Senate Democrats are likely to bury articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a Senate committee if they are approved by the House, allowing vulnerable members to avoid a tough vote in an election year, say sources in both parties.
Senate Democrats could vote immediately to dismiss articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, something many in the caucus would be happy to do.
That’s unlikely to happen, however, since it would put a political target on vulnerable Democratic incumbents such as Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Jacky Rosen (Nev.).
These lawmakers are all running for reelection in red or purple states in an election year where the party is clinging to a one-seat majority in the Senate. They’re likely to come under political attack from Republicans over the border, and a Mayorkas vote could be swiftly turned into a political ad.
Instead, insiders predict Democrats will likely try to refer the matter to a special Senate committee to review the impeachment articles. It could then come up for a vote after Election Day.
Democrats in the Senate have not publicly revealed their plans.
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who would have jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings against the Homeland Security secretary, said Tuesday they haven’t yet mapped out the Senate strategy with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Durbin said he wouldn’t rule out referring the matter to a special committee, but he wanted to confer with Schumer.
“I hate to get ahead of any conversation with Chuck,” he said. “I want to talk to him.”
Peters said: “I got to find out all the details.”
But he called the substance of the House impeachment hearing “ridiculous.”
“They’re just playing politics, and what they should be doing is working on our border security bill, which has been negotiated in a bipartisan way,” he said, referring to House Republicans. “Let’s actually look at how we solve a problem at the border as opposed to engaging in theatrics.”
The last time the Senate received articles of impeachment for a federal officeholder below the level of the presidency was in 2010, when the House impeached Louisiana Judge Thomas Porteous after receiving a referral of misconduct from the Judicial Conference of the United States.
On the same day the House managers presented the articles of impeachment against the judge — March 17, 2010 — the Senate approved by voice vote a resolution setting up a special committee comprising six senators to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the full chamber.
Then-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and the late Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) headed the panel, which was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
That special committee did not make its recommendation to the full Senate until December of 2010, more than a month after that year’s midterm election. Presented with strong and compelling evidence of judicial corruption, the Senate voted 94-2 on Dec. 8 to forever disqualify the judge from ever again holding office.
Any resolution setting up an evidentiary committee to review the articles of impeachment against Mayorkas or to set the rules for a Senate trial would need only a majority of senators present and voting to pass. It could also be adopted by voice vote or unanimous consent.
The filibuster would not be applicable on these votes.
A vote to dismiss the impeachment charges also would only require a majority of senators present in the chamber.
That gives leverage to Schumer, who would have the final say on how to handle Mayorkas’s impeachment. But Senate aides say he would want to work out a deal with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to adopt a resolution to govern the process.
Many Senate Republicans are ready to have a vote on the substance of the charges.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), a member of the GOP leadership team, said voting to dismiss charges against Mayorkas would expose vulnerable Democrats up for reelection.
“I think Sen. Schumer is going to have to deal with it and so are the people who are running for reelection as incumbents. Seems like President Biden is kind of throwing them under the bus,” he said.
But Senate Republicans aren’t eager to vote on removing Mayorkas, either, given a lack of clear and compelling evidence that Mayorkas has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Voting to convict Mayorkas would open Republicans to charges that they’re weaponizing the impeachment process to score political points.
GOP senators have warned their House Republican counterparts about cheapening the impeachment process and deploying it in the absence of clear allegations of criminal wrongdoing.
Some Republican senators rolled their eyes earlier this month when Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) rushed to introduce articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for failing to promptly inform President Biden of his hospitalization following complications from prostate surgery.
“We’ve got so many things to do, I don’t think impeachment was something intended to be brought up every three months or every two months,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), a member of the Senate GOP leadership team, said at the time.
Asked on Tuesday about the formal start of impeachment proceedings against Mayorkas in the House, Capito stood by her earlier comments.
“We’ll have to see … what they send over, if it even gets sent over. But I still don’t think we should be impeaching somebody every two or three months, I stand by that statement,” she said.
Capito, a member of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, earlier this month said Mayorkas is carrying out Biden’s policies.
“I’ve worked with Mayorkas, and I think, honestly, his issue is who’s the president. I think that’s the bigger issue. What’s the president’s policy that Mayorkas is putting forward here,” she said earlier this month.
Peters predicted that some Senate Republicans would vote to acquit Mayorkas.
“I would hope so,” he said. “I don’t want to speak for my Republican colleagues on the committee, but we have a very good relationship with him within the Homeland Security Committee. He’s very forthright. He comes before our committee, he answers our questions, he’s always available.”