[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record]
[Â§ 39. Changing Correctly Recorded Votes; Inquiries]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11713-11719]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 39. Changing Correctly Recorded Votes; Inquiries

    The precedents carried in this section all predate the use of the 
electronic voting system. In the modern House, Members have no need to 
ask ``how they are recorded'' since their votes are on the electronic 
displays and in the visible computer monitors on the floor. The current 
procedure for changing votes is discussed in Sec. Sec. 32, supra and 
40, infra.

[[Page 11714]]

                          -------------------Inquiry as to How Member 
    Recorded

Sec. 39.1 Members may inquire how they are recorded before the 
    announcement of a yea and nay vote.

    On Apr. 8, 1938,(12) the House entertained a motion to 
recommit a bill (S. 3331) to provide for reorganizing agencies of the 
government, extending the classified civil service, establishing a 
General Auditing Office and a Department of Welfare. The yeas and nays 
having been ordered, the Speaker (13) put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 5123, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the end of the roll call but prior to announcement of the 
result, the following exchange took place: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 5124, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how 
    I am recorded?
        The Speaker: The gentleman voted ``nay.''

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    announcement of the result.
        The Speaker: The Chair will announce the result as soon as it 
    is handed to the Chair by the Clerk.
        Mr. [James M.] Mead [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, how was my vote 
    recorded?
        Mr. O'Connor: That is just an attempt to delay the decision, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the announcement of the vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not desire one side or the other to 
    have any advantage. We are merely following the usual routine.
        Mr. Mead: Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?
        The Speaker: The gentleman voted ``nay''.
        Mr. Mead: That is correct.

    Thereafter, a brief discussion about the possibility of a 
recapitulation occurred, after which the result of the vote was 
announced.

Effect of Announcement of the Result

Sec. 39.2 A Member may change his vote on a roll call at any time 
    before the result of the roll call vote is announced.

    On July 28, 1937,(15) following a roll call vote on a 
bill (S. 2416) relating to the citizenship of certain classes of 
persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama, the Speaker 
(16) decided to order a recapitulation. The result of the 
initial vote not having been announced, Mr. Andrew Edmiston, of West 
Virginia,

[[Page 11715]]

changed his vote in the course of the recapitulation from ``no'' to 
``aye.'' This prompted a point of order raised by Mr. Cassius C. 
Dowell, of Iowa, who contended that such a change was not permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 7772, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair ruled on the point of order, as follows:

        There has been no announcement on the part of the Chair of the 
    result of the vote.
        A Member may change his vote at any time before it is 
    announced.
        That was held by Mr. Speaker Gillette. The Chair, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order. The vote of the gentleman from West 
    Virginia will be changed from ``no'' to ``aye.''

Sec. 39.3 Prior to announcing the result of a yea and nay vote, the 
    Speaker clarified a statement he had made in reply to a 
    parliamentary inquiry preceding such vote, so that Members would 
    understand the exact parliamentary situation and change their votes 
    if so desired, before his announcement of the result.

    On Mar. 4, 1952,(17) the Chairman (18) of the 
Committee of the Whole reported back to the House a bill (H.R. 5904) 
providing for the administration and discipline of the National 
Security Training Corps with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.(19) As the rule 
dictated that the previous question be ordered, the Speaker 
(20) put the question on the amendment, and it was rejected. 
Accordingly, the original bill remained before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 1863, 1864, 1865, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
19. It should be noted that when the Committee of the Whole perfects a 
        bill by amendment and then adopts an amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute for the entire bill, only the substitute is 
        reported to the House. Moreover, should the House reject the 
        substitute, the original bill without amendment is then before 
        the House.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, offered a motion 
to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services. The question 
was put, and the yeas and nays were ordered.
    Before the vote was taken, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: If this motion to recommit is voted down 
    will the bill then be sent back to the Committee of the Whole for 
    further consideration?
        The Speaker: No; the question then will be on the passage of 
    the bill.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11716]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Abernethy: Do I understand that this vote occurs on the 
    bill as it was introduced without committee amendments?
        The Speaker: Not as introduced, but as reported to the House 
    from the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Abernethy: Do I understand, then, that the vote to follow 
    will occur on the bill as reported to the House, including the 
    committee amendment?
        The Speaker: It does not have any committee amendments.
        The question is on the motion to recommit.

    The question was then taken; and the votes were tallied. Prior to 
announcing the result, however, the Speaker made the following 
statement:

        The Chair desires to make a statement.
        In answering a parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy], the Chair was mistaken as to the 
    import of the inquiry. The Chair thought the gentleman was asking 
    whether, if the motion to recommit was voted down, we would then 
    vote on the bill as amended by the Committee of the Whole. Of 
    course, the Chair's answer was correct on that understanding, 
    because the Burleson amendment took out all the amendments that 
    were adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        However, the Chair should have gone one step further, if he had 
    understood the gentleman entirely, and said that the bill that 
    would be voted on at that time was the bill as originally 
    introduced and referred to the Commit- tee on Armed Services 
    without the amendments adopted by the Committee on Armed Services 
    or the Committee of the Whole, because those amendments of the 
    committee to the bill as originally introduced were not reported to 
    the House.
        The Chair wanted to make that statement before the final vote 
    was announced so that all Members could understand the exact 
    situation and be allowed to change their votes if they so desired. 
    The bill is now before the House as originally introduced.

    The Record indicates that two Members changed their votes 
thereafter.

Sec. 39.4 Members desiring to change their votes from ``yea'' or 
    ``nay'' in order to answer ``present'' because of a pair must do so 
    before the announcement of the result.

    On May 27, 1947,(1) the House voted on a resolution (H. 
Res. 218) waiving points of order against a bill (H.R. 3601) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 
1948. The Speaker (2) announced the result of the vote, and 
a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The resolution having 
been agreed to, a motion was then offered to resolve into the Committee 
of the

[[Page 11717]]

Whole for the consideration of the bill, itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 5878, 5879, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. [William S.] Hill [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hill: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how I was recorded? I had 
    a pair with the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Jonkman. I voted 
    ``no.'' I wish to withdraw my vote and vote ``present.''
        The Speaker: The vote has been announced and the time when the 
    gentleman could have announced how he would have voted has passed. 
    . . .

        . . . He should have addressed the Chair and requested that he 
    be recorded as ``present.'' (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For a comparable instance, see 118 Cong. Rec. 34166, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 5, 1972, where Mr. Philip M. Crane (Ill.), who had 
        formed a live pair with Mr. Roman C. Pucinski (Ill.), appeared 
        to be cognizant of the fact that he had waited too long to 
        withdraw his ``nay'' vote and chose not to ask the Chair for 
        permission to do so. Instead, he merely stated that he was 
        ``unable to exercise'' the live pair and announced how Mr. 
        Pucinski would have voted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 39.5 While a Member may announce that his recorded vote was cast 
    under misapprehension and misinformation, he may not change his 
    vote following the announcement of the result.

    On Apr. 26, 1949,(4) the House voted on a resolution (H. 
Res. 191) which provided, in part, that upon its adoption, the 
Committee of the Whole would consider a bill (H.R. 2032)--against which 
all points of order were to be waived--to provide for the repeal of the 
Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, and the reenactment of the 
National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The yeas and nays having been 
ordered, there were--yeas 369, nays 6, not voting 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 5062, 5063, 5086, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate on the bill and the rising of the Committee, the 
Speaker (5) recognized Mr. Roy W. Wier, of Minnesota, and 
the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wier: Mr. Speaker, on the rollcall vote today on the rule, 
    under misapprehension and misinformation, I voted ``nay.'' I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Record show I intended to vote ``aye.''
        The Speaker: The gentleman's statement will stand. The vote 
    itself cannot be changed at this time.

Effect of Timely Change

Sec. 39.6 Where a Member changes his vote following a roll call, before 
    its announcement by the Chair, the change appears in the Record.

[[Page 11718]]

    On Dec. 20, 1969,(6) the House, by roll call vote, 
agreed to the conference report on a bill (H.R. 15149) making 
appropriations for foreign assistance and related programs for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970. Immediately following that vote and 
before the announcement of the result, Mr. James H. Scheuer, of New 
York, changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Moments later--and 
still within the interim between the actual vote-casting and the 
Speaker's (7) announcement of the result--the Congressman 
changed his vote again, from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' As the permanent 
Record indicates, he was so recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 40456, 40457, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confusion as to Question Under Consideration as Basis for Vote Change

Sec. 39.7 Confusion existing as to the precise question under 
    consideration, 40 Members changed their roll call votes from 
    ``yea'' to ``nay,'' and 93 Members changed their votes from ``nay'' 
    to ``yea.''

    On Aug. 21, 1957,(8) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
called up the conference report on the supplemental appropriation bill 
of 1958 (H.R. 9131). The report having been agreed to, discussion 
followed with respect to the amendments remaining in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 15508, 15510, 15518, 15519, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, Mr. Cannon moved that the House recede and concur in a 
Senate amendment numbered 54 with an amendment. Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, 
of Iowa, offered a preferential motion that the House recede and concur 
with Senate amendment No. 54, and Mr. John Taber, of New York, then 
requested a division of that question.
    The vote was taken on the question, as divided (i.e., on the motion 
to recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment), and a division 
having been demanded by Mr. Cannon, there were--ayes 76, noes 22. Mr. 
Taber then objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present whereupon the Speaker (9) directed the Clerk to call 
the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the result of the vote was announced, the Record reveals 
that 40 Members changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay,'' and 93 
Members changed their votes from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' This unusual 
occurrence was explained in a statement by Mr. Cannon, as follows:

        Mr. Speaker, may I say that this misapprehension was due to the 
    fail

[[Page 11719]]

    ure here at the desk to understand that the question had been 
    divided. We took for granted we were voting on receding and 
    concurring when, as a matter of fact, the vote was on the question 
    to recede.
        May I add, Mr. Speaker, that we expect to go back to conference 
    tomorrow and will have an opportunity to again take up the matter 
    in conference.