What is the procedural difference between filing articles of impeachment, voting to impeach in the House, and voting to convict in the Senate?

1. What “filing” articles of impeachment means inside the House

Filing or introducing articles of impeachment typically begins with a member presenting a resolution or a list of charges, which may be referred to a committee for investigation or debated directly on the floor; the House’s internal rules and precedent determine the pathway from complaint to formal articles ^{[6] [3]}. The drafting stage is largely procedural and political: committees investigate, draft specific articles, and recommend whether the full chamber should consider them, reflecting the House’s constitutional role to “bring charges” ^{[4] [3]}.

2. Voting to impeach in the House: the simple-majority threshold and its consequences

When the full House adopts one or more articles by a simple majority vote, the official is formally impeached—meaning accused—not removed from office; that adoption is what the Constitution and guidance materials identify as the House’s “sole Power of Impeachment” ^{[1] [7]}. Adoption also triggers administrative and ceremonial steps: the House appoints managers to present the case to the Senate and transmits the approved articles to the Senate, a process sometimes called “presentment” or “exhibiting” the articles ^{[3] [8]}.

3. The Senate’s role after the House transmits articles: trial, discretion, and the two‑thirds rule

Once the House sends articles, the Senate “sits as a High Court of Impeachment” to try the case, with House managers acting as prosecutors and the Senate determining trial procedures under its own impeachment rules and precedents; in presidential trials the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate ^{[2] [9] [10]}. The Senate’s rules, unanimous-consent agreements, and historical practice shape whether there will be witness testimony, written questions, or limited debate; importantly, the Constitution requires a two‑thirds concurrence of Senators present to convict and remove an official ^{[2] [11]}.

4. Different burdens, remedies, and political incentives between chambers

The House’s standard—simple majority to impeach—reflects a lower political threshold to accuse, akin to instituting charges or a grand-jury step, whereas the Senate’s two-thirds requirement elevates the bar to actually remove an officer, underscoring the Framers’ design of checks and balances ^{[10] [7]}. Conviction in the Senate results in removal from office and may be followed by a separate majority vote to disqualify the individual from future federal office; criminal penalties remain a matter for courts and prosecutors, not the impeachment process itself ^{[3] [7]}.

5. Practical and constitutional discretion: precedent, rules, and political judgment

Both chambers enjoy substantial discretion: the House crafts its own procedures for inquiries and articles, and the Senate largely sets its trial procedures within constitutional limits, a flexibility the Supreme Court has treated as non‑justiciable and left to Congress ^{[11] [10]}. That latitude means political strategy—timing, committee choices, whether to split articles, and negotiation over hearing formats—often drives outcomes as much as legal definitions of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a deliberately elastic constitutional phrase ^{[2] [7]}.

Conclusion: three distinct acts in one constitutional arc

Filing or drafting articles is the House’s preparatory and investigative phase; the House’s vote to impeach is the constitutional act of formally charging by simple majority; the Senate’s trial and vote to convict is a constitutionally separate adjudicative phase requiring a two‑thirds supermajority to remove and possibly bar an official from future office—each step governed by different rules, standards, and strategic incentives ^{[3] [2] [11]}.