Under U.S. House precedent, any member-elect can challenge the right of
any other member-elect to take the oath of office at the beginning of a new term.
The uncontested members-elect then swear in and decide the fate of those who
were forced to stand aside. If the House is closely divided and there are
disputed elections at the margins, a minority party could exploit this procedure
to try to seize control of the House.
This would be outrageous and damaging, even if the effort failed.
Contending for ultimate control, both sides could level motions, appeals, and
tit-for-tat pre-oath challenges. The proto-House would degenerate into a
chaotic mass of votes, meta-votes (about who gets to vote), and meta-meta-votes
before anyone has even been sworn in. Instead of the House being controlled
by the party that won the most seats in the election, it might go instead to the
party that is most disciplined and unified-or, failing that, to the party that is
more adept at parliamentary machinations.
This nightmare is not completely hypothetical; the House once witnessed a
power grab much like this-and it succeeded. But even an unsuccessful attempt
could worsen the national partisan divide, weaken the House's legitimacy, and
threaten the House's already dangerously low levels of comity. So could an
attempt by a majority to bolster its advantage by a seat or two
