[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[E. Practice and Procedure]
[Â§ 18. Commencing the Contest]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1025-1027]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
                       E. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 18. Commencing the Contest

    Under the Federal Contested Elections Act, the contest is initiated 
by a notice of contest which is filed with the Clerk and served on the 
contestee.(20) This was also the practice under the 
Contested Elections Act, 2 USC Sec. Sec. 201 et seq.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 2 USC Sec. 382(a).
 1. The ``rules of the elections committees for hearing a contested 
        election case'' [6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 110] are no longer 
        applicable.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance With Statutory Requisites

Sec. 18.1 Where the defeated candidate complains about his opponent's 
    conduct in an election in a letter to the Clerk, but takes no other 
    action or otherwise complies with the laws regulating contested 
    election cases, the Committee on House Administration may decline 
    to take action in the contest.

    In the 1959 Illinois election contest of Myers v Springer 
(Sec. 58.3, infra), the defeated candidate sent a letter to the Clerk 
complaining that the contestee had violated the Corrupt Practices Act 
by appointing the editor of a local paper, which paper had denied 
coverage to the contestant, to a position as acting postmaster. The 
letter was transmitted by the Clerk to the Speaker, who laid it before 
the House and referred it to the Committee on House Administration, and 
ordered the con

[[Page 1026]]

testant's letter printed as a House document. There was no record, 
however, showing that the contestant complied with the requirements for 
bringing an election contest, and the committee took no action on the 
contest.

Sec. 18.2 Where an election contest has been initiated but not brought 
    officially to the House, the House will not intervene simply for 
    the purpose of procuring evidence for the use of the parties to the 
    contest.

    In Sullivan v Miller (Sec. 52.5, infra), a 1943 Missouri contest, 
the parties filed a joint application for a recount although no 
election contest had been formally presented to the House at that time; 
the House refused to grant such application, the committee having 
recommended that the House not intervene ``simply for the purpose of 
procuring evidence for the use of the parties to the contest.''

Sec. 18.3 On matters of procedure, an election contest is governed by 
    the applicable federal statutes dealing with contested elections, 
    and not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    In the 1957 Iowa contested election case of Carter v LeCompte 
(Sec. 57.1, infra), the election committee determined that the 
contestant's motion to ``amend the pleadings to make them conform to 
the proof'' was premature, as the testimony had not yet been printed 
and referred to the committee. The committee reasoned that it was 
governed by the relevant federal statute, then 2 USC Sec. Sec. 201 et 
seq., and not by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under 
which such motions and answers thereto are generally granted.

Limit on Number of Contests Initiated by an Individual

Sec. 18.4 There appears to be no limit on the number of contests that 
    may be initiated by the same individual. However, the House tends 
    to look with increasing disfavor and skepticism upon contests that 
    are filed year after year by the same individual upon the same 
    grounds, particularly where he fails to produce evidence of his 
    claims.

    See Prioleau v Legare (6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 130) wherein a 
person had unsuccessfully instituted five consecutive election 
contests, and in which the House ex

[[Page 1027]]

pressed the hope that the fifth would be the last.(2)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also Lowe v Davis (Sec. 54.1, infra), Lowe v Davis (Sec. 56.3, 
        infra), and Lowe v Thompson (Sec. Sec. 62.1, 63.1, infra), 
        contests brought by the same individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


