1924 United States Senate election in Iowa

The 1924 United States Senate election in Iowa took place on November 4, 1924. Incumbent Republican Senator Smith W. Brookhart ran for re-election to a full term in office against Democrat Daniel F. Steck.

1924 United States Senate election in Iowa

← 1922 (special) November 4, 1924 1930 →

Nominee Smith W. Brookhart Daniel F. Steck Party Republican Democratic Alliance Progressive Popular vote 447,706 446,951 Percentage 49.95% 49.87%

Results by county Results by congressional district Brookhart:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80% Steck:      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. senator before election Smith W. Brookhart Republican Elected U.S. Senator Smith W. Brookhart* Republican

Republican primary results by county

  Brookhart

•   50–60%
•   60–70%
•   70–80%

  Sweet

•   50-60%
•   60–70%
•   70–80%
•   80–90%

In the initial vote, Brookhart was certified as the victor over Steck. However, Steck became the first person to successfully challenge a popular election to the Senate in 1926, when the Senate voted to remove Brookhart from office and seat Steck in his place.

As of 2023^[update], this remains the only instance in which a Senator was removed and replaced by his colleagues after he had already been seated for the term.^{[original research?]}

Republican primary

Candidates

• Smith W. Brookhart, incumbent Senator since 1922
• Burton E. Sweet, former U.S. Representative from Waverly and candidate for Senate in 1922

Results

1924 Republican U.S. Senate primary^[1]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%
	Republican	Smith W. Brookhart (incumbent)	199,828	55.01%
	Republican	Burton E. Sweet	163,413	44.99%
Total votes			363,241	100.00%

Democratic primary

Candidates

• John D. Denison, candidate for U.S. Representative in 1910
• Charles Rollin Keyes, geologist, ornithologist, and candidate for U.S. Senate in 1918
• Daniel F. Steck, commander of the Iowa American Legion

Results

1924 Democratic U.S. Senate primary^[2]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%
	Democratic	Daniel F. Steck	21,318	38.98%
	Democratic	John D. Denison	19,738	36.09%
	Democratic	Charles R. Keyes	13,639	24.94%
Total votes			54,695	100.00%

General election

Campaign

Brookhart, though nominally a Republican, had alienated most of the national and state party establishment by 1924. As early as 1920, he had rankled senior Republicans with his courting of blue-collar union voters and his primary challenge to senior Senator Albert B. Cummins.^[3] In 1924, he demanded the withdrawal of vice presidential nominee Charles Dawes^{[citation needed]} and declined to support President Calvin Coolidge for re-election, though he did not outright endorse Progressive Robert M. La Follette.^[4]

During the campaign, the Republican State Central Committee withdrew support from Brookhart and one Republican organization went so far as to distribute sample ballots showing a 'x' in the Republican column with another 'x' next to Steck's name.^[4]

By October, all but one of the state's Republican daily newspapers had endorsed Steck.^[5]

Results

On the day of the election, some newspapers reported that Steck had won.^[6] However, two days later, rural districts gave Brookhart a small lead.^[7] His victory was certified and he was seated for a full term as Senator.

1924 U.S. Senate election in Iowa^[8][9]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Republican	Smith W. Brookhart (incumbent)	447,706	49.95%	13.16
	Democratic	Daniel F. Steck	446,951	49.87%	12.98
	Independent Republican	Luther Brewer	1,124	0.13%	N/A
	Independent	L.E. Eickelberg	535	0.06%	N/A
Total votes			896,316	100.00%

Aftermath and reversal

After the election, the Senate Republicans retaliated by stripping Brookhart, LaFollette, and two other progressive Republicans of their committee appointments and excluding them from the party conference.^[4]

Challenges

In January, Steck served notice of his intention to challenge Brookhart's inauguration for the new term on the grounds of election fraud. The Iowa Republican Party also challenged Brookhart's election on the grounds that he was not a Republican.^[4]

Brookhart was sworn into office on March 4, 1925, without incident.^[10][4] On March 10, the Senate referred both challenges to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.^[4]

Steck's challenge alleged that thousands of ballots were unlawfully counted for Brookhart while many of his own were discarded or altered.^[4]

The Iowa Republican challenge alleged that Brookhart had fraudulently represented himself as a party member until the filing deadline, and then toured the state supporting the principles and candidates of the Progressive Party. The state committee argued that Republicans had in good faith voted for a person they assumed to be a regular party member, and that Brookhart had therefore committed election fraud.^[4]

Investigation and recount

A subcommittee of two Republicans and two Democrats commenced the investigation of the case on July 20, 1925. By agreement of Brookhart and Steck, all of the more than 900,000 ballots were transported from Iowa to Washington for a recount.^[4]

A number of disputed ballots had evidently attempted to replicate local newspaper endorsements for Steck by drawing an arrow pointing to the box marked for Steck; these ballots had been excluded from the original count under an Iowa law banning extraneous markings but were counted by the subcommittee on the grounds that it was clear the voter had meant.^[4] Some ballots arrived in Washington with broken seals and there were discrepancies between the voter rolls and the number of ballots received.^[4]

On March 29, 1926, the committee issued its report finding that Steck had received a plurality of 1,420 votes and should be seated. In a minority report, Senator Hubert D. Stephens protested that some ballots had not been properly examined and secured, that 3,500 fewer ballots were received than cast, and that the majority did not count 1,300 properly marked straight Republican ballots for Brookhart.^[4]

Senate debate and vote

In the debate before the whole Senate, speeches focused on the conflict between Iowa state election law and the federal recount. Brookhart's supporters maintained that there was no precedent for overruling state election laws in reviewing contested elections.^[4]

On April 12, the Senate voted 45 to 41 to unseat Brookhart and seat Steck.

Vote to adopt the majority report^[11]
April 12, 1926	Party			Total votes
	Democratic	Farmer-Labor	Republican
Yea	29	00	16	45
Nay	09	01	31	41
Not Voting	01	00	09	10
Roll call vote on the report Senator Party State Vote Henry F. Ashurst D Arizona Nay Thomas Bayard D Delaware Yea Hiram Bingham III R Connecticut Nay Cole Blease D South Carolina Nay William Borah R Idaho Nay Sam G. Bratton D New Mexico Yea Smith W. Brookhart R Iowa Not Voting Edwin S. Broussard D Louisiana Yea William Cabell Bruce D Maryland Yea William M. Butler R Massachusetts Yea Ralph H. Cameron R Arizona Nay Arthur Capper R Kansas Nay Thaddeus H. Caraway D Arkansas Yea Royal S. Copeland D New York Yea James J. Couzens R Michigan Nay Albert B. Cummins R Iowa Not Voting Charles Curtis R Kansas Nay Porter H. Dale R Vermont Yea Charles S. Deneen R Illinois Yea Clarence Dill D Washington Nay T. Coleman du Pont R Delaware Not Voting^[a] Walter Evans Edge R New Jersey Nay Edward I. Edwards D New Jersey Yea Richard P. Ernst R Kentucky Yea Bert Fernald R Maine Nay Woodbridge N. Ferris D Michigan Nay Simeon D. Fess R Ohio Not Voting^[b] Duncan U. Fletcher D Florida Yea Lynn Frazier R North Dakota Nay Walter F. George D Georgia Yea Peter G. Gerry D Rhode Island Yea Carter Glass D Virginia Yea Guy D. Goff R West Virginia Yea Frank R. Gooding R Idaho Nay Frank L. Greene R Vermont Yea Frederick Hale R Maine Nay John W. Harreld R Oklahoma Yea William J. Harris D Georgia Yea Pat Harrison D Mississippi Yea J. Thomas Heflin D Alabama Yea Robert B. Howell R Nebraska Nay Hiram Johnson R California Nay Andrieus A. Jones D New Mexico Yea Wesley L. Jones R Washington Nay John B. Kendrick D Wyoming Yea Henry W. Keyes R New Hampshire Yea William H. King D Utah Yea Irvine Lenroot R Wisconsin Nay Earle B. Mayfield D Texas Yea Kenneth McKellar D Tennessee Yea William B. McKinley R Illinois Not Voting^[c] George P. McLean R Connecticut Yea William H. McMaster R South Dakota Nay Charles L. McNary R Oregon Yea Rice W. Means R Colorado Not Voting^[d] Jesse H. Metcalf R Rhode Island Nay George H. Moses R New Hampshire Nay Matthew M. Neely D West Virginia Yea Peter Norbeck R South Dakota Nay George W. Norris R Nebraska Nay Gerald Nye R North Dakota Nay Tasker Oddie R Nevada Nay Lee S. Overman D North Carolina Yea George W. Pepper R Pennsylvania Nay Lawrence C. Phipps R Colorado Yea William B. Pine R Oklahoma Nay Key Pittman D Nevada Yea Joseph E. Ransdell D Louisiana Nay David A. Reed R Pennsylvania Nay James A. Reed D Missouri Nay Joseph T. Robinson D Arkansas Yea Arthur R. Robinson R Indiana Yea Frederic M. Sackett R Kentucky Yea Thomas D. Schall R Minnesota Not Voting^[e] Morris Sheppard D Texas Yea Henrik Shipstead F-L Minnesota Nay Samuel M. Shortridge R California Not Voting^[f] Furnifold M. Simmons D North Carolina Yea Ellison D. Smith D South Carolina Yea Reed Smoot R Utah Nay Robert N. Stanfield R Oregon Nay Hubert D. Stephens D Mississippi Nay Claude A. Swanson D Virginia Yea Park Trammell D Florida Yea Lawrence Tyson D Tennessee Yea Oscar Underwood D Alabama Not Voting^[g] James W. Wadsworth R New York Not Voting^[h] Thomas J. Walsh D Montana Nay Francis E. Warren R Wyoming Yea James E. Watson R Indiana Yea Ovington Weller R Maryland Yea Burton K. Wheeler D Montana Nay George Howard Williams R Missouri Nay Frank B. Willis R Ohio Nay Supported seating Steck. Paired with Shortridge. Opposed seating Steck. Paired with McKinley. Supported seating Steck. Paired with Fess. Supported seating Steck. Paired with Schall. Opposed seating Steck. Paired with Means. Opposed seating Steck. Paired with du Pont. Favored seating Steck. Paired with Wadsworth. Opposed seating Steck. Paired with Underwood.

Aftermath

Steck became the first Democrat to represent Iowa in the Senate since 1859. He served out the remainder of that term which ultimately became his.^[4] He was soundly defeated for re-election in 1930, the only incumbent Democrat in the country to lose in that cycle. Though they gained eight seats nationwide, Steck's loss cost Democrats control of the Senate.^{[citation needed]}

Brookhart ran for Senate again in 1926 and unseated Senator Cummins, who died shortly after the primary. He served until 1933,^[4] when he was defeated by Henry Field in the Republican primary. Brookhart ran in the 1932 general election as a Progressive, but finished a distant third behind Field and the Democratic victor, Richard L. Murphy.^{[citation needed]}

See also

• 1924 United States Senate elections

References

1. "Our Campaigns - IA US Senate Race - R Primary". www.ourcampaigns.com.
2. "Our Campaigns - IA US Senate Race - D Primary". www.ourcampaigns.com.
3. "Cummins Seems Choice of Black Hawk Co. Voters". Waterloo Evening Courier. June 4, 1920. p. 1.
4. "The Election Case of Daniel F. Steck v. Smith W. Brookhart of Iowa (1926)". Retrieved March 11, 2021.
5. "Day's Editorials". The Des Moines Capital. October 19, 1924. p. 4., reprinted from Marshalltown Times-Republican.
6. "Steck Defeats Brookhart by Margin of 5,000". Waterloo Evening Courier. November 5, 1924. p. 1.
7. "Brookhart Takes Lead on Recheck of Ballots". Waterloo Evening Courier. November 6, 1924. p. 1.
8. "Our Campaigns - IA US Senate Race - Nov 04, 1924". www.ourcampaigns.com.
9. Clerk of the United States House of Representatives (1925). "Statistics of the Congressional and Presidential Election of November 4, 1924" (PDF). U.S. Government Printing Office.
10. "Control of the Senate in the 70th Congress". CQ Researcher. Retrieved September 18, 2018.
11. "Senate Debate on the Brookhart-Steck Contest". Congressional Record. LXVII (7): 7301.

Further reading

• "Senate Debate on the Brookhart-Steck Contest" (PDF). Congressional Record. LXVII (7): 7241–53.
• George William McDaniel (Winter 1987). "The Republican Party in Iowa and the Defeat of Smith Wildman Brookhart, 1924-1926". The Annals of Iowa. 48 (7): 413–34. doi:10.17077/0003-4827.9195.