[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[L. Disposition of Contests; Resolutions]
[Â§ 44. Form of Resolutions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1095-1096]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
                L. DISPOSITION OF CONTESTS; RESOLUTIONS
 
Sec. 44. Form of Resolutions

Form of Resolution Disposing of Contest

Sec. 44.1 In a resolution dismissing an election contest, the House 
    struck language declaring the contestee to be entitled to the seat, 
    as such language is inappropriate in a procedural matter.

    In the 1965 Mississippi election contest of Wheadon et al. v 
Abernethy et al. [The Five Mississippi Cases] (Sec. 61.2, infra), the 
House determined that the contestants who were not candidates in the 
official congressional election held in November 1964 (held under 
statutes which had not been set aside by a court of competent 
jurisdiction), lacked standing under the contested elections statute, 2 
USC Sec. Sec. 201 et seq. Accordingly, the House voted to dismiss the 
contests, based on its precedents. The resolution, however, further 
declared that the contestees, all sitting Members, were entitled to 
their seats. The resolution was amended to strike this language as 
inappropriate in a procedural matter.

Sec. 44.2 For form of resolution declaring contestant incompetent to 
    initiate an election contest and dismissing his notice of contest, 
    and barring future consideration by the House of subsequent 
    petitions or papers relating to the case, see Miller v Kirwan 
    (Sec. 51.1, infra).

[[Page 1096]]

Sec. 44.3 A single resolution may dispose of several contested 
    elections.

    In Roberts v Douglas (Sec. 54.4, infra), a 1947 California contest, 
without debate and by voice vote, the House agreed to a resolution 
disposing of three contested elections simultaneously on July 25, 1947. 
In none of the cases had any testimony been taken on behalf of the 
contestants within the time prescribed for taking of testimony.
    In another instance in 1949, after the committee report recommended 
that three contested elections be dismissed on the grounds that no 
testimony had been received by the Clerk within the requisite time 
period, the house agreed without debate and on a voice vote to a 
resolution dismissing the contests simultaneously. See Browner v 
Cunningham (Sec. 55.1, infra), Fuller v Davies (Sec. 55.2, infra), and 
Thierry v Feighan (Sec. 55.4, infra).(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See also Michael v Smith, Sec. 54.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------