Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I have been so busily engaged this year that I have not been able to bring those figures to date through the 1960 election, and I have not felt that a comparative situation as between my State and other States is either necessary or in good taste. But I do want the record to show that the participation in our State last fall was by far the largest, not only by number of votes, but by percentage, that we have ever had. In other words, the thing is cumulative, the added participation gets greater as time goes along when there is encouragement instead of obstruction. And our total vote in the presidential election last year was very close to 1,550,000, which was a comparatively large vote for us, both from the standpoint of numbers and percentages.

Mr. Chairman, I am so sure that with us the adoption of this change, this reform, has been helpful continuously since we adopted it in our State that I just make that statement as a statement of fact. It has been helpful to us in having cleaner government, in having greater participation in voting, and in having sounder satisfaction on the part of our people with their participation in determining governmental questions.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Holland, you have been the distinguished Governor of Florida, and you have been interested in clean and responsible politics. You have made the statement in your prepared statement that the elimination of the poll tax as a requirement for voting does bring much cleaner and more responsive government to the State.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, that is my feeling, and I am sure that it has proven to be true in Florida.

Now, under this amendment, much as I would like to see the five poll tax States move in the same direction as your State has moved and my State has moved and other States which previously had the poll tax, in completely knocking out the poll tax requirement, we still recognize the fact that there are some local questions involved which people locally should have the right to pass upon. It is my insistence through this amendment that those local questions ought not to affect the right of citizens to vote in Federal elections and to help name their President and their Vice President, their Senators and their Representatives.

I think that it is the right thing to do to remove impediments to voting. I think it makes for good sound expression of people's opinion and for good, sound participation in government and for stilling the criticisms and feelings of discrimination in people's minds which results when they are discouraged from voting and a price is put upon the exercise of their right of suffrage.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Kirby, do you wish to ask Senator Holland any questions?

Mr. KIRBY. Just one point, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Holland, since the agenda was made for these hearings Senate Joint Resolution 81 by Senator Clark has been introduced which also purports to abolish the poll tax as a requirement for voting. As I examine them, I see only one minor distinction between the two. Section 1 of Senate Joint Resolution 81 recites "election for President or Vice President or electors for President or Vice President" and your proposal recites "election for electors for President and

for Vice President." Do you regard that as a substantial difference between the two proposals, Senator?

Senator HOLLAND. I was advised by my legislative assistant of that minor difference, after having had a conference with the distinguished Senator from Pennslyvania, Mr. Clark. He told me, and he evidently thinks, that the two amendments are exactly alike because at the time we discussed it he so stated.

Mr. Chairman, I have not had a chance to study any possible differences that might result from this small change in wording, but I have a good reason for hoping that the amendment as introduced by myself and many others will be reported out. Because I have the firm commitment of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House, not only stated by him on the floor, but again renewed in correspondence and in conversation this year, of his willingness to support the identical resolution which we reported last year and voted. And I would not want to change the slightest my commitment to him and will try to get over to him exactly the same amendment. And if they wish to put in this small change, if it is a change, why that is another question.

But as far as I am concerned, I want to do my utmost to give him exactly the same wording which he has committed himself so strongly and so unswervingly to support. And I hope we can be in position to do just that.

Mr. KIRBY. Well, in actual fact there are seven additional Senators who are committed to the principle of your resolution?

Senator HOLLAND. That is right. Sixty-five Senators joined me in this introduction.

Mr. KIRBY. Are there seven additional Senators counting Senator Clark and the six cosponsors of his resolution, who are now sponsoring poll tax abolition along with you.

Senator HOLLAND. Well, I believe most of them are cosponsors of our resolution.

Senator KEFAUVER. The cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 81 by Senator Clark and Senator Hart are

Senator HOLLAND. All right. Senators Clark and Hart are not on the list of 65.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Williams of New Jersey.

Senator HOLLAND. He is on the list of 65.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Long of Missouri.

Senator HOLLAND. He is on the list of 65.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Humphrey of Minnesota.

Senator HOLLAND. He is on the list of 65.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Gruening.

Senator HOLLAND. He is on the list of 65.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Symington.
Senator HOLLAND. He is on the list of 65.

Senator KEFAUVER. So there seems to be only two more.

Senator HOLLAND. That will raise the total number who are on record as supporting this type of amendment to 68. Including myself there are 66 on my amendment.

But I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman, without at all indicating the names, because Senators will have to take their own position:

seven or eight additional Senators told me that they would be very happy to vote for this amendment, and the record shows that some, or all of them, voted for it last year. But they had reasons which they recited to me as to why they did not want to go into joint sponsorship. And that includes Senators from all parts of the country. So that I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the Senate favors, as shown by the vote last year, the submission of this amendment, and I do hope that the able chairman will be able to expedite the report of this amendment.

Last year you will recall while the subcommittee reported the amendment favorably, the full committee did not take such action, and we had to move to attach it to another pending amendment which, by the way, was offered by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

This year I hope we will have the favorable report of the full committee to support our efforts.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Kirby has pointed out the only difference between Senate Joint Resolution 81 and Senate Joint Resolution 58 is that Senate Joint Resolution 81 says "for President or Vice President, electors for President and Vice President," and Senate Joint Resolution 58 says "for electors for President or Vice President or for Senator or Representative in Congress." Where yours says "electors for President or Vice President or for Senator or Representative in Congress," the other says "for President or Vice President" in addition.

Maybe Senator Clark contemplated that the elector system might be abolished some time in the future, and out of abundance of caution used the additional language.

Senator HOLLAND. That might be his purpose. And if that is his purpose, then the wording would be confined to its fulfillment, and I would have no objection.

My legislative assistant, however, tells me that since he feels that this would make it applicable to presidential preference primaries held by parties it would make necessary the use of two separate ballot forms in States and so forth, which would be unnecessarily expensive. It would also, I think, be quite unnecessary for another reason, and that is that I think registration and identification as a member of a party is required in all these States, all of these five States, which are affected by this tax.

I would hope for the reasons I have already stated, not because of any pride of authorship because I want us to get the job done, that the committee will report the amendment in the form which we have submitted here with 65 Senators joining, and with the commitment as I have stated, in the House, a very important source of the support of that specific amendment.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, thank you very much, Senator Holland. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEFAUVER. The committee is very happy to have with us this morning Senator Thruston Morton of Kentucky, who is a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 12 by Senator Mundt, along with Senators Thurmond, McClellan, Hruska, and Blakley.

Senator Morton, we are glad to have you here.

STATEMENT OF HON. THRUSTON B. MORTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Senator MORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say, first, that I will have copies of the statement for the use of the committee and for the press, I hope, before I finish delivering it.

Senate Joint Resolution 12, of which I am proud to be a sponsor, will bring about a long-needed improvement in the way we elect our Presidents. It will give every voter in every State the right to vote for three electors, two corresponding to the two electors given his State because of its two Senators and one corresponding to his Representative in Congress.

It does away with statewide blocs of electors chosen under the general ticket system, the real cause of most of the complaints against the way we now elect our Presidents. It will reduce substantially the excessive influence of pressure blocs in selecting candidates, in slanting party platforms and campaigns for the Presidency, and it will do away with the present practical necessity of picking party candidates from only the few largest States.

Senate Joint Resolution 12 leaves control of the election machinery with the States, where it is now and where it has always been. Unlike other electoral reform proposals, it does not open the way to national control of presidential elections, a step which would result, inevitably, in national control of our entire election procedures.

Another section of Senate Joint Resolution 12 which is badly needed is the provision for electing a President in case no party candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. which he must have to be elected. At present, the Constitution provides that in such an eventuality the House of Representatives shall select a President, each State being entitled to one vote. This is obviously unfair to all except the States with the minimum representation in the House-one Representative each.

Senate Joint Resolution 12 would change this to bring about the election of a President, no candidate having received an electoral majority, by a joint session of both Houses of Congress, with every Senator and Representative having one vote. The selection, as now, would be made from among the party candidates who received the three highest numbers of electoral votes.

There is another section of Senate Joint Resolution 12 which I consider to be of the greatest importance. It provides that a State's electors corresponding to its Representatives are to be chosen from single-elector districts which are to be set up by a State legislature. These elector districts are to be composed of "compact and contiguous territory, containing as nearly as practicable the number of persons" which entitle a State to one Representative in Congress. It is further provided that such districts cannot be changed until after the next

census.

What this provision does is prevent gerrymandering of the electoral districts as some congressional districts have been blocked out in some of our States. The term "gerrymander," as some of us know, goes back to the early 1800's when Elbridge Gerry was Governor of Massachusetts. Gerry's party, the Jeffersonians, decided to make sure

they would elect as many Representatives to Congress as possible. They laid out congressional districts in extremely irregular forms. One district was so distorted that it resembled a salamander, or lizard. Opponents attacked this unfair districting, terming the one especially distorted district, first, a salamander and then, more aptly, a "gerrymander." The newly coined word has remained part of our language ever since.

Today, in some of our States, there are congressional districts distorted both in shape and in size. The dominant political party has carved out the odd-shaped districts for its own advantage. Both major parties have done this. Neither party has a monopoly on injustice in this regard. Population shifts over a 10-year period cause numerical inequities in various States. In the present Congress, there is one California Republican whose district has a 1960 population of 1,014,450, the largest in the Nation

Senator KEFAUVER. Who is that, Senator Morton ?

Senator MORTON. I think it is Mr. Lipscomb.

Senator KEFAUVER. It is one of the Los Angeles districts?

Senator MORTON. Yes, and it will be redistricted.

A Michigan Republican has the Nation's smallest district, with only 177,431.

Senator KEFAUVER. Who is that; do you recall?

Senator MORTON. That is the northern peninsula. That is the Representative who took Charlie Potter's place, I think.

The Congressional Quarterly reports that, according to 1960 census figures of the 20 largest congressional districts, 12 are represented by Republicans and 8 by Democrats. Conversely, they report that 12 of the 20 smallest congressional districts are represented by Democrats and 8 by Republicans.

Much of this distortion and inequality of population in congressional districts will be corrected, or at least modified, when the State legislatures reapportion their States in accord with the number of Representatives allotted them for the Congress to be elected in 1962. But, as you know, and I know, there will still be some districts which will be too large or too small or else will have distorted district lines. This is where Senate Joint Resolution 12 will have a salutary effect. When it becomes a part of the Constitution, the legislatures will have to set up fair elector districts. And, when this is done, it will be pretty difficult not to use these fair and equitable districts for the election of Representatives in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I might say here that, if I were a member of a State legislature and had to vote for fair districts for electors, I would have a difficult time voting for unfair districts for actual Members of Congress.

This provision in Senate Joint Resolution 12 for fair and equitable districts follows the provisions for setting up congressional districts which were first enacted into law in 1842 and strengthened in later years. This action was taken to insure that Representatives be elected from single-Member districts, to counter a trend to elect them in statewide blocs.

Senator KEFAUVER. Excuse, me, Senator Morton.

Senator Case, won't you come and sit with the committee and participate?

70784-61-pt. 1-8