[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record]
[Â§ 32. Requests To Alter Electronically Recorded Votes]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11661-11666]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 32. Requests To Alter Electronically Recorded Votes

    Since the inception of the electronic system, the Speaker has 
resisted attempts to permit corrections to the electronic tally after 
the announcement of a vote. This policy is based upon the presumptive 
reliability of the electronic device and upon the responsibility of 
each Member to correctly cast and verify his vote. The Speaker has 
continued to entertain Members' unanimous-consent requests to correct 
the Record the day after the announcement of the result where the 
electronic voting system has been inoperative and a backup procedure--
where the possibility of human error still exits--was utilized.

Votes or Presence Cannot Be Entered After Vote Has Been Closed and 
    Result Announced

Sec. 32.1 Following the announcement of the result of a call of

[[Page 11662]]

    the House conducted by electronic device pursuant to the rules, the 
    Speaker declined to entertain requests by Members to record their 
    presence.

    On Nov. 13, 1973,(15) Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, 
by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
695) which provided that upon its adoption, the House would resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider a bill (H.R. 11333) 
providing for certain increases in social security benefits among other 
things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 36862, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During debate on the resolution, Mr. Steven D. Symms, of Idaho, 
made the point of order that a quorum was not present. The Speaker 
(16) sustained the point of order and a call of the House 
was ordered and taken electronically.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
17. See Rule XV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 774(b) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When 373 Members responded to the call, the Speaker announced the 
presence of a quorum. Unanimous consent was then granted to dispense 
with further proceedings under the call. Prior to the further 
consideration of the matter at hand, however, a colloquy took place 
between the Speaker and a Member as to the failure of the latter to be 
recorded on the quorum call.
    This discussion, which appears in its entirety below, illustrates 
the Speaker's obligation to decline a Member's request to be recorded 
after the Chair has already announced the result of a quorum call 
conducted by electronic means. The exchange (18) took place 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 36862, 36863, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I had my hand up 
    and I was in the Chamber on this past rollcall, but I was not 
    recorded.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's statement will appear in the 
    Record.
        The Chair under the present practices of the House is without 
    authority to change the vote or announcement of a quorum after the 
    result is announced.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: I had my hand up, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair apologizes if he did not see the 
    gentleman, but the Members make their presence known by addressing 
    the Chair. This is the only manner in which the Chair has a right 
    to recognize a Member.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, that is the manner this 
    Member followed.
        The Speaker: Did the gentleman take the microphone and address 
    the Chair?
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: No. I did not take the microphone. I was 
    in the

[[Page 11663]]

    Chamber. I do not know of any rule that requires the Member to take 
    a microphone.
        The Speaker: The gentleman must address the Chair.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: I did.
        The Speaker: The Chair went 3 minutes beyond the 15-minute 
    minimum time. The Chair does not have the authority to recognize 
    the gentleman to make this request.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: There is no rule.
        The Speaker: The precedent has been established with respect to 
    numerous Members of the House under both the old rollcall system 
    and the new electronic system. The gentleman can state that he was 
    present and the House knows the gentleman was present and his 
    statement will appear immediately following the announcement of the 
    Members recorded as present.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, is there anything in the 
    rules about a microphone?
        The Speaker: It is only for the purposes of facilitating the 
    action of the House, that is all, so that the Chair will see 
    Members, but the Chair looked around the Chamber before announcing 
    the result.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: I will state this Member had his hand up.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's remarks will appear in the Record.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: That is not important, I was in the 
    Chamber. I tried to answer the roll.
        Mr. Speaker, I will not be intimidated by regular order 
    requests. I was in the Chamber.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's remarks that he was in the 
    Chamber, that he was holding up his hand in the Chamber, that he 
    was seeking recognition of the Chair, will appear in the Record; 
    but the gentleman cannot be recorded, nor can any other Member, 
    under the practices of this House, if he is not recorded before the 
    vote or rollcall is announced. The Chair has announced this policy 
    on numerous occasions--including April 18, May 10, and June 6 of 
    this year.
        The Chair is bound by those rulings and the Chair is going to 
    stand by this ruling, unless overruled by the House. The 
    gentleman's statement will appear in the Record.

Sec. 32.2 The Speaker has declined to entertain unanimous-consent 
    requests to correct the Record and the Journal on votes taken by 
    electronic device.

    On May 10, 1973,(19) following the Speaker's 
(20) appointment of five Members to confer with Senate 
conferees as to the Airport Development Acceleration Act of 1973 (S. 
38), Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, rose to make a personal 
announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 15282, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Madden's announcement and the Speaker's reply indicate the 
Speaker's lack of discretion to correct what a Member deems to be an 
improperly recorded vote when the vote was tallied by elec

[[Page 11664]]

tronic means. The exchange was as follows:

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 132, yesterday, I was 
    present and voted ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent that the 
    permanent Record be corrected accordingly.
        The Speaker: The Chair is without authority in that regard. The 
    gentleman's statement will appear in the Record.

Absent Member Somehow Recorded; Record Corrected

Sec. 32.3 Instance where the permanent Record and Journal were 
    corrected to show that a Member recorded on a series of votes taken 
    by electronic device was in fact not present and not voting.

    In the 95th Congress, a Member who was in fact absent and not 
voting on the preceding day, but was somehow shown as voting, asked to 
have the permanent record corrected to show that he was in fact not 
present. His absence was conclusively shown by travel documents and 
other evidence placing him in his district. His voting card had been 
misplaced and somehow had been used in error. The Member was issued a 
new voting card and the old card voided so the system would not accept 
it if another use of the card was attempted.
    The permanent Record and Journal were corrected to indicate that 
the Member, Mr. James A. Burke, of Massachusetts, was indeed absent as 
indicated by an excerpt from the Sept. 19, 1978,(1) Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 30195, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               [Roll No. 796]

                                 YEAS--396

        Abdnor
        Addabbo
        Akaka . . .

                                  NAYS--3

        Collins, Tex.
        McDonald
        Symms

                               NOT VOTING--33

        Ammerman
        Armstrong
        Burke, Calif.
        Burke, Mass. . . .

Sec.  32.4 Based upon the presumed infallibility of the electronic 
    voting system, the Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request to correct a roll call vote by electronic device absent a 
    conclusive explanation of the voting discrepancy.

    On July 31, 1979,(2) a Member asked to proceed for one 
minute

[[Page 11665]]

and during that presentation asked ``unanimous consent that the 
permanent Record reflect the fact that'' he was absent on the preceding 
day and did not in fact vote as indicated in the Record. This request 
was interpreted by the Speaker, not as an attempt to change the vote, 
but as a request to put the current statement in the Record. The Member 
making the request, Mr. Morgan F. Murphy, of Illinois, who was a member 
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, asked that committee 
to investigate the occurrence and stated that during such an inquiry, 
he would recuse himself from committee activity while the matter was 
under investigation.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 21659, 21660, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. The Committee on House Administration also undertook an inquiry 
        into the voting errors here noted. 125 Cong. Rec. 21986, 21987, 
        96th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.5 On one occasion, the Speaker announced a change in the result 
    of an electronic roll call where the error was attributed to an 
    incorrect reading of a signature on a voting card submitted in the 
    well.

    At the conclusion of a roll call vote taken by electronic device, 
Members who do not have their voting card or who arrive in the Chamber 
after the electronic device has been closed, may use red or green or 
orange ``tally cards,'' which they procure and sign at the rostrum and 
submit to the tally clerk. Signatures on these cards are sometimes 
difficult to decipher.
    On June 9, 1981, a vote was taken on passage of H.R. 3462, making 
appropriations for the Department of Justice, fiscal year 1982.
    On June 11, 1981, Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
made the following statement which appeared in the daily edition of the 
Record:

        The Speaker: The Chair will announce that on rollcall No. 70 
    the following corrections will be made: The gentleman from Arkansas 
    (Mr. Alexander) to be recorded as not voting and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) to be recorded as voting ``nay.''

        This correction is required because of an error in correctly 
    identifying a signature on a voting card submitted in the well.

    The permanent Record was accordingly corrected.
    Unanimous consent was not required for this change, since the error 
was clerical and not attributable to the electronic system, which has 
continued to retain its reputation for infallibility. The

[[Page 11666]]

Journal and voting records were also corrected to conform to this 
announcement.