This resolution formally reprimands Representative Jasmine Crockett for inappropriate and discriminatory remarks and requires her to appear for a public censure pronouncement in the House of Representatives.
Randy Weber
Representative
TX-14
This resolution censures Representative Jasmine Crockett for inappropriate and discriminatory remarks made on March 22, 2025, and May 16, 2024. It requires her to appear in the House of Representatives for the censure pronouncement, which will be read publicly by the Speaker.
This resolution puts forward a formal condemnation, known as a censure, against Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas. The text specifically cites remarks made on May 16, 2024, concerning another Member's appearance, and comments directed at Texas Governor Greg Abbott on March 22, 2025, labeling them 'inappropriate and discriminatory'. Censure is one of the disciplinary tools the House of Representatives can use against its members, essentially a formal public rebuke.
If adopted, this isn't just a strongly worded letter. The resolution requires Representative Crockett to physically stand in the well of the House chamber. The Speaker of the House would then be mandated to read the resolution aloud, making it a very public and formal act of disapproval by the legislative body. It's a procedure designed to register official condemnation of a member's conduct.
The core of this resolution centers on specific instances of speech deemed unacceptable by its authors. It singles out comments from May 2024 about a colleague's appearance and remarks from March 2025 aimed at Governor Abbott, including calling him 'Governor Hot Wheels' and a 'hot ass mess'. While censure aims to uphold standards of decorum, resolutions like this inevitably raise questions about where the line falls between offensive speech and protected political expression. Focusing on specific remarks can lead to debates about whether such actions effectively police language, potentially discouraging robust (or even inflammatory) debate, versus genuinely upholding necessary standards for conduct within the institution. It also brings up the potential for subjective application – what one group considers grounds for censure, another might see as sharp political commentary.