Points of Order and Parliamentary Inquiries in the House
The first ten minutes of Monday’s Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing was replete with Republican committee members lobbing various points of order and parliamentary inquiries at Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-NY. As previously discussed, such dilatory tactics serve multiple purposes for a minority party who enjoys such little power in a chamber where having a majority allows a party to dictate much of the committee’s proceedings and procedures.
But let’s break down the two types of motions. First, points of order. As outlined in the House Practice manual, “A point of order is an objection that the pending matter or proceeding is in violation of a rule of the House.” Members can seek and generally receive recognition from the chairman to ensure that the rules of the House are being followed and that the majority party is not steamrolling the committee’s proceedings. This means that members must state specifically which rules of the House are being violated. The rulings of the chair are subject to an appeal by committee members.
Today’s first point of order was raised by Republicans who argued that Rule XI, clause (j)(i) regarding the minority party’s right to call committee witnesses, is being violated. Chairman Nadler was prepared for this objection, and ultimately stated that the point of order was not a recognizable point of order (and thus, not subject to appeal since he issued no ruling).
Points of order, even those offered in good faith like pointing out that a committee member did not receive her allotted five minutes for questioning, seem like interruptions. They are. A member must interrupt the process prior to any committee consideration of the underlying matter and state his or her point of order. Nearly all points of order are addressed by the chairman, either by ruling on the stated point of order or by stating that the objection of the member does not constitute a “recognizable point of order.” And that’s largely the point. If the point of order is not successful, and most aren’t, they serve to at least disrupt the majority’s proceedings and force the chair to rule.
Importantly, in many cases where the process itself has become a point of contention, the ruling against the minority party serves as evidence that their side is not being treated fairly by the majority. In this effort, members, particularly on the minority party, often attempt to stretch what is a recognized point of order knowing that institutional norms, rules, and precedent essentially guarantee their objection will be heard. In other words, members will make a point of order knowing they are not making an objection to actually correct a broken rule, but to be on camera objecting to the majority’s handling of the proceedings. They want to be ruled against to portray the majority as not playing fair.
Similarly, parliamentary inquiries, or “Inquiries concerning the parliamentary situation on the floor [or in committee]” are also used as a vehicle for minority members who seek recognition. A key difference between parliamentary inquiries and points of order is that the chair has broad discretion as to which members and inquiries he or she will allow to be in order. In practice, the chair can ignore a member pleading for a parliamentary inquiry.
Parliamentary inquiries are best thought of as clarifying questions. A member typically asks a question regarding the procedures being used, and the chair issues a response. The chairman’s response, however, is not a ruling, and thus, is not subject to appeal. This often leads to the same member then voicing their inquiry as a point of order, which are typically addressed by the chair and whose rulings are subject to appeal. Going from a parliamentary inquiry to a point of order is an escalation that forces the chair’s response and ruling.
This progression was performed by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, during the hearing when he made a parliamentary inquiry regarding the use of staff as both witness and questioner in the proceedings (about the 4:08 mark of this video). Chairman Nadler responded that parliamentary inquiry was not in order at this time, to which Rep. Gohmert responded “Well how about a point of order?” in hopes of forcing a ruling.
As a closing point, it’s key to remember that while there are rules that structure House committee proceedings, much of what they do and how they do it is based on norms. Factors such as the relationships between the chair and ranking member, the historical level of friendship or acrimony between the two parties on the committee, and even the jurisdiction of the committee itself can all impact how often and to what degree these types of tactics are used. Given that the Judiciary Committee is handling the hot-button and nationally visible topic of the impeachment inquiry, and that its membership contains some of the most vocal opponents and defenders of the president, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise when the tactics are employed.