A Year of Censure: Assessing the Congressional Record-Breaking Term
The last twelve months in the U.S. House has entered the history books. Lawmakers broke new marks for the lengthiest continuous address and the longest vote, and presided over the lengthiest government shutdown.
Additionally, they devoted significant time seeking to reprimand each other through formal condemnation measures, the body's formal procedure for rebuke. A review of official proceedings shows at least 17 efforts since the start of the year to reproach a colleague via a censure or a simpler condemnatory measure.
If a censure resolution is approved by a simple majority of the House, the targeted lawmaker has to rise before the rostrum as the chair announces to them that they face formal condemnation for their improper actions. This constitutes the consequences go – they retain their position and their right to vote, but likely harming their standing.
Though almost none of these gained approval, the flurry grew so intense that by the conclusion of the session, a bipartisan group introduced a bill to modify the procedures to raise the threshold for reprimands to be approved. “Perhaps we should stop the mutual recrimination in the House?” questioned one of the bill's sponsors.
Here’s a look at the alleged misdeeds at the center of the censure spree:
Referring to a Individual a ‘Insult’
The earliest censure attempt of the year occurred during February targeting a Democrat lawmaker. The resolution charged the legislator of “encouraging hostility against a specific federal appointee”. It pointed to an instance during a committee hearing where the representative uttered a crude remark about the individual in a rather roundabout fashion, as well as a later statement about employing “real arms” to a partisan battle. The House never holding a vote on the resolution.
Shouting at the Chief Executive
While giving a speech to a joint session of Congress, a Democratic congressman disrupted the nation's leader, shouting “the people did not grant him authority” while pumping a staff in the air. The Speaker of the House directed that the congressperson escorted out. Subsequently, a number of reprimand motions were filed targeting him. Two days later, the chamber approved one of these resolutions, with some members of the disruptor's own party voting in favor alongside the other side. This was the sole condemnation to gain formal adoption during the year.
Employing Ethnic Tropes
Only a short time after the previous censure, a measure was filed targeting a congressperson for comments made about the disruptive colleague. The measure charged the official of using language that was “offensive, belittling, and racially charged toward another fellow lawmaker”. This resolution was not a consideration by the entire body.
Making light of a Governor's Disability
A further proposed censure focused on claimed derogatory comments made by a congressperson about a governor who has been paralyzed. The nicknames were considered highly offensive and prompted a censure resolution that also failed to reach a vote.
Confrontation with Immigration Authorities
A number of censure resolutions were introduced against a lawmaker after she was detained and faced felony charges following an incident outside a government holding center. One of these resolutions was debated in the House, but was defeated thanks to a alliance of opposing party members and a handful of legislators from the resolution's party of origin. This marked the beginning of multiple times where members defied party loyalty to stop a condemnation effort.
Accusations of Bigotry
A lawmaker was the subject of multiple condemnation motions over the warmer months for discriminatory comments made about public figures of color. The comments included offensive monikers and calls for removal from the country. Neither measures was put up for a vote.
Criticizing a Late Activist Character
In the aftermath of a well-known activist's death, a reprimand proposal was proposed against a congresswoman for comments that were deemed “disparaging” toward the late person and those mourning him. For another time, the resolution was defeated with the votes of a small group of representatives from the party that introduced it. One of those who blocked the censure stated that the correct approach to “offensive language” is not punishment, but “further debate”.
‘Subverting the Integrity of a Democratic Election’
The wave of censures peaked late in the year when, in the middle of a crucial legislative action, a congresswoman went to the House floor to accuse that a colleague had planned his departure in a manner to ensure a particular individual would be win his congressional seat. The measure voiced condemnation of this behavior for “subverting the system of a open electoral contest”. This resolution sparked outrage but was voted into effect, with votes from most the other party and a notable group of members from the alleging member's party.
Texting a Convicted Sex Offender
As legislation to mandate the publication of official documents related to deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein was nearing passage, it was revealed that a delegate had exchanged text messages with Epstein in the midst of a official proceeding. Capitalizing on the situation, political opponents lawmakers filed a censure resolution against the delegate. This resolution failed thanks to solidarity from the delegate's political allies and the support of a handful of lawmakers from the party that introduced it.
A Wide Range of Supposed Wrongdoings
One congressman was the subject of three separate censure resolutions throughout the year, which resulted in {allegations|claims
