[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 10. Presidential Elections; Electoral College]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 1557]
CHAPTER 10
Presidential Elections; Electoral College
[[Page 1557]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by John R. Graham, Jr., J.D. and Roy Miller,
LL.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1. In General; Electoral Certificates
Sec. 2. Joint Sessions to Count Electoral Votes
Sec. 3. Counting Votes; Objections to Count
Sec. 4. Presidential Nominations for Vice President
DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS
INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
Certificates ascertaining electors
generally, see Sec. 3.5
transmittal of, to the House, Sec. 1.l
Certificates of electoral Votes
conflicts relative to, Sec. 3.5
objections to vote count, Sec. 3.6
transmittal of, to the House, Sec. Sec. 1.1 et seq.
Joint session to count electoral votes
concurrent resolution providing for, Sec. 2.1
convening of, Sec. 2.4
division of, to consider objections, Sec. 3.6
presiding officer for, Sec. 2.5
recesses in connection with, Sec. Sec. 2.2, 2.3
statutory procedures relative to, Sec. 2.6
Presidential nominations for Vice President
confirmation of, Sec. 4.3
referral of, to committee, Sec. 4.2
transmission of, by message, Sec. 4.1
Tellers to count electoral votes
appointment of, in the House, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 3.2
appointment of, in the Senate, Sec. 3.4
substitution for, in the House, Sec. 3.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by John R. Graham, Jr., J.D. and Roy Miller,
LL.B.
[[Page 1559]]
CHAPTER 10
Presidential Elections; Electoral College
Sec. 1. In General; Electoral Certificates
Under the U.S. Constitution, both the House and Senate formally
participate in the process by which the President and Vice President
are elected. Congress is directed by the 12th amendment to receive and,
in joint session, count the electoral votes certified by the states.
And if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, the
House of Representatives is directed to elect the President, while the
Senate is directed to elect the Vice President.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In the Presidential election of 1800, the electors produced a tie
vote by casting an equal number of votes for Thomas Jefferson
and Aaron Burr. Thus the election had to be determined by the
House of Representatives, which ultimately voted for Jefferson.
See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1931. For a general discussion of
early electoral-count procedures, see 3 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 1911-1980 and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 438-
446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This method of selecting a President, later to become known as the
``electoral college,'' came about as the result of a compromise after
lengthy debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The debate
centered on whether the President should be chosen by popular vote, by
the Congress, or by some other method. Election by direct popular vote
was rejected because it was believed that the people would have
insufficient knowledge of the various candidates, and because it was
assumed that the people would be unable to agree on a single candidate.
A plan that would give Congress the power to select the President was
also rejected, because of its potential threat to executive
independence. Finding itself in disagreement on both plans, the
convention adopted a compromise under which each state was given the
power to appoint electors to be chosen in a manner specified by each
state legislature. The electors in each state, who were to be equal to
the total number of that state's Representatives and Senators, would
then meet and cast votes for President and Vice President.
Historically, the counting of electoral votes has been for the most
part a mere formality, because the result of the electoral vote has
almost invariably been the same as the result of the popular
vote.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. There have been rare instances in which the result of the electoral
vote has differed from the result of the popular vote. For
example, in the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, determinations
by the House and Senate with respect to certain disputed
electoral votes resulted in the election of Hayes, although
Tilden had received a majority of the popular vote. See 3
Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1953-1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1560]]
The electoral vote has generally followed the popular vote because
electors came to be chosen merely as representatives of the political
parties and because the state legislatures adopted a unit-rule system
under which all of a state's electoral votes are to be cast for the
party which wins a plurality of popular votes statewide.
The 12th amendment states in part:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by
ballot for President and Vice-President . . . they shall name in
their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct
ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make
distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all
persons voted for as Vice-President, and the number of votes for
each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed
to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
President of the Senate; [t]he President of the Senate shall, in
presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
On the sixth day of January after the electors of the several
states have met to cast votes for President and Vice President, the
Congress, in accordance with the provisions of law,(3)
convenes in joint session,(4) the Senate and House of
Representatives meeting in the Hall of the House, to exercise its
constitutional responsibility for counting the electoral vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 3 USC Sec. 15.
4. See Sec. 2.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At one o'clock in the afternoon on that day, the joint session of
the two Houses is called to order by the President of the
Senate,(5) the individual designated by statute
(6) to serve as the joint session's presiding officer.
Thereupon, the tellers,(7) who have previously been
appointed on the part of each House,(8) take their
respective places at the Clerk's desk. According to the alphabetical
order of the states, all the previously transmitted certificates and
papers purporting to be certificates of votes given by the electors are
then opened by the President of the Senate and handed to the
tellers.(9) Each certificate so received is read by the
tellers in
[[Page 1561]]
the presence and hearing of the two Houses. After the reading of each
certificate, the President of the Senate calls for objections, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 2.5, infra.
6. 3 USC 15.
7. See Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.4, infra, for appointment of tellers.
8. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
9. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event that a written objection should be raised, properly
signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of
Representatives, and when all objections so made to any vote or paper
from a state have been received and read, the joint session divides,
the Senate repairing to the Senate Chamber, and all such objections are
submitted to and considered by each House meeting in separate
session.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 3.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the provisions of the U.S. Code, which govern the
procedures in both Houses in the event they divide to consider an
objection, each Senator and Representative may speak to such objection
for five minutes, and not more than once; and after such debate has
lasted two hours, the presiding officer of each House is required to
put the main question without further debate.(11) When the
two Houses have voted, they immediately again meet in joint session,
and the presiding officer then announces the decision on the objections
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 3 USC Sec. Sec. 15, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once all objections to any certificate or paper from a state have
been so decided, or immediately following the reading of such
certificate or paper when no objections thereto are raised, the tellers
make a list of the votes as they appear from the
certificates.(12~) The result of the count is then delivered
to the President of the Senate who thereupon announces the state of the
vote. This announcement is deemed by law a sufficient declaration of
the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United
States. The announcement, together with a list of the votes, is then
entered in the Journals of the two Houses.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 3 USC Sec. 15.
13. 3 USC Sec. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to its responsibilities in ascertaining and counting
the electoral votes cast for President and Vice President, the Congress
has been delegated a further constitutional duty relative to the
selection of the Vice President. Pursuant to section 2 of the 25th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution, whenever there is a vacancy in the
Office of Vice President the President nominates a Vice President to
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both
Houses.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 4.1-4.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House and Senate also have important responsibilities
[[Page 1562]]
under the 20th and 25th amendments of the U.S. Constitution with
respect to Presidential succession and disability. The 20th amendment
sets forth the procedure to be followed when the President-elect and
Vice President-elect fail to qualify at the commencement of their
terms. Congress also has the duty, under the 25th amendment, of
determining disputes as to Presidential
disability. -------------------
Transmittal and Presentation of Certificates
Sec. 1.1 Copies of the certificates identifying the electors appointed
in a state forwarded by the Governor of each state to the
Administrator of General Services are, pursuant to 3 USC Sec. 6,
transmitted in turn to the House; on one occasion, where a
certificate was received on the day reserved for the counting of
the electoral votes, the Speaker, in order that the receipt of the
certificate would appear in the Record before the proceedings of
the joint session to count the electoral votes, laid the
communication before the House at the beginning of the session.
On Jan. 6, 1961,(15~) the Speaker (16) laid
before the House the following communication which was read and, with
accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
General Services
Administration,
Washington, D.C., January 6, 1961.
Hon. Sam Rayburn,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Transmitted herewith is a copy of the
certificate of ascertainment received today from the State of
Hawaii, in conformity with the final clause of section 6, title
3, United States Code.
Sincerely yours,
Franklin Floete,
Administrator.
State of Hawaii.
To the Administrator of General Services, Pursuant to the
Laws of the United States.
I, William F. Quinn, Governor of the State of Hawaii, do
hereby certify that the returns of votes cast for electors of
President and Vice President of the United States of America,
for the State of Hawaii, at an election held therein for that
purpose, on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in
the year of our Lord 1960, agreeably to the provisions of the
laws of the said State, and in conformity with the Constitution
and laws of the United States, for the purpose of giving in
their votes for President and Vice President of the United
States, for the respective terms prescribed by the Constitution
of the United States, to begin on the 20th day of January in
the year of
[[Page 1563]]
our Lord 1961, were, ascertained by judgment of the circuit
court of the first judicial circuit, State of Hawaii, in
proceedings entitled Herman T. F. Lum et al., v. Gavien A. Bush
et al. (Civil No. 7029), entered on the 30th day of December
A.D. 1960, and that the list of persons voted for and the
number of votes cast for each, pursuant to said judgment,
respectively, is as follows:
Republican Party: Gavien A. Bush, 92,295; J. Howard
Worrall, 92,295; O. P. Soares, 92,295.
Democratic Party: William H. Heen, 92,410; Delbert E.
Metzger, 92,410; Jennie Wilson, 92,410.
And I further certify that: William H. Heen, Delbert E.
Metzger, and Jennie Wilson were appointed electors of President
and Vice President of the United States of America, for the
State of Hawaii, at said election.
Given under my hand and the seal of the State, this 4th day
of January, in the year of our Lord 1961.
William F. Quinn,
Governor of Hawaii.
Sec. 1.2 Where certificates of electoral votes had been received from
different slates of electors from a state, and each slate purported
to be the duly appointed electors from that state, the Vice
President presented the certificates, with all attached papers, in
the order in which they had been received.
On Jan. 6, 1961,(17) during proceedings in the joint
session of the two Houses incident to the opening of the certificates
and ascertaining and counting of the votes of the electors of the
several states for President and Vice President, the presiding officer
(18) handed to the tellers, in the order in which they had
been received, certificates of electoral votes, with all attached
papers thereto, from different slates of electors from the State of
Hawaii. Without objection, the Chair instructed the tellers to count
the votes of those electors named in the certificate of the Governor of
Hawaii dated Jan. 4, 1961 (discussed more fully in Sec. 3.5, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 288-91, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Richard M. Nixon (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 10
Presidential Elections; Electoral College
Sec. 2. Joint Sessions to Count Electoral Votes
Concurrent Resolution Providing for Joint Session
Sec. 2.1 A concurrent resolution providing for a joint session to count
the electoral votes for President and Vice President may be
originated by the Senate.
On Jan. 3, 1973,(19) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For additional recent
examples see 115 Cong. Rec. 36, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3,
1969; 111 Cong. Rec. 26, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965;
and 107 Cong. Rec. 26, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1564]]
called up and asked for the immediate consideration of a Senate
concurrent resolution:
S. Con. Res. 1
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall meet in the Hall
of the House of Representatives on Saturday, the 6th day of January
1973, at 1 o'clock postmeridian, pursuant to the requirements of
the Constitution and laws relating to the election of President and
Vice President of the United States, and the President of the
Senate shall be their Presiding Officer; that two tellers shall be
previously appointed by the President of the Senate on the part of
the Senate and two by the Speaker on the part of the House of
Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the
President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting
to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and
papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the
alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter ``A'';
and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and
hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they
shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been
ascertained and counted in the manner and according to the rules by
law provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the
President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of
the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient
declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice
President of the United States, and, together with a list of the
votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.
The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Recesses
Sec. 2.2 The Speaker may be authorized to declare a recess in
connection with the convening of the two Houses in joint session to
count the electoral vote for President and Vice President.
On Jan. 3, 1973,(20~) the House considered and agreed to
a Senate concurrent resolution (1) providing for the
convening on Jan. 6, 1973, of a joint session of the two Houses to
count the electoral vote. Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts,
then made a unanimous-consent request, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For further illustrations
see 115 Cong. Rec. 36, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969; 111
Cong. Rec. 26, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965; and 107
Cong. Rec. 26, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1961.
1. S. Con. Res. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on
Saturday, January 6, 1973, it may be in order for the Speaker to
declare a recess at any time subject to the call of the Chair.
[[Page 1565]]
The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker declares a recess of the House
to enable the Members to reconvene in joint session with the Senate in
the House Chamber.
Sec. 2.3 On the day fixed by law and concurrent resolution for the
convening of the joint session to count the electoral votes for
President and Vice President, the Speaker declined to recognize for
one-minute speeches or extensions of remarks before recessing the
House subject to the call of the Chair.
On Jan. 6, 1973,(3) the Speaker (4) made an
announcement to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 119 Cong. Rec. 378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For an additional example
see 115 Cong. Rec. 145, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1969.
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a statement.
The Chair desires deferment of unanimous-consent requests and
also 1-minute speeches until after the formal ceremony of the day,
which is the counting of the electoral votes for President and Vice
President. Therefore, pursuant to the order adopted on Wednesday,
January 3, 1973,\(5)\ the Chair declares the House in recess until
approximately 12:45 o'clock p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 119 Cong. Rec. 30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.), the House stood
in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Convening of the Joint Session
Sec. 2.4 The two Houses convene in joint session to open the
certificates and ascertain and count the votes cast by the electors
of the several states for President and Vice President.
On Jan. 6, 1973,\(6)\ the President of the Senate \(7)\ called to
order a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
convened pursuant to the provisions of a Senate concurrent resolution
\(8)\ to carry out Congress'
[[Page 1566]]
constitutional and statutory responsibilities relative to opening the
certificates and ascertaining and counting the votes of the electors of
the several states for President and Vice President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 119 Cong. Rec. 378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For other examples of joint
sessions convened to count the electoral vote cast in recent
elections see 115 Cong. Rec. 145, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6,
1969; 111 Cong. Rec. 136, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1965;
and 107 Cong. Rec. 288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1961.
7. Spiro T. Agnew (Md.).
8. S. Con. Res. 1, agreed to by the House at 119 Cong. Rec. 30, 93d
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1973. For additional examples of House
agreement to concurrent resolutions providing for joint
sessions to count electoral votes, see 115 Cong. Rec. 36, 91st
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969; 111 Cong. Rec. 26, 89th Cong.
1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965; and 107 Cong. Rec. 26, 87th Cong. 1st
Sess., Jan. 3, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Officer
Sec. 2.5 In the absence of the President of the Senate, the President
pro tempore of the Senate presides over the joint session to count
the electoral votes for President and Vice President.
On Jan. 6, 1969,\(9)\ in the absence of the President of the
Senate, \(10)\ the President pro tempore of the Senate \(11)\ presided
over the joint session to count the electoral votes for President and
Vice President of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 145, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 111 Cong. Rec.
136, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1965.
10. On Jan. 6, 1969, the President of the Senate, Hubert H. Humphrey,
(Minn.), who was the incumbent Vice President and the losing
candidate for President in the 1968 election, declined to
preside over the joint session to count the electoral votes. On
Jan. 6, 1965, the office of the President of the Senate was
vacant, the former Vice President, Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.),
having ascended to the Presidency upon the death of his
predecessor, Nov. 22, 1963.
11. Richard B. Russell (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure
Sec. 2.6 Where the two Houses meet to count the electoral vote, a joint
session is convened pursuant to a concurrent resolution of the two
Houses which incorporates by reference the applicable provisions of
the United States Code; and the procedures set forth in those
provisions are in effect constituted as a joint rule of the two
Houses for the occasion and govern the procedures in the joint
session and in both Houses in the event they divide to consider an
objection.
On Jan. 6, 1969,\(12)\ the two Houses convened in joint session to
count the electoral vote. The joint session was convened pursuant to a
Senate concurrent resolution \(13)\ which incorporated the votecounting
procedures set forth in 3 USC Sec. Sec. 15-18. A written objection was
made to the count of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 145-47, 169-72, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
13. 13. S. Con. Res. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1567]]
North Carolina's electoral vote. Thereupon, pursuant to the provisions
of 3 USC Sec. Sec. 15-18, the joint session divided, the Senate
repairing to the Senate Chamber, and the objection was submitted to and
considered in each House convened in separate sessions.
CHAPTER 10
Presidential Elections; Electoral College
Sec. 3. Counting Votes; Objections to Count
House Tellers
Sec. 3.1 Tellers on the part of the House to count the electoral vote
are appointed by the Speaker.
On Jan. 3, 1973,(14) the House had considered and agreed
to a Senate concurrent resolution (15) providing for the
convening of a joint session of the two Houses to count the electoral
votes. The Speaker,(16) pursuant to the provisions of the
concurrent resolution, appointed Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, and Mr.
Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio, as tellers on the part of the House to count
the electoral votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For further illustrations
see 115 Cong. Rec. 36, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969; 111
Cong. Rec. 26, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965; and 107
Cong. Rec. 27, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1961.
15. S. Con. Res. 1.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.2 The Speaker has appointed the Chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on House Administration as tellers on the
part of the House to count the electoral votes.
On Jan. 3, 1969,(17) the Speaker (18)
appointed as tellers on the part of the House to count the electoral
votes Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, and Mr. Glenard P. Lipscomb,
of California, who were, respectively, the Chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 36, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.3 Where a Member designated as a teller for counting the
electoral ballots was unavoidably detained, the Speaker designated
another Member to take his place.
On Jan. 6, 1949,(19) prior to the announcement of the
arrival of the Senate for the meeting of the joint session of the two
Houses to count the electoral vote, the Speaker (20) made an
announcement to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 89, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1568]]
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Ralph A. Gamble]
is unavoidably detained and is unable to serve as teller.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Louis
E. Graham] to act as teller in his stead.
Senate Tellers
Sec. 3.4 Tellers on the part of the Senate to count the electoral votes
are appointed by the Vice President.
On Jan. 3, 1973,(1) following the Senate's consideration
of and agreement to a concurrent resolution (2) providing
for the convening of a joint session of the two Houses to count the
electoral votes, the Vice President,(3) in accordance with
the provisions of the concurrent resolution, appointed the Senator from
Kentucky, Marlow W. Cook, and the Senator from Nevada, Howard W.
Cannon, as the tellers on the part of the Senate to count the electoral
votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 8, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For other recent examples see
115 Cong. Rec. 8, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969; 111 Cong.
Rec. 15, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965; and 107 Cong. Rec.
72, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1961.
2. S. Con. Res. 1.
3. Spiro T. Agnew (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Electoral Certificates
Sec. 3.5 The two Houses, meeting in joint session to count the
electoral votes, may by unanimous consent decide which of two
conflicting electoral certificates from a state is valid; and the
tellers are then directed to count the electoral votes in the
certificate deemed valid.
On Jan. 6, 1961,(4) during proceedings in the joint
session of the two Houses incident to the opening of the certificates
and counting of the votes of the electors of the several states for
President and Vice President, the President of the Senate
(5) handed to the tellers, in the order in which they had
been received, certificates of electoral votes, with all attached
papers thereto, from different slates of electors from the State of
Hawaii. The certificates were received and considered by the tellers,
whereupon, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 107 Cong. Rec. 288-91, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. Richard M. Nixon (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Vice President: . . . The Chair has knowledge, and is
convinced that he is supported by the facts, that the certificate
from the Honorable William F. Quinn, Governor of the State of Ha
[[Page 1569]]
waii, dated January 4, 1961, received by the Administrator of
General Services on January 6, 1961, and transmitted to the Senate
and the House of Representatives on January 6, 1961, being
Executive Communication Number 215 of the House of Representatives,
properly and legally portrays the facts with respect to the
electors chosen by the people of Hawaii at the election for
President and Vice President held on November 8, 1960. As read from
the certificates, William H. Heen, Delbert E. Metzger, and Jennie
Wilson were appointed as electors of President and Vice President
on November 8, 1960, and did on the first Monday after the second
Wednesday of December, 1960, cast their votes for John F. Kennedy
of Massachusetts for President and Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas for
Vice President.
In order not to delay the further count of the electoral vote
here, the Chair, without the intent of establishing a precedent,
suggests that the electors named in the certificate of the Governor
of Hawaii dated January 4, 1961, be considered as the lawful
electors from the State of Hawaii.
If there be no objection in this joint convention, the Chair
will instruct the tellers--and he now does--to count the votes of
those electors named in the certificate of the Governor of Hawaii
dated January 4, 1961--those votes having been cast for John F.
Kennedy, of Massachusetts, for President and Lyndon B. Johnson, of
Texas, for Vice President.
Without objection the tellers will accordingly count the votes
of those electors named in the certificate of the Governor of
Hawaii dated January 4, 1961.
There was no objection.
The tellers then proceeded to read, count and announce the
electoral votes of the remaining States in alphabetical order.
Parliamentarian's Note: A recount of ballots in Hawaii, which was
concluded after the Governor of that state had certified the election
of the Republican slate of electors, threw that state into the
Democratic column; the Governor then sent a second communication to the
Administrator of General Services which certified that the Democratic
slate of electors had been lawfully appointed. Both slates of electors
met on the day prescribed by law, cast their votes, and submitted them
to the President of the Senate pursuant to 3 USC Sec. 11. When the two
Houses met in joint session to count the electoral votes, the votes of
the electors were presented to the tellers by the Vice President, and,
by unanimous consent, the Vice President directed the tellers to accept
and count the lawfully appointed slate.
Objections
Sec. 3.6 A formal objection was made to the counting of the electoral
vote of a state, and the House and Senate divided to separately
consider the objection before proceeding with the counting.
[[Page 1570]]
On Jan. 6, 1969,(6) the President pro tempore of the
Senate (7~) called to order a joint session of the House and
Senate for the purpose of counting the electoral votes for President
and Vice President. When the tellers appointed on the part of the two
Houses (8) had taken their places at the Clerk's desk, the
President pro tempore handed them the certificates of the electors and
the tellers then read, counted, and announced the electoral votes of
the states in alphabetical order. The vote of North Carolina was stated
to be 12 for Richard M. Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew for President and Vice
President respectively and one for George C. Wallace and Curtis E.
LeMay for President and Vice President respectively. Mr. James G.
O'Hara, of Michigan, thereupon rose and sent to the Clerk's desk a
written objection signed by himself and Edmund S. Muskie, the Senator
from Maine, protesting the counting of the vote of North Carolina as
read. The President pro tempore directed the Clerk of the House to read
the objection, which stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 115 Cong. Rec. 145, 146, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For further
discussion and excerpts from the debate, see Sec. Sec. 3.7,
3.8, infra.
7. Richard B. Russell (Ga.).
8. Senator Carl T. Curtis (Neb.) and Senator B. Everett Jordan (N.C.)
on the part of the Senate; Mr. Samuel N. Friedel (Md.) and Mr.
Glenard P. Lipscomb (Calif.) on the part of the House.
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 146, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We object to the votes from the State of North Carolina for
George C. Wallace for President and for Curtis E. LeMay for Vice
President on the ground that they were not regularly given in that
the plurality of votes of the people of North Carolina were cast
for Richard M. Nixon for President and for Spiro T. Agnew for Vice
President and the State thereby appointed thirteen electors to vote
for Richard M. Nixon for President and for Spiro T. Agnew for Vice
President and appointed no electors to vote for any other persons.
Therefore, no electoral vote of North Carolina should be counted
for George C. Wallace for President or for Curtis E. LeMay for Vice
President.
James G. O'Hara, M.C.
Edmund S. Muskie, U.S.S.
Following the President pro tempore's finding that the objection
complied with the law (10) and his subsequent inquiry as to
whether there were any further objections to the certificates from the
State of North Carolina, the two Houses separated to consider the
objection, the Senate withdrawing to the Senate Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 3 USC Sec. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legal basis for the objection was contained in 3 USC Sec. 15,
which provided in relevant part:
[[Page 1571]]
. . . [A]nd no electoral vote or votes from any State which
shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has
been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title
from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but
the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they
agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by
electors whose appointment has been so certified.
Those supporting the objection in the House and Senate contended
that the votes of one North Carolina elector had not been ``regularly
given'' and should therefore be rejected.
The background of the objection was explained by Senator Muskie
during his opening remarks in the Senate debate on the objection:
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 211, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, a North Carolina elector was nominated as an
elector by a district convention of the Republican Party in North
Carolina. He did not reject that nomination. His name was not
placed on the ballot because under North Carolina law, as in the
case of 34 other States, only the names of the party's presidential
and vice-presidential candidates appear, and electors are elected
for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates receiving the
plurality of the vote in North Carolina.
Dr. Bailey and 12 other North Carolina Republican electors were
so elected on November 5. The election was certified. Dr. Bailey
did not reject that election or that certification. So up to that
moment, so far as the people from North Carolina understood, he was
committed as an elector on the Republican slate, riding under the
names of Richard M. Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew, to vote for that
presidential and vice-presidential ticket.
On December 16, the electors of North Carolina met in Raleigh
to cast their votes. . . . It was at that point that Dr. Bailey
decided to cast his vote for the Wallace-LeMay ticket instead.
In the House, Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, made a similar
presentation.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 159, 160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During debate on the objection in both the House and the Senate,
proponents of the objection focused on several key arguments in support
thereof. It was argued that the elector had at least a moral commitment
to vote for the Republican candidates--a commitment made more
compelling in the light of custom and practice since the adoption of
the Constitution,(13) and reliance by the voters on the
elector's conduct and apparent intentions.(14) Senator
Muskie stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See remarks of Mr. Edward P. Boland (Mass.), id. at pp. 165, 166,
and remarks of Mr. O'Hara, id. at p. 169.
14. See, for example, the remarks of Senator Frank Church (Idaho),
id.at p. 214.
15. Id. at p. 212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1572]]
[A]s I understand it, the Constitution, as interpreted by the
debates in the Constitutional Convention, clearly makes an elector
a free agent. However, from the beginning of the country's history,
political parties developed, and the political parties arranged for
slates of electors assigned to their presidential and vice-
presidential candidates. That political party slate of candidates
has always been regarded, with but five other exceptions, as
binding upon those who are electors on that slate.
So I argue that in the light of that tradition, when an elector
chooses to go on a party slate, he is indicating his choice for
President.
I say, secondly, that in the case of North Carolina and this
statute, which is found also in 34 other States, the fact that only
the presidential and vice-presidential names appear on the ballot
is confirmation of this tradition; that when an elector accepts a
place on a slate under these circumstances, in the light of this
tradition, he knows that to the public at large he is saying, by
his action, ``I am for Nixon for President.'' He is saying
implicitly, in my judgment, ``If I am elected an elector under
these circumstances, I will vote for Richard Nixon for President.''
I believe that is the tradition. I believe that this undergirds
the responsibility of an elector; and once he has set that train of
understanding in motion, he cannot, after election day, when it is
too late for the voters to respond to any change of mind on his
part, say, ``I changed my mind, and I am going to vote for somebody
else.'' It is in the nature of estoppel.
Those opposed to the objection argued that the electors were ``free
agents'' (16) under the Constitution,(17)
permitted to vote for whomever they pleased. According to such view,
Congress, under the Constitution and 3 USC Sec. 15, exercised only a
ministerial function in counting the electoral ballots, and such
ballots could be discounted only if the certificates were not in
regular form or were not authentic.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See the remarks of Mr. William M. McCulloch (Ohio), id. at p. 148;
Mr. Richard H. Poff (Va.), id. at p. 158; Senator Ralph W.
Yarborough (Tex.), id. at p. 217; Senator Robert C. Byrd (W.
Va.), id. at p. 245.
17. Relevant provisions are art. II, Sec. 1, clause 3; and the 12th
amendment.
18. See remarks of Mr. John B. Anderson (Ill.), 115 Cong. Rec. 151,
91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1969; Mr. Bob Eckhardt (Tex.),
id. at p. 164; Senator Curtis, id. at pp. 219, 220; Senator
Herman E. Talmadge (Ga.), id. at p. 223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was also noted that North Carolina had not adopted a law, as had
a majority of states, requiring the electors to pledge to support their
party's nominee; \(1)\ this raised, in the view of some, an implication
that North Carolina did not intend its electors to
[[Page 1573]]
be bound to support particular party nominees. Senator Edward M.
Brooke, of Massachusetts, made the following remarks: \(2)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See remarks of Mr. Alton A. Lennon (N.C.), id. at pp. 149, 150. The
Supreme Court in Ray v Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), upheld the
constitutionality of state laws requiring an elector to pledge
to support the nominee of his political party.
2. Id. at p. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a system of constitutional government matters of procedure
often become vital issues of substance. I submit that such a case
is now before us. There are strong constitutional grounds for the
authority of a State to bind its electors to vote as they are
pledged. If a State has so bound its electors, I would contend that
the Congress can properly act to see that the State's legal
requirements are fulfilled. This would be a reasonable construction
of the 1887 statute which provides that Congress can reject an
elector's vote which has not been regularly given.
But it is my considered opinion that, unless the State chooses
to bind its electors, Congress cannot do so after the fact.
Among the many serious implications of this situation, one
lesson in particular stands out:
No official should ever be granted discretionary authority
unless the people clearly understand that, under some
circumstances, he may actually use it. And if such authority, once
granted, is deemed excessive or unwise, the people should
explicitly and promptly rescind it.
As I understand the relevant constitutional guidelines, the
power to remedy this particular problem lies with the people of
North Carolina acting through their representative institutions at
the State level. . . .
In addition, however, there is a national interest in removing
so critical a loophole in our constitutional system. If the
electoral college is to remain an element in our political life,
surely we should move to design a constitutional amendment which,
once and for all, binds electors to vote for the candidates to whom
they are pledged. I hasten to add that this possible change in our
electoral system will certainly not suffice. Indeed, one of the
paramount tasks of this Congress will be to examine the full range
of constitutional proposals to create a fair and secure procedure
for presidential elections.
In addition to the views stated above by Senator Brooke, several of
those speaking to the objection expressed support for a constitutional
amendment to reform the electoral system, a remedy which, it was
argued, would be preferable to ``piecemeal'' changes to be achieved
under present law.\(3)\
[[Page 1574]]
At the conclusion of debate in each House, the yeas and nays were
ordered and the House and Senate respectively rejected the
objection.\(4)\ Thereupon, the Senate reassembled in the Chamber of the
House in joint session.\(5)\ The President pro tempore called the
meeting to order and directed the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House to report the action taken by the two Houses. Following
the report, the President pro tempore directed the tellers to record
and announce the vote of the State of North Carolina, and the counting
of the electoral votes proceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See, for example, the remarks of Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr. (N.Y.), id.
at p. 168.
Among those Members and Senators who favored a
constitutional amendment to revise the electoral system were
Mr. Hale Boggs (La.), id. at p. 151; Mr. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.),
id. at p. 149; Mr. Phillip Burton (Calif.), id. at p. 160; Mr.
Charles A. Vanik (Ohio), id. at p. 168; Senator Karl E. Mundt
(S.D.), id. at p. 216; Senator Birch Bayh (Ind.), id. at p.
218; Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (Va.), id. at p. 221; and
Senator Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.), id. at pp. 244, 245. It was
pointed out by Senator Muskie, however, that over 500
resolutions had been introduced to reform the electoral system
by constitutional amendment during the history of the Republic.
Id. at p. 220.
4. See Sec. 3.7, infra.
5. 115 Cong. Rec. 171, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.7 Under the statute prescribing the procedure for consideration
by the respective Houses of an objection to a state's electoral
vote count, a motion to lay the objection on the table is not in
order.
On Jan. 6, 1969,\(6)\ following the raising of an objection to the
count of North Carolina's electoral vote, the joint session of the two
Houses divided (the Senate repairing to the Senate Chamber), so that
the objection could be considered by each House meeting in separate
session. The House was called to order by the Speaker\(7)\ and debate
on the objection ensued, at the conclusion of which a motion was made
by Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, to lay the objection on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 115 Cong. Rec. 145-47, 169-72, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A point of order against the motion was made by Mr. James G.
O'Hara, of Michigan, asserting that the motion to table such an
objection was inconsistent with the requirement of 3 USC Sec. 17, that
after two hours of debate in each House on the objection to the count
of a state's electoral vote, ``it shall be the duty of the presiding
officer of each House to put the main question without further
debate.''
After further debate, the Speaker sustained the point of order. He
stated:
It seems to the Chair that the law [3 USC Sec. 17] is very
plain with respect to the 5-minute rule and time of debate. With
respect to the problem, the section states, and I quote:
It shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House
to put the main question without further debate.
[[Page 1575]]
In the opinion of the Chair the main question is the objection
filed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) and the Senator
from Maine, Senator Muskie.
The Chair is of the opinion that the law plainly governs the
situation; that the Chair must put the main question and that the
motion to table is not in order.
Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.
The question on agreeing to the objection was taken; the objection
being rejected--yeas 170, nays 228, not voting 32, not sworn 4. A
motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
A similar situation arose in the Senate, during proceedings
relating to the objection to the North Carolina vote. The Senate had
been called to order by President pro tempore Richard B. Russell, of
Georgia, who then directed the Clerk to read the objection, as follows:
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 115 Cong. Rec. 210, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We object to the votes from the State of North Carolina for
George C. Wallace for President and for Curtis E. LeMay for Vice
President on the ground that they were not regularly given in that
the plurality of votes of the people of North Carolina were cast
for Richard M. Nixon for President and for Spiro T. Agnew for Vice
President and the State thereby appointed 13 electors to vote for
Richard M. Nixon for President and for Spiro T. Agnew for Vice
President and appointed no electors to vote for any other persons.
Therefore, no electoral vote of North Carolina should be counted
for George C. Wallace for President or for Curtis E. LeMay for
Vice-President.
Following a statement by the President pro tempore that this was an
unusual parliamentary situation in that it was the first time an
objection to an electoral vote had been filed,(9) and a
reading by the Clerk of the provisions of 3 USC Sec. 17, the Senate
agreed to a unanimous-consent request by Edmund S.
Muskie,(10) the Senator from Maine, that the time be divided
equally between proponents and opponents of the objection, with time
for the proponents to be allotted under the direction of the Majority
Leader, Michael J. Mansfield, of Montana, and time for the opponents to
be allotted under the direction of Senator Dirksen. Debate on the
objection then proceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. According to Minority Leader Everett McK. Dirksen (Ill.), this was
also the first time the Senate had operated under the five-
minute rule. Id. at p. 223.
10. Id. at p. 211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the debate on the objection, Edward M. Kennedy, the Senator
from Massachusetts, inquired as to whether a motion to lay the
objection on the table would be in order: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1576]]
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, may I propound a parliamentary
inquiry whether the motion to table is in order or is not in order?
The President Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule that it is not
in order. The statute under which we are now proceeding states the
main question shall be put. Let the Chair read the last clause of
section 17 of title 3:
But after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall
be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the
main question without further debate.
At the conclusion of the two hours of debate, the question on
agreeing to the objection was taken; and the objection was rejected
(yeas 33 and nays 58). A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.(12) Subsequently, at the resumption of the joint
session, the Presiding Officer directed the tellers to announce and
record the electoral votes of North Carolina as submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.8 During consideration of an objection to the electoral vote
count of a state, unanimous consent was sought for purposes of
modifying the procedures prescribed by statute for consideration of
such objections; after discussion and rejection of such request, a
subsequent unanimous-consent request was agreed to which qualified
the terms of the statute.
During proceedings arising from an objection to the count of
electoral votes of North Carolina,(13) the following
statutory provision (14) was read in the Senate:
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 3.6, supra.
14. 3 USC Sec. 17.
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 210, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that
may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes
from any State, or other question arising in the matter, each
Senator and Representative may speak to such objection or question
five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall
have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer
of each House to put the main question without further debate.
Senator Edmund S. Muskie, of Maine, then made the following
unanimous-consent request:
. . . I ask unanimous consent that debate on objections to the
electoral vote of North Carolina for George C. Wallace and Curtis
LeMay shall be limited to 2 hours, as provided by law in section
17, title 3, United States Code, and that the time be equally
divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority
leader.
Discussion ensued as to the effect of the request and the
appropriateness of adopting procedures that, in the view of some Sen
[[Page 1577]]
ators, would constitute a departure from the terms of the statute.
As background to the discussion, it may, of course, be noted that,
under the Constitution,(16) ``Each House may determine the
Rules of its Proceedings,'' so that there was no absolute legal
obstacle to the Senate's adoption of whatever procedures seemed
appropriate at the time. It may also be noted that the terms of the
unanimous-consent request did not on their face necessarily contravene
the statute. But it will be observed that the Chair declined to pass
upon the effect or legality of the unanimous-consent request, and
stated that a single objection to the request would preserve procedures
under the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair did remark that unanimous-consent requests are
entertained that are seemingly ``in conflict with'' both statutes and
the Constitution. Citing the constitutional requirement of the quorum,
he said:
. . . We see suggestions of the absence of a quorum made
several times during the day and withdrawn by unanimous consent. .
. .
It may perhaps be implied from the Chair's remarks here and
throughout the debate that a proposed departure from statutory
provisions such as those in question is in any event permissible if no
point of order or objection is raised.
The proceedings relating to Senator Muskie's unanimous-consent
request were in part as follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 210, 211, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis [of Nebraska]: Is a unanimous-consent
request in order which, by its terms, is not in accord with a duly
enacted statute?
The President Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair will state
that unanimous-consent requests can also be received and
entertained here that are in conflict with the statutes. Sometimes
they are in conflict with the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard B. Russell (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have three sets of rules in the Senate. Some of them are
spelled out in the Constitution, others are spelled out in the
Senate rule book, and the great majority of them are embraced in
the precedents of the Senate.
For example, one of the constitutional rules had to do with
ascertaining the presence of a quorum. We see suggestions of the
absence of a quorum made several times during a day, and withdrawn
by unanimous consent. That can be done only by unanimous consent.
If the proposal of the Senator from Maine can be made only by
unanimous consent, any single Senator who thinks it is improper,
and that we should follow the statute in this particular case--has
a right to destroy it completely by uttering two words--``I
object,'' and the proposal will fall.
[[Page 1578]]
Mr. [Edward W.] Brooke [of Massachusetts]: Mr. President,
reserving the right to object, do I understand the only difference
between the unanimous-consent request and the statute to be that
the time would be controlled by the Chair and not by the majority
and minority leaders, under the statute?
Mr. Muskie: As the unanimous-consent request is worded, time
would be under the control of the majority and minority leaders.
Mr. Brooke: That is the only thing that was intended to be
achieved by the unanimous-consent agreement?
Mr. Muskie: Plus liberalizing the 5-minute requirement. The
statute requires that each Senator may speak for 5 minutes, and not
more than once. This was discussed quite extensively, and it was
felt that the ideal arrangement would be to have full and free
debate, with the time controlled and free exchange between
Senators. It was felt that this could be done, unless a Senator
objected; so we decided to make the effort. . . .
Mr. [Frank] Church [of Idaho]: Mr. President, I have no desire
to object, but I do not understand how this can be a proper
proceeding.
The President Pro Tempore: The Chair is not permitted to enter
any ruling that purports to pass upon the legality of a unanimous-
consent request, any more than is any other Member of this body.
Is there objection?
Mr. Brooke: Mr. President, it seems to me that the intent of
the statute is to give as many Senators as possible an opportunity
to be heard on this important issue. As I understand the
distinguished Senator from Maine, under the unanimous-consent
request, conceivably the distinguished Senator might use 1 hour of
the time, and one Senator from the minority side use 1 hour of the
time, which in my opinion would certainly frustrate the intent of
the statute. I feel so strongly about it, Mr. President, that as
much as I dislike to do so, I hereby object.
The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Massachusetts
objects. The Chair, having tolerated considerable discussion and
parliamentary inquiries, now asks of the Senate unanimous consent
that that time not be charged against the 2 hours. If there is no
objection, it will not be charged; and that leaves the matter open
for the Chair to recognize Senators who wish to speak on this
subject.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maine for 5 minutes.
Mr. Muskie: Mr. President, I anticipated that this might
result, and I fully understand the reservations expressed by
Senators. I have another unanimous-consent request to propose. I
ask unanimous consent that debate be limited to 2 hours, as
provided by statute, that the time be equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader, and that
the statutory limitation of 5 minutes per Senator be included, but
that the 5 minutes available to any Senator may be used to ask or
answer questions.
The purpose of this request, Mr. President, is to do two
things: First, to insure that both sides of the debate shall have
equal access to the attention of the Senate; second, that the use
of the 5 minutes shall not be so rigid that
[[Page 1579]]
there cannot be the kind of exchange that would permit the
answering of questions on the minds of Senators. The
Parliamentarian has advised me that, in his judgment, this is
consistent with the statute. It touches upon points not covered by
the statute, and it embraces the limitations of the statute. . . .
The President Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the unanimous-
consent request? The Chair hears none, and the request is agreed
to.
CHAPTER 10
Presidential Elections; Electoral College
Sec. 4. Presidential Nominations for Vice President
Transmittal Message
Sec. 4.1 When the President, pursuant to section 2 of the 25th
amendment to the Constitution, nominates a Vice President to take
office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses, a
message transmitting his nomination is laid before the House by the
Speaker.
On Oct. 13, 1973,(19)~ the Speaker (20) laid
before the House the following message from the President of the United
States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 34032, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For proceedings incident
to the Senate's receipt of a similar message see 119 Cong. Rec.
34111, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 13, 1973.
See 120 Cong. Rec. 29366, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 20,
1974, for similar proceedings relating to the nomination of
Nelson A. Rockefeller as Vice President.
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
To the Congress of the United States:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of the Twenty-fifth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, I hereby
nominate Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, to be the Vice President of
the United States.
Richard Nixon,
The White House,
October 13, 1973.
Referral to Committee
Sec. 4.2 The Speaker referred the President's nomination of a Vice
President to the Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction
over matters relating to Presidential succession.
On Oct. 13, 1973,(1) the Speaker (2) referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary a message from the
[[Page 1580]]
President of the United States nominating a Vice President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 34032, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See 119 Cong. Rec. 34111,
93d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 13, 1973, where, in the Senate, the
nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Similarly, on Aug. 20, 1974, the nomination by President
Gerald R. Ford of Nelson A. Rockefeller as Vice President was
referred in the House to the Committee on the Judiciary. See
120 Cong. Rec. 29366, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confirmation
Sec. 4.3 The House agreed to a resolution confirming a Presidential
nomination for Vice President of the United States and then
received a message from the Senate announcing that body's
confirmation of the nomination.
On Dec. 6, 1973,(3) pursuant to a special
order,(4) the House considered and agreed to a resolution
(H. Res. 735) reported from the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union confirming a Presidential nomination for Vice
President of the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 119 Cong. Rec. 39899, 39900, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
4. See 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 39812, 39813, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec.
6, 1973, for proceedings incident to the House's agreement to a
resolution, H. Res. 738, making in order consideration of the
confirmation resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the House of Representatives confirm the
nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to be Vice
President of the United States.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Thereupon, the House received a message from the Senate announcing
that body's confirmation (5) of the nomination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. For proceedings incident to the Senate's confirmation of the
nomination see 119 Cong. Rec. 38224, 38225, 93d Cong. 1st
Sess., Nov. 27, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on Dec. 19, 1974,(6) pursuant to a special
order, House Resolution 1519,(7) the House considered and
agreed to a resolution (H. Res. 1511) reported from the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union confirming a Presidential
nomination for Vice President of the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 120 Cong. Rec. 41516, 41517, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
7. See id. at pp. 41419-516, for text of H. Res. 1519 and debate on H.
Res. 1511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the House of Representatives confirm the
nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller, of the State of New York, to
be Vice President of the United States.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Thereupon, the House received a message from the Senate announcing
that body's confirmation (8) of the nomination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. For proceedings incident to the Senate's confirmation of the
nomination, see 120 Cong. Rec. 38918-36, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.,
Dec. 10, 1974.