The votes corresponding to the two Senators from each State weigh the scales slightly against the larger States. This advantage was probably necessary to secure the support of the smaller States for the original Constitution, and while at this point it may no longer be essential for the preservation of our Federal system, it still goes far toward prevention of feelings of dissatisfaction and injustice among the smaller States without appreciably damaging the rights or the powers of the larger States. It has therefore been retained in my proposal under the proportionate distribution plan.

(5) One additional feature of the present electoral college system remains undisturbed by the amendment which I have submitted. Voter qualifications under the Constitution are left entirely within the control of the States. There is still a great enough disparity among the cultural patterns in the various States of the Union to justify retention of this authority by the States. It is still essentially a local

matter.

Even if this were not the case, as a matter of political reality, this is perhaps the worst time in the past half century to attempt to impose Federal controls upon voter qualifications, and any such attempt would almost certainly fail.

My amendment makes no change in the present system, and leaves this power where it rightly belongs, to the hands of the States.

(6) The last, and perhaps the most important, adjustment which is accomplished by the proportional distribution plan outlined in my amendment is the elimination of the grossly unfair method, provided at present, for the decision of elections which are thrown into the House of Representatives because no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes.

Under this antiquated system, only Representatives are permitted to vote. This means that the large delegations from States such as New York, Pennsylvania, and California carry no more weight than the delegations from Idaho, Alaska, and Rhode Island. Under such a system, the will of the people can readily be perverted, as it was in the election of 1824, when Adams was elected President by the House despite the fact that Jackson received a plurality of more than 12 percent of the popular vote.

The continuing concentration of our population in large urban areas and the consequent growth in the proportionate strength of States encompassing such areas increases the blatant injustice of this system with each passing year. My amendment provides for the election of a President by both Houses of Congress, sitting jointly and voting individually, in the event that no candidate receives at least 40 percent of the popular vote. This type of vote reflects, with a much greater degree of accuracy, the popular will and will result, in most cases, in a decision acceptable to a majority of the voters of the Nation.

These, then, are the major considerations which have led me, after much deliberation, to propose the serious step of amending our Constitution in order to provide a sounder method for the election of our President. I have not taken this step lightly.

The proportionate distribution plan which forms the heart of my proposed amendment is not a perfect system, but its merits so far outweigh any objections which have been brought to my attention that I feel compelled to bring it before you for your consideration.

The present electoral college system is grossly unfair and unduly complicated, and must be replaced at the earliest opportunity. The proportional distribution plan, in my judgment, stands head and shoulders above any of the alternative solutions which have been formulated and provides a sound, easily understood, and equitably designed election plan. It is my conviction that it should be adopted, and soon. I earnestly solicit your support in this serious and important undertaking.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd.

The committee is delighted to have with us this morning the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, Senator Holland, who has filed Senate Joint Resolution 58 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the qualification of electors. Senator Holland, the resolution has been made a part of the record. We appreciate your presence here this morning to discuss it.

STATEMENT OF HON. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity, which you and your colleagues have given me, of appearing and testifying here today in support of Senate Joint Resolution 58, proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, relating to the qualifications of electors. I have been joined in cosponsoring this resolution by the following 64 cosponsors.

And I note with a great deal of interest and appreciation that all of the members of the subcommittee, the distinguished chairman, Senator Kefauver, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and the Senator from Illinois, Senator Dirksen, and the Senator from New York, Senator Keating, are among the 65 who have joined the cosponsors. And I ask that the entire list be copied into the record at this place.

Senator KEFAUVER. Without objection, that will be done. (The list of cosponsors referred to is as follows:)

With minor changes, Senate Joint Resolution 58 is identical to similar resolutions which I have introduced in every Congress beginning with the 81st.

The following Senators have cosponsored this proposal during the Congresses specified, and I ask that the lists of the cosponsors for the 81st, 82d, 83d, 84th, and 85th Congresses be copied into the record at this time.

Senator KEFAUVER. That will be done.

(The list of cosponsors is as follows:)

Senator HOLLAND. During the 86th Congress, the sponsors were substantially the same as the present sponsors of the resolution, with changes reflecting changes in the personnel of the Senate.

In fairness to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, let me state for the record that he withdrew his name as a cosponsor of the measure in the 84th Congress soon after the bill was introduced.

Hearings were held by a subcommittee of this committee in the 81st, 83d, 84th, and 86th Congresses, and in each instance the hearing record was printed and is now available. In the interest of the economy and brevity in the record of this hearing, I shall not ask that materials printed at length in the record of those hearings be reprinted, but I shall, nevertheless, appreciate consideration of such materials just as if they had been reprinted here.

I should say, Mr. Chairman, that the records of the subcommittee will show the printed copies of those hearings in the preceding Congresses which I have just mentioned, and it seems to me it would be a waste of public funds to ask for the reprinting at this time, so I certainly hope that they will be made available both to the committee and to the Senate.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, we have a supply of the records of these hearings of each of the Congresses you have referred to, Senator Holland. Particularly in the 86th Congress we had lengthy hearings on this resolution at which time a number of Senators, Governors, and high officials appeared or submitted statements. I think we do have an ample supply of the hearings of the last Congress which are available to all the Members of the Senate.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to note that in the 81st and 83d Congresses, there was no opposition to the joint resolution in the hearings. In the 84th Congress, there were two opposition witnesses, the Honorable Thomas A. Wofford, then a Senator from South Carolina, and Clarence Mitchell, director, Washington Bureau, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the 86th Congress, the Honorable John Stennis, our friend and colleage from Mississippi, appeared in opposition, as did Mr. Mitchell and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., representing Americans for Democratic Action. Statements in opposition were submitted by, or in behalf of Senators Lister Hill, A. Willis Robertson, John Sparkman, Gov. J. Lindsay Almond, of Virginia, and Capt. John B. Minnick.

Mr. Chairman, I have stated these matters for the record because it is quite apparent that this resolution must be regarded as a moderate one since it has drawn fire and opposition only from the witnesses. which are mentioned in the paragraph which I have just read, who come from both ends of the rainbow.

In 1956 and 1959, the subcommittees recommended that the proposed amendment be reported favorably by the full Judiciary Committee. On February 2, 1960, the Senate, by a vote of 72 to 16, incorporated this proposal into Senate Joint Resolution 39, then pending, relating to House vacancies and passed the amended resolution by a vote of 70 to 18. For tactical reasons, the House Judiciary Committee deleted the poll tax provision from the resolution. However, Chairman Emanuel Celler, in a statement on the House floor, pledged his full support for this amendment during the 87th Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I have long been interested in the poll tax as an impediment to voting. In 1937, as a Florida State senator, I participated in the successful fight to remove the poll tax as a requirement for voting in Florida. This action has, in my opinion, been beneficial to the State of Florida for two reasons. First, it has resulted in a great increase in the exercise of voting responsibilities by both the white and Negro people of our State.

And I want to make it clear that I am speaking now about the percentage of those participating. Because, of course, our State has grown greatly, and I would not want the record to indicate that it is only the increased number that I speak of as participants, but that it is also a greatly increased percentage.

When this proposal was on the Senate floor last year, I inserted at pages 1369 and 1370 of the Congressional Record for January 28, 1960, two tables showing the increase in registration in Florida over the years. I believe it is noteworthy that there was a marked increase in registration and voting immediately after the Florida poll tax was abolished.

Second, the abolition of the poll tax has contributed to clean politics in our State. It is a matter of common knowledge that in some counties there had previously been considerable exercise of control over local elections through the payments by some of the poll taxes of others. This means of undemocratic and corrupt control was terminated by the poll tax repeal.

The poll tax requirement is now limited to five States; namely, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. It has been accorded far greater importance that it deserves. The fact of the matter is that the amount of poll tax now required to be paid in the several States is so small as to impose only a slight economic obstacle for any citizen who desires to qualify to cast a ballot. This requirement operates, of course, equally on citizens of all races and colors and is generally subject to important exemptions which limit its application, such as the exemption of veterans, women, and citizens beyond a certain age. Nevertheless, the question has remained a vexing one. For the subcommittee's information, the votes of the five poll tax States in the 1960 presidential election were as follows:

Mr. Chairman, may I digress long enough to say that one of the fine things already apparent from the introduction of Hawaii and Alaska to Statehood has been the very large particiption in elections by the citizens of those two States. And I remember that in the case of Hawaii the whole Nation was refreshed by the showing of almost complete participation by the citizens of that State in their elections last year.

Senator KEFAUVER. I remember that. Do you remember the percentage, approximately?

Senator HOLLAND. According to Senator Long of Hawaii, it was 93 and a major fraction percent of those registered who voted. In round numbers, 94 percent.

I have asked the Library of Congress to bring down to date its analysis of the proposed amendment's legal effect which appears on pages 12-14 of the hearings for August 17, 1959. At this point, I would like to insert this analysis into the record, if I may have consent to do so.

Senator KEFAUVER. Without objection, that will be inserted in the record.