[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[E. Practice and Procedure]
[Â§ 17. Alternatives to Statutory Election Contests]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1023-1025]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
                       E. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 17. Alternatives to Statutory Election Contests


    In addition to the statutory election contest procedures discussed 
in this chapter, election committees have often dealt with election 
disputes arising under other procedures, and involving the right of a 
Member-elect to his seat in the House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 17.1, et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The right to a seat in the House based upon a challenge of an 
election may be determined pursuant to: (1) an election contest 
initiated by a defeated candidate and instituted in accordance with 
law; (2) a protest filed by an elector of the district concerned; (3) a 
protest filed by any other person; and (4) a motion of a Member of the 
House.
    Of the four procedures described above, only the first, strictly 
speaking, is an election contest as that term is used in this chapter. 
The last three, while often considered by an election committee after 
referral by the Speaker or the House, are treated generally as 
determinations of the elections and return of Members, and should be 
distinguished from proceedings in the nature of a proposition to 
exclude, where the right to a seat based upon the Member-elect's 
qualifications under the Constitution are called into question, or to 
expel, where a Member's behavior or qualifications are at issue. Such 
proceedings are treated elsewhere in this work.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Ch. 7, supra, and Ch. 12, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives to Filing Election Contests

Sec. 17.1 Where the losing candidate did not file a contest under the 
    statute governing contested elections, but an investigation of the 
    right of a Member-elect to hold the seat was held as a result of 
    charges made by a single voter from the district, the committee 
    report expressed its strong preference for determining contested 
    elections by proceeding under the statute.

    In the 1959 Arkansas investigation of the right of Dale Alford to a 
seat in the House (Sec. 58.1, infra), the House authorized the election 
committee investigation as a result of charges made by a single voter 
from the district, many of the charges made on the basis of hearsay. 
The losing candidate of

[[Page 1024]]

fered to assist in the investigation, although he did not file an 
election contest under the statute, 2 USC Sec. Sec. 201 et seq. In the 
committee report, a strong preference was expressed for determining 
disputed elections by following the procedures under the contested 
elections statute. The House ultimately agreed to a resolution seating 
the Member-elect, who won the election on the basis of write-in votes.

Sec. 17.2 The House may direct the Committee on House Administration to 
    make an ``investigation of the question of the right'' of two 
    candidates to a disputed seat in the House, where neither candidate 
    initiates a contest under the statute.

    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 
investigation was conducted by the Subcommittee on Elections, which 
determined that Mr. Roush was entitled to the seat. The committee 
report, with which the House expressed its agreement by adopting a 
resolution, recommended that the candidates be reimbursed for their 
expenses in accordance with the provisions of law governing election 
contests, although neither candidate sought to invoke that statute.

Sec. 17.3 An investigation of the qualification of a Member-elect to be 
    sworn and of his right to a seat was instituted by the filing of a 
    memorial by an individual challenging his citizenship 
    qualifications.

    In the 1933 investigation of the citizenship qualifications of a 
Member-elect from Pennsylvania, In re Ellenbogen (Sec. 47.5, infra), 
the investigation was initiated, following the election, by a memorial 
and accompanying papers filed by Harry Estep (a former Member) with the 
Clerk, who transmitted it in a letter to the Speaker, who in turn laid 
it before the House and referred it to the Committee on Elections.

Sec. 17.4 An investigation of the right of a Member-elect to a seat in 
    the House has been initiated by a letter from a voter in the 
    district.

    In the 1959 Arkansas investigation of the right of Dale Alford to a 
seat in the House (Sec. 58.1, infra), the House authorized the 
Committee on House Administration to conduct an investigation of the 
election on the basis of a letter from a voter in the district, after 
the Member-elect won as a write-

[[Page 1025]]

in candidate. The defeated candidate did not file a contest, but 
offered to help the investigation. The committee report strongly 
recommended that in such cases proceedings be under the provisions of 
the contested elections statute.

Petition

Sec. 17.5 Contestant, not a candidate in the general election and 
    therefore incompetent to institute a statutory contest, initiated 
    an elections committee investigation by petition.

    In Lowe v Thompson (Sec. 62.1, infra), a losing primary candidate 
was held to be without standing to institute a statutory contest 
against a candidate elected in the general election. A committee on 
elections, however, considered and then denied the petition brought by 
such primary candidate.