Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Archae

(46,340 posts)
Mon Dec 24, 2018, 06:15 PM Dec 2018

Has congress (House or Senate) ever refused to seat a member before?

I was just reading the latest article about that North Carolina fiasco, and was thinking if Pelosi or others refuse to let that congressman be seated.

Has this ever happened before, hen and why if so?

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Has congress (House or Senate) ever refused to seat a member before? (Original Post) Archae Dec 2018 OP
Dont know, i do know it is time to play hardball. Big time. Eliot Rosewater Dec 2018 #1
Apparently so.... hlthe2b Dec 2018 #2
Thanks for the info. Archae Dec 2018 #4
Ditto. Thanks for the info. NT SWBTATTReg Dec 2018 #5
If I remember....... calguy Dec 2018 #3
The Senate was forced to seat him. former9thward Dec 2018 #6

hlthe2b

(102,337 posts)
2. Apparently so....
Mon Dec 24, 2018, 06:21 PM
Dec 2018

Most recently in 2009 (Blagojevich debacle)


Unseated members of the United States Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseated_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

From 1869 to 1900, the House of Representatives refused to seat over 30 Southern Democratic candidates declared the winner by their states because the House Elections Committee concluded that fraud, violence, or intimidation had been used against black voters, or, in some cases, that the election statutes of the states themselves were unconstitutional. (Giles v. Harris (1903) ended the latter practice.) In some cases a new election was ordered, while in others the defeated Republican or Populist candidate was seated instead.[1][2]
George Q. Cannon (R-Utah) was elected as the non-voting delegate for Utah Territory to the House of Representatives in 1872. He remained a duly-elected congressional delegate until 1882, when his seat was declared vacant by the enactment of the anti-Mormon Edmunds Act.
B.H. Roberts (D-Utah) was not seated after being elected in 1898 to the House of Representatives for the 56th United States Congress because he was a Mormon polygamist.
William A. Clark (D-Montana) was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1899, but promptly met with a petition opposing his election on the grounds that it was secured through bribery. Votes were bought through real estate purchases, bank financing and outright cash purchases. The Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections found unanimously that Clark was not entitled to his seat. Clark resigned in May of 1900 before the full Senate took a vote.[3] Clark would serve a term in Congress from 1901 to 1907/[4]
Reed Smoot (R-Utah) was initially not seated after being elected in 1902 to the Senate for the 58th United States Congress because he was a top leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and had allegedly sworn an oath against the United States government. The continuing controversy of polygamy (though Smoot was not a polygamist) played a part. After a four-year investigation he was seated.
Victor L. Berger (SP-Wisconsin) was not seated after his election to the House in 1918 because he had been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. After the House refused to seat him Wisconsin held a special election in December 1919, which Berger won again. The House again refused to seat him.
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (D-New York), a sitting representative, was excluded by the House of Representatives in 1967 because of allegations of corruption. He successfully sued to retain his seat in a landmark Supreme Court decision (see Powell v. McCormack).
Louis C. Wyman (R-New Hampshire) was declared the victor of the US Senate contest in 1974 in New Hampshire by a narrow margin on Election Day (355 votes). A first recount gave the election instead to John A. Durkin (D-New Hampshire) by ten votes, but a second recount swung the result back to Wyman by only two votes. The state of New Hampshire certified Wyman as the winner, but Durkin appealed to the Senate, which had a sixty vote Democratic majority. The Senate refused to seat Wyman while considering the matter. After a long and contentious debate in the Senate, with Republicans filibustering attempts by the Democratic majority to seat Durkin instead, a special election was held, with Durkin winning handily and becoming Senator.
Roland Burris (D-Illinois), due to the Rod Blagojevich corruption charges, was initially refused a seat in the Senate in 2009. On December 30, 2008, Governor Blagojevich announced that he was naming Burris to the seat, and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White registered the appointment in the official records of Illinois on December 31, 2008. However, Secretary of State White declined to sign the Senate's certification form.[5] Because of this, on January 5, 2009, Secretary of the United States Senate Nancy Erickson rejected Burris's certificate of appointment to the Senate as invalid, citing Senate Rule 2 as the reason for the rejection.[6] Burris appeared in Washington at the January Congressional swearing-in ceremony on January 6 to claim his seat, but was denied entry into the Senate chambers.[7] Following an Illinois Supreme Court ruling on January 9, 2009, White provided Burris with a certified copy of the appointment's registration, and Burris delivered that copy, bearing the State Seal, to the Secretary of the Senate.[8] On January 12, 2009, after the Secretary of the Senate announced that she and Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin deemed Burris's new credentials valid, Senate leaders decided to seat Burris.[9] Burris was sworn in by President of the Senate Dick Cheney on January 15, 2009.[10][11][12]


Archae

(46,340 posts)
4. Thanks for the info.
Mon Dec 24, 2018, 06:36 PM
Dec 2018

So that North Carolina guy not being seated would not be a first-time event

calguy

(5,324 posts)
3. If I remember.......
Mon Dec 24, 2018, 06:24 PM
Dec 2018

The Senate refused to seat Barrack Obama's replacement because of the scandal that arose with the Il governor selling the seat for which he is now serving in prison.

former9thward

(32,065 posts)
6. The Senate was forced to seat him.
Mon Dec 24, 2018, 07:06 PM
Dec 2018

Roland Burris. He had a valid appointment from the governor and it was certified by the Secretary of State for IL.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Has congress (House or Se...