[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 8.  Elections and Election Campaigns]
[C. Campaign Practices]
[Â§ 13. Investigations by Standing Committees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 927-936]
 
                               CHAPTER 8
 
                    Elections and Election Campaigns
 
                         C. CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
 
Sec. 13. Investigations by Standing Committees

    Investigations of specific elections or election practices are usu

[[Page 928]]

ally undertaken by the Committee on House 
Administration.(19) Such investigations have been undertaken 
pursuant to the statutory electioncontest procedures or under the 
general investigatory power conferred by the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 13.4, infra. Investigations conducted under the election 
        contest statutes, see generally Ch. 9, infra.
20. See also Sec. 13.2, infra, where the House authorized the committee 
        to investigate elections where contests had not been formally 
        presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House may by resolution authorize the Committee on House 
Administration to investigate the right of a Member-elect to his 
seat,(1)~ where his right is impeached by charges and 
allegations of improper campaign conduct and of election 
irregularities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 13.2-13.4, infra.
            Challenging the right to be sworn and referring the right 
        to a committee for investigation, see Ch. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Investigations have also been undertaken by select committees 
created to review election campaigns and proceedings. In recent 
Congresses, a select committee to investigate campaign expenditures has 
been created at the end of one Congress to investigate pending 
elections and to report findings to the succeeding 
Congress.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 14, infra.
            A select committee to investigate campaign expenditures has 
        recommended to the succeeding Congress that the right of a 
        Member-elect to his seat be reserved for decision and 
        investigated (see Sec. 13.5, infra).
            Committees, their jurisdiction, powers and procedures, see 
        Ch. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has some 
jurisdiction over the investigation of campaign 
contributions.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec.  13.6, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Necessary Parties

Sec. 13.1 The House dismissed an election contest because the 
    individual filing the notice was not a candidate for the House, 
    although a Member objected that the House in such a case had power 
    to refer the matter to a standing or a special committee in order 
    to investigate charges.

    On Jan. 19, 1965,(4) a resolution was under 
consideration declaring an individual incompetent to bring a contest 
for a seat in the House, since the individual filing notice was not a 
candidate for the

[[Page 929]]

House and was not a proper party to bring the contest:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 951-57, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 126
        Whereas James R. Frankenberry, a resident of the city of 
    Bronxville, New York, in the Twenty-Fifth Congressional District 
    thereof, has served notice of contest upon Richard L. Ottinger, the 
    returned Member of the House from said district, of his purpose to 
    contest the election of Richard L. Ottinger; and
        Whereas it does not appear that said James R. Frankenberry was 
    a candidate for election to the House of Representatives from the 
    Twenty-Fifth Congressional District of the State of New York, at 
    the election held November 3, 1964: Therefore be it

        Resolved, That the House of Representatives does not regard the 
    said James R. Frankenberry as a person competent to bring a contest 
    for a seat in the House and his notice of contest, served upon the 
    sitting Member, Richard L. Ottinger, is hereby dismissed.

    Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, spoke in favor of the resolution:

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
    consume.
        Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to dismiss a 
    contest brought against the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ottinger]. 
    The notice of contest was given by letter dated December 19, 1964, 
    by Mr. James R. Frankenberry, of 40 Woodland Avenue, Bronxville, N. 
    Y. Mr. Frankenberry attempts to initiate this contest under the 
    provisions of Revised Statutes 105 to 130, as amended, 2 United 
    States Code 201-226 inclusive.
        Mr. Speaker, the House is the exclusive judge of the election, 
    returns, and qualifications of its Members under article I, section 
    5, of the Constitution of the United States.
        The application of the statutes in question is justifiable by 
    the House and by the House alone--In re Voorhis, 296 Federal Report 
    673.
        Mr. Speaker, under the law and under the precedents, Mr. 
    Frankenberry is not a proper party to contest the election of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Ottinger]. He is not a proper 
    contestant within the applicable statutes, because he would not be 
    able, if he were successful, to establish his right to a seat in 
    the House. The contest involving Locke Miller and the gentleman 
    from Ohio, Mr. Michael Kirwan, in 1941, is directly in point, as 
    reported in the Congressional Record, volume 87, part 1, page 101. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the issue in the case brought by Locke Miller and 
    the notice filed by Mr. Frankenberry are identical except that in 
    the former case Locke Miller had been a candidate for the disputed 
    office in the primary. The statutes under which this proceeding is 
    initiated do not provide, and there is no case on record that we 
    have been able to find to the contrary, that a person not a party 
    to an election contest is eligible to challenge an election under 
    these statutes.
        Clearly under the precedent to which I have made reference, Mr. 
    Frankenberry is not a contestant for a seat in the House, and his 
    contest should be dismissed.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.

    Mr. Charles E. Goodell, of New York, arose to object to the 
resolution, stating:

[[Page 930]]

        . . . [T]he Corrupt Practices Act provides specifically for the 
    taking of depositions and testimony which can be submitted to the 
    House Committee on Administration. . . .
        I would hope, therefore, that the House will defeat this 
    resolution and that the matter will then go to the House 
    Administration Committee for proper and deliberate action where the 
    facts may be presented and where we may consider whether the Member 
    should actually in this case be seated permanently.
        There are many precedents with reference to the campaign 
    contributions and excessive expenditures where the House has denied 
    a Member a seat. Certainly, whatever our party, we must recognize 
    in this kind of a situation that the reputation and dignity of the 
    U.S. House of Representatives is involved. We should see to it that 
    a full and complete hearing is held.

    Mr. James C. Cleveland, of New Hampshire, addressed the House, 
following the conclusion of Mr. Goodell's remarks, citing many 
precedents to the effect that any person could challenge the election 
of a Member and that such challenge should be referred to the Committee 
on House Administration, to consider the facts and to determine whether 
the Member should finally be seated.

    The House adopted the resolution.

House Authorization for Committee Investigations

Sec. 13.2 The Committee on House Administration was authorized by the 
    House to conduct an investigation during adjournments or recesses 
    of election contests which had not been formally presented to the 
    House.

    On July 25, 1947,(5) the Committee on House 
Administration was given investigatory authority in relation to certain 
election-contest cases in the 80th Congress which had not yet been 
formally presented to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Committee on House Administration--Contested Elections

        Mr. [Ralph A.] Gamble [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on House Administration, I offer a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 337) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournment or recess of 
        the Eightieth Congress, testimony and papers received by the 
        Clerk of the House in any contested-election case shall be 
        transmitted by the Clerk to the Speaker for reference to the 
        Committee on House Administration in the same manner as though 
        such adjournment or recess had not occurred: Provided, That any 
        such testimony and papers referred by the Speaker shall be 
        printed as House documents of the next succeeding session of 
        the Congress.

        The resolution was agreed to. . . .

[[Page 931]]

        Committee on House Administration--Contested-Election Cases

        Mr. Gamble: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House 
    Administration, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 338) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournments or recesses 
        of the first session of the Eightieth Congress, the Committee 
        on House Administration is authorized to continue its 
        investigations in the contested-election cases of Mankin 
        against Davis, Lowe against Davis, and Wilson against Granger. 
        For the purpose of making such investigations the committee, or 
        any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act during 
        the present Congress at such times and places within the United 
        States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has 
        adjourned, to hold such hearings, and to require, by subpena or 
        otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and 
        the production of such books, records, correspondence, 
        memoranda, papers, and documents, as it deems necessary. 
        Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of 
        the committee or any member of the committee designated by him, 
        and may be served by any person designated by such chairman or 
        member.

        The resolution was agreed to. . . .

        Committee on House Administration--Contested-Election Cases

        Mr. [Karl M.] LeCompte [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 339) to implement the resolution 
    just passed and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the expenses of the investigations to be 
        conducted pursuant to House Resolution 338, by the Committee on 
        House Administration, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not 
        to exceed $5,000, including expenditures for the employment of 
        investigators, attorneys, and clerical, stenographic, and other 
        assistants, shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the 
        House on vouchers authorized by such committee or subcommittee, 
        signed by the chairman of such committee, or subcommittee, and 
        approved by the Committee on House Administration.

        The resolution was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XI, clause 2(m) as amended 
effective Jan. 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.), all standing 
committees of the House now have the power to issue subpoenas whether 
the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned.

Sec. 13.3 A resolution providing for the subpena of witnesses and the 
    procurement of ballot boxes and election records, in an 
    investigation of a contested election case, is presented as a 
    matter of privilege.

    On Jan. 7, 1930,(6) House Resolution 113 was offered as 
privi

[[Page 932]]

leged. The resolution related to the subpena of witnesses and the 
procurement of ballot boxes, election returns, and election record 
books in a committee investigation of a contested election case. After 
a Member arose to object to the privileged status of the resolution, 
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, ruled that the resolution was a 
privileged matter, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 72 Cong. Rec. 1187, 71st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 3 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 2586, where a resolution providing for an 
        investigation of the election of a Member was ruled a question 
        of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    reserve a point of order on the resolution. I do not think it is 
    privileged.
        Mr. [Willis G.] Sears [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    adoption of the resolution.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: I would like to ask the 
    gentleman a question about the resolution. Is this the usual form 
    or the usual action that the Committees on Elections take to get 
    people before them? I supposed there was just a general form for 
    subpoenaing witnesses and that was all that was necessary. I have 
    never known of a resolution of just this character.

        The Speaker: As the Chair caught the reading of the resolution, 
    it not only provides for the presence of witnesses, but also 
    provides for bringing before them the ballot boxes, and so forth. 
    The Chair thinks it would be necessary to have such a resolution to 
    bring that about.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: The resolution, Mr. Speaker, 
    is certainly in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it is a privileged matter.
        Mr. Snell: I suspect it is a privileged matter, coming from a 
    Committee on Elections, but what I had in mind was whether this was 
    the usual form under which we proceed in such cases.
        The Speaker: The Chair can not recall an immediate precedent, 
    but the Chair would think this is the proper way to cover the 
    appearance of witnesses under the circumstances set forth.

Sec. 13.4 Where the Committee on House Administration was authorized to 
    investigate the right of two contestants to a seat and ordered a 
    recount of the ballots under its general investigatory power, final 
    compensation to the contestants was paid out of the contingent 
    fund, since the recount was not undertaken under the election 
    contest statutes.

    On Jan. 3, 1961,(7) the House adopted House Resolution 
1, offered by Mr. Clifford Davis, of Tennessee, providing that the 
question of the right of either of the two contestants for a seat from 
Indiana (J. Edward Roush

[[Page 933]]

and George O. Chambers) be referred to the Committee on House 
Administration, and providing that until that committee had reported, 
neither could take the oath of office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 23-25, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During its investigation, the Committee on House Administration 
conducted a recount of all the ballots cast in the election, under its 
general power to investigate rather than under the election contest 
statutes.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 107 Cong. Rec. 10160, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 13, 1961, the House confirmed the right of Mr. Roush to the 
seat, pursuant to the report of the committee (H. Res. 339). The House 
adopted a privileged resolution, House Resolution 340, providing for 
expenditures from the contingent fund to pay the salary and certain 
expenses to the duly elected Member and the payment of certain expenses 
incurred by the contestant. They were not reimbursed for expenses 
pursuant to the election contest statutes since the recount had been 
ordered by the Committee on House Administration under its 
investigative power.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See H. Res. 340, 107 Cong. Rec. 10160 (June 13, 1961) and 10391 
        (June 14, 1961), 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election Investigation Resolutions as Privileged

Sec. 13.5 A resolution from the Committee on House Administration 
    affirming the right of a Member to his seat, after investigation of 
    alleged fraud and dishonesty in his election, is reported and 
    considered as privileged.

    On Sept. 8, 1959,(10) Mr. Robert T. Ashmore, of South 
Carolina, reported as privileged House Resolution 380 from the 
Committee on House Administration, relating to the right of a Member to 
his seat. The House adopted the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 18610, 18611, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the Committee on House Administration has concluded its 
    investigation of the election of November 4, 1958, in the Fifth 
    Congressional District of Arkansas pursuant to House Resolution 1; 
    and
        Whereas such investigation reveals no cause to question the 
    right of Dale Alford to his seat in the Eighty-sixth Congress; 
    Therefore be it
        Resolved, That Dale Alford was duly elected a Representative to 
    the Eighty-sixth Congress from the Fifth Congressional District of 
    Arkansas, and is entitled to a seat therein.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Select Committee to Investigate 
Campaign Expenditures, of the 85th Congress, had recommended, after 
investigating the elections in the fall of 1958, that Member-elect 
Alford not be seated pending an investigation of election 
irregularities. He was administered

[[Page 934]]

the oath, but his final right to a seat was referred for investigation 
to the Committee on House Administration, which investigated 
allegations of fraud and dishonesty in the conduction of the 
congressional election for the Fifth Congressional District of 
Arkansas.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the remarks of Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.) on the 
        Alford-Hays election at 105 Cong. Rec. 3432-34, 86th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 5, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigations of Campaign Contributions

Sec. 13.6 In the 91st Congress, the House rules were amended to confer 
    upon the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct jurisdiction 
    over the raising, reporting, and use of campaign contributions for 
    House candidates, and jurisdiction over investigation of such 
    matters.

    On July 8, 1970,(12) William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules called up House Resolution 1031, 
amending the rules of the House in relation to the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct over campaign contributions. 
The House passed the resolution, to confer upon that committee 
jurisdiction over the raising, reporting, and use of campaign 
contributions for candidates for the House. The committee was also 
given jurisdiction to investigate such matters and to report findings 
to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 23138-41, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the 94th Congress, legislative 
jurisdiction over campaign contributions was given to the Committee on 
House Administration (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975).

Senate Investigation Into Election of House Member

Sec. 13.7 A Senate resolution providing for an investigation into 
    charges of election corruption involving a Member of the House was 
    placed on the Senate Calendar and referred, on motion, to the 
    Committee on Rules and Administration.

    On Mar. 8, 1960,(13) the Clerk of the Senate read Senate 
Resolution 285, offered by Senator John J. Williams, of Delaware. The 
resolution provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 4899, 4900, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration, or 
    any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is

[[Page 935]]

    authorized and directed under sections 134(a) and 136 of the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and in 
    accordance with its jurisdictions specified by rule XXV of the 
    Standing Rules of the Senate, to examine, investigate, and make a 
    complete study of the charges, with a view to determining the truth 
    or falsity thereof, which have recently appeared in the public 
    press that certain persons have sought, through corruptly offering 
    various favors, privileges, and other inducements (including large 
    sums of money), to induce certain individuals to lend their 
    political support to one political party rather than to another, or 
    to become candidates of one political party rather than of another, 
    and that the offers made by such persons have in fact corruptly 
    induced certain of such individuals to change their political 
    affiliations or to lend their political support to one political 
    party rather than to another. . . .

    Remarks were made concerning the unusual course being pursued by 
the Senate in inquiring into the activities of a Member of the House:

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. President, 
    normally, of course, one branch of Congress does not take account 
    of the activities and behavior of a Member of the other branch on 
    the theory that each House, of course, is the judge of the 
    qualifications, behavior and conduct of its own Members. But I 
    think it must be said, in fairness to the resolution proposed by 
    the Senator from Delaware, that it is a fact that these reports 
    which are given wide currency and so freely ventilated in the press 
    in all sections of the country become something of a reflection on 
    the entire Congress as an institution.
        Neither body in that sense escapes culpability in the eyes of 
    the public when these charges are not refuted and when they are not 
    rebutted. I believe that somehow, by some action, we should get to 
    the very bottom of this subject. . . .
        But certainly these reflections should not be permitted to 
    continue without some action, without some answer, somewhere in the 
    whole legislative establishment. Accordingly, recognizing the 
    reluctance of one body to look into the affairs of its own Members, 
    perhaps this is the only remedy which we have in order to sift the 
    truth of these charges.

    The resolution was directed towards an investigation of charges 
made by a columnist concerning alleged bribery and a candidate for 
public office, Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, a Member of the House 
of Representatives. Debate ensued on the resolution. Mr. Williams 
stated that he had called up the resolution for immediate consideration 
because he wished the entire Senate to vote upon it and not to have it 
referred to committee. Objection was made to its immediate 
consideration, and the resolution went over until the next day.
    The resolution was again debated on Mar. 11, 1960,(14) 
and on

[[Page 936]]

May 4, 1960, when it was on motion referred to the Senate Committee on 
Rules and Administration.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 5261-63, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 9403-07, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------