🔗 Share this article

The last twelve months in the House of Representatives has gone down in the historical record. Congresspeople broke records for the lengthiest continuous address and the longest vote, and presided over the longest cessation of government operations.

Furthermore, legislators devoted significant time attempting to discipline colleagues through formal condemnation measures, the body's formal procedure for punishment. A review of congressional records reveals a minimum of 17 attempts since the January to reproach a colleague via a formal condemnation or a simpler condemnatory measure.

If a censure resolution is approved by a simple majority of the House, the subject of the resolution must stand before the rostrum as the presiding officer notifies them that they are being disciplined for their improper actions. Those are the extent of the actual penalties – they keep their seat and their legislative power, but potentially damaging their public image.

Despite the fact that most of these were successful, the flood became so severe that by the end of the year, a cross-party coalition proposed changing the procedures to raise the threshold for reprimands to be approved. “How about we halt the mutual recrimination in the House?” inquired one of the proposal's backers.

Here’s a look at the supposed transgressions at the core of the censure spree:

---

Calling a Figure a ‘Insult’

The first censure attempt of the year came in February aimed at a member of the Democratic Party lawmaker. The measure accused the member of “provoking aggression against a designated official”. The resolution referenced an occasion during a committee hearing where the lawmaker made a derogatory comment about the individual in a rather roundabout way, as well as a later statement about using “actual weapons” to a partisan battle. The chamber never considering the measure.

---

Disrupting the Chief Executive

While giving a speech to a gathering of Congress, a member of the opposition representative heckled the president, shouting “the people did not grant him authority” while waving a walking cane in the air. The Speaker of the House ordered the member forcibly removed. Subsequently, several condemnation resolutions were filed targeting him. Shortly thereafter, the House passed one of these measures, with a number of members of the disruptor's own party voting in favor alongside the opposing party. This remains the single reprimand to be successfully passed during the year.

---

Resorting to Derogatory Characterizations

Only a short time after the previous censure, a resolution was proposed targeting a congressperson for statements made about the disruptive colleague. The resolution accused the legislator of using language that was “insulting, demeaning, and bigoted toward another member of Congress”. This resolution was not a full chamber vote.

---

Mocking a Official's Disability

Another proposed censure centered on claimed insulting nicknames made by a lawmaker about a state governor who uses a wheelchair. The remarks were considered profoundly inappropriate and led to a censure resolution that also was not brought to a floor vote.

---

Altercation with Law Enforcement

Several condemnation motions were introduced against a representative after she was arrested and charged following an confrontation outside a federal detention facility. One of these motions was considered in the chamber, but was defeated thanks to a combination of one party and a few of representatives from the sponsor's own party. This marked the first of several occasions where lawmakers crossed party lines to stop a censure attempt.

---

Allegations of Racism

A lawmaker was the subject of two censure resolutions over the warmer months for bigoted remarks made about public figures of color. The comments included insulting labels and calls for expulsion. None of these proposals was considered by the full House.

---

Questioning a Deceased Figure Actions

In the following period of a controversial activist's death, a condemnation motion was introduced against a lawmaker for statements that were considered “disparaging” toward the late person and those grieving for him. Once again, the motion was blocked with the votes of a small group of lawmakers from the resolution's originating party. One of those who voted against the censure stated that the correct approach to “reprehensible speech” is not censorship, but “additional dialogue”.

---

‘Undermining the Process of a Democratic Election’

The barrage of condemnations peaked late in the year when, in the middle of a pivotal vote, a congresswoman went to the House floor to claim that a fellow Democrat had planned his departure in a manner to guarantee a specific successor would be chosen to fill his seat. The resolution registered dissent of this action for “harming the integrity of a free and fair election”. This measure sparked outrage but ended up being approved, with support from most the other party and a notable group of lawmakers from the accuser's own party.

---

Exchanging Messages with a Convicted Sex Offender

As congressional action to compel the release of sealed records related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was approaching a vote, news broke that a delegate had been in text communication with Epstein in the midst of a official proceeding. Seeing an opportunity, opposition party members filed a formal condemnation against the representative. This attempt failed thanks to united opposition from the lawmaker's party and the defections of a small number of members from the resolution's authors.

---

A Broad Spectrum of Supposed Wrongdoings

One congressman was the subject of multiple distinct condemnation motions throughout the year, which wound up sparking {allegations|claims