Phill Kline, former Kansas Attorney General and current law professor at Liberty University School of Law, said allowing members of Congress to vote on legislation via proxy raises concerns under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution.
On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted against a rule that would have killed a proposal brought by Florida U.S. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL-13) to allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy.
While some have argued that voting by proxy is unconstitutional, Kline said the issue with proxy voting revolves around its effectiveness as the Constitution says that a quorum in Congress requires a majority of seated members, not just those present.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Kline said the question shouldn’t be whether or not proxy voting in itself is unconstitutional, but if voting by proxy counts towards the quorum.
“The question becomes, do proxies count towards the quorum? I don’t believe they should under the Constitution,” Kline explained on Wednesday’s edition of The Michael Patrick Leahy Show.
Kline further pointed out how proxy voting, if it were widely allowed, undermines the need for members to physically attend and participate in debates in D.C., which would lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a few.
“One of the things the Constitution allows is for the house to have rules to compel people to attend. If you could proxy vote and also be counted as a quorum, there’s not a reason to compel you to attend, and that would allow effectively three people to operate the entire chamber because leadership would go and get all of their votes, collect them by proxy, and then maybe have an additional person present to cast a vote and they would have a quorum,” Kline said.
Kline also discussed the political implications of allowing proxy voting, arguing that the practice diminishes transparency and hinders the minority party’s ability to respond effectively.
“Even if this is constitutional, there is an argument that it’s not wise to start allowing proxies. It really hampers the minority party and their ability to respond to events, it collects power in less people. It is less transparent. It harms a process. You cannot bring amendments as readily and debate those. So I think moving towards proxies, look, they get paid enough and they also do enough inside trading to show up for the job,” Kline explained.
“There is a reason why debate needs to take place in the open with those present, being accountable for what they say and how they vote. That’s called a Democratic republic. If you start handing out proxies, it consolidates all that power. It chills real discussion and debate and it prevents the people from seeing what happens,” Kline added.
Watch the full exchange:
Tune in now to The Michael Patrick Leahy Show – your AMERICA FIRST news talk
– Watch LIVE here on X
– Listen on Spotify
– Listen on WENO AM760 in Nashville
– Read more at @TheTNStar https://t.co/69JcXUZiVC— MichaelPatrick Leahy (@michaelpleahy) April 2, 2025
– – –
Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Kaitlin on X / Twitter.
