Appendix F Ratio of electoral votes to population, 1964 and 1968 Ratio of electoral votes to population in each state for 1964 and 1968 presidential elections (based on 1960 census), Hearings Before Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments (1961), p. 670. Appendix H Number of Presidents from each state Numbers of elected Presidents by states, Biographical Directory of the American Congress HDOC 442 Government Printing Office #85/2 *A seventh citizen of New York, Millard Fillmore, succeeded to the office from the Vice-Presidency but was never elected President. **A third Tennessean, Andrew Johnson, succeeded from the Vice-Presidency but was never elected to the office of President. [From the Dickinson Law Review, June 1961] ELECTION CONTESTS AND THE ELECTORAL VOTE (By L. Kinvin Wroth*) The extremely close presidential election of 1960 stirred a problem that has long lain dormant. As the result of a recount of the popular vote in Hawaii, Congress, in its joint meeting to count the electoral vote, was presented with conflicting returns from a state for the first time since the Hayes-Tilden controversy of 1877. Since the outcome of the election was not affected, the joint meeting accepted the result of the recount proceeding, and the votes given by Hawaii's Democratic electors were counted.1 The once fiercely agitated question of the location and nature of the power to decide controversies concerning the electoral vote was thus avoided. This question, arising from an ambiguity in the Constitution, has long been deemed settled by the statutory provisions for the count of the electoral vote made in the aftermath of the Hayes-Tilden controversy.' The system for resolving electoral disputes which this legislation embodies has never been tested, however. The events of 1960 raise serious doubts as to whether the present provisions would be effective either in resolving election contests on their merits or in producing a smooth solution to a political crisis on the order of 1877. Moreover, Mr. Kennedy's narrow margin is a reminder that the possibility of controversy is always present. With broad electoral reforms once again under consideration in Congress, it seems appropriate to take a fresh look at the present constitutional and statutory scheme for dealing with disputed electoral votes. The basis of our system of electing a President is laid down in the Constitution, which provides that Each State shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same throughout the United States.* The actions of the electors are regulated by the Twelfth Amendment:" The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; . . . they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President to the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed. Teaching Fellow, Dickinson School of Law; B.A., Yale University; LL.B., Harvard University. 1107 CONG. REC. 281-284 (daily ed., Jan. 6, 1961). For an account of the proceedings in Hawaii, see infra, notes 78-81. 2 Act of Feb. 3, 1887, ch. 90, 24 Stat. 373, [hereinafter referred to as the Electoral Count Act]. For subsequent legislative history, see infra, notes 61, 63, and 76. The Act provoked considerable debate following its passage, but recent commentators have treated it only in passing, or have viewed it as solving all problems. See Burgess, The Law of the Electoral Count, 3 POL. SCI. Q. 633 (1888); Carlisle, Dangerous Defects in Our Electoral System, 24 FORUM 257. 264 (1897); DOUGHERTY, THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES 214-249 (1906); Tansill, Congressional Control of the Electoral System, 34 YALE L.J. 511, 524 (1925); Mullen, The Electoral College and Presidential Vacancies, 9 MD. L. REV. 28. 41-42 (1948); Dixon, Electoral College Procedure, 3 WEST. POL. SCI. Q. 214, 222-223 (1950); WILMERDING, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE XI (1958). 3 Infra, note 117. 4U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. See infra, notes 18 and 28. |