Partisanship and contested election cases in the house of representatives, 1789-2002

Studies in American Political Development

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 112-135

  Jenkins, Jeffery A ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 12344259654     PISSN: 0898588X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0898588x04000070     Document Type: Review

References (140)

1. Various attempts have been made over time to appeal (and modify) this congressional right, without success. On the last occasion, in the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case of Roudebush v. Hartke, involving a Senate election contest, the Court ruled that each chamber of Congress, per the guidelines of the Constitution, retains the unconditional and final judgment in contested election cases.
2. The term "contested election" is not to be confused with the term "contested race," which denotes that more than one major candidate is seeking a congressional seat.
3. John T. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members" (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1956), 12-20, 25-28.
4. Henry L. Dawes, "The Mode of Procedure in Cases of Contested Elections," Journal of Social Science 2 (1870): 56-68; C. H. Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections," Political Science Quarterly 20 (1905): 421-42; De Alva Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), 313-30; Vincent M. Barnett, Jr., "Contested Elections in Recent Years," Political Science Quarterly 54 (1939): 187-215.
5. Henry L. Dawes, "The Mode of Procedure in Cases of Contested Elections," Journal of Social Science 2 (1870): 56-68; C. H. Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections," Political Science Quarterly 20 (1905): 421-42; De Alva Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), 313-30; Vincent M. Barnett, Jr., "Contested Elections in Recent Years," Political Science Quarterly 54 (1939): 187-215.
6. Henry L. Dawes, "The Mode of Procedure in Cases of Contested Elections," Journal of Social Science 2 (1870): 56-68; C. H. Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections," Political Science Quarterly 20 (1905): 421-42; De Alva Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), 313-30; Vincent M. Barnett, Jr., "Contested Elections in Recent Years," Political Science Quarterly 54 (1939): 187-215.
7. Henry L. Dawes, "The Mode of Procedure in Cases of Contested Elections," Journal of Social Science 2 (1870): 56-68; C. H. Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections," Political Science Quarterly 20 (1905): 421-42; De Alva Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), 313-30; Vincent M. Barnett, Jr., "Contested Elections in Recent Years," Political Science Quarterly 54 (1939): 187-215.
8. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
9. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
10. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
11. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
12. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
13. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
14. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
15. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
16. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
17. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," is an unpublished dissertation that provides excellent historical background and a rich source of data on contested elections. George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives (New York: Crowell, 1968) and Kenneth A. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (New York: Macmillan, 1989) provide very useful overviews of contested elections, but their accounts are largely derivative. Terry L. Seip, The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 106-8; Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880-1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 84-88; Richard Franklin Bensel, "The American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place in the Mid-Nineteenth Century," Studies in American Political Development 17 (2003): 1 -27; Richard Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement," in Classifying By Race, ed. Paul Peterson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Richard Franklin Bensel, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) offer fresh connections between contested elections and larger institutional/ electoral forces, but their coverage is limited. Matthew N. Green, "Disputing the Vote: Explaining the Decline of Contested Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives" (Working Paper, Yale University, 2003) offers a lengthier examination of contested election cases, focusing on the determinants of their decline over time. Finally, Nelson W. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review 62 (1968): 144-68 examines contested election cases as one element in a larger House-institutionalization thesis and stands as the most influential published analysis to date.
18. Dawes, "The Mode of Procedure in Cases of Contested Elections," 64. These comments were first presented in a paper read at the general meeting of the Social Science Association, held in New York City, on Oct. 26, 1869.
19. Thomas B. Reed, "Contested Elections," North American Review 151 (1890): 112-20. To strengthen his point about the role of partisanship, Reed stated: "Probably there is not a single instance on record where the minority was increased by the decision of contested cases" 114. This was not true. In fact, prior to Reed's statement, sitting majority party members had been unseated by minority party claimants on ten separate occasions: once each in 1794, 1821, 1822, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1881, 1883, and 1885.
20. Thomas B. Reed, "Contested Elections," North American Review 151 (1890): 112-20. To strengthen his point about the role of partisanship, Reed stated: "Probably there is not a single instance on record where the minority was increased by the decision of contested cases" 114. This was not true. In fact, prior to Reed's statement, sitting majority party members had been unseated by minority party claimants on ten separate occasions: once each in 1794, 1821, 1822, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1881, 1883, and 1885.
21. See Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives; Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members."
22. See Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives; Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members."
23. See Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections"; Barnett, "Contested Elections in Recent Years."
24. See Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections"; Barnett, "Contested Elections in Recent Years."
25. Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections."
26. Matthew St. Clair Clarke and David A. Hall, Cases of Contested Elections in Congress, From the Year 1789 to 1834, Inclusive (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834).
27. Dawes, "The Mode of Procedure in Cases of Contested Elections."
28. U.S. Statutes at Large, vol. 1, chap. 8, 537-39. Enacted on Jan. 23, 1798.
29. U.S. Statutes at Large, vol. 2, chap. 28, 39. Enacted on Apr. 22, 1800.
30. Clarke and Hall, Cases of Contested Elections in Congress, 14-16.
31. For a more detailed account of the various formal modes of procedure proposed and discussed in the House prior to 1851, see Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," 45-55.
32. Dawes, "The Mode of Procedure in Cases of Contested Elections," 61. In addition, committee decisions were typically made with little regard to precedent. This was because committee members were often not aware of prior precedents, as the first digest of contested election cases (Clarke and Hall's) was not published until 1834. See Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections."
33. Dawes, "The Mode of Procedure in Cases of Contested Elections," 61. In addition, committee decisions were typically made with little regard to precedent. This was because committee members were often not aware of prior precedents, as the first digest of contested election cases (Clarke and Hall's) was not published until 1834. See Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections."
34. Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," 53.
35. U.S. Statutes at Large, vol. 9, chap. 11, 568-70. Enacted on Feb. 19, 1851.
36. Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections."
37. Two minor changes would be made in subsequent years. First, in 1873, the length of time specified for taking testimony was extended from sixty days to ninety days. See U.S. Statutes at Large, vol. 17, chap. 24, 408-9. Second, in 1887, the House Clerk would be required to print and submit evidence pertaining to contested election cases to the Committee on Elections before the commencement of a given Congress. See
38. U.S. Statutes at Large, vol. 24, chap. 318, 445.
39. For a more detailed discussion, see Rammelkamp, "Contested Congressional Elections."
40. The full set of procedures can be found in 2 U.S. Code, chap. 7, sect. 201-26.
41. The FCEA was enacted on Dec. 5, 1969, and codified as 2 U.S. Code, chap. 12, sect. 381-96.
42. For a detailed description of the procedures underlying FCEA, see Thomas M. Durbin and L. Paige Whitaker, "Procedure for House-Contested Election Cases," Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1995, no. 95-61 A.
43. Angie Welborn, "House Contested Election Cases: 1933 to 2000," Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2000, no. 98-194 A.
44. These other committees included Accounts, Enrolled Bills, the Library, Memorials, Disposition of Executive Papers, and Printing.
45. The Committee on House Administration underwent a brief name change during the 104th and 105th Congresses, when it became known as the Committee on House Oversight. However, contested election cases still fell within its jurisdictional boundaries, and the committee reverted back to House Administration in the 106th Congress.
46. Sources used to code contested election cases include Chester H. Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the First to the Fifty-Sixth Congress, 1789-1901. House Document 510, 56th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), which covers the 1st through 56th Congresses; Merrill Moores, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the Fifty-Seventh to and Including the Sixty-fourth Congress, 1901-1917. House Document 2052, 64th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917), which covers the 57th through 64th Congresses; Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," which covers the 1st through 82nd Congresses; Lewis Deschler, Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), which covers the 65th through 92nd Congresses; and Welborn, "House Contested Election Cases," which covers the 73rd though 106th Congresses. Some coding discrepancies exist between the various works. For example, in identifying contested election cases, Dempsey differs from Rowell on five occasions, Moores on one occasion, and Deschler or ten occasions. To determine which coding scheme to use, I examined the debates in Congress, using the Annals of Congress, the Register of Debates, the Congressional Globe, and the Congressional Record, as guiding materials.
47. Sources used to code contested election cases include Chester H. Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the First to the Fifty-Sixth Congress, 1789-1901. House Document 510, 56th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), which covers the 1st through 56th Congresses; Merrill Moores, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the Fifty-Seventh to and Including the Sixty-fourth Congress, 1901-1917. House Document 2052, 64th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917), which covers the 57th through 64th Congresses; Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," which covers the 1st through 82nd Congresses; Lewis Deschler, Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), which covers the 65th through 92nd Congresses; and Welborn, "House Contested Election Cases," which covers the 73rd though 106th Congresses. Some coding discrepancies exist between the various works. For example, in identifying contested election cases, Dempsey differs from Rowell on five occasions, Moores on one occasion, and Deschler or ten occasions. To determine which coding scheme to use, I examined the debates in Congress, using the Annals of Congress, the Register of Debates, the Congressional Globe, and the Congressional Record, as guiding materials.
48. Sources used to code contested election cases include Chester H. Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the First to the Fifty-Sixth Congress, 1789-1901. House Document 510, 56th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), which covers the 1st through 56th Congresses; Merrill Moores, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the Fifty-Seventh to and Including the Sixty-fourth Congress, 1901-1917. House Document 2052, 64th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917), which covers the 57th through 64th Congresses; Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," which covers the 1st through 82nd Congresses; Lewis Deschler, Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), which covers the 65th through 92nd Congresses; and Welborn, "House Contested Election Cases," which covers the 73rd though 106th Congresses. Some coding discrepancies exist between the various works. For example, in identifying contested election cases, Dempsey differs from Rowell on five occasions, Moores on one occasion, and Deschler or ten occasions. To determine which coding scheme to use, I examined the debates in Congress, using the Annals of Congress, the Register of Debates, the Congressional Globe, and the Congressional Record, as guiding materials.
49. Sources used to code contested election cases include Chester H. Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the First to the Fifty-Sixth Congress, 1789-1901. House Document 510, 56th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), which covers the 1st through 56th Congresses; Merrill Moores, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the Fifty-Seventh to and Including the Sixty-fourth Congress, 1901-1917. House Document 2052, 64th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917), which covers the 57th through 64th Congresses; Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," which covers the 1st through 82nd Congresses; Lewis Deschler, Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), which covers the 65th through 92nd Congresses; and Welborn, "House Contested Election Cases," which covers the 73rd though 106th Congresses. Some coding discrepancies exist between the various works. For example, in identifying contested election cases, Dempsey differs from Rowell on five occasions, Moores on one occasion, and Deschler or ten occasions. To determine which coding scheme to use, I examined the debates in Congress, using the Annals of Congress, the Register of Debates, the Congressional Globe, and the Congressional Record, as guiding materials.
50. Sources used to code contested election cases include Chester H. Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the First to the Fifty-Sixth Congress, 1789-1901. House Document 510, 56th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), which covers the 1st through 56th Congresses; Merrill Moores, A Historical and Legal Digest of All the Contested Election Cases in the House of Representatives from the Fifty-Seventh to and Including the Sixty-fourth Congress, 1901-1917. House Document 2052, 64th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1917), which covers the 57th through 64th Congresses; Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," which covers the 1st through 82nd Congresses; Lewis Deschler, Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), which covers the 65th through 92nd Congresses; and Welborn, "House Contested Election Cases," which covers the 73rd though 106th Congresses. Some coding discrepancies exist between the various works. For example, in identifying contested election cases, Dempsey differs from Rowell on five occasions, Moores on one occasion, and Deschler or ten occasions. To determine which coding scheme to use, I examined the debates in Congress, using the Annals of Congress, the Register of Debates, the Congressional Globe, and the Congressional Record, as guiding materials.
51. For simplicity, I have included cases that involved territories in the relevant state categories. Some territories do not map directly into states, such as Guam, the Dakota Territory, the Northwest Territory, and the Southwest Territory; thus, these cases do not appear in any columns.
52. This can sometimes be difficult to determine, based on a reading of the case reports. As Dempsey states: "No two writers would agree on any classification system applied." Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," 56. To underscore this notion, my own coding for several cases differs from Dempsey's.
53. This can sometimes be difficult to determine, based on a reading of the case reports. As Dempsey states: "No two writers would agree on any classification system applied." Dempsey, "Control by Congress over the Seating and Disciplining of Members," 56. To underscore this notion, my own coding for several cases differs from Dempsey's.
54. The specific claim was that hundreds of ballots were cast by "aliens," that is, foreign-born individuals who had never been naturalized. See Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest, 112.
55. Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest, 109-10; Major L. Wilson, The Presidency of Martin Van Buren (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984), 139.
56. Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest, 109-10; Major L. Wilson, The Presidency of Martin Van Buren (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984), 139.
57. The House Clerk, Hugh Garland, refused to read the names of the five Whig members in his call of the roll, which effectively forced the House to decide on the conflicting claims to the New Jersey seats. By not acknowledging the five Whigs, however, Garland swung the control of the House organization to the Democrats. Many held that this was a partisan decision, as Garland had been elected Clerk in the previous House by netting the Democratic vote. Moreover, once the 26th Congress was organized, Garland was once again elected House Clerk, thanks to the votes of a majority of Democrats. See Alexander, "History and Procedure of the House of Representatives," 14-18; Jeffery A. Jenkins and Charles Stewart III, "More than Just a Mouthpiece: The House Clerk as Party Operative, 1789-1870," paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2-5, 2004.
58. The House Clerk, Hugh Garland, refused to read the names of the five Whig members in his call of the roll, which effectively forced the House to decide on the conflicting claims to the New Jersey seats. By not acknowledging the five Whigs, however, Garland swung the control of the House organization to the Democrats. Many held that this was a partisan decision, as Garland had been elected Clerk in the previous House by netting the Democratic vote. Moreover, once the 26th Congress was organized, Garland was once again elected House Clerk, thanks to the votes of a majority of Democrats. See Alexander, "History and Procedure of the House of Representatives," 14-18; Jeffery A. Jenkins and Charles Stewart III, "More than Just a Mouthpiece: The House Clerk as Party Operative, 1789-1870," paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2-5, 2004.
59. Was there an agreement between the Whig Hunter and the Democrats regarding the partisan composition of the Committee on Elections (and the standing committees generally), prior to the speakership vote? No "smoking gun" has been uncovered, but an examination of standing committee rosters suggests that a majority of committees were controlled by Democrats. See Charles Stewart III, David T. Canon, and Garrison Nelson, Committees in the U.S. Congress, 1789-1946, Volume 1: House Standing Committees (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2002).
60. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 95.
61. Rowell, A Historical and Legal Digest, 109.
62. Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives, 162-64.
63. The minority party (Democrats) once used the disappearing quorum successfully to derail a contested election case, Lee v. Richardson (South Carolina, First District), in the 47th Congress (1881-1883).
64. H. Wayne Morgan, From Hayes to McKinley: National Party Politics, 1877-1896 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1969); R. Hal Williams, Years of Decision: American Politics in the 1890s (New York: Wiley, 1978);
65. H. Wayne Morgan, From Hayes to McKinley: National Party Politics, 1877-1896 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1969); R. Hal Williams, Years of Decision: American Politics in the 1890s (New York: Wiley, 1978);
66. Eric Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 35-36.
67. Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, 39.
68. Regarding the resolution of the Smith v. Jackson case, the House unseated the Democrat Jackson in favor of the Republican Smith.
69. For an extensive discussion of the Reed Rules, see Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives, 164-79, 205-12; Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism.
70. For an extensive discussion of the Reed Rules, see Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives, 164-79, 205-12; Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism.
71. In fact, the initial distribution was 218 Republican, 216 Democrats, and one Farmer-Labor. However, Republican Harry M. Wurzback (Texas, 14th District) had died before the 72nd Congress convened. He was replaced in a special election, held less than three weeks later, by Democrat Richard M. Kleberg.
72. Deschler, Deschler's Precedents, 463-64. This latter charge was in keeping with the general reputation of corrupt politics in the Eighth District of Illinois, a gangster-controlled section of Chicago.
73. Barnett, "Contested Elections in Recent Years," 203-4.
74. The last successful election contest was in the 99th Congress (1985-87), in the McCloskey v. McIntyre (Indiana, Eighth District) case, when Republican Richard D. McIntyre, who held the election certificate, was replaced by Democrat Frank X. McCloskey. A ballot recount showed McCloskey as the victor, a decision upheld by the House.
75. Party affiliation data for contestees and contestants was obtained from Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, and Michael J. Dubin, United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997 (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1997).
76. Party affiliation data for contestees and contestants was obtained from Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, and Michael J. Dubin, United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997 (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1997).
77. Cases involving territorial delegates are dropped, due to difficulties in determining the partisanship of the claimants. In addition, qualification cases (in which no there was no contestant in the case) and cases in which both the contestee and contestant are members of the majority party are dropped.
78. Gary W. Cox, "Agenda Setting in the U.S. House: A Majority-Party Monopoly," Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (2001): 185-210; Gary W. Cox and Mathew D. McCubbins, "Agenda Power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1877-1986," Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress, ed. David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002).
79. Gary W. Cox, "Agenda Setting in the U.S. House: A Majority-Party Monopoly," Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (2001): 185-210; Gary W. Cox and Mathew D. McCubbins, "Agenda Power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1877-1986," Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress, ed. David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002).
80. If the sample is restricted to the fifty-five Congresses examined by Cox and McCubbins - the 44th through 99th Congresses - then the roll rate drops to 4.5 percent.
81. Interestingly, a unanimous committee recommendation has been rolled on four occasions. In only one of those cases was the committee recommendation inconsistent with the interests of the majority party.
82. In my view, it would be a mistake to argue that the reduction in roll-call votes is also an indication that the contested election process has become less partisan over time. The Kunz v. Granata case, for example, was highly partisan but was eventually resolved by voice vote. The move to more programmatic disposition of contested election cases could simply be a function of the changing costs and benefits attributed to election contests by partisan decision makers in the twentieth century. While these issues will be discussed to some degree in Section IV, they deserve additional investigation in the future.
83. For a fuller discussion of these ideological scores, dubbed NOMINATE scores, see Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). In effect, these scores represent placements on "dimensions" that are recovered from a multidimensional unfolding technique applied to the matrix of roll-call votes in a given Congress. Over time, the first NOMINATE dimension generally taps economic cleavages across parties, while the second NOMINATE dimension typically taps cleavages within parties, such as sectional or geographic differences.
84. This naïve model characterization is a typical benchmark used in the congressional voting literature. See Herbert F. Weisberg, "Evaluating Theories of Congressional Roll-Call Voting," American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978): 554-77; Poole and Rosenthal, Congress, 29-30.
85. This naïve model characterization is a typical benchmark used in the congressional voting literature. See Herbert F. Weisberg, "Evaluating Theories of Congressional Roll-Call Voting," American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978): 554-77; Poole and Rosenthal, Congress, 29-30.
86. Polsby, "The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives."
87. Ibid., 163.
88. I b i d.
89. These additional five seats constituted the difference between a Republican plurality and majority - without the five seats, the Republicans would have only controlled 146 of the 293 House seats, one seat short of a majority.
90. All of these gains came at the expense of the Democratic Party. Moreover, one additional Democrat was unseated in favor of a Labor Party contestant in the 51st Congress, and two additional Democrats were unseated in favor of Populist Party contestants in the 54th Congress.
91. Erik J. Engstrom, "Stacking the States, Stacking the House: The Partisan Consequences of Congressional Redistricting in the Nineteenth Century," paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 3-6, 2003. According to Engstrom, at least one state pursued a redistricting in every year between 1872 and 1896.
92. Charles Stewart III and Barry R. Weingast, "Stacking the Senate, Changing the Nation: Republican Rotten Boroughs, Statehood Politics, and American Political Development," Studies in American Political Development 6 (1992): 223-71. According to Stewart and Weingast, this was a strategy concocted by the Republicans to "stack" the Senate and control the presidency. It also had a marginal benefit for Republicans' efforts to control the House.
93. Scott C. James and Brian L. Lawson, "The Political Economy of Voting Rights Enforcement in America's Gilded Age: Electoral College Competition, Partisan Commitment, and the Federal Election Law," American Political Science Review 93 (1999): 115-31.
94. Charles Stewart III, "Lessons from the Post-Civil War Era," in The Politics of Divided Government, ed. Gary W. Cox and Samuel Kernell (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991).
95. Vincent P. De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question: The New Departure Years, 1877-1897 (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), 12; Vallelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement."
96. Vincent P. De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question: The New Departure Years, 1877-1897 (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), 12; Vallelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement."
97. In addition, the Republican pursuit of election contests in the South would be used as electoral fodder in the North, as coverage of southern fraud and corruption would put northern Democratic candidates on the defensive. See Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 87.
98. Allen W. Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction (New York: Harper & Row, 1971); Michael Perman, The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869-1879 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
99. Allen W. Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction (New York: Harper & Row, 1971); Michael Perman, The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869-1879 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
100. The Enforcement Acts were a series of five laws passed between May 1870 and June 1872 that were intended to protect and insure the voting rights of African Americans in the South. William Gillette, Retreat from Reconstruction, 1869-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1979), 25-27; Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 454-59, 528-31.
101. The Enforcement Acts were a series of five laws passed between May 1870 and June 1872 that were intended to protect and insure the voting rights of African Americans in the South. William Gillette, Retreat from Reconstruction, 1869-1879 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1979), 25-27; Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 454-59, 528-31.
102. For a discussion of military withdrawal, corruption, and southern elections in the late 1870s, see Richard Franklin Bensel, Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-1877 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 366-415.
103. C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (Ilaton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), 27-29; Stanley P. Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt: Northern Republicans & the Southern Negro, 1877-1893 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 25-26; C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1966), 22-50; Ari Hoogenboom, The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988), 51-78.
104. C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (Ilaton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), 27-29; Stanley P. Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt: Northern Republicans & the Southern Negro, 1877-1893 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 25-26; C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1966), 22-50; Ari Hoogenboom, The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988), 51-78.
105. C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (Ilaton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), 27-29; Stanley P. Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt: Northern Republicans & the Southern Negro, 1877-1893 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 25-26; C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1966), 22-50; Ari Hoogenboom, The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988), 51-78.
106. C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (Ilaton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), 27-29; Stanley P. Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt: Northern Republicans & the Southern Negro, 1877-1893 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 25-26; C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1966), 22-50; Ari Hoogenboom, The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988), 51-78.
107. Vincent P. De Santis, "President Hayes's Southern Policy, The Journal of Southern History 21 (1955): 476-94; De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 99-103;
108. Vincent P. De Santis, "President Hayes's Southern Policy, The Journal of Southern History 21 (1955): 476-94; De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 99-103;
109. Mark Wahlgren Summers, Rum, Romanism, & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 30-39, 45-46.
110. One Iowa Republican would be unseated in favor of a Democrat, producing a net gain of five seats for the Republicans.
111. Accompanying this Republican spurt was an effort by Republican President Chester Arthur to reach out to Independents in the South, principally members of the Readjuster Party in Virginia, for additional support. Vincent P. De Santis, "President Arthur and the Independent Movements in the South in 1882," The Journal of Southern History 19 (1953): 346-63; De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 133-81; Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt, 105-22; Jane Dailey, Before Jim Crow: The Politics of Race in
112. Accompanying this Republican spurt was an effort by Republican President Chester Arthur to reach out to Independents in the South, principally members of the Readjuster Party in Virginia, for additional support. Vincent P. De Santis, "President Arthur and the Independent Movements in the South in 1882," The Journal of Southern History 19 (1953): 346-63; De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 133-81; Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt, 105-22; Jane Dailey, Before Jim Crow: The Politics of Race in Postemancipation Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 55-59.
113. Accompanying this Republican spurt was an effort by Republican President Chester Arthur to reach out to Independents in the South, principally members of the Readjuster Party in Virginia, for additional support. Vincent P. De Santis, "President Arthur and the Independent Movements in the South in 1882," The Journal of Southern History 19 (1953): 346-63; De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 133-81; Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt, 105-22; Jane Dailey, Before Jim Crow: The Politics of Race in Postemancipation Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 55-59.
114. Accompanying this Republican spurt was an effort by Republican President Chester Arthur to reach out to Independents in the South, principally members of the Readjuster Party in Virginia, for additional support. Vincent P. De Santis, "President Arthur and the Independent Movements in the South in 1882," The Journal of Southern History 19 (1953): 346-63; De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 133-81; Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt, 105-22; Jane Dailey, Before Jim Crow: The Politics of Race in Postemancipation Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 55-59.
115. De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 195-97; Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt, 200-214. Richard E. Welch, Jr., "The Federal Elections Bill of 1890: Postscripts and Prelude," Journal of American History 52 (1965): 511-26; Homer E. Socolofsky and Allan B. Spetter, The Presidency of Benjamin Harrison (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987), 60-65.
116. De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 195-97; Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt, 200-214. Richard E. Welch, Jr., "The Federal Elections Bill of 1890: Postscripts and Prelude," Journal of American History 52 (1965): 511-26; Homer E. Socolofsky and Allan B. Spetter, The Presidency of Benjamin Harrison (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987), 60-65.
117. De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 195-97; Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt, 200-214. Richard E. Welch, Jr., "The Federal Elections Bill of 1890: Postscripts and Prelude," Journal of American History 52 (1965): 511-26; Homer E. Socolofsky and Allan B. Spetter, The Presidency of Benjamin Harrison (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987), 60-65.
118. De Santis, Republicans Face the Southern Question, 195-97; Hirshson, Farewell to the Bloody Shirt, 200-214. Richard E. Welch, Jr., "The Federal Elections Bill of 1890: Postscripts and Prelude," Journal of American History 52 (1965): 511-26; Homer E. Socolofsky and Allan B. Spetter, The Presidency of Benjamin Harrison (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987), 60-65.
119. The Force Bill of 1890 would pass in the House, but be bogged down in the Senate by a Democratic filibuster. The original Force Acts of the early 1870s would be repealed in 1893 during Grover Cleveland's administration. See Michael Perman, Struggle for Mastery: Disfranchisement in the South, 1888-1908 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 38-47; Robert M. Golden, "A Free Ballot and a Fair Count": The Department of Justice and the Enforcement of Voting Rights in the South, 1877-1893 (New York: Fordham University Press, 2001), 145-70.
120. The Force Bill of 1890 would pass in the House, but be bogged down in the Senate by a Democratic filibuster. The original Force Acts of the early 1870s would be repealed in 1893 during Grover Cleveland's administration. See Michael Perman, Struggle for Mastery: Disfranchisement in the South, 1888-1908 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 38-47; Robert M. Golden, "A Free Ballot and a Fair Count": The Department of Justice and the Enforcement of Voting Rights in the South, 1877-1893 (New York: Fordham University Press, 2001), 145-70.
121. In addition, one Democrat from Arkansas was unseated in favor of a member of the Labor Party.
122. In addition, two Democrats from the Deep South, one each from Alabama and North Carolina, were unseated in favor of Populists.
123. This was the 14th District, represented by Republican Harry M. Wurzbach from the 67th (1921-1923) through 71st (1929-1931) Congresses.
124. This excludes U.S. Territories.
125. These states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
126. These states include Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia. While these states were not "reconstructed," as were the former Confederate states, each had strong Democratic histories and southern sympathies. Kentucky and Missouri, for example, elected rump governments during the Civil War, which were recognized by the Confederacy and given representation in the Confederate Congress.
127. For examples of these various corrupt practices, see J. Morgan Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restrictions and the Establishment of the One-Party South (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); Peter Argersinger, "New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age," Political Science Quarterly 100 (1985-1986): 669-87; Perman, Struggle for Mastery; Mark Wahlgren Summers, "Party Games: The Art of Stealing Elections in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States," The Journal of American History 88 (2001): 424-35; Mark Wahlgren Summers, Party Games: Getting, Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
128. For examples of these various corrupt practices, see J. Morgan Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restrictions and the Establishment of the One-Party South (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); Peter Argersinger, "New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age," Political Science Quarterly 100 (1985-1986): 669-87; Perman, Struggle for Mastery; Mark Wahlgren Summers, "Party Games: The Art of Stealing Elections in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States," The Journal of American History 88 (2001): 424-35; Mark Wahlgren Summers, Party Games: Getting, Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
129. For examples of these various corrupt practices, see J. Morgan Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restrictions and the Establishment of the One-Party South (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); Peter Argersinger, "New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age," Political Science Quarterly 100 (1985-1986): 669-87; Perman, Struggle for Mastery; Mark Wahlgren Summers, "Party Games: The Art of Stealing Elections in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States," The Journal of American History 88 (2001): 424-35; Mark Wahlgren Summers, Party Games: Getting, Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
130. For examples of these various corrupt practices, see J. Morgan Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restrictions and the Establishment of the One-Party South (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); Peter Argersinger, "New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age," Political Science Quarterly 100 (1985-1986): 669-87; Perman, Struggle for Mastery; Mark Wahlgren Summers, "Party Games: The Art of Stealing Elections in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States," The Journal of American History 88 (2001): 424-35; Mark Wahlgren Summers, Party Games: Getting, Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
131. For examples of these various corrupt practices, see J. Morgan Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restrictions and the Establishment of the One-Party South (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); Peter Argersinger, "New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age," Political Science Quarterly 100 (1985-1986): 669-87; Perman, Struggle for Mastery; Mark Wahlgren Summers, "Party Games: The Art of Stealing Elections in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States," The Journal of American History 88 (2001): 424-35; Mark Wahlgren Summers, Party Games: Getting, Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
132. William A. Robinson, Thomas B. Reed: Parliamentarian (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1930), 76, 85.
133. Reed, "Contested Elections," 114-15. Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) echoed Reed's concerns, suggesting that contested election cases consumed thirty to sixty days in each session of Congress. New York Herald, November 30, 1889.
134. Reed also had first-hand experience with election contests, having had his own seat contested in the 47th Congress (1881-1883). The contestant in the case, Democrat Samuel J. Anderson, leveled a number of charges, chief among them that a number of his would-be voters were intimidated by Reed's supporters and did not participate in the election. Filing a short brief with the Committee on Elections, Reed stated: "If I could scare them as easily as the contestant seems to think and by means as inadequate as he has proved, I have certainly been recreant in a plain duty. I ought to have scared more of them" (quoted in Robinson, Thomas B. Reed, 75). Both the committee and the House found the evidence presented by Anderson exceedingly flimsy and ruled in favor of Reed.
135. Aldrich's vote totals in those three races were 41.37, 40.1, and 45.12 percent, respectively. In each case, Aldrich charged corruption in the election, specifically fraudulent returns. He ran for reelection to the 57th Congress but received only 2.57 percent of the vote and did not contest the election.
136. For a similar argument, see Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement."
137. David W. Brady, Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), 61. See also,
138. Valelly, "National Parties and Racial Disenfranchisement."
139. This leads, of course, to the following question: why did contested elections not reemerge in the 1910s and 1920s, when the Democrats began to contend once again for national preeminence? Several complementary reasons exist. First, the information costs of contesting elections increased, as illiteracy rates declined and media coverage (including radio) expanded. In effect, the populace was simply better informed, which required party leaders to better explicate and justify their reasons for pushing election contests (and thereby attempting to overrule the decisions of the electorate). Second, related to the first point, the South was no longer a battleground, as Jim Crow effectively eliminated African American electoral participation. During the late-nineteenth century, attempts at African American disfranchisement (through intimidation and violence) had kept the electoral costs of election contests low, as "fairness" and "Democratic intransigence" as campaign issues played well with Republican voters in the North. See Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 87. By the early twentieth century, these "morality" issues were no longer in play, and election contests outside of the South (and the "undemocratic" nature in which they were often portrayed) became quite costly to both parties. Third, balloting became secret (via the Australian ballot) and voting technology improved, making it more difficult for outright fraud to enter into congressional elections.
140. Anne M. Butler and Wendy Wolff, United States Senate Election, Expulsion, and Censure Cases, 1793-1990. Senate Document 103-33 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995).