WASHINGTON D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ethics has decided not to move forward with its inquiry into U.S. Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind. District 5, according to documents filed on Tuesday.
This comes after Spartz was found with a .380 caliber firearm in her carry-on bag by Transportation Security Administration agents at the Dulles International Airport in late June. Spartz was charged at the time for carrying a weapon in an airport terminal, a Class 1 Misdemeanor in the state of Virginia.
Spartz was re-elected as Indiana’s fifth district representative in the U.S. House of Representatives in November’s general election, according to previous reports.
The Commonwealth of Virginia announced in October that it would not proceed with criminal charges against Spartz in relation to the incident. Officials said at the time that Spartz completed a firearms safety course and surrendered the weapon, which led to the charges being dropped.
According to the documents filed in the House Committee on Ethics, officials said that the committee convened on Sept. 24 to consider the firearms-related charge against Spartz. The committee initially was scheduled to meet about the matter in late July, but because of changes in the House calendar, the committee could not consider the matter at that time.
During that September meeting, Spartz informed the committee she completed the course, which caused the charge to be voluntarily dismissed “through a nolle prosequi declaration.” The documents also said that Spartz paid a penalty after the TSA charged her with a federal civil penalty for possessing a weapon in an airport terminal.
The review was unable to be resolved until Tuesday because of a general election “blackout period” that the committee abides by, the documents said. The implemented blackout period means that the committee chooses to refrain “from making public statements about matters in the 60 days prior to a federal, state or local election in which the respondent is a candidate.”
“The Committee voted against impaneling an investigative subcommittee in this matter,” the documents said. “The Committee considered the scope and nature of the conduct described (in the report) and determined that review by an investigative subcommittee is not required.”
To read the full report, look at the document below:
