“It’s hard to understand the quantity and depth of the lies my new congressman has told” is a sentence that I never thought would be said, even euphemistically. I am from Syosset, New York, and, by proxy, I am a member of the third congressional district (NY-3). For as long as I can remember, my district has been in safe — albeit sometimes contested — Democratic hands. George Santos’ improbable refusal to concede despite his own lying sets a ruinous precedent for the nation.
While Congress has set in place strict barriers to prevent the removal of federal legislators, Santos’ case is an example of the flaws in this legal reasoning. Likewise, while intended to protect congressmen from undue public pressures and to protect the authority of the people’s voice, Santos’ case proves how unrestricted authority can be manipulated for one’s own gain.
1. How the Election Appeared to Those in NY-3
Let me start by describing this tale of treachery by introducing you to my — sadly — home district, NY-3. My district is a large one, stretching from parts of Queens in the west to Port Jefferson in the east and going as far south as Lindenhurst on the south shore. George Santos’ rise came abruptly and can perhaps be traced back to the decision of my former congressman, Tom Suozzi, to run for governor. Suozzi was a highly popular and highly centrist candidate who consistently won a district that was increasingly contested during Donald Trump’s years. Following Suozzi’s exit, the Democratic field was divided. Robert Zimmerman ultimately won narrowly, whereas Santos ran opposed. As a rising national target, Santos, a relatively unknown figure in Long Island politics was boosted by GOP funding and by Republican fear-mongering. He claimed to be part of a new generation of Republicans — one that could be openly gay and a second-generation immigrant. It’s important to stress just how narrow his victory was come election day. It was only eight percentage points that separated him from Zimmerman.
2. The Contentiousness of the Election and Lack of Mandate
As an intern for Nassau County Legislator Josh Lafazan’s re-election campaign and congressional primary campaign, I saw both signs of fear and hope for the Democrats. On the one hand, Lafazan’s narrow re-election victory in 2021 reflected the district’s insecurity surrounding the political direction it wanted to take. In the field, for every Lafazan supporter I saw, I would also see one vehemently opposed to him. I saw then that this district was no longer a safe district for either conservatives or liberals. Suozzi’s last re-election saw him win against Santos by 15 points. That victory came after days of mail-in ballots slowly tipped the scale in his favor. In essence, there is a reason why the district is now ranked only D+2 by the prestigious Cook Political Report.
3. The Fallacy of a Petition
In the wake of these scandals, beyond refusing accountability to the voters, Santos has vehemently supported his mandate to be in Congress. Santos claimed he would resign only if his around-140,000 supporters petitioned him to do so. In follow-up tweets, he has acted as if the media had no right to scrutinize his campaign at all. We shouldn’t be so easily dissuaded, especially given the fact that this point has been parroted euphemistically by so many of his conservative allies.
Through the idea of a “petition” by his supporters, Santos is attempting to display a veneer of democracy. However, there are crucial differences between voting and petitioning. Mainly, that petitioning is an activity which is highly public and can be easily pressured. Psychologically you would be hard-pressed to find someone to publicly denounce their voting behavior. It comes with the implication of failure and the scrutiny of one’s conservative peers, absent of the secrecy of a voting booth.
More importantly, it shouldn’t be up to around 140,000 Santos supporters to determine the representation of NY-3. It should be up to all of us, armed with the proper facts. The idea that Santos or any other representative can lie their way to the top and simply refuse to relinquish control is absurd. In our democratic tradition, no person should be able to weaponize their representative status for personal gain, yet that is precisely what has been done.
4. What Can Be Done?
So what can be done given Santos’ adamant refusal to give up the reins of power? Unfortunately, the options are limited. The Constitution does not allow for the recall of elected federal officials during their tenure, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this precedent. As a result, the Supreme Court has delegated primary authority for removing a congressman before the term has expired to Congress. Congress allotted itself the role of judge and jury in the cases of its fellow members. Because congressmen have vested interests in keeping members of their party in power, expulsion is extremely rare and only occurs as a result of criminal misconduct. The problem is that, legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with lying about one’s background, despite how disingenuous it is to the voters. It is, however, illegal to lie about federal records and documentation. According to the New York Times, which first broke the Santos scandals, Santos is facing both federal and local investigations, and a reopened 2008 fraud case by Brazilian authorities.
Beyond criminal expulsion, Congress can reprimand congressmen by removing them from committees and limiting their representative power due to wrongdoing. This was what was done to Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene after both posted violent imagery against Democrats. However, given how slim the Republican majority is, I doubt McCarthy would be willing to freely limit a representative of his caucus.
There is always a slim hope that even if there is no reprehension or expulsion, Santos will choose not to run again. Vox reports that Santos has told his colleagues that he will spare them another re-election campaign, which, given the current controversy, he is likely to lose. This raises the question of whether he even intended to carry out his duties fully if he never intended to run for re-election in the first place. It appears as though his entire campaign was centered around galvanizing public attention, money and prestige for a year, leaving his party, his congressional district and his constituents — including myself — humiliated.
5. Conclusion
The case of Santos has proven that expulsions should not have to be criminal. While according to The Gothamist, most legal experts consider Santos’ lies to be political lies, I would argue that those lies are potentially more lethal than Santos’ current charges. They enable future candidates to lie their way into government with little retribution. Furthermore, corruption has eroded the public’s already shaky faith in our democracy. It paves the way for further radicalization as the line between honesty and lying is further blurred. We as a country cannot survive by tolerating such serial liars and accommodating their treachery under vague claims of protecting fake mandates. Santos represents a test of our democratic tradition. I fear that if nothing is done, democracy as we know it will surely die.
Peter Levy is an undeclared sophomore.