Deliver notarized documentation to Johnson.

Dems need to get more feisty and more proactive and more creative.

Though Congress usually doesn't wait for certfication in elections that are not close, this time they are and you cannot go before a judge and demand a swearing in until the election is officially certified. I don't think that has happened yet.

Let's get it on!

Swear her in already!!!

Look, what Johnson is doing is unjustified and unforgivable. But the reality is that US statutory law assigns the job of swearing in members to him and doesn't otherwise set a schedule for doing so in the case of members elected via a special election. And a review of past history reveals that the amount of time from election to swearing in varies wildly, with instances of it being delayed for a month to instances of it happening in a matter of days.

Do it now!

This keeps getting posted and it never acknowledges 2 USC 25 -- one of the oldest statutory provisions in US history, dating back to 1789 -- in which it was decreed that the speaker of the House is to swear in members of Congress. And over the course of the nation's history, as far as I can determine, the only times where someone other than the speaker has sworn in a member of Congress has been when the House, by a resolution adopted by a majority of its members, expressly authorizes a specific person to administer the oath in lieu of the speaker.

No judge is going to ignore that statute and over 230 years of history and the comments being posted online suggesting otherwise do a major disservice.

How a judge can swear in a House member

The typical procedure for swearing in House members is outlined in 2 U.S.C. § 25:

The Speaker-elect is sworn in by a member of the House.
The Speaker then administers the oath to all other House members en masse.

However, the House has the authority to approve alternative arrangements for members who could not be present for the mass swearing-in. In these cases, the Speaker may designate another individual to administer the oath on their behalf. The use of federal and local judges for this purpose is supported by the House's historical precedents.
Legal basis for a judge swearing in a member

Constitutional authority: The U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3) requires members of Congress to take an oath but does not specify who must administer it.
Authorization for federal judges: Under 5 U.S.C. § 2903, federal judges are authorized to administer oaths and affirmations.
House precedents: The House of Representatives has historically authorized judges to administer the oath to absent representatives, such as members elected in special elections. For example, in 2013, several federal judges swore in members of Congress who were not present for the initial ceremony.

Yes, there is historical precedent for a judge swearing in a member of Congress, WHEN AUTHORIZED BY A RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE HOUSE

So, absent such a resolution being adopted -- and I'm willing place a sizable wager this Repub majority Congress isn't going to do that -- no judge will be authorized to swear Grijalva.

To further substantiate my post, here is a link to the official "Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives." https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-PRECEDENTS-V1/pdf/GPO-HPREC-PRECEDENTS-V1.pdf

The rules and precedents governing the swearing in of members are found in Chapter 2, and the specific rules and precedents governing the deputization of someone other than the Speaker to administer the oath are found in Section 3.1 of Chapter 2. I direct attention to the bottom of page 182, wherein it is stated:

"The House may also authorize the Speaker to deputize another to administer the oath of office. Most often, this is done when the Member–elect cannot travel to Washington, D.C., to be present on opening day of a new Congress (due to illness, for example). For these circumstances, the House will adopt a resolution conferring on the Speaker the authority to name a deputy to administer the oath.(23) Such resolutions are privileged for consideration.(24) The Speaker may deputize anyone to administer the oath of office, though this function is typically performed by a Federal or state judge,(25) and occasionally by another Member of the House.(26) When the oath is administered, the person deputized to administer the oath informs the Speaker, who lays such communication before the House.(27) The House formally ‘‘accepts’’ the oath administered by a deputy, either in the resolution authorizing the Speaker to deputize(28) or by separate resolution.(29)
23. See § 3.13, infra. See also Deschler’s Precedents Ch. 2 §§ 5.8–5.12.
24. See, e.g., H. Res. 8, 133 CONG. REC. 19, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 1987) and H.
Res. 25, 133 CONG. REC. 820, 821, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 7, 1987)
25. See § 3.13, infra.
26. See 129 CONG. REC. 52, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1983). 27. See § 3.14, infra.
28. See § 3.13, infra.
29. See § 3.15, infra.

Examples of such resolutions can be found at pages 199-202.

This is WAR!!!

Thanks.

Of course, it isn't helpful in this case, but...

We very well know some one(s) who WOULD "ignore that statute and over 230 years of history" - if it were to THEIR benefit.

Yes, yes, you are correct regarding this thread ... but you can trust, if there is a perceived need, your "no one" will turn into "some one".