March 23, 1971

Since the right . to vote cannot be denied, according to the amendment, to any citizen otherwise qualified who has attained that age, it is implicit that no upper age limit of voting may be established by the Congress or by any State. Doubtless a rational case might be made to deny the franchise to the very elderly or to the senile, for example, using many of the same arguments which are used to support this amendment. Such an upper age limit, however, would not be permissible, as I read this amendment. We all know that the current proposal has gained wide acceptance on the strength of the popular non sequitur, "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." It is perhaps a paradox, Mr. Chairman, that the other side of the coin , "Too old to fight, too old to vote," will not be possible under the proposed amendment. A fair reading of the amendment would appear to permit States or the Congress to establish a lower voting age than 18 years, if they so desire. The injunction that voting may not be "denied or abridged" would reasonably not be a bar to extending or granting the franchise to younger citizens. Although no debate on this occurred in the committee, I understand there is no constitutional bar to 17-year-old voting if that be the desire of the States or of the Congress.

The amendment is addressed to the single political act of voting. It does not deal expressly with age qualifications to be an officeholder, for example. As I read the amendment, States may if they wish follow the Federal pattern and impose more restrictive age standards-but otherwise nondiscriminatory qualifications-for holding any elective office.

The act of voting, to which the amendment is addressed, encompasses, as I read it, the full range of rights to participate in the election process. It is anticipated that 18-year-olds could not be denied the right to participate fully in the nominating process, whether by signing nominating petitions, voting at party conventions, or participating in the selection of delegates thereto.

The right to vote without discrimination on account of age after reaching age 18, as I read this amendment, is intended to reach all elections. Distinctions between voters in State and National elections, State and local · elections, primary and general elections, school board contests, bond issue elections, whateverno such distinctions may be made in any such elections on the basis of age. A qualified voter in any election is int.ended to be a qualified voter in all elections.

It is perhaps unnecessary to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the language "by any State" in the amendment is intended to reach all of the political subdivisions within a State as well.

The amendment in my view is not without technical imperfections. I would have preferred that it follow the pattern of the 18th amendment and commenced with the words "After 1 year f r om the ratification of this article."

If the 38th State ratifies this amendment within weeks of a scheduled bond issue election in another State, or a scheduled municipal election, for example, who can say that such election will be certified as valid if 18-year-olds did not have the time to register and participate in that election? I regret hearings were not held by my Judiciary Committee so as to give proper consideration to such real and ominous problems. But, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that any amendment would not prevail today and, indeed, this amendment is going to be passed overwhelmingly.

As the Chairman and the Members know, I oppose the amendment. I do so because I believe it is unwise and completely unnecessary. My opposition, however, is not based upon age. I have urged my own State legislature to lower the voting age in California. My opposition is contained more fully in the dissenting views which are printed in the committee report, and when we go back into the House I will ask unanimous consent to include those dissenting views at this point in the RECORD.

Mr. Chairman, I include the following material:

DISSENTING VIEWS

We respectfully dissent from the judgment of our Judiciary Committee colleagues that the United States Constitution should be amended to permit citizens 18 years old or over to vote in all elections, State or Federal. At the outset it should be understood that we do not oppose a reduction in the voting age if that be the will of the people within those jurisdictions affected. Each of us has urged a lowering of the voting age in our respective States. We do oppose, however, the imposition of an unwanted voting standard in State and local elections by others unaffected by that standard. In short, as the law is pre sen tly interpreted, States have the r ght to fix non-discriminatory voter qualifications for their own elections and we believe it should remain that way.

On March 2, 1971, the Judiciary Committee voted to report this amendment favorably to the House . It did so after a discussion (which could not fairly be characterized as a debate) of less than one hour. The amendin g resolution had not been favored by prior hearings before any House committee in this Congress, or any preceding Congress since 1943.

When one re fi ects upon the enormous responsibility a committee shoulders in recommending a change in our fundamental law, it must be acknowledged that the Judiciary Committee acted precipitately in this care. Its efforts are wholly out of character with its previous careful deliberations of proposed constitutional amendments.

The primary causes of this unfortunate reversal of form are the Voting Rights Act of 1970 and the Supreme Court's interpretation thereof in Oregon v. Mitchell.

In the 91st Congress , it will be recalled , the House accepted a Senate amendment to the Voting Rights Act which authorized 18- year-old voting in all elections. Many in this House resisted that amendment on constitutional and policy grounds. The Supreme Court might have resolved our questions, but it did not. Mitchell v. Oregon satisfied no one, especially those charged with the responsibility of conducting future elections . It is fair to point out that the turmoil which now forces the Congress to consider action is wholly of its own making. True , the Supreme Court compounded our problems, but it did so in response to an act of Congress whic:h 132 of us regarded as improvident and unconstitu tio nal in the first place.

We are asked to support the proposed amendment on the ground that it will eliminate the prospect of confusion and expense in maintaining dual voter lists for future elections. The amendment's supporters believe that it provides the best escape from the problems which the Congress and the Court joined t o create. It could with equal logic be argued that this should be accomplished by a simple repeal of the Senate amendment which thrust duality upon us. We reject each of these proposals.

There is a better way.

There are few attributes of State sovereignty more fundamental than the right to determine the qualifications of those who may participate in the voting process. It is a right granted in the body of the Constitution and recognized as recently as the Mitchell case itself. Justice Black , who tipped the scales in that decision in favor of the Federal right to determine age qualifications in national elections, spoke powerfully of the State's right to establish similar qualifications for their own elections . He said:

"No function is more essential to the separate and independent existence of the States and their governments than the power to determine within the limits of the Constitution the qualifications of their own voters for State, county, and municipal offices and the nature of their own machinery for filling local public offices." Mitchell v . Oregon (No. 43, Dec. 21, 1970, p. 9.)

Other recent decisions Of the Court have indicated a renewed interest in the vitality of the Federal system. In Younger v. Harris, for example, decided only a few days ago, Justice Black spoke for a more united Court when he called for:

. .. a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments , and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. This, perhaps for lack of a better and clearer way to describe it, is refered to by many as "Our Federalism," and one familiar with the profound debates that ushered our Federal Constitution into existence is bound to respect those who remain loyal to the ideals and dreams of "Our Federalism." The concept does not mean blind deference to "States' Rights" any more than it means centralization of control over every important issue in our National Government and its courts. The Framers rejected both these courses. What the concept does represent tis a system in · which there Ls sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments , and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities Of the States. It should never be forgotten that this slogan, "Our Federalism," born in the early struggling days of our Union of states, occupies a highly "important place in our Nation's history and its future."

The President, too, is fashioning programs which are designed to return power to the States and to reverse the trend toward. centralizing authority in the national government.

All of these efforts, by the Administration and the Judiciary, represent a wholesome trend.

The pending amendment, however, 1s a step backward which should not be taken.

The contemplated amendment may have superficial appeal to some because, l! ratified, it would avoid the inevitable confusion and expense of dual age voting. But States need not suffer the confusion and expense if they wish to avoid it. They may change their laws to conform to the Federal standards. Some States, however, may wish to endure these admitted problems as the price tions. of adhering to a policy concerning voting age contrary to that expressed in the amendment. No State should be denied that right. As we take these preliminary steps toward imposing an 18-year-old voting standard on the Nation, it is well to remember that the enthusiasm of a few 1s apparently not shared by the many.

Only three States now permit 18-year-olds to vote; 47 do not.

Several States (Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska) have recently adjusted their voting standards downward, but have refused to accept the 18-year-old standard sought to be imposed by this amendment. Only the voters in Alaska adopted the 18-year-old standards in a recent referendum.

Even more States (Colorado, Florida, Ha· wail, Idaho, lliinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming) have flatly refused to make any change at a.11, when given the recent opportunity to lower their age standards for voting. The policy of these States is to be thwarted by the proposed amendment.

In summary, we are convinced that this republic will be better served in the long run l! the sovereignty of our States 1s not further eroded by denying to them the power to fix non-discriminatory qualifications for voting in their own elections.

We urge a "No" vote on the amendment.

CliABLEs E. WIGGINS.

WILEY MAYNE.

Mr. Chairman, fundamentally this amendment is offered and will pass for no better reason than that the young people affected by it insist on its passage, and, we lack the collective will to say "no" to them.

In this we sadly mirror the permissiveness of society as a whole.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD).

Mr. wn..LIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in supPort of this resolution. I have been a cosponsor of this resolution ever since coming to the Congress.

I shotild like to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr, CELLER), the chairman of the committee, and the members of his committee for the dispatch with which they have handled this matter, giving us an opportunity to vote on this important issue so early in this session of the Congress.

CXVII--475-Part 6

Mr. Chairman, today we a.re considering a House joint resolution which I have cosponsored that proposes a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18 in State, local, and Federal elections. The Senate has recently approved an identical resolution by a unanimous vote qf 94 to O, and I would hope that my colleagues will do the same today in the House of Representatives.

I would like to remind my colleagues that last year Congress enacted legislation which enfranchised the voters between the ages of 18 and 20 with full voting rights in all elections. However, on December 21, 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this law. While it upheld the granting of voting rights for 18-yea.r-olds by statute in congressional and presidential elections, the Court struck down the provision for voting in State and local elecWe are now left in a very precarious position. Presently, there are only three States which permit 18-year-olds to vote in State and local elections--Kentucky, Georgia, and Alaska. This means that it will be necessary for 47 of our 50 States to maintain separate voter registration lists and separate balloting procedures.

Needless to say, the result is extra and unnecessary administrative expenditures to our States and municipalities at the very time when these units of govern- ment are literally crying out for more funds. In many instances these extra expenditures are extremely costly. For instance, it is estimated that the lack of uniformity in voting ages will cost New York City alone approximately $5 million. While the full impact on the State of Michigan has not yet been determined it is estimated that approximately one- quarter of a million dollars will be required merely to provide adaptors for the State's 8,000 voting machines.

To avoid this additional cost and potential confusion, either Congress must pass n constitutional amendment or the States must act individually to lower the voting age. However, because of State requirements for amending State constitutions, 22 States cannot act to lower their voting age prior to November 1972. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution would make it possible to avoid this and lower the voting age in time for the 1972 elections.

Aside from the confusion and obvious inequities which presently exist and aside from the additional costs involved, there are additional reasons why Congress should pass this resolution today. In my own State alone there a.re approximately 500,000 young men nad women between the ages of 18 and 20 who will be voting for the first time in 1972. It simply does not make good sense to a.llow our new young voters to participate in national elections which predictably involve the most distant, complex, and . far-reaching issues of the day, and then deny them the right to participate in local elections involving issues with which they are much more familiar, and, in most cases, which are much less complex.

For these reasons, once again, I would urge an my colleagues to vote amrmative}y today. The time is long past due for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 20 to have the opportunity to vote for the people who represent them on the local levels of government as well as the national.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. MAzZOLI) •

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, I should like to echo the sentiments which have been conveyed earlier today concerning the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER) for his cosponsorship of this amendment. The gentleman has made a most distinguished record, really a very historic record, since he has been in this House, and I should like again to congratulate him.

Mr. Chairman, I come from the State of Kentucky, which has had the privilege and honor to recognize the talent, usefulness, and devotion of young people by granting them the right of franchise at age 18 for the past 16 years.

We have had a great deal of discussion today. This will be continued today. There will be newsletters written and there will be radio broadcasts and television announcements of all the great concerns many of my colleagues feel, in good faith, concerning the constitutional questions that this type of proposal arouses.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, as one who has worked in the political context of Kentucky and has been active in politics in Kentucky for the past 4 years, we have found, and I have personally found, that the young people of America in the course of their activities in politics have really infused new blood, infused new thoughts, infused a much needed new enthusiasm into the political process. They have brought to the political process in Kentucky, and in all other States that have permitted 18-year-olds to vote the idealism that sometimes we, as their elders, have allowed to dissipate. They have brought to the political process the willingness to do the hard and mundane and drudge work that comprises the bulk of politics. They have worked uncomplainingly in situations which many of our contemporaries simply refuse to work in.

So, Mr. Chairman, Chairman CELLER, a:µd Members of this august body in which I have now the privilege to serve, I should like to urge that you do pass this proposal today. I should like to urge that in your communications to constituents you indicate the usefulness of this proposed amendment, the wisdom of it, and the fact that it has produced good in our State and will produce good for the United States of America.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. DENNIS).

Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I have concluded to vote for this amendment. I do so with some reluctance, not because I am perturbed by the thought of the 18- year-old vote; in fact, I voted for that as a member of the general assembly of my own State over 20 years ago.

But I am concerned about the method whereby we have arrived at the situation in which we find ourselves today, and still more by the implications of where we may go from here if we follow the constitutional guidance of some of the opinions handed down by the Supreme Court in the case which passed on the validity of the statute which we adopted last year.

The Congress has contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves by trying to impose an 18-year-old vote by statute without reference to any amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I voted against that effort last session because, according to my understanding of the Constitution, it was plainly unconstitutional. The Court, really by the decision of one member whose views were not shared by any other member of the Court, has, in a rather strange decision, which is not one of those most distinguished on the part of the Court, I think it is fair to say, come up with an anomalous situation whereby it has been held that we could constitutionally do this by statute as to Federal offices but not as to State offices. Hence we find ourselves in the peculiar situation in which we are here this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I have no particular concern, I say, about the age for voting. I think a man could arrive at a conclusion anywhere at ages between 18 and 21 with fair reasonableness. You have t.o draw a line somewhere, and I am content to see it drawn anywhere in a reasonable area, but I am concerned with interpretations of the Constitution which torture it out of shape.

Mr. Justice Black, in his opinion which led to this hybrid situation in which he upheld our statute as to Federal elections and not as to State elections, has taken one part of the Constitution which talks about times, places, and manners of holding elections and which gives some Federal power as to such subjects and has equated it with another section which talks about the qualifications of voters and which leaves that completely to the States, just as if these obviously deterrent things were one and the same thing. However, the real threat to our federal system lies in the decision by Justices Brennan and Douglas that under the 14th amendment, as they claim it is a denial of equal protection of the laws to deny the vote to people 18 years of age. I submit, if that its true, then it is just as much a denial of the equal protection clause to deny a vote to people 17 years of age. Even Justice Black does not buy that solution for our problem.

What I suggest to you is this: We have a situation in a few States which voted for 18 years of age and we have a few which voted for 19 and 20 years of age as the legal age at which to vote, and although it may make a local difference here and there for a short period of time, the Republic is going to survive wherever we draw that age line. The Republic will not be destroyed or saved by the 18-yearold vote, but the Republic is very likely to be destroyed, or at any rate its constitutional basis is very likely to be permanently changed and altered, if we follow the constitutional theory which is laid down by Justices Douglas and Brennan in their opinion in Oregon against Mitchell. I suggest to my professional colleagues here in the House, and also to all others who are concerned, that they read those opinions and that they think very carefully on the question of where we may be going in this so-called Federal Republic. At this point Mr. Chairman, I am including a copy of my individual views found in the rePort on the resolution, House Joint Resolution 223:

INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID W. DENNIS INDIANA

1. I have never believed that granting the vote to those between 18 and 21 years of age would, over the long run, either save or ruin the Republic. The question, on its own merits as a. matter of policy. has achieved a. sort of symbolism which, I believe, exceeds its intrinsic importance. Some individuals should certainly vote at 18, others make inco:m.petent voters at any age, and a line must be drawn somewhere. The general area of 18-21 seems to be a reasonable area. in which to make demarcation; and, for my pa.rt, I believe that men of good will and good judgment could honestly differ on the exact year to pick, and that no decision made would necessarily be more or less meritorious than another. 2. Federal action in this field, however, ls another matter. for, regardless of the degree of importance which one may attach to the question of the 18-year vote, as such, any attempt to resolve the issue on the Federal level necessarily involves Constitutional questions and problems of Federalism, the importance and sweep of which may far outstrip that of the immediate problem of set· ting the most desirable voting age.

I have never had any serious doubt that. under our Constitutional system, voting qualifications in general, and age qualifications in particular, were basically matters for determination by the several States of the Union, and were not to be determined by the Federal government.

On this basis I voted against the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, Public Law 91-285, 84 Stat. 314, because I believed that several provisions of this statute were unconstitutional-and notably that its provisions which purported to set 18 years of age as the legal voting age in all elections were quite plainly unconstitutional.

Briefly, I based this belief on the provisions of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United. States, reading as follows:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature;" on that provision of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which provides that: "The electors [for election of United States Senators] in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors in the most numerous branch of the State legislatures;" on the language in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which, by providing a penalty for State denial of the vote to any male inhabitant "being twentyone years of age", assumes that the State has the power and right to deny the vote to a male inhabitant who ls less than 21 years old; and, finally, on the uniform practice over the years which not only left the determination of over qualifications to the laws of the several States, but which, uniformly, adopted the route of amendment of the Federal Constitution, whenever it was desired to change voting qualifications through Federal action-as in the cases of Federal abolition States. of State restrictions on voting by reason of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), and, with respect to Federal elections, the failure to pay poll taxes (24th Amendment).

I will add that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Oregon v. Mitchell on December 21, 1970, ls not one which greatly impresses me or which operates to alter my basic thinking about the proper nature of our Federal system.

I accept the decision, of course. as the law of the case and as the law governing the particular problem and situation with which we are now faced; but. like Abraham Lincoln with respect to the Dred Scott decision, and like Mr. Justice Harlan in his very able dissent in Oregon v. Mitchell I take a generally dim view · of the underlying approach upon which this decision seems to operate and of the possible further extension of the Constitutional point of view upon which it would appear to be based. ·

Nor ls one's respect for the result heightened by the fact that, in essence and in practical effect, this result represents the views of just one member of the nine-member Court. The opinion of Mr. Justice Black clearly discloses an acute perception of the dangers to Federalism inherent in the views of his four Colleagues who, with him, make up the five-man majority in respect to the validity of the 18-year-old vote provisions of Public Law 91-285 as to Federal elections. Yet he has sustained these provisions as to Federal elections by what, with all respect, must surely be regarded as a tortured. view of Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. whereby he equates regulations as to "the Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections" with regulations respecting "the Qualifications requisite for Electors”, which are provided for in Article I, Section 2.

Finally, I do not agree that there is anything in our Constitutional history to indicate that denial of the vote to those 18 years of age-any more than the continuing denial of the vote to those 17 years of age--ls a denial of equal protection of the laws, or that Section 5 Of the 14th Amendment grants to the Congress any power to adopt legislation against such an alleged denial of equal protection.

I cannot but agree with Mr. Justice Harlan when he says, in his dissenting opinion: "Except for those who are willing to close their eyes to constitutional history in making constitutional interpretations or who read such history with a preconceived determination to attain a particular constitutional goal. I think that the hi.story of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that no part of the legislation now under review can be upheld as a legitimate exercise of congressional power under that Amendment."

The question remains, what do we do now? The Court has spoken, and the Congress is now taking the proper route-if it wishes to act in this field-of proceeding by way of Constitutional Amendment, as Congress ought to have done in the first instance.

It ls true. a.lso, that the hybrid election system caused by the Court's decision, will pose problems of complication and expenses to the several States in the conduct and holding of elections. which a. uniform voting age, applicable to a.11 elections, will serve to obviate.

On the other hand it ls equally true that the States can, in due course, correct this situation by action on their own part, if they wish to do so-and if they do not so wish, it ls at least a fair question whether the Congress should attempt to force the issue by proposing an amendment in a field which has always been one particularly reserved for the jurisdiction of the several We sometimes lose sight of the fact that each of the States, at any time, could have acted to lower the legal voting age, had it so desired; but only a few States had done so previous to the enactment of Public Law 91- 285. The decision of the Court, and its practical effect, may or may not impel additional State action. There is nothing unthinkable about leaving this decision solely to the several States. Nor has there, as yet, been any manifestation of a great demand, within the several States (as distinct from the ranks of the Congress) for a lowering of the voting age.

Submission of a Constitutional Amendment, however, is an appropriate and legal procedure, which still leaves the ultimate question of ratification of the amendment to action by the several States, in accordance with Article V of the Constitution.

We are, therefore, now presented with a Constitutional approach to this problem; and certainly a man could support the pro· posed 18-year-old vote amendment who could not, for Constitutional reasons (18- year vote and/or otherwise) support or vote for Public Law 91-285.

One final word: the question of passage and ratification--or the reverse--of this particular amendment, is, to my mind, much less important than are the broad Constitutional questions raised and discussed in the several opinions in Oregon v. Mitchell. It is not too much to say that the future course of our Republic, and the whole question of its continued Federal character, may be pro· foundly influenced by whether, and to what extent, the views of Mr. Justice Harlan as expressed in Oregon v. Mitchell may, in the future, prevail over the judicial philosophy of Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan.

DAVID W. DENNIS.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) .

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, as a longtime supporter of the proposal to enfranchise all Americans between the ages of 18 and 20, I rise in SUPPort of House Joint Resolution 223, which would, by constitutional amendment, lower the minimum voting age to 18 years in State and local elections, as well as in Federal elections.

The legislation we are now considering is a direct consequence of a 5-t.o-4 decision rendered on December 21, 1970, by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case ot Oregon against Mitchell. The High Court in that case upheld the provisions of the Voting Right.s Act Amendments of 1970- Public Law 91-285-lowerlng the minimum voting age to 18 for Federal elections, but invalidated such provisions with respect to State and local elections. The Supreme Court decision has left most States in the unfortunate situation in which 18- to 20-year-olds may vote for their President, but not their Governor; for their U.S. Senator and Congressman, but not their State or local legislators, or even their hometown mayor.

The present situation is neither realistic nor sensible. The 47 States which do not allow 18-year-olds t.o vote are facing an intolerable burden. Either these States must quickly enact their own constitutional amendments to allow these young voters to participate in state and local elections, or some form of dual voting methods will have to be designed and installed. If, as is probable, each of the 47 States adopts a different method of dual voting, future elections in our highly mobile society could be strangled by a jungle of procedural redtape. This truly was not the intent of Congress when it passed the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.

Moreover, it is clear that these young voters have earned the right to full participation in our political system. The~ are better equipped today than ever in the past to be entrusted with all of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. Their demonstrated intelligence, enthusiastic interest, and desire to participate in public affairs at all levels exemplify the highest qualities of mature citizenship.

Today's young voters have a great deal to contribute to our society. Although some of the student unrest of recent years has led to deplorable violence, much of this unrest reflects the concern of today's youth about the important issues of our time. We must direct these energies into our political system and give our young people genuine OPPortunities to influence our society in peaceful and constructive ways.

The report of the President's Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence eloquently described the relationship between campus unrest and the inability of our younger citizens to take a constructive part in the political process. The Commission stated, in pertinent part:

The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them from systematic political processes and to drive them into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the Nation's ideals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive, and democratic channel for making their views felt and for g-iving them a responsible stake in the future of the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the time has come to extend the vote to 18-yearolds in all elections--because they are mature enough in every way to exercise the franchise, because they have earned the right to vote by bearing the responsibilities of citizenship, and because our society has so much to gain by bringing the force of their enthusiastic idealism into the constructive mechanisms of elective government.

These considerations were given overwhelming support by the other body on · March 10, 1971, when, by a unanimous vote of 94 to 0, it passed similar legislation. This distinguished body should do no less for the young people of our country. I urge a unanimous vote for House Joint Resolution 223.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. MAYNE).

Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman, we are asked today to change the fundamental law of the land by a constitutional amendment.

The resolution proposed is one which very clearly erodes traditional concepts of federalism upon which our Govern- t has been based.

Surely , if any power is to be reserved to the States, it should be the power to determine the age at which a citizen becomes eligible to vote in State and local elections. This has been firmly established in our law since the founding of the Republic and had remained unchallenged until the Senate last year amended the Voting Rights Act of 1970 to authorize 18-year-olds in all, not just Federal, elections to vote. A majority of the House unwisely accepted this amendment over the objection of Members who then warned that it was clearly unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court promptly so held insofar as State and local elections are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, in the case of Mitchell against Oregon the Supreme Court upheld the act's setting of voting qualifications in Federal elections, but struck down the statutory attempt to force 18- year-old voting in State elections. Though thus rebuffed by the High Court, it was perhaps too much to hope that those who led the Congress down the primrose path of unconstitutionality last year might become somewhat less assertive of leadership in the continuing effort to blanket younger age groups into the franchise.

But the rest of us should at least be sobered by the thought that on the record thus far the proponents of this resolution have proved to be something less than omniscient in matters of constitutional law.

They have renewed their attack upon the federal system, and I protest that they do so with unseemly and unnecessary haste.

The resolution we consider today was reported out by the Judiciary Committee on March 2 with less than an hour's discussion and barely a week after organization of the committee on February 23.

-There were no hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary or any other committee of this Congress, or any preceding Congress since 1943. Is this the kind of careful deliberation and investigation which any proposed constitutional amendment should merit at the hands of a responsible legislative body. I think not. Why the big hurry? Why are we in effect falling all over ourselves in the rush to thrust the vote upon the very young? Can it be in some way related to our knowledge that 18-year-olds assuredly will be voting for Members of Congress in the next congressional elections? Can it be that we are ready to surrender the federal system without a whimper rather than run the risk of offending this large 3-year class of new voters, the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds? I hope not.

Lobbying groups are already hinting that they have the soon-to-be enfranchised in their pocket, and will tum them against Congressmen who now refuse to go along. But those who think these young voters will applaud and reward a fawning and precipitous congressional approach to this important resolution may be in for a rude disappointment. It has been my impression that today's 18-year-olds know a good deal more about the American system of government than many of us give them credit for. If they are as well informed as I think they are, they will not appreciate a currying of their favor by passing this bill at the expense of the federal system. They know that under that system certain powers are reserved to the States, and that foremost among these has been the exclusive right to prescribe reasonable regulations for the conduct of State and local elections, including the determination of qualifications for voters in those elections.

In the "Federalist No. 59,” Alexander Hamilton strongly upheld and made abundantly clear the intent of the framers cf the Constitution to proscribe any Federal Government meddling in State and local elections, in the following language:

Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments? The violation of principle in this case would have required no comment; and to an unbiased observer, 1t will not be less apparent in the project of subjecting the existence of the National Government, ln a similar respect to the pleasure of the State governments. An impartial View of the matter cannot fail to result in a conviction, that each, as far as possible, ought to depend on itself for its own preservation.

Make no mistake about it, my colleagues, what is mounted today is indeed "an unwarrantable transposition of power; and just such an "engine for the des t ruction of the State governments" as Hamilton contended no man should hesitate to condemn. It is a direct assault upon the federal system.

It is one thing for the National Government to prescribe voting qualifications in national elections, but quite another for it to say who shall vote in State and local elections, for such officers as members of city councils, school boards, and county boards of supervisors. If high school students are to be permitted to vote on school bond issues, then certainly this decision should be made closer to home than at the Federal level. I personally favor the Iowa Legislature giving the vote to 18-year-olds, and I have urged them to so vote, and I would so vote if a member of that body myself. But this is a matter for State, not Federal action.

Five States-Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska-­ have recently adjusted ther voting standards downward, but have refused to go so far as to enfranchise 18-year-olds. Through referendums 14 more States--­ Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, 'Michigan, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming-have refused to make a.ny change at all when asked to lo w er their age standards for voting. Thus we have a situation in which the people of 19 States have already rejected 18-year-old voting by referendum. But if this resolution which we are c o nsidering today is p a ssed and the amendment is subsequently ratified by t he legislatures of barely 38 Stateswithout approval by the people of each St a t f' in referendum-then the other 12 States would have no choice but to com­

If federalism means anything my colleagues, it means that no State in the Union should be forced to permit votingthe by 18-year-olds in its local and State elections when a majority of its own citiz.ens have shown their opposition to such action by referendum. True federalism would require the defeat of the pending amendment, so that each State can continue to decide for itself, in conjunction with the people in each of the 49 States that require submission of amendments to the State constitution to referendum, what the minimum age for voting in its State and local elections shall be.

I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in voting to maintain and preserve, not weaken, our federal system. by voting "no."

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. ABZUG) one-half minute.

Mrs. ABZUG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, I am going to move to revise and extend my remarks in a minute in the RECORD~

In the meantime, I want to say I think it is terribly important for 18-year-olds to be able to vote on the question of making war and peace as well to have the Power to determine who will be the sheriff maintaining the peace. I think that is the significance of the 18-year-old amendment that we are seeking here today.

The political system needs the 18-yearolds just as we need more young people here in the House of Representatives. I believe the right of the 18- to 21-yearolds to vote will strengthen our power few. structure. I think many of the programs and the direction of our country, would be changed-Not only the emphasis upon the illegal war in the Indochina and our economy of war, but our failure t.o protect the country's resources, and provide for its inhabitants all would be considerably changed by the introduction of the 18-year-olds to all parts of our political processes: at the congressional level as well as at the State and local levels. The House of Representatives more than any other branch of Government is intended to be the direct voice of the people. And in a nation which ts getting younger all the time, there are no young people in Congress. The youngest Member of the House is 30, although under the Constitution you can run for the House at age 25, and the age range goes up to 82. The average age of Members of the House is 51.9 years, and in the Senate it is over 56. We need the 18- to 21- year-old vot.es to begin t;o make a change in this body, in its shape and in its responsiveness.

I believe that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER), who has presented this amendment for our consideration today, deserves great ap- :prec1ation on our part for bringing this issue bef ~re us.

The time for the total enfranchise- ~ent of the 18-year-old citizen is now. Since 1942, when the first resolution to amend the Federal Constitution to lower ~he voting age to 18 for all elections was introduced, national sentiment for such an extension of the voting population has steadily grown. The result is that current controversy centers not on whether the 18-year-old should have the unequivocal right to vote in all elections, but rather, how that right should be granted.

The 11 million 18- to 21-year-olds of today are generally better educated and more prepared, more capable and more aware than their counterparts of years ago. They should not be deprived of their tremendously significant participation in the selection of elective officials at all levels of government.

The Federal constitutional amendment would sooner extend on a national scale the 18-year-old vote than would alternative measures . It would sooner eliminate the high costs of maintaining the dual suffrage system necessitated by 18-year-olds presently being able to vote in Federal but not State or local elections. Finally, the constitutional amendment would sooner eliminate the possibility of confusion and delay resulting from this dual voting system.

But, unless this amendment is made effective as soon as possible, the unjust, costly, and unnecessary situation now existing will prevail for some time to come. This is so because of the State constitutional mandates restricting the respective States as to how soon they can act on their own.

I am proud to be part of the effort to extend the 18-year-old vote through a Federal constitutional amendment. It is the most practical and far-reaching method of achieving a goal sought by many, and, as yet, achieved by only a

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minut.es t.o the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MIKvA).

Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, the time for an idea comes for strange and wonderous reasons and for many different reasons.

Some will be voting for this amendment because of the fiscal crisis that faces the States because of the dual age requirements that will be involved in the 1972 elections. .

Some will be voting for it because they have been for the 18-year-olds voting for a long, long time.

Some will be for it because they recognize the difficulties that our younger generation faces and the consequent necessity to make them a part of the action at an earlier · age.

For all these reasons, it is obvious that the time for this idea has come.

When we are talking of amending the basic document under which we live it is only fit and proper that there be differ- ent reasons for getting together the kind of consensus that is needed to pass an amendment to our Constitution.

It is not necessary for everybody in the Chamber or, indeed, for everybody in all the States to feel that the action which was taken by the Congress in the last session was wise. I happen to be one who voted for that statute and believed that it was wise. It is not necessary for everyone in this Chamber to agree that the Supreme Court decision on this subject was wise. I happen to be one who thinks that decision was not wise.

It is not necessary in short that all of us agree on all the reasons why 18-yearolds ought to be allowed to vote in all elections.

What is im:portant ls that this consensus has been reached.

I think it is a tribute to our beloved chairman, the gentleman from New York, that this came through the Committee on the Judiciary almost without dissent. I think it is a tribute to our Speaker that this is being put before this Chamber at a time when most of the States will have an opportunity to ratify it or to decide not to ratify it in time for the 1972 election.

Perhaps it is premature for us to congratulate ourselves for finally achieving that which justice and equity require, but the fact remains that by approving the proposed constitutional amendment and guaranteeing the right to vote to all citizens in all elections to people who are over 18 years of age, the Congress will have carried out its responsibility; from here on in, it is up to the States to make the final decision, which would determine whether or not those 18 years of age and older will be voting in all elections. To those who complain that it was dent. improper for the Federal Government to reach for this decision on its own, I would point out that only if three-fourths of the States agree will this decision be binding upon the entire country.

I would suggest to those who would argue that it is not right to impose this decision on those States that may not agree, or to impose this decision on those people who might not agree, that the means by which we choose an electorate are the most difficult problems for any democracy.

I know of no other way than by making it a part of the basic law of the country, to once and for all resolve this dispute which has been before the country for so long.

Mr. Chairman, I think it will lend credibility to the notion that 200 million people can rule · themselves in a democratic and equitable manner when the House today gives its approval to what we hope will be the 26th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

.Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KEATING).

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, the vote on the House floor on the question whether 18-year-olds can vote in the next national election is truly a historic and brave decision on the part of my colleagues in the House.

This is one of the major steps that could mean 11 million young Americans will be able to have a voice in the presidential, congressional, and State and local elections a year from next Novem­

I consider it an honor to be a member of the Judiciary Committee which voted this bill favorably to the floor of the House.

Aside from the election administrative nightmare which must be remedied as quickly as possible, r would like to make some observations on the importance of this issue.

The latest figures show there are 11.5 million persons between the age of 18 and 24; 4.1 million are in the labor force; 800,000 are in the Armed Fo.rces; 4.9 million are in high school and college; 1 million are housewives; 80 percent of the total are high school graduates; 46 percent are college students. These younger voters should be given the right to full participation in our political system because they will contribute a great deal of knowledge to our society.

It is a simple fact that our young citizens of today are mentally and emotionally capable of full par.ticiptaion in our democratic form of government.

Under the criminal laws of more than 49 States, 18-year-olds are treated as adults. They are also subject to military induction. I might add insurance companies and the Federal Civil Service also treat them as adults.

I welcome this new potential group of voters. They must have a voice as to who is to be elected as their city councilmen, city judge, State representatives, county commissioner, Congressman, Senator, and Governor and most importantly the President and Vice Presi­

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. SCBMITZ).

Mr. SCHMITZ. Mr. Chairman, you have all heard many reasons for voting "no" on this proposed constitutional amendment, and I am convinced that they are worth abiding by. and I am not going to gild the lily at this :point. What I am going to do is to address myself to the so far unmentionable option, and that is repeal of title m of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Of course, passage of the constitutional amendment would definitely prejudice · my legislation which has been introduced as H.R. 2633, and, therefore, I am going to speak of the unmentionable option.

When I appeared before the Rules Committee to speak on behalf of repeal of the statute lowering the voting age to 18, I appeared on behalf of St. Jude, who is the patron saint of lost causes. But after giving more thought to the subject, and in view of the fact that I have been a Marine jet pilot, I am aware that this may be the only time and opportunity I shall have for kamikaze. Nevertheless, those who have spoken against this amendment on the ground that they are !or the right of 18-yearold youths to vote- but have some constitutional questions about it will at least feel they will now be considered in a more moderate position after I have given my pitch for the unmentionable option, which is repeal of the former legislation.

Mao Tse Tung and I have one thing in common: Both of us think favorably of Sun Soon Loo, the ancient Chinese writer, who is quoted as saying that supreme success in warfare is not winning all your battles, but' in having an enemy surrender before going into battle. Lest it be said that I surrendered here before going into battle, I should like to ask why, as some speakers have said, it is inconceivable to repeal this section; namely, the act lowering the voting age to 18? Why is it absolutely unrealistic? This is what the people want. In poll after poll and in election after election they have expressed their wishes. They do not want the voting age lowered to 18. The Supreme Court in its decision last December did not find that 18-year-olds had a constitutional right to vote. What they found-and I disagree with their decision-but what they found is that this body or this Legislature has a constitutional right to set the voting age by statute for Federal elections. The Supreme Court did not say we had to set it at 18 years of age.

In the light of the election since the passage of that statute, five States, when given a chance to express their opinion, turned it down. Is it not quite obvious that the people do not want it?

Also, we in this body have never had an opportunity to vote on the question of lowering the voting age to 18 as a simple, clear-cut issue. It was an amendment added by the other body to a Civil Rights Act. Even now we are not voting on the question as a clear-cut issue. We have the problem of acceptance of dual questions.

Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHMITZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MIKVA. Are you concerned that the legislatures of the 38 States that are needed to ratify this amendment will be speaking the wishes of their own people in ratifying the amendment?

Mr. SCHMITZ. I am not concerned with that question at this time. There is an organization, for example, the Committee for Constitutional Integrity, which has started a campaign to fight this battle in the State legislatures. Let me point out how simple it would be if we should allow the States to do this on their own, each State deciding for itself through its legislators. I am sure most of the States, as in the case of California, bring about changes in their State constitutions by submitting the question to the people for a vote. But they do not have to submit an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the people for a vote. There is the difference.

Mr. MIKVA. I realize that. But that was also true when women were granted the right to vote. Would you like to repeal that amendment, also?

Mr. SCHMITZ. Do not put me on the spot on that one. I might give you an answer you did not expect.

Getting down to this resolution, we have heard many argument.s that if they are old enough to fight, they are old enough to vote, but I have not seen anyone take the viewPoint or ask for the vote only for those in the combat zone.

People have said there is nothing magic about the age 21, but there is also nothing magic about the age of 18.

One of the arguments many have given for lowering the voting age is that young people are in school longer nowadays. But as a former college instructor, I would like to say that maturity, which ought to be one of the reasons for giving the right to vote, is not attained by those who have never left the ivory tower. Maturity comes from getting out in the world and cutting one's own path.

I see no reason for lowering the voting age. There is a legend that Harry TrUman used to say, when he was asked if he was in favor of lowering the voting age to 18, "Heck no "-or as close to "heck" as Harry Truman got—“It ought to be raised to 24." Now, I am a moderate on this position, and I am neither in favor of lowering the voting age to 18 nor raising it to 24. I think we ought to keep it at 21.

I believe we ought to vote down this resolution. We can do it. I hope next year or the year after, when the States do turn down this constitutional amendment-if it is passed, and I hope it is not-that we will come back and give some consideration at that time to the question of whether the people want to lower the voting age to 18. It is not inconceivable or impossible-in fact, it is the will of the people that we not do so. If we fail as legislators to consider the will of the people, we are acting in an absolutely unreasonable and unrealistic manner. I maintain then we are in pretty bad shape.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of allowing 18-year-olds to vote in national elections. Now it is only logical and right that we make 18- year-olds eligible to vote 1n State and local elections as well.

Last year when the Congress was considering legislating the 18-year-old vote by statute I favored that legislation althrough I also favored a constitutional amendment to accomplish that purpose. What I feared would happen if we took the statutory route came to pass. The Supreme Court decision permitting 18- year-old voting only in national elections has produced a chaotic situation. We now must remedy that situation. We must move to bring order out of chaos by quickly-and overwhelmingly-approving a constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to 18 in all elections. In 1966 and again in 1970, I favored the State constitutional amendment in Michigan for the 18- year-old vote. .

I am a cosPonsor of the House resolution which would amend the constitution to lower the voting age to 18 in State and local as well as national elections. The constitutional amendment before us affords today's youth a great opportunity to exercise its influence, to make its voice heard at all levels of Government. our young people deserve that opportunity.

Today's young people are better educated and better informed than the generations that have gone before them through the same age span. I believe the vast majority of them are looking for a chance to work through the system to improve the quality of life in America.

Passage of this resolution will give our young people an opportunity and an obligation to take part in the political process. It is not enough to allow them to vote in national elections. They must be fully enfranchised.

Passage of this resolution is one of the most important legislative acts we will take this year. It is an act of faith in the local Political process.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North carolina (Mr. MlzELL).

Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I rise at this time to express my strong supPort for the proposed constitutional amendment to extend voting rights to young Americans between the ages of 18 and 21.

Last year, I was concerned that legislation by the Congress, giving the vote to 18-year-olds in all elections, might go beyond our constitutional limits.

The Supreme Court decided that this was indeed the case when it ruled last December that such legislation could be enforced in Federal elections, but that State governments still reserved the right to grant or deny voting rights to the under-21 age group in State and local elections.

Since that time, local election commissions have been in constant turmoil. Forty-eight of the fifty States under present conditions would be forced to compile two separate registration rolls and perhaps even two separate kinds of voting apparatus.

For this reason, I am glad to see we have :finally decided to apply a constitutional remedy to a constitutional problem. young people of the Fifth District of North Carolina, which I am honored to represent, have proven themselves to be greatly concerned with the issues f acing the Nation today, and just as concerned with :finding reasonable and effective solutions to our problems. They believe, as I do and as the majority of young people throughout America do, that violent demonstrations are not only illegal-they are pointless and detrimental to constructive efforts that must be made to improve our national life.

I find it tragic that this fine generation of young people is too many times overshadowed by the misled and irresponsible minority that claims the headlines in our newspapers and the lead stories on our television news shows.

We are constantly exposed to drug addiction among the young, to juvenile delinquency and to the thousands of young people who march behind a Vietcong flag. But rarely do we hear about the young people who have excelled in sports or in scholastics or of those who are actively trying to do something about the Nation's social ills through the thousands of service organizations in our schools and churches.

I believe it is time to recognize that these young people are fully capable, by reason of education and improved mass communications, of casting well-informed and valuable expressions of opinions through the ballot box.

I am looking forward to election day, 1972, Mr. Chairman, when the vast majority of young people will prove that they are responsible and thoughtful individuals, and not radical in the least.

I welcome the opportunity to vote for this constitutional amendment, and I hope State governments will Join as quickly as possible in this movement to enfranchise 18-year-olds in Federal, State, and local elections by 1972.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. ScoTT).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I have considerable reservations about permitting 18-yearolds to vote and as the record will show, did vote against the provision in the Voting Rights Act last year to permit those between 18 to 21 to vote in Federal, State, and local elections. One basis for the vote at that time is a belief that voting age is a matter to be detemined by the State rather than the Federal Government. In my opinion, the Constitution so provides. However, the Supreme Court has now decided that Congress by general legislation can regulate the voting age in Federal elections but not in State and local elections. The result of the recent decision of our highest Federal court is that there are two classes of voters and, apparently, those States which have not reduced the voting age to 18 must keep separate voting lists. Moreover, the counting of ballots would be complicated if the present condition of the law continues to exist. Therefore, I intend to support the present resolution which, when ratified by 38 States of the Union, will make uniform the voting age for citizens within our States as well as throughout the country. The action of the Supreme Court, in my opinion , has deprived us, as well as the individual States, of the opportunity to decide the question of whether 18-year-olds should vote on its merits. We have to approve the resolution to obtain orderly electoral procedure.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the passage of this resolution and its ratification by the State legislatures will provide a new dimension in the electoral process. The youth vote is an unknown factor to be dealt with. I believe it imposes an additional challenge on older adults and added responsibility upon them for the guidance and the direction of our youth. I understand that when this measure becomes effective the young people 18 to 21 will constitute approximately 8% percent of the entire electorate. I would hope that they will be prepared to cast an intelligent and an informed vote-that they will study the issues-­ learn about the candidates and thereby will be able to vote responsibly. Older people hb. ve a responsibility to guide and direct our young people to assume this added responsibility, being mindful of the admonition to train up a child in the way he should go.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. GREEN).

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise to ask two questions. I think it is seldom that any constituency gives such a clear-cut mandate on any legislative issue as my State did on the 19- year-old vote when they voted better than 2 to 1 in defeating that proposal last year when it was on the Oregon ballot.

The question I would like to direct to the gentleman from New York or to whomever wants to answer it is, first, we have a 30-day residency requirement for Federal elections. I presume any State would be able to establish any residency requirement it wishes for the State and local elections.

Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MIKVA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I believe that she is correct. Recent amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 establish a 30-day ceiling on residency requirements for voting for President or Vice President.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, we are certainly in a hopeless mess, because · the States will have dual election sheets and machinery and everything else for the Federal elections and for the local elections. It would be inconceivable to me that most States would have just a 30-day residency requirement for State and local elections. So, in fact, are we not still going to have dual or double election machinery for the Federal and the local elections whether or not we pass this amendment? My question goes not to the pros or cons of granting 18-year-olds the vote, but rather to the argument made that this amendment will eliminate dual election procedures at the polling booths.

Mr. MIKVA. If the gentlewoman will yield, there are several reasons why dualvoting-age requirements present more complex problems than dual residency requirements:

First, fewer local voters will be affected by the special presidential election residency requirements; approximately 2 million as compared to 10 million affected by this 18-to-21-year-old dichotomy.

Second, special residence requirements apply only every 4 years in presidential elections, whereas dual age qualifications apply every 2 years.

Third, 31 States already have special residency laws on elections for President and Vice President. Therefore, fewer States will have to revise their procedures to implement the new Federal requirements.

Finally, only one special ballot need be printed for statewide PUrPOSes to comply with special residence requirements for voting for President, but under a dual-age voting system, each congressional district would need a separate ballot.

What we are talking about here is actually running an election for two sepa . ­ rate sets of voters, in effect two separate sets of elections, in every congressional district in the country, not just in States which have not adoPted a 30-day residence requirement for voting for President and Vice President.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. I accept the distinction between 2-year and the 4- year presidential elections. The gentleman is right there. But in terms of the 4-year elections it seems to me it would require more than a dual registration list. As people come in to vote, would there not have to be dual procedures? Would they not have to maintain separate markoffs and everything else? Would they not need procedures for Federal elections requiring only 30-day residency separate from procedures for Stat.e and local elections requiring ~ or 6 months' residency?

Mr. MIKVA. I would say that 31 States have previously adopted a special residency requirement for voting in presidential. elections and have been functioning under it with very little difficulty. My own State of Illinois had that in the 1968 election and had no difficulty with it whatsoever. However, county officials in Illinois estimate if we do not correct the present age dichotomy there would be some $6 million in additional cost.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Oregon has expired.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. My second question pertains to college towns. I wonder if the committee discussed this. We have many towns in the United Stat.es that have populations of a few thousand and have student bodies of 15,000 or 20,000 population or even more. If the vote is extended to the 18-year-olds then it is conceivable that the student body composed largely of 18- to 21-year-olds, could outvote the permanent residents who own the property and are left with the responsibility to pay the taxes and assume all other responsibilities required by the vote. I am not saying they are going to be irresponsible, but there is this possibility, is there not; and has that been discussed?

Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MIKVA. There was discussion on this question earlier in the debate; that is, what the States and local governments will decide to do about college students. There is nothing in this proposed new article of amendment which requires States to pass any residency requirement whatever.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. But if it is lowered to 18 these are very special problems for small college towns.

Mr. MIKVA. We do not affect residency requirements. That issue is left to the States and local · governments, as it is now.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. I understand that. Regardless of the residency, whether it is 30 days or 6 months, if the vote age is now lowered to 18, we would find that the college voting population of X college in many places, many towns, would have far more votes than the people who live in the town and own the property and carry the burden.

Mr. :MIKVA. If they satisfy the residency requirement of that town obviously they would be entitled to vote. I would point out to the gentlewoman that at present if they satisfy the residency requirement those over the age of 21 are allowed to vote and in many college towns that group also is a majority.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. To change the voting age from 21 to 18 would change the composition of the voting group immeasurably.

Mr. MIKVA. It is up to the residency requirement established by local governments and State governments. They make that decision.

Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. The Baker amendment would help by requiring 18-year-olds at the same time that they receive the vote to assume all the responsibilities required of other adult citizens. I hope the Baker amendment will be approved. It just makes sense to me that the vote is a right that must be a~oci· ated with responsibilities. I believe that the Baker amendment would be a sig· nificant help to Oregonians, and to the Oregon Legislature in particular, in deciding whether to ratify in the face of last year's rejection of the 19-year-old vote by such a large majority.