Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

claim to a House seat in the notice of contest. The contestant must offer substantiating evidence of his or her right to the House seat since the contestant is limited to claiming the seat in question and then substantiating such claim by sufficient proof. Without such proof the House generally would not declare the seat vacant and have a new or special election to fill the vacancy.68

The motion to dismiss by the contestee may be based on the following defense: At the option of contestee, the following defenses may be made by motion served upon contestant prior to contestee's answer:

1. Insufficiency of service of notice of contest.

2. Lack of standing of contestant.

3. Failure of notice of contest to state grounds sufficient to change result of election.

4. Failure of contestant to claim right to contestee's seat.69

Should a contestant fail to take testimony within the required time limits in contested election cases, the Committee may dismiss the case upon motion by the contestee.70

XII. DISPOSITION OF HOUSE CONTESTED ELECTION CASES

If a contested election case is not resolved by motion, such as a motion to dismiss by contestee, or by other prior committee proceedings, it is generally disposed of pursuant to a House resolution following consideration and debate on the House floor. A resolution disposing of a contested election case is privileged and can be called up at any time for consideration by the House.72 The resolution along with the Committee report on a House contested election case may be called up as privileged and be agreed to by voice vote and without debate.73

In certain situations the parties to an election contest are allowed to be present during the debate although the parties generally would not participate in the debate.74 In a situation where the contestee is a Member, he or she may be permited to participate in the debate on the House resolution disposing of the election contest case.

75

The adoption by the House, after floor consideration and debate, of a resolution disposing of the election contest case whether by declaring that one of the parties is entitled to a seat in the House or by declaring a vacancy with appropriate notice to the governor of the state essentially ends the contested election case. The prevailing party, if there be one, after the debate and vote on the House resolution, could take the appropriate oath of office and be seated in the House.76 THOMAS M. DURBIN,

Legislative Attorney, American Law Division.
December 20, 1984.

68 Deschler's Precedents, supra, Tunno v. Veysey, ch. 9, § 64.1, pp. 637-638, Gormley v. Goss, § 47.9, pp. 487-488.

69 2 U.S.C. § 383(b).

70 Odegard v. Olson, Deschler's Precedents, supra, ch. 9, § 60.1, pp. 606-609. See also Deschler and Brown, Procedure, Appendix B infra.

71 Deschler's Precedents, supra, ch. 9, § 42, pp. 444-450. And see L. Deschler and W. Brown, Procedure In The U.S. House of Representatives, ch. 9, §§ 3 and 4 in Appendix B. infra.

72 L. Deschler and W. Brown, Procedure, supra, at § 4.1, p. 76.

73 Deschler's Precedents, supra, ch. 9, § 42.5, p. 445.

74 Id., § 42.6 at p. 446. Parties were permitted to insert remarks in the Congressional Record supporting their positions. 111 Cong. Rec. 24285, 24286, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (Sept. 17, 1965). 75 Id., § 42.7 at p. 446.

76 Kunz v. Granata, Deschler's Precedents, supra, ch. 9, § 42.7 at p. 446.

INVALIDATION OF ELECTIONS BY THE STATES

Executive Summary

The first part of the report is the introduction which notes that generally state court decisions have held that irregularities and errors in elections will not necessarily vitiate and invalidate elections when they have not affected the results of such elections. Moreover, as a general, rule state courts strive to sustain elections if it is at all possible to clearly ascertain the actual results of the elections.

The second part analyzes various state court decisions which have held that if there has been substantial compliance with the statutory provisions of the state election codes, the state courts will sustain elections despite irregularities and errors which do not affect the outcomes of such elections. In the absence of fraud, coercion, and illegal voting, an election which has been conducted fairly and honestly and in substantial compliance with state election laws should not be invalidated for irregularities and errors.

The third part concerns those elections in which substantial irregularities and fraud have caused elections to be invalidated. This part notes that a number of state court decisions have held that if there are such irregularities and errors in an election so that it cannot be determined who won the election, then the election should be set aside. Various state court decisions which have invalidated elections are analyzed.

Part four concerns the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and the invalidation of elections. Two federal court decisions are analyzed which invalidated elections because of discrimination against blacks. One case was the 1968 federal court decision in Louisiana, Brown v. Post (279 F. Supp. 60 (W.D. La., 1968), which involved a local school board election. The Court invalidated the election because clerks and deputy clerks discriminated against black voters in the election in certain ways such as allowing some white voters to vote absentee without extending the same opportunity to black voters. In the other federal court decision, Bell v. Southwell, (376 F. 2d 659 (C.A.5, 1967)), a local Georgia election was set aside due to certain discriminatory practices in the conduct of the election such as the use of segregated voting booths.

Part five is the conclusion which notes that the invalidation of elections by the states is more the exception than it is the norm. It is noted that mere irregularities and errors in elections in the absence of fraud should not invalidate such elections if the result can otherwise be ascertained. The conclusion also notes that the House of Representatives in its consideration and investigation of House contested election cases likewise has been hesitant to invalidate elections but has preferred rather to measure the wrong and correct the returns when this has been possible.

INVALIDATION OF ELECTIONS BY THE STATES

I. Introduction

Generally state court decisions have held that irregularities and errors in elections will not necessarily vitiate and invalidate elections

when they have not affected such elections or changed their results or 1/

brought them into doubt. Moreover, state courts have attempted to sustain elections if the actual results can be clearly ascertained.

But

states have invalidated elections for such reasons as: (1) the election was unauthorized or illegal; (2) the election was conducted with an absolute and complete disregard of the laws; and (3) the election was tainted with such irregularities and fraud as to render the results of the election 2/

uncertain.

II. Substantial Compliance with Statutory Requirements of Election Laws

In a 1951 decision by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, it was held that when elections are lawfully and fairly held and are free from fraud or in3/

proper conduct, the courts must sustain them. Moreover, it was held that the courts should sustain elections when it can be done by a liberal construction of the election laws rather than to invalidate them by requiring 4/ a rigid conformity to the election statutes.

A 1974 decision by the California Court of Appeals, Third District, asserted that, in order to support an annulment of an election in an election contest case, the evidence in the contested election case must be

1/ 29 Corpus Juris Secundum, Elections, § 214(1) pp. 599-600.

2/ Id., 602-605.

3/ Gardner v. Scott, 237 P. 2d 863, 866 (Sup. Ct. Okla., 1951).
4/ Ibid.

CRS-2

5/

clear and convincing. The California Court of Appeals found that the

evidence presented by the contestant showed speculation and conjecture

6/

and was not substantial.

A 1975 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, held that an election irregularity, which was due to the fact that the voter registration deputy in a township who also acted as an election judge was a brother of the contestee, was not fatal to the election since there was evidence 7/ that such irregularity did not affect the outcome of the election. The Minnesota statute essentially prohibited persons acting as election judges who were close relatives to a candidate. The Court found that the violation of the election law was trivial and in no manner affected the result of the election and that the irregularities in the election were not so numerous and substantial as to cast doubt on the integrity of the vote.

8/

9/

Generally, when there has been substantial compliance with the state election laws, the election should be upheld, and mere irregularities or negligence on the part of election officials should not cause an election to be voided. In the absence of fraud, coercion, and illegal voting, an election which has been conducted fairly and honestly and in substantial compliance with state election laws, should not be invalidated for

5/ Willburn v. Wixson, 37 Cal. App. 2d 730, 737 (Cal. Ct. of App. 3d dist. 1974); 112 Cal. Rptr. 620, 625.

6/ Ibid.

7/ Hahn v. Graham, 225 N.W. 2d 385, 386 (Sup. Ct. Minn., 1975).

8/ Minn. State Anno. § 203.22, subd. 2.

9/ Hahn v. Graham, 225 N.W. 2d at 387. Cf., In Re Contest of Election of Vetsch, 245 Minn. 229, 71 N.W. 2d 652 (1955).

CRS-3

10/

irregularities and errors. When mistakes and irregularities occur in

an election, a distinction may be made between those made by the voter and those made by election officials. When such mistakes and irregularities are due to the conduct of voters, often ballots are invalidated;

while those of election officers generally do not vitiate an election if 11/ a fair election has otherwise been held.

III.

Substantial Irregularities, Fraud and the Invalidation of Elections Generally, elections are not voided unless they are clearly illegal, and the state courts generally strive to validate elections whenever possi12/ ble. For example, In a 1964 California Court of Appeals decision, it was noted that the California courts have been liberal in the application of

the principle that it is the duty of the courts to validate an election 13/

whenever possible.

10/ 29 Corpus Juris Secundum, Elections § 214(1), pp. 598-602

11/ See generally, Miller v. Burley, 187 S.E. 2d 803, 809 (Sup. Ct. of App. W. Va. 1972) which held that the failure of the County Court to give a specified notice of an election to fill a local office and to provide for a write-in vote did not invalidate the election.

12/ 29 Corpus Juris Secundum, Election, $ 214(1) at p. 603.

13/ Menlo Park City School District v. Tormey, 32 Cal. Rpt. 82-86 (Dist. Ct. of App., First District, 1953). The cases cited supporting such principle were as follows: (1) In People ex rel. Harris v. Brenham, 3 Cal. 477 (1851); (2) People ex rel. Lee v. Prewett, 124 Cal. 7, 56 P. 619 (1899); (3) Sanchez v. Fordyce, 141 Cal. 427, 75 P. 56 (1903); (4) In Rideout v. City of Los Angeles, 185 Cal. 426, 197 P. 74 (1921); (5) In re East Bay, Water Bonds of, 196 Cal. 725, 239 P. 38 (1925); (6) In County of Sonoma v. Sanborn, 1 Cal. App. 2d 26, 36 P. 2d 419 (1934); (7) County of Sacramento v. Stephens, 11 Cal. App. 2d 110, 53 P. 2d 197 (1936); (8) In Ivanhoe Irr. Dist. v. All parties, 53 Cal. 2d 692, 3 Cal. Rptr. 317, 350 P. 2d 69 (1960); and (9) Veterans Finance Com. of 1943 v. Betts, 55 Cal. 2d 397, 11 Cal. Rptr. 103, 359 P. 2d 471 (1961).

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »