The U.S. Constitution provides at Article I, Section 5, clause 1, that each House of Congress shall be the judge of the "elections, returns and qualifications" of its own Members. Under the federal system, primary authority over the procedures and the administration of elections to Congress within the several states is given expressly to the states in the "Times, Places, and Manner" clause of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, clause 1 (which also provides a residual, superseding authority within Congress to alter such regulations concerning congressional elections). Election recounts or challenges to congressional election results are thus initially conducted at the state level, including in the state courts, under the states' constitutional authority to administer federal elections, and are presented to the House of Representatives as the final judge of such elections. Under these constitutional provisions and practice, the House essentially is the final arbiter of the elections of its own Members. As noted by the House Committee on Administration, once the final returns in any election have been ascertained, the ultimate "determination of the right of an individual to a seat in the House of Representatives is in the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives under article I, section 5 of the Constitution of the United States." A noted 19 th century expert on parliamentary and legislative assemblies, Luther Sterns Cushing, explained that 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 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 obvious that a power must be lodged somewhere to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of each house composing the legislature; for otherwise there could be no certainty as to who were legitimately chosen members, and any intruder or usurper might claim a seat, and thus trample upon the rights and privileges and liberties of the people.... If lodged in any other, than the legislative body itself, its independence, its purity and even its existence and action may be destroyed, or put into imminent danger. In Roudebush v. Hartke , the U.S. Supreme Court held that under this provision of the Constitution, the final determination of the right to a seat in Congress in an elections case is not reviewable by the courts because it is "a non-justiciable political question," and that each House of Congress in judging the elections of its own Members has the right under the Constitution to make "an unconditional and final judgment." Earlier, the Supreme Court had also found that each House of Congress under Article I, Section 5, clause 1, "acts as a judicial tribunal" with many of the powers inherent in the court system in rendering in such cases "a judgment which is beyond the authority of any other tribunal to review." Under the constitutional authority over the elections and returns of its own Members, the House in its consideration of a challenged election may accept a state count or recount or other such determination, or conduct its own recount and make its own determinations and findings. While the House has broad authority in this area, there is an institutional deference to, and a "presumption of the regularity" of state election proceedings, results, and certifications. An election certificate from the authorized state official, generally referred to as the "credentials" presented by a Member-elect, therefore, is deemed to be prima facie evidence of the regularity and results of an election to the House. The consequences of this presumption of regularity would generally result in the swearing in of a Member-elect presenting such credentials to the House at the beginning of a new Congress, even in the face of a filed contest or challenge, and would create a "substantial" burden of proof on the contestant to persuade the House to take action that, in substance, would amount to "rejecting the certified returns of a state and calling into doubt the entire electoral process." There are two general avenues by which the House obtains jurisdiction over an election that is challenged or contested. In modern practice, the Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 (FCEA) is the primary method by which a congressional election is contested in the House of Representatives. This contest is triggered by a losing candidate filing a notice under the provisions of the FCEA. In addition, the House has in the past, upon a challenge to the seating of a Member-elect, referred the question of the right to a seat in the House to the committee of jurisdiction (now the Committee on House Administration) for the committee to investigate and to report to the House for disposition. As explained in Deschler's Precedents : The House acquires jurisdiction of an election contest upon the filing of a notice of contest. Normally the papers relating to an election contest are transmitted by the Clerk to the Committee on House Administration, pursuant to 2 USC § 393(b), without a formal referral or other action by the House. However, the House may initiate an election investigation if a Member-elect's right to take the oath is challenged by another Member, by referring the question to the committee. The FCEA, codified at 2 U.S.C. Sections 381-396, governs contests for the seats in the House of Representatives that are initiated by a candidate in the challenged election. The FCEA essentially sets forth and details the procedures by which a defeated candidate may contest a seat in the House of Representatives. The contest under the FCEA is heard by the Committee on House Administration upon the record provided and established by the parties to the contest. After the contest is heard by the committee, the committee reports the results. After discussion and debate, the whole House can dispose of the case by privileged resolution by a simple majority vote. On less frequent occasions in modern practice, a referral by the House to the Committee on House Administration of the question of the right to a congressional seat has been made after a challenge by one Member-elect to the taking of the oath of office by another Member-elect. In such a circumstance, the Committee on House Administration may investigate the matter itself or may rely substantially on the evidence and materials provided by the interested parties/candidates following similar procedures as in the statutory Federal Contested Elections Act. In a contested election brought under the statutory procedures of the FCEA, only losing candidates have standing to initiate a contest by filing a notice of intent to contest a House election. The statute provides expressly that only "a candidate for election in the last preceding election and claiming a right to such office" of Representative in Congress may contest a House seat. The contestant must be a candidate whose name was on the official ballot or who was a bona fide write-in candidate. In recent years, the Committee on House Administration has, on infrequent occasions, obtained jurisdiction of an election contest by virtue of a challenge by one Member-elect to the taking of the oath of office of another Member-elect on the first day of a new Congress, and the subsequent adoption of a resolution instructing that the question of the right to the seat be referred to the committee. In addition to a House-initiated referral in this manner, it has also been noted that it is possible that a petition from an elector of the congressional district in question, or from any other person, might also be referred by the Speaker or the House to the committee for investigation. According to Deschler's , there are thus four ways for a challenge to be brought before the House: (1) an election contest initiated by a defeated candidate and instituted in accordance with law [the FCEA]; (2) a protest filed by an elector of the district concerned; (3) a protest filed by any other person; and (4) a motion of a Member of the House. Although these other methods of obtaining jurisdiction, other than by means of a filing under the statute, have been employed on occasion, the Committee on House Administration, in one instance of a referral of a petition, noted "a strong preference" for "determining disputed elections by following the procedures under the contested election statute." The current Federal Contested Elections Act (FCEA), enacted in 1969 and codified at 2 U.S.C. Sections 381-396, sets forth procedures for contesting a seat in the House. In modern practice, it is the primary method for a losing candidate to challenge the results of a House election. The FCEA defines "contestant" as an individual who contests the election of a Member of the House of Representatives under the statute, and defines "contestee" as a Member of the House of Representatives whose election is contested under the statute. In the 113 th Congress, the Committee on House Administration found that a tax-exempt organization did not meet the definition of a contestant under the FCEA and therefore, was not authorized to file a contest. In accordance with the FCEA, only a losing candidate in a general election for a seat in the House of Representatives may contest a seat. The FCEA provides that a losing candidate shall file a notice of intention to contest an election within 30 days after the election result is declared by the appropriate state officer or Board of Canvassers authorized by law to make such a declaration. Written notice must be filed with the Clerk of the House and be served upon the contestee, that is, the Member-elect or Member certified as the winner of the election. Once a notice of an election contest is filed by a losing candidate with the Clerk of the House, and notice served upon the contestee, the House of Representatives and the appropriate committee (now the Committee on House Administration) formally obtain jurisdiction over the matter.