How South Korea expels a lawmaker — 157 votes for a resolution still leaves the seat
South Korea’s National Assembly passed a resolution on August 26, 2026 urging the expulsion of lawmaker Lee Jin-sook. The secret ballot recorded 157 in favour, one against and one invalid out of 159 members present, with most People Power Party lawmakers leaving the chamber before the vote. The seat is unaffected. Under Article 64 of the Constitution, an actual expulsion requires review by the Ethics Special Committee and then a floor vote carrying two-thirds of all sitting members — 200 in a 300-seat chamber. And once an expulsion is decided, it cannot be challenged in court
The three lines
- Vote — August 26 floor vote: 157 in favour, 1 against, 1 invalid of 159 present. Most PPP members walked out
- Effect — An urging resolution removes nobody. It is a political statement by the Assembly
- Threshold — Real expulsion needs Ethics Committee review plus two-thirds of all members. No court appeal
Key questions
- If the resolution passed, does the lawmaker lose the seat?
- **No. The seat is retained.** A resolution urging expulsion is a document in which the Assembly **states an opinion** — that this member ought to be expelled. It does not itself change anyone's status. Actual expulsion runs a separate track. **Article 64 of the Constitution** sets two requirements: review as a disciplinary matter by the National Assembly's **Ethics Special Committee**, and a floor vote carrying **two-thirds of all sitting members**. "All sitting members" means everyone holding a seat, not everyone present — **200 or more in a 300-seat chamber**. The August 26 vote drew 157 in favour out of 159 present, which does not reach that bar.
- What was the result on August 26?
- **157 in favour, one against and one invalid, of 159 members present** — passed, by **secret ballot**. The number worth noting is not 157 but **159 present**. The People Power Party opposed tabling and passing the resolution and **left the chamber before the vote**. Five PPP members did take part: **Cho Kyoung-tae, Kim Hyung-dong, Kim Ye-ji, Woo Jae-jun and Han Ji-a**. Because the ballot was secret, how they voted is not knowable. The background to the resolution is a controversy over Lee Jin-sook's remarks seen as disparaging the **1980 Gwangju democratization movement**, a founding reference point of South Korea's democratic transition. After the vote the Democratic Party said it would pursue an actual expulsion.
- So how does a Korean lawmaker actually lose office?
- **Two separate routes: the Assembly removing its own member, or a court removing the qualification.** The Assembly route is **disciplinary expulsion**, requiring Ethics Committee review plus **two-thirds of all members**. The bar is that high deliberately — **so that a majority party cannot easily remove opposition members**. Lawmakers are elected by voters, so the Assembly overturning that requires overwhelming agreement. The other route runs outside the Assembly: a confirmed criminal sentence above a certain threshold, or a confirmed election-law conviction carrying invalidation of the election. Article 64 adds one more clause worth knowing: **disciplinary decisions of the Assembly, expulsion included, cannot be appealed to a court.** The matter begins and ends inside the legislature.
On August 26, 2026, South Korea's National Assembly passed a resolution urging the expulsion of lawmaker Lee Jin-sook.
157 votes in favour. Only one against, out of 159 members present.
And the seat is unaffected. Both sentences are true, and the reason is this article.
1. What happened on August 26
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Measure | Resolution urging the expulsion of a National Assembly member |
| Method | Secret ballot |
| Present | 159 |
| In favour | 157 |
| Against | 1 |
| Invalid | 1 |
The figure to watch is not 157. It is 159.
The People Power Party, the main opposition, objected to tabling and passing the resolution and left the chamber before the vote. Five of its members did take part — Cho Kyoung-tae, Kim Hyung-dong, Kim Ye-ji, Woo Jae-jun and Han Ji-a. Because the ballot was secret, how they voted is unknowable.
The background is a controversy over remarks by Lee Jin-sook seen as disparaging the 1980 Gwangju democratization movement — the uprising that is a founding reference point of South Korea's democratic transition, and among the most politically sensitive subjects in Korean public life.
2. "Urging" and "expelling" are different documents
| Resolution urging expulsion | Expulsion (discipline) | |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | statement of opinion | change of status |
| Prior step | none (goes to the floor) | Ethics Special Committee review |
| Threshold | ordinary majority rules | two-thirds of all sitting members |
| Votes needed in a 300-seat chamber | varies | 200 or more |
| Effect if passed | seat retained | seat lost |
| Appeal | — | no court appeal |
Rows two and three are the thresholds the August 26 vote did not approach.
3. What Article 64 sets
The basis is constitutional.
The National Assembly may review the qualifications of its members and may take disciplinary actions against them. The concurrence of two-thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly shall be required for the expulsion of any member. No action shall be brought to court with regard to decisions taken herein.
Three things follow.
① "Total members" is not "members present." The base is every seated member — 200 in a 300-seat chamber — regardless of attendance. With 159 present on August 26, the threshold could not have been reached by that room.
② The bar is high on purpose. A lawmaker is chosen by voters. For the Assembly to reverse that requires overwhelming agreement, so that expulsion cannot become a tool for a majority to remove opponents.
③ Once decided, there is no appeal. The final clause bars court challenges to disciplinary decisions. The matter starts and ends inside the legislature.
4. Other routes out of the seat
| Route | Who decides | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary expulsion | the Assembly | Ethics review + two-thirds of all members |
| Criminal conviction | courts | confirmed sentence above a threshold (varies by sentence type and suspension) |
| Election-law conviction | courts | confirmed invalidation of the election |
| Qualification review | the Assembly | review of eligibility itself |
| Resignation or death | — | — |
In practice, loss of office happens overwhelmingly through the courts. Expulsion by the Assembly itself is rare, precisely because of the threshold.
5. So what was the August 26 vote for?
If it has no legal effect, the question is why hold it. Three answers.
- It creates a record. The Assembly's assessment of specific remarks is now an official document.
- It builds the case for the next step. The Democratic Party said afterwards that it would pursue an actual expulsion; the resolution is the political basis for referring the matter onward.
- It shows where the votes are — partially. With the opposition out of the room, these 157 votes say little about what would happen at a two-thirds threshold.
6. Common questions
Q. Once it reaches the Ethics Special Committee, how long does it take? There is no deadline. Referrals frequently sit without review until they lapse at the end of the parliamentary term.
Q. Are there lesser penalties than expulsion? Yes. Under the National Assembly Act discipline runs warning, apology, suspension of attendance, and expulsion. Only the last carries the two-thirds requirement.
Q. If a party expels a member, do they lose the seat? No. A district member becomes an independent and keeps the seat. For proportional-representation members, the outcome differs depending on whether they were expelled by the party or left voluntarily, and has to be assessed case by case.
7. What could not be confirmed
- Next steps — referral to the Ethics Committee and its timeline were not confirmed.
- The resolution text — the original wording and sponsor list were not verified.
- The remarks — the full original text and context were not reviewed directly.
- The five participating members' votes — unknowable under a secret ballot.
- The two-thirds figure — calculated as 200 assuming a full 300-seat chamber; vacancies change it.
Sources
- Pressian — Resolution urging Lee Jin-sook's expulsion passes the National Assembly floor
- Ilgan Gyeonggi — Expulsion resolution passes as most PPP members skip the vote
- Weekly Hankook — Resolution urging Lee Jin-sook's expulsion passes, led by the ruling party
- New Daily — Expulsion resolution passes the floor; PPP walks out before the vote
- Kyongbuk Ilbo — Resolution urging expulsion over Gwangju distortion controversy clears the Assembly
- CaseNote — Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 64
- Lawtimes — Expulsion of a National Assembly member: requirements and limits