A Period of Condemnation: Examining the U.S. House's Historic Year

This past year in the U.S. House has been one for the history books. Legislators broke records for the lengthiest continuous address and the most protracted roll call, and presided over the longest cessation of government operations.

Additionally, they spent a great deal of effort attempting to formally criticize one another through formal condemnation measures, the chamber's formal procedure for punishment. An examination of congressional records shows no fewer than 17 attempts since the start of the year to formally disapprove of a member via a censure or a simpler statement of disapproval.

Should a reprimand measure passes by a simple majority of the House, the member in question has to rise before the rostrum as the presiding officer notifies them that they face formal condemnation for their misconduct. This constitutes the consequences go – they maintain their congressional office and their legislative power, but likely harming their reputation.

Though almost none of these gained approval, the barrage intensified so severe that by the end of the year, a cross-party coalition suggested altering the rules to create a higher bar for censures to succeed. “How about we end the mutual recrimination in the House?” inquired one of the proposal's backers.

Here’s a look at the claimed misconduct at the core of the wave of reprimands:

Calling a Person a ‘Insult’

The initial censure attempt of the year came in February against a Democrat congressperson. The measure alleged the legislator of “inciting violence against a special government employee”. The resolution referenced an instance during a committee hearing where the congressperson uttered a crude remark about the person in a particularly creative fashion, as well as a follow-up remark about employing “real arms” to a political fight. The House did not end up voting on it.

Shouting at the Chief Executive

In the midst of a presentation to a joint session of Congress, a Democratic lawmaker disrupted the president, shouting “the people did not grant him authority” while waving a walking cane in the air. The presiding officer ordered the member taken from the chamber. Following this, a number of condemnation resolutions were filed targeting him. Shortly thereafter, the House passed one of these motions, with some members of the disruptor's own party casting yes votes alongside the other side. This was the only censure to gain formal adoption during the year.

Employing Racial Stereotypes

Just days after the previous censure, a measure was filed against a congressperson for remarks made about the individual who was reprimanded. The measure accused the official of using language that was “insulting, demeaning, and bigoted toward another colleague”. This measure did not receive a consideration by the entire body.

Mocking a Official's Physical Condition

Another condemnation attempt centered on claimed insulting nicknames made by a lawmaker about a governor who is a wheelchair user. The comments were viewed as deeply disrespectful and prompted a censure resolution that also failed to reach a full chamber decision.

Incident with Immigration Authorities

Multiple reprimand proposals were introduced against a representative after she was taken into custody and indicted following an altercation outside a immigration detention center. One of these measures was considered in the chamber, but was blocked thanks to a alliance of one party and a small group of representatives from the party that introduced it. This marked the beginning of multiple occasions where members defied party loyalty to block a condemnation effort.

Allegations of Bigotry

A congressman was the target of separate reprimand efforts over the warmer months for discriminatory comments made about public figures of color. The posts included offensive monikers and calls for deportation. Neither resolutions was considered by the full House.

Disparaging a Late Activist Legacy

In the following period of a prominent activist's death, a censure resolution was proposed against a lawmaker for remarks that were deemed “disparaging” toward the late person and those honoring him. Once again, the resolution was defeated with the help of a handful of representatives from the sponsor's own party. One of those who blocked the censure remarked that the right answer to “objectionable comments” is not censorship, but “more speech”.

‘Compromising the System of a Democratic Election’

The flurry of reprimands peaked late in the year when, amid a pivotal vote, a representative went to the House floor to allege that a colleague had planned his departure in a manner to ensure a chosen replacement would be elected to replace him. The measure registered dissent of this behavior for “harming the integrity of a democratic election”. This motion provoked anger but was voted into effect, with votes from most the opposing party and a significant number of lawmakers from the accuser's own party.

Communicating via Text a Notorious Figure

As congressional action to mandate the publication of official documents related to deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein was approaching a vote, news broke that a lawmaker had been in text communication with Epstein in the midst of a congressional hearing. Seizing the moment, political opponents lawmakers proposed a reprimand motion against the representative. This measure was defeated thanks to united opposition from the member's own party and the defections of a handful of members from the sponsoring party.

A Wide Range of Claimed Transgressions

One lawmaker was the focus of three separate censure resolutions throughout the year, which eventually led to {allegations|claims