[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 12. Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees]
[A. Introductory; Particular Kinds of Misconduct]
[Â§ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------