[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9. Election Contests]
[M. Summaries of Election Contests, 1931-72]
[§ 54. Eightieth Congress, 1947-48]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 1177-1189]
CHAPTER 9
Election Contests
M. SUMMARIES OF ELECTION CONTESTS, 1931-72
Sec. 54. Eightieth Congress, 1947-48
Sec. 54.1 Lowe v Davis
On Apr. 27, 1948, Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, submitted the
unanimous report (13) of the Committee on House
Administration in the contested election case of Lowe v Davis, from the
Fifth Congressional District of Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Rept. No. 1823, 94 Cong. Rec. 4922, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H.
Jour. 377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 25, 1947, the House had considered by unanimous consent and
agreed to a resolution (H. Res. 337) (14) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournment or recess of the
Eightieth Congress, testimony and papers received by the Clerk of
the House in any contested-election case shall be transmitted by
the Clerk to the Speaker for reference to the Committee on House
Administration in the same manner as though such adjournment or
recess had not occurred: Provided, That any such testimony and
papers referred by the Speaker shall be printed as House documents
of the next succeeding session of the Congress. (Emphasis
supplied.)
[[Page 1178]]
On July 25, 1947, Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, by unanimous
consent offered another resolution by direction of the Committee on
House Administration (H. Res. 338): (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournments or recesses of
the first session of the Eightieth Congress, the Committee on House
Administration is authorized to continue its investigation in the
contested-election cases of Mankin against Davis, Lowe against
Davis, and Wilson against Granger. For the purpose of making such
investigations the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is
authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times
and places within the United States, whether the House is in
session, has recesses, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings,
and to require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
record, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as
it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature
of the chairman of the committee or any member of the committee
designated by him, and may be served by any person designated by
such chairman or member.
House Resolution 338 was agreed to by voice vote and without
debate.
Thereupon, Mr. LeCompte offered the following privileged resolution
(16) from the Committee on House Administration (H. Res.
339) to implement House Resolution 338, which had previously been
agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the expenses of the investigations to be
conducted pursuant to House Resolution 338, by the Committee on
House Administration, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not to
exceed $5,000, including expenditures for the employment of
investigators, attorneys, and clerical, stenographic, and other
assistants, shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House
on vouchers authorized by such committee or subcommittee, signed by
the chairman of such committee, or subcommittee, and approved by
the Committee on House Administration.
House Resolution 339 was agreed to by voice vote and without
debate.
On July 26, 1947, the House had adjourned to Jan. 6, 1948, but had
been convened by proclamation of the President on Nov. 17, 1947, a
continuation of the first session of the 80th Congress. The question of
whether this reconvening of the Congress was to be considered a
continuation of the existing session or a special or additional session
arose in connection with the effective date of certain amendments to
the rules of civil procedure in the courts, which amendments were to
take effect three months subsequent to the adjournment of the first
regular session of the Congress. The
[[Page 1179]]
Senate adopted as controlling a memorandum of the Federal Law Section,
Library of Congress, to the effect that where Congress adjourns to a
day certain--not sine die--and is convened earlier by proclamation of
the President, such convening is a continuation of the existing
session and not a special or additional session.
On Nov. 17, the Speaker took from the Speaker's table and referred
to the Committee on House Administration a letter from the Clerk
(17) transmitting the required papers (absent contestee's
brief). The Speaker did not lay the communication before the House, but
did order it printed as a House document (H. Doc. No. 434) of the first
session of the 80th Congress. (Neither the Congressional Record, p.
10613, nor the Journal, p. 771, indicate, however, that the
communication had been ordered printed by the Speaker.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Doc. No. 434, 93 Cong. Rec. 10613, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H.
Jour. 771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee report indicated that the committee had held full
hearings on Mar. 17, 1948, and had given consideration to contestee's
brief, which had not been filed within 30 days after reception of a
copy of contestant's brief, as required by 2 USC Sec. 223. The summary
report recommended that the contest be dismissed ``as lacking in
merit.''
The debate on House Resolution 552,(18) which dismissed
the accompanying contest of Mankin v Davis on Apr. 27, 1948, indicated
that contestant was disputing the method by which contestee had been
nominated in the primary election. Contestee had been selected as his
party's nominee under Georgia state law, which prescribed use of the
``county unit system.'' Contestant in this case had not been a
candidate in the general election. Presumably, as in the later case of
Lowe v Davis (Sec. 56.3, infra) in the 82d Congress, contestant had
been a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the primary election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 4902, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. Jour. 374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr. 27, 1948, Mr. LeCompte called up House Resolution 553
(19) as privileged, which provided as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the election contest of Wyman C. Lowe,
contestant, against James C. Davis, contestee, Fifth Congressional
District of Georgia, be dismissed and that the said James C. Davis
is entitled to his seat as a Representative of said District and
State.
Whereupon the resolution was agreed to without debate and without a
record vote, thereby dis-
[[Page 1180]]
missing the contest and holding contestee entitled to his seat.
Sec. 54.2 Mankin v Davis
On July 25, 1947, the House, in the first session of the 80th
Congress, considered by unanimous consent and agreed to the following
resolution (H. Res. 337),(20) offered by Mr. Ralph A.
Gamble, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournment or recess of the
Eightieth Congress, testimony and papers received by the Clerk of
the House in any contested-election case shall be transmitted by
the Clerk to the Speaker for reference to the Committee on House
Administration in the same manner as though such adjournment or
recess had not occurred: Provided, That any such testimony and
papers referred by the Speaker shall be printed as House documents
of the next succeeding session of the Congress. [Emphasis
supplied.]
On July 25, 1947, Mr. Gamble, by unanimous consent offered another
resolution by direction of the Committee on House Administration (H.
Res. 338): (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournments or recesses of
the first session of the Eightieth Congress, the Committee on House
Administration is authorized to continue its investigation in the
contested-election cases of Mankin against Davis, Lowe against
Davis, and Wilson against Granger. For the purpose of making such
investigations the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is
authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times
and places within the United States, whether the House is in
session, has recesses, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and
to require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony
of such witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as it deems
necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the
chairman of the committee or any member of the committee designated
by him, and may be served by any person designated by such chairman
or member.
House Resolution 338 was agreed to by voice vote and without debate.
Thereupon, Mr. LeCompte offered the following privileged resolution
from the Committee on House Administration (H. Res. 339) (2)
to implement House Resolution 338 which had previously been agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the expenses of the investigations to be
conducted pursuant to House Resolution 338, by the Committee on
House Administration, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not to
exceed $5,000, including expenditures for the employment of
investigators, attorneys, and clerical, stenographic, and other
assistants, shall be
[[Page 1181]]
paid out of the contingent fund of the House on vouchers
authorized by such committee or subcommittee, signed by the
chairman of such committee, or subcommittee, and approved by
the Committee on House Administration.
On July 26, 1947, the House had adjourned to Jan. 6, 1948, but had
been convened by proclamation of the President on Nov. 17, 1947, which
session was consid
ered a continuation of the first session of the 80th Congress.
The question of whether this reconvening of the Congress resulting
from the Presidential proclamation was to be considered a continuation
of the existing session or a special or additional session arose in
connection with the effective date of certain amendments to the rules
of civil procedure in the courts, which amendments were to take effect
three months subsequent to the adjournment of the first regular session
of the Congress. The Senate adopted as controlling a memorandum of the
Federal Law Section, Library of Congress, to the effect that where
Congress adjourns to a day certain--not sine die--and is convened
earlier by proclamation of the President, such convening is a
continuation of the existing session and not a special or additional
session.
On Nov. 17, the Speaker took from the Speaker's table and referred
to the Committee on House Administration a letter from the Clerk
(3) transmitting the required papers (absent contestee's
brief). The Speaker did not lay the communication before the House, but
did order it printed as a House document (H. Doc. No. 433) of the first
session of the 80th Congress. (Neither the Congressional Record, p.
10613, nor the Journal, p. 771, indicate, however, that the
communication had been ordered printed by the Speaker.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. H. Doc. No. 443, 93 Cong. Rec. 10613, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H.
Jour. 771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee report indicated that the committee had held full
hearings in the contest, and had given consideration to contestee's
brief, which had not been filed within 30 days after reception of a
copy of contestant's brief, as required by 2 USC Sec. 223. The summary
report recommended that the contest be dismissed ``as lacking in
merit.''
House Resolution 552 (4) was called up as privileged by
Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, on Apr. 27, 1948, accompanied by the
unanimous reports (5) of the Committee on House
Administration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 94 Cong. Rec. 4902, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. Jour. 374.
5. H. Rept. No. 1823, 94 Cong. Rec. 4922, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H.
Jour. 377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1182]]
submitted by Mr. LeCompte on that date. The debate which
ensued indicated that contestant was disputing the method by which
contestee had been nominated in the primary election. Contestant had
not herself been a candidate in the general election. Contestee had
been selected as his party's nominee under Georgia State law which
required use of the ``county unit system'' (6) (presumably
whereby each county of the district was accorded one vote,
determined by the majority of votes cast therein, and the nominee is
thereafter determined by the majority of the county votes cast). Mr.
LeCompte contended that unless the House desired to invalidate the
state election laws as they pertained to this election, the House
should adopt House Resolution 552. Accordingly the House agreed to
House Resolution 552 without further debate and without a record
vote and thereby dismissed the contest and declared contestee
entitled to his seat:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 94 Cong. Rec. 4902, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the election contest of Helen Douglas Mankin,
contestant, against James C. Davis, contestee, Fifth Congressional
District of Georgia, be dismissed and that the said James C. Davis
is entitled to his seat as a Representative of said District and
State.
Note: Syllabi for Mankin v Davis may be found herein at Sec. 6.11
(items transmitted by Clerk); Sec. 24.1 (contestee's failure to make
timely answer); Sec. 43.2 (form of report).
Sec. 54.3 Michael v Smith
On Apr. 22, 1947, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from
the Clerk (7) of the House transmitting copies of the notice
of contestant and the reply thereto in the contest of Michael v Smith
from the Eighth Congressional District of Virginia. The Clerk's letter
stated that no testimony had been taken by either party within the time
permitted by law. The contestant had filed with his notice of contest a
copy of the court record of a suit which had been initiated by
contestant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia to determine certain legal issues raised by the election of
Nov. 5, 1946. On Apr. 22, 1947, the Speaker referred to the Committee
on House Administration the Clerk's letter, and ordered it printed,
together with the accompanying papers mentioned above, as a House
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. H. Doc. No. 213, 93 Cong. Rec. 3800, 3827, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H.
Jour. 281, 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contestant alleged in his brief that the election had not been
[[Page 1183]]
conducted in conformity with the 14th and 15th amendments to the United
States Constitution, in that state law imposed a poll tax and required
certain registration forms in violation thereof, which requirements,
furthermore, were not applied uniformly to all citizens. Contestee in
his answer alleged that contestant had no standing to contest the
election, as he conceded having been defeated by 7,513 votes and
that his only contention presented strictly a legal question to be
decided in court, which question had been decided contrary to
contestant's position. No testimony was transmitted to the House.
On July 26, 1947, the Clerk transmitted contestee's motion to
dismiss (8) the contest to the Speaker, who laid the Clerk's
communication before the House, referred it to the Committee on House
Administration, and ordered it printed with the accompanying motion to
dismiss. On that same day Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, submitted
the unanimous report (9) from the Committee on House
Administration, which summary report also provided for disposition of
the election contests of Roberts v Douglas (14th Congressional District
of California) and Woodward v O'Brien (Sixth Congressional District of
Illinois). The report recited that no testimony in behalf of
contestants had been taken during the time prescribed by law in any of
the contests, and recommended that notices of intention to contest the
elections of contestees be dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H. Doc. No. 418, 93 Cong. Rec. 10522, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H.
Jour. 714.
9. H. Rept. No. 1106, 93 Cong. Rec. 10523, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H.
Jour. 716, 746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gamble called up House Resolution 345 (10) on July
26, 1947, which was agreed to by the House without debate and by voice
vote, and which--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 93 Cong. Rec. 10445, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the election contest of Harold C. Woodward,
contestant, against Thomas J. O'Brien, contestee, Sixth
Congressional District of Illinois, be dismissed, and that the said
Thomas J. O'Brien is entitled to his seat as a Representative of
said district and State; and be it further
Resolved, That the election contest of Frederick M. Roberts,
contestant, against Helen Gahagan Douglas, contestee, Fourteenth
Congressional District of California, be dismissed and that the
said Helen Gahagan Douglas is entitled to her seat as a
Representative of said district and State; and be it further
Resolved, That the election contest of Lawrence Michael,
contestant, against
[[Page 1184]]
Howard W. Smith, contestee, Eighth Congressional District of the
State of Virginia, be dismissed, and that the said Howard W. Smith
is entitled to his seat as a Representative of said district and
State.
Sec. 54.4 Roberts v Douglas
On July 25, 1947, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from
the Clerk (11) which related that neither party had taken
testimony during the time prescribed by law and that the contest of
Roberts v Douglas, from the 14th Congressional District of California,
appeared abated. The Clerk's letter, together with copies of
contestant's notice of contest and contestee's motion to dismiss with a
copy of her attorney's letter in support thereof, were referred to the
Committee on House Administration by the Speaker and ordered printed
with those accompanying papers as a House document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Doc. No. 416, 93 Cong. Rec. 10211, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H.
Jour. 710, 711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contestant's notice recited only that--
Contest of your right to hold said seat is entered upon the
grounds of failure to meet residence requirements under both the
Constitution of the United States and of the State of California.
Additional grounds for contest of your right to hold said
congressional seat is to be found in many fraudulent practices
alleged in the election of November 5, 1946, which justify
congressional investigation.
Contestee in her motion to dismiss claimed (1) that contestant had
not instituted a valid contest, as the statute (2 USC Sec. 201) and
House precedents required contestant to ``specify particularly the
grounds upon which he relies in the contest,'' i.e., the notice stated
no facts which contestee could either admit or deny in an answer; and
(2) contestant had taken no testimony within the 90 days permitted to
support his notice of contest.
On the following day, July 26, 1947, Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New
York, submitted the unanimous report (12) from the Committee
on House Administration, which summary report also provided for
disposition of the election contests of Woodward v O'Brien (Sixth
Congressional District of Illinois) and Michael v Smith (Eighth
Congressional District of Virginia). [H. Rept. No. 11061.] The report
stated that no testimony in behalf of contestants had been taken during
the time prescribed by law in any of the contests, and recommended that
notices of intention to contest the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 10523, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716, 746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1185]]
elections of contestees be dismissed.
Mr. Gamble called up House Resolution 345 (13) on July
26, 1947, which was agreed to by the House without debate and by voice
vote, and which----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 10445, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the election contest of Harold C. Woodward,
contestant,
against Thomas J. O'Brien, contestee, Sixth Congressional District
of Illinois, be dismissed, and that the said Thomas J. O'Brien is
entitled to his seat as a Representative of said district and
State; and be it further
Resolved, That the election contest of Frederick M. Roberts,
contestant, against Helen Gahagan Douglas, contestee, Fourteenth
Congressional District of California, be dismissed and that the
said Helen Gahagan Douglas is entitled to her seat as a
Representative of said district and State; and be it further
Resolved, That the election contest of Lawrence Michael,
contestant, against Howard W. Smith, contestee, Eighth
Congressional District of the State of Virginia, be dismissed, and
that the said Howard W. Smith is entitled to his seat as a
Representative of said district and State.
Note: Syllabi for Roberts v Douglas may be found herein at Sec. 6.7
(items transmitted by Clerk); Sec. 13.8 (failure to specify grounds
relied upon by contestant); Sec. 22.3 (failure to state grounds with
particularity); Sec. 27.4 (dismissal for failure to take testimony
within statutory period); Sec. 44.3 (form of resolution disposing of
contest).
Sec. 54.5 Wilson v Granger
On June 17, 1948 (Calendar Day June 18), Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of
Iowa, submitted the report (14) to accompany House
Resolution 692 from the (Committee on House Administration in the
contested election case of Wilson v Granger from the First
Congressional District of Utah. The contest had been presented to the
House on Feb. 12, 1948, when the Clerk had transmitted to the Speaker a
letter (15) accompanied by the required testimony and
papers, which letter the Speaker pro tempore (16) had on
that date ]aid before the House and referred to the committee. The
Clerk's letter, which was not ordered printed as a House document,
provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Rept. No. 2418, 94 Cong. Rec. 8964, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H.
Jour. 709, 713.
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 1276, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. Jour. 118.
16. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir: The Clerk has received from Frank W. Otterstrom, the
officer before whom testimony was taken in the contested-election
case of David J. Wilson against Walter K. Granger, for a seat in
the Eightieth Congress from the First Congressional District of the
State of Utah, letters dated January
[[Page 1186]]
10, February 3, and February 6, 1948, with reference to the
transmission of testimony and exhibits in the aforesaid case.
The letters from this officer, together with the two express
packages, the airmail package, and exhibit No. 109 referred to
therein, as well as copies of all other papers heretofore filed
with the Clerk relating to this case, are transmitted to the House
for its action.
On July 25, 1947, Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, offered two
privileged resolutions by direction of the Committee on House
Administration.(17) The first, House Resolution 337 which
was agreed to by voice vote and without debate, provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournment or recess of the
Eightieth Congress, testimony and papers received by the Clerk of
the House in any contested-election case shall be transmitted by
the Clerk to the Speaker for reference to the Committee on House
Administration in the same manner as though such adjournment or
recess had not occurred: Provided, That, any such testimony and
papers referred by the Speaker shall be printed as House documents
of the next succeeding session of the Congress.
Mr. Gamble then offered House Resolution 338 which was also agreed to
by voice vote and without debate, and which provided:
Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournments or recesses of
the first session of the Eightieth Congress, the Committee on House
Administration is authorized to continue its investigation in the
contested-election cases of Mankin against Davis, Lowe against
Davis, and Wilson against Granger. For the purpose of making such
investigations the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is
authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times
and places within the United States, whether the House is in
session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and
to require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony
of such witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as it deems
necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the
chairman of the committee or any member of the committee designated
by him, and may be served by any person designated by such chairman
or member.
Thereupon, Mr. LeCompte reported (18) and called up the
following privileged resolution (19) from the Committee on
House Administration (H. Res. 339) to implement House Resolution 338,
which had previously been agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Rept. No. 1089, 93 Cong. Rec. 10283, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H.
Jour. 698.
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 10210, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the expenses of the investigations to be
conducted pursuant to House Resolution 338, by the
[[Page 1187]]
Committee on House Administration, acting as a whole or by
subcommittee, not to exceed $5,000, including expenditures for
the employment of investigators, attorneys, and clerical,
stenographic, and other assistants, shall be paid out of the
contingent fund of the House on vouchers authorized by such
committee or subcommittee, signed by the chairman of such
committee, or subcommittee, and approved by the Committee on
House Administration.
House Resolution 339 was agreed to by voice vote and without debate.
The committee report acknowledged ``numerous and widespread errors
and irregularities in many parts of the district, which revealed a lack
of knowledge of the law and a failure to enforce properly the
registration and election statutes by those charged with that duty.''
The committee found that the correct result of the election was not
affected by the irregularities shown. The minority report, signed by
four members of the committee, claimed that contestant should be
seated, due to various voting-law violations, which would nullify the
total votes of various precincts and thereby overturn the 104-vote
majority received by contestee. Specifically, the minority claimed that
state laws prohibiting transportation of voters to places of
registration and confining registration to certain hours and by certain
officials were violated ``in all of the populous counties in the
district.''
The delay of over a year by the parties in filing the required
papers with the Clerk as provided by statute is explained merely by the
statement in the report that ``the extensions of time heretofore
granted in this contest by the Committee on House Administration are
hereby authorized and approved.''
House Resolution 692 (20) was called up as privileged by
Mr. LeCompte and agreed to after a short statement by him, without
further debate, on June 19, 1948. The resolution, adopted by voice
vote, provided as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 9184, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.; H. Jour. 770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the election contest of David J. Wilson,
contestant, against Walter K. Granger, contestee, First
Congressional District of Utah, be dismissed, and that the said
Walter K. Granger is entitled to his seat as a Representative of
said district and State.
Note: Syllabi for Wilson v Granger may be found herein at Sec. 5.12
(continuing investigations by elections committee); Sec. 10.12
(distinction between mandatory and directory laws); Sec. 27.14
(subsequent authorization for informal extension of time); Sec. 35.3
(burden
[[Page 1188]]
of showing results of election would be changed); Sec. 45.1
(payments from contingent fund).
Sec. 54.6 Woodward v O'Brien
On Feb. 27, 1947, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from
the Clerk (1) of the House transmitting (1) a copy of the
notice of contest growing out of the election held Nov. 5, 1946, in the
Sixth Congressional District of Illinois, and (2) a letter from the
contestant, Harold C. Woodward, stating that contestee had not answered
the notice of contest filed with him within the time prescribed by 2
USC Sec. 202, and requesting that all allegations contained in the
notice be considered as admitted by contestee and that a default be
entered against contestee by the House. As stated in the Clerk's
letter--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H. Doc. No. 156, 93 Cong. Rec. 1517, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour.
159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the letter of the contestant (item 2) requests the Clerk
to refer this matter to the House of Representatives for
appropriate action, and further, since the question raised by the
contestant in this communication will have to be decided by the
House itself, the Clerk is transmitting these communications
herewith for consideration by the appropriate committee.
The Clerk's letter was referred by the Speaker to the Committee on
House Administration on Feb. 28, 1947, and ordered printed as a House
document to contain the papers itemized above.
Contestant's notice recited that the 13,076-vote majority which had
been certified for contestee had been determined by election judges and
clerks who improperly counted and reported the votes, or improperly
certified the election results. Contestant's notice set forth 17
particular forms of error which he alleged would, if corrected,
establish 20,000 votes for him.
On July 11, 1947, the Speaker laid before the House a letter
(2) from the Clerk transmitting a motion by contestee to
dismiss the contest, which motion recited that contestee had, on Mar.
5, filed an answer to contestant's notice (though not within the time
required by statute), that more than 90 days had elapsed since such
answer, during which time no testimony had been taken by contestant.
The Speaker referred the Clerk's letter to the committee and ordered it
printed to include the motion to dismiss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H. Doc. No. 400, 93 Cong. Rec. 8756, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour.
575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 1947, Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, submitted the
unanimous report (3) from the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 93 Cong. Rec. 10523, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716, 746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1189]]
Committee on House Administration in the contests of Woodward v
O'Brien, which summary report also provided for disposition of
the election contests of Roberts v Douglas (14th Congressional
District of California), and Michael v Smith (Eighth Congressional
District of Virginia). [H. Rept. No. 1106.] The report recited
that no testimony in behalf of contestants had been taken during the
time prescribed by law in any of the contests, and recommended that
notices of intention to contest the elections of contestees be dismissed.
Mr. Gamble called up House Resolution 345 (4) on July
26, 1947, which was agreed to by the House without debate and by voice
vote, and which--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 93 Cong. Rec. 10445, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the election contest of Harold C. Woodward,
contestant, against Thomas J. O'Brien, contestee, Sixth
Congressional District of Illinois, be dismissed, and that the said
Thomas J. O'Brien is entitled to his seat as a Representative of
said district and State; and be it further
Resolved, That the election contest of Frederick M. Roberts,
contestant, against Helen Gahagan Douglas, contestee, Fourteenth
Congressional District of California, be dismissed and that the
said Helen Gahagan Douglas is entitled to her seat as a
Representative of said district and State; and be it further
Resolved, That the election contest of Lawrence Michael,
contestant, against Howard W. Smith, contestee, Eighth
Congressional District of the State of Virginia, be dismissed, and
that the said Howard W. Smith is entitled to his seat as a
Representative of said district and State.
Note: Syllabi for Woodward v O'Brien may be found herein at
Sec. 5.6 (committee power to dismiss election contests); Sec. 23.2
(motion for default judgment); Sec. 27.5 (dismissal of contests for
failure to take testimony within statutory period); Sec. 43.1 (form of
committee report).