In Friday’s vote in the U.S. House, Republican Rep. George Santos of New York faced expulsion, ultimately resulting in a vote of 311-114 in favor of his removal.

Notably, all eight of Colorado's representatives participated in the vote, with two representatives, Lauren Boebert and Doug Lamborn, both Republicans, voting against Santos' expulsion.

The decision to expel Santos came after a critical ethics report was released, accusing him of converting campaign donations for personal use. This marked a significant moment in history, as Santos became the sixth member in the chamber's history to be ousted by his colleagues.

The votes of Colorado's representatives, Lamborn and Boebert, against Santos' expulsion, are raising attention and debate.

According to both Republican lawmakers, their decision to dissent from the majority reflects their concerns about the potential ramifications of setting a new precedent that could make expulsions more common.

The remaining representatives voted in favor of Santos' expulsion. Republican Rep. Ken Buck joined Democratic Reps. Yadira Caraveo, Jason Crow, Diana DeGette, Joe Neguse, and Brittany Pettersen in voting yes.

When examining the history of expulsions in the House, it becomes clear that such actions are typically reserved for severe transgressions.

Of the previous five expulsions, three occurred during the Civil War due to disloyalty to the Union. The remaining two expulsions took place after lawmakers were convicted of crimes in federal court.

READ MORE:

• REP. SANTOS ACCUSED OF DEFRAUDING A COLLEAGUES AND HIS MOTHER

• HOUSE ETHICS CHAIR MOVES TO EXPEL GEORGE SANTOS FROM CONGRESS

• ALREADY THIN GOP HOUSE MAJORITY LIKELY TO SHRINK FURTHER IN 2024

• FOUR SEATS BIDEN'S PARTY HOPES TO FLIP AMID RETIREMENT BOOM

Santos, in his appeal to lawmakers, emphasized the need to consider the potential consequences of expulsions becoming more frequent. By highlighting the importance of maintaining a fair and judicious approach to such matters, he sought to dissuade his colleagues from setting a precedent that could be detrimental in the future.