward a more accountable leadership team. They know it is more about the money raised and coalitions formed than how they will perform in the job.
Electing arguably one of the most powerful positions in all of government should not be done in darkness. But only the House can make this change. And only through public pressure and bipartisan demand is that likely to happen.
If we want better government, we must demand better processes. It starts with how we elect leadership on both sides of the aisle.
This column is adapted from an op-ed by the author that was first published in Fox News Opinion in 2018.
