59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–177 

DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST RELATING TO THE 

OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

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. 462] 

The Committee on House Administration, having had under consideration an original resolution dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Fourth Congressional 

District of Louisiana, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be agreed to. 

DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST IN THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

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

against James Otis (‘‘Jim’’) McCrery, reports the same to the House 

with recommendation that the resolution be agreed to. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

On May 8, 2007, by 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) 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. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
2 

1 2 U.S.C. §§ 381–96. 2 No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five 

Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, 

be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen. 

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, Patti M. Cox (‘‘Contestant’’) filed with the 

Clerk of the House of the House of Representatives a Notice of 

Contest captioned ‘‘Patti M. Cox, Contestant, v. James Otis (‘‘Jim’’) 

McCrery, Contestee.’’ The document, prepared by Contestant, was 

filed pursuant to the Federal Contested Elections Act (‘‘FCEA’’).1

Contestant ran as one of two Democratic candidates for the 

United States House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana in the general election held on November 7, 2006 against incumbent Republican James O. McCrery 

(‘‘Contestee’’). The other participants in the Congressional race 

were Artis R. Cash, Sr. and Chester T. Kelley. The returns as certified by the Secretary of State of Louisiana were: 

Jim McCrery 77,078 57% 

Artis R. Cash, Sr. 22,757 17% 

Patti Cox 17,788 13% 

Chester T. Kelley 16,649 12% 

Contestee, based on the certified returns, was declared the winner of the Fourth Congressional District seat on November 20, 

2006. 

BASIS OF CONTEST

In the Notice of Contest, Contestant alleges that Contestee was 

not, when elected on November 7, 2006, an inhabitant of the state 

of Louisiana within the meaning of the Qualification clause, Article 

1 2, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution.2 Therefore Contestant 

claims that Contestee is not qualified to serve as a Representative 

to the Congress from the state of Louisiana. Contestant does not 

challenge the accuracy of the returns or allege any irregularity in 

the election. 

The essence of Contestant’s claim is that Contestee did not maintain a sufficient physical presence in Louisiana to qualify him as 

an inhabitant of the state for the purposes of the Qualifications 

clause. Contestant alleges that Contestee had no home apartment, 

habitation or other place of abode in the state on Election Day. According to Contestant, Contestee sold his home in Louisiana in July 

2004 and subsequent to that date did not have a Louisiana residence. On his statement of candidacy filed with the Louisiana Secretary of State, Contestee listed his domicile as 10855 Longfellow 

Trace, Shreveport, Louisiana. Based on a phone call that a Dr. 

Kirkikis purportedly had with one of the owners of that property, 

Contestant claims that Contestee did not ‘‘live’’ at that address. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
3 

3Deschler’s Precedents, supra at Chapter 9, § 9, p. 362. 

Contestant further claims without any documentary support that 

the apartment that Contestee now leases in Louisiana was only 

leased after the date of the election. These allegations, if proven to 

be true, Contestant claims, would be sufficient to demonstrate that 

Contestee is not qualified to hold the office of Representative to the 

Congress from the state of Louisiana. 

RESPONSE BY CONTESTEE

Contestee filed a formal answer and motion to dismiss in response to the Notice of Contest with the Clerk of the House of Representatives on January 18, 2007. Contestee answers that he fully 

satisfied the inhabitancy requirement of the Qualification Clause. 

He provided an affidavit from the owner of the property attesting 

to the fact that he maintained a residence at 10855 Longfellow 

Trace, Shreveport, Louisiana continually from September 2004 

until November 2006. He further provided a lease for an apartment 

that he currently maintains with a term that began on November 

4, 2006 and runs through May 31, 2007. 

NATURE OF PROCEEDING

The Committee finds that this contest should not have been 

brought before the House under the FCEA and should be dismissed. 

Under the precedents of the House, a challenge to the qualifications of a Member is not treated as an election contest. The question before the House under the Qualification clause is not whether 

the Member was duly elected but whether the Member notwithstanding election is constitutionally qualified to hold the office. 

Deschler’s Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives: 

(Deschler’s) expressly references the distinction: 

A challenge to seating a Member-elect may also be based on 

his failure to meet the constitutional requirements as to citizenship, residence, or age for the office, and in that context is 

treated as a matter of ‘‘exclusion’’ and not as an election contest.3

Deschler’s set forth the procedures under which a challenge to 

the qualifications of a Member-elect is typically brought: 

Alleged failure to meet qualifications is raised, usually by 

another Member-elect, before the House rises en masse to take 

the oath of office. [footnote omitted] If a challenge is made, the 

Speaker requests the challenged Member-elect to stand aside. 

The Member elect whose qualifications are in doubt may then 

be authorized to take the oath of office pursuant to a resolution 

so providing, which resolution may either declare him entitled 

to the seat, or refer the question of his final right to committee. 

[footnote omitted] The House may also refuse to permit him to 

take the oath, and may refer the question of his qualifications 

and his right to take the oath to committee. [footnote omitted] 

If the House finds that a Member-elect has not met the qualifications for membership, or has failed to remove disqualifications, a new election must be held. An opposing candidate with 

the next highest number of votes cannot claim the right to the 

seat. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING
4 

It is important to note that a successful challenge to the qualifications of a Member elect does not result in the seating of the opposing candidate with the highest number of voters. This is a critical fact in evaluating claims under the FCEA. An essential element of an election contest under the FCEA is that the contestant 

claims a right to the office. An individual who cannot claim a right 

to the office does not have standing to bring an action under the 

FCEA. In such circumstances a contest is properly dismissed. 

The Committee finds that, as a general matter, challenges to the 

qualifications of a member-elect to serve in the Congress are not 

a proper subject for a contest brought under FCEA. Nothing in 

Contestant’s Notice of Contest persuades the Committee to re-consider its understanding of the FCEA. Consequently, the Committee 

concludes that Contestant’s arguments regarding Contestee’s qualifications to serve in Congress do not constitute grounds sufficient 

to change the result of the election and, therefore, recommends 

that this election contest be dismissed. 

The Committee also notes that there is no reason to believe, 

based on evidence that was presented in this contest, that 

Contestee was not an inhabitant of the state of Louisiana when he 

was elected. Indeed, the evidence submitted by the contestee suggests that he was in fact an inhabitant, but because that question 

is not properly before the Committee, the Committee makes no formal finding in that regard. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Committee therefore concludes that this contest should be dismissed. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with HEARING