[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[G. Pleading]
[Â§ 23. Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1035-1037]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
                              G. PLEADING
 
Sec. 23. Generally


    The pleadings in an election contest include the response of 
contestee to contestant's notice. This response must be made within 30 
days after the service of the notice.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 2 USC Sec. 383.
            Notice of contest, see Sec. Sec. 20, et seq., supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain defenses, at the option of contestee, may be raised by 
motion prior to answer. They are: (1) insufficiency of service of 
notice of contest, (2) lack of standing of contestant, (3) failure of 
the notice to state grounds sufficient to change the result of the 
election, and (4) failure of contestant to claim a right to contestee's 
seat.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 2 USC Sec. 383(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion for more definite statement is permitted under the Federal 
Contested Elections Act.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 2 USC Sec. 383(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a motion to dismiss is entered and denied, or if its disposition 
is postponed until a hearing on the merits, the answer is to be served 
within 10 days after notice of such action. If a motion for more 
definite statement is granted, the answer is to be served within 10 
days after service of the more definite statement.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 2 USC Sec. 383(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for the notice of contest, every paper required to be served 
is to be served on the attorney representing the party, or, if he is 
not so represented, on the party himself, in the manner specified by 
the controlling statute.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 2 USC Sec. 384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proof of service, while not affecting the validity of such service, 
is a necessary procedural step under the Federal Contested Elections 
Act. Papers filed subsequent to the notice of contest are to be 
accompanied by proof of service by affidavit showing the time and 
manner thereof.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 2 USC Sec. 384(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion to suppress a deposition may be sought on the ground that 
the reasons given for a re

[[Page 1036]]

fusal to sign it require rejection of it in whole or in 
part.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 2 USC Sec. 386(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion to quash or modify a subpena compelling the production of 
documents, or to deny it conditionally, is permitted under the Federal 
Contested Elections Act. It provides that the Committee on House 
Administration, on motion timely made, may (1) quash or modify the 
subpena if it is unreasonable or oppressive, or (2) deny it 
conditionally on the advancement by the subpena proponent of the 
reasonable cost of producing the material sought.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 2 USC Sec. 388(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The manner in which the pleadings and other papers in a case are to 
be filed with the Clerk is prescribed by the Federal Contested 
Elections Act.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 2 USC Sec. 393.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion for Directed Verdict

Sec. 23.1 Where testimony had not been collected by the Clerk, printed, 
    and laid before the House, and the contested election had not yet 
    been referred to the Committee on House Administration, 
    contestant's motion for a ``directed verdict'' was premature.

    In the 1957 Iowa contested election of Carter v LeCompte 
(Sec. 57.1, infra), the Clerk's letter transmitting the testimony and 
required papers was not referred by the Speaker to the Committee on 
Elections and laid before the House until Aug. 26, 1957, four days 
before adjournment of the first session of the 85th Congress. On that 
date the contest was formally presented to the House. Earlier, however, 
the contestant had filed a motion for a ``directed verdict'' with the 
Committee on House Administration, which ruled that it was premature, 
as a contrary ruling would have been in violation of the rules of the 
House [then clause 9(k) of Rule XI] requiring contested elections to be 
referred to the Committee on House Administration, and also in 
violation of the old federal statute [then 2 USC Sec. 201 et seq.] 
requiring that testimony be collected by the Clerk, printed and laid 
before the House for reference.

Motion for Default Judgment

Sec. 23.2 The House has refused to take action on a contestant's motion 
    to enter a default against the contestee for his failure to answer 
    the notice of contest within the time prescribed by law.

[[Page 1037]]

    In Woodward v O'Brien (Sec. 54.6, infra), a 1947 Illinois contest, 
contestant submitted a letter stating that contestee had not answered 
the notice of contest within the required period, and that a default 
should be entered against contestee by the House. This letter was 
referred to the appropriate committee, but the committee took no action 
on it and indeed recommended that the notice be dismissed for failure 
to take testimony within the required period.