Who can remove a member of the House of Representatives?

Susan is a professional writer who writes about a wide variety of topics, including gardening and facts about food.

First, let's make it clear that you can't remove a Representative from office just because you disagree with that Representative's policies. It is possible to remove a Representative for corruption or (theoretically) for gross incompetence. It is not possible to remove a Representative for "bad" politics.

A member of the United States House of Representatives may be removed from office using two different methods. The first involves informing the House of Representatives of the member's ethics violations and letting the House proceed with ethics hearings. The second is instigating a recall election.

Both methods are long, difficult processes. In fact, the only sure way to remove a representative from office is to come up with enough votes to elect the representative's opponent in a general election.

Expulsion From Congress

Members of the House of Representatives can be removed from office for ethics violations. If they have been involved in illegal activity or if they have violated the code of conduct outlined in the "House Ethics Manual," their peers in the House can conduct a hearing and censure or expel them. A citizen can initiate an ethics investigation by contacting the Office of Congressional Ethics and providing the required information. The OCE will want a list of the charges you are making, the names and addresses of witnesses and documentation to support your claims. You must also certify that the statements you are making are true and that the evidence you are providing was obtained legally.

The House of Representatives during a joint session

Wikimedia Commons

Ethics Committee Responsibilities

Once you have contacted the OCE, the process of expulsion is out of your hands. Your paperwork will be reviewed by an OCE staff member. If that staff member finds "reasonable basis," the case will go to a preliminary review and then to a second-phase review. If the case is found to have merit, it will go to the House Committee on Ethics and they will begin the process of censuring or expelling the representative. This method of removing a representative is designed to be a fair hearing for both the representative and the person bringing the charge against the representative. But it is time-consuming, and most of it is conducted behind closed doors and out of view of the citizen bringing the charge.

States That Allow Recall of U.S. Representatives

• Colorado
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Montana
• New Jersey
• North Dakota
• Oregon
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Recall Election

Another way of removing a representative from office is by holding a recall election. A recall election is a way of replacing a representative before the end of that representative's term of office. If enough people want it, the state holds a special election. The ballot has two parts. The first is the question: "Should Representative X be removed from office?" The second is a series of choices for the Representative's replacement. Nine states have provisions for the recall of federal officials. Other states have provisions for recall that may or may not apply to U.S. Representatives. Your state election officials will be able to tell you what the law is in your state.

The grounds for recall differ from state to state. For example, in Montana, a representative can be recalled for violation of the oath of office or for lack of physical or mental fitness to do the job. In Washington, a representative can be recalled for the commission of some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office.

In most states, the process for beginning a recall is similar to an initiative process. You begin by contacting your state election officials. They will give you the paperwork you need to file. You then go out and collect signatures on a petition. The exact number of signatures you need and the time you have to get them varies from state to state. If you get enough signatures, the state holds the recall election.

In 2009, Louisiana voters launched a petition drive to recall Rep. Joseph Cao. The attempt to recall him was unsuccessful.

Wikimedia Commons

The Problems With Recall

Now that we've broached the possibility of a recall election, let me tell you the unfortunate truth, it's probably not possible (though that hasn't stopped people from trying it).

The right to recall is not guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or by federal law. In fact, no member of the House of Representatives has ever been recalled. According to the Supreme Court of the United States in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, "representatives owe primary allegiance not to the people of a State, but to the people of the Nation." Consequently, though a state elects a representative, according to the Supreme Court, that state does not have the authority to recall that representative.

In other words, though nine states have provisions for recalling representatives, and though nothing prevents those states from holding recall elections, federal law probably won't allow the citizens of a state to actually replace their representative. At the very least, recalling a Representative would be a long and lawyer-filled process.

References

© 2014 Susan Lynn Peterson

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
—Article 1, section 5, clause 2

The Constitution grants the House broad power to discipline its Members for acts that range from criminal misconduct to violations of internal House Rules. While the constitutional authority to punish a Member who engages in “disorderly Behaviour” is intended, in part, as an instrument of individual rebuke, it serves principally to protect the reputation of the institution and to preserve the dignity of its proceedings.

Over the decades, several forms of discipline have evolved in the House. The most severe type of punishment is expulsion from the House, which is followed by censure, and finally reprimand. Expulsion, as mandated in the Constitution, requires a two-thirds majority vote. Censure and reprimand, which evolved through House precedent and practice, are imposed by a simple majority of the full House.

Expulsion

The sternest form of punishment that the House has imposed on its Members is expulsion, an action which it has used only five times in more than two centuries.

The Constitution empowers both the House and the Senate to expel a sitting Member who engages in “disorderly Behaviour,” requiring a two-thirds vote of those present and voting in the chamber to which the Member belongs. As these are internal matters, neither the House nor the Senate requires the concurrence of the other chamber to expel one of its own Members.

In devising this framework, the Constitutional Convention drew upon British legislative tradition as well as nearly 175 years of precedent in the colonial assemblies in North America. Other than the two-thirds requirement, however, the Framers left it up to the House and Senate to determine their own rules and the type of behavior that might warrant expulsion from their respective chambers.

Despite this broad grant of authority, the Framers set the two-thirds threshold because such an action would necessarily remove someone who had been elected by the popular vote of his or her constituents. And though the House has wide discretion to act in such cases, it has demonstrated keen deference to the peoples’ choice of their Representatives. One measure of that restraint is that the House has never expelled any Member for conduct that took place before his or her House service. Nor has the House removed Members for action in a prior Congress when the electorate insisted on re-electing them to the House despite a record of improper conduct.1

While expulsion has been used sparingly, it should be noted that some Members who faced imminent expulsion from the House have chosen to resign instead. Two Members who sold appointments to U.S. military academies shortly after the Civil War, South Carolina’s Benjamin Whittemore and North Carolina’s John DeWeese, resigned their seats before the House voted to expel them. Determined to register its contempt for their behavior, the House still censured both men, even after their resignations.

Others lost their seats in subsequent elections before the House took formal action. The Framers anticipated this possibility and, in part, used it to rationalize the House’s two-year election cycle. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 57, “the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”2 See a list of Members who have been expelled from the House of Representatives.

Censure

While censure also derives from the same constitutional clause, it is not a term the Framers expressly mentioned.3

Censure does not remove a Member from office. Once the House approves the sanction by majority vote, the censured Member must stand in the well of the House (“the bar of the House” was the nineteenth-century term) while the Speaker or presiding officer reads aloud the censure resolution and its preamble as a form of public rebuke.

Decades before the House first expelled Members it contemplated censure to register its deep disapproval of a Member’s behavior. Early in its existence, the House considered (but did not ultimately use) censure to punish Matthew Lyon of Vermont and Roger Griswold of Connecticut for well-publicized breaches of decorum in early 1798. Lyon had spat on Griswold during a heated argument and, when the House later declined to expel or censure the Vermonter, Griswold sought to defend his honor by caning him at his desk. Consumed by this “affray,” the House created a Committee on Privileges to investigate the incident though it ultimately refused to recommend a punishment after both men promised “to keep the peace.”

Especially during the nineteenth century, when politicians fought duels over affronts to their honor and reputation, censure emerged as a means to effectively challenge a Member’s integrity. From the early 1830s to the late 1860s, the House censured individuals for unacceptable conduct that occurred largely during floor debate. The first time the House censured one of its own occurred in 1832 when William Stanbery of Ohio insulted Speaker Andrew Stevenson of Virginia. But since these transgressions did not rise to the level of expulsion, House practice required a simple majority vote on a resolution by those Members present and voting.

Reprimand

Like censure, the word reprimand does not appear in the Constitution. And its meaning has changed over time. For much of the House’s history, in fact well into the twentieth century, the word reprimand was used interchangeably with censure. For instance, the censure resolution passed against Thomas L. Blanton in 1921 directed him to the bar of the House to receive its “reprimand and censure.”

The modern use of the term reprimand evolved relatively recently, following the creation of a formal ethics process in the late 1960s.4 A reprimand registers the House’s disapproval for conduct that warrants a less severe rebuke than censure. Typically, in modern practice, the Ethics Committee recommends a reprimand (as it does in the case of censure) by submitting a resolution accompanied with a report to the full House. Reprimand requires a simple majority vote on the resolution brought before the House and, in some instances, may be implemented simply by the adoption of the committee report. A reprimanded Member is not required to stand in the well of the House to accept a verbal admonishment. Since the first case of the House taking such action in 1976, a total of 11 individuals have been reprimanded by the House. See a list of Members who have been reprimanded by the House of Representatives.

For Further Reading

Brown, Cynthia, “Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives,” Report No. RL31382, 27 June 2016, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.

Committee on Ethics, “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives, 1798–2004,” http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/Historical_Chart_Final_Version%20in%20Word_0.pdf (accessed 20 March 2017).

_______. “Summary of Activities,” http://ethics.house.gov/reports/summary-activities (accessed 20 March 2017).

Congressional Record, House, 67th Cong., 1st sess. (27 October 1921): 6880–6896.

Hinds, Asher C. Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, Vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1907): Chapter 52 §1642–1643: 1114–1116.

Maskell, Jack H., “Discipline of Members,” in Donald C. Bacon et al., eds, The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress Vol. 2 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995): 641–646.

McKay, William, and Charles W. Johnson. Parliament & Congress: Representation & Scrutiny in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014): 517–546.