Mike Johnson Is Speaker of the House. Again.
After a delay, Johnson secured the slimmest of majorities.

(UPDATE: After seeming to come up short in his bid to be named speaker of the House, Rep. Mike Johnson (R–La.) won support from a majority of members on Friday afternoon. Two Republicans—Rep. Ralph Norman (R–S.C.) and Rep. Keith Self (R–Texas)—changed their votes to support Johnson after initially voting for other members. This story has been updated throughout.)
After a delay, members of the House of Representatives supported Johnson in his bid to return to the top post in the chamber. He secured 218 votes, the bare minimum to have a majority in the chamber.
With 434 members seated on Friday as the new session began—Matt Gaetz, who was reelected to his Florida seat won't serve the term—any potential speaker needed 218 votes to seize the gavel. Johnson got 216, while Rep. Hakeem Jefferies (D–N.Y.) got 215, on the initial round of balloting.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) voted for Rep. Tom Emmer (R–Minn.), Rep. Ralph Norman (R–S.C.) voted for Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio), and Rep. Keith Self (R–Texas) voted for Rep. Byron Donalds (R–Fla.), all apparently as protest votes. None of those members had been nominated for the speakership prior to the floor vote.
After a delay, Norman and Self changed their votes and backed Johnson. That's all he needed to secure a majority.
Some of Johnson's Republican critics circulated a letter in the hours before the speakership vote urging their colleagues to reject his reelection bid. The letter called attention to debt and spending issues, as well as Johnson's support for military aid to Ukraine and his willingness to court Democratic votes to pass various spending bills.
Johnson took an unlikely path to becoming speaker in the aftermath of former Rep. Kevin McCarthy's unprecedented ousting from the post. For now, he appears to have avoided falling victim to the sort of chaos that unseated his predecessor.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And I think it’s great to have democracy functioning as intended. The idea that an entire party is expected to fall in lockstep is a bit disconcerting to me, and I find it actually a failing of the Democratic Party that they vote entirely as a block.
Getting half the representatives of the country to agree on anything really SHOULD be a great undertaking, responding in exceptional circumstances, rather than an expected norm. And the shitty way Johnson has handled budget deals is absolutely a valid reason to criticize.
"The idea that an entire party is expected to fall in lockstep is a bit disconcerting to me,..."
Which is actually how Parliamentary systems are supposed to operate on "important" legislation. If the majority Coalition cannot vote in lockstep, it blows up the government.
Which is one reason the framers did not go with a parliamentary system. This system allows individuals to speak their minds and differ with their party when they see fit without blowing up the government.
And we don’t cast our votes for parties, we cast our votes for individuals. The individuals then have accountability to their constituents rather than their party.
Republicans in upstate New York may not have a convergence of interests with republicans in Louisiana or republicans in Montana. That shouldn’t be surprising. Framing dissenting voters as if they have a loyalty issue to the party is begging the question.
> ... And we don’t cast our votes for parties, we cast our votes for individuals. The individuals then have accountability to their constituents rather than their party...
But when voters vote according to party affiliation, the individual on the ticket ceases to matter.
We go back to "Failing of the Democratic party" from the first post, there.
I know it's true all around, but blue no matter who is a perfect example. Look at how much San Francisco progressive horseshit got foisted on theoretically liberal communities because of Pelosi running the Ds like a mob boss.
That didn't last long.
The right honorable gentleman from Louisiana is the greatest living argument against the Louisiana Purchase.
Mike Johnson was just elected Speaker. The vote was 218-215-1.
"his willingness to court Democratic votes to pass various spending bills"
Yeah, what a terrible idea there should actually be some cooperation between the two primary parties.
It's time for the hardliners on both ends of the spectrum to shut up and start acting like adults. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is dumb.
'Politics is how we settle our differences without resorting to killing each other' (or words to that effect). Heinlein "Tunnel in the Sky"
Wow, amazing show of maturity.
What a nice change!
You forgot to log into your sock account.
shill harder statist
You actually have me laughing, good job!
Amazing that suggesting that participating effectively in a civil society makes me a statist. For this thing to work, there needs to be an understanding that NONE of us is going to get 100% of what we want 100% of the time.
Time to grow up children.
Gang rapists do have to work together.
Premature Boehm.
I think we call that 'skeet' now, thanks to Bluesky.
He just won on the recount. Self and Norman were convinced to reconsider.
https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/1875264614176358410
Short lived news cycle.
I prefer wafer thin as a description of the Republican majority, as opposed to razor thin. It brings a better image to mind, with America being represented by Mr. Creosote, ready to burst into a steaming pile of viscera and vomit by John Cleese's Congress.
Watching the virgin islands dem Caucus member crying she couldn't vote was the only amusing part.
That's always a good time.
They could always try to push for statehood if they wanted voting privileges.
DC wants to be a state, but Guam, VI, and Puerto Rico really do not want to be states. And there’s very good reasons DC should not be a state.
But of course, all the Democrats have to clap like seals at her stupid grandstanding as if she’s stunning and brave for whining about the existence of rules.
There are much better reasons to prevent DC from being a state, than the others. And yes, I know they don't really want to be states (or at least majorities of voters in those territories do not).
So her problem has an easy remedy that is almost entirely within the hands of her own constituents. But the voters in her district want to have their cake and eat it. Tough deal.
DC should absolutely become a state.
Because then the federal government can't meet anywhere.
EB was so fired up to tell us the end of the world is nigh he couldn't wait to see if it really was.
Too bad he couldn't predict the future.
I see you didn't predict the future either, or else it took you a while to find that SUBMIT button.
Did the Republicans really have an alternative? It is certainly the case that a representative can vote against Mike Johnson, but I never heard of any alternative.
Sellers of popcorn hardest hit
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Mike Johnson? More like Mike Hunt.
Has anybody seen MikeHunt?
It’s between your thighs.
Just need him as Speaker long enough to confirm Trump as POTUS and confirm his appointees. After that he better be on the straight and narrow or he can be brought down.
The Senate confirms Trump's appointees.
Didn't read it. Don't care. Eat another bag of dicks, Boehm.
The House is critical to advancing 47's agenda. Pres Trump personally lobbied for Speaker Johnson. The House must now deal with the debt ceiling, and get that squared away. Team D votes are no longer needed for a debt ceiling increase; do it fast and simple, on 1/22/2025 (day 2...b/c day 1 is full of exec orders).
Unfortunately, dem votes are required because there are always at least a handful of republicans who will betray their voters and party.