Editorial: Was Rep. Young bullied into switching his LGBT vote?

They say that if you like either laws or sausages, you should never watch them being made.

Rarely has the congressional sausage-making looked uglier than last week when a group of Republican members of the House strong-armed their colleagues into changing their votes on an anti-discrimination measure.

It happened last Thursday, as the final votes were being tallied on a bill amendment that would have barred federal contractors from discriminating against members of the LGBT community.

The amendment had just secured enough votes for passage, with 217 votes in favor and 206 votes in opposition, as the clock ran out. The measure needed only 213 votes to pass.

But GOP leaders then decided to hold the vote open, buying a few more minutes of time in which Republicans pressured members to change their vote.

The House erupted in chaos, with members milling about, shouting, booing and yelling at each other. "Need two more votes," Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., announced as he moved from one Republican to the next. Angry Democrats protested, chanting, "Shame! Shame! Shame!" as the vote total shifted and the bill went down in flames.

At least seven Republicans reportedly changed their votes, including Rep. David Young of Iowa.

As reported by The Hill, the rules of the House stipulate that once the clock expires on a vote, the electronic voting machines are to be switched off and members are asked whether they wish to change their vote. Those who do are expected to approach the front of the chamber and register their changed vote in person, openly acknowledging their reversal.

But in this case, the question was never posed. Instead, GOP leaders held the vote open and allowed members to make the switch without having to step forward and identify themselves.

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, was the apparent leader of the effort to persuade GOP lawmakers to switch their vote. To their credit, some Republicans stood their ground and refused to be bullied, including Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. According to Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a New York Democrat, Dent told McCarthy to “get lost," at which point McCarthy “went around and twisted everybody else's arms. … I don't think I've ever seen anything that craven and that ugly in my time in Congress.”

So why did Rep. Young change his vote?

“The congressman's recorded vote today was both consistent with his position and previous recorded votes on this issue," Young’s spokeswoman, Meg Baglien, said last week, neatly sidestepping the issue.

Baglien didn't respond to calls and emails this week asking whether she or the congressman would be willing to elaborate on what transpired.

If Young was truly opposed to the measure, he should have no problem defending his position, which matches that of Iowa’s other Republican House members, Reps. Steve King and Rod Blum, both of whom voted against the amendment from the outset.

As it stands now, however, it appears that Young voted his conscience in initially supporting the amendment, only to be beaten into submission by party leaders who opposed the measure. If so, he caved to pressure from individuals who don't represent Iowa and who were willing to run roughshod over the House rules in order to get their way.

Iowans will respect a congressman who doesn’t always vote their way as long as that congressman has done his homework and is doing what he believes is in the best interests of Iowa and the nation. But they won’t tolerate a congressman who allows himself to become a tool of either special interests or the party leadership. That’s true of both conservatives and progressives.

It could be that Young, still in his first term representing Iowa’s 3rd District, voted the way he did because he needs the support of party leaders if he's to be re-elected in the fall. But for Iowans, the question is no longer whether Young can get re-elected; it’s whether he deserves to be re-elected.