In January 2021, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, as chair of the House Republican Conference, voted along with the majority of House representatives (232–197) to impeach President Trump for "incitement of insurrection." On February 9, the state party in Wyoming passed a resolution to censure Cheney for this vote. (The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump several days later.)
Despite being censured by her party, Cheney went on to serve as Vice Chair of the House January 6th Committee which investigates the insurrection. In November 2021, the Wyoming Republican Party voted to cease recognizing Cheney as a party member, citing the language it had used in its February censure.
This outcome is hardly surprising, but what I want to note here is the odd language use by the Wyoming party. The party said that evidence for impeachment needs to be "quantifiable" (clearly, it does not, since not all evidence is expressible in numbers) as well as "undisputed" (which again, it does not, since if it were undisputed there would be no purpose of a House vote on whether to bring charges, nor of a Senate trial regarding the charges. Precisely because the truth might eternally remain disputed, the majority decision is used to determine the outcome.)
So how should we make sense of what the Wyoming Republican Party is saying? Looks like they really mean: All Republican politicians are expected to have a united front; they are not permitted to dispute the position that their party's leadership assumes for them.
Wyoming Republican leaders voted this weekend to no longer recognize Rep. Liz Cheney as a member of their party following her repeated criticisms of former President Donald Trump. https://t.co/c9y3AYI9do— Casper Star-Tribune (@CSTribune) November 15, 2021
The state party used the term "quantifiable evidence of High Crimes or Misdemeanors” in its February censure, and it quoted that phrase in its November resolution. Generally, is such evidence ever really expected to be *quantifiable*? Were they trying to say "tangible"?— Tucker Lieberman (@tuckerlieberman) November 16, 2021
Their claim that the evidence has to be "undisputed" does not make any sense either, since the existence of a dispute—past, present, and/or future—is the reason for holding a vote.— Tucker Lieberman (@tuckerlieberman) November 16, 2021
Seems that they really mean: Individual politicians aren't free to dispute their own party's line.