🔗 Share this article

The previous year in the lower chamber has gone down in the history books. Lawmakers established benchmarks for the lengthiest continuous address and the lengthiest voting session, and managed the lengthiest government shutdown.

Furthermore, legislators devoted significant time trying to discipline colleagues through formal condemnation measures, the chamber's formal procedure for punishment. An examination of congressional records indicates a minimum of 17 attempts since the year's beginning to reproach a colleague via a formal condemnation or a simpler condemnatory measure.

If a censure resolution is approved by a simple majority of the House, the member in question is required to stand before the speaker's podium as the presiding officer notifies them that they face formal condemnation for their bad behavior. Those are the extent of the consequences go – they retain their position and their legislative power, but potentially damaging their reputation.

Though almost none of these passed, the flood became so intense that by the year's close, a group of lawmakers from both parties introduced a bill to modify the rules to create a higher bar for censures to succeed. “Perhaps we should stop the circular firing squad in the House?” asked one of the bill's sponsors.

Here’s a look at the alleged misdeeds at the center of the wave of reprimands:

---

Referring to a Person a ‘Derogatory Term’

The first censure attempt of the year came in February aimed at a member of the Democratic Party lawmaker. The measure alleged the official of “provoking aggression against a specific federal appointee”. It pointed to an instance during a congressional hearing where the representative uttered a crude remark about the figure in a rather roundabout manner, as well as a later statement about employing “actual weapons” to a political fight. The full body ultimately did not holding a vote on the resolution.

---

Shouting at the Commander-in-Chief

During an address to a meeting of Congress, a member of the opposition congressman heckled the nation's leader, exclaiming “he has no mandate” while pumping a cane in the air. The presiding officer had the individual forcibly removed. In the aftermath, several condemnation resolutions were proposed aimed at the lawmaker. Two days later, the chamber approved one of these motions, with a number of members of the representative's party voting in favor alongside the majority party. This remains the single reprimand to gain formal adoption during the year.

---

Resorting to Ethnic Tropes

Only a short time after the previous censure, a resolution was filed aiming at a congressperson for remarks 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.

---

Disparaging a State Executive's Physical Condition

Another condemnation attempt involved supposed derogatory comments made by a congressperson about a governor who is a wheelchair user. The remarks were considered highly offensive and led to a disciplinary motion that also did not come up a floor vote.

---

Incident with Federal Agents

A number of reprimand proposals were proposed against a lawmaker after she was arrested and charged following an incident outside a immigration detention center. One of these motions was considered in the House, but was blocked thanks to a coalition of opposing party members and a few of representatives from the resolution's party of origin. This signaled the initial instance among many instances where lawmakers crossed party lines to stop a condemnation effort.

---

Allegations of Racism

A representative was the focus of separate reprimand efforts over the mid-year period for offensive statements made about public figures of color. The comments included offensive monikers and calls for deportation. Neither resolutions was put up for a vote.

---

Disparaging a Deceased Figure Actions

In the aftermath of a well-known activist's death, a censure resolution was proposed against a lawmaker for remarks that were considered “disrespectful” toward the activist and those grieving for him. Yet again, the motion was defeated with the votes of a handful of lawmakers from the resolution's originating party. One of those who blocked the censure remarked that the right answer to “offensive language” is not silencing, but “additional dialogue”.

---

‘Undermining the System of a Open Election’

The barrage of condemnations peaked late in the year when, amid a pivotal vote, 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 measure voiced condemnation of this action for “harming the integrity of a open electoral contest”. This measure generated controversy but was voted into effect, with support from most the opposing party and a significant number of lawmakers from the accuser's own party.

---

Texting Jeffrey Epstein

As congressional action to mandate the publication of government-held files related to convicted criminal Jeffrey Epstein was close to approval, reports emerged that a delegate had been in text communication with Epstein in the midst of a 2019 hearing. Capitalizing on the situation, political opponents lawmakers filed a censure resolution against the representative. This resolution was defeated thanks to a unified front from the member's own party and the defections of a handful of members from the party that introduced it.

---

A Broad Spectrum of Claimed Transgressions

One lawmaker was the target of three separate censure resolutions throughout the year, which resulted in {allegations|claims