The last twelve months in the U.S. House has gone down in the annals of history. Legislators broke records for the most extended oration and the longest vote, and presided over the longest cessation of government operations.
They also allocated considerable energy seeking to reprimand each other through censure resolutions, the body's formal procedure for disciplinary action. A search of legislative databases reveals a minimum of 17 attempts since the January to reproach a colleague via a reprimand or a less formal condemnatory measure.
If a censure motion is adopted by a most members, the subject of the resolution must stand before the House dais as the presiding officer notifies them that they are being disciplined for their bad behavior. This constitutes the actual penalties – they keep their seat and their legislative power, but perhaps not their public image.
Though almost none of these passed, the flurry grew so intense that by the conclusion of the session, a bipartisan group introduced a bill to modify the rules to create a higher bar for reprimands to be approved. “What if we stop the internal warfare in the House?” questioned one of the measure's authors.
What follows is a review at the claimed misconduct at the center of the flood of condemnation attempts:
Referring to a Individual a ‘Derogatory Term’
The first condemnation effort of the year was introduced in February against a Democratic lawmaker. The resolution accused the legislator of “provoking aggression against a special government employee”. The resolution referenced an instance during a committee hearing where the lawmaker used an insulting term about the figure in a rather roundabout way, as well as a subsequent comment about bringing “actual weapons” to a partisan battle. The full body ultimately did not holding a vote on the resolution.
Shouting at the Chief Executive
In the midst of a presentation to a meeting of Congress, a Democrat lawmaker heckled the nation's leader, shouting “the people did not grant him authority” while pumping a walking cane in the air. The House speaker ordered the member forcibly removed. In the aftermath, a number of censures were filed against the disruptor. Shortly thereafter, 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 single reprimand to actually win approval during the year.
Using Ethnic Tropes
Just days after the earlier reprimand, a resolution was introduced targeting a representative for comments made about the previously censured member. The resolution accused the official of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another colleague”. This proposal was not a vote on the House floor.
Disparaging a State Executive's Physical Condition
A further proposed censure involved alleged derogatory comments made by a representative about a governor who has been paralyzed. The nicknames were considered profoundly inappropriate and prompted a formal condemnation that also did not come up a floor vote.
Confrontation with Federal Agents
Several condemnation motions were proposed against a congresswoman after she was detained and faced felony charges following an altercation outside a government holding center. One of these motions was debated in the chamber, but was killed thanks to a combination of lawmakers from the other side and a handful of members from the party that introduced it. This signaled the initial instance among many occasions where representatives voted across the aisle to block a condemnation effort.
Charges of Bigotry
A lawmaker was the subject of two censure resolutions over the summer for offensive statements made about elected officials of color. The posts included derogatory nicknames and calls for deportation. None of these resolutions was considered by the full House.
Disparaging a Late Activist Actions
In the aftermath of a well-known figure's death, a reprimand proposal was proposed against a congresswoman for comments that were deemed “disparaging” toward the deceased individual and those grieving for him. Once again, the measure was blocked with the votes of a handful of members from the resolution's originating party. One of those who voted against the censure remarked that the proper response to “objectionable comments” is not silencing, but “additional dialogue”.
‘Subverting the Process of a Open Election’
The flurry of reprimands peaked late in the year when, during a key government funding vote, a representative spoke publicly to claim that a senior member had orchestrated his retirement in a manner to practically guarantee a chosen replacement would be win his congressional seat. The measure registered dissent of this conduct for “undermining the process of a democratic election”. This motion provoked anger but ultimately passed, with support from the majority of the opposing party and a sizable bloc of members from the complainant's political affiliation.
Texting a Notorious Figure
As congressional action to force the disclosure of government-held files related to deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein was approaching a vote, it was revealed that a lawmaker had exchanged text messages with Epstein while attending a congressional hearing. Capitalizing on the situation, opposition party members filed a reprimand motion against the representative. This attempt did not pass thanks to a unified front 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 congressman was the target of three separate censure resolutions throughout the year, which eventually led to {allegations|claims
