[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[M. Summaries of Election Contests, 1931-72]
[Â§ 60. Eighty-eighth Congress, 1963-64]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1239-1241]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
               M. SUMMARIES OF ELECTION CONTESTS, 1931-72
 
Sec. 60. Eighty-eighth Congress, 1963-64

Sec. 60.1 Odegard v Olson

    On Feb. 7, 1963, the Speaker laid before the House a communication 
from the Clerk of the House, which contained contestant's notice of 
intention to contest the election held Nov. 6, 1962, in the Sixth 
Congressional District of Minnesota, contestee's answer thereto, and 
contestee's subsequent motion to dismiss the contest, with supporting 
brief. The Clerk's letter was read, and, together with the accompanying 
papers, referred on Feb. 7, to the Committee on House Administration 
and ordered printed as a House document.(l9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Doc. No. 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In his notice of contest, contestant alleged general irregularities 
on the part of election clerks and judges with respect to the counting 
of ballots, and requested the House to order a recount. Contestant had 
received 76,962 votes to 77,310 votes for contestee, a margin of only 
348 votes. Contestee in his answer included a motion to dismiss the 
contest for failure of contestant to specify particular grounds in his 
notice of contest, thereby depriving the House of jurisdiction under 2 
USC Sec. 201, which requires contestant to ``specify particularly the 
grounds upon which he relied in the contest.'' Contestee claimed that 
contestant had further attempted to ``cloud his valid election'' by 
obtaining a restraining order from the state supreme court, which, 
after a court hearing, had been vacated, thereby permitting the 
secretary of state to issue to contestee his certificate of election. 
Contestee further requested the House to require contestant to submit a 
bill of particulars setting out specific precincts and specific 
instances of error, irregularity, and failure to conform to law.
    In his subsequent motion to dismiss the contest, contestee claimed 
that the 40-day period for gathering evidence by contestant had expired 
and that no evidence had been obtained and forwarded to the Clerk as 
provided by 2 USC Sec. Sec. 203, 223, and therefore that no contest 
existed. In his supporting 

[[Page 1240]]

brief, contestee referred to evidence submitted by contestant to 
the Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures of the 
87th Congress and printed as 
House Report No. 2570 of the 87th Congress, and referred to the 
Committee on House Administration of the 88th Congress with-
out recommendation. Contestee claimed this was not proper evidence to 
be considered by the Committee on House Administration, as it had not 
been served on contestee or his counsel, and was in the form of unsworn 
allegations.
    The Subcommittee on Elections held public hearings on Feb. 26, 
1963, at which both parties and counsel were present. The central issue 
was the ordering of a recount, or of an investigation to justify a 
recount, by the committee. The Subcommittee on Elections found that 
contestant ``had abandoned the statutory procedure which established a 
specified time within which to develop evidence. . . . [B]y majority 
vote, the subcommittee concluded that the petition submitted by Mr. 
Olson be sustained on the grounds that the contestant failed to comply 
with the statutes in that he did not take testimony as provided by law 
and that the time limit for taking such testimony has now expired.'' 
The subcommittee thereby affirmed the ruling in Gorman v Buckley (6 
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 162), in which the Committee on House 
Elections adopted contestee's motion to strike contestant's deposition 
from the record on the grounds that the testimony was not supplied to 
the House in time, and then dismissed the contest as not being a case 
that could be legally considered by the committee.

    Four minority members of the Subcommittee on Elections filed 
additional views to accompany the subcommittee report to the full 
committee. Mr. Charles E. Chamberlain, of Michigan, Mr. Charles E. 
Goodell, of New York, Mr. Willard S. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. 
Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio, agreed with the contestant that the 
subcommittee should follow the precedent set by the Subcommittee on 
Elections in the 85th Congress. In that instance, following the special 
election of Feb. 18, 1958, of Mr. Albert Quie by 602 votes over Mr. 
Eugene P. Foley, the defeated candidate wired the Subcommittee on 
Elections of the House Administration Committee requesting an 
examination and recount of the ballots. In their additional views, the 
minority members pointed out that:

        The basis for this request was given as the closeness of the 
    vote and allega-

[[Page 1241]]

    tion that an unofficial and partial examination 
    revealed several errors which were indicative that clerical errors 
    and omissions had been made which, if corrected, could change the 
    result of the election. In response the Elections Subcommittee sent 
    a group comprised of three members and counsel to Minnesota on 
    February 27, 1958, for the purpose of conducting a spot check of 
    ballots in various precincts in the counties of the district.
        This action was taken in the absence of a formal election 
    contest. . . . It was taken on the basis of a telegram from the 
    defeated candidate citing the closeness of the vote and alleging 
    clerical errors. . . .
        . . . The minority members of the committee are unanimous in 
    their opinion that if a spot check of ballots was justified in the 
    1958 Foley v. Quie case, with a margin of 602 ballots out of 
    87,950, based upon the telegraphic request of the defeated 
    Democratic candidate, then a spot check of ballots in the current 
    case where the difference is less, 348 ballots out of 154,272, is 
    more than justified.

    These members in their additional views also pointed to the 
``confusion which may be created during the period surrounding a 
general election by the existence of two separate committees of the 
House having parallel and overlapping jurisdiction.''
    The report of the Subcommittee on Elections was printed for use by 
the full Committee on House Administration. The report was adopted by 
the full committee on Nov. 20, 1963, but was not submitted to the 
House. Neither was any resolution dismissing the contest or declaring 
contestee entitled to his seat reported to the House from the Committee 
on House Administration.
    Note: Syllabi for Odegard v Olson may be found herein at Sec. 5.2 
(overlapping jurisdiction of committees); Sec. 25.5 (failure to produce 
evidence); Sec. 43.14 (failure of committee to submit report).