A political firestorm has erupted as Arizona’s Attorney General, Kris Mayes, has initiated a legal battle against the U.S. House of Representatives. The lawsuit challenges Speaker Mike Johnson’s ongoing delay in swearing in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, a move that critics argue not only disenfranchises Arizona’s 7th Congressional District but also strategically obstructs a pivotal vote on the release of sensitive files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The halls of Congress are typically where laws are made, but recently, they’ve become the scene of a significant legal and political confrontation. Arizona’s Attorney General Kris Mayes has taken the extraordinary step of suing the U.S. House of Representatives, demanding the immediate swearing-in of Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva. Grijalva, who won a special election to represent Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, has been unable to take her oath of office for weeks, sparking accusations of political maneuvering and a denial of constituent representation.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., names the House of Representatives, its clerk, and sergeant at arms. Mayes’ complaint argues that Speaker Mike Johnson has provided no valid reason for refusing to promptly seat Grijalva, who secured her victory on September 23rd. The legal action seeks a judgment declaring Grijalva a House member once she takes the oath, and critically, asks the court to allow the oath to be administered by “any person authorized by law to administer oaths,” should Johnson continue to delay. This unconventional request highlights the depth of the dispute and the perceived constitutional implications of the current standoff, as reported by CBS News.
The Stakes: Representation and the Epstein Files
At the heart of the controversy is more than just a procedural delay. Adelita Grijalva’s swearing-in is seen as pivotal to an ongoing effort to force a vote on releasing files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Grijalva would be the 218th signature on a bipartisan petition, reaching the threshold needed to compel a vote on the disclosure. Republican leadership and former President Donald Trump have reportedly opposed the release of these files, leading many Democrats to interpret Johnson’s delay as a deliberate tactic to avoid this sensitive vote, according to reporting by USA TODAY Network.
Beyond the political maneuvering, the delay has tangible impacts on Grijalva’s constituents. Her district in southern Arizona remains without full congressional representation, limiting access to critical services and a voice in ongoing legislative debates. Grijalva herself has lamented, “Every day that I am not sworn in is another day that my constituents are blocked from critical constituent services and excluded from debates happening right now that affect their lives.” Without being sworn in, she lacks an office budget, a district office, a House member website, and a publicly available phone line, effectively severing direct ties to her electorate.
Speaker Johnson’s Defense and the “Patently Absurd” Claim
Speaker Mike Johnson has vehemently dismissed the lawsuit, labeling it “patently absurd” and a “publicity stunt.” He asserts that the House “runs the house” and that he is merely following precedent by waiting for the chamber to return to regular session. Johnson has attributed the delay to a scheduling issue and the ongoing government shutdown, stating that Grijalva will take the oath once the House resumes. However, Democrats point out that Johnson previously swore in two Republican lawmakers during ceremonial sessions earlier in the year, casting doubt on his justification.
The Speaker’s stance is complicated by the continued government shutdown, which he has linked to the House’s return to regular session. He has said he refuses to bring the House back to “engage in anything” until the government reopens, blaming Democrats for the shutdown. This intertwining of the shutdown with Grijalva’s swearing-in suggests a high-stakes political chess match with significant implications for legislative process and power dynamics within Congress.
A Look Back: Historical Precedents for Congressional Delays
While delays in swearing in special election winners are not entirely unprecedented, the circumstances surrounding Adelita Grijalva’s case have drawn particular scrutiny. Historically, various factors have led to brief postponements, but the current situation’s confluence of a government shutdown, an impending critical vote, and allegations of deliberate obstruction sets it apart. The average delay for a special election winner to take office is usually a few days to a couple of weeks.
Notable instances of extended swearing-in delays in recent congressional history include:
- Rep. Pat Ryan (D, N.Y.) and Rep. Joe Sempolinski (R, N.Y.) (2022): Both were sworn in three weeks after their special election victories by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but this occurred after a planned August recess. Johnson has cited this as the “Pelosi precedent,” though critics argue the context differs significantly from the current situation.
- Rep. Bradley Byrne (R, Ala.) (2013): Elected on December 17, 2013, he was sworn in on January 8, 2014, after the House returned from holiday recess.
- Rep. Brenda Jones (D, Mich.) (2018): Waited 23 days due to questions about holding two offices simultaneously before being sworn in by then-Speaker Paul Ryan.
- Rep. Julia Letlow (R, La.) (2021): Sworn in 25 days after her March 20, 2021, victory due to modified House procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the speaker cited mutual agreement, Letlow later denied requesting a deferral.
- Rep. Chris Jacobs (R, N.Y.) (2020): Sworn in 28 days after his June 23, 2020, election, primarily due to the lengthy count of over 130,000 absentee ballots during the pandemic.
- Rep. Greg Gianforte (R, Mont.) (2017): Sworn in 27 days after his May 25, 2017, special election, awaiting the official certification of results.
- Rep. Troy Balderson (R, Ohio) and Rep. Conor Lamb (D, Pa.) (2018): Both experienced delays (29 and 30 days, respectively) due to extremely close election margins requiring lengthy vote counts and concessions.
- Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D, Calif.) (2017): Holds the longest recent delay at 35 days, attributed by his allies to a “family conflict,” though Republicans suggested he was prolonging his state assembly service for political reasons.
The “Pelosi Precedent” Controversy
Speaker Johnson’s reference to the “Pelosi precedent,” involving the 2022 swearing-in of Democratic Rep. Pat Ryan and Republican Joe Sempolinski, has sparked debate. Ryan himself took to social media to clarify the differences, stating that no scheduled votes were canceled to delay his swearing-in. He asserted that Johnson’s actions were deliberately canceling votes to “protect pedophiles and take away health care from the American people,” drawing a clear distinction between a planned August recess and the current government shutdown used to prevent a vote on the Epstein files.
Community Perspectives and Long-Term Implications
The ongoing delay has resonated deeply within the affected communities and among those concerned with democratic principles. The argument of “taxation without representation” has been prominently raised by Attorney General Mayes, highlighting the perceived injustice to the voters of Arizona’s 7th District. This sentiment underscores a broader concern about the integrity of the electoral process and the unfettered right of constituents to have their chosen representative seated promptly.
This lawsuit against the House itself represents a significant challenge to the Speaker’s authority and could set new precedents regarding congressional seating. While the Constitution mandates that members take an oath, it does not explicitly detail who must administer it beyond the Speaker’s traditional role. The court’s ruling could redefine the procedural powers of the Speaker and potentially introduce new avenues for addressing perceived obstructions to a duly elected representative taking office. This legal battle is more than just about one congressional seat; it’s about the balance of power, the rights of constituents, and the transparency of government in the face of sensitive information.
