This week in Congress has taken an unexpected turn. What many anticipated as “expulsion week” has shifted to “resignation week.” In its history, the House has expelled only six members, making such a move a rarity. However, just days ago, there were whispers of four potential expulsions. It takes a two-thirds vote to remove a member, which hasn’t happened since late 2023, when former Rep. George Santos was ousted. The last before that was 2002, when Jim Traficant was expelled.
One notable case this week was that of former Rep. Eric Swalwell. He faced mounting calls to resign after multiple reports of sexual misconduct surfaced, including allegations from a former aide. Despite initially vowing to fight the claims, Swalwell eventually stepped down, sidestepping an expulsion process that might have led to significant public drama.
Another resignation came from former Rep. Tony Gonzales, who faced pressure to withdraw from his primary race. Initially, he denied allegations regarding his personal conduct, but the fallout from these claims forced him out of the running and, ultimately, out of Congress as well.
With two members gone, attention shifts to others in precarious positions. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly misappropriating $5 million in COVID relief funds. Facing a criminal trial in Florida, she maintains her innocence despite expectations of disciplinary action from the Ethics panel. House Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated a strong sentiment for her expulsion if the committee recommends it.
Adding to the complexity is Rep. Cory Mills, also under scrutiny and accused of acts that have raised serious questions about his conduct, including a restraining order related to allegations of domestic violence. Yet, his case remains less advanced within the ethics inquiry compared to Cherfilus-McCormick.
The resignations of Swalwell and Gonzales remove the immediacy of the expulsion threat, which previously created a balanced situation between Democrats and Republicans. Now, if the House were to pursue action against Cherfilus-McCormick without similar consequences for Mills, it could disrupt the delicate balance of party representation. Johnson has acknowledged the intertwining of party dynamics with the ethics investigations, noting, “I’m not sure the status of the Ethics Committee investigation.” This uncertainty creates further complications in the House’s decision-making process.
The current makeup of the House shows a narrow margin: 431 total members, with 217 Republicans and 213 Democrats — a balance that could be further influenced by the outcome of special elections occurring this week.
If the House takes action against Cherfilus-McCormick while Mills sails through the process, the implications could resonate widely. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed this dynamic clearly, noting that discussions regarding party parity might not have been sufficiently examined amid current turmoil.
The pressure to act is tempered by political realities. Members know that votes regarding ethical sanctions are among the hardest decisions to make. They often prefer more politically palatable solutions, such as motions to table or refer issues back to committees rather than facing direct votes condemning a colleague’s actions.
Some legislators may weigh their choices carefully, knowing that taking a stand against an embattled colleague can have consequences. The current climate in Congress reveals a rising trend of censure, which is the second-highest form of punishment, showing a willingness to impose repercussions while avoiding the stakes of expulsion. This tactic underscores a shifting precedent, as the House continues to operate amidst increased scrutiny and political maneuvering.
Overall, the potential for expulsions hangs in a precarious balance. It seems clear that the dynamics within Congress are ever-changing, and what was anticipated as a week of significant expulsions has turned into resignations that lay bare the complexity of ethics in governance. As it stands, some lawmakers may grapple with the implications of inaction — a fate that could bring about an unsettling new norm on the Hill.
"*" indicates required fields
