The Expulsion Dilemma: When Politics Collides with Due Process
There’s something deeply unsettling about the recent wave of congressional expulsions—or, more accurately, the threat of them. The resignation of Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick and the lingering fallout from George Santos’ ousting have sparked a debate that goes far beyond party lines. It’s a debate about due process, fairness, and the dangerous precedent we’re setting. Personally, I think this is one of those moments where politics is forcing us to ask: Are we sacrificing justice for expediency?
The Santos Regret: A Precedent Too Far?
Let’s start with George Santos. His expulsion in 2023 was, in many ways, a watershed moment. Here was a congressman accused of a “complex web of unlawful activity,” and the House acted swiftly. But now, some Democrats are having second thoughts. Rep. Hank Johnson, for instance, regrets his vote, arguing that Santos didn’t receive due process. What makes this particularly fascinating is that Santos did eventually plead guilty and was sentenced to prison—yet the damage to the precedent was already done.
In my opinion, the Santos case highlights a broader issue: the tension between political accountability and legal due process. Expelling a member of Congress is an extreme measure, one that should be reserved for the most egregious cases. But when we start expelling members before they’ve been convicted, we’re essentially acting as judge, jury, and executioner. What many people don’t realize is that this sets a dangerous standard—one that could be weaponized against anyone, regardless of party.
The Cherfilus-McCormick Resignation: A Cautionary Tale
Now, enter Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. Her resignation came just as the Ethics Committee was set to recommend sanctions against her. The charges? Misallocating $5 million in COVID funds to her campaign. She denied wrongdoing, claiming the Ethics process was unfairly tilted against her. Here’s where it gets tricky: while her actions were undoubtedly serious, her resignation feels like an admission of guilt under pressure.
From my perspective, this case underscores the importance of letting the legal process play out. Cherfilus-McCormick is under criminal indictment, but she hasn’t been convicted. Expelling her—or even forcing her resignation—before a verdict feels like overreach. It raises a deeper question: Are we prioritizing political optics over fairness?
The Mills Conundrum: A Test of Consistency
Then there’s Rep. Cory Mills, who faces allegations of domestic abuse, financial misconduct, and stolen valor. Rep. Nancy Mace has vowed to force a vote on his expulsion, but even some Democrats are hesitant. Why? Because Mills is still under investigation by the Ethics Committee. This is where the rubber meets the road. If we’re going to set a standard, it needs to apply equally—regardless of party or personal feelings.
One thing that immediately stands out is the inconsistency. Some Democrats are willing to expel Mills despite the ongoing investigation, while others argue for due process. This inconsistency isn’t just confusing; it’s damaging. It suggests that political expediency trumps principle. If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just about Mills or Santos or Cherfilus-McCormick—it’s about the integrity of the institution itself.
The Broader Implications: A Slippery Slope
What this really suggests is that we’re on a slippery slope. Once we start expelling members without due process, where do we draw the line? What constitutes “grave misconduct”? And who gets to decide? These are questions that should keep us all up at night. The fact that some Democrats now regret their votes on Santos shows that even those who supported expulsion are beginning to see the risks.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the role of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Members like Rep. Jonathan Jackson and Rep. Bobby Scott voted against Santos’ expulsion, citing due process concerns. Their stance wasn’t just about party loyalty; it was about principle. And it’s a principle we’d all do well to remember.
The Future: A Call for Caution
Looking ahead, the Mills case will be a litmus test. Will Democrats hold firm to their newfound reservations about due process, or will they cave to political pressure? Personally, I hope they choose the former. Expelling a member of Congress should be the exception, not the rule.
What this moment really calls for is a reset. We need to reevaluate how we handle allegations of misconduct, ensuring that due process is respected. It’s not about letting guilty parties off the hook; it’s about maintaining the integrity of our institutions. As Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove aptly put it, “Why we think we should get in front of cases, judges, charges, juries, is beyond me.”
Final Thoughts: A Matter of Principle
In the end, this isn’t just about Santos, Cherfilus-McCormick, or Mills. It’s about the principles we uphold as a democracy. Expelling a member of Congress is a grave act, one that should be reserved for the most extreme cases. When we start doing it prematurely, we risk undermining the very institution we’re trying to protect.
So, here’s my takeaway: Let’s slow down. Let’s let the legal process play out. And let’s remember that due process isn’t just a legal technicality—it’s a cornerstone of justice. Because if we lose sight of that, we’re not just expelling members of Congress; we’re expelling the very principles that make our democracy work.
