🔗 Share this article An Era of Condemnation: Assessing the House's Historic Year The previous year in the lower chamber has been one for the history books. Congresspeople broke benchmarks for the longest floor speech and the longest vote, and managed the most extended federal funding lapse. They also devoted a great deal of effort seeking to formally criticize one another through disciplinary motions, the body's formal procedure for punishment. An examination of congressional records reveals at least 17 efforts since the January to condemn another lawmaker via a censure or a more informal disapproval resolution. When a condemnation measure passes by a most members, the subject of the resolution has to rise 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 actual penalties – they retain their seat and their voting privileges, but perhaps not their standing. Though almost none of these were successful, the barrage intensified so intense that by the year's close, a group of lawmakers from both parties suggested altering the procedures to create a higher bar for condemnation motions to pass. “Perhaps we should stop the circular firing squad in the House?” asked one of the measure's authors. Here’s a look at the supposed transgressions at the core of the censure spree: Referring to a Individual a ‘Offensive Name’ The initial censure attempt of the year was introduced in February aimed at a Democrat congressperson. The measure charged the official of “encouraging hostility against a designated official”. It pointed to an instance during a congressional hearing where the lawmaker 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 chamber never voting on it. Shouting at the President During an address to a meeting of Congress, a Democrat congressman heckled the president, exclaiming “he lacks a popular mandate” while raising a cane in the air. The presiding officer had the individual escorted out. In the aftermath, several condemnation resolutions were introduced against the disruptor. Shortly thereafter, the legislature voted for one of these resolutions, with several members of the disruptor's own party voting in favor alongside the opposing party. This was the sole condemnation to actually win approval during the year. Using Ethnic Tropes Only a short time after the aforementioned condemnation, a motion was filed against a representative for statements made about the disruptive colleague. The proposal charged the official of using language that was “insulting, demeaning, and bigoted toward another member of Congress”. This resolution never came up for a full chamber vote. Mocking a State Executive's Mobility Aid One more condemnation attempt involved claimed insulting nicknames made by a representative about a chief executive who has been paralyzed. The remarks were deemed profoundly inappropriate and led to a censure resolution that also failed to reach a floor vote. Incident with Immigration Authorities Multiple censure resolutions were proposed against a lawmaker after she was detained and faced felony charges following an altercation outside a federal detention facility. One of these motions was considered in the chamber, but was blocked thanks to a coalition of one party and a handful of members from the party that introduced it. This represented the initial instance among many times where representatives voted across the aisle to block a reprimand motion. Charges of Racism A congressman was the subject of two censure resolutions over the mid-year period for discriminatory comments made about political leaders of color. The posts included insulting labels and calls for removal from the country. Neither proposals was considered by the full House. Disparaging a Late Activist Character In the aftermath of a controversial individual's death, a condemnation motion was proposed against a representative for statements that were viewed as “disrespectful” toward the deceased individual and those mourning him. Once again, the resolution was blocked with the assistance of a small group of representatives from the resolution's originating party. One of those who voted against the censure commented that the right answer to “reprehensible speech” is not censorship, but “additional dialogue”. ‘Subverting the Integrity of a Open Election’ The wave of censures culminated late in the year when, during a pivotal vote, a representative spoke publicly to allege that a colleague had orchestrated his retirement in a manner to practically guarantee a chosen replacement would be elected to replace him. The disapproval motion registered dissent of this conduct for “harming the integrity of a democratic election”. This motion sparked outrage but ultimately passed, with votes from most the minority party and a significant number of members from the alleging member's party. Exchanging Messages with a Notorious Figure As congressional action to force the disclosure of sealed records related to deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein was close to approval, it was revealed that a lawmaker had texted with Epstein in the midst of a 2019 hearing. Seeing an opportunity, political opponents lawmakers introduced a censure resolution against the representative. This attempt did not pass 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 Myriad of Supposed Wrongdoings One representative was the focus of multiple distinct reprimand efforts throughout the year, which eventually led to {allegations|claims