How did Nancy Mace vote on January 6 2021-related measures and what was the reaction?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Nancy Mace voted against objecting to the Electoral College count on January 6, 2021, publicly declaring she would not join GOP objections and urging respect for the Constitution and state authority while condemning efforts to overturn the result; she also signed a joint statement emphasizing Congress’s limited role in counting electors [1] [2]. In subsequent months she voted against creating an independent Jan. 6 commission but supported holding Steve Bannon in contempt for failing to comply with subpoenas, and she later endorsed Donald Trump—moves that produced contrasting reactions across political and media spheres [3] [4] [5].
1. How Mace announced her refusal to object and framed her constitutional stance
On January 4 and in a joint statement delivered in early January 2021, Nancy Mace made a public commitment that she would not join Republican colleagues in objecting to the Electoral College certification of Joe Biden, grounding her position in an oath to the Constitution and the principle that election disputes belong in state legislatures and courts rather than the House floor [1] [2]. Her public language stressed the limited constitutional role of Congress to count electoral votes as submitted by states, framing objections as an overreach that would undermine state authority and the orderly constitutional process. This framing allowed Mace to position herself as conservative but institutionally deferential, asserting fidelity to established legal channels for contesting results rather than congressional intervention. The statement and her declared vote were contemporaneous with heightened tensions in Congress and were framed as a defense of constitutional procedure rather than a simple partisan choice [1] [2].
2. The immediate vote and context in Congress — where Mace’s vote fit into the broader tally
On January 6 the House considered multiple Republican-led objections to state certifications, and while some members pursued objections, the objections ultimately failed to overturn the result; national reporting catalogued many Republican votes but did not specifically list Mace’s roll call in every account, even as she had publicly announced she would not object [6]. Her stance aligned with a subset of Republicans who refused to support the objections, creating a split in the GOP between those seeking to challenge certifications and those citing constitutional limits. The public record and contemporaneous reporting show that objections did not prevail and that several lawmakers altered or clarified positions in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol attack, reflecting both procedural outcomes and political realignment in response to the violence at the Capitol [6] [2].
3. Voting against a Jan. 6 commission — rationale and reactions to that decision
In May 2021 Nancy Mace voted against establishing an independent commission to investigate the January 6 attack, a vote characterized in public scorecards as opposing the commission despite earlier rhetoric that Trump bore some responsibility for the riot; she argued the commission would be duplicative because federal agencies were already conducting investigations and making arrests, a perspective she said made a new body unnecessary and ineffective [3] [7]. Critics framed her vote as inconsistent with prior statements that Trump should be held accountable, while supporters accepted her argument about overlap with existing investigations and the risks of a politically charged commission. Her vote therefore became a focal point for debate about the best institutional mechanism to investigate an unprecedented attack on the Capitol, reflecting differing views on accountability, oversight, and the proper role of congressional commissions versus criminal and administrative investigations [7] [3].
4. Supporting contempt for Steve Bannon — a narrower defense of congressional oversight
Despite opposing the independent commission, Nancy Mace later joined colleagues in voting to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a select committee subpoena, stating that her vote was driven by a desire to protect Congress’s subpoena and investigative power rather than an endorsement of the committee itself [4]. This vote signaled a more selective approach to oversight: resisting a broad, standalone commission while defending targeted enforcement of subpoenas when Congress sought witness cooperation. Observers interpreted the move as legally consistent—asserting institutional prerogatives—while politically mixed, since it separated support for process integrity from support for a particular investigatory vehicle. The distinction she drew between opposing the commission and supporting subpoena enforcement clarified her stance on institutional prerogatives versus political judgments about investigatory mechanisms [4].
5. Later political moves and how they reshaped reactions to her January 6 positions
In 2024 Nancy Mace’s endorsement of Donald Trump, despite earlier statements holding him accountable for the January 6 attack, reframed public perception and drew scrutiny over political consistency [5]. Supporters argued her endorsement aligned with party unity and broader policy priorities like the economy and immigration, while critics viewed it as a backtrack from prior accountability language. This trajectory—from refusing to object on January 6, to opposing a commission but defending subpoenas, to later endorsing Trump—generated both praise and criticism across partisan lines, illustrating how subsequent political endorsements can recast earlier procedural and ethical choices into new controversies about principles versus partisan strategy [5] [3].