🔗 Share this article

The last twelve months in the lower chamber has gone down in the annals of history. Congresspeople broke records for the most extended oration and the most protracted roll call, and managed the most extended federal funding lapse.

Furthermore, legislators spent considerable energy seeking to reprimand each other through disciplinary motions, the body's primary tool for disciplinary action. A search of official proceedings reveals no fewer than 17 attempts since the start of the year to formally disapprove of a member via a censure or a simpler disapproval resolution.

If a censure measure passes by a most members, the member in question must stand before the speaker's podium as the speaker informs them that they are being disciplined for their improper actions. This constitutes the consequences go – they retain their congressional office and their right to vote, but perhaps not their standing.

Though almost none of these gained approval, the flurry grew so pronounced that by the year's close, a group of lawmakers from both parties suggested altering the procedures to raise the threshold for condemnation motions to pass. “Perhaps we should stop the circular firing squad in the House?” asked one of the bill's sponsors.

Here’s a look at the claimed misconduct at the heart of the censure spree:

---

Labeling a Figure a ‘Offensive Name’

The first condemnation effort of the year was introduced in February against a Democratic lawmaker. The measure accused the official of “inciting violence against a specific federal appointee”. It pointed to an occasion during a panel session where the representative uttered a crude remark about the person in a particularly creative manner, as well as a follow-up remark about using “real arms” to a political fight. The full body never voting on it.

---

Shouting at the Commander-in-Chief

In the midst of a presentation to a meeting of Congress, a Democrat representative interrupted the president, exclaiming “the people did not grant him authority” while pumping a walking cane in the air. The House speaker ordered the member escorted out. Following this, multiple condemnation resolutions were introduced aimed at the lawmaker. A short time after, the legislature voted for one of these measures, with a number of members of the disruptor's own party voting in favor alongside the majority party. This remains the single reprimand to actually win approval during the year.

---

Resorting to Derogatory Characterizations

Only a short time after the earlier reprimand, a measure was introduced aiming at a representative for comments made about the disruptive colleague. The resolution charged the member of using language that was “insulting, demeaning, and bigoted toward another fellow lawmaker”. This measure was not a full chamber vote.

---

Disparaging a Governor's Mobility Aid

One more condemnation attempt focused on supposed disrespectful remarks made by a congressperson about a chief executive who has been paralyzed. The nicknames were deemed profoundly inappropriate and resulted in a censure resolution that also failed to reach a full chamber decision.

---

Incident with Law Enforcement

A number of condemnation motions were proposed against a representative after she was taken into custody and indicted following an incident outside a government holding center. One of these motions was considered in the House, but was defeated thanks to a alliance of lawmakers from the other side and a few of members from the party that introduced it. This represented the first of several instances where members defied party loyalty to defeat a condemnation effort.

---

Allegations of Discrimination

A congressman was the subject of separate reprimand efforts over the summer for bigoted remarks made about elected officials of color. The statements included insulting labels and calls for expulsion. None of these measures was considered by the full House.

---

Questioning a Late Activist Legacy

In the aftermath of a well-known figure's death, a condemnation motion was filed against a congresswoman for statements that were viewed as “disrespectful” toward the deceased individual and those honoring him. For another time, the measure was blocked with the votes of a few of members from the sponsor's own party. One of those who blocked the censure remarked that the proper response to “reprehensible speech” is not silencing, but “additional dialogue”.

---

‘Subverting the Process of a Democratic Election’

The wave of censures peaked late in the year when, in the middle of a crucial legislative action, a congresswoman went to the House floor to claim that a colleague had planned his departure in a manner to ensure a specific successor would be chosen to fill his seat. The resolution registered dissent of this conduct for “undermining the process of a free and fair election”. This resolution sparked outrage but ended up being approved, with votes from most the opposing party and a significant number of members from the accuser's own party.

---

Exchanging Messages with Jeffrey Epstein

As a bill to force the disclosure of sealed records related to deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein was close to approval, news broke that a congresswoman had texted with Epstein during a official proceeding. Seeing an opportunity, opposition party lawmakers proposed a reprimand motion against the member. This resolution was defeated thanks to united opposition from the member's own party and the defections of a small number of members from the party that introduced it.

---

A Wide Range of Supposed Wrongdoings

One lawmaker was the target of several different condemnation motions throughout the year, which wound up sparking {allegations|claims