An Era of Reprimand: Assessing the Congressional Historic Year
This past year in the lower chamber has been one for the historical record. Congresspeople established records for the longest floor speech and the lengthiest voting session, and presided over the lengthiest government shutdown.
They also spent significant time seeking to reprimand each other through censure resolutions, the body's primary tool for rebuke. A review of legislative databases reveals at least 17 attempts since the start of the year to formally disapprove of a member via a reprimand or a less formal condemnatory measure.
When a condemnation motion is adopted by a simple majority of the House, the member in question has to rise before the House dais as the presiding officer notifies them that they face formal condemnation for their improper actions. That's as far as the actual penalties – they keep their seat and their legislative power, but perhaps not their standing.
Though almost none of these gained approval, the flurry grew so severe that by the year's close, a group of lawmakers from both parties introduced a bill to modify the rules to raise the threshold for censures to succeed. “How about we end the mutual recrimination in the House?” inquired one of the measure's authors.
Here’s a look at the alleged misdeeds at the heart of the wave of reprimands:
Calling a Individual a ‘Derogatory Term’
The earliest reprimand motion of the year came in February against a member of the Democratic Party lawmaker. The measure alleged the member of “inciting violence against a designated official”. The resolution referenced an instance during a congressional hearing where the lawmaker made a derogatory comment about the person in a somewhat indirect manner, as well as a later statement about bringing “real arms” to a partisan battle. The full body did not end up considering the measure.
Disrupting the President
In the midst of a presentation to a joint session of Congress, a member of the opposition congressman heckled the nation's leader, exclaiming “he lacks a popular mandate” while waving a cane in the air. The House speaker ordered the member forcibly removed. In the aftermath, a number of censures were filed targeting him. A short time after, the House passed one of these measures, with a number of members of the representative's party casting yes votes alongside the majority party. This remains the sole condemnation to gain formal adoption during the year.
Resorting to Racial Stereotypes
A mere few days after the aforementioned condemnation, a resolution was filed aiming at a congressperson for remarks made about the disruptive colleague. The resolution charged the member of using language that was “insulting, demeaning, and bigoted toward another colleague”. This measure did not receive a full chamber vote.
Disparaging a Official's Mobility Aid
One more condemnation attempt involved alleged insulting nicknames made by a congressperson about a governor who uses a wheelchair. The comments were deemed deeply disrespectful and prompted a censure resolution that also did not come up a full chamber decision.
Confrontation with Immigration Authorities
Several censure resolutions were filed against a representative after she was detained and faced felony charges following an confrontation outside a immigration detention center. One of these measures was brought up in the chamber, but was killed thanks to a combination of lawmakers from the other side and a small group of members from the resolution's party of origin. This signaled the beginning of multiple instances where members defied party loyalty to defeat a reprimand motion.
Charges of Racism
A congressman was the target of two censure resolutions over the summer for discriminatory comments made about political leaders of color. The statements included derogatory nicknames and calls for deportation. Neither proposals was considered by the full House.
Disparaging a Deceased Figure Legacy
In the wake of a controversial activist's death, a censure resolution was filed against a lawmaker for comments that were viewed as “disrespectful” toward the deceased individual and those mourning him. Once again, the resolution was killed with the help of a handful of representatives from the sponsor's own party. One of those who blocked the censure commented that the right answer to “objectionable comments” is not censorship, but “further debate”.
‘Undermining the System of a Open Election’
The wave of censures culminated late in the year when, amid a crucial legislative action, a lawmaker took to the chamber to claim that a colleague had arranged to step down in a manner to practically guarantee a specific successor would be chosen to fill his seat. The resolution voiced condemnation of this behavior for “harming the integrity of a open electoral contest”. This resolution generated controversy but ended up being approved, with backing from most the opposing party and a sizable bloc of members from the complainant's political affiliation.
Texting Jeffrey Epstein
As a bill to compel the release of official documents related to convicted criminal Jeffrey Epstein was approaching a vote, reports emerged that a congresswoman had texted with Epstein during a congressional hearing. Seizing the moment, the other party members introduced a reprimand motion against the delegate. This measure did not pass thanks to solidarity from the lawmaker's party and the defections of a small number of lawmakers from the resolution's authors.
A Wide Range of Supposed Wrongdoings
One lawmaker was the focus of three separate censure resolutions throughout the year, which eventually led to {allegations|claims
