The Weaponization of Delay: How Congressional Seating Battles Threaten Democratic Norms
Twenty-nine days. That’s how long Arizona’s newly elected Representative, Adelita Grijalva, has waited to be sworn into office as of October 22nd, a delay rapidly approaching the threshold of a modern congressional record. While bureaucratic hurdles aren’t uncommon after special elections, Grijalva’s situation isn’t about paperwork; it’s a stark illustration of how procedural tactics are increasingly being used as political weapons, and it signals a potentially dangerous shift in how Congress operates.
The Grijalva Case: A Lawsuit and Accusations of Political Motive
Grijalva won a September 23rd special election to fill the seat vacated by her father, the late Representative Raúl Grijalva. Yet, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to administer the oath of office, citing the ongoing government shutdown. Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes has responded with a lawsuit, arguing Johnson has no legitimate reason to delay seating Grijalva and that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant the Speaker sole authority over the oath-taking process. The suit seeks a court order declaring Grijalva a member of Congress once she takes the oath, potentially allowing another authorized official to administer it.
Johnson dismisses the lawsuit as “patently absurd,” claiming he’s simply following precedent. However, critics point out that Johnson himself has sworn in lawmakers outside of regular sessions, undermining his justification. A more compelling argument, according to Grijalva’s supporters, is that her vote could be crucial in forcing the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, a matter President Trump has actively sought to distance himself from. This suggests the delay isn’t about procedure, but about controlling the balance of power on a sensitive issue.
A History of Delayed Swearings-In: Precedent or Political Tool?
While unusual, delayed swearings-in aren’t unprecedented. Examining past cases reveals a pattern, but also a concerning trend. Johnson has pointed to the three-week delay faced by Representatives Pat Ryan and Joe Sempolinski in 2022, arguing it sets a “Pelosi precedent.” However, that delay occurred after a planned August recess, a standard congressional break. Johnson, conversely, initiated an early recess specifically to avoid a vote on the Epstein files and has continued to stall House business during the shutdown.
Other instances include Bradley Byrne (R-AL) in 2013, Brenda Jones (D-MI) in 2018, and Julia Letlow (R-LA) in 2021, each with unique circumstances – holiday recesses, questions about dual office-holding, and pandemic-related protocols, respectively. However, these delays rarely appeared overtly politically motivated. The case of Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) in 2017, with a 35-day delay attributed to a “family conflict,” also drew criticism, with Republicans suggesting political maneuvering. But the current situation with Grijalva feels different – more deliberate and directly tied to a contentious political battle.
The Erosion of Norms and the Future of Congressional Function
The increasing willingness to weaponize procedural delays represents a significant erosion of congressional norms. Historically, seating duly elected representatives has been a relatively swift and uncontroversial process. Now, it’s becoming another battleground in the ongoing culture war, where even basic functions of government are subject to partisan obstruction. This trend has serious implications for the functioning of democracy.
The current shutdown exacerbates the problem. By holding the government hostage, Republicans are creating a justification for delaying Grijalva’s swearing-in, effectively disenfranchising voters in Arizona’s 7th district. This sets a dangerous precedent: that a minority party can effectively prevent a legitimately elected representative from serving, simply by refusing to allow the legislative process to proceed. Brookings Institution research highlights the growing polarization and procedural obstructionism within Congress, contributing to legislative gridlock and public distrust.
What’s at Stake Beyond Grijalva?
The Grijalva case isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a symptom of a broader trend toward hyper-partisanship and the willingness to disregard established norms in pursuit of political advantage. If this behavior becomes normalized, it could lead to:
- Increased Legislative Paralysis: More frequent use of procedural delays will further hinder Congress’s ability to address critical issues.
- Erosion of Public Trust: Continued obstructionism will deepen public cynicism about government and democratic institutions.
- Challenges to Election Legitimacy: Questioning the seating of duly elected representatives could undermine faith in the electoral process.
The fight over Grijalva’s seat is a microcosm of the larger struggle for control of Congress and, ultimately, the direction of the country. It’s a warning sign that the rules of the game are changing, and that the future of representative democracy may depend on whether we can restore a commitment to basic norms of fairness and respect for the will of the voters.
What steps do you think are necessary to prevent the weaponization of congressional procedure? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
