[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 8.  Elections and Election Campaigns]
[B. Time, Place, and Regulation of Elections]
[Â§ 6. Elector Qualifications; Registration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 865-876]
 
                               CHAPTER 8
 
                    Elections and Election Campaigns
 
              B. TIME, PLACE, AND REGULATION OF ELECTIONS
 
Sec. 6. Elector Qualifications; Registration

    The original Constitution and Bill of Rights left the determination 
of qualifications required of electors to vote for Members of the House 
entirely up to the states.(10) At the time of the adoption 
of the Constitution, qualifications based on status, such as property 
ownership, were a widespread prerequisite to the exercise of voting 
rights. Since that time, the power of the states to prescribe the 
qualifications of electors for Representatives and for Senators 
(11) has been severely proscribed by constitutional 
amendments extending the franchise to U.S. citizens without regard to 
such matters as race, color, or sex,(12) and by federal 
legislation protecting the integrity of the congressional electoral 
process.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, clause 1. See also House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 6, 7 (1973).
11. The 17th amendment altered the Constitution in directing the 
        election of Senators by the people of the state, rather than by 
        the state legislatures.
12. See the 15th amendment (race, color, previous condition of 
        servitude); the 19th amendment (sex); the 24th amendment (poll 
        tax); the 26th amendment (age).
13. For a summary of such legislation, see Constitution of the United 
        States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-
        82, 108-111, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (comments to U.S. Const. art. 
        I, Sec. 4, clause 1).

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

[[Page 866]]

    The first step in the voting process for electors is voting 
registration. Although registration is primarily regulated by the 
states, congressional authority to preempt state regulation extends to 
the registration process.(14) Civil rights legislation 
enacted by Congress has provided for federal registrars and other 
procedures to insure that citizens qualified under the Constitution are 
not denied voting participation by rejection of registration 
applications on an arbitrary or discriminatory basis.(15) In 
judging election contests, the House or Senate may have occasion to 
construe state laws regulating registration and the effect of 
violations thereof.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See United States v Louisiana, 225 F Supp 353 (D. La. 1963), aff'd, 
        380 U.S. 145; Katzenbach v Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 
        250 F Supp 330 (D. La. 1965).
15. See, for example, 42 USC Sec. 1971 (a) (2), (e). See also South 
        Carolina v Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), construing 
        registration provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For 
        early federal court approval of federal registrars, see In re 
        Sundry Citizens, 23 F Cas. 13 (Ohio 1878).
16. See Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The states may prescribe reasonable qualifications for voting in 
congressional elections as long as the requirements do not contravene 
constitutional provisions or conflict with preemptive federal 
legislation enacted pursuant to law.(17) Residency 
requirements, absence of a previous criminal record, and an objective 
requirement of good citizenship are examples of allowable voter 
qualifications.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Harman v Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965); Davis v Schnell, 81 F 
        Supp 872 (D. Ala. 1949), aff'd, 336 U.S. 933.
            Although the Constitution itself does not confer federal 
        voting rights on any person or class of persons, Kuffman v 
        Osser, 321 F Supp 327 (D. Pa. 1971), the electors do not owe 
        their right to vote to a state law prescribing qualifications 
        for the most numerous branch of their own legislature in any 
        sense which makes the exercise of the right depend exclusively 
        on the state law. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 663 (1884); 
        United States v Mosley, 238 U.S. 883 (1915).
18. Lassiter v Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 
        (1959).
            In relation to Presidential elections, Congress abolished 
        state durational residency requirements and provided for 
        absentee balloting. See United States v Arizona, 400 U.S. 112 
        (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first voter qualification which was prohibited from 
consideration by the states was race,

[[Page 867]]

color, or previous condition of servitude; the 15th amendment provided 
not only that the right of citizens to vote should not be denied on 
those grounds but also granted Congress the power to enforce the 
amendment by appropriate legislation. Race as a substantive 
qualification in elections and primaries,(19) as well as 
procedural requirements which effectively handicap the exercise of the 
franchise on account of race, were barred.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The same test to determine discrimination or abridgement of right 
        to vote as applied in a general election should be applied to a 
        primary election, and a resolution of a political party 
        limiting membership to white citizens where membership in a 
        political party was an essential qualification was an 
        unconstitutional provision. Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 
        (1944), rehearing denied, 322 U.S. 769. For Congress' authority 
        over primaries, see Sec. 7, infra.
20. See Wayne v Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 15th amendment, Congress may legislate to protect the 
suffrage in all elections, both state and federal, against state 
interference based on race, color, or previous condition of 
servitude,(1) and under the 14th amendment Congress may act 
to prevent state interference with any citizen's voting 
rights.(2) Under article I, section 4, clause 1 of the 
Constitution, Congress can legislate against private as well as state 
interference but only in relation to federal elections.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See James v Bowman, 190 U.S. 127 (1903); United States v Reese, 92 
        U.S. 214 (1876); Larche v Hannah, 177 F Supp 816 (D. La. 1959), 
        reversed on other grounds, 263 U.S. 420, rehearing denied, 364 
        U.S. 855; South Carolina v Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1939).
 2. Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966); Oregon v Mitchell, 400 
        U.S. 112 (1970).
 3. See Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 
        U.S. 651 (1884); United States v Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has enacted a number of statutes, dating from 1870 to the 
present, providing a variety of remedies against interference with 
voting rights.(4) Some of those statutes have provided for 
federal officials to actively supervise congressional elections in the

[[Page 868]]

states and directed suspension of otherwise permissible voting tests, 
such as literacy requirements,(5) which are designed and 
administered so as to deny voting rights in a discriminatory 
way.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For early legislation, see Carr, Federal Protection of Civil 
        Rights: Quest for a Sword (Ithaca, 1947). Later acts were the 
        Civil Rights Act of 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-315, 71 Stat. 634; 
        Voting Rights Act of 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-449, 74 Stat. 86; 
        Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241; 
        Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437; 
        Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73; 
        Civil Rights Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-285, 84 Stat. 314.
 5. For permissible literacy requirements, see Lassiter v Northampton 
        County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959); Trudeau v 
        Barnes, 65 F2d 563 (5th Cir. 1933), cert. denied, 290 U.S. 659.
 6. For construction of federal legislation suspending literacy tests, 
        see Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966); South Carolina v 
        Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966); Gaston County v United States, 
        395 U.S. 285 (1969). See also Davis v Schnell, 81 F Supp 872 
        (D. Ala. 1949), aff'd, 336 U.S. 933; Louisiana v United States, 
        380 U.S. 145 (1965).
            A ``grandfather clause'' exemption from an educational 
        qualification prescribed by a state constitution is 
        unconstitutional. Guinn v United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915); 
        Myers v Anderson, 238 U.S. 368 (1915).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On occasion, titles to seats in the House have been challenged for 
reason of denial of voting rights, either through a systematic state 
pattern (7) or through private action by either the 
candidate or party officials.(8) On many such occasions, 
challenges and contests have been dismissed or denied due to the 
difficulty in obtaining substantial evidence of actual abridgment of 
voting rights or of a connection between the challenged Member and the 
alleged abridgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7, supra.
 8. See Sec. Sec. 6.3, 6.5. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other state-ordered voter qualifications have been removed by way 
of amendment of the federal Constitution. The right to vote regardless 
of sex was established in 1919 with the adoption of the 19th amendment. 
The right of all citizens to vote without paying a poll tax was 
affirmed through the adoption of the 24th amendment, following the 
passage by the House but not by the Senate of a bill in the 80th 
Congress to make unlawful a poll tax in any federal 
election.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 6.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The right of citizens to vote has been set by the 26th amendment of 
the Constitution at 18 years of age or older. Prior to the adoption of 
this amendment, Congress had amended the Voting Rights Act in 1970 to 
authorize 18-year-olds to vote in all elections, both state and 
federal.(10) The Supreme Court held that although Congress 
did have authority under the Constitution to fix the age of voters in 
federal elections,(11) Con

[[Page 869]]

gress had no power to fix an age requirement for voting in state 
elections.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Pub. L. No. 91-285, 84 Stat. 314.
11. One Justice was of the opinion that power was conferred on Congress 
        by U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 4, clause 1, and four Justices were 
        of the opinion that power was conferred on Congress by the 
        enforcement clause of the 14th amendment, Sec. 5. United States 
        v Arizona, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), rehearing denied, 401 U.S. 903.
12. The Court held that the 10th amendment to the Constitution reserved 
        to the states the power to establish voter age qualifications 
        in state and local elections. Oregon v Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 
        (1970).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voter Registration

Sec. 6.1 Violations of a state's registration and election laws 
    prohibiting transportation of voters to places of registration, 
    providing qualifications for registrars, confining registration to 
    certain hours, and requiring detailed registration lists were held 
    not to affect the results of an election, and therefore did not 
    nullify the election.

    On June 19, 1948, the House adopted without debate House Resolution 
692, dismissing an election contest:

        Resolved, That the election contest of David J. Wilson, 
    contestant, against Walter K. Granger, contestee, First 
    Congressional District of Utah, be dismissed and that the said 
    Walter K. Granger is entitled to his seat as a Representative of 
    said district and State.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 9184, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution was adopted pursuant to a report of the Committee on 
House Administration recommending the contest be dismissed; the 
committee had determined that violations of Utah's registration laws 
applicable to congressional elections did not affect the election 
results and did not require the voiding of the election.(14) 
The registration laws in issue prohibited transportation of voters to 
places of registration, required qualifications of registrars, confined 
registration to particular hours, and mandated detailed registration 
lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Rept. No. 2418, submitted June 17, 1948, 94 Cong. Rec. 8964, 
        80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.2 To provide a basis for the rejection of votes allegedly given 
    by illegal registrants, challenge must have been made at the time 
    of registration.

    On Mar. 19, 1952, the House adopted without debate House Resolution 
580, affirming the right of a Member-elect to his seat:

        Resolved, That Ernest Greenwood was duly elected as 
    Representative

[[Page 870]]

    from the First Congressional District of New York to the Eighty-
    second Congress and is entitled to his seat.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 2517, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.

The resolution was adopted pursuant to a report of the Committee on 
House Administration submitted on the same day. The committee had ruled 
that votes claimed to have been given by illegal and fictitious 
registrants in congressional elections must have been challenged at the 
time of registration. Where the contestant files petitions to annul the 
votes of such registrants, he must show that he took testimony from 
those registrants and that they voted for his opponent.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Rept. No. 1599, 98 Cong. Rec. 2545, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Challenges to Seats for Denial of Voting Rights

Sec. 6.3 Where the House by resolution has authorized the Committee on 
    House Administration to investigate the question of the final right 
    of a Member to his seat, the committee will not consider charges 
    against party officials that they conspired to nullify the will of 
    the voters, where there is no evidence to connect the Member to 
    such conspiracy.

    On Sept. 8, 1959, the Committee on House Administration submitted a 
report of an investigation of the final right of a Member to his 
seat.(17) The report stated in part that the committee had 
refused to consider charges against Arkansas party officials that they 
had conspired to nullify the will of the voters, where no evidence was 
tendered to connect the challenged Member, Mr. Dale Alford, with any 
such conspiracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Rept. No. 1172, 105 Cong. Rec. 18610, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. The 
        House adopted H. Res. 380, affirming the right to a seat of Mr. 
        Alford (Ark.), id. at p. 18611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.4 Where the right of an entire state delegation to take the oath 
    was challenged by reason of systematic denial of voting rights, the 
    challenge was treated as a contested election case and later 
    dismissed by the House.

    On Jan. 4, 1965, the convening day of the 89th Congress, a 
challenge was made to the administration of the oath to all the 
Members-elect from Mississippi. Those Members-elect stepped aside as 
the oath was administered to the other Members.(18) The 
House then authorized the Members-elect from Mississippi to be sworn in 
after Mr. Carl Albert, of Okla

[[Page 871]]

homa, stated that ``Any question involving the validity of the 
regularity of the election of the Members in question is one which 
should be dealt with under the laws governing contested elections.'' 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 18, 19, 89th Cong.
19. Id. at pp. 19, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Election contest proceedings were then instituted,(20) 
and the House later dismissed the contest.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 111 Cong. Rec. 24263-92, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1965; 
        111 Cong. Rec. 22364, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 31, 1965; and 
        111 Cong. Rec. 18691, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 1965.
 1. One of the sitting Members whose seat was being contested voted on 
        the resolution dismissing the contest and then withdrew his 
        vote and was recorded as present. He stated that he felt he had 
        the privilege of voting on the resolution since in hearings 
        before the elections committee it was agreed that the election 
        contest was an attack upon the seats of the State of 
        Mississippi rather than against the individual Members-elect. 
        111 Cong. Rec. 24292, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.5 Exclusion proceedings were sought in the 80th Congress against 
    a Senator-elect charged with conspiracy to prevent voters from 
    participating in sensational elections.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 7.8, infra, for Senate expulsion proceedings in relation 
        to a candidate's illegal control of election machinery and 
        destruction of opposing ballots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 4, 1947, at the convening of the 80th Congress, the right 
of Senator-elect Theodore G. Bilbo, of Mississippi, to be sworn in and 
to take a seat in the Senate was challenged by the presentation of 
Senate Resolution 1, which read:

        Whereas the Special Committee To Investigate Senatorial 
    Campaign Expenditures, 1946, has conducted an investigation into 
    the senatorial election in Mississippi in 1946, which investigation 
    indicates that Theodore G. Bilbo may be guilty of violating the 
    Constitution of the United States, the statutes of the United 
    States, and his oath of office as a Senator of the United States in 
    that he is alleged to have conspired to prevent citizens of the 
    United States from exercising their constitutional rights to 
    participate in the said election; and that he is alleged to have 
    committed violations of Public Law 252, Seventy-sixth Congress, 
    commonly known as the Hatch Act; and
        Whereas the Special Committee To Investigate the National 
    Defense Program has completed an inquiry into certain transactions 
    between Theodore G. Bilbo and various war contractors and has found 
    officially that the said Bilbo, ``in return for the aid he had 
    given certain war contractors and others before Federal 
    departments, solicited and received political contributions, 
    accepted personal compensation, gifts, and services, and solicited 
    and accepted substantial amounts of money

[[Page 872]]

    for a personal charity administered solely by him'' . . . and 
    ``that by these transactions Senator Bilbo misused his high office 
    and violated certain Federal statutes''; and
        Whereas the evidence adduced before the said committees 
    indicates that the credentials for a seat in the Senate presented 
    by the said Theodore G. Bilbo are tainted with fraud and 
    corruption; and that the seating of the said Bilbo would be 
    contrary to sound public policy, harmful to the dignity and honor 
    of the Senate, dangerous to the perpetuation of free Government and 
    the preservation of our constitutional liberties; Now, therefore, 
    be it
        Resolved, That the claim of the said Theodore G. Bilbo to a 
    seat in the United States Senate is hereby referred to the 
    Committee on Rules and Administration with instructions to grant 
    such further hearing to the said Theodore G. Bilbo on the matters 
    adduced before the Special Committee To Investigate Senatorial 
    Campaign Expenditures, 1946, and the Special Committee To 
    Investigate the National Defense Program and to take such further 
    evidence as shall be proper in the premises, and to report to the 
    Senate at the earliest possible date; that until the coming in of 
    the report of said committee, and until the final action of the 
    Senate thereon, the said Theodore G. Bilbo be, and he is hereby, 
    denied a seat in the United States Senate.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 7, 8, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate, the Senate laid on the table the resolution and the 
question as to whether the Senator-elect was to be sworn in, without 
prejudice to his rights, since he had recently undergone an operation 
and required further medical care. Senator-elect Bilbo later died in 
the first session of the 80th Congress, before any further 
consideration of his right to be sworn in.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 93 Cong. Rec. 109, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1947. For the 
        announcement of Nov. 17, 1947, concerning Theodore G. Bilbo's 
        death, see 93 Cong. Rec. 10569, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll Tax Requirements

Sec. 6.6 Members of the House were advised that an individual who 
    threatened to contest the elections of Members from states having 
    poll taxes had no legal standing to contest such elections.

    On Feb. 14, 1945, Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, addressed the House in relation to the 
claim of a private citizen that he could contest the elections of 71 
Members of the House of Representatives: Mr. Sumners inserted in the 
Record a letter he had written to one such Member, advising him that 
the citizen referred to had no standing to bring such election contests 
Mr. Sumners advised Members to ignore the claim of the 
citizen.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 1083, 1084, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For election contests initiated by petition of citizens, 
        see Ch. 9, infra.

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

[[Page 873]]

Sec. 6.7 The House under suspension of the rules passed a bill making 
    unlawful a requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a 
    prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election for national 
    officers, despite objections to its constitutionality.

    On July 21, 1947, the House passed H.R. 29, rendering unlawful a 
state poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary or other 
election for national officers.(6) The bill was passed by 
the House under suspension of the rules despite a point of order that 
the bill violated the U.S. Constitution, especially article I, section 
2, which authorizes the states, not Congress, to set the qualifications 
of electors for Representatives. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, of 
Massachusetts, overruled the point of order on the grounds that the 
Chair does not pass on the constitutionality of proposed legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 9552, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. For debate on the bill, 
        see pp. 9522-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Senate rejected the bill, but a constitutional amendment with 
the same purpose was later ratified (see Sec. 6.8, infra).

Sec. 6.8 While the Committee on House Administration has jurisdiction 
    over legislation relating to poll tax requirements for federal 
    elections, the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over 
    proposals to amend the Constitution relative to federal election 
    requirements.

    On July 26, 1949,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
submitted to the House the question as to the engrossment and third 
reading of H.R. 3199, the anti-poll tax bill. Mr. Robert Hale, of 
Maine, arose to offer a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
House Administration with directions that it report the legislation 
back to the House in the form of a joint resolution amending the 
Constitution to make payment of poll taxes--as a qualification for 
voting--illegal. The Speaker ruled that the language carried in the 
motion to recommit was not germane to the bill since a constitutional 
amendment would lie within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and not the Committee on House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.9 In the 87th Congress, a Senate joint resolution proposing a 
    national monument was amended in the Senate

[[Page 874]]

    by striking all after the resolving clause and inserting provisions 
    of a constitutional amendment abolishing the poll 
    tax.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The Anti-Poll Tax Amendment was ratified by 38 states and became 
        effective Jan. 23, 1964. 110 Cong. Rec. 1077, 88th Cong. 2d 
        Sess. (see U.S. Const., 24th amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 27, 1962, the Senate was considering Senate Joint 
Resolution 29, providing for the establishment of a national monument. 
An amendment was offered to strike out all after the resolving clause 
of the resolution and to insert the provisions of a constitutional 
amendment abolishing the poll tax in the states. The Vice President 
ruled that the joint resolution could be so amended; he also ruled that 
only a majority vote was required for the adoption of a substitute, 
although a two-thirds vote was required on the adoption of the 
resolution as amended.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 5086, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (Vice President Johnson 
        [Tex.]). The Senate proceeded to pass the amended resolution by 
        a two-thirds vote.
            For the entire Senate debate on the amendment and the 
        method by which it was being offered, see pp. 5072-105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House passed the measure under a motion to suspend the rules on 
Aug. 27, 1962.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 17670, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Residency Requirements

Sec. 6.10 An elections committee invalidated votes cast by workers who 
    were only temporarily in an election district, but found that those 
    votes, though disregarded, would not affect the outcome of the 
    election.

    On Mar. 11, 1940, Elections Committee No. 3 submitted Report No. 
1722 in an elections case, recommending that the seated Member, Mr. 
Harrington, be declared entitled to his seat:

        Resolved, That Albert F. Swanson is not entitled to a seat in 
    the House of Representatives in the Seventy-sixth Congress from the 
    Ninth Congressional District of Iowa.
        Resolved, That Vincent F. Harrington is entitled to a seat in 
    the House of Representatives in the Seventy-sixth Congress from the 
    Ninth Congressional District of Iowa.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 2662, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. (H. Res. 419).

The resolution was agreed to, the committee having determined that, 
although certain votes cast by workers temporarily present in the 
election district were invalid, the rejection of those votes would not 
change the result of the election.

Sec. 6.11 A contestant who alleges that certain voters in an

[[Page 875]]

    election did not reside in the precincts where registered must 
    present evidence of the claimed irregularities sufficient to 
    overcome the presumption that the election officials properly 
    performed their duties.

    On Mar. 19, 1952, the House adopted without debate House Resolution 
580, affirming the right of a Member-elect to a seat:

        Resolved, That Ernest Greenwood was duly elected as 
    Representative from the First Congressional District of New York to 
    the Eighty-second Congress and is entitled to his 
    seat.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 2517, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution was adopted pursuant to a report of the Committee on 
House Administration submitted on the same day. The committee found 
that votes claimed to have been given by illegal registrants, not 
residing in the precincts where registered, must have been challenged 
at the time they registered or voted. The committee also invoked the 
general rule that the contestant must produce evidence in such cases, 
through testimony and documents, proving the fact of nonresidence in 
the county for the statutory period of time, to overcome the 
presumption that election officials properly perform their 
duties.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Rept. No. 1599 (98 Cong. Rec. 2545, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.). The 
        committee had also found that a local court opinion was 
        controlling as to when residence commenced to run, in the 
        absence of challenge to a registrant at the time of 
        registration or voting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Protection of Voting Rights

Sec. 6.12 In the 89th Congress, the President delivered a special 
    message on voting rights to a joint session and submitted to 
    Congress proposed legislation which was enacted into law as the 
    Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    On Mar. 15, 1965, the House and Senate met in joint session, 
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 117, to hear an address by the 
President of the United States.(14) The President's message 
was directed to denial of voting rights on racial grounds and urged the 
passage of federal civil rights legislation to protect those 
rights.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 5058, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Id. at pp. 5058-63. The President submitted a legislative proposal 
        for voting rights legislation which became H.R. 6400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legislation suggested by the President led to the passage by 
Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the bill being signed by the 
President at the Capitol on

[[Page 876]]

Aug. 6, 1965.(16) In 1966, the act was upheld as 
constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. On Aug. 6, 1965, the Senate stood in recess in order to receive the 
        President of the United States. When the Senate reassembled, 
        there was ordered to be printed in the Congressional Record the 
        proceedings conducted at noon on the same day, when the 
        President had delivered a message in the Rotunda of the Capitol 
        and then retired to the President's Room in the Capitol in 
        order to sign into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 111 Cong. 
        Rec. 19649, 19650, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. For the Voting Rights 
        Act of 1965, see Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437. For 
        codification see 42 USC Sec. Sec. 1971 et seq.
17. In upholding the validity of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 
        Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Supreme Court 
        cited congressional materials in finding a rational basis for 
        the act. See 111 Cong. Rec. 10676, 10680 (May 20, 1965), 15671 
        (July 9, 1965), 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------