🔗 Share this article

The last twelve months in the House of Representatives has gone down in the historical record. Lawmakers established benchmarks for the lengthiest continuous address and the longest vote, and managed the longest cessation of government operations.

They also spent a great deal of effort seeking to formally criticize one another through disciplinary motions, the body's official mechanism for rebuke. An examination of legislative databases shows at least 17 moves since the start of the year to condemn another lawmaker via a reprimand or a simpler statement of disapproval.

When a condemnation motion is adopted by a majority of the chamber, the subject of the resolution is required to stand before the speaker's podium as the speaker informs them that they face formal condemnation for their misconduct. This constitutes the actual penalties – they maintain their congressional office and their right to vote, but likely harming their reputation.

Though almost none of these were successful, the flood became so pronounced that by the conclusion of the session, a group of lawmakers from both parties proposed changing the procedures to create a higher bar for censures to succeed. “How about we stop the internal warfare in the House?” asked one of the measure's authors.

What follows is a review at the supposed transgressions at the center of the censure spree:

---

Referring to a Figure a ‘Offensive Name’

The initial reprimand motion of the year occurred during February against a Democrat congressperson. The measure accused the official of “encouraging hostility against a special government employee”. It cited an event during a committee hearing where the representative used an insulting term about the individual in a rather roundabout fashion, as well as a follow-up remark about bringing “actual weapons” to a ideological conflict. The House never voting on it.

---

Shouting at the Commander-in-Chief

While giving a speech to a gathering of Congress, a Democrat lawmaker disrupted the president, exclaiming “he lacks a popular mandate” while pumping a staff in the air. The presiding officer ordered the member escorted out. Subsequently, multiple censures were introduced aimed at the lawmaker. A short time after, the chamber approved one of these resolutions, with several members of the lawmaker's own political affiliation supporting it alongside the opposing party. This was the sole condemnation to be successfully passed during the year.

---

Employing Racial Stereotypes

A mere few days after the earlier reprimand, a motion was filed against a representative for remarks made about the disruptive colleague. The proposal accused the member of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another fellow lawmaker”. This proposal did not receive a consideration by the entire body.

---

Disparaging a Governor's Disability

A further reprimand effort involved claimed insulting nicknames made by a representative about a governor who has been paralyzed. The comments were considered highly offensive and led to a formal condemnation that also did not come up a floor vote.

---

Incident with Federal Agents

Several censure resolutions were filed against a representative after she was taken into custody and indicted following an incident outside a immigration detention center. One of these motions was considered in the House, but was killed thanks to a coalition of opposing party members and a small group of legislators from the sponsor's own party. This signaled the beginning of multiple instances where lawmakers crossed party lines to block a censure attempt.

---

Allegations of Bigotry

A lawmaker was the focus of separate reprimand efforts over the warmer months for discriminatory comments made about public figures of color. The comments included offensive monikers and calls for deportation. Not one of these resolutions was considered by the full House.

---

Questioning a Late Activist Character

In the aftermath of a well-known activist's death, a condemnation motion was filed against a lawmaker for comments that were considered “disrespectful” toward the deceased individual and those mourning him. For another time, the measure was killed with the votes of a handful of members from the sponsor's own party. One of those who opposed the censure commented that the right answer to “offensive language” is not censorship, but “more speech”.

---

‘Undermining the Integrity of a Open Election’

The wave of censures culminated late in the year when, in the middle of a crucial legislative action, a lawmaker took to the chamber to accuse that a senior member had arranged to step down in a manner to guarantee a specific successor would be chosen to fill his seat. The disapproval motion registered dissent of this behavior for “undermining the process of a democratic election”. This motion sparked outrage but ultimately passed, with support from the majority of the minority party and a sizable bloc of members from the alleging member's party.

---

Communicating via Text Jeffrey Epstein

As legislation to mandate the publication of sealed records related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was approaching a vote, it was revealed that a delegate had exchanged text messages with Epstein in the midst of a official proceeding. Capitalizing on the situation, opposition party lawmakers proposed a reprimand motion against the representative. This attempt did not pass thanks to a unified front from the lawmaker's party and the defections of a few of members from the party that introduced it.

---

A Wide Range of Supposed Wrongdoings

One congressman was the target of several different reprimand efforts throughout the year, which wound up sparking {allegations|claims