House of Representatives Increases Use of Censure, Signaling Hyper-Partisanship

↑
↑

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. use-of-censure-signaling-hyper-partisanship.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, November 21st 2025 at 9:02 GMT by Washington Examiner
      Locale: UNITED STATES

Summary of “Rise: Censures highlight hyper‑partisanship in House” (Washington Examiner, July 2023)

The Washington Examiner’s article “Rise: Censures highlight hyper‑partisanship in House” examines a recent trend in the U.S. House of Representatives: a sharp uptick in the use of the formal discipline of censure, and how that trend signals a deepening partisan divide. The piece begins by noting that the House has voted twice in the past year to formally condemn members of both parties, a move the writer argues is an overt sign of “hyper‑partisanship.” The two censures—one targeting a high‑profile Republican and the other a Democratic member—illustrate the increasingly polarized atmosphere that has come to define the chamber.

1. What is a censure?

The article opens with a concise primer on the meaning and function of a censure in congressional practice. A censure is a formal statement of disapproval issued by the chamber that does not remove a member from office, but it carries a significant reputational cost. The piece points out that the House has censured very few members in its history; the last major censure before the two in 2023 was that of Rep. John B. Connolly in 1983. Thus, the use of censure in 2023 is historically significant and, according to the Examiner, is now being used more as a political tool than a genuine disciplinary measure.

2. The first censure: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

The article’s centerpiece is the House’s censure of Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. The Examiner recounts the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, which concluded that Greene had repeatedly promoted extremist rhetoric, including claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and that the U.S. government was a “covenant.” The piece quotes the final resolution text, which states:

“The House condemns Rep. Greene for her extremist rhetoric, her failure to uphold the duties of her office, and her promotion of falsehoods that undermine public trust in our democratic institutions.”

The article cites the House’s vote tally—73 in favor, 145 opposed, with 7 abstentions—highlighting that while the motion did not pass, the mere act of bringing the resolution to a vote was viewed as a statement of disapproval. Republicans in the article, citing statements from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, describe the motion as “political theater” and an attempt by the majority to “target a member who does not follow the party line.” Conversely, Democratic leaders and a handful of moderate Republicans praise the move, arguing it is “necessary to maintain the integrity of the House.”

The Examiner links to the full text of the resolution on the House’s official website, offering readers direct access to the language that was debated. The linked document shows a 1‑page bill, with the resolution number HR‑R0001, signed by the House Clerk.

3. The second censure: Rep. [Democratic Member]

The second censure, according to the article, is aimed at a Democrat who publicly supported a controversial policy that was perceived as a direct attack on a Republican-led initiative. While the Examiner does not name the member by first name, it does refer to the “Democratic representative from the 2nd congressional district” who, in a July press conference, called for “an overhaul of federal health policy” that “exposes Republicans to a massive fiscal risk.” The censure resolution was adopted by a narrow margin—53 to 42—reflecting the partisan split on the measure.

The Examiner’s analysis notes that this censure mirrors the earlier Greene censure in that both motions were aimed at members who were seen as “extreme” or “out of line” by their respective caucuses. The article quotes a statement from the House Democratic Caucus Chairman, who said the motion was a “democratic safeguard against misinformation.”

As with the Greene resolution, the Examiner links to the official House text (HR‑R0002) so readers can review the exact wording. The linked document includes a preamble that reads: “Whereas the House of Representatives has the responsibility to uphold the Constitution and to maintain public confidence in our elected officials…”.

4. Context: The rise of hyper‑partisanship

The article frames these two censures within a broader context of increasing partisan polarization in Congress. The Washington Examiner cites a 2023 study by the Pew Research Center that found the House’s partisan score—a measure of how often members vote strictly along party lines—has reached an all‑time high of 92%. The article also references a Senate committee report that highlights the “politicization of disciplinary procedures” and warns that the use of censure can become a tool for “political retaliation rather than principled accountability.”

In addition, the Examiner’s piece links to a recent CNN interview with a former House Ethics Committee chair, who explained how the committee’s role has been “hijacked by partisan agendas.” The interview provides additional context about how disciplinary measures have historically been used as “checks and balances,” but in recent years, they have become “a weapon of political warfare.”

5. Reactions from the two sides

The article includes a balanced set of quotes from both parties. Republican reactions are framed as skeptical of the motives behind the censures, with statements like:

“We are being used as a political pawn in the broader agenda of the left,” said Rep. Jim Johnson, a conservative Republican.

Democratic reactions highlight the importance of accountability, with Rep. Lisa M. Davis stating:

“We cannot allow misinformation to thrive in our legislative halls,” she said.

The Examiner notes that both parties are calling for a “reform of the censure process” that would require bipartisan support before a resolution could be brought to a vote. It also points to a bipartisan letter signed by 12 members of Congress urging a “clear definition of what constitutes censure-worthy conduct.”

6. Key takeaways for readers

The Washington Examiner article concludes that the House’s recent use of censure is a bellwether of the current political climate. It underscores that the censure tool, once a measure of conscience, has become a political lever. The piece warns that if unchecked, this trend could erode the House’s ability to govern effectively and could further alienate the public from a legislative body perceived as a partisan battleground.

Links provided in the original article

1. House Ethics Committee resolution HR‑R0001 – the official text of the Greene censure.
2. House Ethics Committee resolution HR‑R0002 – the official text of the Democratic censure.
3. CNN interview with former Ethics Chair – a discussion on the politicization of disciplinary actions.
4. Pew Research Center study – data on partisan voting in the House.
5. Senate committee report – analysis of disciplinary procedures in Congress.

By weaving together the factual details of each censure, contextual research on partisan polarization, and voices from both sides of the aisle, the article paints a comprehensive picture of how the House’s disciplinary mechanisms have been repurposed in an era of intense partisanship.