Swift Decision on Mayorkas Impeachment Articles
Swift events surrounding Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas indicate that Senate Democrats could have prematurely ended his impeachment trial. The majority leader, Chuck Schumer, is reported to have planned votes to dismiss two impeachment articles against Mayorkas. This comes after the Senate's swearing-in as jurors. These actions could undermine the trial and disappoint Republicans expecting House prosecutors to present their case.
Disagreement within the Senate
As votes were cast, unity amongst Democrats was evident. In February, the House narrowly voted for the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas, accusing him of mishandling the U.S.-Mexico border situation. The two impeachment articles stated that Mayorkas had intentionally and systematically shirked enforcing immigration laws. These charges were brought to the Senate by House impeachment managers under the mandate of Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana.
Schumer sought to address the issue as swiftly as possible. In his words, impeachment should not be used to resolve policy differences to prevent setting a terrible precedent for Congress. Despite this sentiment, Johnson argued that Schumer should call for a trial and hold those responsible for the crisis accountable. Johnson claimed that Schumer stood as the only roadblock to delivering accountability to the American people.
The Likelihood of Conviction
Given the two-thirds Senate support necessary for conviction and the removal of Mayorkas, it appeared almost impossible for Republicans to achieve this aim. The Senate, controlled by Democrats with a 51-49 majority, seemed united against the impeachment efforts. No House Democrat gave support to it either. However, some Republicans, including Senator Mitt Romney, hinted at aligning with Democrats in voting.
Major Accountability Questions Arise
Two articles argued that Mayorkas not only defiantly failed to enforce existing laws but also breached public trust by lying to Congress and asserting the border was secure. A Cabinet Secretary had been impeached for the first time in nearly 150 years. Speaker Mike Johnson had delayed sending the articles to the Senate to accommodate the Senate's busy schedule on government funding legislation.
During a hearing with Mayorkas concerning President Joe Biden's budget request for the department, House impeachment managers outlined some of their claims. They expressed some concerns, including Tennessee Representative Mark Green's statement that Mayorkas had failed to fulfill his duty under the law to control and guard U.S. borders and breached public trust.
Implications of the Senate Decision
Finally, the Senate voted, and the Articles of Impeachment against Mayorkas were rejected. It seems that the Senate Democrats were electoral aware and preferred to end the process, mainly because immigration and border security are primary issues in the presidential election year.
Should the Senate have proceeded to the impeachment trial, it would have been the third in five years. Democrats had previously impeached President Donald Trump twice, both times resulting in acquittal by the Senate. This whole ordeal raises concerns about precedent and the function of impeachment in congressional disputes beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors."
