That, and whether or not there are those of that type? In the Philippines, the richest most popular congressman has the least attendance. Most pinoys dont mind really. They didn’t vote a boxer into congress expecting great new laws.
No, unless you count the possibility of not being re-elected.
Technically yes.
Serving in Congress, both the House and the Senate, require attendance unless you are excused by the presiding officer. A Call of the House can be called at any time (not just if there is not a quorum) and if a Congressman does not come to the chamber they can be arrested and dragged to the chamber.
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was sanctioned and removed from Congress in the early 60s, at least in part because of his absenteeism. However, the action was later declared unconstitutional, which is how it stands.
Well, technically that’s also a different thing than least attendance.
While a Call of the House has indeed been used a couple of times, practically speaking it ain’t going to happen if you’re in your home state, excused or not.
State legislatures also have equivalent rules. Their jurisdiction stops at the state line, as the next section of that Wikipedia article notes.
I saw this in an episode of House of Cards. Does it happen often in practice? (I do recall the Democrats boycotting a quorum call of the Texas legislature a few years ago; IIRC they fled the state to avoid arrest)
then you have Strom Thurmond who served to the age of 100 and was showing up almost dead for his last term.
It needs to be made clear that the unconstitutional action was not Powell’s expulsion, but the refusal to allow him to take his seat following his next election.
In fact, Powell wasn’t even expelled. He was excluded from being seated in a new Congress, rather than being kicked out of an existing one.
Don Young (R-AK) nearly lost his reelection years ago because of his lousy attendance record. Here is a chart of the 10 worst offenders, eight of whom are Democrats.
Not quite. Powell was prevented from taking his seat which was unconstitutional. The House could have let him take his seat and then expelled him for absenteeism and it would have been perfectly constitutional.
???
The point is that a Call of the House is not the same thing as requiring a quorum. It is a motion to force EVERY member to take his/her seat as required by law (unless previously excused).
The arrest is very real and the HoC scene was based on Bob Packwood’s arrest. Unlike HoC where being carried in in handcuffs was a stunt put on by Mendoza [the in-show Republican leader] for show, Packwood was actively trying to avoid arrest and was seen leaving his office and ducking into another Senator’s office so the Sergeant-at-Arms wouldn’t find him.
I’m not sure what you’re misunderstanding. Refusing to enter the chambers for a particular vote is in no way connected to habitual absenteeism. Therefore a sanction for one has no application for the other. If the OP’s question is solely about habitual absenteeism, then talking about a Call of the House is irrelevant.
The OP never said habitual. Regardless, my answer stands that if a Congressman is absent whether 1 time or 90% of the time they can be sanctioned by arrest upon a Call of the House if they are not in the chamber. Furthermore, they can be expelled for any reason upon 2/3 vote. The difference is that no member has been expelled for habitual absenteeism but they have been arrested for being absent.
I’m going to continue to insist upon the existence of a stark difference between a sanction for a particular absence at a particular time and place when a vote is being taken and a sanction for what the OP termed “least attendance,” which implies habitual absence even at votefree sessions. I see no way of conflating them, and great value in not doing so. Unless the OP would like to comment on this disagreement, though, I’m not taking this any further.