While GOP Rep.-elect Ross Spano of Florida has been in hot water ever since admitting that he may have violated campaign finance laws by taking $180,000 in loans from two individuals, it looks unlikely that the scandal will stop the House from seating him. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi hinted last week that the chamber could vote against allowing Spano to serve, but Politico notes that a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision would probably prevent the House from refusing to seat a duly elected member. Indeed, Spano may owe whatever career he has in Congress to the decision that aided Adam Clayton Powell Jr., a New York Democrat who was, during his time, one of the most prominent African-Americans in Congress.
In 1966, Powell won a 12th term representing the New York City neighborhood of Harlem. However, a special House committee ruled that Powell had falsified travel expenses and paid his wife a congressional staff salary, even though she hadn’t done the work to earn it. In January 1967, on the first day of the new Congress, the Democratic-led House voted to delay seating Powell for five weeks to give the Judiciary Committee more time to investigate him. In March, the committee recommended that the House censure the New York congressman but still allow him to take office. However, the House instead voted 307 to 116 to prevent Powell from taking his seat in Congress.
Powell, who had no interest in acquiescing, ran in and easily won the special election to succeed himself. However, this time, the congressman, who by then was residing in the Bahamas, decided not to try and take his seat. Instead, he and several of his constituents sued House Speaker John McCormack and other House officials. Powell argued that the courts should rule that the House’s vote not to seat him was unconstitutional, and that he was also entitled to the back pay he would have received as a member.
Powell’s term ended before the Supreme Court issued a ruling, though he was re-elected in 1968 and allowed to take his seat the following January. McCormack then argued that it was now too late for the court to review his exclusion from the previous Congress. However, the Supreme Court disagreed.
In June 1969, the justices ruled that, while the Constitution gave the House the right to expel members, the chamber could not vote to exclude someone who was duly elected from serving, as they'd done with Powell. The court held that because Powell met all of the qualifications for serving specified in the Constitution—age, citizenship, and residence—Congress couldn’t simply establish new criteria to justify refusing to seat would-be members. The justices also determined that Powell was entitled to his back pay.
However, Powell’s own victory was short-lived: He narrowly lost the 1970 Democratic primary to Assemblyman Charlie Rangel, who served until 2017; Powell died less than two years later. However, the precedent set by Powell v. McCormack lives on, and it’s important for Spano’s case.
While House leaders are talking about excluding Republican Mark Harris from serving because of reports of electoral fraud in North Carolina’s 9th District, that election presents a different set of facts, because there are serious questions as to whether Harris was duly elected, and the results of his race haven’t been certified by state election officials. The Constitution gives each chamber of Congress the final authority to decide a disputed election, and the race for North Carolina’s 9th certainly fits the bill. However, no one is questioning whether Spano received more votes than any of his opponents.
It’s theoretically possible that Spano could take his seat and then get expelled, but that’s very unlikely to happen, since two-thirds of the House―including plenty of Spano’s fellow Republicans―would need to vote for expulsion. If Spano’s self-inflicted predicament grows worse, he could end up resigning or deciding not to take his seat to begin with, but if he sticks it out, he could of course lose re-election in 2020. However, it just doesn’t look like the House can bar him from taking office in the first place against his will.