[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 22. Recapitulation and Recounts of Teller Votes]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11575-11580]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 22. Recapitulations and Recounts of Teller Votes

    The Chair could order his count of Members seconding the demand for 
a teller vote to be retaken if there was confusion over the number 
seconding the request. A teller vote could be retaken at the Chair's 
discretion if there was a dispute over the number passing through the 
tellers.(1) His discretion (2) was absolute but 
was exercised only in those situations where the result was in doubt. 
The Speaker has declined to order a recapitulation of a vote taken by 
electronic device.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 22.3, 22.4, infra.
 2. See Sec. 22.1, infra.
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 25841, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1975; 
        Sec. 31.6, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Recount of Seconding Members

Sec. 22.1 Following a count and announcement by the Chair of the number 
    of Members seconding a demand for tellers, a unanimous-consent 
    request that the count be taken again was denied by the Chair.

    On Apr. 4, 1940,(4) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
9209) making appropriations for the military establishment for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1941. In the course of the bill's consider

[[Page 11576]]

ation, Mr. John M. Robison, of Kentucky, offered an amendment and, 
after some debate, the Chairman (5) put the question, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 4017, 4049, 4050, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the adoption of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Robison].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. May) 
    there were--ayes 43, noes 29.
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        The Chairman: Those in favor of taking this vote by tellers 
    will rise and stand until counted. [After counting.] Seven Members 
    have risen, not a sufficient number, and tellers are refused.
        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    respectfully request by unanimous consent that the count be taken 
    again? There were more than seven standing.
        The Chairman: The Chair counted those who rose after the Chair 
    had announced that those in favor of tellers should stand, and the 
    Chair distinctly observed only seven, and therefore, the Chair 
    refuses again to submit the request.

Recapitulation of Teller Votes

Sec. 22.2 A vote by tellers was not subject to recapitulation.

    On Aug. 24, 1967,(6) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
12048) to further amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 23908, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. E. Ross Adair, of 
Indiana, offered an amendment, and, when the question was put, tellers 
having been ordered, there were--ayes 139, noes 138. The Chair then 
voted ``no,'' and announced that the amendment was rejected. This 
prompted a parliamentary inquiry from the Minority Leader, as follows:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a . . . 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, it is within the Rules of the 
    House that there should be a recapitulation of the vote?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state not on a teller vote.

Chair's Authority To Direct Recount

Sec. 22.3 Where representations were made prior to the announcement of 
    the result that the tellers' count was incorrect, the Chair stated 
    that it could direct the vote be retaken without unanimous consent 
    providing there was doubt on the part of the tellers.

[[Page 11577]]

    On May 25, 1953,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
5246) making appropriations for the Department of Labor, the Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare, and related independent agencies for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954. In the course of the bill's 
consideration, Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Island, offered an 
amendment, and, following debate, the Chairman (8) put the 
question on that amendment. Tellers were subsequently ordered, 
following a division vote, and the Chairman appointed Mr. Fred E. 
Busbey, of Illinois, and Mr. Fogarty as tellers. The Committee then 
proceeded to divide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 99 Cong. Rec. 5474, 5476, 5484, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Donald W. Nicholson (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Busbey: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Busbey: Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
    Church], when she was passing through, claimed that I had dropped 
    10, that instead of saying 49 I said 39.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, is there any method by which the 
    vote can be had again when it has once been taken by tellers?
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I would object to 
    that. It cannot be done except by unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: If there is a doubt on the part of the tellers 
    about the count, it can be taken again, the Chair will rule.
        Mr. Rayburn: This is the first time I ever heard of that.
        Mr. Busbey: Mr. Chairman, we will pick it up on the rollcall, 
    so let it go.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A teller vote was not subject to 
recapitulation.(9) Therefore, a ``recount'' of a teller vote 
was equivalent to a vote de novo since the recount was not limited to 
Members who voted the first time (10) and did not prohibit 
Members from changing their votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 22.2, supra.
10. See Sec. 22.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.4 Where tellers have failed to agree on their count, and a 
    recount was requested, the Chair could exercise its discretion and 
    order that the vote be taken de novo.

    On Mar. 23, 1938,(11) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 9415) to 
amend the

[[Page 11578]]

Act entitled ``An act to establish a Civilian Conservation Corps, and 
for other purposes.'' In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. 
Gerald J. Boileau, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment. The Chairman 
(12) put the question on the amendment, it was taken; and on 
a division demanded by Mr. Boileau there were--ayes 40, noes 53. At 
that point, the following discussion ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 83 Cong. Rec. 3953, 3964, 3965, 3966, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
12. William B. Umstead (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mrs. 
    Norton and Mr. Boileau.
        The Committee again divided.
        Mr. Boileau (pending the report of the tellers): Mr. Chairman, 
    I desire to count the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins] and, Mr. 
    Chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Houston], whom the lady 
    from New Jersey counted as going through on her side, was voting 
    with me.
        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: I withdrew the count of 
    that vote.
        The Chairman: The tellers will first announce their count. How 
    many were in the affirmative?
        Mr. Boileau: There were 53 originally and 2 others, including 
    the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Houston], whom the gentlewoman from 
    New Jersey counted as going through on her side, the 2 others 
    making a total of 55.
        Mrs. Norton: May I say to the Chairman that the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey withdrew the count and the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey counted 57 correctly.
        Mr. Boileau: I do not desire to get into a controversy with the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey about the matter, and I ask for a 
    recount of the vote.
        The Chairman: May the Chair inquire how many votes the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin claims are at issue?
        Mr. Boileau: Two votes.
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boileau: Is it possible when tellers are counting the vote 
    and when there is an honest difference between the two persons 
    acting as tellers to have a recount of the vote? If so, I would ask 
    that without any further argument.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I want to submit a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's request is not in order. The 
    gentleman from Wisconsin has submitted a parliamentary inquiry and 
    the Chair will undertake to answer it.
        The Chair is informed that the Chair has the discretion, where 
    there is a discrepancy in the vote and a recount is requested, to 
    rule that there should be one. In this instance there is some 
    question as to whether or not two of the Members who passed through 
    the tellers voted in the affirmative or in the negative. If the 
    Chair understands the situation correctly, the 57 votes reported by 
    the gentlewoman from New Jersey includes the two votes that are 
    claimed in the affirmative.
        Mrs. Norton: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin admit there 
    were 57

[[Page 11579]]

    votes in the negative, exclusive of the 2 referred to?
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, I claim that there was only one vote 
    that the gentlewoman from New Jersey counted that I should properly 
    count on this side. However, there were several persons counted 
    here who did not go through the tellers, and I maintain while I was 
    attempting to talk to the Chair the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    kept on counting Members who indicated they wanted to go through 
    the tellers.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman claim, then, that if one vote 
    that was counted by the gentlewoman from New Jersey was transferred 
    to the yeas, as the gentleman contends should be done, that that 
    would meet his objection?
        Mr. Boileau: No; I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: In that event the Chair rules there should be a 
    recount of the vote.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Chairman, would the 
    Chair desire to hear me on the point?

        The Chairman: The Chair would be pleased to hear the gentleman 
    from New York.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: The gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    claims 57 votes without counting the vote of the gentleman from 
    Kansas [Mr. Houston], which is in dispute. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin claims 55 votes, but if there was a mistake of that 1 
    vote, it would only mean a tie, and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin would not pass.
        The Chairman: May I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin if the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] has correctly stated his 
    position?
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, he has correctly stated it except in 
    this respect: While I was attempting to address the Chair, and 
    while there was confusion, Members were counted in the negative who 
    did not actually go through the tellers. I have no doubt that the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey attempted correctly to get the views of 
    the Committee and of Members. I believe, however, in view of the 
    situation that developed, and in all fairness, a recount would be 
    in order, and without making any charges of any kind I respectfully 
    ask a recount of the teller vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of opinion that under the 
    circumstances there should be a recount of the vote, and the Chair 
    so directs.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Parliamentarian's Note to Sec. 22.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Tellers Changed

Sec. 22.5 Where tellers in the Committee of the Whole were unable to 
    agree on a count, the Chair directed the vote to be taken over and 
    made a change in the appointment of tellers.

    On July 19, 1946,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
met to consider a bill (S. 1717) for the development and control of 
atomic energy, a teller vote was ordered

[[Page 11580]]

on a committee amendment, and the Chair (15) appointed Mr. 
Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, and Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, as 
tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 92 Cong. Rec. 9466, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. John J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        The Committee divided; and the tellers were unable to agree on 
    the count.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair will direct that the vote by 
    tellers be taken over. . . .
        The Chair appointed as tellers Mr. Thomason and Mr. Short.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were-ayes 102, noes 72.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Members Eligible To Vote on Recount

Sec. 22.6 Where a teller vote was taken a second time because of a 
    discrepancy in the first count, all Members were entitled to pass 
    through the tellers and be counted, and did not need to qualify as 
    having voted the first time.

    On Mar. 23, 1938,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 9415) to amend the Civilian 
Conservation Corps Act,(17) a difference of opinion arose 
between tellers with respect to the count of a teller vote on a 
proposed amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 3965, 3966, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
17. See Sec. 22.4, supra, for greater detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman (18) ordered a recount of the vote, 
prompting the following question from Mr. Harry L. Englebright, of 
California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Umstead (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Englebright: Inasmuch as this is a recapitulation 
    (19) is any one entitled to vote on the recapitulation 
    who did not vote on the previous vote?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. It should be noted that a teller vote may be taken de novo when 
        warranted, but is not subject to recapitulation, per se; see 
        Sec. 22.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair any Member on the 
    floor when the vote is retaken has a right to pass through the 
    tellers and be counted.

[[Page 11581]]