Analysis of Don Bacon’s Bipartisan Censure Proposal
Rep. Don Bacon’s recent partnership with Rep. Don Beyer to propose new rules for censure in the House of Representatives has sparked intense debate about accountability and transparency among lawmakers. Their resolution seeks to raise the threshold for censure from a simple majority to a 60% supermajority, a move Bacon claims will foster a more bipartisan approach to disciplinary actions. However, critics argue it could diminish Congress’s ability to hold its members accountable for misconduct.
This proposal emerges at a time when censure motions have surged, with lawmakers increasingly using them as political tools rather than genuine reflections of ethical violations. Cases such as the censure of Rep. Chuy García and the narrow escape from censure for Delegate Stacey Plaskett highlight the growing trend of using censure in a partisan manner. As Rep. Mark Pocan pointed out, the House appears to have hit a nadir, where members are preoccupied with “condemning each other.” The current landscape raises pressing questions about the integrity of congressional operations.
Bacon justifies the push for a higher voting requirement on the grounds of restoring order and decorum within the legislative process. “I just think we’ve got out of control,” he said, suggesting that a more rigorous threshold would lead to greater cooperation. Yet, this rationale is at odds with a fundamental principle: censure provides a necessary check on behavior that undermines public trust. With censure historically serving as a corrective measure, modifying its accessibility may insulate lawmakers from immediate accountability.
The timing of the proposal is particularly notable. Following the indictment of Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, calls for decisive action against corruption have intensified. Advocates for accountability fear that elevating the bar for censure would protect lawmakers engaged in unethical conduct from facing consequences. The censure mechanism has long been viewed as the most straightforward response to inappropriate actions, especially given the two-thirds vote threshold required for expulsion, which is seldom achieved.
Opponents of the new measure emphasize that while some lawmakers may be fatigued with the current censure dynamics, merely altering the rules will not rectify the underlying issues. House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged the need to maintain censure as an “extraordinary remedy,” suggesting that its very purpose could be diluted under the proposed changes. Even Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries indicated a desire to control the censure process but recognized the need for accountability among members.
History provides context for the proposal’s implications. Only 28 members of the House have ever faced censure, indicating that it is already a rare sanction. The recent increase in motions showcases the urgency lawmakers feel to address troubling behavior, yet these resolutions also threaten to lead to chaos on the floor, consuming time and attention that could be better spent on legislative priorities. The Bacon-Beyer proposal thus stands at a crossroads; it attempts to address perceived disorder but may inadvertently undermine the ability of the institution to hold itself accountable.
Furthermore, critics worry that a 60% threshold could allow ethically dubious conduct to persist unchallenged. With the House so split, a simple majority may often be unattainable for motions aimed at less severe but still concerning behaviors. There is concern that failing to sanction inappropriate behaviors would send a troubling message to the public at a time of declining trust in governmental institutions.
As lawmakers weigh the implications of co-sponsoring the Bacon-Beyer resolution, they face a critical decision: balancing institutional decorum with the imperative of transparency and accountability. While some see the resolution as a necessary step towards civility, others caution that it could further entrench a status quo that shields lawmakers from repercussions. In such a divided chamber, finding a solution that preserves integrity without sacrificing decorum will be a challenging endeavor—one that could define the institution’s relationship with the public it serves.
"*" indicates required fields
