that it was possible for a voter in one State to know anything about the ability or character of public men in the other States scattered along our 1,500-mile shoreline. In addition, those representing the smaller States believed that popular election would somehow increase the power and prestige of the more heavily populated States. These considerations, after probably the most prolonged debate of the convention, led to adoption of the indirect method of electing the President. Under this plan, the States were to select well-informed public men who were to look the field over and elect a President and Vice President. In selecting these electors, each State was left free to use any procedure it might see fit to adoptdirect popular election of the electors on a general, blanket ticket-the procedure used in all States today-or by single member districts; or by the vote of the legislature itself-a procedure which all the States had abandoned by 1860. The electors so selected by each State should meet, it was decided, on a given date at a designated place within the State and vote by ballot for two persons. They were required to send a list of all persons voted for and the number of votes for each, to the President of the Senate, where, on a date fixed by law, they were to be opened in the presence of the two Houses, and the vote counted. The person having the largest number of votes was to be declared President if such number were a majority of all the votes cast. The runner-up should be declared Vice President whether he had a majority or not-later modified by the 12th amendment. This is the system which, modified by the 12th amendment, has continued in effect up to the present time. It has retained the original form even though all reason for this form has long since disappeared. The historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger, recently wrote in his book, "Paths to the Present": "What demoted the electoral college from a deliberative body to a puppet show was the rise of political parties. As people began taking sides on public questions, they were unwilling to leave the crucial choice of the Chief Executive to a sort of lottery. Instead, each party publicly announced its slate of electors and the candidate they would support. This usurpation of the electors' functions, though peaceably achieved, amounted to a coup d'etat. It was an amendment of the written Constitution by the unwritten constitution. The electors, while retaining the legal status of independence, became henceforth hardly more than men in livery taking orders from their parties." Individual Members of Congress, of course, have always been mindful of the fact that this indirect method of electing the President stood in need of modernization. As stated before, the first legislative proposal for reform came in 1767, only 10 years after the Constitutional Convention itself. In the 70-year period between 1889 and 1960, more than 125 amendment proposals relating to the election of the President have been introduced in Congress. Prior to that time, proponents of the 12th amendment were successful in their efforts to correct the situation created by the Jefferson-Burr electoral vote tie in 1800. Senator Thomas Hart Benton, of Missouri, with the strong support of President Andrew Jackson, made this a prime object of his concern over a period of 20 years in the 1820's and 1830's. Senator Oliver H. P. Morton, of Indiana, led the fight in the 1880's. The late Senator George W. Norris was the principal proponent of reform in more recent times; his proposal for direct popular election of the President failed to command the necessary two-thirds of the Senate in 1934. In both the 72d and 73d Congresses, House committees unanimously reported resolutions calling for abolition of the electoral college. In the 80th Congress another unanimous House Judiciary Committee report was submitted. A side effect or advantage of this type of election reformation would be to reduce the emphasis now placed by candidates of various parties for public office on the solicitation of minority-group votes. Nothing would do more to remove race, creed, and color from our national elections than for this election reformation to be approved. As it has been pointed out, under the present system, one vote can deliver all the electoral votes of a large State into the hands of one candidate, these in turn being sufficient to swing the election of the whole country. Under the reformation I offer, this misrepresentation of the people's will would be eliminated. The one-vote vantage from a minority group would no longer exist, and the petty politics now played by politicians who prey on differences of men's race and religion would no longer enter the political arena. I also believe the system outlined in the amendment offered will certainly create for us a more democratic method of electing our President and Vice President, for under this system every man's vote will be counted in the selection of President and Vice President. It is my earnest hope that this matter will receive serious consideration, for I certainly believe the day for reformation in this field is long overdue. I want no one to think that my advocacy of this measure is prompted by, or in any way influenced by, the 1960 election. I have proposed and supported such a change in our electoral college system ever since I became a Member of the U.S. Senate. It is only that the closeness of the recent election has stimulated thought in this direction and focused editorial and public opinion on the matter. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. GEORGE A. SMATHERS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to you and the members of your subcommittee for affording me the opportunity of submitting a statement in behalf of Senate Joint Resolution 9, introduced by me, proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to the nomination and election of candidates for President and Vice President, and to succession to the office of President in the event of the death or inability of the President. Because of pressing official duties, I regret it is not possible for me to personally appear before you, but I am confident that you and your subcommittee will give every consideration to my proposal. The proposed resolution is aimed at modernizing the national election procedures. It is predicated upon a continued widespread interest on the part of the American people to revise the present archaic convention system of nominating candidates for the offices of President and Vice President. This is the seventh time that I have urged the Congress to take action in bringing about election reforms. Many of us fervently believe in these reforms and feel no discouragement over previous failures. It is my hope that in this Congress we will finally meet with success. Radio and television have awakened the voting public to the undemocratic methods used by both political parties in selecting candidates for the highest offices of the land. They are shocked, to say the least, and demand that corrective action be initiated through their representatives in the Congress to do away with the selection of candidates for these high offices by machinations of party leaders and backroom political bosses. Popular polls have demonstrated that over 73 percent of the American people are anxious to have the archaic practice of selecting presidential and vice-presidential candidates at a smoke-shrouded, politically controlled, national convention laid to rest. Within both major political parties the average voter is irritably conscious of the fact that he has little, if any, voice, choice, or influence in determining who is to be his candidate for President. He is sick and tired of having his party's candidate thrust upon him, and of being forced to vote for handpicked candidates. There is no doubt in my mind that the methods now used have demonstrated themselves to be nothing short of a national disgrace. It is up to us, the duly elected representatives of the American people, to answer their demands by enacting appropriate legislation which will allow them to more actively participate in the selection and election of public officials. My resolution is designed to accomplish this objective. Efforts to revise and reform the outmoded election machinery of this Nation should be nonpartisan and both major political parties should care the responsibility and be vitally interested in achieving changes in the direction to which my resolution points, for in so doing we will make a substantial contribution toward creating a stronger democracy. The first proposal contained in my resolution would establish a nationwide primary to nominate party candidates for the office of President. This is not a new proposal. It was previously advocated by former President Woodrow Wilson in his first annual message to the Congress in 1913. Similar proposals were advocated by the late Senator George Norris, of Nebraska, one of the most able and distinguished Members ever to occupy a seat in this great body, and by the able and distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Douglas. Numerous other distinguished leaders in political life also recognized that the selection of a candidate for the high office of President of the United States is all too important to leave solely in the hands of a few ambitious and professional politicians. The second change which the proposed resolution would accomplish would be to abolish the electoral college system and establish a system under which the electoral votes of each of the States would be divided among the candidates on the basis of the percentage of popular votes received by each candidate in the States. This proposal is identical to that advocated by the former able Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Lodge, and the former distinguished Congressman from Texas, Mr. Ed Gossett. A similar proposal previously passed the Senate in 1950 but failed to pass in the House of Representatives. From the very beginning of this Republic, it has been apparent to more critical observers that the electoral college was not functioning as the framers of our Constitution had intended. No other provision of the Constitution of the United States has produced more dissatisfaction and inspired more demands for improvement than that of the provisions of the 12th amendment. This change is long overdue. The third proposal embodied in the proposed resolution provides for the election of a President and Vice President to be held at the next succeeding regular congressional elections whenever a President dies or is removed and who has still more than 2 years and 90 days remaining of his uncompleted term. Numerous editorials, letters, and polls disclose that the people are firmly of the belief that, when the Vice President assumes the office of President under such circumstances, he, the Vice President, should get the endorsement of the people before serving as President for a period of more than 2 years. The proposal has popular support and merits the most serious consideration. The foregoing is, generally, what my proposed resolution provides. I have not gone into details on these proposals. I have on numerous occasions in the past done so and, for this reason, do not want to unduly take up the time of this subcommittee. We cannot long continue the further use of the outmoded election procedures which have on several occasions in the past permitted a man to become President of these United States even though he did not receive the largest popular vote, and which permit political leaders and backroom cigar-smoking barons to nominate and elect candidates for the highest offices in this land without regard for the wishes of the American people. I claim no proprietorship of any of these proposals. All of them have previously been discussed on forums, in debate, and even in the Congress. The task of undertaking the much-needed election reform belongs to all of us, regardless of party affiliation. The voting public of your State and mine are anxious that we cease declaring the issue academically and take positive action in the Comgress to make these reforms a reality. Good government demands the support of Democrats and Republicans alike to bring about these much-needed changes. They are a matter of vital concern to the strength and well-being of our entire democracy. It is up to us in the Congress to go about our labor in the vineyard and diligently work toward accomplishing that which will carry out the wishes and best serve the interest of the American people. It is my genuine hope that prompt, efficient, and favorable action will be taken on this proposal by your committee. It is in the national interest. Mr. KIRBY. There are several Senators who have not yet been able to appear but who want to be heard, including Senator Thurmond, Senator Saltonstall, and Senator Randolph. Senator Mundt is to return for further discussion. I believe the schedule of the chairman calls for another meeting on June 8. Senator KEFAUVER. We will stand in recess until June 8. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1961 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m. in room 357, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Estes Kefauver (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Kefauver. Also present: James C. Kirby, Jr., counsel to the subcommittee, and Angelina T. Gomez, clerk. Senator KEFAUVER. The committee is delighted to have with us this morning Senator Jennings Randolph, of West Virginia. Senator Randolph has had distinguished service for many years in the House of Representatives, where it was the chairman's pleasure to serve with him and become well acquainted with his interest in progressive measures. It has since been my pleasure to serve with him in the Senate. Senator Randolph has been interested in improving our Constitution in a number of ways, particularly in the matter of extending the franchise to more people and protecting the rights of the people. Senator Randolph, you are here to testify in connection with your resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 71 ? Senator RANDOLPH. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Senator KEFAUVER. We will be glad to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your gracious comment in reference to my interest in the general subject matter which has been a matter of concern of your Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. I reciprocate, not in pleasantry, but in fact, in saying that I have enjoyed and profited by my association with you, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, have valued your counsel, and this morning I trust that you and the members of the subcommittee will, in degree, value some of the recommendations which I make specifically on what I believe to be an important proposal. Senator KEFAUVER. Your recommendations carry much weight with the chairman of this committee and, I am sure, with the other members. 179 |