A political showdown in Washington spotlights a rarely litigated constitutional question: can the Speaker of the House withhold swearing in a new, certified Member? And if so, with what consequences?
What’s happening now: the Arizona standoff
In Arizona, Rep-elect Adelita Grijalva won a special election to replace her late father, but has not been sworn in. Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego confronted House Speaker Mike Johnson, demanding the oath for Grijalva. Video captures Johnson’s retort: “We’re going to do that as soon as we get back to work, but we need the lights turned back on, so we encourage both of you to go open the government.”
Johnson insists that until the government is funded he won’t proceed, which critics see as making Grijalva’s seat a bargaining chip in a larger budget knockout.
The constitutional baseline: the oath isn’t political currency
Once certified, the House must accept the Member-elect.
As soon as a state certifies the congressional election and the Clerk receives credentials, the winner is a Member-elect with the right to be sworn in. Authority over seating lies with the whole House, per Article I, Section 5—not the Speaker alone.
The Speaker ordinarily administers the oath, but can’t unilaterally block it.
Under House precedents, the Speaker acts as the designee of the chamber in administering the oath. If the Speaker is absent or refuses, the House can pass a resolution authorizing someone else to perform the ceremony.
Delays are acceptable only in narrow, neutral circumstances.
Historically, delays in oath administration have occurred because:
- the House was in recess or adjourned, and no prior authorization existed, or
- there was a contested election or unresolved certification issue.
What’s not in precedent: withholding the oath as a political lever.
The political and practical stakes of withholding the oath
If a Speaker schedules votes knowing a certified Member-elect is being held in limbo, here’s what’s going on beneath the surface:
- The excluded member’s vote doesn’t count — not toward quorum, not in votes, not in determining a working majority.
- The majority is artificially compressed — the chamber acts as though one district doesn’t matter, even though residents voted.
- It’s disenfranchisement by design — delaying oath becomes a tool to shape the power balance, not a procedural necessity.
In today’s Arizona case, critics argue Johnson is holding off on swearing in Grijalva because her vote might push through a petition to release federal records tied to Jeffrey Epstein — a vote Johnson has resisted.
Where things could go from here
- Once the House reconvenes, a majority of already sworn Members can pass a resolution overriding the Speaker’s refusal or assigning the oath to someone else.
- They can also move to remove the Speaker (a motion to vacate) if his actions are seen as abuse of power.
- Politically, the optics are brutal: refusing to seat a member for leverage is a gun aimed at the fundamentals of representative democracy.