[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[L. Disposition of Contests; Resolutions]
[Â§ 45. Costs and Expenses; Compensation and Allowances]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1096-1099]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
                L. DISPOSITION OF CONTESTS; RESOLUTIONS
 
Sec. 45. Costs and Expenses; Compensation and Allowances

    A witness whose deposition is taken under the Federal Contested 
Elections Act is entitled to receive the same fees and travel allowance 
paid to witnesses subpenaed to appear before the House of 
Representatives or its committees.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 2 USC Sec. 389(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on House Administration may allow to any party 
reimbursement, from the contingent fund of the House, for his 
reasonable expenses of the case, including reasonable attorney's fees. 
An application for such reimbursement should be accompanied by a 
detailed account of such expenses, together with supporting vouchers 
and receipts.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 2 USC Sec. 396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the former Contested Elections Act, 2 USC Sec. 226, no 
contestant or contestee was to be paid more than $2,000 for expenses in 
election contests. Payment of any sum under the former statute was 
subject to several conditions and obligations. No such limit, other 
than the term ``reasonable expenses'' is contained in the present 
statute, 2 USC Sec. 396.                          -------------------

Payments From Contingent Fund

Sec. 45.1 Where authorized by the House, the Committee on House 
    Administration may

[[Page 1097]]

    make payments, even after the House adjourns, from the House 
    contingent fund for its expenses incurred in its investigation of 
    an election contest.

    In Wilson v Granger (Sec. 54.5, infra), a 1948 Illinois contest, 
following numerous extensions of time granted by the Committee on House 
Administration to the parties in an election contest, the House agreed 
to a resolution providing for payments, after adjournment, by the 
committee of a limited amount from the contingent fund, to cover the 
costs of employment of investigators, attorneys, and clerical, 
stenographic, and other assistants involved in the investigation.

Sec. 45.2 The House may agree to a resolution providing for payment of 
    expenses incurred by an elections committee, from the contingent 
    fund of the House.

    In Roy v Jenks (Sec. 49.1, infra), a 1938 New Hampshire contest, a 
committee on elections having been directed to conduct an additional 
investigation in a contested election case, the House agreed to a 
resolution called up by unanimous consent by a member of the committee 
which provided for payment of its expenses from the contingent fund of 
the House.

Payments From Treasury Authorized by Joint Resolution

Sec. 45.3 Congress may, by joint resolution, appropriate money from the 
    Treasury to pay expenses incurred by the parties in an election 
    contest.

    In Lanzetta v Marcantonio (Sec. 48.1, infra), a 1936 New York 
contest, on the final day of the second session of the 74th Congress, a 
House joint resolution was introduced from the floor which made 
appropriations for the payment of expenses incurred in an election 
contest for a seat in the House from New York. Payment was authorized 
to both contestant and contestee for expenses incurred, as audited and 
recommended by the Committee on Elections. The joint resolution was 
passed without debate and by voice vote.

Payments to Candidates Involved in Election Dispute Investigation

Sec. 45.4 In an investigation of the right of two candidates for a seat 
    in the House in a disputed election, the House has authorized by 
    resolution the reimbursement of both candidates for mileage and 
    expenses actually incurred

[[Page 1098]]

    in connection with the investigation by the Committee on House 
    Administration.

    In the 1961 Indiana investigation of the right of J. Edward Roush 
or George O. Chambers to a seat in the House (Sec. 59.1, infra), the 
committee report reasoned that ``had the investigation . . . been an 
actual `election contest,' both the contestant and the contestee would 
have been authorized reimbursement of those expenses actually incurred 
in connection with the investigation conducted by the committee''; 
hence the House resolved to reimburse both candidates.

Retroactive Payments

Sec. 45.5 When, in a disputed election, the right of a candidate to a 
    seat in the House has been determined, the Member-elect may be 
    retroactively given the compensation, mileage, allowances, and 
    other emoluments of a Member from the time he would otherwise have 
    been sworn, had not his right to the seat been investigated.

    In the 1961 Indiana investigation of the question of the right of 
J. Edward Roush or George O. Chambers to a seat (Sec. 59.1, infra), the 
House ultimately resolved that Roush was entitled to the seat and 
awarded him the compensation, mileage, and the like, of a Member from 
the time that the Congress had convened (when he would otherwise have 
taken the oath).

Reimbursement Request Where Contest Has Abated

Sec. 45.6 A request for reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in a 
    contested election was submitted to the Clerk even though the 
    contest had abated by reason of the contestant's failure to produce 
    evidence in support of his case within the time required by law.

    In the 1937 Tennessee election contest of Rutherford v Taylor 
(Sec. 49.2, infra), the contestee claimed that he was entitled to 
reimbursement for legal expenses as permitted by 2 USC 
Sec. 226.(3)~ Eventually the Clerk transmitted a letter to 
the Speaker notifying him that the contest had abated, but not before 
the contestant had served notice of the contest upon the contestee, who 
answered the notice. Also, some testimony was taken before the case 
abated. The
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Now 2 USC Sec. 396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1099]]

Committee on Elections never issued a final report on the case.

Payments Conditioned on Good Faith in Filing the Contest

Sec. 45.7 A contestant's petition for expenses may be denied by an 
    elections committee on the ground that contestant did not display 
    good faith in filing the contest and made no showing of probable 
    cause for relief.

    In McEvoy v Peterson (Sec. 52.2, infra), a 1944 Georgia contest, an 
elections committee concluded that contestant had not filed the contest 
in good faith, and denied his petition for reimbursement of expenses, 
it appearing that he had not been a member of any registered political 
party in the state, his name had not been on any ballots' and he had 
not received any votes.