How Are Elected Officials Held to Account Between Elections?

Civics Crash Course Lesson 2.0

Historical Debate and Institutional Structure

As our nation debated ratification of the Constitution in the late eighteenth century, the Anti-Federalists raised concerns about the danger of federal representatives losing touch with their constituents in a nation as sizable as the United States. They feared Americans could become subject to tyranny, factionalism, and discord if the federal government had too much unchecked power.

In the Anti-Federalist essay Brutus 1, a concern was shared that elected representatives “...will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.”

The Federalists presented their case with their own series of essays and ultimately prevailed with a plan for government that is intended to be limited, representative, and responsive. To prevent the misuse of authority and to secure our liberty, these founding fathers built a system of “double security" in our republic with power divided and diffused amongst:

• levels of government (national and state governments); and
• branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial)

These levels and branches of government hold expressed, delegated, reserved and concurrent powers that simultaneously work together while also scrutinizing one another. Each includes institutions that protect Americans’ liberties and rights. Between elections, institutional mechanisms are in place to hold elected officials responsible if they fail to be representative or act in bad faith.

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.  Federalist No. 57

By design, there are several formal and informal means available for our institutions to hold elected officials accountable for their actions and in-actions.

Informal Institutional Sanctions at the Federal Level

When an elected leader acts in an unscrupulous manner, government officials may initially respond through informal interventions in an effort to resolve problems before resorting to formal sanctions. Some of these unofficial options are political or relational in nature including:

• frank conversations (direct or backchannel) to exert peer pressure
• removal of perks, privileges, and courtesies
  • congressmen may be stripped from key committee assignments
  • “senatorial courtesy” in judicial nominations may be revoked
  • a president may be excluded from a prestigious event
• electoral ramifications
  • threats of primary 
  • cutting off political contributions
  • refusal to endorse candidacy/policies
• use of the bully pulpit to shame or pressure
• “going public” with the electorate
• whistle-blowing 
• forming coalitions for opposition

In addition to these informal tactics of curtailing unethical conduct, government officials may also enlist the help of linkage institutions. Linkage institutions are not part of the government; they are structures that connect people to the government (such as elections). Such channels also include:

• Interest groups
• Political parties
• Media

These three linkage institutions typically investigate and publicize wrongdoing by elected officials. They are instrumental at informing and mobilizing the public. Political parties and interest groups may also withhold donations to untrustworthy representatives or redirect funds to a rival.

Formal Institutional Sanctions at the Federal Level

If informal institutional responses to bad faith actors do not provide a remedy, formal institutional sanctions may be in order. These procedures are prescribed within the Constitution for an elected body to apply to regulate its own members for misconduct or to limit the power of another branch of government.

Formal Internal Rebukes

Congress has the power to discipline its own members through censure of expulsion.

• A censure is a public reprimand made by Congress against fellow congressmen
  • Censures are authorized by the Constitution in Article 1 Section 5 by majority vote in the House of Representatives
  • A censured congressman must stand in the well of the House chamber and be subject to an official rebuke read by the Speaker of the House
  • Censures are stern condemnations reserved for serious offenses 
  • Only 28 Congressmen have been censured since 1789¹
• An expulsion is the removal of a sitting congressman from power 
  • Article 1 Section 5 established the ability of the House and Senate to expel its own members for disorderly conduct with a two-thirds vote
  • Expulsion is the gravest rebuke Congress can give to its own members
  • The House has only expelled six members in its history, most recently George Santos of New York
  • The Senate has expelled fifteen members, fourteen of whom were expelled during the Civil War for support of the Confederate cause²

Formal Rebukes Between Branches

The House of Representatives and Senate may also censure other elected and appointed government officials in different branches through resolutions, although this power is devised through their rules of procedure and was not articulated in the Constitution.

However, the Constitution does establish a formal system of checks and balances so that the legislative, judicial and executive branches may limit each other’s powers and prevent abuses. When personal misconduct occurs, the most potent weapon available is impeachment.

Impeachment is an official accusation of wrongdoing. Impeachment is not a criminal process. It is, rather, a political response to high crimes and misdemeanors including treason, bribery, and more. 

• Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution allows for articles of impeachment to be brought against the President, Vice President, and other civil officers of the United States
• The House holds the sole power of impeachment through majority vote
• If the House impeaches a government leader, the Senate next holds a trial
• A two-thirds majority is required to convict and remove the accused from office

No President has been removed from office yet based on impeachment, but Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were all impeached by the House. Donald Trump is the only president who has been impeached twice. Richard Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.

Federal judges are also subject to impeachment. Eight have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office in American history.³ While the Congress has the power to impeach and remove a Supreme Court Justice, they have only attempted to do so once in the case of Samuel Chase in 1805. The Senate acquitted Associate Justice Chase because they did not want to set a precedent for removing a Supreme Court Justice on the basis of the person’s political views.

Instead of using impeachment powers, the Congress typically holds oversight hearings to investigate wrongdoing. These regulatory actions take the form of:

• “police patrol” - proactively monitoring
• “fire alarm” - reactive responses to misconduct

Furthermore, elected officials could become subject to criminal or civil court proceedings. In some cases, judicial sanctions may be delayed if elected representatives are carrying out their duties. Some have limited immunity for actions taken in an official capacity.

Public Responses to Wrongdoing

When one party controls all three branches of the federal government, the system of checks and balances may not function as vigorously as during periods of divided government. In that case, citizens may seek recourse through state governments or grassroots efforts. In our next Civics Crash Course lesson, we will explore how citizens themselves can participate in democracy between elections.

⁽¹⁾ U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives. "Expulsion, Censure, and Reprimand." Accessed April 27, 2025. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Discipline/Expulsion-Censure-Repr…

⁽²⁾ U.S. Senate. "Expulsion." Senate.gov. Accessed April 27, 2025.https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/expulsion.htm

⁽³⁾ U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, "Impeachment," accessed April 29, 2025. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/#…