Contested congressional elections could prolong the battle for control of Washington after the November 3 midterms. When candidates dispute a result, the Constitution gives the House and Senate authority to judge elections involving their own members.
Summarized by Jennifer Rae Vliet, News Editor of The Plain Truth, from reporting by Christopher Tomlinson, The National Pulse.
Christopher Tomlinson examines that authority in The National Pulse. His report explains why a narrow majority could bring additional attention to election challenges after states finish counting and certifying ballots.
How contested congressional elections work
Article I, Section 5 makes each chamber the judge of its members’ elections, returns and qualifications. Consequently, state certification does not necessarily settle every congressional election dispute.
However, this authority concerns disputes over particular seats. It does not give lawmakers an unrestricted power to choose their preferred party majority.
The Federal Contested Elections Act establishes a procedure for defeated House candidates to challenge results. The House Administration Committee can review evidence and recommend an outcome.
The full House then votes on the matter. Meanwhile, the Senate handles disputes through its own procedures.
Read Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution.
Read the Congressional Research Service explanation of contested House elections.
Historical disputes show the stakes
One prominent example followed the 1984 election in Indiana’s 8th District. State officials certified Republican Richard McIntyre as the winner over Democratic incumbent Frank McCloskey.
Nevertheless, the House initially seated neither candidate while it investigated. A congressional recount subsequently put McCloskey ahead by four votes.
In May 1985, the Democratic-controlled House voted to seat McCloskey. Republicans protested the decision and staged a walkout.
A more recent challenge followed Iowa’s 2020 election in the 2nd District. Democrat Rita Hart disputed Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks’s six-vote victory.
However, Hart withdrew her challenge in March 2021. That case therefore ended without the House overturning the certified outcome.
Read the House’s historical account of the Indiana election dispute.
What election challenges do—and do not—establish
Tomlinson also discusses legal disputes involving election procedures in Alaska and California. His report connects those proceedings with the possibility of further challenges after voting ends.
Still, allegations require supporting evidence. Filing a lawsuit or questioning election procedures does not itself establish fraud or prove that disputed ballots changed a result.
Readers should also distinguish court proceedings from a chamber’s constitutional review. Although both can concern an election, they involve different authorities and procedures.
Ultimately, close races can make individual disputes politically significant. If only a few seats separate the parties, those cases could affect control of Congress.