Is it justified for one party to dominate in a panel that is commissioned to investigate a national matter?

Question

The House Jan-6 investigation committee consists of 9 house representatives, 7 are Democrats, only two are Republicans. Note that the original plan called for 10 members with half from Democrats and half from the Republicans, somehow, it changed to 13 with 8 from Democratic Party and 5 from Republican Party (see Edit at end). Then after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of the Republican picks, House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy withdrew all 5 Republican nominees, and the two Republican members were then handpicked by speaker Pelosi.

Why is the imbalance in party participation, given that the Jan-6 riot has occurred in the US Capitol, and is considered an attack on the Constitution of the United States? What is the justification?

Additional note: Both the Republican Representatives, Liz Cheney of WY and Adam Kinzinger of IL, have long been staunch critics of Donald Trump and have voted, in opposition to their party, in favor of the creation of this investigation panel.

Edit:

My original write up claims the "original plan" called for 13 members (8 Democrats and 5 Republicans) was a mistake. The bill passed called for 10 members with equal spilt, but I don't know how and when it had changed to 13 (per the New York Times' article). The turn of events can be a good talking point. Thanks.

Answer 1

Whether it's justified or not is not really a question that can be answered objectively, but it's impossible for Speaker Pelosi to force Republicans to participate if they don't want to.

Initially, Congressional Democrats pushed to create an independent, bipartisan commission (modeled on the 9/11 Commission) to investigate. Such a commission would have been equally divided with 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, and both parties would have had veto power over any subpoenas and the final report.

The proposed commission was modeled on the one established to investigate the 9/11 terror attacks, with 10 commissioners — five Democrats and five Republicans — who would have subpoena powers. A Democratic chair and Republican vice chair would have had to approve all subpoenas with a final report due at the end of the year.

However, Senate Republicans filibustered it, killing the legislation 54-35:

Bipartisan legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has failed in the Senate, as Republicans staged their first filibuster since President Biden took office to block the plan.

So, the initial Democratic plan was to have an independent, bipartisan committee with equal power between the 2 parties. It was the Republicans who rejected that plan in favor of a House Select committee with more Democratic members.

---

With action in the Senate blocked, the only option for Speaker Pelosi is to create a House Select committee. The members of a select committee are selected (hence the name) by the Speaker and the party makeup is fully up to the Speaker, though they almost always accept the recommendations of the minority party.

In 2014, while the Republicans were in control of the House, Speaker Boehner created a select committee to investigate the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. That committee, like the current one, had an uneven (7-5) split between majority and minority parties and Speaker Boehner accepted Minority Leader Pelosi's recommendations for the 5 Democrats on the panel.

For the January 6th Select Committee, Speaker Pelosi also designed the committee with a 8-5 split and allowed Minority Leader McCarthy to pick 5 Republicans. She chose to veto 2 of his picks, a move she admitted was unprecedented, because of their public opposition to the committee and open intention to disrupt the investigation, but McCarthy could have submitted replacement candidates. Instead, he chose to pull all his recommendations in protest, which gave full power to name members to Speaker Pelosi.

Speaker Pelosi cannot force Republicans to participate if they don't want to, and, frankly, the fact that she appointed 2 Republicans, when Minority Leader McCarthy recommended 0 Republicans, is better than could be expected. At every stage of the process, Democrats attempted to create a non-partisan committee where Republicans would have power, and at every stage Republicans rejected that power in favor of a more partisan panel which would give them more power to complain about "bias".

Answer 2

When one party boycotts the panel - yes.

In the case of this particular commission, the minority party decided that they didn't want to advance any candidates at all. This is tacit permission for the commission to be populated according to the majority party's preferences.

Legislative bodies operate via negotiation, but if any part of the body decides to opt out of the proceedings - barring situations which call for quorum (see also, the Texas' legislature's current woes) - then this is not a case of one party 'dominating' the panel. It's a matter of the other party simply deciding they don't need or want to be there.

That the Speaker recruited willing Republicans to fill some of the seats at all is an attempt to bring more voices to the panel. The representatives she selected weren't selected for their particular views regarding the prior administration(1), they were selected because they agreed to do it. Meanwhile, the minority leader has threatened various consequences to any members of the Republican Party that accept Pelosi's nomination to the committee - calling for a boycott of the panel. That's within his power as Minority Leader, but again - it's a choice the Republicans are making, not the Democrats.

1 - Their views of the prior administration undoubtedly also inform their relationship with Mr. McCarthy, which is part of why they are not intimidated by his promises of consequences. In the case of Ms. Cheney, he's already done everything in his power to harm her ability to function as a member of Congress, so he's very much reaping what he's sown there.

Answer 3

Almost every committee and panel in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate has a majority of members who are members of the majority party in that House of Congress.

While it is customary for the seats to be divided in proportion to the number of members in the chamber, as a practical matter, "dominance" is purely a matter of having a majority of seats. There is no equivalent to the filibuster in a committee or panel. The party that appoints the chair and holds a majority of the vote almost always wins on matters where there is partisan disagreement whether it is a 7-6 split or a 7-2 split.

The minority party is customarily given a free hand in choosing its members, but questions of procedure in the U.S. House and in the U.S. Senate are in the non-justiciable jurisdiction of a majority of that house. If one party doesn't want to cooperate in the business of a panel, the majority is within its constitutional authority, and within the bounds of custom and tradition, to diminish its involvement in the panel.