This past year in the House of Representatives has entered the historical record. Congresspeople set benchmarks for the longest floor speech and the most protracted roll call, and presided over the lengthiest government shutdown.
Additionally, they devoted significant time trying to discipline colleagues through censure resolutions, the House's official mechanism for rebuke. A review of legislative databases indicates a minimum of 17 moves since the year's beginning to reproach a colleague via a reprimand or a less formal condemnatory measure.
If a censure motion is adopted by a majority of the chamber, the subject of the resolution is required to stand before the House dais as the chair announces to them that they face formal condemnation for their bad behavior. This constitutes the practical repercussions – they keep their seat and their legislative power, but perhaps not their public image.
While nearly all of these passed, the flood became so pronounced that by the year's close, a group of lawmakers from both parties introduced a bill to modify the procedures to make it more difficult for reprimands to be approved. “Perhaps we should end the internal warfare in the House?” asked one of the bill's sponsors.
Below is an examination at the supposed transgressions at the core of the wave of reprimands:
Referring to a Individual a ‘Insult’
The first censure attempt of the year was introduced in February aimed at a Democratic lawmaker. The measure alleged the member of “encouraging hostility against a specific federal appointee”. It cited an occasion during a committee hearing where the representative uttered a crude remark about the individual in a particularly creative manner, as well as a subsequent comment about bringing “actual weapons” to a political fight. The chamber did not end up voting on it.
Disrupting the Chief Executive
During an address to a gathering of Congress, a Democrat lawmaker heckled the nation's leader, exclaiming “he lacks a popular mandate” while waving a cane in the air. The House speaker directed that the congressperson escorted out. Subsequently, several reprimand motions were proposed targeting him. Shortly thereafter, the chamber approved one of these motions, with a number of members of the representative's party casting yes votes alongside the other side. This was the single reprimand to gain formal adoption during the year.
Using Racial Stereotypes
A mere few days after the earlier reprimand, a motion was proposed targeting a representative for statements made about the previously censured member. The proposal alleged the member of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another fellow lawmaker”. This proposal was not a full chamber vote.
Mocking a State Executive's Mobility Aid
Another condemnation attempt centered on supposed insulting nicknames made by a lawmaker about a state governor who uses a wheelchair. The remarks were considered profoundly inappropriate and prompted a formal condemnation that also was not brought to a vote.
Confrontation with Federal Agents
Multiple condemnation motions were introduced against a representative after she was taken into custody and indicted following an incident outside a government holding center. One of these measures was considered in the House, but was killed thanks to a combination of lawmakers from the other side and a handful of members from the sponsor's own party. This marked the beginning of multiple times where lawmakers crossed party lines to block a condemnation effort.
Allegations of Bigotry
A congressman was the subject of two censure resolutions over the warmer months for bigoted remarks made about elected officials of color. The statements included insulting labels and calls for removal from the country. None of these proposals was brought to the floor.
Questioning a Individual's Legacy
In the following period of a well-known figure's death, a reprimand proposal was introduced against a lawmaker for statements that were considered “disrespectful” toward the deceased individual and those grieving for him. For another time, the measure was blocked with the help of a handful of representatives from the sponsor's own party. One of those who blocked the censure stated that the proper response to “reprehensible speech” is not censorship, but “more speech”.
‘Compromising the System of a Open Election’
The barrage of condemnations peaked late in the year when, in the middle of a key government funding vote, a lawmaker took to the chamber to accuse that a senior member had planned his departure in a manner to practically guarantee a chosen replacement would be win his congressional seat. The disapproval motion expressed disapproval of this action for “harming the integrity of a free and fair election”. This measure provoked anger but ended up being approved, with votes from most the other party and a sizable bloc of lawmakers from the accuser's own party.
Texting Jeffrey Epstein
As legislation to force the disclosure of government-held files related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was approaching a vote, reports emerged that a congresswoman had texted with Epstein during a 2019 hearing. Seizing the moment, opposition party members filed a censure resolution against the member. This resolution failed thanks to a unified front from the member's own party and the support of a few of lawmakers from the sponsoring party.
A Wide Range of Supposed Wrongdoings
One lawmaker was the target of several different condemnation motions throughout the year, which resulted in {allegations|claims
