This past year in the U.S. House has gone down in the annals of history. Lawmakers set benchmarks for the longest floor speech and the most protracted roll call, and managed the lengthiest government shutdown.
Furthermore, legislators spent a great deal of effort trying to discipline colleagues through disciplinary motions, the chamber's official mechanism for rebuke. A review of congressional records shows at least 17 moves since the year's beginning to condemn another lawmaker via a censure or a simpler statement of disapproval.
If a censure resolution is approved by a most members, the subject of the resolution has to rise before the House dais as the presiding officer notifies them that they are being disciplined for their bad behavior. Those are the extent of the consequences go – they keep their seat and their voting privileges, but potentially damaging their standing.
Despite the fact that most of these gained approval, the flood became so severe that by the year's close, a bipartisan group introduced a bill to modify the procedures to make it more difficult for condemnation motions to pass. “What if we stop the circular firing squad in the House?” inquired one of the measure's authors.
Here’s a look at the alleged misdeeds at the heart of the censure spree:
Calling a Person a ‘Insult’
The earliest reprimand motion of the year came in February targeting a Democratic lawmaker. The proposal charged the legislator of “encouraging hostility against a designated official”. It cited an instance during a congressional hearing where the lawmaker made a derogatory comment about the person in a somewhat indirect way, as well as a follow-up remark about bringing “physical force” to a political fight. The full body never considering the measure.
Yelling at the Chief Executive
While giving a speech to a joint session of Congress, a Democratic congressman heckled the president, shouting “he lacks a popular mandate” while raising a cane in the air. The Speaker of the House directed that the congressperson escorted out. Subsequently, several censures were introduced targeting him. Two days later, the House passed one of these measures, with several members of the lawmaker's own political affiliation casting yes votes alongside the majority party. This was the sole condemnation to actually win approval during the year.
Employing Derogatory Characterizations
A mere few days after the aforementioned condemnation, a resolution was filed targeting a representative for comments made about the previously censured member. The measure alleged the official of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another member of Congress”. This resolution never came up for a consideration by the entire body.
Disparaging a Official's Disability
One more proposed censure centered on supposed derogatory comments made by a representative about a state governor who is a wheelchair user. The nicknames were considered highly offensive and led to a censure resolution that also failed to reach a full chamber decision.
Incident with Federal Agents
A number of reprimand proposals were filed against a representative after she was arrested and charged following an altercation outside a federal detention facility. One of these measures was considered in the House, but was killed thanks to a alliance of opposing party members and a handful of representatives from the resolution's party of origin. This represented the first of several instances where members defied party loyalty to block a censure attempt.
Allegations of Discrimination
A representative was the focus of separate reprimand efforts over the summer for offensive statements made about elected officials of color. The posts included derogatory nicknames and calls for expulsion. None of these resolutions was brought to the floor.
Disparaging a Late Activist Character
In the wake of a well-known individual's death, a condemnation motion was introduced against a lawmaker for statements that were considered “disparaging” toward the activist and those honoring him. For another time, the resolution was blocked with the help of a small group of representatives from the sponsor's own party. One of those who blocked the censure remarked that the proper response to “reprehensible speech” is not punishment, but “additional dialogue”.
‘Subverting the Process of a Free and Fair Election’
The wave of censures culminated late in the year when, amid a crucial legislative action, a representative spoke publicly to allege that a colleague had planned his departure in a manner to ensure a chosen replacement would be chosen to fill his seat. The resolution registered dissent of this behavior for “subverting the system of a democratic election”. This measure sparked outrage but was voted into effect, with support from the majority of the minority party and a significant number of members from the alleging member's party.
Exchanging Messages with a Notorious Figure
As legislation to force the disclosure of official documents related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was close to approval, reports emerged that a lawmaker had been in text communication with Epstein while attending a 2019 hearing. Seeing an opportunity, the other party lawmakers proposed a reprimand motion against the delegate. This measure did not pass thanks to united opposition from the delegate's political allies and the defections of a few of lawmakers from the sponsoring party.
A Myriad of Supposed Wrongdoings
One representative was the focus of multiple distinct censure resolutions throughout the year, which resulted in {allegations|claims
