🔗 Share this article

The last twelve months in the U.S. House has entered the historical record. Legislators established records for the most extended oration and the lengthiest voting session, and oversaw the most extended federal funding lapse.

They also allocated a great deal of effort seeking to discipline colleagues through disciplinary motions, the House's official mechanism for disciplinary action. A search of legislative databases shows at least 17 moves since the year's beginning to reproach a colleague via a censure or a more informal condemnatory measure.

When a condemnation resolution is approved by a simple majority of the House, the targeted lawmaker is required to stand before the House dais as the presiding officer notifies them that they are being disciplined for their misconduct. That's as far as the practical repercussions – they keep their congressional office and their right to vote, but perhaps not their reputation.

While nearly all of these gained approval, the flood became so severe that by the end of the year, a bipartisan group introduced a bill to modify the procedures to raise the threshold for censures to succeed. “Perhaps we should stop the internal warfare in the House?” inquired one of the proposal's backers.

What follows is a review at the alleged misdeeds at the center of the wave of reprimands:

---

Labeling a Individual a ‘Insult’

The initial condemnation effort of the year was introduced in February aimed at a Democratic lawmaker. The proposal accused the official of “provoking aggression against a special government employee”. The resolution referenced an instance during a committee hearing where the lawmaker made a derogatory comment about the person in a rather roundabout manner, as well as a subsequent comment about using “physical force” to a partisan battle. The full body never holding a vote on the resolution.

---

Disrupting the Chief Executive

During an address to a gathering of Congress, a member of the opposition representative interrupted the president, shouting “he lacks a popular mandate” while waving a cane in the air. The presiding officer had the individual forcibly removed. Subsequently, multiple reprimand motions were filed against the disruptor. A short time after, the House passed one of these measures, with some members of the representative's party supporting it alongside the majority party. This stands as the only censure to gain formal adoption during the year.

---

Resorting to Racial Stereotypes

Only a short time after the aforementioned condemnation, a motion was filed against a congressperson for remarks made about the disruptive colleague. The resolution accused the member of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another fellow lawmaker”. This resolution was not a full chamber vote.

---

Mocking a State Executive's Mobility Aid

Another reprimand effort focused on claimed derogatory comments made by a congressperson about a governor who uses a wheelchair. The remarks were viewed as deeply disrespectful and led to a disciplinary motion that also failed to reach a full chamber decision.

---

Confrontation with Immigration Authorities

Multiple condemnation motions were proposed against a lawmaker after she was taken into custody and indicted following an confrontation outside a government holding center. One of these motions was considered in the chamber, but was blocked thanks to a combination of lawmakers from the other side and a few of representatives from the party that introduced it. This represented the initial instance among many instances where lawmakers crossed party lines to defeat a condemnation effort.

---

Allegations of Bigotry

A lawmaker was the focus of multiple condemnation motions over the summer for bigoted remarks made about public figures of color. The comments included derogatory nicknames and calls for removal from the country. None of these proposals was considered by the full House.

---

Disparaging a Deceased Figure Legacy

In the wake of a prominent activist's death, a reprimand proposal was filed against a lawmaker for remarks that were deemed “disparaging” toward the activist and those mourning him. For another time, the motion was defeated with the votes of a small group of representatives from the party that introduced it. One of those who voted against the censure remarked that the right answer to “objectionable comments” is not silencing, but “further debate”.

---

‘Compromising the System of a Free and Fair Election’

The flurry of reprimands reached a high point late in the year when, during a key government funding vote, a representative went to the House floor to claim that a senior member had arranged to step down in a manner to practically guarantee a particular individual would be elected to replace him. The disapproval motion registered dissent of this behavior for “undermining the process of a free and fair election”. This resolution sparked outrage but ended up being approved, with support from the majority of the minority party and a significant number of lawmakers from the complainant's political affiliation.

---

Communicating via Text Jeffrey Epstein

As a bill to mandate the publication of government-held files related to convicted criminal Jeffrey Epstein was approaching a vote, reports emerged that a congresswoman had been in text communication with Epstein in the midst of a 2019 hearing. Capitalizing on the situation, political opponents lawmakers proposed a formal condemnation against the representative. This resolution was defeated thanks to a unified front from the delegate's political allies and the votes of a handful of lawmakers from the resolution's authors.

---

A Broad Spectrum of Claimed Transgressions

One congressman was the focus of three separate reprimand efforts throughout the year, which wound up sparking {allegations|claims