[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 8.  Elections and Election Campaigns]
[C. Campaign Practices]
[Â§ 12. Expulsion, Exclusion, and Censure]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 924-927]
 
                               CHAPTER 8
 
                    Elections and Election Campaigns
 
                         C. CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
 
Sec. 12. Expulsion, Exclusion, and Censure

    [Note: For full discussion of censure and expulsion, see chapter 
12, infra.]
    Under article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States 
Constitution, the House may punish its Members and may expel a Member 
by a vote of two-thirds.
    In the 90th Congress, the Senate censured a Member in part for 
improper use and conversion of campaign funds.(5) And the 
Committee on House Administration recommended in a report in the 74th 
Congress that a Member or Delegate could be censured for failure to 
comply with the Corrupt Practices Act.(6) However, the House 
and the Senate have generally held that a Member may not be expelled 
for conduct committed prior to his election.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 12.3, infra.
 6. See Sec. 12.4, infra.
 7. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1284-1289; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 56, 238.
            For discussion of the House as judge of qualifications for 
        seats, see Ch. 7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to exclusion--or denial by the House of the right of a Member-
elect to a seat--by majority vote, the House has the power to judge 
elections and to determine that no one was properly elected to a seat. 
If violations of the election campaign statutes are so extensive or 
election returns so uncertain as to render an election void, the House 
may deny the right to a seat.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Parliamentarian's note in Sec.  12.2, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expulsion

Sec. 12.1 In the 77th Congress, the Senate failed to expel, such 
    expulsion requiring a two-thirds vote, a Senator whose 
    qualifications had been challenged by reason of election fraud and 
    of conduct involving moral turpitude.

    On Jan. 3, 1941, at the convening of the 77th Congress, Mr. William 
Langer, of North Dakota, took the oath of office, despite charges from 
the citizens of his state recommending he be denied a congressional 
seat because of campaign fraud and past conduct involving moral 
turpitude.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 3, 4, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 925]]

    The petition against Senator Langer charged: control of election 
machinery; casting of illegal election ballots; destruction of legal 
election ballots; fraudulent campaign advertising; conspiracy to avoid 
federal law; perjury; bribery; fraud; promises of political 
favors.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 2077-80, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After determining that a two-thirds vote was necessary for 
expulsion, the Senate failed to expel Senator Langer.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 3064, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 27, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exclusion

Sec. 12.2 A Senator-elect, whom Members of the Senate sought to exclude 
    from the 80th Congress for corrupt campaign practices and past 
    abuse of congressional office, died while his qualifications for a 
    seat were still undetermined.

    On Jan. 4, 1947, at the convening of the 80th Congress, the 
credentials of Senator-elect Theodore G. Bilbo, of Mississippi, were 
laid on the table and never taken up again due to his intervening 
death.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 109, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. For the announcement of 
        Nov. 17, 1947, concerning Theodore G. Bilbo's death, see 93 
        Cong. Rec. 10569, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The right to be sworn of Senator-elect Bilbo had been challenged 
through Senate Resolution 1, which read in part:

        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 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

[[Page 926]]

    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 
    constitutiSnal liberties. . . .(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 7, 8, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Supreme Court has held, in the case of 
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), that a Member-elect of the 
House could not be excluded, by a majority vote, other than for failure 
to meet the express constitutional qualifications for the office. But 
since the House or Senate is the judge of elections and returns under 
the U.S. Constitution (art. I, Sec. 5, clause 1), and has the power to 
regulate elections (art. I, Sec. 4, clause 1), the House or Senate may 
determine by majority vote that a candidate was not validly elected.

Censure

Sec. 12.3 The Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct reported 
    a resolution censuring a Senator, in the 90th Congress, for his 
    personal use of campaign contributions.

    On Apr. 27, 1967, Senator John Stennis, of Mississippi, Chairman of 
the Senate Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, reported 
Senate Resolution 112, censuring Senator Thomas J. Dodd, of 
Connecticut, for having engaged in a course of conduct over five years 
of exercising his power and influence as a Senator to obtain and to use 
for personal benefit funds obtained from the public through political 
testimonials and political campaigns.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 10977, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution, which was laid before the Senate on June 13, 
1967,(15) accompanied by Senate Report No. 193, read as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 15663, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (resolution laid before 
        the Senate). For discussion thereof, see 113 Cong. Rec. 15663, 
        15735, 15773, 15998, 16104, 16269, 16348, 16560, 16976, 16978, 
        17005, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13-23, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That it is the judgment of the Senate that the 
    Senator from Connecticut, Thomas J. Dodd, for having engaged in a 
    course of conduct over a period of five years from 1961 to 1965 of 
    exercising the influence and power of his office as a United States 
    Senator, as shown by the conclusions in the investigations by the 
    Select Committee on Standards and Conduct,

            (a) to obtain, and use for his personal benefit, funds from 
        the public through political testimonials and a political 
        campaign, and
            (b) to request and accept reimbursements for expenses from 
        both

[[Page 927]]

        the Senate and private organizations for the same travel,
    deserves the censure of the Senate; and he is so censured for his 
    conduct, which is contrary to accepted morals, derogates from the 
    public trust expected of a Senator, and tends to bring the Senate 
    into dishonor and disrepute.

    On June 23, 1967, the Senate adopted the first portion of the 
resolution of censure relating to the use of political funds by Senator 
Dodd for private purposes: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 17011, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, (A) That it is the judgment of the Senate that the 
    Senator from Connecticut, Thomas J. Dodd, for having engaged in a 
    course of conduct over a period of five years from 1961 to 1965 of 
    exercising the influence and power of his office as a United States 
    Senator, as shown by the conclusions in the investigation by the 
    Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, to obtain, and use for 
    his personal benefit, funds from the public through political 
    testimonials and a political campaign, deserves the censure of the 
    Senate; and he is so censured for his conduct, which is contrary to 
    accepted morals, derogates from the public trust expected of a 
    Senator, and tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.

    The Senate then proceeded to consider and agree to the remainder of 
the resolution, censuring Senator Dodd for improper use and 
solicitation of travel funds.

Sec. 12.4 A committee on elections recommended that a contestee would 
    be subject to censure by the House but not to forfeiture of his 
    seat where there were mitigating circumstances involved in his 
    violation of the Corrupt Practices Act.

    On May 21, 1936,(17) a committee on elections reported 
in the election contest case of McCandless v King, for the seat of 
Delegate from Hawaii. In its report, House Report No. 2736, the 
committee concluded that there were mitigating circumstances in the 
contestee's failure to fully comply with the reporting requirements of 
the Corrupt Practices Act. The committee recommended that Mr. Samuel 
Wilder King be declared entitled to the seat but stated in its report 
that Mr. King could be subject to censure by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 7765, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 2, 1936, the House adopted House Resolution 521, declaring 
the contestee, Mr. King, entitled to the seat.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 8705, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


