[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[I. Committee Hearing and Review; Dismissal and Withdrawal]
[Â§ 33. Dismissal and Withdrawal of Contest]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1052-1054]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
       I. COMMITTEE HEARING AND REVIEW; DISMISSAL AND WITHDRAWAL
 
Sec. 33. Dismissal and Withdrawal of Contest

Cause for Dismissal

Sec. 33.1 An elections committee may dismiss a contest for failure of a 
    party to present evidence of matters charged in a notice of 
    contest, or failure to file briefs as provided by law, or failure 
    of a contestant to appear and show cause why his contest should not 
    be dismissed.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Casey v Turpin (Sec. 47.3, infra), a 1934 Pennsylvania contest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order to Appear

Sec. 33.2 A contestant may be ordered to appear before a committee and 
    show cause why his contest should not be dismissed for failure to 
    submit evidence.

[[Page 1053]]

    In the 1934 Pennsylvania election contest of Casey v Turpin 
(Sec. 47.3, infra), the elections committee dismissed the case, stating 
in its report that the contestant had failed to present evidence to the 
committee of the matters charged in his notice of contest, or to file 
briefs, or to appear in person to show cause why his contest should not 
be dismissed.(1)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. In an earlier communication with the Clerk, the contestant had 
        alleged that the commissioner before whom testimony had been 
        taken in his behalf had failed to forward this testimony. The 
        contestant had accordingly requested the House to require 
        production of such testimony. Although the request was referred 
        to the Committee on Elections and ordered printed as a House 
        document, it is unclear whether action was ever taken on the 
        request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Contest

Sec. 33.3 Where a recount failed to disclose evidence of an alleged 
    discrepancy, a contestant withdrew his contest.

    In the 1951 Missouri contested election of Karst v Curtis 
(Sec. 56.2, infra), the contestant requested withdrawal of his contest 
after a recount failed to disclose the irregularities suggested by his 
party's county committee, based on charges of improper tallying of 
ballots in a local election. The contestant's communication was 
referred by the Speaker to the Committee on House Administration and 
printed as a House document. The contest was then dismissed by House 
resolution.

Manner of Withdrawal

Sec. 33.4 Where a defeated candidate wishes to withdraw from a contest 
    he has initiated, he does so by way of a written request for 
    dismissal, which he should file with the Clerk of the House. Such 
    dismissal is then brought to the attention of the House by a letter 
    from the Clerk to the Speaker.

    In Williams v Mass (Sec. 49.3, infra), a 1937 Minnesota contest, a 
defeated candidate who had initiated an election contest communicated 
to the Clerk his statement of withdrawal within the time permitted by 
law for the taking of testimony.

Sec. 33.5 Contestant's notice of withdrawal of contest may be submitted 
    in the form of a letter to the Clerk at any time during the time 
    required by law for the taking of testimony.

    In the 1939 Ohio election contest of Smith v Polk (Sec. 50.3, 
infra), the Clerk transmitted a letter to

[[Page 1054]]

the Speaker informing him that the Clerk had received a letter from the 
contestant withdrawing the contest. The contestant's letter asked that 
the contest be dismissed by the House. The Speaker laid the 
communication before the House and then referred it to the Committee on 
Elections No. 3 and ordered it printed as a House document.

Sec. 33.6 Where, during the time required by law for the taking of 
    testimony, the contestant notifies the Clerk of his withdrawal of 
    the contest and of his request that it be dismissed, the Clerk 
    communicates such request to the House for reference to an 
    elections committee by the Speaker.

    In Smith v Polk (Sec. 50.3, infra), a 1939 Ohio contest, contestant 
notified the Clerk of the House by letter of his withdrawal of the 
contest which he had instituted under the Federal Contested Elections 
Statutes against the seated Member (James G. Polk). This letter asked 
that the contest be dismissed by the House. Contestant's decision to 
withdraw and dismiss his notice of contest was based on his belief as 
to the expense of obtaining evidence and what he perceived as a 
difficulty in obtaining a favorable determination from an elections 
committee, the majority of which represented members from another 
political party.(2)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. In debate on a resolution dismissing the 1965 Iowa election contest 
        of Peterson v Gross (Sec. 61.3, infra), Neal E. Smith (Iowa), 
        stated that election contest procedures cost from $10,000 to 
        $30,000 at a time when ``few, if any, Democratic candidates for 
        Congress in Iowa ever had $10,000 available to spend in a 
        general election campaign, let alone a contest. . . .'' 111 
        Cong. Rec. 26502, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 11, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------