Authority of the Senate to Exclude and Not Seat a Senator-Elect or Senator-Designate

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

This report is intended to provide a brief legal analysis of the authority to exclude, that is, to
refuse by majority vote to seat, a Senator-elect or Senator-designate who presents credentials
from the proper officials of a state. The questions arise in the context of both a contested Senate
election, as well as an appointment by a governor to fill a Senate vacancy.
This report discusses and analyzes the constitutional and legal issues regarding Senate authority
in this area. A detailed discussion of procedural practices and options has been prepared by
Elizabeth Rybicki, Analyst on the Congress and the Legislative Process, Government and Finance
Division, CRS.
Under Article I, Section 5, clause 1 of the Constitution, each house of Congress is granted the
express authority to judge the “elections,” the “returns,” and the “qualifications” of its own
Members. This explicit delegation in the Constitution grants the Senate broad authority to make
the final determination concerning not only the narrow constitutional “qualifications” of a
Member-elect or Member-designate (age, citizenship, and inhabitancy in the state from which
chosen), but also the legitimacy and validity of the “election” or selection process of those
presenting “credentials” (the official “return” from the state) to the Senate.
When judging “qualifications,” the Supreme Court in the 1969 decision of Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486 (1969), found that the House (and the Senate) is limited to an examination of the
three standing qualifications to office (and any potential “disqualifications,” such as under the
Fourteenth Amendment). The Court there noted that anyone meeting those qualifications would
have to be seated, and not excluded, if such person were “duly” elected, selected, or chosen. 395
U.S. at 522.
Under the Powell decision and rationale, and under the express constitutional grant of authority,
the Senate (and House) may, in addition to examining “qualifications” of Members-elect,
examine the “elections” and “returns” of their own Members, that is, whether an individual
presenting valid credentials has been “duly” chosen. A few years after the Powell decision, the
Supreme Court in Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972), clearly affirmed the right of the
Senate to make the final and conclusive determination concerning the election process and
seating of its own Members. In the case of contests or challenges properly raised concerning the
election or selection of a Senator, the Court affirmed the constitutional authority for “an
independent evaluation by the Senate” of the selection of those presenting themselves for
membership. 405 U.S. at 25-26.
The various internal examinations and inquiries by the Senate of the selection of an individual
who has been appointed by a governor of a state have been considered and treated as elections
cases; and on numerous occasions in the past the Senate has considered the legality or validity of
a gubernatorial selection. Additionally, the Senate has from time-to-time examined the election or
selection process (prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, Senators were
selected by state legislatures) to see if corruption or bribery has so tainted the process as to call
into question its validity.

Introduc tion ............................................................................................................................... 1
Qualif ications ............................................................................................................................ 2
Elections and Returns................................................................................................................3
Senate Precedents and Practice.................................................................................................4
Exclusion v. Expulsion..............................................................................................................5
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................6

The Constitution expressly grants to each house of Congress the authority to “be the Judge of the ¹
Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” This express constitutional
delegation gives the Senate broad authority to judge and to make the final determination
concerning not only the narrow constitutional “qualifications” of a Member-elect or Member-
designate, but also the legitimacy of the “election” or selection process of those presenting ²
“credentials” to the Senate.
As stated by a noted parliamentary authority, the final and exclusive right to determine
membership in a democratically elected legislature “is so essential to the free election and
independent existence of a legislative assembly, that it may be regarded as a necessary incident to ³
every body of that description, which emanates directly from the people.” In his historic work,
Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story analyzed the placing of the power and
final authority to determine membership within each house of Congress:
^{It is}^obv^iou^s^t^h^{at a po}^w^e^r^m^u^s^t^{be lodg}^{ed s}^o^m^e^w^h^{ere to j}^u^dg^{e of}^th^{e electio}ⁿ^s^{, retu}^rⁿ^s^,^an^d
^qu^alifications^of^t^h^e^m^e^m^b^ers^of^each^h^o^u^s^{e co}^m^posⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e l}^e^gⁱ^s^l^a^t^u^r^e;^f^o^{r oth}^e^r^w^is^{e t}^h^ere
^cou^l^{d be n}^o^certain^t^y^as^to^wh^o^w^e^{re leg}ⁱ^tⁱ^m^a^t^el^y^c^h^os^eⁿ^m^e^m^b^ers^,^aⁿ^{d any}ⁱⁿ^tru^d^{er or}
^u^s^u^r^per^mⁱ^gh^t^cl^ai^m^a^s^eat^{, a}^{nd t}^h^us^t^r^a^m^pl^e^u^pon^t^h^{e ri}^g^h^t^s^an^{d pri}^vⁱ^l^e^g^e^{s an}^{d l}ⁱ^b^ertⁱ^e^s^of
^th^{e people. ...}^If^lodg^{ed in}^any^oth^e^{r, th}^an^th^{e le}^gⁱ^s^l^ati^v^{e bod}^yⁱ^t^s^e^l^f^{, its}ⁱⁿ^depen^d^en^{ce, its}⁴
^pu^ri^t^y^aⁿ^{d ev}^enⁱ^t^s^exi^s^t^eⁿ^{ce a}ⁿ^{d act}ⁱ^oⁿ^m^a^y^{be des}^t^ro^y^e^{d, or pu}^tⁱⁿ^t^oⁱ^m^mⁱⁿ^eⁿ^t^dang^er.
The process of examination and inquiry within the Senate is generally initiated at the occasion of
the swearing-in of the Senator-elect or Senator-designate by an objection or question to the
seating of that individual raised by another Senator, or from a petition submitted to the Senate ⁵
(often, in the case of a contested election, by the opposing candidate). The presentation of
“credentials” or a certificate of election from a governor and secretary of state (that is, the official ⁶
“return”), is considered to be prima facie evidence that the person holding those credentials is ⁷
entitled to the seat, subject to the final determination of the Senate. A Member-elect or Member-
¹
^A^r^tic^le^{I, Se}^c^tion^{5, c}^l^a^u^se¹^.
²^Po^{well v. M}^c^Co^rma^c^k^{, 3}⁹⁵^U^.^S.⁴⁸⁶⁽¹⁹⁶⁹⁾⁽^qua^lif^ic^a^tions⁾^;^R^o^u^d^e^bus^{h v}^.^H^a^r^t^k^e^,⁴^{05 U}^.^S.¹⁵⁽¹⁹⁷²⁾^;^Ba^{rry v.}
^Uⁿ^ite^d^State^s^e^x^r^e^{l. C}^unnⁱⁿ^gh^am^,²⁷^{9 U}^.^S.⁵⁹^{7 (}¹⁹²⁹⁾^{; a}ⁿ^d^R^{eed v.}^Co^un^t^y^C^o^mmi^ssi^oⁿ^e^rs^{, 2}⁷⁷^U^.^S^.³⁷^6,³⁸^{8 (}¹⁹²⁸⁾
^(el^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^an^{d ret}^u^rⁿ^s).^F^o^{r a co}^m^pⁱ^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^and^d^e^scri^p^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^p^r^eced^en^t^s^and^{cases co}ⁿ^cernⁱⁿ^g^qu^alⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^,
^el^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^and^ret^u^rⁿ^s,^{see Bu}^t^l^e^r^an^d^W^o^l^f^f^,^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^Hi^st^o^rⁱ^cal^Offⁱ^ce,^Uⁿ^ite^{d State}^s^Se^nate^Ele^c^tio^n,^Ex^pulsⁱ^on^a^nd
^C^eⁿ^s^u^r^{e C}^a^{ses f}^r^o^m¹⁷⁹³^to¹⁹⁹⁰^{, S.D}^o^c^.¹^03-^33,⁽¹⁹⁹⁵⁾^,^[^h^e^r^e^a^f^ter^Se^na^te^Ele^c^tio^{n C}^a^s^e^s^].
³^L^u^t^h^{er S}^t^earn^s^Cu^s^hⁱⁿ^g,^Law^an^{d Pr}^ac^tic^e^o^f^Le^gis^l^ativ^e^As^s^e^m^b^lⁱ^e^s^{in the}^Uⁿ^ite^d^St^ate^s^{, p}^p^.^54-⁵⁵⁽¹⁸⁵⁶⁾^.
⁴^Story^,^Comme^ntarie^{s o}ⁿ^t^h^e^Coⁿ^s^tituti^on^{of t}^h^e^Uni^t^e^d^S^t^ate^s^,^V^o^l^u^m^e^I^I^,^{§ 83}^{1, a}^t^p^p^{. 2}⁹⁴^-²^{95 (}¹⁸³³⁾^.
⁵^Se^na^te^L^e^g^a^{l C}^ouns^e^l^,^Co^nte^s^te^d^Ele^c^tion^Case^s,^a^t⁹^-¹¹⁽^O^c^t^obe^r²⁰⁰⁶⁾^[^h^e^r^eⁱ^na^f^t^e^r^Se^nate^C^onte^s^t^e^{d Ele}^c^tioⁿ
^Ca^ses^].
⁶^It^ap^p^{ears t}^h^atⁱⁿ¹⁸^th^a^{nd 1}⁹^th^cen^t^u^ry^p^a^rl^an^{ce t}^h^{e t}^e^rm^“ret^u^rⁿ^”ⁱⁿ^dⁱ^cat^{es t}^h^{e cert}ⁱ^fⁱ^cat^{e o}^f^el^ectⁱ^oⁿ^o^r^cred^en^tⁱ^a^l^s
^traⁿ^sm^itte^{d on}^be^ha^lf^of^the^c^a^ndi^da^te^c^e^r^tif^ie^{d by}^the^sta^t^e^a^s^be^ing^a^u^th^oriz^e^d^t^o^h^o^l^d^the^se^a^t^aⁿ^{d p}^e^rf^or^m^the^dutie^s
^o^f^o^f^fⁱ^ce:^“^T^h^e^p^u^r^po^{se o}^f^{a ret}^u^rⁿⁱ^s^t^o^au^t^h^en^tⁱ^cat^{e t}^h^{e el}^ectⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^su^ch^{a m}^aⁿⁿ^e^r,^{as t}^o^en^a^b^l^e^t^h^e^persoⁿ^s^el^ect^ed^t^o
^ta^k^e^upon^the^m^s^e^lve^s^theⁱ^r^of^fⁱ^cⁱ^{al f}^unc^tions^{. I}ⁿ^this^c^o^uⁿ^tr^y^,^the^ob^je^c^t^is^e^f^f^e^c^t^e^d^by^m^e^aⁿ^s^of^c^e^r^ti^fⁱ^c^a^t^e^s^of^e^l^ec^tions
⁽^a^ls^{o c}^a^lle^{d r}^e^turⁿ^s⁾^u^nde^r^t^h^e^haⁿ^d^s^of^the^r^e^turⁿⁱⁿ^g^of^fⁱ^ce^r^s^{, e}^ithe^r^gⁱ^v^e^{n to the}^pe^r^s^ons^e^l^e^c^t^e^d^,^or^s^e^{nt to}^s^o^m^e
^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^t^e^de^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^the^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^nt.”^C^u^s^h^ing^,^Ele^m^eⁿ^ts^{of t}^h^e^Law^an^{d Pr}^ac^tic^e^of^Le^gis^l^a^tiv^e^As^s^e^m^b^lie^sⁱⁿ
^the^Unite^d^St^ate^s^,^at^§¹³^6,^p.⁵⁰⁽¹⁸⁵⁶⁾^.
⁷^Se^na^te^C^o^nte^s^te^{d Ele}^c^tio^{n C}^a^s^e^s^,^at¹¹^-¹⁴^;^{see d}ⁱ^scu^ssi^on^o^f¹⁸⁵⁷^an^d¹⁷⁹⁴^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^p^r^eced^en^t^sⁱⁿ¹^Hⁱ^nds^’
^P^r^eced^en^t^s^o^f^t^h^{e Ho}^u^s^e^o^f^R^e^p^r^e^s^en^t^a^tⁱ^ves^,^§⁵³⁴^,^p^p^.⁶⁹³^-⁶⁹⁴^:^“.^.^.^t^h^{e cred}^en^tⁱ^al^,^b^eⁱⁿ^{g p}^rⁱ^m^{a f}^a^ci^e^evi^d^en^ce,^w^a^s
^lⁱ^a^b^l^{e t}^o^b^e^rebu^t^t^e^{d at}^an^y^st^ag^e.^”

designate presenting such credentials, however, is not a “Member of Congress” until that person ⁸
is sworn in and seated by the relevant house. Upon a challenge, petition, or express request from
a committee, objecting to the swearing-in and seating of a particular individual, the matter of the
election and credentials of a Senator-elect or Senator-designate may be referred to the committee
of jurisdiction, which in the recent past has been the Senate Committee on Rules and ⁹
Administration. Although it has been noted that it has been the “more common practice” in
recent years in the case of a certified Senator-elect or Senator-designate who is challenged, to
swear such person in “without prejudice” during the pendency of committee and Senate ¹⁰
consideration of the matter, the Senate has in the past also refused to swear in and seat ¹¹
individuals, pending Senate resolution of the matter, even though credentials were presented.
One of the inquiries and judgments that the Senate may make concerning an individual presenting
himself or herself for membership is an examination of that person’s “qualifications” for office.
Although there had been precedent in the past for the Senate to look at a Senator-elect’s or
Senator-designate’s “fitness for office” or “moral character” in judging the qualifications of such
individual to be seated in the Senate, the extent of the authority of the Senate to judge
“qualifications” under Article I, Section 5, clause 1, was expressly and narrowly delineated by the ¹²
Supreme Court in the case of Powell v. McCormack in 1969. The Supreme Court in that case
stated that “in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing ¹³
qualifications prescribed in the Constitution,” that is, the Member-elect’s age, citizenship, and ¹⁴
inhabitancy in the state from which elected. As explained in Deschler’s Precedents:
^T^h^{e [}^P^ow^{ell] decis}ⁱ^oⁿ^apparen^t^l^y^preclu^d^es^th^{e practice of}^th^e^Hou^s^{e or Sen}^a^{te, f}^o^l^l^o^w^e^d^oⁿ
ⁿ^u^m^e^rous^occas^ion^s^d^u^ring^{the 19th}^an^{d 20th}^cen^tu^rie^s^{, of}^ex^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^Me^m^b^ers^-^elect^f^o^r¹⁵
^p^r^io^r^cr^imⁱⁿ^a^l^{, i}^m^m^o^r^a^{l, o}^r^dⁱ^slo^y^a^l^coⁿ^d^u^c^t.
⁸
^Rⁱ^dd^ic^k^a^{nd Fr}^um^aⁿ^,^Rⁱ^d^dⁱ^{ck’s Sen}^a^t^{e P}^r^o^cedu^r^{e: P}^r^eced^en^t^s^an^{d P}^r^a^c^tⁱ^ces^{, “}^C^re^de^ntia^{ls a}ⁿ^{d Oa}^th^of^Offⁱ^c^e^,”
^S.D^o^c^.¹⁰^1-²⁸^,^a^t⁷⁰^{4, 70}^8-⁷^{10 [}^h^e^r^e^a^f^te^r^Riddic^k^’^s^Se^nate^Pr^oc^e^d^ur^e^];^Desch^l^{er’s P}^r^eced^en^t^s^o^f^t^h^{e U.}^S^.^Hou^s^{e o}^f
^R^e^p^r^esen^t^a^tⁱ^ves^{, C}^h^{. 2}^,^§^3,^p.⁹⁸^,^a^nd^§^6,^pp.¹^31-¹³²^[^h^e^r^eⁱ^na^f^t^er^Desch^l^{er’s P}^r^eced^en^t^s^].
⁹^S^{ee ref}^e^rr^al^o^f^el^ectⁱ^oⁿ^coⁿ^t^est^o^f^Du^rkin^v.^Wymaⁿ^,¹²¹^Co^ng^ressioⁿ^a^{l Reco}^rd¹⁴⁹⁵⁽¹⁹⁷⁵⁾^{; c}^o^nte^s^t^of^Se^na^tor
^L^a^ndr^ie^{u e}^l^e^c^tion,¹⁴³^C^o^ng^ressioⁿ^a^{l Reco}^rd^{5 (}¹⁹⁹⁷⁾^;ⁿ^o^te^Se^nat^e^C^onte^s^te^{d E}^l^e^c^tion^C^a^s^e^s^,^s^u^pr^a^at¹⁵^,^ci^tⁱⁿ^g^Ru^l^e
^26.^1,^Staⁿ^dⁱ^ng^R^u^le^s^of^the^Se^na^t^e^.
¹⁰^S^ee^Se^nate^C^onte^s^te^d^Ele^c^tio^{n C}^a^s^e^s^,^s^upr^a^a^t^11-¹²^{, 1}³^.^Rⁱ^d^d^ic^k^’^s^Se^nate^Pr^oc^e^dur^e^,^s^upr^a^a^t⁷^04.^“^W^ithout
^p^r^ej^u^dⁱ^{ce” i}ⁿ^dⁱ^cat^{es t}^h^at^t^h^{e sw}^ea^riⁿ^g^-iⁿⁱ^s^“wⁱ^t^h^ou^t^p^r^ej^u^dⁱ^{ce” t}^o^t^h^{e ri}^gh^t^o^f^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^t^o^l^a^t^e^{r d}^e^t^e^rmⁱⁿ^e,^b^y^maj^o^ri^t^y
^v^o^te^{, the}^eⁿ^t^itle^m^e^{nt of}^the^indⁱ^vⁱ^dua^{l t}^o^t^h^e^se^a^t^{, a}^lth^oug^{h i}ⁿ^la^te^{r i}ⁿ^te^rpre^ta^tio^{ns Se}^na^te^le^a^d^e^r^s^ha^v^e^sta^t^e^d^the^opi^nioⁿ
^tha^t^aⁿ^y^sw^e^a^r^ing^{in of}^a^c^h^a^lle^ng^e^d^Se^na^tor^is^“^w^ithout^pr^e^j^u^dⁱ^{ce” t}^o^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^{’s ri}^gh^t^s^o^f^d^e^t^e^rmⁱⁿ^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^evenⁱ^fⁿ^o^t
^exp^r^essl^y^st^at^ed^o^r^“reserv^e^d^”^at^t^h^{e t}ⁱ^m^e.^S^ee^Se^nate^C^o^nte^s^te^{d E}^l^e^c^{tion C}^a^s^e^s^,^s^upr^a^a^t¹⁴^.
¹¹^On^“nⁱⁿ^{e o}^ccasioⁿ^s^{... t}^h^{e Sen}^a^te^[h^{as] d}^eⁿⁱ^e^d^{a seat to}^th^{e can}^dⁱ^d^a^{te w}^h^o^s^{e electio}ⁿ^h^a^d^b^een^certif^ied^b^y^th^{e state.”}
^Se^nate^C^onte^s^te^d^Ele^c^tio^{n C}^a^s^e^s^,^s^upr^a^at¹^.^T^h^{e m}^o^st^recen^t^caseⁱⁿ^w^hⁱ^c^h^{a S}^eⁿ^a^t^o^r-el^ect^p^r^esen^tⁱⁿ^g^cred^en^tⁱ^a^l^s^w^a^s
ⁿ^o^t^c^o^ndⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^l^y^seat^ed^d^u^rⁱⁿ^{g an el}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^con^t^est^app^{ears t}^o^b^e^D^u^r^k^{in v}^.^W^y^m^an,ⁱⁿ¹⁹^74-¹⁹^75,^w^h^ic^{h inv}^o^lv^e^d^a
^c^onte^s^{t w}^h^e^r^e^one^c^a^ndi^da^te^ha^d^be^eⁿ^c^e^r^tif^ie^{d, a}^{nd t}^h^eⁿ^a^f^te^r^a^s^t^a^t^e^r^e^c^ount,^s^u^c^h^c^e^r^tif^ic^a^{tion w}^ith^dr^a^w^{n a}^{nd g}ⁱ^v^e^{n to}
^the^ot^he^r^c^a^ndi^da^te^.^Se^nate^E^l^e^c^{tion C}^a^s^e^s^,^s^upr^a,^c^a^s^e¹³^7,^a^t^pp^{. 421}^-⁴^{25; 12}¹^C^o^ng^ressioⁿ^a^{l Reco}^rd^4-⁵⁽^J^a^nua^r^y
^14,¹⁹⁷⁵⁾^,^aⁿ^{d 1}⁴⁷¹^-¹⁴⁹^{5 (}^J^aⁿ^ua^r^y^{28, 19}⁷⁵⁾^.^A^de^ta^ile^{d d}ⁱ^s^c^us^sⁱ^oⁿ^aⁿ^d^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of^pr^oc^e^dur^a^l^pr^a^c^t^ic^e^s^a^{nd o}^p^tio^ns
^ha^s^be^eⁿ^pr^e^p^a^r^e^d^by^Eliz^a^b^e^t^{h R}^y^bick^{i, A}ⁿ^a^l^y^s^{t on the}^C^o^ng^r^e^s^s^a^{nd t}^h^e^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^P^r^oc^e^s^s^,^G^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt a}^{nd Fi}^na^nc^e
^Dⁱ^vⁱ^sⁱ^{on, C}^R^S⁽⁷^-⁰⁶⁴⁴⁾^.
¹²³⁹^{5 U}^.^S^.⁴⁸⁶⁽¹⁹⁶⁹⁾^.
¹³³⁹^{5 U}^.^S^.^a^t⁵⁵⁰^.^Em^pha^sⁱ^s^a^dde^d^.
¹⁴^Se^na^{tors: A}^r^tic^le^{I, Se}^c^tioⁿ^{3, c}^l^a^u^se^{3; Re}^pre^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e^s^{: A}^r^tic^le^{I, Se}^c^tion^{2, c}^l^a^u^se^2.
¹⁵^Desch^l^{er’s P}^r^eced^en^t^s^,^Ch^.^7,^§⁹^,^p.⁹⁸^.^N^o^t^e^,^f^o^{r exam}^p^l^e,^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^coⁿ^sⁱ^d^eratⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^{e case o}^f^S^eⁿ^a^t^o^r-el^ect
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

It should be emphasized that the Powell decision concerned an exclusion based on judging
“qualifications” of a Member-elect. As noted by the Court, the central question of that case meant
that the Court “must determine the meaning of the phrase to ‘be the Judge of the Qualifications of ¹⁶
its own Members.’”
The limitations on judging the “qualifications” of Members-elect in an exclusion procedure, set
out in the Powell decision, do not, however, necessarily prohibit the Senate from looking into the
“election” or selection of an individual who presents “credentials” to be seated in the Senate.
Under the authority of Article I, Section 5, clause 1, to judge the “elections” and “returns” of its
own Members, the Senate has clear constitutional authority, and has in the past exercised such
authority, to look behind the certification or “credentials” of a Member-elect or Member-
designate to determine if the person presenting himself or herself for seating has been duly ¹⁷
chosen, elected, or selected.
In a Supreme Court decision subsequent to Powell v. McCormack, the Court clearly affirmed the
Senate’s authority to be the final judge of the elections and returns of its own Members. The
Court in Roudebush v. Hartke ruled that a state’s own contest procedures for a senatorial election
could not usurp or deprive the Senate of its constitutional duties and authority to exercise “an ¹⁸
unconditional and final judgment” over the seating of its own Members. In so holding, the Court
expressly recognized the constitutional authority for “an independent evaluation by the Senate” of ¹⁹
the selection of a person to be a United States Senator, finding that the Senate’s determination of
the right to a seat in Congress in an elections case is not reviewable by the courts because it is “a ²⁰
non-justiciable political question.”
Earlier, the Supreme Court, in Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham,²¹ had acknowledged the
Senate’s authority to secure information it needed in determining an election contest where
corruption and fraud in the election had been alleged. The Court noted that the “jurisdiction of the
Senate to determine the rightfulness of the claim [to a Senate seat] was invoked and its power to

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^A^r^thur^R^.^G^ould^of^Ma^ine^,ⁱⁿ¹⁹²⁶^{, c}^o^nc^e^r^ning^a^lle^g^a^tions^of^br^ibe^r^y^o^f^a^f^o^r^eⁱ^g^{n of}^fⁱ^cⁱ^a^l^{in 1}⁹¹⁰ⁱⁿ^a^bus^ine^s^s^de^a^l^.
^Se^nate^Ele^c^tion^C^a^s^e^s^,^sup^r^a^,^C^a^s^e¹¹¹^.
¹⁶³⁹^{5 U}^.^S^.^a^t⁵²¹^.
¹⁷^T^h^e^C^our^{t i}ⁿ^Po^w^e^l^l^e^x^pr^e^s^s^l^y^f^ound^tha^t^the^H^o^us^e^m^a^y^{not e}^x^c^l^ude^by^m^a^jor^ity^v^o^te^one^w^{ho p}^o^s^s^e^s^s^e^s^the^thr^e^e
^c^onstitu^tio^na^{l q}^u^a^lif^ic^a^{tions t}^o^of^fic^e^a^nd^{is “}^d^uly^e^l^e^c^t^e^d^”^b^y^{his c}^onstitueⁿ^c^y^{. 39}^{5 U.S}^.^a^t⁵²²^.^Sⁱ^nc^e^the^House^aⁿ^d
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^{are au}^t^h^o^rⁱ^zed^t^o^j^u^d^g^{e n}^o^t^oⁿ^l^y^t^h^{e t}^h^{ree “qu}^a^lⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^”^bu^t^al^so^t^h^{e “el}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^{” and}^“ret^u^r^{ns” o}^f^t^h^ei^r
^Me^m^b^e^r^s^,^a^jus^tif^ia^ble^inquir^y^m^a^y^pr^o^ceed^unde^r^t^h^e^Powe^ll^ratⁱ^onal^e^{as t}^o^w^h^et^h^e^{r a S}^eⁿ^a^t^o^r-el^ect^w^a^{s d}^u^l^y^el^ect^ed
^o^r^sel^ect^ed^.^It^sho^u^l^d^b^e^rem^e^m^b^e^r^ed^an^d^em^p^h^a^si^zed^t^h^at^t^h^e^P^o^we^ll^d^eci^si^on^con^cern^e^d^a^Hou^s^e^p^r^oceedⁱⁿ^g,^an^dⁿ^o
^Me^m^b^e^r^-^e^lec^t^of^the^H^ous^e^m^a^y^be^“^a^ppo^inte^d”^or^“^c^h^os^eⁿ^”^ot^he^r^thaⁿ^by^popu^la^r^el^ectⁱ^oⁿ^by^“^t^he^pe^ople^.^”^A^r^tic^le^I^,
^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ²^,^cl^au^se¹^.^P^rⁱ^o^r^t^o^t^h^{e S}^e^ven^t^een^t^h^Am^en^d^m^en^tⁱⁿ¹⁹¹³^,^h^o^w^ever,^S^eⁿ^a^t^o^{rs w}^e^r^e^ch^o^s^en^by^t^h^{e st}^at^e
^legⁱ^slato^r^{s, an}^d^g^o^v^e^rn^o^r^{s c}^o^u^l^d^,^an^d^m^a^y^{still, f}^{ill Sen}^a^{te v}^acan^cie^s^b^y^a^ppointm^e^nts^,^aⁿ^d^th^us^the^s^e^le^c^{tion of}^Se^na^to^r^s
^ha^s^a^l^w^a^y^s^inv^o^lv^e^d^m^o^r^e^thaⁿ^po^pula^r^e^l^e^c^tio^ns^{. T}^h^e^s^a^m^e^r^a^tiona^le^w^{ould a}^p^ply^e^v^eⁿ^if^one^s^e^m^a^ntic^a^lly^w^e^r^e^to
^c^ons^ide^r^la^w^f^{ul or}^pr^ope^r^e^l^e^c^tioⁿ^or^s^e^le^c^tion^a^s^one^of^the^c^ons^t^itu^tiona^{l “}^qua^lif^ic^a^tions^”^f^o^r^of^fⁱ^c^e^.^Se^e^Rou^d^e^bus^{h v}^.
^Ha^rtke^{, 40}^{5 U}^.^S.^15,^a^t²⁶^,^n.^23.
¹⁸⁴⁰^{5 U}^.^S^.¹⁵^,¹⁹⁽¹⁹⁷²⁾^.
¹⁹⁴⁰^{5 U}^.^S^.^a^t²⁵^-²^6.
²⁰⁴⁰^{5 U}^.^S^.^a^t¹⁹^.
²¹²⁷^{9 U}^.^S^.⁵⁹⁷⁽¹⁹²⁹⁾^.

adjudicate such right immediately attached by virtue of § 5 of Article I of the Constitution” when
a Member-elect who “had received a certificate from the Governor of the state” presented ²²
“himself to the Senate, claiming all rights of membership.” The Court found that the Senate
“acts as a judicial tribunal” with many of the powers inherent in the court system in rendering, in ²³
such election cases, “a judgment which is beyond the authority of any other tribunal to review.”
In numerous cases in the past the Senate has examined and “judged” the election or return of a
Senator-elect or Senator-designate to determine if the person presenting credentials was lawfully
or properly chosen or elected. The cases, instances, and precedents in which the propriety or
legality of the appointment of a Member-designate to the Senate is questioned in the Senate have
generally been characterized by parliamentarians and historians as “elections” challenges, ²⁴
contests, or cases. That is, within the rubric of “elections” cases and elections challenges is the
Senate’s examination of the validity, legality, and propriety of a Member-designate’s selection or
appointment.
Prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 requiring the popular election of
Senators, Senators were chosen by the various state legislatures, although the governor of a state ²⁵
could fill a vacancy when the legislature was in “recess.” Numerous “election contests” or
“elections cases” were presented in the Senate during this time challenging the credentials and
seating of a Member-designate based upon the questioning of the legality or propriety of a ²⁶
governor’s appointment, or allegations of bribery and corruption in obtaining the selection of ²⁷
the state legislature. In some of the cases concerning gubernatorial appointments, the Senate
²²
²⁷^{9 U}^.^S^.^a^t⁶¹⁴^.
²³²⁷⁹^U.^S.^at⁶¹^3,⁶¹^6.^S^{ee al}^so^R^eed^v.^Couⁿ^t^{y C}^o^mmi^ssi^oⁿ^e^rs^{, 27}⁷^U^.^{S. 37}^{6, 38}⁸⁽¹⁹²⁸⁾^.
²⁴^S^ee,^f^o^{r exa}^m^p^l^e,^Se^nate^Ele^c^tⁱ^o^{n C}^a^s^e^s^,^s^u^pr^a,^{Case 8}⁸^,ⁱⁿ^regar^d^{s t}^o^M^a^t^t^h^ew^Qu^ay^,^ch^ara^c^t^e^ri^ze^d^{as an}^“E^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ
^C^a^s^e⁽^a^ppointm^e^nt)^,^”^q^u^e^s^tio^ning^the^rⁱ^g^h^t^of^the^g^o^v^e^r^nor^“^t^{o m}^a^ke^aⁿ^a^p^p^o^intm^eⁿ^{t if}^the^le^gⁱ^s^l^a^t^ur^e^ha^{d a}ⁿ
^o^p^p^o^r^t^uⁿⁱ^t^y^t^o^el^ect^{a sen}^a^t^o^{r a}ⁿ^d^f^aⁱ^l^e^d^t^o^d^o^so^”;^{Case 85}^,^Hen^r^y^W^.^Co^rb^et^t^,^ch^aract^eri^zed^{as an}^“^E^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^Case,^”ⁱⁿ
^w^hⁱ^c^h^“t^h^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^f^aced^t^h^{e i}^ssu^{e o}^f^w^h^et^h^e^{r a go}^vern^o^r^co^u^l^{d ap}^poⁱⁿ^t^{a Un}ⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^{es S}^eⁿ^a^t^o^{r at}^t^h^{e b}^e^giⁿⁿⁱⁿ^g^o^f^a
^te^r^mⁱ^f^the^s^t^a^t^e^le^gⁱ^s^l^a^t^ur^e^ha^{d f}^a^ile^{d to}^e^l^e^c^t^”^;^C^a^s^e^108,^G^e^r^a^{ld P}^.^N^y^e^:^“^E^le^c^{tion C}^a^s^e⁽^a^ppo^intm^eⁿ^t)^,”^de^te^r^m^ining
^the^rⁱ^g^h^t^of^the^s^t^a^t^e^’^s^g^o^v^e^r^nor^to^m^a^k^e^a^tem^por^a^r^y^a^ppointm^e^nt;^a^{nd C}^a^s^e¹²^{4, C}^l^a^r^eⁿ^c^e^{E. Ma}^r^tⁱⁿ^v^.^J^o^s^e^{ph R}^o^sⁱ^e^r^:
^“^E^le^c^{tion c}^a^s^e⁽^a^ppo^intm^eⁿ^t)^,”^w^h^e^r^eⁱⁿ¹⁹^{41 t}^h^e^Se^na^te^he^a^r^{d a}^c^h^a^lle^ng^e^{to t}^h^e^pr^opr^ie^ty^of^a^g^ove^r^nor^’^s^a^p^poi^ntm^e^nt
^to^f^{ill a Sen}^a^{te v}^acan^c^y^.
²⁵^C^ons^ti^tuti^on^{, A}^r^tic^le^I^,^Se^c^tion^3,^c^l^a^u^s^e^s^{1, 2}⁽ⁿ^ow^s^upe^r^s^e^d^e^d^by^the^Se^v^e^nte^eⁿ^{th A}^m^e^ndm^eⁿ^t)^.
²⁶^Se^e^f^ootno^te²⁴^a^bov^e^,^aⁿ^d^Se^nat^e^Ele^c^{tion C}^a^s^e^s^{, C}^a^s^e^{2, K}^e^ns^e^y^J^ohns^;^C^a^s^e^{6, U}^r^ia^{h T}^r^a^c^y^{; C}^a^s^e^{8, Sa}^m^u^e^l
^Sm^{ith; C}^a^s^e^{12, J}^a^m^e^s^L^aⁿ^m^aⁿ^{; C}^a^s^e^{16, A}^m^br^ous^H^.^Se^vⁱ^e^r^{; C}^a^s^e^{23, R}^obe^r^t^C^.^Wⁱ^nt^hr^o^p^{; C}^a^s^e²⁵^{, A}^r^c^h^iba^l^{d D}ⁱ^x^oⁿ^;
^Ca^se^{26, Sa}^m^u^e^l^S.^Phe^l^{ps; Ca}^se^{27, Ja}^re^{d W}^.^W^illia^m^s^{; Ca}^se^71,^Cha^r^le^{s H. Be}^{ll; Ca}^se⁷⁴^{, He}^nry^W^.^Blaⁱ^{r; Ca}^se^81,
^Ho^{race Ch}^iltoⁿ^;^{Case 8}²^{, Jo}^hⁿ^B.^A^llen^,^A^s^ah^{el C. Beck}^w^ith^{, an}^d^L^{ee M}^aⁿ^{tle; Case 9}⁸^,^Hen^r^y^{D. Cla}^y^toⁿ^an^d^Fran^k^lⁱⁿ
^P^.^G^l^ass.
²⁷^Ele^c^tion^c^a^s^e^of^W^illia^m^A^.^Cla^r^k⁽^Se^nate^Ele^c^tⁱ^{on C}^a^s^e^s^{, c}^a^s^e⁸⁹^{) in w}^h^ic^{h t}^h^e^Se^na^te^c^o^m^m^itte^e^inv^e^stig^a^ting^the
^c^r^e^d^eⁿ^tia^{ls a}^{nd e}^l^e^c^tioⁿ^of^Cla^r^k^,^se^le^c^t^e^d^by^the^Montaⁿ^a^le^gⁱ^sla^t^u^r^e^,^c^onc^lu^de^{d i}ⁿ¹⁹⁰⁰^tha^t^Cla^r^k^w^a^{s not e}ⁿ^t^itle^{d t}^o
^his^s^e^a^t^by^vⁱ^r^t^ue^of^e^x^te^ns^ive^br^ibe^r^y^a^{nd c}^o^r^r^upti^oⁿⁱⁿ^o^b^taⁱⁿⁱⁿ^gⁱ^t^{. C}^l^a^r^k^r^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^d^prⁱ^o^r^t^o^f^u^{ll Se}ⁿ^a^te^a^c^tion,^{but w}^a^s
^l^a^t^e^{r sel}^ect^ed^an^d^seat^ed^f^o^{r a n}^e^w^Coⁿ^g^ress^w^h^enⁿ^o^co^rr^u^p^tⁱ^oⁿ^c^h^arges^w^e^re^f^o^r^w^ard^e^d^.^In^t^h^{e el}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{case o}^f
^W^illia^m^L^o^ri^m^e^{r (Ca}^s^e^{95) the}^Se^na^te^{, a}^y^e^a^r^a^f^te^{r se}^a^ting^L^o^ri^m^e^r,^inv^e^stig^a^t^e^d^a^lle^g^a^{tions tha}^t^L^o^ri^m^e^{r ha}^{d o}^b^ta^ine^d
^{his se}^a^tⁱⁿ¹⁹⁰⁹^thr^oug^h^bri^b^e^r^y^a^{nd c}^o^rr^up^tioⁿ^of^the^Illin^oi^{s le}^gⁱ^sl^a^t^ure^.^T^h^e^Se^na^teⁱⁿ¹⁹¹²^e^v^eⁿ^tua^lly^v^o^te^{d to}
^e^x^c^l^ude^L^o^rⁱ^m^e^r^by^de^c^l^a^r^ing^his^e^l^e^c^{tion by}^the^le^gⁱ^s^l^a^t^ur^e^inv^a^lid⁽^s^e^e^a^l^s^o^Se^na^te^L^e^ga^{l C}^ouns^e^l^,^C^onte^s^te^{d E}^l^e^c^tion
^Ca^ses^,^at⁴^-⁵⁾^.^S^{ee al}^so^{case o}^f^A^l^exan^d^e^{r Cal}^d^w^e^l^l^{(Case 6}¹⁾^,^w^h^er^{e t}^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee i}ⁿ^vestⁱ^g^atⁱⁿ^{g al}^l^e^gatⁱ^oⁿ^s^o^f
^br^ibe^r^y^a^{nd c}^o^r^r^u^pti^on^by^C^a^ldw^e^{ll in}^ob^taⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^a^Se^na^te^s^e^a^t^f^r^om^the^K^a^ns^a^s^le^gⁱ^s^l^a^t^ur^e^,^de^ba^te^{d w}^h^e^t^he^r^C^a^ldw^e^ll’^s
^c^ond^uc^{t w}^a^r^r^a^nte^d^e^x^pulsⁱ^oⁿ^or^a^de^c^l^a^r^a^tion^nullⁱ^f^y^ing^his^s^e^le^c^{tion, o}^p^te^d^f^o^r^the^la^tte^r^,^a^{nd r}^e^por^te^{d tha}^t^C^a^ldw^e^ll
^h^a^d^no^t^b^een^“du^l^y^an^d^l^e^gal^l^y^el^ect^ed^{” t}^o^t^h^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^.^T^h^{e en}^suⁱⁿ^{g d}^e^b^a^t^eⁱⁿ^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^f^o^cu^sed^oⁿ^wh^et^h^e^{r Cal}^d^w^e^l^l^’^s
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

refused to seat the Senator-designate even though the Senator-designate appeared with the official
certification from the state, and eventually “excluded” the individuals from the Senate, such as in ²⁸
the case of Kensey Johns, appointed by the Governor of Delaware to fill a vacancy in 1784, the ²⁹
case of Henry W. Corbett, appointed by the Governor of Oregon in 1898, and the case of ³⁰
Matthew Quay, appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1898.
After the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, the popular elections of Senators were also
challenged in various cases in which there were allegations of corruption or bribery in the
selection of a Member-elect, such that the validity of the entire election process was called into
doubt. For example, in 1929, in the case of William S. Vare, the Senate eventually agreed to a
resolution which found that “the expenditure of such large sums of money to secure the
nomination ... together with the charges of corruption and fraud ... prima facie taints with fraud
and corruption the credentials of the said William S. Vare for a seat in the United States Senate,” ³¹
and refused to seat Senator-elect Vare. The Senate Legal Counsel has observed that, “On three
occasions the Senate has determined that an election was so tainted with corruption that its results ³²
were invalid. Each time the Senate declared the seat vacant.” With respect to the similar factors
to consider in the House of Representatives elections cases, it has been noted in Deschler’s
Precedents:
^C^ong^res^s^is^t^h^{e s}^o^{le j}^u^dg^{e of}^th^{e election}^s^of^it^s^Me^m^b^ers^,^aⁿ^{d reg}^u^l^atioⁿ^of^elections^is^a
^s^u^bj^ect^of^v^a^ri^ous^f^e^deral^s^t^at^ut^es^{. If}^t^h^{e H}^ous^e^f^oun^{d t}^h^at^a^Me^m^b^{er h}^a^{d con}^d^u^c^t^e^{d s}^u^c^h^a
^corru^{pt an}^{d f}^r^au^d^u^{lent ca}^m^p^ai^gⁿ^a^s^{to ren}^d^er^t^h^{e election}^inv^a^{lid, th}^e^Hou^s^{e co}^u^l^{d deny}^a³³
^s^{eat to s}^u^c^h^Me^m^b^er^-^e^{lect, n}^o^{t f}^o^{r dis}^q^u^a^li^fⁱ^catioⁿ^s^b^u^t^f^o^r^f^a^ilu^r^e^to^b^e^d^u^l^y^elected^.
It would thus appear from congressional precedents that corruption and fraud in the election or
selection process would be, and have been, valid and relevant considerations for the Senate to
examine in determining the legitimacy of the selection of a Senator-elect or Senator-designate
who presents credentials to be seated.
The authority of the Senate to “exclude” a Member-elect or a Member-designate by majority vote
for failure to be duly chosen, or failure to meet the constitutional qualifications for office, must be
distinguished from an “expulsion” by the Senate. An expulsion, unlike an exclusion, is generally
recognized as a “disciplinary” measure to punish a Member, as well as a measure to protect the
integrity and dignity of the institution from those who have proven unworthy of continued

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^e^l^e^c^{tion sh}^oul^d^beⁿ^u^llif^ie^{d, or}^whe^t^he^{r Ca}^ldw^e^{ll sho}^u^ld^be^e^x^pe^lle^{d, a}ⁿ^{d w}^a^{s e}^v^eⁿ^tua^lly^c^onc^lude^d^by^Ca^ld^w^e^ll’s
^r^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^a^tion.
²⁸^Se^na^te^Ele^c^tio^{n C}^a^s^e^s^,^sup^r^a,^C^a^s^e^{2, a}^t^6-^7.
²⁹^Se^na^te^Ele^c^tio^{n C}^a^s^e^s^,^sup^r^a,^C^a^s^e^{85, a}^t²⁵^3-²⁵⁵^;^S.^R^e^pt.⁵⁰^5,⁵⁵^th^C^ong^{., 2d Se}^s^s^.⁽¹⁸⁹⁸⁾^.
³⁰^Se^na^te^Ele^c^tio^{n C}^a^s^e^s^,^sup^r^a,^C^a^s^e^{88, a}^t²⁶^1-²⁶²^;^S.^R^e^pt.¹⁵^3,⁵⁶^th^Cong^.,¹^st^Se^s^s^.⁽¹⁹⁰⁰⁾^.
³¹^S.^R^e^s^.¹¹^1,^71s^{t C}^ong^r^e^s^s⁽¹⁹²⁹⁾^.^Seⁿ^a^te^Ele^c^tio^{n C}^a^se^s^,^s^upr^a^C^a^s^e^109.^Se^e^a^l^s^o^t^h^e^c^a^s^e^of^Fr^aⁿ^k^L^.^Sm^{ith, in}
^w^h^ic^{h the}^Se^na^teⁱⁿ¹⁹²⁸^v^o^te^d^to^de^ny^a^se^a^t^{to a}^Se^na^tor-e^le^c^t^be^c^a^use^{his e}^l^e^c^tion^w^a^{s ta}^inte^{d w}^{ith “}^b^la^ta^{nt f}^r^a^ud
^a^{nd c}^o^r^r^upt^io^n.”^S.R^e^p^t^.^92,⁷⁰^th^C^ong^.,^2d^Se^s^s^.⁽¹⁹²⁸⁾^{, s}^e^e^Se^na^t^e^Ele^c^{tion C}^a^s^e^s^,^C^a^s^e¹¹^{0, a}ⁿ^{d S}^e^na^te^L^e^g^a^l
^C^ouns^e^l^,^C^o^nte^s^te^{d Ele}^c^tio^{n C}^a^s^e^s^{, a}^t^4-6^.
³²^Se^na^te^L^e^g^a^{l C}^ouns^e^l^,^Co^nte^s^te^d^Ele^c^tion^Case^s^{, a}^t⁴^.
³³^Desch^l^er'^s^P^r^eced^en^t^s^,^su^p^r^a^at^C^h^ap^t^e^r^7,^{§ 11}^,^p^.¹¹⁸^.

membership.³⁴ There is a separate authority and procedure for “expelling” a sitting Member for
misconduct, general fitness to serve, or other issues of character or behavior, which is authorized ³⁵
in the Constitution at Article I, Section 5, clause 2, and requires a two-thirds majority vote.
Exclusion is based upon a failure to meet the constitutional qualifications for office, or a failure to
be duly elected or selected, such that one is not entitled to the seat, and may be determined by
majority vote.
^J^ack^Mas^k^ell
^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^at^iv^{e A}^t^torn^e^y
^j^m^as^k^e^ll^@^c^rs^.loc.g^o^v^{, 7-}⁶⁹⁷²

³⁴
^S^{ee S}^t^o^r^y^,^s^upr^a^,^Vol^.^I^I^,^§§⁸^35-⁸³⁶^{; a}ⁿ^d^Desch^l^{er’s P}^r^eced^en^t^s^{, C}^h^{. 1}²^,^§^12,^p.¹^74.
³⁵^Se^e^g^e^ne^r^a^ll^y^,^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^93-⁸⁷^5,^Ex^p^u^lsⁱ^on^an^{d C}^e^ns^ur^e^Ac^ti^ons^Tak^eⁿ^by^the^F^u^ll^Seⁿ^a^te^A^gai^ns^t^M^e^m^b^e^r^s^{, by}
^{Jack M}^a^s^k^el^l^.