March 16, 1962

But last year in Mississippi there were no contests for election to be county officials.

Mr. HOLLAND. Let me say to my distinguished friend that the only reason why I mentioned this point was that in his closing argument on yesterday--

Mr. EASTLAND. But there is no point--

Mr. HOLLAND. In his speech at that time the Senator from Mississippi said the primary is the place where the real votes are cast.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator from Florida deny that?

Mr. HOLLAND. · It was not true in 1960.

Mr. EASTLAND. But in 1960 there was no contest in the primary. However, the Senator from Florida has said that it takes a contest to get out large numbers of voters.

Mr. HOLLAND. But in the general election--

Mr. EASTLAND. · But the Senator from Florida was making his point in regard to the primary. He knows . that nothing can be more deceiving than a situation in which one does not know the facts; and in this case the Senator from Florida does not know the facts.

Mr. HOLLAND. Well, I know ‘that in the 1960 Alabama primary there was a contest over the question of naming the presidential-elector candidates, and that the contest in that State was close; and the slate of candidates, 11 in number, was divided-6 being independent electors, unpledged; and 5 being what I would call bona fide Democratic electors.

Mr. HILL. Madam President, will the Senator from Florida yield to me?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. HILL. The Senator from Florida will recall that in that primary there was no race for election to be Governor, and for all practical purposes and effects there was no race for election to the U.S. Senate, and there was no race for election to be sheriff, and there was no race for election to be probate judge, and there was no race for election tlJ be county commissioner-there were no races of that sort-the sort that would craw out large numbers of the electorate.

Mr. HOLLAND. Of course the Senator from Alabama knows that his distinguished junior colleague · ran for noin ~ · ination that year and had a very bitter campaign; but he won by a very large vote.

Mr. HILL. The Senator : r from Florida is entirely wrong. My junior colleague did not have a bitter campaign at all. He did not make a single speech in that connection; he did not go to the State to campaign. But, as the Senator from Florida has said, my junior colleague was overwhelmingly renominated. But certainly he had no campaign at all. He did not have to campaign and he did not have to enter into a campaign, and therefore he did not enter into one; he did not · make a single speech or make a single trip there; he made no campaign at all.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, I hope the distinguished Senator from Alabama will permit me to come · to my point.

Mr. HILL. I simply wish to point out that fact.

Mr. HOLLAND. My point is that in the final general election there was a strong race, in Alabama. There were three tickets: a Republican ticket, an unpledged Democratic ticket, as to six electors; and a pledged Democratic ticket, as to five electors. Notwithstanding that, the voter participation was so small as to be what I have already mentioned-namely, roughly 31 percent of the total number of the civilian population of voting age.

Mr. HILL. Madam President, will the Senator from Florida yield again to me?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. HILL. There was no contest between the six unpledged candidates for elector and the five candidates who were pledged as elector candidates; there was no contest between the six and the five. There was no campaign and there was no fight between the six, on the one · hand, and the five, on the other hand. The 6 and the 5 together made the 11 elector candidates-the candidates for the 11 electors to which Alabama was entitled.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, I have before me the statistics in connection with that election, as printed in a House document. It shows rather conclusively that the number of citizens who voted for the prevailing elector candidates was approximately 10 percent of the total number of citizens in that State of qualified voting age.

And with reference to the State of Mississippi, the figures for Mississippi show that out of a total population of 1,171,000 aged 21 or over in that State, less than 10 percent, or 116,248 of those citizens were the ones who determined · that there was to be elected an uninstructed group of electors, which later cast their votes for a very good American who I think was one of the best men qualified to run for election as President, but who was not running for election as President--! refer to HARRY BYRD, of Virginia.

Mr. EASTLAND. But let the Senator from Florida be perfectly fair; he should state the number of votes for the other · list. He should give all the statistics at the same time. However, he has given only one-third.

Mr. HOLLAND. I shall be glad . to do so: 108,000 were for the regular Democratic slate, 116,000---or 8,000 morewere for the unpledged slate; and 73,000 were for the Republican slate--or a total of 297,000 voters out of the total of 1,171,000-which I have already stated is just a shade over one-fourth of the mature, adult citizens of that State. And let me say · that the 116,000 were a little less than 10 percent of the total number of such citizens in the State. And, Madam President, if the people in every State do not have a stake in that kind of situation, then I do not know what I am talking about.

Mr. EASTLAND. Madam President, will the Senator from Florida yield again to me?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator from Florida has already stated that it took an election for county officials and State Officials to get out a large vote. The Senator from Florida said that was the case in Mississippi and in Alabama and in other States. ·

But I point out that last year in the State of Mississippi and in the State of Alabama there were no elections for county officials and there were no State Official tickets. But the Senator from Florida has admitted that it took that to get out a large number of votes.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, what I stated-! will not call it admitting-was that of course a race for election to be county officials brings out a large vote. But I wish to point out that the general election last year in Mississippi was not a velvet glove affair. I. distinctly remember-and it is to the credit of the senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND] and to the credit of his distinguished junior colleague [Mr. STENNYsJ-that both of them were out fighting at every crossroad and corner where they could be heard, fighting for the regular Democratic electors, while at the same time, Madam President, the Governor of that State and certain Members of the House of Representatives from that State were out fighting for the unpledged elector candidates; and instead of its being just a milktoast affair it was a hard fought · and very actively fought election; · and I am sure the Senator from Mississippi would state that he exerted himself to the utmost of his capacity-and everyone knows his vote-getting capacity and that of his dis- · tinguished colleague and also that of his distinguished Governor, who certainly is a very thrilling speaker and a very fine campaigner-they were out working on opposite sides. If there could . have been anything to get the attention of his · citizens, it was that which was · taking place in that race.

· I make no reflection - on anyone. I know they were doing exactly what they thought was right. I know the Senator from Mississippi who is here in the Senate well enough to know he was fighting for a cause he believed in. The point I am making is that the result of all that was that the full electoral vote of that State was dominated by a little over 116,- 000, out of a total of 1,171,000 that could have qualified to vote if they had been permitted to qualify . under the laws of the State.

Mr. EASTLAND. Again I say there is nothing as deceiving as figures when one does not know the facts. The distinguished Senator has stated it takes the election of county and State officials to get out the vote. One can scream all he wants to, but there has to be that kind of election to get the vote out, . t, and we had no county official election in Mississippi. In addition, we have no Republican organization in the State.

Mr. HOLLAND. The sole reason for bringing up this point is that it will result in giving credit to the Senator. The Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Alabama have fought for the Democratic cause. The results of that election show very clearly that the other States have a right to be interested in this kind of system, which allows participation of such a limited number of the qualified people.

I do not like to compare States but in that same election, in my State, where nothing like the same degree of campaigning took place the vote was 1,540,- 000. We are a larger State, of course-

Mr. EASTLAND. How did the Senator's State vote?

Mr. HOLLAND. Our State voted for the Republican nominee.

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator's State Mr. FULBRIGHT. voted for Mr. Nixon.

Mr. HOLLAND. Yes. The Senator's State went for unpledged electors . .

Mr. EASTLAND. That is true, but I leave. was fighting for the Democratic ticket.

Mr. HOLLAND.

Senator. I am not criticizing him for it.

Mr. EASTLAND. So was my colleague. But I would not attempt to pass judgment on the State of Florida, which the Senator has done toward my State and the State of Alabama, when the Senator from Florida knows no more about conditions in those States than the man in the moon. We get back to the proposition that it takes local elections to get out the vote.

Mr. HOLLAND. The only reason why I probe into this tender wound is the fact that I want to state clearly for the record why 68 Senators have thought it to be a matter of public interest, of Federal interest, of the interest of other States in trying to bring about a more wholesome condition in which there will be a larger participation in voting in the 5 States which still have the poll tax requirement.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. From what the Senator has said happened in his own State, does that lead to the conclusion that the more votes there are · , · the wiser the decision? It seems to me that is not so, . from the results in - Florida. There may be something to be said for a smaller electorate.

Mr. HOLLAND. Day before yesterday the junior Senator from Mississippi stated that in his opinion the qualifications for voting should be further restricted, instead of enlarged.

Mr.EASTLAND. Why,now.

Mr. HOLLAND. · It is in the RECORD. I point out that that philosophy runs upstream, definitely, against the experience of our whole country and the ambition of our whole country to enlarge voting participation.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think that is debatable, in view of the election record made by the people both in Florida and nationally.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is entitled to his opinion. Incidentally, when the Senator from Arkansas was not on the floor, I called attention to the fact that the poll tax States were the ones that had lost population. In the case of his own State, it has gone down to four Representatives. The State of Florida has gone up to 12. When I came to the Senate, our States had the same population.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I will say to the Senator in reply that it is the quality we are more interested in than the quantity, and in the quality of our States, I think ours has gone up.

Mr. HOLLAND. Certainly ours has gone up, and it has gone up, in part, because of the very fine people who have come from Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama, and have swollen our population; and we are grateful to them. I think the rise in quality in Arkansas is due to this exodus, because the lowest paid and the most undiscriminating are the ones who

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator I compliment the for that observation.

I would state, in closing these brief remarks, I think it is established that other States of the Union have an interest in improving an electoral process which is not bringing, and which cannot be sure of bringing, a representative expression from the States. So far as the Senator from Florida is concerned, from his own experience in this field in living in a State which had poll taxes, and then knocked out poll taxes, and then saw participation in voting jump up and up and up, largely because of that--I am talking about percentage of voting-he knows it does encourage participation. It gives citizens more will to get into elections and I think tends to bring about cleaner government, in the main.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Do I draw the right conclusion from his statement that thereby he believes the quality of the government of the State and the representation of the State is superior to those whose voters do not participate in the same percentage? Does the Senator see any connection between the enlarged participation and the quality of the representation of the State?

Mr. HOLLAND. The point the Senator from Florida has made, and the only point he has made, is this. It is not to point any finger of criticism at any State, but simply to point out that it is established, as was stated yesterday, that it is the business of other States, because the States have an interest in the electoral results of other States in seeing that there is a representative expression by those States. That is the only point the Senator from Florida wishes to make.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. low the Senator in his point about the quality of our government, and that goes not only to the quality of its participation but to that of its representatives, whether they be local officials, Governors, Representatives, or Senators. If the Senator is trying to make the point that, because there is a large participation and more people vote, thereby there is a higher quality of Representatives and Senators and Governors, I would like to see the Senator demonstrate it, because I do not follow that point, and I do not believe it. Why else would the Senator have an interest in what we do?

Mr. HOLLAND. In my concluding remarks, I · say, regardless of the views of the Senator from Arkansas, that the Senator from Florida has great confidence in the verdict of the people.

What I am trying to do is get the people to give a verdict. Obviously, where only a small percentage of the people are giving the verdict, the Senator from Florida thinks the whole Nation has an interest, and in these 5 States which are trying to swim upstream against the heavy current of expression of the other 45 States, that people should be encouraged and allowed to vote, without putting obstacles in the way, as to whether they can make the payment, or laying down a certain means of collection, or whether they will or will not be intimidated. The Senator from Florida believes in the expression of the people of each State. As a State senator, he voted to give his people full expression, and he expects to vote the same way here.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call may be dispensed with.

Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a minute, please.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield " to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, further proceedings under the quorum call will be dispensed with.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, it is my understanding that--

Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a minute.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Mississippi has the floor. I certainly gladly agree that he may yield, with the full right of retaining the :floor, to any Senator to whom he wishes to yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has the :floor.

Mr. EASTLAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may retain the :floor and may yield to the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], and that when I resume speaking following the speech of the Senator from Arkansas it not be counted as another speech on the pending motion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Mississippi? The Chair hears I do not quite fol- none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Madam President, there is little, if anything, new that can be said on the poll tax issue.

We have been up and down the hill on this subject so many times that our discussions are no longer a debate, but a ritual. As Senators will recall, we considered this same proposed amendment in 1960, another election year, and it passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 72 to 16. The 65 sponsors of the current amendment include some of the most able and persuasive Members of this body. Although support for the amendment is powerful, it is not overwhelming, and I hope that those of us who oppose it will be able to convince some of the supporters on the merits of our case.

The constitutional authority for the States to require payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting is well established. The Supreme Court has upheld this right of the States in several cases. I realize that there are many Members of this body who believe the poll tax can be eliminated by statute. Undoubtedly, a move will be made to attempt this approach before this debate is over.

In my opinion, such a statute would be unconstitutional on its face. If the poll tax is to be eliminated on other than a State-by-State basis a constitutional amendment is the correct method. However, I feel dutybound to follow the wishes of the citizens of Arkansas on this proposal, who have in the last 25 years twice rejected · attempts to abolish the state poll tax, as required by our constitution. ,

Our poll tax is only $1 per year and it is not cumulative. :Members of the Armed Forces are not required to pay the tax, and those who become 21 after the deadline for paying tlie tax can vote in the elections during the year covered by the tax. Our poll tax requirements are quite - liberal. There are no restrictions for reason of race or color in the application of the tax.

I might also point out that we do not . have a registration law in Arkansas and the list of persons who have paid their poll tax serves as a registration list for the election officials. Some form of registration is obviously required, and ours is well established, efficient, and reliable. Arkansas is a relatively underdeveloped State. We do not have the tax base , to support a school system comparable to those in the more industrialized States.

Our people are making great sacrifices in an attempt to build up our school system, and in fact make a far greater ef- . fort in relation to ability to pay than the national average. Revenue from the poll tax is devoted exclusively to support of the public schools, and if the tax is abolished by passage of this proposed amendment our already underfinanced school system will suffer. Last year $575,769 in poll tax revenues were collected for our school system. If the . Congress would pass a realistic Federal aid to education bill along the lines approved in the Senate last year, the loss of this revenue would not be such a significant factor in my consideration of this issue. However, the possibility of such a bill getting through the House this session is, to put it mildly, remote. Arkansas is in need of more funds for its public schools rather than less, as . would be the case if our poll tax is abolished.

It is ironic that although the Congress refuses to enact a Federal-aid-to-educa .. tion bill, on the other hand it seems . eager to deprive a State-in this case my State-of this means of raising revenue from its own people for its schools. . There has been no intimation · that . the poll tax, or any other device, is used in Arkansas to prohibit Negroes from voting. In fact, the Civil Rights Commission in its recent report on voting . reported that there was no racial dis­ - crimination in the conduct of elections in my State. The report stated:

The absence of complaints to the Com- . mission, actions by the Department of Justice, private litigation, or other indications of discrimination have led the Commission to conclude that, with the possible exception of a deterrent effect of · the poll tax— it does not appear generally to be discrim- . inatory upon the basis of race or color­ . Negroes now appear to encounter no significant racially motivated impediments to voting in 4 of the 12 Southern States: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.

I think it is significant that three of the five States which still require a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting were specifically singled out by the Cemmission. . There is nothing in the entire report to indicate that the poll tax is used in the other two poll tax States to discriminate against potential Negro voters. If the Civil Rights Commission was unable to find any evidence of discrimination due to existence of a poll tax requirement I am sure that none exists. Last year 68,970 Negroes in Arkansas qualified to vote by paying the poll tax. Nothing prevented this number from being substantially higher - other than failure to pay the small sum of $1 per person for the privilege of exercising the highest duty of citizenship.

I suppose if this were called a registration fee it might well be considered acceptable even by those who are most fanatically devoted to the proposed amendment.

The citizens of Arkansas are perfectly capable of determining whether they wish to continue to require payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting. In 1938 they decided by a vote of almost 2 to 1 to retain the poll tax. Again in 1956 a proposal to abolish this tax was on the ballot in the general election, and it was defeated by almost 50,000 votes. As far as I am concerned the people of Arkansas have spoken on this issue and I, as their representative, support their · position.

It is inconceivable that a $1 tax is such an overwhelming obstacle that it discourages interested citizens of any color or race from qualifying to vote. This amount would not even keep a smoker in cigarettes for a week, and is infinitesimal when compared to the amounts . acted from individuals by the Federal, State, and local governments in other taxes.

The task of being a responsible citizen in a democracy has never been easy. In this complex age the task is greater than ever and the privilege of voting cannot be taken lightly. If we are to make our Government work as it should, every citizen must give long an<! careful consideration in exercising his privileges of franchise. Some time ago I read a statement by a very learned man to the effect that if he exercised the privilege of voting as carefully as a citizen in a democracy should, he would spend all of his time weighing the issues and studying the candidates before casting his ballot. Surely, the payment of a dollar poll tax, which Arkansas requires, is a small price to pay for the privilege of being a more responsible citizen. It is inconceivable to me that the caliber of our public officials, and the workings of our governmental system in general, could in any way be improved by the casting of a vote by a person who does not care enough about his Government to pay a $1 poll tax, or as on~ could correctly call it, registration fee.

This subject has powerful political and emotional overtones and it would be unwise for the Congress to tamper with the Constitution in such an atmosphere. The issues involved here were · well stated by Robert G. Storey, former dean of Southern Methodist University Law School, who is Vice Chairman of the Civil Rights Commission. In the recent Commission report on voting he said:

Proposals to alter longstanding FederalState relationships such as that incorporated in the Federal Constitution, declaring that the qualifications of electors shall be left to the several States, should not be made unless there is no alternative method to correct an existing evil. Such is not the case today.

The Federal Government has sufficient authority under the Constitution and the existing framework of laws to enable it effectively to deal with denials of the right to vote by reason of race, color, religion, and national origin.

By bringing up this proposal a Pan- dora's box, :filled with every conceivable type of so-called civil rights legislation, will be opened. The Congress has much urgent business to transact this session, and the committees are working · on many bills of far-reaching importance which may be delayed indefinitely if we get bogged down in another extended debate over legislation in this :field. This issue, if it were ever an i;mportant one, has, because of developments in other :fields and because of recent legislation regarding the power of the Attorney General, become obsolete. It is a puny, trifling issue to occupy the time and attention of this body. No doubt in some districts it may still be good for a few votes for its advocates, but as a matter of real importance to the effectiveness of our democracy, it is an illusion and unimportant.

If the poll tax is to be abolished the States should do it. I urge that the proposed amendment be defeated.

Mr. EASTLAND. Madam President, the back-door avenues that are employed in presenting civil rights measures to the Senate are abhorrent to orderly legislative processes. We went through this ordeal in 1957 when a House-passed bill was taken from the table and presented to the Senate without referral to a Senate committee. ::::n 1960 that famous school district in Missouri, which is even today still with us, was the vehicle for the abortive attempt to write a civil rights bill on the floor of the Senate. At the beginning of each Congress for the past 8 years we have been confronted with the attempt to deny that this Senate is a continuing body and to have rule XXII changed or obliterated without referral of the matter in controversy to · the proper committee of the ' Senate for its study and report. It is unfair to say that the Senate Judiciary Committee is the sole committee to which civil rights proposals are referred, for many of them even now pending are not within the confines of this committee, but are before Rules, Labor, and Public Welfare, and elsewhere. When the distinguished majority leader discussed on the floor on January 30, 1962, his bill, S. 2750, proposing to protect the right to vote in Federal elections free from arbitrary determination by literacy tests or other means, he indicated to the Senate that, regardless of whether the committee to which this bill had been referred reported or not, it was his intention to undertake some kinds of action on the proposal in the period between 60 and 90 days. · A study of the long colloquies that took place during the course of this debate in regard to the referral of this proposed bill would indicate that it was the intention of both the majority and minority leaders to have civil rights debated as a package when the move was made to take up S. 2750 on the floor of the Senate. It now appears that every time the workload of the Senate slows down a little bit, the bone of civil rights would be flung into the pit of the Senate, so that time can be again consumed by making Southern States the whipping boy of proposed punitive actions, whether they be by legislative proposals or constitutional amendments. This country is today confronted with many grave and serious problems far reaching in nature. Many observers deeply and sincerely feel that 1962 is a year that will mark a milestone and a developing point in the history of mankind. The nature of these problems demands the greatest possible degree of bipartisan consideration. In many respects the future course of the United States for generations to come is wrapped up in the decisions that must be made in regard to the President's proposed trade development plan. On such an issue as this, there is a great diversity of ideas and interest.

Bitter family and internal squabbles such as that in which we are now engaged cannot help but hurt in resolving these greater and more fundamental problems with which we are confronted. The mere fact that the legislative calendar is as bare as Mother Hubbard's cupboard does not mean that Members of this body cannot most profitably apply their time to the consideration of the issues which must be faced. No good purpose can be served in again making a handful of people-five States-containing less than 12 percent of the population of the United States, the subjects and victims of a proposed constitutional amendment that is unwise, unsound, unreasonable, and contrary to the historic practices and procedures that have existed in this country since the Colonies were :first established on the coast of the Atlantic seaboard.

I submit that the point of order to be made against the Holland amendment in the nature of a substitute is well founded. It is no small matter when the framework of the U.S. Constitution is bent and torn to accommodate a transitory purpose, no matter how worthwhile the proponents of that purpose deem the goal they seek to achieve may be. Since human societies were :first organized, it became evident that they could not exist as communities without observing the rules and precedents, the mores and the folkways that made living together possible. It is now proposed, in order to lay this intended constitutional amendment before the Senate, to violate not only rules, precedents, and procedures of the Senate and House of Representatives, but to shunt aside those sections of the U.S. Constitution which provide specifically for the manner and means by which congressional bills are to be processed and the manner and means by which congressional resolutions are to be processed. The point of order, when made, should be upheld.

Madam President, I am unalterably opposed to the attempt being made here on the floor today to secure enactment of a constitutional amendment which would abolish the payment of poll taxes as a prerequisite for voting.

Legislation to abolish payment of a poll tax has been kicking around the Congress for the last 25 years, and during this period of congressional debate a number of States, through their own initiative, have proceeded by State action to repeal the poll tax requirement.

I venture to say that if this same question is discussed and discussed in the Halls of Congress for the next several years, State action will undoubtedly be taken in · the same direction being attempted here today by way of the constitutional amendment route.

All right-thinking Members of the Senate must realize that State action, determination by the States themselves, is the preferable route to take.

I do not question the sincerity of those who sponsor a constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax requirement. However, I do very seriously question the wisdom · and judgment of the proponents in addressing themselves to this poU tax issue when there are only five States today that require the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting.

In my judgment, the Congress of the United States, particularly at this time, · could devote itself to more constructive legislation directed toward the welfare of the United States as a whole rather . than directing its efforts, time, and energies toward a question having to do with only 5 States out of our Union of 50 States.

This question has been before the Congress year in and year out over the last quarter century. We all remember · the great · hullabaloo raised by some in past years to secure legislation to abolish the poll tax by way of statute rather than by constitutional amendment. I consistently took the position during those debates that this issue could not be resolved simply by legislation; that if it were to be accomplished, the only constitutional way is by a constitutional amendment.

However, I do challenge the wisdom of this approach, in view of the fact that the States themselves under the initiative of their own State legislatures, have repealed the poll tax requirement, and if the remaining five States are left to themselves, their respective State legislatures will take care of the situation. Mr. HU..L. Madam President, will the Senator a tor yield?

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield.

Mr. Hn.L. Does not the Senator think that there is a good possibility that if there were not all this agitation for the Federal Government to come in and interfere with the States and meddle in · the local affairs of the States, and if the States were left alone to proceed in their own calm, cool, deliberate, and wise way, some of these poll taxes would have been abolished by the States which still have them; but it is this agitation by outsiders, who have nothing to do with the States and the affairs of the States, but who continue their agitation, which causes people in the States which have poll taxes to be more resolute in their determination to run their own affairs and to not let some outsiders come in and tell them what they should · do about poll taxes or about any other matter concerning the affairs of the people . of the State?

Mr. · ~ASTLAND. The distinguished Senator from Alabama is correct. People resent being dictated to by the Federal Government, and they resent being kicked around. That is what this attempt is. It is an attempt to kick around the people in the various States and impose on those States. It is an attempt ' by other States and · pressure groups primarily within those States to impose their will on the people of other States. Of course the people in the States aimed at resent it. In my judgment that is the reason why they have stood fast and retained the payment of poll taxes as a qualification for electors.

I well recall that the chief sponsor of this resolution, the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND], testifying before a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary on a poll tax proposal in the 83d Congress, stated:

I would like to see the abolition of poll taxes as a prerequisite for voting accomplished as speedily as possible in the five States in which the poll tax requirement still exists, and I would prefer to see that accomplished as a result of action taken by the States themselves.

That is what the distinguished Senator from Florida, the chief proponent of the joint resolution, had to say, that he would prefer to see the action taken by the States themselves. However, he has changed his mind since that time.

I heartily concur in the thought of the distinguished senior Senator from Florida that this should be done by the States themselves. That is the proper way to accomplish this purpose. Let the States themselves handle the poll tax provision. The States have been doing it. Why not let them continue, rather than by way of a constitutional amendment.

The question of the payment of the poll tax has now become such a small one in terms of the area affected that I do not believe that Congress is justified in submitting an amendment to the Federal Constitution.

The poll tax requirement as a qualification remains only in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. I say, let these five States take action themselves, rather than taking the time of the Congress and the time of the State legislatures of the other 45 States to discuss and debate the question of ratifying such an amendment.

We all know that the payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting is as old as the United States itself. The matter of the qualification of electors in the several States to vote in the elections of Federal officials is governed first by section 2 of article I incorporated and drafted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which provides:

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.

That provision was included in our original Constitution, and remains oper­ · ative today, spelling out with great clarity that the House of Representatives shall be chosen every second year in the States by the people of those States and that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

It is crystal clear that that provision means that each State is specifically allowed to retain the power to prescribe the qualifications of the electors of the most numerous branch of its State legis­ 'lature and the Federal Constitution simply prescribes those same qualifications as the qualifications which shall be applicable to those who are allowed to participate in the election of Federal officials.

In 1912, the Congress of the United in States submitted to the various States the 17th amendment, to provide for the direct election of Members of the U.S. Senate. Prior to the adoption of the 17th amendment, U.S. Senators had been elected under the preceding provision of the original Constitution, providing that the legislatures of the several States elected U.S. Senators. The first paragraph of the 17th amendment states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for 6 years; · and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the .State legislatures. Thus, the qualifications clause of the 17th amendment for the election of Senators is the same as the qualifications clause for the election of Representatives. In other words, this means that the States are to determine the qualifications that will apply in elections for Representatives and Senators.

During the course of my remarks in the U.S. Senate on September 14, 1959, addressing myself to this very section of the Constitution, the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] observed: I point out to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi that that is the only language in the Constitution of the United States which appears in two places in identically the same words. It appears, where the Senator has stated, in section 2 of article I; and in the 17th amendment, providing for the popular election of Senators, the identical language appears again.

There are those who like to contend that the 15th amendment somehow was a restriction upon section 2 of article I of the .Constitution. That, of course, cannot be true since the 17th amendment, which was ratified some years after the 15th amendment, repeated the earlier language of the Founding Fathers in article I and is the latest expressed of the will of the people in the writing of their Constitution.

LITERACY TESTS AND THE CONSTITUTION

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] with the understanding that I do not lose my right to the floor, that I will regain the floor at the conclusion of his remarks, and that my yielding to the Senator from North Carolina does not count as a speech on the pending motion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. - HICKEY in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, on January 30, 1962, after considerable discus­ . sion, S. 2750 was referred to the Committee on the . Judiciary. This bill, which would take from the various States their constitutional right and duty to set qualifications for their voters, is now pending before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, - of which I am chairman. This bill is similar to S. 480 which also has been referred to the subcommittee.

The subcommit . tee will give these two bills its complete and impartial attention. Opinions on all sides of the question are being sought, and each of these opinions will be given judicious consideration. I have requested the attorneys general in all 50 States and the constitutional law professors of every law school in the country to give the subcommittee the benefits of their thinking on the various questions raised by these bills. On March 20, we shall begin hearings, which should produce for the Senate a compilation of testimony of outstanding authorities on constitutional law and thereby provide the Senate an objective appraisal of this legislation.

On March 20, 21, and 22, the subcommittee will hear testimony from Members of Congress, the Attorney General of the United States, and State and Federal officials. On March 27, 28, and 29, testimony will be received from private individuals and organizations. Among the organizations scheduled to testify are the following: American Jewish Congress, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Democratic Action, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AFL-CIO, and the Brotherhood of Electrical Work­ lature. Mr. President, on January 11, 1962, the President of the United States in his state of the Union message said that his administration had proved as never before "how much could be done through full use of executive powers-through the enforcement of laws already passed by the Congress-through persuasion, negotiation, and litigation, to secure the constitutional rights · of all," including specifically the right to vote. The President then went on to advocate abolishing literacy tests. In 1960, the Democratic and Republican platforms advocated essentially the same thing. But nowhere in these recommendations of the President or of the great conventions was it suggested that literacy tests for voting can be eliminated by legislation as proposed by these bills. Rather, it has been consistently maintained that such measures are solely within the purview of the States. And only by constitutional amendment had it previously ever been proposed that the Federal Government be given jurisdiction over voter qualifications.

An examination of the text of these bills shows that this attempt to alter the Constitution actually originated within the Civil Rights Commission last year. In its 1961 report on voting, at pages 139 to 141, the Commission recommended-

That Congress enact legislation providing that, in all elections in which under State law a "literarcy" test, an "understanding" or "interpretation" test, or an "educational" test is administered to determine the qualifications of electors, it shall be sufficient for qualifications that the elector have completed at least six grades of formal education.

It is interesting to note that this recommendation is in opposition to the position taken by the Commission in its ~959 report in which it recommended that the Constitution be amended to accomplish the same stated objectives of these bills. Although I agree with the three dissenting members who indicated in the 1959 report that they felt that such an amendment is undesirable, nevertheless, if the great majority of the people feel that the amendment is necessary, then a constitutional amendment would be the legal and appropriate way to secure their wish and the only constitutional means of ' doing so.

I do not know what precipitated the Commission's remarkable turnabout from the 1959 recommendation of a constitutional amendment to the 1961 recommendation of a bill such as S. 2750; but I can _ assure the Senate that the requirements of the Constitution are the same today as they were in 1959. The very first article of the Constitution, which gives to the States the right and duty to prescribe the qualifications of voters, has not disappeared. It has not been repealed; and its meaning is as clear today as it was 172 years ago.

Article I, section 2, of the Constitution, states very clearly that in choosing Representatives in Congress:

The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legisSimilarly, amendment 17 adopts the same method of setting qualifications for voters in the popular election of Senators.

The qualifications of voters are fixed and enumerated in the Constitution or laws of each sovereign State; and, for purposes of determining who is entitled to vote in each State for U.S. Representatives anu Senators, the Federal Constitution simply adopts such qualifications as the State has fixed for voting for members of that State's legislature. Also, under the Constitution, the President and Vice President are elected by presidential and vice presidential electors who must be chosen in each State in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.

In arriving at the article I, section 2, method of disposing of th~ question of the right to vote for Congressmen, there was a three-way contest in the Federal Convention of 1787. One group wanted a uniform qualification for electors, to be prescribed by the Constitution itself; a second group of delegates advocated that the power to prescribe qualifications be vested in Congress; and still a third group wished the Constitution to adopt the qualifications that the respec­ _ tive States prescribed for their own people. It was the last group which prevailed, and after 2 days of active debate, the delegates left the Constitution in this respect, as it now stands in section 2 of article I.

Probably no other provision written into the original Constitution received a greater approbation from the States ratifying the compact. Certainly, no other provision has been more zealously guarded or highly respected by the courts. Likewise, no other provision of the Constitution can be so read as to render the wording . of the . qualification clause meaningless.

Probably . the · most decisive blow to the opponents of the power of the States to fix literacy standards for voters occurred in 1915 in the Supreme Court decision on Oklahoma's literacy law. This was the famous Guinn case, which was brought by the NAACP. The Supreme Court held that the 15th amendment does not destroy the rights vested in the States by article I. The Court said:

Beyond doubt the amendment does not take away from the State governments in a general sense the power over suffrage which has belonged to those governments from the beginning and without the possession of which power the whole fabric upon which the division of State and National authority under the Constitution and the organization of both governments rest would be without support and both the authority of the Nation and the State would fall to the ground. In fact, the very command of the amendment recognizes the possession of the general power by the State, since the amendment seeks to regulate its exercise as to the particular subject with which it deals.

In 1959, the Guinn case was enfused with a new vitality by the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lassiter against Northampton County Board of Education, which declared that States can constitutionally impose literacy tests on "all voters irrespective of race or color." The Court pointed out that here is a wide scope for the State's jurisdiction to determine · the qualification of voters. Speaking through Mr. Justice Douglas, the Court-whose membership to date has not changed-in one of its rare unanimous decisions concerning civil rights, said:

Literacy and illiteracy are neutral on race, color, and sex.

The Court further stated:

We come then to the question whether a State may consistently with the 14th and 17th amendments apply a literacy test to all voters irrespective of race or color. The Court in Guinn v. United States, supra, at 366, disposed of the question in a few words, "No time need be spent on the question of the validity of the literacy test considered alone since as we have seen its establishment was but the exercise by the State of a lawful power vested in it not subject to our supervision, and indeed, its validity is admitted."

The States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised, Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 633; Mason v. Missouri, 179 U.S. 328, 335, absent of course the discrimination which the Constitution condemns. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution in its provision for the election of Members of the House of Representatives and the 17th amendment in its provision for the election of the Senators provide that officials will be chosen "by the people." Each provision goes on to state that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." So while the right of suffrage is established and guaranteed by the Constitu - tion (Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651, 663-665; Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 661-662) it is subject to the imposition of State standards which are not discriminatory and which do not contravene any restriction that Congress, acting pursuant to its constitutional powers, has imposed.

Earlier . during a stay of execution in the case, a three-man Federal court, - headed by Chief Judge Parker of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals - , had declared:

It is further argued that , if the section be held void, the State has the right to prescribe an educational qualification for suffrage in the exercise of its sovereign power as a State, since the provisions of a State constitution are limitations upon and not grants of power (11 Am. Jur . , p. 619). Attention is called to the fact that 19 States of the Union, only 7 of which are Southern States, prescribe educational qualifications for suffrage which are uniformly upheld and that the Supreme Court has approved them, saying in Guinn v. United States, supra, 238 - U.S. at page 360, 35 S . Ct. at page 929:

"No question is raised by the Government concerning the validity of the literacy test provided for in the amendment under consideration as an independent standard since the conclusion is plain that that test rests on the exercise of State judgment and therefore cannot be here assailed either by disregarding the State's power to judge on the subject or by testing its motive in enacting the provision."

Back in 1904, the Supreme Court gave us eloquent advice on the broad subject of qualification of voters in the case . of Pope against Williams , where the - Court said, and I quote:

The privilege to vote is not given by the Federal Constitution or any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. It may not be refused on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude , but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as it may deem proper , provided , of course , no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution • • • a State, so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned might provide by its own . . constitution and laws that none but native- . born citizens should be permitted to . vote as the Federal Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and the conditions under which that right is to be exercised are matters for the States alone to prescribe.

Mr . President, these bills unconstitutionally encroach upon the right of States to decide what the qualifications of voters shall be by prohibiting all tests to determine literacy , no matter how reasonable those tests might be for those who say they have completed a bare 6 years of schooling. But the bill does not stop - here. It compounds the · unconstitutionality _ lity by , in effect, setting up the new standard of a sixth grade education as positive proof of literacy.

This legislation is unconstitutional on its face, Mr. President.

This is the position of the Washington Post, certainly no bastion of constitutional conservatism, which agreed in an editorial on January 29, 1962, that S. 2750 is unconstitutional.

My opposition to these measures is predicated on over 40 years of study of the Constitution. During this period I was judge in courts of North Carolina for approximately 15 years and 6 years of this time was spent on the bench of the State's highest tribunal. During my tenure as a jurist and as a Senator, I have endeavored consistently to be objective regardless · of any personal predilection. The Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights will give both proponents and opponents of these measures an adequate opportunity to be heard, and · we shall weigh carefully the views submitted to us. I shall, and I hope each of my colleagues in the Senate will, strive to avoid any personal proclivities in considering these measures. The Constitution of the United States is too precious a document to permit its being vitiated. At no time during our history has an attempt been made to take from the States the responsibility which the Constitution gives them regarding voter qualifications. If the Senate should feel that there is merit in these proposals, then let it move in accordance with the law of the land-in providing for it-and this can only be done by _ amending the Constitution and not by such legislation as has been introduced.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. DwoRSHAK] be recognized; that it be understood that I shall not thereby lose my right to the floor, and that I shall regain the floor immediately thereafter, and that my yielding to the Senator from Idaho not be counted as a speech on the pending motion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I desire to congratulate the people of North Carolina on the very fine and sound jud g ment they have used in deciding to return to the Senate, without opposition, their distinguished senior Senator [ M r. ERVIN].

M r . ERVIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I still have opposition-opposition by Republicans, in the fall-but none from Democrats in the springtime.

Mr. EASTLAND. In other words, the Senator from North Carolina has an opponent, but does not have opposition. Under those circumstances, I am entirely in favor of having Republicans run for election in North Carolina. [Laughter.]

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I am certainly deeply grateful to the North Carolina Democrats for permitting me to be . nominated without opposition in the Democratic primary.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina yield to

Mr. ERVIN. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Alabama :

Mr. HILL. Let me say that I have always been proud of the fact that my paternal grandfather and my paternal grandmother were North Carolinians, and I have often realized that no part of my heritage has contributed more or been more important to me than the inspiration and the dedication which · have stemmed from that fact.

So I wish to extend the heartiest congratulations to the people of North Carolina. Once · again they have shown their wisdom, perception, fine judgment, and devotion to our country by the fact that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] will be nominated in the Democratic primary without any opposition; · and of course we know that means he will be reelected to this body, for another term.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful to the able and distinguished senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL] for his kind remarks; and I am certain that his grandparents were among the great number of fine North Carolinians who helped materially to raise the standards of Alabama to those of North Carolina when they removed from North Carolina to Alabama.