[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 12. Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees]
[A. Introductory; Particular Kinds of Misconduct]
[§ 7. Misconduct in Elections or Campaigns]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 1707-1710]
CHAPTER 12
Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees
A. INTRODUCTORY; PARTICULAR KINDS OF MISCONDUCT
Sec. 7. Misconduct in Elections or Campaigns
Elections and election contests are treated comprehensively
elsewhere in this work.(8) However, it should be pointed out
here that disputes involving alleged misconduct of a Member may be
initiated in the House by the defeated candidate pursuant to the
Federal Contested Elections Act.(9) Such contests may also
be instituted by means of (a) a protest or memorial filed in the House
by an elector of the district involved, (b) a protest or memorial filed
by any other person, or (c) a motion made by a Member of the
House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Chs. 8, 9, supra.
9. 2 USC Sec. Sec. 318 et seq., Pub. L. No. 91-138, 83 Stat. 284
(1969). See also Chs. 8, 9, supra.
10. H. Rept. No. 91-569, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 14, 1969, ``Federal
Contested Elections Act,'' p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations in election contests pertaining to violations of
federal and state corrupt practices acts are considered by the
Committee on House Administration.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1973). Prior to the
adoption of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60
Stat. 812, ch. 455, contests were considered by several House
elections committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Powell v McCormack, 395 U.S.
486 (1969) in which the Court held that qualifications of a Member-
elect other than age, citizenship, and inhabitancy may not be judged by
the House in connection with the initial or final right to a seat of
such person, both Houses had adopted the premise that violation of a
Corrupt Practices Act, federal or state, constituted grounds for
exclusion of a Member-elect (see Frank L. Smith, of Illinois, ``Senate
Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases from 1793 to 1972,'' p. 133; Farr
v McLane, 6 Cannon's Precedents 75; Gill v Catlin, 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 79). Although such violations are not grounds for
disqualification, evidence thereof may still be given to appropriate
prosecuting attorneys for use in an investigation of fraud, misconduct,
or irregularities affecting election results.
[[Page 1708]]
Negligence in Preparing Financial Records
Sec. 7.1 An elections committee ruled that mere negligence in preparing
expenditure accounts to be filed with the Clerk should not, absent
fraud, deprive one of his seat in the House when he has received a
substantial majority of votes.
In a report on an election contest in the 78th Congress, the
Committee on Elections No. 3 ruled that the negligence of the
contestee, Howard J. McMurray, and his counsel, in preparing
expenditure accounts to be filed with the Clerk should not, absent
fraud, deprive the contestee of his seat in the House when he has
received a substantial majority of votes.(12) The contestant
had charged that the contestee had received contributions and made
expenditures in violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices
Act.(l3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 962, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1944. H. Rept. No.
1032 [H. Res. 426] (contested election case of Lewis D. Thill
against Howard J. McMurray, Fifth Congressional District of
Wisconsin).
13. H. Rept. No. 1032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statement filed by the contestee with the Clerk had been
prepared by an attorney and the figures contained therein reflected
contributions and expenditures by two independent campaign committees
for the contestee. The committees were not required to file the
accounts under the federal act, and the funds handled by them
unbeknownst to the contestee were not subject to expenditure
limitations in the federal act. The contestee actually should have
filed a federal statement showing no receipts or
disbursements.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report stated, ``There is no evidence to show that any effort
was made to conceal any receipts or expenditures'' made on behalf of
the candidacy of Mr. McMurray. ``Under these circumstances,'' the
report continued, ``. . . contestee should not be denied his seat in
the House of Representatives on account of this error made in the
statement filed by [contestee] with the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.'' The committee, ``. . . did not find any evidence of
fraud.'' (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A resolution dismissing the contest was agreed to by the
House.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 933, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1944 [H. Res.
426].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unauthorized Distribution of Campaign Literature
Sec. 7.2 A pre-election irregularity such as unauthorized
[[Page 1709]]
distribution of campaign literature will not be attributed to a
particular candidate where he did not participate therein.
In House Report No. 1172, on the right of Dale Alford, of Arkansas,
to a seat in the 86th Congress, the Committee on House Administration
determined that a pre-election irregularity such as unauthorized
distribution of campaign literature should not be attributed to a
particular candidate Where he did not participate therein. The
committee report stated: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Rept. No. 1172, p. 19, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsigned Circular
The subcommittee conducted an intensive investigation of the
unsigned pre-election circular used in the campaign. This circular
was used in violation of both Arkansas and Federal law. The person
responsible for this circular admitted that he used it without the
knowledge of either the write-in candidate or his campaign manager.
This person was interrogated by the Federal grand jury then sitting
at Little Rock and no indictment was brought in.
The distribution of unsigned campaign material is strongly
condemned, but there is no evidence showing that the write-in
candidate was even aware of the existence of such material. This is
one of the several instances wherein the write-in candidate is
sought to be held responsible for an irregularity which occurred,
but over which he had no control and in which he did not
participate. The investigation revealed many irregularities which
could erroneously be attributed to either candidate, but the mere
existence of an irregularity in any campaign should not be
attributed to a particular candidate where he did not participate
therein. The subcommittee felt this to be a sound and equitable
rule, and it was followed throughout the investigation with respect
to both candidates.
A resolution holding that Mr. Alford was duly elected was agreed to
by the House on Sept. 8, 1959.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 18610, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. [H. Res. 380].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation of Corrupt Practices Act
Sec. 7.3 An elections committee ruled that contestant had not
established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that contestee
had violated the California Corrupt Practices Act or the Federal
Corrupt Practices Act.
In a report in the 76th Congress, the Committee on Elections No. 2,
with reference to a contest for a seat from California,(19)
stat
[[Page 1710]]
ed that the pleadings presented several main issues, namely:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Rept. No. 1783, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 14, 1940, on the
contested election case of Byron N. Scott, contestant, versus
Thomas M. Eaton, contestee, from the 18th District of
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the Contestee [Thomas M. Eaton] violate the Corrupt
Practices Act of the State of California?
Did the Contestee violate the Federal Corrupt Practices Act?
Did the violation of either or both acts directly or indirectly
deprive the contestant from receiving a majority of the votes cast
at [the] election? (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Rept. No. 1783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee summarily ruled that the contestant had failed to
meet the burden of proof and to establish by a fair preponderance of
the evidence the issues raised.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A resolution declaring that the contestee was elected was reported
to the House but was not acted upon.(2) Mr. Eaton had been
sworn in at the convening of the Congress.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 86 Cong. Rec. 2885, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 14, 1940.
3. 84 Cong. Rec. 12, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.4 An elections committee admonished a contestee who signed under
oath an expenditure statement to be filed with the Clerk when the
contestee did not know its contents or the irregularities therein.
In the 78th Congress, the Committee on Elections No. 3 in a report
admonished a contestee who signed under oath an expenditure statement
to be filed with the Clerk of the House when he was not familiar with
its contents or the irregularities therein.(4) Said the
committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 90 Cong. Rec. 962, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1944. H. Rept. No.
1032 [H. Res. 426]; (contested election case of Lewis D. Thill
against Howard J. McMurray, Fifth Congressional District of
Wisconsin). See also Sec. 7.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither does it (Committee on Elections No. 3) attempt to
condone the action of the contestee, Mr. McMurray, in signing under
oath the statement filed with the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, without being familiar with the contents of the
statement or the irregularities which it contained.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. H. Rept. No. 1032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------