Conservatives abandon Speaker Johnson challenger for alternative protest strategy

Hardline conservatives are abandoning their plan to nominate a challenger to Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) bid for the gavel during Wednesday's internal House GOP elections, opting for a different protest strategy to showcase resistance to his leadership, two sources familiar with the matter told The Hill.

The plan B — which members of the House Freedom Caucus are plotting — would involve forcing a secret, recorded vote on Johnson's nomination, according to the sources, who were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal deliberations.

Because Johnson is running unopposed, the conference could nominate him for the top job by voice vote, which Republicans did in 2016 to give former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) the nod. Hardliners, however, want to force a recorded vote—and avoid a voice vote—to make their reservations regarding Johnson's leadership clear. One of the sources said members would have the ability to write in a candidate if they wanted to.

The strategy is a change from Tuesday afternoon when conservatives were discussing plans to nominate an alternative candidate to Johnson for Speaker during Wednesday's internal GOP elections. Those on the right-flank were discussing whom to nominate. One source told The Hill three people were prepared to throw their hat in the ring.

But the sources said that members ultimately decided to shift course to plan B because they saw it as a less harsh form of protest.

"It's counterproductive," one of the sources said of mounting a challenger.

The Freedom Caucus's protest effort has been driven by a series of proposed changes to House GOP rules that take direct aim at the rebellious tactics utilized by members of the hardline conservative group and their allies — which, at times, have grinded legislative activity to a halt.

Those on the right flank are sharply criticizing the suggestions.

One proposed change from Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) would impose consequences on GOP members who vote against the "rule" — votes on that govern debate and consideration of legislation on the House floor.

The procedural votes had long been party line, with voting against the measure being seen as a major betrayal of the party. But handfuls of Republicans in this Congress repeatedly voted against rules on the House floor as a form of protest, or to hold up legislation they did not like.

Huizenga's amendment would direct the House GOP Steering Committee, a leadership-aligned committee that assigns committee spots, to remove all committee assignments from members who vote against a rule for 90 days — and for those who vote against a rule three times, to remove committee assignments for the rest of the 119th Congress.

One of the sources described that proposal as "probably the most aggravating and egregious thing."

Johnson, to be sure, has staked his opposition to the rule change — He told Politico on Tuesday, "I am not in favor of punitive measures and rules."

One of the sources, however, said they want to see Johnson try to block the advancement of the change.

"There's a difference between saying 'I don't support it' and saying 'I'm gonna stop it,'" the source said. "That's a big difference. Because a Speaker says, 'I'll stop it.' An individual person who's not a leader says, 'I don't support it.'"

"Stand up and tell the conference, 'This is not going to happen, I'm not gonna support this, vote this down,' and then everyone knows, okay, we'll vote it down," they added.

That is not the only proposal seeking to tamp down on intra-party chaos.

Another measure from Huizenga would have similar consequences for those who vote for the party's "Speaker Designate." A proposed amendment from Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) would have consequences for members who support a "motion to vacate" the Speaker, removing them from committees. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), too, has an amendment to remove members from committees if they defy the party on a procedural vote.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told reporters on Tuesday night that rules imposing punishments on members like that are "nonstarters" and "unsettling."

"If people want to start throwing around, you know, recriminations and quote, 'punishments,' because I use the election certificate to represent the people I represent, that's a nonstarter," Roy said.