[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 26151-26152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DAVID E. PRICE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 14, 2000

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a 
Resolution of Inquiry to

[[Page 26152]]

have the President direct the Archivist of the United States, the 
official of the United States Government responsible for coordinating 
the functions of the Electoral College, to provide the House of 
Representatives with full and complete information about the 
preparations that have been made for the various states to carry out 
the functions of the Electoral College this year.
  It is not widely known that the House of Representatives and Senate 
have a critical role in counting the states' electoral ballots for 
President and Vice President of the United States. Many know of the 
ministerial function of the joint session that counts the ballots cast 
by the electors who are elected in their states. What is not widely 
understood is the precedent allowing Congress to decide which of two 
conflicting electoral certificates from a state is valid. Most 
important is the constitutional function of the Congress to formally 
object to the counting of the electoral vote or votes of a state and, 
by a majority of both the House and Senate, to disallow the counting of 
a state's electoral votes. The House of Representatives should not take 
this duty lightly, nor should we approach it unprepared.
  I want to call attention to the 1961 precedent when a recount of 
ballots in Hawaii, which was concluded after the governor of that state 
had certified the election of the Republican slate of electors, showed 
that the Democratic electors had actually prevailed. The governor sent 
a second communication that certified that the Democratic slate of 
electors had been lawfully appointed. Both slates of electors met on 
the day prescribed by law, cast their votes, and submitted them to the 
President of the Senate. When the two Houses met in joint session to 
count the electoral votes, the votes of the electors were presented to 
the tellers by the Vice President, and, by unanimous consent, the Vice 
President directed the tellers to accept and count the lawfully 
appointed slate. Thus, the precedent holds that the Congress has the 
ability to judge competing claims of electors' votes and to determine 
which votes are valid.
  The rejection of a state's electoral vote or votes is provided by 3 
U.S.C. Sec. 15. The relevant part reads as follows:

       [A]nd no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall 
     have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has 
     been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this 
     title from which but one return has been received shall be 
     rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote 
     or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not 
     been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has 
     been so certified.

  The only occasion I am aware of when 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 was brought 
into play was January 6, 1969. The vote of North Carolina was stated to 
be 12 for Richard M. Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew and one for George C. 
Wallace and Curtis E. LeMay. Representative James G. O'Hara of Michigan 
and Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine protested the counting of the 
vote of North Carolina for Wallace and LeMay as not ``regularly 
given.''
  The joint session then divided, and after the House and Senate 
individually debated the protest for two hours each, as provided by 
statute, they each voted to dismiss the objection and the vote for 
Wallace and LeMay was counted.
  The circumstances that challenged the Congress in 1961 and 1969 were 
certainly different from those that may come to the Capitol doorstep 
early next year. If there is a single certainty about the election for 
president in 2000, it is that there is nothing certain. I believe it is 
in the interest of the members-elect of the 107th Congress that the 
106th Congress make preparations for whatever may come to pass. I 
propose the first step in preparation is to pass a formal resolution of 
inquiry, which I have proposed today, to have the President direct the 
Archivist of the United States to provide the House of Representatives 
with full and complete information about the preparations that agency 
has coordinated to prepare the Electoral College to complete its 
constitutional function. We will need that information to know if the 
functions are faithfully and regularly carried out.
  I also have requested the Congressional Research Service to provide 
information on state laws requiring electors to pledge their support 
for their political party's nominees for President and Vice President 
of the United States. Although there is precedent in the House and 
Senate for accepting the vote of a so-called ``faithless elector,'' as 
cited in the 1969 instance where a North Carolina elector pledged to 
Nixon voted for Wallace, that was a case that did not involve state law 
requiring the faithfulness of electors. There is no precedent for 
counting or excluding the vote of a ``faithless elector'' when that 
elector's vote is cast in violation of state law. It is important that 
we in the House of Representatives have a thorough understanding of 
state law should such a situation arise in January 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence in preparing Congress for 
counting the electoral votes in January. I urge the expeditious 
approval of this resolution of inquiry.

                          ____________________