[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 8. Voting by Division]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11495-11498]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 8. Voting by Division

    While the House has ``modernized'' its voting practices by the 
installation of the electronic voting system,(15) which is 
used for taking yea and nay and recorded votes, the process of voting 
by division has remained largely unchanged since the First Congress 
convened.(16) Should the Speaker be uncertain as to the 
outcome of a voice vote or should any Member so request,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 118 Cong. Rec. 36005-12, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1972.
16. For the sake of historical accuracy, however, the reader should 
        note that for several months in the First Congress, divisions 
        were accomplished in a teller-like fashion. Those Members 
        voting in the affirmative passed to the right of the Chair 
        while those voting in the negative passed to the Chair's left. 
        See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . the House shall divide; those in the affirmative of the 
    question shall first rise from their seats, and then those in the 
    negative. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 629 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Chair's count usually can be verified by a demand for a 
record vote, there are few instances where the integrity of the Chair's 
count have arisen.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6002, and, for comparison, 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 3115. For an instance where complaints were 
        made about the accuracy of the Chair's count of the House and 
        on demands for recorded votes, see the remarks made under a 
        special order on June 27, 1985. 131 Cong. Rec. 17893-901, 99th 
        Cong. 1st Sess. See also the dispute surrounding the Chair's 
        count of the number standing to second a demand for a recorded 
        vote on a motion to recommit on that date. 131 Cong. Rec. 
        18550, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1985.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11496]]

    The intervention of a parliamentary inquiry does not preclude a 
demand for a division vote on an amendment after a voice vote has been 
taken.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 121 Cong. Rec. 7953, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1975. See 
        Sec. 9.7, infra.

                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.1 Where a demand for a division vote on an amendment is 
    immediately followed by a motion that the Committee of the Whole do 
    now rise, the division vote is not commenced until and unless the 
    preferential motion to rise has been rejected.

    On June 13, 1947,(20) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
3342) pertaining to the cultural relations program of the State 
Department.
    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of 
Wisconsin, offered an amendment to strike out three sections of the 
bill. Following brief debate on this proposal, Mr. Keefe modified his 
amendment and the Chair commenced to put the question on the amendment 
as so modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 6963, 6996-98, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) . . . The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and Mr. Angell demanded a division.
        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Reed of New York moves that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rayburn) there were--ayes 93, noes 95.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Reed demanded tellers. Tellers were 
ordered; the Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
there were--ayes 101, noes 110. Thus, the motion to rise was rejected.
    The Chair then felt obliged to review the parliamentary situation, 
prompting a resultant inquiry as follows:

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that before the motion was 
    made that the Committee do now rise the ques

[[Page 11497]]

    tion was being taken on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe]. There was a voice vote and then a division 
    was requested.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: The Chair had stated that a standing vote had 
    been requested, but I think the Chair failed to state that the 
    Chair announced the ``ayes'' had it on the voice vote.
        The Chairman: No. No announcement was made on the division. The 
    preferential motion intervened.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. While there would appear to be some confusion as to whether the 
        Chair did, indeed, announce the voice vote, this would have no 
        effect on the priority accorded the motion to rise over the 
        commencement of the division count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Presidential Reorganization Plan

Sec. 8.2 Providing that a majority of the authorized membership votes 
    in the affirmative, the House may adopt a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan of the President by a voice, division, or ``yea 
    and nay'' vote.

    On Aug. 11, 1949,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a resolution (H. 
Res. 301) disapproving of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 11296, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After some debate, the Committee rose,(4) and the 
following exchange took place between Mr. Charles H. Halleck, of 
Indiana, and the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 11314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: . . . Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that 
    under the terms of the Reorganization Act under which we are 
    operating the proponents of the resolution who by that resolution 
    would seek to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2 would have to 
    have 218 votes actually present and voting in order to carry the 
    resolution?
        The Speaker: (5) That is correct; that is the law, 
    and the Chair will take this opportunity to read the law:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 6. (a) Except as may be otherwise provided pursuant to 
        subsection (c) of this section, the provisions of the 
        reorganization plan shall take effect upon the expiration of 
        continuous session of the Congress, following the date on which 
        the plan is transmitted to it; but only if, between the date of 
        transmittal and the expiration of such 60-day period there has 
        not been passed by either of the two Houses, by the affirmative 
        vote of a majority of the authorized membership of that House, 
        a resolution stating in substance that that House does not 
        favor the reorganization plan.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, posed a 
parliamentary inquiry, as follows:

[[Page 11498]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: How will the Chair determine whether there 
    are 218 votes cast in favor of the resolution?
        The Speaker: By the usual method: Either by a viva voce vote 
    [sic], division vote, or a vote by the yeas and nays.
        The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair the resolution not 
    having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the 
    authorized membership of the House, the resolution is not agreed 
    to.
        So the resolution was rejected.