[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9. Election Contests]
[M. Summaries of Election Contests, 1931-72]
[§ 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).