🔗 Share this article

The previous year in the lower chamber has been one for the annals of history. Congresspeople set records for the most extended oration and the most protracted roll call, and managed the lengthiest government shutdown.

Furthermore, legislators devoted significant time trying to formally criticize one another through disciplinary motions, the House's formal procedure for punishment. A search of congressional records reveals no fewer than 17 attempts since the start of the year to reproach a colleague via a formal condemnation or a simpler statement of disapproval.

If a censure measure passes by a most members, the targeted lawmaker has to rise before the rostrum as the chair announces to them that they have been punished for their improper actions. That's as far as the actual penalties – they retain their seat and their right to vote, but likely harming their standing.

While nearly all of these passed, the barrage intensified so severe that by the conclusion of the session, a group of lawmakers from both parties proposed changing the standing orders to create a higher bar for condemnation motions to pass. “What if we halt the mutual recrimination in the House?” inquired one of the measure's authors.

Here’s a look at the claimed misconduct at the heart of the flood of condemnation attempts:

---

Labeling a Individual a ‘Offensive Name’

The earliest censure attempt of the year came in February aimed at a member of the Democratic Party congressperson. The proposal accused the legislator of “encouraging hostility against a designated official”. It pointed to an instance during a panel session where the congressperson used an insulting term about the figure in a particularly creative fashion, as well as a subsequent comment about bringing “physical force” to a political fight. The full body ultimately did not voting on it.

---

Yelling at the President

During an address to a meeting of Congress, a member of the opposition congressman interrupted the nation's leader, yelling “he has no mandate” while pumping a cane in the air. The Speaker of the House had the individual escorted out. Subsequently, a number of condemnation resolutions were filed aimed at the lawmaker. Shortly thereafter, the chamber approved one of these motions, with several members of the lawmaker's own political affiliation casting yes votes alongside the majority party. This stands as the single reprimand to actually win approval during the year.

---

Using Ethnic Tropes

Just days after the aforementioned condemnation, a motion was introduced aiming at a representative for comments made about the disruptive colleague. The proposal charged the legislator of using language that was “insulting, demeaning, and bigoted toward another fellow lawmaker”. This resolution never came up for a full chamber vote.

---

Disparaging a Official's Mobility Aid

Another condemnation attempt involved claimed insulting nicknames made by a congressperson about a governor who is a wheelchair user. The comments were viewed as deeply disrespectful and led to a censure resolution that also failed to reach a vote.

---

Confrontation with Federal Agents

Multiple condemnation motions were introduced against a congresswoman after she was arrested and charged following an incident outside a federal detention facility. One of these measures was considered in the House, but was defeated thanks to a combination of opposing party members and a handful of representatives from the resolution's party of origin. This represented the initial instance among many instances where lawmakers crossed party lines to defeat a reprimand motion.

---

Allegations of Discrimination

A representative was the focus of multiple condemnation motions over the mid-year period for offensive statements made about public figures of color. The comments included derogatory nicknames and calls for expulsion. None of these proposals was brought to the floor.

---

Criticizing a Individual's Character

In the wake of a controversial figure's death, a censure resolution was proposed against a lawmaker for statements that were viewed as “disparaging” toward the activist and those honoring him. Once again, the motion was killed with the help of a few of representatives from the resolution's originating party. One of those who opposed the censure commented that the correct approach to “reprehensible speech” is not punishment, but “additional dialogue”.

---

‘Undermining the Integrity of a Free and Fair Election’

The barrage of condemnations reached a high point late in the year when, in the middle of a pivotal vote, a representative took to the chamber to claim that a colleague had orchestrated his retirement in a manner to guarantee a particular individual would be chosen to fill his seat. The resolution registered dissent of this conduct for “harming the integrity of a open electoral contest”. This measure sparked outrage but ultimately passed, with support from the majority of the other party and a significant number of lawmakers from the alleging member's party.

---

Texting a Notorious Figure

As a bill to compel the release of official documents related to convicted criminal Jeffrey Epstein was close to approval, reports emerged that a delegate had texted with Epstein in the midst of a official proceeding. Seeing an opportunity, the other party lawmakers filed a formal condemnation against the representative. This attempt failed thanks to united opposition from the lawmaker's party and the support of a small number of lawmakers from the sponsoring party.

---

A Myriad of Supposed Wrongdoings

One lawmaker was the focus of three separate censure resolutions throughout the year, which eventually led to {allegations|claims