A seat does not have to be filled if no one is deemed qualified for it by the House or the Senate. In post 70, OldDeckHand pointed out that a lawsuit could be brought by the elected official, so it behooves the House and Senate to have an extremely good reason to deprive the citizens of representation. Such a decision apparently goes to a committee for inquiry and then to the floor for a vote, so it’s not strictly up to the Speaker of the Majority Leader.
Victor L. Berger (early 1900s’ Wisconsin socialist/anti-war politician, charged with espionage, but his constituents didn’t care) was denied the seat he won in back-to-back elections. The House decided to leave the seat vacant until the next election. Several years later, after the charges were dropped, he won again and was seated.
NY-23 is a fill-in election and the House could refuse to seat Hoffman, particularly since Democrats have the majority. Elections cost money, after all. At least, Owens would be out...I hope.
“Several years later, after the charges were dropped, he won again and was seated.”
Isn’t it nice in the old days, even the question of guilt counted for something, and even the politicos acted on it and ostracized the subject, to avoid any appearance of unseemly taint to the whole.
Nowadays, even in private groups like the NFL, it’s always this milquetoast/cop-out “he hasn’t been convicted of anything”, before they’ll consider possibly removing the questionable from action.