Those who blinked twice last Wednesday said the House voted to expel Rep. George Santos (RN.Y.), choosing to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee rather than expulsion. i might have missed it.
In a nutshell, Congressman Robert Garcia (Republican, California) Introduced Expulsion Resolution (H. Res. 114) We will be back on February 9th.was announced in May 16th he was going to call it on the floor As a matter of House privilege.And the next day, at 5:01 p.m., I did just that
Rep. Anthony Esposito (RN.Y.) immediately filed a motion of privilege. refer the resolution to the ethics committee. He said he was one of the first members to call for Santos’ resignation and voted in favor of the resolution. However, it fell far short of two-thirds of the vote, so referral to the Ethics Committee was the quickest way to rid the House of Representatives of “this blemish of the system” and “this scourge of government.” it was thought. Saying so, Esposito returned the rest of the time and moved the previous question.
5:34 p.m. Final tally announced – straight Partisan vote 221 vs 204 Seven Democrats, including all five Democrats on the Ethics Committee, were present to vote in favor of the referral.
To the public, if they are aware of it, such perfunctory procedures are a serious threat to the power of the majority to avoid full discussion and explanation of the egregious case that members of parliament were elected under false pretenses. It may look like abuse. In this column on December 30, 2022, I called it “the biggest voter fraud in House history.” Santos has since been charged with 13 federal criminal charges, including mail fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and lying to Congress.
Congress is notorious for moving things to committees for review to avoid action on sticky issues. But my experience in shaping House rules and codes of conduct for more than a quarter of a century suggests that ethics scandals are taken more seriously. Every time the House has been hit with a scandal for decades, its initial reaction has been to clean up the chaos and then enact remedial laws and regulations to prevent such outrages from ever happening again. Was that.
The purpose of creating a fully bipartisan House Ethics Committee of five Republicans and five Democrats, with the power to delegate work to an independent Special Investigations Unit when necessary, is to ensure that the agency has a complete plan. It is a manifestation of being very sensitive about and execution. Ensure fair handling of ethics complaints while ensuring standard legal protections for defendants.
No legislator enjoys the ridicule and suspicion thrown at Congress, as the first branch of government, and at the individual members sworn to maintain and protect it. That’s why the House has put in place a credible and workable ethics process. But is it necessary when the case seems so insipid at first glance?
While I have no doubt that a majority of House Democrats and Republicans would be in favor of ousting Santos today, the Republicans backed off for very understandable, if not entirely excusable, reasons. Even a single party member’s control and ability to carry the party’s track record into the next election would be at risk. This stark political reality, if not a moral justification, would at least explain the unanimous vote in the head-on partisan vote to refer the Santos issue to ethics.
We also have to look at this from the perspective of the Democrats from California who are the proponents of the ousting motions. There is no doubt that Rep. Garcia feels the devastation of Mr. Santos’s House and sincerely believes he should be ousted, and the sooner the better. But he had no realistic expectation that two-thirds of the House would vote in favor of expulsion. In that case, 222 Republicans out of 435 seats and 290 out of 213 Democrats will be elected. What was his motive? He simply wants every legislator to record (i.e. on the spot) what their stand is on lawmakers like Santos receiving government salaries and continuing to vote on issues of national importance. I just wanted to leave it to
It is neither dishonest nor dishonorable to let the public know where opposition lawmakers stand on this issue. But when it comes to sensitive issues like the honor and integrity of the House of Representatives, it’s clear that they can be politically misunderstood and abused. No need to go into “Who shot John?” A study of the history of the increasingly troubling partisan wars in the House of Representatives since the 1990s and how it has been used to personally ruin opposition lawmakers by hurling accusations of ethical misconduct. know.
We have already seen, in this Congress and last Congress, that both parties exercised their authority to appoint commissioners for partisan and personal purposes and were subject to interference. What the House needs most now is a renewed escalation of the ethical wars it has been viciously used to seek the votes to expel opposition lawmakers. The Santos case should be handled thoroughly and expeditiously based on existing ethical processes. I am sure it will.
Don Wolfensberger is a parliamentary scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, former staff director of the House Rules Committee, and author of Changing the Culture of Congress: From Fair Play to Power Play. The views expressed are his own.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. You may not publish, broadcast, rewrite or redistribute this material.