[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[B. Jurisdiction and Powers]
[Â§ 5. Election Committees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 986-992]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
                       B. JURISDICTION AND POWERS
 
Sec. 5. Election Committees

    Jurisdiction over contested elections is given to the Committee on 
House Administration by the House rules; (12)~ and the 
responsi

[[Page 987]]

bility for hearing contested election cases falls on the Committee on 
House Administration.(13)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 9(k), House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1973).
13. 2 USC Sec. 392(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Federal Contested Elections Act, the term ``committee'' 
means the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
Representatives.(14)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 2 USC Sec. 381(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this chapter, the term ``committee,'' or ``election committee,'' 
refers generally to the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on 
House Administration in the case of contests after 1946, or the 
particular election committee investigating a contest (such as 
Elections Committee No. 3) in the case of contests prior to the 1946 
congressional reorganization.
    Prior to the 1946 reorganization of House committees, election 
contests were brought before an ``elections'' committee. Such a 
committee had been created in 1794 and divided into three committees in 
1895, each consisting of nine members.(15)~ In 1946, these 
committees were merged in the Committee on House Administration, as was 
the Committee on the Election of the President, Vice President, and 
Representatives in Congress, which had been in existence since 1893. 
Generally, the latter committee was responsible for regulating the time 
and manner of elections, and campaign expenditures and 
practices.(16)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4019.
16. For information regarding the creation and history of the Committee 
        on the Election of the President, Vice President, and 
        Representatives in Congress, see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4299; 
        and 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2023.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jurisdiction Over Contests Initiated Under the Contested Elections 
    Statutes

Sec. 5.1 Among the election disputes that were referred to a committee 
    on elections for disposition was a contest initiated under the 
    contested election statute by an individual who, though not a 
    candidate, was protesting the elections of Members from states 
    having poll taxes.

    See In re Plunkett (Sec. 53.2, infra), a 1945 dispute, wherein a 
letter of explanation from the Clerk was referred to the elections 
committee; the committee took no action in the matter, it appearing 
that the contestant, not being a candidate in the disputed election, 
was not qualified to initiate the proceedings.

[[Page 988]]

Overlapping Jurisdiction; Com-mittee to Investigate Campaign 
    Expenditures

Sec. 5.2 Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 93d Congress, a Special 
    Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures was often created 
    with subpena authority to expedite the investigation of certain 
    elections.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For a more complete discussion of this subject. see Ch. 8 Sec. 14, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1963 Minnesota election contest of Odegard v Olson 
(Sec. 60.1, infra), several minority members of the election committee 
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 contestee had complained about allegedly improper evidence 
submitted by the contestant to the Special Committee to Investigate 
Campaign Expenditures of the 87th Congress, which evidence had been 
referred to the Committee on House Administration.

Sec. 5.3 A ``Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures of 
    the House of Representatives'' of the preceding Congress 
    recommended that the Committee on House Administration investigate 
    certain disputed returns and report to the House by a certain date.

    In the 1958 Maine contested election of Oliver v Hale (Sec. 57.3, 
infra), arising from the Sept. 10, 1956, election, representatives from 
a special House committee established by the 84th Congress were present 
at a recount conducted under a Maine state law; the committee later 
issued a report recommending that the Committee on House Administration 
immediately investigate the approximately 4,000 ballots in dispute and 
report to the House by Mar. 15, 1957. The committee minority contended 
unsuccessfully that a committee of the 84th Congress should not 
``purport to dictate to the Committee on House Administration of the 
85th Congress how it shall conduct its operations or when it shall file 
its report.''

Qualifications of Members on Subcommittee on Elections

Sec. 5.4 The members of the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee 
    on House Administration are chosen on the basis of their seniority 
    and legal experience.

    In the 1965 Iowa election contest of Peterson v Gross (Sec. 61.3,

[[Page 989]]

infra), during debate on a resolution dismissing the contest, a Member 
criticized the composition of the subcommittee on elections because, as 
he stated, no Member on the majority side was ``from north of Virginia 
or west of the Mississippi River.'' In response, House Administration 
Committee Chairman Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, stated that subcommittee 
members were chosen because they were lawyers and on the basis of 
seniority.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 26503, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 11, 1965, during 
        debate on H. Res. 602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Power to Dismiss Contests

Sec. 5.5 The power to dismiss a contest, on proper grounds, is one 
    normally exercised by the House itself; however, there have been 
    instances in which the power to recommend dismissal has been 
    exercised by the committee to which the contest had been referred.

    In the 1940 Tennessee election contest of Neal v Kefauver 
(Sec. 50.1, infra), the election committee submitted a report stating 
that it had dismissed the contest for failure of the contestant to take 
evidence and because there was no evidence before the committee of the 
matters charged in his notice of contest, and no briefs filed. The 
contestant had not appeared in person as requested by the committee. 
The House adopted a resolution from the committee that the contestee 
was entitled to the seat.

Sec. 5.6 A motion to dismiss a contest for failure of contestant to 
    take testimony within the time prescribed by law will be referred 
    to the committee with jurisdiction over election disputes.

    In the 1947 Illinois contested election case of Woodward v O'Brien 
(Sec. 54.6, infra), the Clerk transmitted the contestee's motion to 
dismiss for failure of the contestant to take testimony within the time 
prescribed by law to the Speaker for reference to the Committee on 
House Administration, which subsequently issued a report recommending 
dismissal of the contest.

Actions to Preserve Evidence in Election Contests

Sec. 5.7 An elections committee may request county auditors to retain 
    and preserve the ballots and other papers for use in an election 
    contest, although declining to assume custody of the ballots.

[[Page 990]]

    In the 1957 Iowa contested election of Carter v LeCompte 
(Sec. 57.1, infra), the Committee on House Administration denied a 
motion by the contestant that the committee assume custody of the 
ballots. However, the committee did, by telegram, request county 
auditors to preserve all ballots and other papers for possible use by 
the committee. The request was honored in each county. The committee 
noted that the laws of Iowa afforded no mode of preserving the ballots 
cast, and in fact directed the auditors to destroy the ballots in 
congressional elections after six months.

Sec. 5.8 Where state law mandated destruction of the ballots after an 
    election, an elections committee notified state officials to 
    preserve the ballots notwithstanding the state law.

    In the 1959 Kansas election contest of Mahoney v Smith (Sec. 58.2, 
infra), an elections committee acted upon the contestant's motion for 
preservation of the ballots by notifying state officials to preserve 
ballots despite state law which required their destruction six months 
after the election. Certain county clerks, however, had not been 
officially notified of the pending contest and had destroyed ballots 
prior to the filing of the contestant's motion.

Sec. 5.9 An elections committee may go to the site of an election and 
    take physical custody of the ballots and other materials to 
    facilitate the investigation of the right of a Member-elect to a 
    seat in the House.

    Following the 1958 Arkansas election of write-in candidate Dale 
Alford to a seat in the House (Sec. 58.1, infra), the House authorized 
the Committee on House Administration to send for persons and papers 
and to examine witnesses under oath. The Committee on House 
Administration in turn requested the federal authorities in possession 
of the ballots and other documents to release them to the committee. To 
facilitate the investigation, the Subcommittee on Elections traveled to 
Little Rock, Arkansas, to take physical custody of the ballots and 
other materials.

Power to Examine and Recount Disputed Ballots

Sec. 5.10 The Committee on House Administration has adopted motions to 
    conduct an examination and recount of disputed ballots and to 
    request counsel for both par

[[Page 991]]

    ties to reduce the number of ballots in dispute.

    In the 1958 Maine contested election of Oliver v Hale (Sec. 57.3, 
infra), arising from the Sept. 10, 1956, election, the Committee on 
House Administration on Apr. 30, 1958, adopted motions to conduct an 
examination and recount of the disputed ballots, and to request counsel 
for both parties to reduce further, if possible, the number of ballots 
in dispute. Accordingly, counsel reduced the number to 142 regular 
ballots and 3,626 absentee ballots in dispute, thus giving contestee a 
stipulated plurality of 174 votes.

Sec. 5.11 An elections committee has the power to declare invalid an 
    entire group of ballots, but it will exercise such power only where 
    it cannot distinguish the valid ballots from the invalid ballots.

    In Chandler v Burnham, a 1934 California contest (Sec. 47.4, 
infra), the contestant alleged numerous irregularities concerning the 
method of counting ballots, the composition of election boards, the 
preparation of tally sheets, and the like. The contestant sought to 
have the returns rejected in total. The elections committee, however, 
while recognizing its power to reject an entire group of ballots, 
declared that such power would be exercised only ``where it is 
impossible to ascertain with reasonable certainty the true vote.''

Continuing Investigations

Sec. 5.12 Upon adoption by the House of a resolution sanctioning it, 
    the Committee on House Administration may continue its 
    investigation into a contested election case notwithstanding any 
    adjournment or recess of a session of Congress.

    In Wilson v Granger (Sec. 54.5, infra), a 1948 Utah contest, the 
House agreed by voice vote and without debate to a resolution (H. Res. 
338) authorizing the Committee on House Administration to continue an 
investigation that had been delayed over a year by numerous extensions 
granted to the parties in a contested election case. The expenses of 
the investigation were authorized to be paid out of the contingent fund 
of the House and any testimony and papers referred by the Speaker to 
the committee were to be printed as House documents of the next 
succeeding session of the Congress.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also Lowe v Davis, Sec. 54.1, infra; and Mankin v Davis, 
        Sec. 54.2, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 992]]

Advisory Opinions on State Law

Sec. 5.13 An elections committee may accept the opinion of a state 
    attorney general as to the effect of state laws for disputing an 
    election.

    In the 1957 Iowa contested election of Carter v LeCompte 
(Sec. 57.1, infra), the election committee expressly rejected the 
ruling in Swanson v Harrington (Sec. 50.4, infra), a 1940 Iowa election 
contest in which the contestant had been required to show, by seeking 
recourse to the highest state court, that the Iowa election laws did 
not permit him a recount. This time, however, the committee adopted the 
view of the Iowa attorney general, as expressed in a letter to the 
Governor and secretary of state, that the laws of Iowa contained no 
provision for contesting a House seat.

Sec. 5.14 An advisory opinion by a state supreme court that ballots 
    from certain precincts should be discounted for failure of election 
    officials to perform duties made mandatory by state law may be 
    accepted as binding by an elections committee of the House.

    In Brewster v Utterback (Sec. 47.2, infra), a 1933 Maine contest, 
contestant alleged the fraudulent or negligent failure. of election 
officials to perform their duties as required by state law. He claimed 
that election officials had neglected to provide voting booths in 
certain precincts, that in another precinct more ballots had been cast 
than there were voters, and that in yet another precinct officials had 
illegally permitted and assisted unqualified voters to cast ballots.
    The Committee on Elections assumed the validity of the state 
supreme court opinion to the effect that certain ballots should be 
discounted for failure of election officials to perform duties required 
by state law.


