[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 16. Voting by Tellers; In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11547-11551]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 16. Voting by Tellers; In General

    Counting votes by the use of tellers was a more precise system than 
voice or division votes for determining the sentiment of the House. 
Teller votes served as an essential voting procedure in the House until 
the 103d Congress.(10) Teller votes could be taken by 
direction of the Chair if he remained uncertain as to the outcome of a 
division or at the behest of the Members if one-fifth of a quorum 
(11) so desired. The procedure entailed the appointment by 
the Chair of ``one or more Members from each side of the question'' who 
proceeded to station themselves along the center aisle of the Chamber. 
Members voting in the affirmative then passed through the center aisle 
where their votes were tallied, though not recorded, by the Member-
teller or tellers. Immediately thereafter, Members voting in the 
negative proceeded up the center aisle, their votes being similarly 
tallied by the designated Member-teller or tellers. Where the Chair 
chose to vote, he did not need to pass through the tellers, but merely 
announced his position. When the tellers completed their respective 
counts, the tallies were reported to the Chair who then announced the 
result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1991). The 
        rule permitting teller votes was deleted from the rules at the 
        beginning of the 103d Congress. See H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. 
        49, 99, 100, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
11. Assuming there were no vacancies in the full House, this would 
        require 44 Members; in the Committee of the Whole the requisite 
        number would be 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Historically, teller votes never revealed the position particular 
Members took on a given issue. In 1971,(12) however, the 
``recorded teller vote'' came into being as the result of a rules 
change (13) promulgated by the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970.(14) The re

[[Page 11548]]

corded teller vote was itself supplanted by the ``recorded vote'' in 
1973.(15) Both procedures are considered in later sections 
of this chapter.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
13. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 631 (1971).
14. 84 Stat. 1140.
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 27, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1973.
16. See Sec. Sec. 30, 33-35, 40, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following precedents remain illustrative of general principles 
governing voting in the House and remain useful when researching older 
precedents where a result may have been determined by a vote conducted 
with tellers.

Teller Votes Used To Decide Both Procedural and Substantive Motions

Sec. 16.1 The House has adjourned by teller vote.

    On Jan. 23, 1950,(17) following an unsuccessful request 
for the yeas and nays on a motion to adjourn, the Speaker 
(18) put the question on the motion. Immediately thereafter, 
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, demanded tellers and tellers were 
ordered. The House divided; and the tellers reported that there were--
ayes 167, noes 109. So the motion was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 785, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.2 Following a voice vote and division vote to the same effect, 
    the Committee of the Whole rejected a motion that it rise, by 
    teller vote--although the Member moving that the Committee rise was 
    in charge of the bill.

    On June 16, 1948,(19) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6401) which was eventually to become the Selective Service Act of 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8502, 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate, the Member in charge of the bill, Mr. Walter G. 
Andrews, of New York, moved that the Committee rise inasmuch as several 
Members who had been afforded time to speak were not then present. The 
Chairman (20) put the question, and, on a division demanded 
by Mr. Andrews, there were--ayes 79, noes 94. Thereafter, the following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Andrews of New York and Mr. Smathers.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 76, noes 139.
        So the motion was rejected.

Effect of Tie

Sec. 16.3 Where a teller vote in the Committee of the Whole

[[Page 11549]]

    resulted in a tie, the question was lost, as on other tie votes.

    On Aug. 16, 1967,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
2516) to prescribe penalties for certain acts of violence or 
intimidation which interfered with citizens' civil rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 22743, 22768, 22769, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Albert W. Watson, of 
South Carolina, offered an amendment. Following debate on the 
amendment, the Chairman (2) put the question and, on a 
division demanded by Mr. Watson, there were--ayes 55, noes 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following proceedings then occurred:

        Mr. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Watson and Mr. Rogers of Colorado.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 90, noes 90.
        So the amendment was rejected.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For similar instances, see 110 Cong. Rec. 16859, 88th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., July 23, 1964; and 109 Cong. Rec. 24752, 88th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Dec. 16, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Limitation of Debate

Sec. 16.4 Where time for debate was limited to a certain hour rather 
    than a certain number of minutes, that portion of time taken by 
    teller votes came out of the time remaining for debate.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(4) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 4453) to 
prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, 
or national origin. During consideration of the bill, Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, offered a motion that all debate on the 
pending amendment and all amendments thereto close at 2:30 a.m. The 
motion was agreed to by teller vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240, 2246, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate and the ordering of tellers on an amendment to the 
pending amendment, the Chairman (5) recognized Mr. Francis 
H. Case, of South Dakota, for a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: The limitation on time fixed the time 
    at a precise hour rather than so many minutes. The effect of teller 
    votes, then, is simply to take time out of the time allowed for 
    debate?
        The Chairman: Of course, it comes out of the time.

Disclosure of Members' Names and Positions

Sec. 16.5 A Member could announce, in debate, the party

[[Page 11550]]

    division on a simple teller vote, but a disclosure of the names of 
    Members voting in the affirmative or negative was not in order.

    On Aug. 6, 1963,(6) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 4995) to 
strengthen and improve the quality of vocational education and to 
expand the vocational education opportunities in the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 14258, 14285, 14294, 14295, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Alphonzo Bell, of 
California, offered an amendment and following debate thereon, the 
Chair put the question. Mr. Bell demanded tellers and, tellers having 
been ordered, the Committee divided; and there were--ayes 146, noes 
194. Accordingly, the amendment was rejected.
    Shortly thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: Mr. Chairman, for 
    obvious reasons the Nation's press is not able to report the 
    partisan lineups which occur on teller votes. I observed the number 
    of Democrats going through the ``yea'' line for the Bell amendment 
    and the number of Republicans going through the ``nay'' line and 
    would like to report the results of that observation for the 
    record.
        My count shows that 143 Republicans----
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that that can be 
    done under the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may not mention the names of the 
    Members who voted. . . .
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Gubser].
        Mr. Gubser: Mr. Chairman, my count shows that 142 Republicans 
    voted against discrimination and 185 Democrats voted for 
    discrimination.

Sec. 16.6 There was no rule of the House prohibiting members of the 
    press from publishing the names of Members passing through the 
    aisle on a teller vote, and if such a publication recorded a Member 
    improperly, his only recourse was to reply to it.

    On Mar. 6, 1946,(8) shortly after the House convened, 
Mr. Walter K. Granger, of Utah, was recognized by the Speaker 
(9) and granted unanimous consent to address the House for 
one minute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 1971, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Granger: Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of 
    propounding a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 11551]]

        Mr. Granger: On yesterday or the day before there appeared in 
    the Washington Post what was purported to be a poll of certain 
    Members who passed through the aisle on a teller vote. Included was 
    the name of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Murdock], who only a 
    few moments before had vigorously supported the premium payments in 
    the housing bill, the very matter which was stricken out as a 
    result of the teller vote. The printing of his name in this account 
    in the newspaper made him appear to speak one way and vote another.
        The query is: What is the rule of the House in respect to that 
    matter, and what protection has a Member other than having it 
    denied in the press, which would mean that the gentleman from 
    Arizona might have to explain that inconsistency for the next 10 
    years?
        The Speaker: There is no rule of the House with reference to 
    it.
        The only remedy a Member has when something is published in the 
    newspaper that affects him improperly, is to reply to it.