[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 7. Voice Votes]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11492-11495]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 7. Voice Votes


    The voice vote is the first voting procedure referred to by the 
House rules.(1) Specifying how the Speaker is to fulfill his 
duty to present matters for a decision, Rule I prescribes 
(2) that he:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 629, 630 (1995).
 2. Id. at Sec. 629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . shall put questions in this form, to wit: ``As many as 
    are in favor (as the question may be), say `Aye'.''; and after the 
    affirmative voice is expressed, ``As many as are opposed, say 
    `No'.'' . . .

    The voice vote, as the term is used in the House, means a vocal 
response, in unison, as indicated above. The Chair listens to the 
response and announces the vote as he discerns it. His ``call'' on a 
voice vote is not subject to direct challenge.(3) Putting 
the question in this prescribed form is the duty of the Chair and must 
precede any demand for a yea or nay or recorded vote.(4) The 
remedy available to any Member not agreeing with the Chair's 
announcement on the voice vote is to demand a division or recorded 
vote. The Speaker, if he is in doubt as to whether he correctly heard 
the will of the House on the voice vote, or any Member, can ask for a 
division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 7.2, infra.
 4. See Sec. 7.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The voice vote, like the unanimous-consent request, serves as

[[Page 11493]]

an efficient mechanism to expedite the determination of issues on which 
House sentiment is clear.(5) Often, it is merely the prelude 
to a determination ultimately reached by a division, recorded vote, or 
by the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 8.2, infra, for an example of where a voice vote was used 
        in lieu of a roll call where the sentiment of the House was 
        clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vote ``viva voce,'' which is also specified in the rules, must 
be distinguished from the ``voice vote.'' The former procedure is used 
in elections, when Members respond on a roll call, not by answering 
``yea'' or ``nay'' but by the name of the candidate of their choice. 
Under Rule II, Elections of Officers,(6) the elections of 
the Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer and 
the Chaplain are to be conducted by a viva voce vote. Since the 
election of these officers normally precedes the adoption of the rules 
of the House, in that period of transition where the House is operating 
under general parliamentary law, this prescription for the method of 
voting is ignored,(7) and the officers are chosen by the 
adoption of a resolution. The Speaker's election, the manner of which 
is not dictated in the standing rules, is, however, conducted by a viva 
voce vote.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule II, House Rules and Manual Sec. 635 (1995).
 7. Since the rules of one House do not bind its successor, Rule II is 
        not in effect at the time of the organization of a new 
        Congress. The election of the officers normally precedes the 
        adoption of the rules for the new Congress. See, e.g., adoption 
        of H. Res. 1 (electing officers for the 103d Congress) and H. 
        Res. 5 (establishing the rules for that Congress) on Jan. 5, 
        1993.
 8. The Speaker, who was selected by ballot in the early Congresses, 
        has been chosen by viva voce vote, by surname responses from 
        those nominated, since 1839. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 187; 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 27 
        (1995).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.1 Pursuant to clause 5(a) of Rule I, the Speaker must put the 
    pending question to a voice vote prior to entertaining a demand for 
    a recorded vote or the yeas and nays; and where the Speaker ordered 
    a record vote on a question and did not first put the question to a 
    voice vote, the Speaker explained why the Record described the yeas 
    and nays as having been ordered by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 5, 1992,(9) the House had under consideration 
House

[[Page 11494]]

Concurrent Resolution 287, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1993-1994. When the resolution was before the House for 
final adoption, the question was divided. The Speaker (10) 
directed the votes on the divided portions to be taken by the yeas and 
nays, without first putting them to a voice vote and then entertaining 
a demand for the yeas and nays and determining if there was a 
sufficient second to the demand. On the next legislative day, the 
Speaker made the announcement, which follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 138 Cong. Rec. 4579, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
11. 138 Cong. Rec. 4698, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair wishes to make a statement.
        On rollcall 41 and rollcall 42, as shown in the Record of March 
    5, 1992, it appears that the yeas and nays were ordered by 
    unanimous consent on adoption of the divided portions of House 
    Concurrent Resolution 287. In fact, the Chair put the question on 
    the adoption of those portions of House Concurrent Resolution 287 
    to a vote by electronic device without first putting the question 
    by a voice vote and without first asking whether one-fifth of those 
    present supported a demand for the yeas and nays.
        The Chair was in error in so ordering the vote to be taken by 
    the yeas and nays without first going through the required 
    procedure, but at the time members of the committee on both sides 
    of the aisle were on their feet, and the Chair assumed that a 
    demand for a record vote would be made immediately by one or the 
    other of the members of the committee. When the Chair ordered the 
    vote to be taken as he did, no objection was raised by either side 
    of the House, and the House was implicitly granting unanimous 
    consent for the vote to be taken by the yeas and nays, and the 
    Parliamentarian suggested the Record should so reflect that.

Sec. 7.2 A count by the Chair (on a vote by voice) is not subject to 
    challenge.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See the introduction to this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 13, 1994,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill, H.R. 518, the California Desert 
Protection Act, Mr. Randy Cunningham, of California, had offered an 
amendment to strike out section 609. While the motion to strike was 
pending, Mr. George Miller, of California, offered a perfecting 
amendment which was agreed to by voice vote. The motion to strike out 
the section, being broader in scope than the Miller amendment, was then 
put to a vote. Mr. Cunningham sought to challenge the Chair's call of 
the voice vote on his amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    to strike offered by

[[Page 11495]]

    the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Pete Peterson (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        So the . . . amendment to strike was rejected.
        The Chairman: Are there further amendments?
        Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 
    No Member said, ``no.'' There was not a single ``no.'' How could 
    the ``noes'' have it?
        The Chairman: The Chair announced that the ``noes'' had it.
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I could not 
    hear.
        The Chairman: The Chair put the question to a vote on the 
    amendment to strike as submitted by the gentleman from California 
    [Mr. Cunningham]. In the vote, as voice voted, the Chair recognized 
    that the ``noes'' had it.
        Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cunningham: If there were ``ayes'' and there were 
    absolutely no recorded ``noes,'' how does the Chair say that the 
    ``noes'' have it?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognized the ``noes,'' and the Chair 
    himself votes ``no.''