Now, the poll tax, as I stated, was enacted for the purpose of keeping the white tenant farmers from voting back during the agrarian reforms, when the Populists had control of the State governments of Kansas and a number of other States, and were striking at the doors of the State government of Texas, and threatening to get control of the State government there. That was one purpose.

A second purpose was the support of public schools.

Texas at that time had virtually no revenue except from its agrarian civilization. And that income was low. The support of public schools was poor. And of this $1.50 tax, the major portion of it is dedicated to the support of the public schools.

Senator KEATING. That is practically all that you dedicate to education in Texas, isn't it?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Oh, no. We pay quite a bit of our revenuewe put more money on schools than any other one thing. While our average per capita income in Texas is about $1,943 per year, making Texas 32 among the States, where the distinguished Senator from New York represents one of the five richest States in the UnionI think the per capita income in New York is third only to the District of Columbia and Delaware-while Texas is 32 among the States in per capita income, in proportion of educational expenditures to income, we are 24 among the States. We spend more money on public education per capita in proportion than the average American State. Our effort, compared to the comparative wealth of the people, is not low. And we spend more of the State's tax dollar-about 40 percent goes for public education, and about 40 percent on our roads. We don't spend enough. But we do spend a very heavy percentage of the State's income.

In fact, on our gas line tax, we dedicate one-fourth of that to the public schools. The users of highways protest that very vigorously and have over the years. They say all that ought to be put in on roads. But that is used as one method of supporting our public school system in the State.

Senator KEFAUVER. We thank you very much, Senator Yarborough. Senator YARBOROUGH. I thank the committee for their patience. Senator KEATING. I thoroughly agree, and am a cosponsor of the resolution to eliminate the poll tax-although I have a strong feeling that perhaps it can be done by law, and does not require constitutional amendment. Have you given thought to that?

Senator YARBOROUGH. I have given it some thought, and I have heard it debated on the floor, and I have heard it discussed and debated when this proposed amendment passed the Senate in the 86th Congress-it didn't pass the House. I am of the opinion that a constitutional amendment is required to change the electoral qualifications of the citizens in any group of States in the Union, just as the 15th amendment prohibited disqualification of voters because of slavery, and as the later amendment prohibited the disqualification of electors because of their sex.

Senator KEATING. You may be right. We don't want to get into a discussion of that here.

Senator KEFAUVER. I believe, Senator Yarborough, that in the last Congress the then Senator Johnson, now Vice President Johnson, was a cosponsor of this amendment, was he not!

Senator YARBOROUGH. Yes; he was. Vice President Lyndon Johnson was a cosponsor and a very active worker for this proposed constitutional reform.

I want to say this to the distinguished Senator from New York. I think this is the proper way to do it. I think it would be a dangerous thing for the Congress to begin to change voter qualifications over the country by a simple act of Congress even though in a Federal election. I realize that this is limited to a Federal election. And there is a basis for sound argument, as the distinguished Senator said that since this is limited to Federal elections, there is a strong argument that it can be done by law-that a constitutional amendment is only required if it is to go into State elections. But as we all know, those of us that run for elective office, when you start changing the qualifications of electors, you get something pretty close to a politician's heart. And he is reluctant to see that fluctuate without very careful consideration.

Senator KEATING. The Senator is a political realist.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for the compliment. I wonder sometimes.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Senator Yarborough, for your contribution to our hearing.

We are glad to have the Senator from Nebraska with us to discuss Senate Joint Resolution 12, and any other matters he wishes to cover. STATEMENT OF HON. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Senator HRUSKA. The chairman is very gracious. I must say at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, we have no poll tax problem in the State of Nebraska, so we won't run in to the ramifications of this type of testimony.

Senator KEATING. You only have one branch of the legislature. Senator HRUSKA. Yes. We go by the merit system there. We pick out the best legislators we can find on the State level, and figure one house is enough.

Senator KEATING. And the best on a national, may I add.

Senator HRUSKA. Thank you, sir. Present company excepted, perhaps.

Mr. Chairman, last year's presidential election, because it was so close, has accentuated the need for a change in our presidential election system so as to reflect a more accurate expression of the will of the voters.

I believe that our method of electing Presidents can be improved, and it is for this reason that I have joined with Senators Mundt, Morton, McClellan, Thurmond, and Blakeley as a cosponsor of Senate Joing Resolution 12. This proposed constitutional amendment, in my opinion, affords the best way of improving our electoral system.

Under the present system, based on the electoral college plan devised by our Founding Fathers, each State is allotted as many electors as it has Members of Congress, Senators and Representatives. The problem with our present system is that over the years, in every State since 1892, it has become the custom to choose a State's electors in

a bloc under the general ticket system. This quite naturally gives greater power to decide an election to the statewide majority in each of those States with large populations. Under the Constitution, the legislature of each State has authority to decide how its electors shall be chosen; but as a practical matter, no State will abandon the general ticket system unless all the rest do so as the same time. Only an amendment such as the one proposed in Senate Joint Resolution 12 can change this.

This situation affects our whole presidential election procedure. Only residents of States having a large population can aspire to the Presidency in either major party because the claim is made, and accepted, that only such candidates can carry their pivotal States, with their large blocs of electoral votes. Party platforms are drafted so as to appeal to the special-interest groups in these States, and much of the campaign appeals of presidential candidates are directed at these groups.

I believe the amendment we have proposed will tend to correct this situation and that it will do so without changing our form of government. By this I mean, it will leave control of the election machinery with the States, where it has always been and where it should remain. There are other changes in the election procedure which have been proposed, but these proposals, in my opinion, would put control of presidential elections in the hands of Congress. This I oppose. Senate Joint Resolution 12 would bring about the necessary reform with a minimum of change, and it would put every citizen of every State on the same basis in voting to elect a President. It provides that in every State a voter would cast his votes for three, and only three electors, two of them corresponding to his two U.S. Senators, to be elected at large, and one, corresponding to his Representative in the House, to be chosen from his district.

This amendment further provides that special elector districts shall be set up by the State legislature in each State, composed of compact and contiguous territory and containing, as nearly as practicable, equal population. This provision is included to make sure that the elector districts are established in the fairest way possible.

Under this amendment, there would no longer be a bloc electoral vote in the more heavily populated States. For example, in Illinois, where there is usually about the same number of Democrats and Republicans, the electoral vote would be split almost evenly. The Democrats would carry their normal areas and be credited with the district electors they elected. But, downstate Illinois, normally Republican, would choose Republican electors in its districts. The two electors at large, corresponding to Senators, would go to whichever party cast the larger statewide vote. Illinois might well split its vote 13 to 12 or

14 to 11.

With this system in effect, candidates could more nearly be chosen on the basis of merit rather than geography. No longer would party platforms have to be slanted to try to gain the favor of special-interest groups concentrated in big-city States. Campaigns would be directed at the whole country, not at a small group of large pivotal States.

It is also more likely that the President and the party in control of Congress would be chosen by the same majority, which would make for less conflict between the executive and legislative branches of our

Government. Under our present system, the President and the Congress are, in a sense, elected by two different constituencies.

Senate Joint Resolution 12 would also change the procedure under which the President and Vice President are elected by Congress if no major party candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote. At present, in such a contingency, the President is elected by the House of Representatives with each State entitled to one vote from among the presidential candidates with the three highest numbers of electoral votes. If a State's House delegation is evenly split between the two major parties, its vote does not count. This procedure is obviously unfair to the larger States.

Senate Joint Resolution 12 corrects this situation. It provides that, in the event no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, Congress shall meet in joint session and elect a President and Vice President. In this joint session, each Senator and Representative would have one vote.

I hope that this amendment will receive the earnest consideration of this subcommittee; that any refining amendments that are necessary to establish its intendment will be adopted; and that it will be reported to the Senate.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I was present earlier in the day when some questions arose with reference to Senate Joint Resolution 12 and other plans. I recall one point of discussion was the difficulty and impracticability which would arise in creating separate presidential elector districts. I don't believe it would impose any such difficulties.. I don't think it would be impracticable at all.

In Nebraska we have different election districts for various offices. Perhaps it is more simple, because in the legislature we have only one house. But consider, for example, that we, in a general election, elect representatives for our public power districts. There is a district that is used for no other purpose than for the election of directors to the public power systems.

The supreme court justices are elected from supreme court districts. The members of the board of education of the State are likewise elected from districts which have different geographical boundaries than any other districts.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Hruska, are some of these held on the same day as the national elections?

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, these that I have named so far are all elected on the same day.

Senator KEFAUVER. As the Federal election?

Senator HRUSKA. As the Federal election; yes, sir. The same is true of State judges. The same is true of other offices. There may be as many as six or eight different districts that are involved.

In some of those instances, counties are cut up into several districts. And it has imposed no hardship. It has imposed no confusion. Senator KEATING. Would the Senator yield?

I consider that a minor point. It would add another district, or another voting unit, on top of all those that you have named-unless the congressional and the electoral districts were made the same. But I concede it is not an insuperable obstacle. It would mean the printing of many additional different ballots from the ones that are printed

now.

Senator HRUSKA. I doubt very much that in most States there would be a division of a county except in the bigger cities.

Senator KEATING. That is probably so. I am thinking more in my State there are so many bigger cities.

Now, let me ask you this: Don't you feel that such a plan would add pressure upon the States to make their congressional districts the same as their electoral districts?

Senator HRUSKA. It might tend to do that. Theoretically, in the creation of congressional districts, the legislatures are supposed to create districts from contiguous territory, with the population of each district being substantially equal.

Now, to the extent that this is prescribed in Senate Joint Resolution 12, I imagine we would have the same troubles in getting this type of district for that purpose as is sometimes experienced in forming congressional districts with this exception. In creating presidential districts for the sole purpose of having either the Democratic or the Republican presidential candidate voted upon, you don't have that personal factor of an incumbent Congressman and a rival candidate.

Senator KEATING. Well, now, there is nothing in the Constitution which prescribes language like this, is there that there shall be compact and contiguous territory for all congressional districts? Senator HRUska. No.

Senator KEATING. This is the amendment which Congressman Celler has campaigned for for years. That is why I referred to this earlier as the Celler-Morton approach. We can now call it the CellerMorton-Hruska approach to the problem-of forcing the States to have compact and contiguous districts.

Now, I have always, throughout my service on the House Judiciary Committee, opposed imposing upon the States such a provision, although I recognize there are abuses in some of our States. But I have felt that we should leave it to the State legislatures to set up their own districts, congressional districts. I tend to feel the same way about the electoral districts. And at least I feel if we put this in the Constitution with regard to electoral districts, it would be followed by similar language with regard to congressional districts.

Senator HRUSKA. Of course, as I remember, this point has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court, where there is such a flagrant inequality of districts that it would be considered a noncompliance with the Constitution. Have they accepted jurisdiction in this latest case? There is a case like that pending on the calendar, I believe.

Senator KEATING. There is a case pending in New York on that, but I don't know how far that case has gone.

Senator KEFAUVER. There is a reapportionment case before the Supreme Court now which has to do with the districts in the various States for election of members of the State legislature.

Senator HRUSKA. You are right. And in that instance it would perhaps involve a construction of the State constitution rather than the Federal Constitution, and the language there may be different. I don't know.

Senator KEATING. Would you address yourself to a question I have raised with Senator Morton, and apparently Senator Case of South Dakota, in his presentation, shared my view, and indeed cited in