🔗 Share this article

This past year in the House of Representatives has been one for the history books. Congresspeople set records for the most extended oration and the most protracted roll call, and oversaw the longest cessation of government operations.

Furthermore, legislators allocated significant time seeking to formally criticize one another through formal condemnation measures, the House's official mechanism for punishment. A search of congressional records reveals a minimum of 17 attempts since the year's beginning to formally disapprove of a member via a censure or a simpler statement of disapproval.

When a condemnation resolution is approved by a most members, the targeted lawmaker must stand 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 practical repercussions – they retain their position and their voting privileges, but perhaps not their public image.

Despite the fact that most of these were successful, the barrage intensified so pronounced that by the end of the year, a group of lawmakers from both parties suggested altering the rules to create a higher bar for reprimands to be approved. “What if we end the mutual recrimination in the House?” questioned one of the measure's authors.

Below is an examination at the supposed transgressions at the center of the flood of condemnation attempts:

---

Calling a Person a ‘Derogatory Term’

The earliest condemnation effort of the year was introduced in February aimed at a Democrat representative. The resolution charged the legislator of “provoking aggression against a special government employee”. The resolution referenced an occasion during a panel session where the congressperson used an insulting term about the figure in a rather roundabout fashion, as well as a later statement about bringing “physical force” to a political fight. The full body never considering the measure.

---

Yelling at the Chief Executive

In the midst of a presentation to a meeting of Congress, a Democrat representative heckled the president, shouting “he has no mandate” while raising a cane in the air. The Speaker of the House had the individual forcibly removed. In the aftermath, several censures were filed against the disruptor. Shortly thereafter, the chamber approved one of these measures, with a number of members of the lawmaker's own political affiliation voting in favor alongside the opposing party. This stands as the sole condemnation to gain formal adoption during the year.

---

Using Racial Stereotypes

A mere few days after the earlier reprimand, a resolution was proposed aiming at a lawmaker for remarks made about the individual who was reprimanded. The proposal charged the legislator of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another member of Congress”. This resolution was not a vote on the House floor.

---

Mocking a Governor's Disability

A further proposed censure focused on supposed insulting nicknames made by a lawmaker about a chief executive who is a wheelchair user. The comments were deemed highly offensive and led to a censure resolution that also failed to reach a vote.

---

Altercation with Immigration Authorities

A number of condemnation motions were filed against a congresswoman after she was arrested and charged following an confrontation outside a immigration detention center. One of these motions was considered in the chamber, but was defeated thanks to a coalition of one party and a handful of legislators from the sponsor's own party. This signaled the beginning of multiple occasions where members defied party loyalty to defeat a censure attempt.

---

Allegations of Bigotry

A congressman was the subject of separate reprimand efforts over the summer for offensive statements made about public figures of color. The statements included insulting labels and calls for removal from the country. Not one of these proposals was considered by the full House.

---

Criticizing a Late Activist Legacy

In the aftermath of a well-known individual's death, a reprimand proposal was proposed against a lawmaker for comments that were deemed “derogatory” toward the activist and those mourning him. Once again, the motion was killed with the assistance of a few of representatives from the resolution's originating party. One of those who voted against the censure stated that the correct approach to “reprehensible speech” is not silencing, but “additional dialogue”.

---

‘Undermining the Process of a Democratic Election’

The flurry of reprimands peaked late in the year when, during a crucial legislative action, a congresswoman spoke publicly to claim that a fellow Democrat had planned his departure in a manner to practically guarantee a specific successor would be elected to replace him. The measure registered dissent of this action for “undermining the process of a free and fair election”. This resolution generated controversy but ended up being approved, with support from the majority of the other party and a notable group of lawmakers from the alleging member's party.

---

Exchanging Messages with Jeffrey Epstein

As legislation to compel the release of sealed records related to convicted criminal Jeffrey Epstein was nearing passage, reports emerged that a delegate had exchanged text messages with Epstein during a official proceeding. Capitalizing on the situation, opposition party lawmakers filed a reprimand motion against the member. This attempt did not pass thanks to a unified front from the lawmaker's party and the defections of a handful of members from the resolution's authors.

---

A Myriad of Supposed Wrongdoings

One congressman was the focus of multiple distinct censure resolutions throughout the year, which eventually led to {allegations|claims