WASHINGTON — In a bitterly divided Congress, it was a rare measure expected to pass without a fight.
A bill to name a federal courthouse in Tallahassee after Judge Joseph W. Hatchett, the first black man to serve on the Florida Supreme Court — sponsored by the state’s two Republican senators and unanimously supported by his 27 members of the House – was to be passed by the House last month and became law with wide bipartisan support.
But in a last minute flurry, Republicans abruptly withdrew their support without explanation and eventually quashed the measure, leaving its fate unclear, enraging many of its champions and some of its newfound opponents claiming ignorance of what had happened.
Asked why he voted against a measure he had co-sponsored, Florida Republican Representative Vern Buchanan was blunt: “I don’t know,” he said.
The real answer is as much an allegory about the state of House Republicans in 2022 as it is about a federal building in Florida. With little notice and nothing more than a 23-year-old news clipping, a right-wing, first-term congressman made an 11-hour effort on the House floor to convince his colleagues that Judge Hatchett, a trailblazing judge who broke through barriers as the first Black State Supreme Court judge south of the Mason-Dixon line, didn’t deserve to be honored.
The objector was Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Shortly before the House vote, he began distributing a 1999 Associated Press article about an appeals court decision written by Judge Hatchett that year that ended a public school policy of allowing student-approved prayers at graduations in Florida. The decision, which a lower court dismissed, ruled that the policy violated the constitutional protections of religious freedom.
“He voted against student-led school prayer in Duval County in 1999,” said Mr. Clyde, a deacon at his Baptist church in Bogart, Georgia, in an interview. “I tend to disagree. That is it. I just let the Republicans know that information on the House floor. I have no idea if they knew or not.”
Since being sworn in last year, Mr. Clyde drew attention for comparing the deadly attack on the Capitol to a “normal tourist visit” and voted against a resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal to police officers who responded that day. He also opposed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, which made lynching a federal hate crime and explicitly banned an act that was symbolic of the country’s history of racial violence. Mr Clyde also voted against recognizing Juneteenth as a federal holiday.
Naming federal buildings is one of the more mundane tasks that Congress takes on, and it’s usually a matter of consensus. In the Senate, it is often reached without debate or even a recorded vote, and so that chamber passed the measure in December to honor Judge Hatchett. In the House, it is generally regarded as an accelerated process reserved for uncontroversial matters that limit debate and require a two-thirds majority for approval.
But Mr. Clyde’s belated objection turned the routine ritual into a conservative litmus test for Republicans, who soon joined him in turning against Judge Hatchett.
The bill failed by a vote of 238 to 187, failing the two-thirds threshold, with 89 percent of Republicans against.
“I was shocked,” said Florida Democrat Kathy Castor, who was growing up when she learned about Judge Hatchett from her father, a former county court judge. “I looked around and said, ‘What’s happening?'”
Justice Hatchett, a legal legend in his state, couldn’t stay at the hotel where the Florida Bar exam was administered when he took it in 1959 because of Jim Crow laws dividing the South. When nominated by President Jimmy Carter to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Judge Hatchett became the first black man to serve on a circuit that spanned the Deep South.
Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio and one of the bill’s sponsors said the judge, an Army veteran who died last year at age 88, had “led an inspiring life of service.”
Florida Senator Rick Scott, a Republican who has co-sponsored the measure, said in a statement after the Senate passed the bill in December that Judge Hatchett “broke down barriers that have inspired countless others in the legal profession.”
But Mr Clyde found the school prayer ruling disqualifying, and the vast majority of House Republicans — including many who had initially supported the legislation — quickly joined him.
“During the ballot series, a colleague shared with me some rulings from the judge that I had not read before,” Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz said in a statement. “As a result, I have withdrawn my support for the measure.”
Florida Republican Representative Gus Bilirakis, who was recovering at home with broken ribs, voted against the bill by proxy.
“When Congresswoman Bilirakis learned of the controversial ruling, he no longer wanted to proceed with the building’s name change,” a spokeswoman said. She said he only signed the bill as a “professional courtesy to the bill’s sponsor to allow for its consideration.” (The entire state delegation must sign before a naming bill can be considered.)
Other supporters of the bill who ultimately voted against it said they were confused about what was happening on the House floor. Employees of Rep. Kat Cammack, the Republican from Florida, were busy trying to figure out why the vote had started south and called other offices to determine what was going on.
A spokesman for Mr. Buchanan, who initially gave no reason for his vote, clarified that the congressman had opposed the bill “because of the judge’s stance against prayer at graduations.”
Representative Kevin McCarthy, California Republican and minority leader, also voted “no.” He declined to comment on why he opposed the measure.
Mr Clyde said a legislative assistant dug up the 1999 ruling while searching the courthouse naming law, and made sure to share it with his colleagues before the vote.
Infuriated as she watched the red lights signifying “no” on the voting board on the wall of the House room, Ms. Castor said she approached one of her Republican colleagues on the floor, looking for answers.
“They gave no reason to vote ‘no’,” she said. “It was a reflex herd mentality.”
Some Democrats noted that in the decision in question, Judge Hatchett followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Lee v. Weisman regarding student prayer in public schools.
They said they saw the episode as the latest example of extremism in the House Republican Conference, where members have weaponized cultural issues against Democrats and backed down efforts to address the country’s history of racism, such as pressure to rid the names of the confederation of military bases.
“If the standard we use is one ruling in a million, what else can we conclude but that they are unwilling to name a courthouse after a black person,” said Florida Democrat Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. “It seems quite suspicious.”
Mr Clyde insisted that race had nothing to do with his opposition to the measure. “We are one race – the human race,” he said. “It has everything to do with the decision he made.”
Democrats said the fact that Mr. Clyde, one of the youngest Republicans in the House, was able to derail an undisputed bill already passed by the Senate was the latest evidence that Mr. McCarthy is out of control. talked about the most conservative and fringe elements of his conference.
“The inmates are running the asylum and the minority leader is terrified to do anything but settle his fate with the most extreme and unhinged elements in his party,” said Drew Hammill, a deputy chief of staff to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
A spokesman for Mr McCarthy declined to comment.
Florida Democrat Representative Al Lawson, who sponsored a House version of the bill, said the last-minute Republican stampede against the bill in the closing seconds of the vote was “horrible.”
Rubio expressed optimism that the setback will be temporary and that Congress will find a way to name the courthouse after Judge Hatchett. House leaders are working on next steps to get legislation back on the agenda, Mr. hammill.
Still, the setback is worrisome for Judge Hatchett’s former colleagues, relatives and supporters, who have called on the House to reconsider it.
‘What a black eye,’ said Mrs Castor. “What a blemish on these people, who sponsored a bill and then turned it over.”
