59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–176 

DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST RELATING TO THE 

OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE TWENTYFOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JUNE 6, 2007.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House 

Administration, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 461] 

The Committee on House Administration, having had under consideration an original resolution dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Twenty-fourth Congressional District of Florida, report the same to the House with 

the recommendation that the resolution be agreed to. 

DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST IN THE TWENTY-FOURTH

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

The Committee on House Administration, having had under consideration an original resolution dismissing the election contest 

against Tom Feeney, reports the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be agreed to. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

On, May 8, 2007, by a voice vote, a quorum being present, the 

Committee agreed to a motion to report the resolution favorably to 

the House. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

2 

1 2 U.S.C. Sec. 381–96. 2Title IX. Electors and Elections (Chapters 97–109) § 102.111 (1) of the Florida Code provides 

that ‘‘The Elections Canvassing Commission shall, as soon as the official results are compiled 

from all counties, certify the returns of the election and determine and declare who has been 

elected for each federal, state, and multicounty office.’’ The Canvassing Commission consists of 

the Governor and two members of the Cabinet selected by the Governor. 3 2 U.S.C. Sec. 382(a). 

STATEMENT ON BUDGET AUTHORITY AND RELATED ITEMS

The resolution does not provide new budget authority, new 

spending authority, new credit authority or an increase or decrease 

in revenues or tax expenditures. Thus, clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and the provisions of 

section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are not 

applicable. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On December 20, 2006, Clint Curtis (Contestant) filed a Notice 

of Contest with the Clerk of the House of Representatives pursuant 

to the Federal Contested Elections Act (FCEA).1 Contestant ran as 

the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office of Representative to the United States Congress representing the Twenty-Fourth 

Congressional District of the State of Florida in November 7, 2006 

election. The other principal candidate for the Twenty-Fourth Congressional District was incumbent Republican Tom Feeney 

(Contestee). On November 20, 2006, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission 2 certified the results: Contestee received 

123,795 votes and Contestant received 89,863 votes, a margin of 

33,932 votes. In addition to the Notice of Contest, Contestant also 

filed an election contest with the Circuit Court of Leon County on 

November 30, 2006. 

BASIS OF CONTEST

In his Notice of Contest, Contestant alleges that the official election results for the Twenty-Fourth Congressional District of the 

State of Florida are incorrect because of alleged irregularities associated with the electronic voting machines used in the election. 

Specifically, Contestant avers that the electronic voting machines 

did not record accurately the votes cast. In support of this argument, Contestant asserts that the electronic voting machines produced unreliable and incorrect results based on his belief that 

these machines were hacked and the software manipulated. Contestant further contends that an accurate count of the votes cast 

can never be discerned because the electronic voting machines used 

in this election were not equipped with a verified voter paper audit 

trail. Contestant also contends that the failure of local boards of 

election to put into place necessary procedural safeguards compromised the election results. 

STANDING

To have standing under the FCEA, a contestant must have been 

a candidate for election to the House of Representatives in the last 

preceding election and claim a right to the contestee’s seat.3 Contestant was the Democratic nominee and his name appeared as a 

candidate for the Twenty-Fourth Congressional District on the offimstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

3 

4 U.S.C.A Const. Art. 1, § 5 2 U.S.C. Sec. 382. 

6See, e.g. Pierce v. Pursell, H. Rep. 95–245 (1977). 7 Anderson v. Rose, H. Rep. 104–852 (1996). 

cial ballot for the November 7, 2006 election, thereby satisfying the 

standing requirement. 

TIMING/NOTICE

The Notice of Contest appears to have been served upon Congressman Feeney and filed within the prescribed time periods of 

the FCEA. 

RESPONSE BY CONTESTEE

On January 19, 2007, Contestee filed a Motion to Dismiss Contest of Election in response to Contestant’s Notice of Contest challenging the results of the 2006 General Election for the TwentyFourth Congressional District of the State of Florida. Contestee 

maintains that the contest against him should be dismissed because Contestant failed to claim a right to the office and support 

that claim with specific credible allegations of irregularities or 

fraud that if proven true would be sufficient to change the result 

of the election. 

STANDARD FOR GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

The House of Representatives has the constitutionally vested 

power to judge its own elections.4 The FCEA sets forth procedures 

under which a Contestant may bring a contest to the House of Representatives. Under the FCEA, it is not sufficient for a Contestant 

merely to allege irregularities or fraud in an election. The Contestant must claim a right to the office.5 The contestant must support 

this claim with specific credible allegations of irregularity or fraud 

that if proven true, would entitle the contestant to the office.6 Unless a contestant credibly claims in his Notice of Contest a right to 

the office, the House of Representatives will dismiss the Contest.7

ANALYSIS

To survive a motion to dismiss, Contestant must proffer allegations that, if proven, would have altered the election outcome. In 

his Notice of Contest, Contestant presented the Committee on 

House Administration (Committee) with a series of alleged irregularities in the conduct of the election that he contends support his 

claim that he lost due to errors in the administration of the election. These irregularities fall into the following five categories: 

1. Election Equipment 

2. Polling Data 

3. Election Administration Errors 

4. Affidavit Progression 

5. Software Source Code Disclosure 

Although Contestant complains that the election was not well 

conducted, those charges fall well short of credibly suggesting that 

Contestant is entitled to the office. As discussed below, those 

claims, taken individually or collectively, provide no basis upon 

which the House of Representatives could conclude that the Contestant is entitled to the office. Contestant has not demonstrated 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

4 

to the Committee’s satisfaction that this contest is anything more 

than a reflection of his general dissatisfaction with how the election 

was administered. Lacking from his contest is a credible claim that 

absent the alleged irregularities he would have won the election. 

Contestant’s claims are built on shifting sands of speculation and 

conjecture and do not provide a basis for the Committee proceeding 

with an investigation. 

Election equipment 

While Contestant identifies several problems in the administration of the election that he contends may have contributed to an 

inaccurate and unreliable election result, he also maintains that a 

likely cause of his defeat was the electronic voting machines used 

in the Twenty-Fourth Congressional District. The voting machines 

used in this election to capture the votes cast employed one of two 

technologies: Direct Recording Equipment (DRE) and Optical Scan. 

In describing the DRE voting machines used in the election, Contestant maintains that these machines had an obvious unexplained 

bias toward Contestee in the way votes were recorded. The only 

evidence Contestant offers to support this claim is the historical 

voting patterns in the district. Contestant claims that he did not 

do as well as a hypothetical Democrat in the district would do. The 

very nature of this claim demonstrates how speculative it is. There 

are many possible explanations for the purported variance and 

there is no reason to believe that the DRE voting equipment accounted for the difference. Contestant’s claims regarding the optical 

scan equipment are similarly deficient. Merely suggesting that voting equipment may be subject to tampering or is not inherently reliable is insufficient grounds for contesting an election. 

Polling data 

Contestant relies on polling data collected in October 2006, a 

month before the election, to show that the race at that point was 

within 2–3 percentage points. The fact that there was a poll a 

month before the election suggesting that Contestant was behind 

by a smaller margin than he eventually lost by is hardly evidence 

that Contestant won the election. Such evidence simply does not 

support a claim that Contestant is entitled to the office. 

Election administration errors 

Contestant alleges that election administrators failed to perform 

their duties properly and these failures affected the outcome of the 

election. The alleged errors fall into two categories: failure to implement safeguards and failure to follow required procedures. Contestant asserts that certain voting machines used in Volusia County, Florida, for the Twenty-Fourth Congressional District were not 

properly certified under Florida law. Even assuming that this allegation was true, Contestant has failed to show that the outcome of 

the election was affected by the failure to comply completely with 

the certification process. To maintain a contest it is not sufficient 

to simply assert, or even prove, that some state laws or processes 

were not followed. Contestant must credibly claim and support 

with specific allegations how the failure to comply affected the outcome of the election. Contestant’s claim never amounts to more 

than conjecture and is insufficient to support an election contest. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

5 

8See Anderson v. Rose, H. Rep. No. 104–852 (1996) quoting McCuen v. Dickey, H. Rep. No. 

103–109 at 6 (1993). 

Second, Contestant claims that certain pre-election procedures 

were not followed. Initially, he cites allegations by individuals and 

organizations detailing incidents of voter registration denials, missing or destroyed audit logs, and road blockages and detours preventing voters from getting to the polls. These allegations, even if 

proven true, do not justify overturning an election that the 

Contestee won by a margin of 33,932. Next, Contestant argues in 

the Notice of Contest that the integrity of certain ballots was compromised. In Volusia County, Contestant claims that he discovered 

discrepancies during a ballot inspection where certain seals on the 

ballot bags were either missing or did not match up with numbers 

on the ballot reconciliation forms. Again, Contestant has failed to 

show the number of ballots affected comes anywhere close to the 

margin by which he was defeated. 

In addition to purported discrepancies with ballot bag seals, Contestant alleges discrepancies exist between the ‘‘Statement of Votes 

Cast’’ and the ‘‘All Voter Disk Data’’ provided by the Volusia County Supervisor of Elections. Contestant states that the statement of 

votes cast shows that 45,021 ballots were cast on Election Day, but 

the All Voter Disk Data reflects only 44,773 people voting at the 

polls on Election Day. While Contestant agrees that a 248 vote difference is rather small, he still believes that the fact that a discrepancy exists is an indication of greater problems in the administration of the election in Volusia County. We do not find that the 

claimed errors or misconduct, if proven true, would change the 

election outcome. 

In reviewing actions by election administrators, it is well established that the Committee does not consider a mere claim of election official error sufficient to sustain a contest unless that error 

is of such magnitude that it likely affected the outcome of the election. ‘‘Our respect for the States and State election officials mandates that these ‘assumptions of regularity’ not be discarded based 

solely on a ‘[c]ontestant’s bare allegations of irregularity,’ election 

officials are presumed to have acted in accordance with State law, 

and errors will not be imputed without convincing evidence.’’ 8

While there may be some administrative errors that occurred on or 

before Election Day, the allegations cited by Contestant do not cast 

sufficient doubt on the election results to merit this Committee’s 

further consideration. 

Affidavit progression and vote flipping 

Contestant also claims that the software used to record the votes 

contained malicious source code. Contestant believes that the electronic voting machines used in this election contained vote flipping 

software, hidden in the source code, to manipulate the election results in Contestee’s favor. Because Contestant offers no factual 

basis for this claim, it must be dismissed. Contestant’s claim can 

only generously be described as conjecture. Allowing contests to be 

brought on such claims would overthrow the presumption of regularity that attaches to the State elections process and would make 

every election open to contest. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

6 

Software source code disclosure 

Contestant suggests that proof of the alleged electronic voting 

machines manipulation can be proven by examining the software 

source code. The fact that an examination of the source code might 

reveal it contained malicious software does not relieve Contestant 

of his obligation to make a credible claim that it does. If it did, all 

elections would be open to challenge. 

CONCLUSION

The Committee finds that Contestant has failed to make a credible and specific claim that he is entitled to the office. Contestant’s 

claims amount to no more than raw conjecture and speculation unsupported by specific and credible allegations of irregularity sufficient to put into doubt the outcome of the election. None of the 

cited irregularities associated with the electronic machines or the 

administration of the Twenty-Fourth Congressional District election justify the Committee proceeding any further with an election 

contest. The Committee finds that Contestant failed to meet the required burden under the FCEA. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING