@
KunsanVeteran Not necessarily. House Speaker Johnson says he will delay the new Congressperson's swearing-in to sabotage the Epstein vote.
Johnson could delay Grijalva’s swearing-in, but it would be politically risky and procedurally controversial. Whether he will depends on multiple incentives, pressures, and legal/precedential limits. Here’s a breakdown of the relevant mechanics, risks, and what seems likely.
Mechanism: How a swearing-in could be delayed
Here’s how the process works and where there’s room for maneuver:
State certification / credentials transmission
Normally, once state officials formally certify the election results and send credentials (i.e. certificate of election) to the House Clerk, the House may proceed to swear in the winner. Some Members have been sworn in based on “unofficial” state communications when no contest is raised.
Congress.gov
+3
GovInfo
+3
History, Art & Archives
+3
In Grijalva’s case, the Arizona Secretary of State has sent a letter attesting to the unofficial results and saying there is no contest.
AZCentral
But waiting for the official certification is a standard fallback and gives the Speaker a plausible reason to hold off temporarily.
KGUN 9 Tucson News
+2
AZCentral
+2
Speaker’s scheduling / House control over oath administration
The Speaker (or someone the Speaker designates) controls when new Members are sworn in (outside of the mass oath on opening day in a new Congress).
History, Art & Archives
+2
GovInfo
+2
House precedents allow the House to authorize the oath even in absence of formal credentials, via unanimous consent or a resolution, when the election is uncontested.
GovInfo
But the Speaker can delay scheduling or refuse to bring the motion forward without objection.
Election Law Blog
+2
GovInfo
+2
Challenges or objections
If a Member (or bloc of Members) formally challenges the right of a new Member-elect to be seated, the House may be asked to delay the oath until that dispute is resolved.
GovInfo
+1
In Grijalva’s case, no such contest has been raised publicly, and the state has affirmed there is no contest.
AZCentral
+1
So the formal levers exist for delay (waiting for certification, withholding scheduling, invoking the challenge process), but there is also precedent and mechanism for swearing-in based on unofficial results when uncontested.
Incentives & risks for Johnson in delaying
Why Johnson might consider delay, and why it’s dangerous:
Possible motivations for delay:
Parliamentary advantage / vote counts
Grijalva’s seating would likely strengthen the Democratic bloc on close votes (especially on contentious issues, e.g. the Epstein file release resolution). Delaying her swearing-in deprives Democrats of that vote temporarily.
Yahoo
+3
AZCentral
+3
Bloomberg
+3
Leverage / negotiation
In the context of a looming government funding standoff, Johnson might try to use the timing of seating as political leverage.
AZCentral
+2
KGUN 9 Tucson News
+2
Precedent / political signaling
He might want to assert institutional control, especially given the narrow House margins and the stakes of every vote.
Risks and constraints:
Political backlash / optics
Delaying a new Member with an uncontested election could be seen as blatant partisanship and could provoke strong criticism (as is already happening).
Bloomberg
+2
AZCentral
+2
Precedent and institutional norms
The House and past practice allow swearing-in before formal certificate arrival when no contest is raised. Denying that could be seen as bending rules for partisan ends.
GovInfo
+2
History, Art & Archives
+2
Pressure from within party / caucus dynamics
Some Republicans might resist overt stunts of denying seating, particularly if it further inflames procedural strife.
Cost of negotiating or being seen as obstructive
If Johnson delays, Democrats will strongly publicize and pressure him; it could weaken his position elsewhere.
Given all that, Johnson is pressured highly by both sides: Democrats pushing for quick seating; Republicans wary of giving up any vote margin.
What seems likely in this case
From the publicly available reporting:
Johnson has not publicly committed to delaying the swearing-in, nor has he scheduled it yet.
Election Law Blog
+1
He has in prior instances allowed swearing-in on the basis of unofficial certification (e.g. with James Walkinshaw) quickly.
AZCentral
+1
Democrats are actively pressuring him to act quickly.
Yassamin Ansari
+1
Some local reporting suggests the swearing-in could be delayed till Oct. 7 or Oct. 14 depending on when certification arrives and Speaker willingness.
KGUN 9 Tucson News
So while Johnson has the levers to delay, doing so would carry heavy political risk, and he seems to be weighing them carefully (or attempting to keep ambiguity).
Given the current pressure and precedents, it seems more plausible that he will permit a relatively prompt swearing-in (especially if no credible challenge exists), unless he sees that delaying is necessary for his broader legislative posture. But I’d assign a non-trivial chance of short-term delay (a few days to a week) rather than an indefinite hold.
