HRES-1172-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
Sponsored by Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM)
What it does
This resolution would expel Representative Tony Gonzales from the U.S. House of Representatives under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which allows the House to expel a member by a two-thirds vote. The resolution cites Gonzales's admitted violation of House Rule XXIII, Clause 18, which prohibits members from engaging in sexual relationships with or making unwelcome sexual advances toward House employees under their supervision. Passage would require approval by two-thirds of the full House.
Who benefits
Current and future House staff members, particularly those in subordinate roles, who may benefit from a reinforced norm against member misconduct. Women employed by the House who may feel greater institutional protection. The broader public, to the extent that accountability measures strengthen trust in Congress. Constituents of Texas's 23rd Congressional District, who would trigger a special election to fill the seat.
Who is hurt
Representative Gonzales, who would lose his seat and the remainder of his term. Voters in Texas's 23rd Congressional District who supported Gonzales and would lose their current elected representative before the next scheduled election. The district itself would temporarily lack representation during any special election period. Members of Congress more broadly, to the extent that expulsion precedents could be applied in future cases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Gonzales admitted to violating House Rule XXIII, Clause 18 — a rule specifically enacted in 2018 to address the power imbalance between members and staff — and that his conduct included documented, repeated unwelcome sexual advances toward a direct subordinate. They contend that the House's failure to act after a public admission, corroborated by published text messages, would signal that the Code of Official Conduct is unenforceable, undermining staff safety and institutional credibility.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expulsion — the most severe punishment available to the House — is disproportionate when the member has already announced he will not seek re-election, effectively allowing voters to render judgment at the ballot box. They contend that the House Ethics Committee process exists precisely to investigate and recommend proportionate discipline, and that bypassing that process in favor of a floor expulsion vote sets a precedent for politically motivated removals without full due process.
Constitutional context
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 explicitly grants each chamber the power to "punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." This is a direct constitutional grant of authority requiring no Commerce Clause or agency delegation analysis. The resolution itself cites this provision as its sole legal basis.
Checks and balances
The House gains the authority to remove one of its own members; the primary check is the two-thirds supermajority requirement in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, which sets a high threshold designed to prevent expulsion by simple majority. The member retains the right to speak in his own defense on the House floor before any vote is taken, as the resolution itself acknowledges.
Historical precedent
The House has expelled only five members in its history — three in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy and two in the modern era (Michael Myers in 1980 for bribery and James Traficant in 2002 for corruption); no member has been expelled solely for violations of the House's sexual conduct rules.