§ 6. Elector Qualifications; Registration

ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Ch. 8 § 6

§ 5.7 The House refused to § 6. Elector Qualifications; overturn an election in a Registration state with a ‘‘county unit’’ primary election system, The original Constitution and under which less populous Bill of Rights left the determina- counties were entitled to a tion of qualifications required of disproportionately larger electors to vote for Members of electoral vote than other the House entirely up to the counties in the same state. states.(10) At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, qualifica- On Apr. 27, 1948, the House tions based on status, such as adopted without debate House property ownership, were a wide- Resolution 553, dismissing the spread prerequisite to the exercise Georgia election contest of Lowe v of voting rights. Since that time, Davis.(8) the power of the states to pre- Parliamentarian’s Note: The scribe the qualifications of electors House thereby refused to invali- for Representatives and for Sen- ( ) date the Georgia ‘‘county unit’’ ators 11 has been severely pro- system for primaries, requiring scribed by constitutional amend- ments extending the franchise to use of county electoral votes rath- U.S. citizens without regard to er than popular votes for choosing such matters as race, color, or nominees. Under that system each sex,(12) and by federal legislation candidate was required to receive protecting the integrity of the con- a majority of county unit votes for gressional electoral process.(13) nomination, and unit votes were allotted to less populous counties 10. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, clause 1. See also House Rules and Manual §§ 6, 7 rather than strictly on the basis of (1973). ( ) population. 9 11. The 17th amendment altered the Constitution in directing the election 1965), 22364 (Aug. 31, 1965), 24263– of Senators by the people of the 92 (Sept. 17, 1965). state, rather than by the state legis- 8. 94 CONG. REC. 4902, 80th Cong. 2d latures. Sess. 12. See the 15th amendment (race, color, 9. See the elections committee report in previous condition of servitude); the the case, H. REPT. NO. 1823, 80th 19th amendment (sex); the 24th Cong. 2d Sess. The Supreme Court amendment (poll tax); the 26th later invalidated the use of the amendment (age). ‘‘county unit’’ system. Gray v Sand- 13. For a summary of such legislation, ers, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). see Constitution of the United States

865 Ch. 8 § 6 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

The first step in the voting proc- congressional elections as long as ess for electors is voting registra- the requirements do not con- tion. Although registration is pri- travene constitutional provisions marily regulated by the states, or conflict with preemptive federal congressional authority to pre- legislation enacted pursuant to empt state regulation extends to law.(17) Residency requirements, the registration process.(14) Civil absence of a previous criminal rights legislation enacted by Con- record, and an objective require- gress has provided for federal reg- ment of good citizenship are ex- istrars and other procedures to in- amples of allowable voter quali- sure that citizens qualified under fications.(18) the Constitution are not denied The first voter qualification voting participation by rejection of which was prohibited from consid- registration applications on an ar- eration by the states was race, bitrary or discriminatory basis.(15) In judging election contests, the 17. See Harman v Forssenius, 380 U.S. House or Senate may have occa- 528 (1965); Davis v Schnell, 81 F sion to construe state laws regu- Supp 872 (D. Ala. 1949), aff’d, 336 lating registration and the effect U.S. 933. (16) Although the Constitution itself of violations thereof. does not confer federal voting rights The states may prescribe rea- on any person or class of persons, sonable qualifications for voting in Kuffman v Osser, 321 F Supp 327 (D. Pa. 1971), the electors do not owe of America: Analysis and Interpreta- their right to vote to a state law pre- tion, S. Doc. No. 92–82, 108–111, 92d scribing qualifications for the most Cong. 2d Sess. (comments to U.S. numerous branch of their own legis- Const. art. I, § 4, clause 1). lature in any sense which makes the 14. See United States v Louisiana, 225 F exercise of the right depend exclu- Supp 353 (D. La. 1963), aff’d, 380 sively on the state law. Ex parte U.S. 145; Katzenbach v Original Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 663 (1884); Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 250 F United States v Mosley, 238 U.S. 883 Supp 330 (D. La. 1965). (1915). 15. See, for example, 42 USC § 1971 (a) 18. Lassiter v Northampton County (2), (e). See also South Carolina v Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), (1959). construing registration provisions of In relation to Presidential elec- the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For tions, Congress abolished state early federal court approval of fed- durational residency requirements eral registrars, see In re Sundry and provided for absentee balloting. Citizens, 23 F Cas. 13 (Ohio 1878). See United States v Arizona, 400 16. See §§ 6.1, 6.2, infra. U.S. 112 (1970).

866 ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Ch. 8 § 6 color, or previous condition of ser- and under the 14th amendment vitude; the 15th amendment pro- Congress may act to prevent state vided not only that the right of interference with any citizen’s vot- citizens to vote should not be de- ing rights.(2) Under article I, sec- nied on those grounds but also tion 4, clause 1 of the Constitu- granted Congress the power to en- tion, Congress can legislate force the amendment by appro- against private as well as state in- priate legislation. Race as a sub- terference but only in relation to ( ) stantive qualification in elections federal elections. 3 and primaries,(19) as well as proce- Congress has enacted a number dural requirements which effec- of statutes, dating from 1870 to tively handicap the exercise of the the present, providing a variety of franchise on account of race, were remedies against interference (4) barred.(20) with voting rights. Some of those statutes have provided for Under the 15th amendment, federal officials to actively super- Congress may legislate to protect vise congressional elections in the the suffrage in all elections, both state and federal, against state in- 420, rehearing denied, 364 U.S. 855; terference based on race, color, or South Carolina v Katzenbach, 383 previous condition of servitude,(1) U.S. 301 (1939). 2. Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 19. The same test to determine discrimi- (1966); Oregon v Mitchell, 400 U.S. nation or abridgement of right to 112 (1970). vote as applied in a general election 3. See Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 should be applied to a primary elec- (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. tion, and a resolution of a political 651 (1884); United States v Classic, party limiting membership to white 313 U.S. 299 (1941). citizens where membership in a po- 4. For early legislation, see Carr, Fed- litical party was an essential quali- eral Protection of Civil Rights: Quest fication was an unconstitutional pro- for a Sword (Ithaca, 1947). Later vision. Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. acts were the Civil Rights Act of 649 (1944), rehearing denied, 322 1957, Pub. L. No. 85–315, 71 Stat. U.S. 769. For Congress’ authority 634; Voting Rights Act of 1960, Pub. over primaries, see § 7, infra. L. No. 86–449, 74 Stat. 86; Civil 20. See Wayne v Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88– (1939). 352, 78 Stat. 241; Voting Rights Act 1. See James v Bowman, 190 U.S. 127 of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89–110, 79 Stat. (1903); United States v Reese, 92 437; Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. U.S. 214 (1876); Larche v Hannah, No. 90–284, 82 Stat. 73; Civil Rights 177 F Supp 816 (D. La. 1959), re- Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91–285, 84 versed on other grounds, 263 U.S. Stat. 314.

867 Ch. 8 § 6 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS states and directed suspension of actual abridgment of voting rights otherwise permissible voting tests, or of a connection between the such as literacy requirements,(5) challenged Member and the al- which are designed and adminis- leged abridgment. tered so as to deny voting rights Other state-ordered voter quali- ( ) in a discriminatory way. 6 fications have been removed by On occasion, titles to seats in way of amendment of the federal the House have been challenged Constitution. The right to vote re- for reason of denial of voting gardless of sex was established in rights, either through a system- 1919 with the adoption of the (7) atic state pattern or through 19th amendment. The right of all private action by either the can- citizens to vote without paying a (8) didate or party officials. On poll tax was affirmed through the many such occasions, challenges adoption of the 24th amendment, and contests have been dismissed following the passage by the or denied due to the difficulty in House but not by the Senate of a obtaining substantial evidence of bill in the 80th Congress to make 5. For permissible literacy require- unlawful a poll tax in any federal ments, see Lassiter v Northampton election.(9) County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. The right of citizens to vote has 45 (1959); Trudeau v Barnes, 65 F2d been set by the 26th amendment 563 (5th Cir. 1933), cert. denied, 290 U.S. 659. of the Constitution at 18 years of 6. For construction of federal legisla- age or older. Prior to the adoption tion suspending literacy tests, see of this amendment, Congress had Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 amended the Voting Rights Act in (1966); South Carolina v Katzen- 1970 to authorize 18-year-olds to bach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966); Gaston vote in all elections, both state County v United States, 395 U.S. 285 and federal.(10) The Supreme (1969). See also Davis v Schnell, 81 F Supp 872 (D. Ala. 1949), aff’d, 336 Court held that although Con- U.S. 933; Louisiana v United States, gress did have authority under 380 U.S. 145 (1965). the Constitution to fix the age of A ‘‘grandfather clause’’ exemption voters in federal elections,(11) Con- from an educational qualification prescribed by a state constitution is 9. See § 6.7, infra. unconstitutional. Guinn v United 10. See Pub. L. No. 91-285, 84 Stat. 314. States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915); Myers v 11. One Justice was of the opinion that Anderson, 238 U.S. 368 (1915). power was conferred on Congress by 7. See §§ 5.6, 5.7, supra. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, clause 1, and 8. See §§ 6.3, 6.5. infra. four Justices were of the opinion

868 ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Ch. 8 § 6 gress had no power to fix an age missed and that the said Walter K. requirement for voting in state Granger is entitled to his seat as a Representative of said district and (12) elections. State.(13) The resolution was adopted pursuant to a report of the Committee Voter Registration on House Administration recommending the contest be dismissed; § 6.1 Violations of a state’s reg- the committee had determined istration and election laws that violations of Utah’s registra- prohibiting transportation of tion laws applicable to congres- voters to places of registra- sional elections did not affect the tion, providing qualifications election results and did not re- for registrars, confining reg- quire the voiding of the elec- ( ) istration to certain hours, tion. 14 The registration laws in and requiring detailed reg- issue prohibited transportation of istration lists were held not voters to places of registration, required qualifications of registrars, to affect the results of an confined registration to particular election, and therefore did hours, and mandated detailed reg- not nullify the election. istration lists. On June 19, 1948, the House adopted without debate House § 6.2 To provide a basis for the Resolution 692, dismissing an rejection of votes allegedly election contest: given by illegal registrants, challenge must have been Resolved, That the election contest of David J. Wilson, contestant, against made at the time of registra- Walter K. Granger, contestee, First tion. Congressional District of Utah, be dis- On Mar. 19, 1952, the House adopted without debate House that power was conferred on Con- Resolution 580, affirming the gress by the enforcement clause of the 14th amendment, § 5. United right of a Member-elect to his States v Arizona, 400 U.S. 112 seat: (1970), rehearing denied, 401 U.S. Resolved, That Ernest Greenwood 903. was duly elected as Representative 12. The Court held that the 10th amendment to the Constitution reserved to 13. 94 CONG. REC. 9184, 80th Cong. 2d the states the power to establish Sess. voter age qualifications in state and 14. H. REPT. NO. 2418, submitted June local elections. Oregon v Mitchell, 17, 1948, 94 CONG. REC. 8964, 80th 400 U.S. 112 (1970). Cong. 2d Sess.

869 Ch. 8 § 6 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

from the First Congressional District of On Sept. 8, 1959, the Com- New York to the Eighty-second Con- mittee on House Administration (15) gress and is entitled to his seat. submitted a report of an inves- The resolution was adopted pursu- tigation of the final right of a ant to a report of the Committee Member to his seat.(17) The report on House Administration sub- stated in part that the committee mitted on the same day. The com- had refused to consider charges mittee had ruled that votes against Arkansas party officials claimed to have been given by ille- that they had conspired to nullify gal and fictitious registrants in the will of the voters, where no congressional elections must have evidence was tendered to connect been challenged at the time of the challenged Member, Mr. Dale registration. Where the contestant Alford, with any such conspiracy. files petitions to annul the votes of such registrants, he must show § 6.4 Where the right of an en- that he took testimony from those tire state delegation to take registrants and that they voted the oath was challenged by for his opponent.(16) reason of systematic denial of voting rights, the chal- Challenges to Seats for Denial lenge was treated as a con- of Voting Rights tested election case and later dismissed by the House. § 6.3 Where the House by resolution has authorized the On Jan. 4, 1965, the convening Committee on House Admin- day of the 89th Congress, a chal- istration to investigate the lenge was made to the administration of the oath to all the Mem- question of the final right of bers-elect from Mississippi. Those a Member to his seat, the Members-elect stepped aside as committee will not consider the oath was administered to the charges against party offi- other Members.(18) The House cials that they conspired to then authorized the Members- nullify the will of the voters, elect from Mississippi to be sworn where there is no evidence to in after Mr. Carl Albert, of Okla- connect the Member to such conspiracy. 17. H. REPT. No. 1172, 105 CONG. REC. 18610, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. The 15. 98 CONG. REC. 2517, 82d Cong. 2d House adopted H. Res. 380, affirm- Sess. ing the right to a seat of Mr. Alford 16. H. REPT. No. 1599, 98 CONG. REC. (Ark.), id. at p. 18611. 2545, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. 18. 111 CONG. REC. 18, 19, 89th Cong.

870 ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Ch. 8 § 6 homa, stated that ‘‘Any question On Jan. 4, 1947, at the con- involving the validity of the regu- vening of the 80th Congress, the larity of the election of the Mem- right of Senator-elect Theodore G. bers in question is one which Bilbo, of Mississippi, to be sworn should be dealt with under the in and to take a seat in the Sen- laws governing contested elections.’’ (19) ate was challenged by the presen- Election contest proceedings tation of Senate Resolution 1, were then instituted,(20) and the which read: House later dismissed the con- Whereas the Special Committee To ( ) test. 1 Investigate Senatorial Campaign Ex- penditures, 1946, has conducted an in- § 6.5 Exclusion proceedings vestigation into the senatorial election were sought in the 80th Con- in Mississippi in 1946, which inves- gress against a Senator-elect tigation indicates that Theodore G. charged with conspiracy to Bilbo may be guilty of violating the prevent voters from partici- Constitution of the United States, the statutes of the United States, and his pating in sensational elec- oath of office as a Senator of the ( ) tions. 2 United States in that he is alleged to have conspired to prevent citizens of 19. Id. at pp. 19, 20. the United States from exercising their 20. See 111 CONG. REC. 24263–92, 89th constitutional rights to participate in Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1965; 111 the said election; and that he is alleged CONG. REC. 22364, 89th Cong. 1st to have committed violations of Public Sess., Aug. 31, 1965; and 111 CONG. Law 252, Seventy-sixth Congress, com- REC. 18691, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., monly known as the Hatch Act; and July 29, 1965. Whereas the Special Committee To 1. One of the sitting Members whose Investigate the National Defense Pro- seat was being contested voted on gram has completed an inquiry into the resolution dismissing the contest certain transactions between Theodore and then withdrew his vote and was G. Bilbo and various war contractors recorded as present. He stated that and has found officially that the said he felt he had the privilege of voting Bilbo, ‘‘in return for the aid he had on the resolution since in hearings given certain war contractors and oth- before the elections committee it was ers before Federal departments, solic- agreed that the election contest was ited and received political contribu- an attack upon the seats of the State tions, accepted personal compensation, of Mississippi rather than against gifts, and services, and solicited and the individual Members-elect. 111 accepted substantial amounts of money CONG. REC. 24292, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1965. didate’s illegal control of election ma- 2. See § 7.8, infra, for Senate expulsion chinery and destruction of opposing proceedings in relation to a can- ballots.

871 Ch. 8 § 6 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

for a personal charity administered without prejudice to his rights, solely by him’’ . . . and ‘‘that by these since he had recently undergone transactions Senator Bilbo misused his an operation and required further high office and violated certain Federal medical care. Senator-elect Bilbo statutes’’; and later died in the first session of Whereas the evidence adduced be- the 80th Congress, before any fur- fore the said committees indicates that ther consideration of his right to the credentials for a seat in the Senate (4) presented by the said Theodore G. be sworn in. Bilbo are tainted with fraud and cor- ruption; and that the seating of the Poll Tax Requirements said Bilbo would be contrary to sound public policy, harmful to the dignity § 6.6 Members of the House and honor of the Senate, dangerous to were advised that an indi- the perpetuation of free Government vidual who threatened to and the preservation of our constitu- contest the elections of Mem- tional liberties; Now, therefore, be it bers from states having poll Resolved, That the claim of the said taxes had no legal standing Theodore G. Bilbo to a seat in the United States Senate is hereby re- to contest such elections. ferred to the Committee on Rules and On Feb. 14, 1945, Hatton W. Administration with instructions to Sumners, of Texas, Chairman of grant such further hearing to the said the Committee on the Judiciary, Theodore G. Bilbo on the matters ad- addressed the House in relation to duced before the Special Committee To the claim of a private citizen that Investigate Senatorial Campaign Ex- he could contest the elections of penditures, 1946, and the Special Com- 71 Members of the House of Rep- mittee To Investigate the National De- resentatives: Mr. Sumners in- fense Program and to take such fur- serted in the Record a letter he ther evidence as shall be proper in the premises, and to report to the Senate had written to one such Member, at the earliest possible date; that until advising him that the citizen re- the coming in of the report of said com- ferred to had no standing to bring mittee, and until the final action of the such election contests Mr. Sum- Senate thereon, the said Theodore G. ners advised Members to ignore Bilbo be, and he is hereby, denied a the claim of the citizen.(5) seat in the United States Senate.(3) 4. 93 CONG. REC. 109, 80th Cong. 1st After debate, the Senate laid on Sess., Jan. 4, 1947. For the an- the table the resolution and the nouncement of Nov. 17, 1947, con- question as to whether the Sen- cerning Theodore G. Bilbo’s death, ator-elect was to be sworn in, see 93 CONG. REC. 10569, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. 3. 93 CONG. REC. 7, 8, 80th Cong. 1st 5. 91 CONG. REC. 1083, 1084, 79th Sess., Jan. 3, 1947. Cong. 1st Sess.

872 ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Ch. 8 § 6

§ 6.7 The House under suspen- risdiction over legislation re- sion of the rules passed a bill lating to poll tax require- making unlawful a requirements for federal elections, ment for the payment of a the Committee on the Judici- poll tax as a prerequisite to ary has jurisdiction over pro- voting in a primary or other posals to amend the Con- election for national officers, stitution relative to federal despite objections to its con- election requirements. stitutionality. On July 26, 1949,(7) Speaker On July 21, 1947, the House Sam Rayburn, of Texas, submitted passed H.R. 29, rendering unlaw- to the House the question as to ful a state poll tax as a pre- the engrossment and third read- requisite to voting in a primary or ing of H.R. 3199, the anti-poll tax other election for national offi- bill. Mr. Robert Hale, of Maine, (6) cers. The bill was passed by the arose to offer a motion to recom- House under suspension of the rules despite a point of order that mit the bill to the Committee on the bill violated the U.S. Constitu- House Administration with direc- tion, especially article I, section 2, tions that it report the legislation which authorizes the states, not back to the House in the form of Congress, to set the qualifications a joint resolution amending the of electors for Representatives. Constitution to make payment of Speaker Joseph W. Martin, of poll taxes—as a qualification for Massachusetts, overruled the voting—illegal. The Speaker ruled point of order on the grounds that that the language carried in the the Chair does not pass on the motion to recommit was not ger- constitutionality of proposed legis- mane to the bill since a constitu- lation. tional amendment would lie with- The Senate rejected the bill, but in the jurisdiction of the Com- a constitutional amendment with mittee on the Judiciary and not the same purpose was later ratified (see § 6.8, infra). the Committee on House Adminis- tration. § 6.8 While the Committee on House Administration has ju- § 6.9 In the 87th Congress, a Senate joint resolution pro- For election contests initiated by posing a national monument petition of citizens, see Ch. 9, infra. was amended in the Senate 6. 93 CONG. REC. 9552, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. For debate on the bill, see pp. 7. 95 CONG. REC. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st 9522–52. Sess.

873 Ch. 8 § 6 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

by striking all after the re- Residency Requirements solving clause and inserting provisions of a constitutional § 6.10 An elections committee amendment abolishing the invalidated votes cast by poll tax.(8) workers who were only temporarily in an election dis- On Mar. 27, 1962, the Senate was considering Senate Joint Res- trict, but found that those olution 29, providing for the es- votes, though disregarded, tablishment of a national monu- would not affect the outcome ment. An amendment was offered of the election. to strike out all after the resolving On Mar. 11, 1940, Elections clause of the resolution and to in- sert the provisions of a constitu- Committee No. 3 submitted Re- tional amendment abolishing the port No. 1722 in an elections case, poll tax in the states. The Vice recommending that the seated President ruled that the joint res- Member, Mr. Harrington, be de- olution could be so amended; he clared entitled to his seat: also ruled that only a majority Resolved, That Albert F. Swanson is vote was required for the adoption not entitled to a seat in the House of of a substitute, although a two- Representatives in the Seventy-sixth thirds vote was required on the Congress from the Ninth Congres- adoption of the resolution as sional District of Iowa. ( ) amended. 9 Resolved, That Vincent F. Har- The House passed the measure rington is entitled to a seat in the under a motion to suspend the House of Representatives in the Sev- rules on Aug. 27, 1962.(10) enty-sixth Congress from the Ninth Congressional District of Iowa.(11) 8. The Anti-Poll Tax Amendment was The resolution was agreed to, the ratified by 38 states and became ef- fective Jan. 23, 1964. 110 CONG. committee having determined REC. 1077, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. (see that, although certain votes cast U.S. Const., 24th amendment). by workers temporarily present in 9. 108 CONG. REC. 5086, 87th Cong. 2d the election district were invalid, Sess. (Vice President Johnson the rejection of those votes would [Tex.]). The Senate proceeded to pass the amended resolution by a two- not change the result of the elec- thirds vote. tion. For the entire Senate debate on the amendment and the method by § 6.11 A contestant who alleges which it was being offered, see pp. that certain voters in an 5072–105. 10. 108 CONG. REC. 17670, 87th Cong. 11. 86 CONG. REC. 2662, 76th Cong. 3d 2d Sess. Sess. (H. Res. 419).

874 ELECTIONS AND ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Ch. 8 § 6

election did not reside in the Federal Protection of Voting precincts where registered Rights must present evidence of the claimed irregularities suffi- § 6.12 In the 89th Congress, the cient to overcome the pre- President delivered a special sumption that the election message on voting rights to a officials properly performed joint session and submitted their duties. to Congress proposed legisla- On Mar. 19, 1952, the House tion which was enacted into adopted without debate House law as the Voting Rights Act Resolution 580, affirming the of 1965. right of a Member-elect to a seat: On Mar. 15, 1965, the House Resolved, That Ernest Greenwood and Senate met in joint session, was duly elected as Representative pursuant to House Concurrent from the First Congressional District of New York to the Eighty-second Con- Resolution 117, to hear an ad- gress and is entitled to his seat.(12) dress by the President of the ( ) The resolution was adopted pur- United States. 14 The President’s suant to a report of the Com- message was directed to denial of mittee on House Administration voting rights on racial grounds submitted on the same day. The and urged the passage of federal committee found that votes civil rights legislation to protect claimed to have been given by ille- those rights.(15) gal registrants, not residing in the The legislation suggested by the precincts where registered, must have been challenged at the time President led to the passage by they registered or voted. The com- Congress of the Voting Rights Act mittee also invoked the general of 1965, the bill being signed by rule that the contestant must the President at the Capitol on produce evidence in such cases, through testimony and docu- mittee had also found that a local ments, proving the fact of nonresi- court opinion was controlling as to dence in the county for the statu- when residence commenced to run, tory period of time, to overcome in the absence of challenge to a reg- the presumption that election offi- istrant at the time of registration or cials properly perform their du- voting. ties.(13) 14. 111 CONG. REC. 5058, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. 12. 98 CONG. REC. 2517, 82d Cong. 2d 15. Id. at pp. 5058–63. The President Sess. submitted a legislative proposal for 13. H. REPT. NO. 1599 (98 CONG. REC. voting rights legislation which be- 2545, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.). The com- came H.R. 6400.

875 Ch. 8 § 6 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

Aug. 6, 1965.(16) In 1966, the act persede or change any such state was upheld as constitutional by regulation.(18) Although Congress the U.S. Supreme Court.(17) has enacted extensive legislation to protect the right to vote and to secure the process against fraud, § 7. Time and Place; Pro- bribery and illegal conduct,(19) the cedure actual mechanism for conducting congressional elections has been Article I, section 4, clause 1 of left largely to the states. And in the Constitution vests in the judging the elections of their states the power to prescribe the Members, the House and the Sen- times, places, and manner of hold- ate defer in great part to state law ing elections for Senators and regarding elections and to state Representatives but allows Con- court opinions construing such gress preemptive authority to su- election laws.(20) The place where elections shall 16. On Aug. 6, 1965, the Senate stood in be held is for the states to deter- recess in order to receive the Presi- mine, qualified only by the re- dent of the United States. When the Senate reassembled, there was or- quirement that Representatives dered to be printed in the Congres- must be chosen in congressional sional Record the proceedings con- districts which comply with statu- ducted at noon on the same day, tory and constitutional require- when the President had delivered a ments.(1) message in the Rotunda of the Cap- Poll facilities and functions of itol and then retired to the Presi- dent’s Room in the Capitol in order state officials at polling places are to sign into law the Voting Rights a matter of state regulation, but Act of 1965. 111 CONG. REC. 19649, the House and Senate must often 19650, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. For the Voting Rights Act of 1965, see Pub. 18. See United States v Mumford, 16 F L. No. 89–110, 79 Stat. 437. For 223 (Cir. Ct. Va. 1883). For a general codification see 42 USC §§ 1971 et discussion of the delineation of seq. power over the regulation of elec- 17. In upholding the validity of the 1965 tions, see § 5, supra. Voting Rights Act in Katzenbach v 19. For legislation protecting the right to Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Su- vote, see § 6, supra. See §§ 10–14, preme Court cited congressional ma- infra, as to federal regulation of cam- terials in finding a rational basis for paign practices. the act. See 111 CONG. REC. 10676, 20. See § 7.1, infra. 10680 (May 20, 1965), 15671 (July 9, 1. For districting requirements, see 1965), 89th Cong. 1st Sess. §§ 3, 4, supra.

876