Gordon L. Weil
Only two elements of the federal government seem capable of
halting President Trump’s overreach in using his powers – the courts and at
least some Republican members of the House and Senate who could join the
Democrats in reclaiming congressional powers.
So far, it’s not the GOP, with one Republican senator admitting she’s afraid
of Trump.
But there’s at least one clear case of GOP legislators
pushing back against an executive effort not only to fire experienced personnel
but to slash or abolish a government agency.
It happened in Oklahoma this month.
Governor Kevin Stitt is a Republican. At the start of the current session, the House
was composed of 80 Republicans and 20 Democrats. The Senate was composed of 39 Republicans and
8 Democrats. Stitt should be able to get
backing for almost any action.
In mid-March, Oklahoma experienced major wildfires, which
state and local firefighters struggled to extinguish. The Oklahoma Forestry Service, the key state
agency, had undergone staff cuts under Stitt and was limited in how far it
could extend its resources. But the governor claimed that it had deployed only
about half of its personnel on the peak day of the fires.
He promptly fired the head of the OFS, a highly respected
person who had worked at the agency for 40 years. The governor also cut other top
managers. He went even further,
questioning the need
for the agency and proposing almost fatal cuts to its budget.
In Trump’s Washington, the president could have gotten away
with such moves. But not in Oklahoma
City.
The House Speaker and the Senate president pro tem both
spoke against Stitt’s actions. They pledged to ensure that OFS funding would
be locked in. Their stance mattered
because, even after Stitt implicitly admitted that the entire state force had
been deployed, he did not back off. Only after public opinion swung to back the
legislative leaders, he said OFS would survive.
Why could Oklahoma Republicans oppose their own governor,
while the GOP in Congress acquiesces in Trump’s moves, even at the expense of
their own constitutional powers?
With political support that cannot be attributed to Stitt’s
endorsement, the Oklahoma members may feel more loyal to their constituencies
than to their governor. Local opinions
mattered more than the demands of a governor placing his views ahead of the
public interest. In relatively small districts, voters could get to know members,
rather acceding to Stitt’s influence.
The split between the two branches of government went a step
further. The governor complained that
the legislature had passed some bills sponsored by Democrats. One-party rule, obviously possible, suited
him. So much for meeting public
sentiments in favor of government cooperation.
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert
responded to Stitt. He noted that 20
percent of the House was Democratic, but only six percent of the bills passed
had been sponsored by Democrats.
Apart from the specific issues, the Oklahoma case reveals
the survival of institutional checks and balances can take place even when one
party completely dominates and that bipartisanship can happen even in a setting
far more partisan than Washington.
