A Year of Condemnation: Reviewing the Congressional Record-Breaking Term
This past year in the lower chamber has been one for the annals of history. Congresspeople established benchmarks for the lengthiest continuous address and the most protracted roll call, and presided over the lengthiest government shutdown.
They also spent considerable energy attempting to reprimand each other through censure resolutions, the House's official mechanism for disciplinary action. A review of congressional records reveals no fewer than 17 efforts since the start of the year to reproach a colleague via a reprimand or a more informal disapproval resolution.
If a censure measure passes by a simple majority of the House, the subject of the resolution has to rise before the speaker's podium as the chair announces to them that they have been punished for their bad behavior. This constitutes the practical repercussions – they retain their seat and their legislative power, but perhaps not their standing.
While nearly all of these gained approval, the barrage intensified so pronounced that by the year's close, a bipartisan group suggested altering the standing orders to raise the threshold for condemnation motions to pass. “How about we halt the circular firing squad in the House?” asked one of the bill's sponsors.
What follows is a review at the supposed transgressions at the core of the wave of reprimands:
Calling a Individual a ‘Derogatory Term’
The initial condemnation effort of the year came in February against a member of the Democratic Party lawmaker. The proposal accused the legislator of “encouraging hostility against a special government employee”. It pointed to an occasion during a panel session where the lawmaker made a derogatory comment about the individual in a rather roundabout way, as well as a follow-up remark about using “physical force” to a political fight. The full body ultimately did not voting on it.
Shouting at the President
In the midst of a presentation to a gathering of Congress, a Democratic congressman disrupted the president, exclaiming “he has no mandate” while raising a cane in the air. The House speaker ordered the member escorted out. Following this, multiple reprimand motions were filed aimed at the lawmaker. Two days later, the chamber approved one of these motions, with some members of the representative's party casting yes votes alongside the majority party. This was the only censure to actually win approval during the year.
Using Derogatory Characterizations
Just days after the aforementioned condemnation, a measure was filed aiming at a congressperson for remarks made about the previously censured member. The measure accused the official of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another member of Congress”. This measure did not receive a full chamber vote.
Mocking a Governor's Disability
Another reprimand effort focused on alleged disrespectful remarks made by a congressperson about a chief executive who uses a wheelchair. The comments were considered deeply disrespectful and resulted in a censure resolution that also did not come up a vote.
Confrontation with Federal Agents
Multiple reprimand proposals were proposed against a congresswoman after she was taken into custody and indicted following an confrontation outside a government holding center. One of these measures was debated in the House, but was blocked thanks to a alliance of lawmakers from the other side and a small group of members from the sponsor's own party. This represented the first of several times where representatives voted across the aisle to defeat a censure attempt.
Allegations of Racism
A lawmaker was the target of two censure resolutions over the summer for bigoted remarks made about public figures of color. The comments included derogatory nicknames and calls for expulsion. Not one of these proposals was put up for a vote.
Questioning a Late Activist Legacy
In the aftermath of a controversial figure's death, a condemnation motion was introduced against a representative for statements that were considered “disparaging” toward the late person and those honoring him. For another time, the measure was blocked with the help of a few of lawmakers from the sponsor's own party. One of those who opposed the censure commented that the correct approach to “offensive language” is not censorship, but “additional dialogue”.
‘Compromising the Process of a Free and Fair Election’
The barrage of condemnations peaked late in the year when, during a pivotal vote, a lawmaker took to the chamber to accuse that a senior member had orchestrated his retirement in a manner to guarantee a chosen replacement would be elected to replace him. The measure expressed disapproval of this conduct for “harming the integrity of a free and fair election”. This motion sparked outrage but ended up being approved, with votes from most the opposing party and a significant number of lawmakers from the complainant's political affiliation.
Exchanging Messages with a Convicted Sex Offender
As legislation to force the disclosure of government-held files related to convicted criminal Jeffrey Epstein was nearing passage, reports emerged that a congresswoman had been in text communication with Epstein in the midst of a 2019 hearing. Capitalizing on the situation, political opponents lawmakers introduced a censure resolution against the representative. This resolution did not pass thanks to united opposition from the member's own party and the defections of a handful of lawmakers from the resolution's authors.
A Wide Range of Alleged Misdeeds
One congressman was the subject of three separate reprimand efforts throughout the year, which eventually led to {allegations|claims