Research Fellow  John C. Fortier

Partisan tensions were already high before the gavel came down on a disputed vote, triggering a Republican walkout. Will this episode endanger the Democrats' chances of holding the majority in 2008? Unlikely. But it could be a moment that Republicans look back on and raise in some future election as evidence of Democratic highhandedness. More immediately, the extra attention to this vote on benefits for illegal aliens will make a number of freshman Democrats uncomfortable in their Republican-leaning districts.

There is plenty to argue about over the vote on the motion to recommit on the farm bill. At best, Democrats might say that the chairman was careless and indecisive in the timing of his gaveling the vote to a close and in the calling of the vote. At worst, Republicans really did win the vote, but Democrats felt that a few last-minute vote switches that did not quite make it in under the wire were not worth going through the procedural trouble to undo. Either way, Republicans are sufficiently aggrieved that this will not easily be forgotten.

Events like this can galvanize a minority, but don't have immediate electoral repercussions. The two most iconic moments of minority outrage were the McIntyre-McCloskey disputed election and the three-hour Republican vote on Medicare.

Republicans recall the fight over Indiana's "Bloody 8th" district. In 1984, a very close election between Republican Rick McIntyre and Democrat Frank McCloskey was decided by the House in favor of the Democrat after the chamber conducted its own recount. Republicans nursed their grievance for nearly 10 years before taking the majority in 1994.

Democrats point to the Medicare vote, which was held open for three hours during which arms were twisted in unseemly ways. But this occurred in 2003 and had no effect on the next election. Democrats only got their vindication in 2006.

In short, these are insider battles that energize members of Congress and have some appeal to the political base, but larger forces shape momentous elections. The 1994 Republican and 2006 Democratic wins had more to do with unpopular presidencies, midterm election patterns, and single-party control of all of the levers of government. The argument that the majority party has been in power for too long and is heavy-handed may help in a "throw the ruling party out" election, but it is not the driving force.

But while the vote dust-up is not likely to have seismic electoral implications, it did make life more difficult for some vulnerable freshmen. While Republicans may hurt themselves politically in the long run for their stance on immigration, they are likely to score some points on the issue in Republican-leaning districts in 2008. A number of Democratic freshmen represent Republican territory and ran on a tough-on-immigration plank. Seven Democratic freshmen voted with Republicans to amend the farm bill to prohibit benefits going to illegal aliens. But a number of vulnerable freshmen switched their votes at the last minute to put Democrats ahead in the official tally: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Nick Lampson (D-Texas), Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) and Zack Space (D-Ohio). All are from districts that Bush won in 2004 by at least eight percentage points.

It is not hard to imagine the hard-hitting ads: "When corrupt Democratic leaders wanted to twist a few arms to give benefits to illegal aliens, they turned to (fill in vulnerable freshman here)."

Minority rights matter for the House as an institution, and both parties have to answer for abuses from when they were in the majority. The electoral implications, however, are likely to hit in only a few districts.

John C. Fortier is a research fellow at AEI.