Censure vs. Expulsion: Key Differences

Censure: A formal reprimand. The member keeps their seat, voting rights, and benefits but faces public disapproval.
Expulsion: The most severe punishment. The member is permanently removed from office, losing all privileges, and a special election is held to fill their seat.

Quick Comparison

Aspect	Censure	Expulsion
Severity	Formal reprimand	Permanent removal
Voting Threshold	Simple majority (50% + 1)	Two-thirds majority
Member Status	Retains position	Immediate removal
Privileges	Keeps all benefits	Loses all privileges

Both measures aim to uphold accountability and ethical standards in Congress, but they differ in severity and consequences. Let’s explore how they work and when they’re used.

What Censure and Expulsion Mean

Censure Explained

Censure is a formal statement of disapproval aimed at a member of Congress for their conduct. It does not remove the individual from office, meaning they can continue to serve. Typically, the censured member is required to stand while the resolution is read aloud, emphasizing the public nature of the reprimand.

Expulsion Explained

Expulsion is a more severe action that permanently removes a member from Congress. This step ends all privileges associated with their position and often leads to a special election to fill the vacancy. Although rare, expulsion has been used in significant moments, such as during the Civil War to remove members who supported the Confederacy. The most recent example occurred in 2002 when Representative James Traficant was expelled after being convicted of bribery, racketeering, and other crimes.

Legal Basis

The authority for both censure and expulsion comes from the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 5 states:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

This constitutional power is further detailed in:

House Rule XXIII (Code of Official Conduct)
Senate Rule XXXVIII (Disciplinary Procedures)

Censure requires a simple majority vote, while expulsion demands a two-thirds majority. These thresholds ensure a balance between maintaining institutional standards and protecting individual rights.

What Does Censure Do In The House Of Representatives ...

Main Differences

Here’s a breakdown of how censure and expulsion differ in terms of punishment, procedure, and consequences.

Level of Punishment

Aspect	Censure	Expulsion
Severity	Formal reprimand	The harshest penalty
Impact on Service	Continues service	Immediate removal from office
Office Status	Retains position	Seat is vacated
Benefits	Keeps privileges	Loses all congressional benefits

Required Votes

The voting requirements for each action vary significantly:

Censure: Needs a simple majority vote.
Expulsion: Requires a two-thirds supermajority vote.

Effects on Membership

The outcomes for members differ greatly depending on the action taken:

Censure:

The member keeps their seat and voting rights.
Salary, benefits, and committee assignments remain unaffected.
However, the member may face increased public and institutional scrutiny.

Expulsion:

The member is immediately removed from office.
All congressional privileges are revoked.
A special election is held to fill the empty seat.
Termination is permanent and may impact pension eligibility.

Past Usage

Historically, the two measures have been applied very differently:

Censure:

Used more frequently for a range of misconduct.
Acts as a formal public reprimand and can carry political consequences.

Expulsion:

Rarely employed and reserved for only the most severe violations.

Records show that censure is the go-to option for less severe issues, while expulsion is saved for the gravest offenses.

Past Examples

Major Censure Cases

Censure has been a tool Congress uses to formally reprimand members for misconduct. History provides several striking examples.

In 1954, Senator Joseph McCarthy was censured by a 67–22 Senate vote. While he kept his seat until 1957, this action greatly reduced his influence.

Fast forward to 2010, Representative Charles Rangel from New York faced censure after a 333–79 vote. His violations included failing to report rental income, misusing congressional resources, filing inaccurate financial disclosures, and improperly using rent-controlled apartments for campaign purposes.

Compared to censure, expulsion is far less common and reserved for the most severe offenses.

Major Expulsion Cases

Expulsion, the harshest punishment in Congress, is used sparingly and only for the gravest misconduct. To date, fewer than 20 members have been expelled, mostly during times of national crisis.

A key moment came during the Civil War when 14 senators were expelled between 1861 and 1862 for siding with the Confederacy. One of them, Senator Jesse D. Bright of Indiana, was expelled on February 5, 1862, after evidence surfaced of his correspondence with Jefferson Davis, offering support to the rebellion.

A more recent example is Representative James Traficant, whose expulsion highlighted how this measure is reserved for the most extreme cases.

These examples show the clear difference between censure and expulsion. While censure serves as a formal warning, expulsion is the ultimate step to uphold accountability in Congress.

Current Debates

Censure: Pros and Cons

Supporters argue that censure allows Congress to formally condemn misconduct without removing a member from office, striking a balance between accountability and respecting voter choice. It can serve as a public reprimand, damaging a member's reputation or committee roles.

On the other hand, critics see censure as largely symbolic. While it may tarnish a member's image, its lack of enforceable consequences often limits its effectiveness, leaving some to question its role in addressing serious misconduct.

Expulsion: Pros and Cons

Expulsion, the harshest disciplinary action, is praised by advocates as a necessary tool to uphold the integrity of Congress. It provides immediate accountability for severe misconduct and prevents further harm to the institution's credibility.

However, critics highlight the challenges posed by its high vote threshold, which can make it difficult to act even in clear cases of wrongdoing. This issue gained prominence after January 6, 2021, when calls to expel members allegedly involved in the Capitol riot sparked heated debates. These discussions revealed the tension between ensuring democratic representation and addressing grave ethical violations, all while navigating shifting political dynamics.

Political Factors

Party loyalty often dominates disciplinary votes, turning them into partisan battles instead of genuine efforts to uphold ethical standards. This trend undermines the effectiveness of these measures in promoting accountability.

Social media further complicates the process. Public pressure on platforms can sway congressional leadership, sometimes speeding up or delaying actions based on public opinion rather than the merits of the case. These challenges have sparked conversations about reforming disciplinary measures to better serve their purpose of maintaining accountability in Congress.

Conclusion

Main Points

Censure and expulsion represent two levels of discipline in Congress. While censure serves as a formal reprimand for misconduct, expulsion goes further by removing a member entirely. These measures differ in both their process and impact, illustrating Congress's tiered approach to addressing misconduct.

Here's a quick comparison:

Aspect	Censure	Expulsion
Severity	Formal reprimand	Complete removal
Voting Threshold	Simple majority (50% + 1)	Two-thirds majority
Member Status	Retains position	Immediate removal

These differences highlight the importance of ethics in maintaining accountability within Congress.

Ethics in Congress

Ethical practices are the backbone of congressional accountability. They ensure that disciplinary actions like censure and expulsion are used to uphold transparency and integrity. As the organization American Muckrakers puts it:

"We hold politicians accountable for their actions and words. It is a tenet of our organization to focus on facts and not conjecture nor gossip"

For these measures to be effective, Congress must enforce them without bias, even in the face of partisan pressures. Public involvement also plays a key role in ensuring transparency.

The debate over how these tools are applied raises broader questions about balancing democratic representation with the need for high ethical standards in public office. As Congress navigates evolving challenges, understanding and applying these disciplinary measures correctly is essential to maintaining institutional integrity and public trust.