March 23, 1962

SEc. 3-123. Voting by person reaching majority after assessment period: Any person who makes satisfactory proof that he or she has attained the age of 21 years, after October 1, prior to the e . election in which the person proposes to vote, and who possesses the necessary qualifications shall be entitled to vote without the payment of a poll CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLL TAX REQUIREMENTS

There is an interesting and enlightening article in 139 A.L.R. 561 on the constitutionality of the poll tax as a condition of the right to vote. The following is a quotation from a portion of that article:

Most constitutional questions concerning poll taxes have arisen in connection with State constitutions, involving the validity under them of particular statutes. In most instances the imposition of a poll tax as a condition of voting originates either by express constitutional provision, or by express constitutional authority in that regard directly conferred upon the legislature. In such a situation it has been held that the legislature has the power, subject to express constitutional limitations, to impose a reasonable poll tax as a condition . of the right to vote, and in connection therewith to prescribe restrictions and regulations reasonably calculated to secure enforcement of the condition, whether it is viewed as in the nature of a revenue measure or as looking to the proper regulation of elections. Legislative regulations of this kind may relate to · SUch matters as payment of all delinquent · poll taxes, payment at · or within particular times, proper assessment, and the furnishing of proof of payment, an incident of which may be the preparation of official voters’ Subject to applicable constitutional limitations, the power of a State to impose a reasonable poll tax as a condition of voting, and to adopt regulations reasonably calculated to enforce such condition, is generally upheld (Breedlove v. Scuttles, 302 U.S. 277, 58 S. Ct. 205 ( 1937) ) .

Amendment No. 8 of the Arkansas constitution, which is quoted earlier her e in, specifically provides for the payment of a poll tax as a condition and qualification for voting. This constitutional provision has been implemented by various Arkansas statutes, also quoted herein. There has, therefore, never been any question as to the validity of a poll tax as a requirement for voting in Arkansas. E: as. Numerous cases have gone to the Arkansas Supreme Court to construe particular provisions and requirements in obtaining and using the poll tax. but all of the decisions have made very clear the fact that the poll tax itself, if properly applied, is a valid method of voter registration. At page 601 of the A.L . R. article quoted from earlier is a thorough presentation of the Arkansas law including the Arkansas constitution, statutes and decisions thereunder relative to specific provisions of the Arkansas poll tax procedures.

Mr. President, I think it would be well for me at this point to place in the RECORD, and comment upon it, the Arkansas law concerning the use of the money that is collected from the poll tax, to show just how it is applied. I made general references and statements about it, but I think it well to place in the RECORD a statement showing how the constitutional provision and statutes are implemented concerning the collection of the poll tax and how it is distributed.

The following statutes govern the use of the moneys collected annually by the poll tax in the State of Arkansas.

Arkansas Statute 80-201 provides for the creation of a county board of education in each county of the State of Arkansas. It reads as follows:

County boards of education createdMembership-Qualifications: There is hereby created for each county in Arkansas a county board of education composed of five members, one of whom shall be elected from each of five zones within the county as hereinafter provided; the members of presently constituted county boards elected from each of the four zones shall remain on said board as if they were elected hereunder, until the present terms expire. If two such members of said board reside in the same zone, one shall be elected at the next regular school election from such zone. Only the members of the county boards elected from the four zones as heretofore existing shall remain on the board. The member from the rural district is no longer a member of the board. The vacancy may be filled by the four members left on the board until the next regular school election. The members of said board shall be qualified electors known for their good moral character, honesty, industry, and public spirit and interest in education, and who do not hold any salaried or fee office of the State or any political subdivision thereof.

Mr. President, that shows how politics · are taken . out of the educational system just as much as it is possible to do so, and how the responsibility for the distribution of the tax is placed in each - county where the tax is collected. A board is established, selected from among the highest type citizens of the county, to administer this tax.

The first enumerated duties of the sc h ool board as set out in Arkansas Statute 80-213(a) is as follows:

To apportion all school funds as provided by law and in conformity to the regulations of the St a te board of education.

Arkansas Statute 80-601 provides for the retention of poll tax receipts within the county where collected to be credited to the general school fund of such county.

Every dollar paid in a county stays right in the county where it is paid. It is administered by a board elected by the same people who pay the tax. The board allocates the money for school purposes.

SEc . 80-601. Poll tax-Retention of tax in counties. (For the purpose of raising revenue to support the common schools of the State a 3-mill tax shall be levied on all taxable property in the State each year.) There shall also be levied annually $1 per capita on each inhabitant of the State over 21 years of age, for the public schools, and all moneys received from such per capita tax shall be retained in the several counties where collected, and credited to the general school fund in such county.

The poll tax is a levy against an individual; but if he refuses to pay it, there is no way to collect it. If he says, "I will not pay the poll tax," he just does not pay it. But if he does not pay it, he does not vote; that is all there is to that.

The following three statutes govern the handling of the poll tax funds by the county board of education:

SEC. 80-721. County general school fund: The general school fund of any county shall be composed of all money received from the common school fund (public school fund) of the State, the per capita tax on the inhabitants of the county, such fines, penalties and other money as shall be accrued to such funds in accordance with the law, and any appropriation from the general revenue of the county for common school purposes.

SEC. 8Q-722. Apportionment of funds of doubtful application: The county board of education of any county is authorized to place to the credit of the general school fund in the county treasury, all funds about which there is a doubt as to their proper application, and such funds shall be apportioned among the school districts of the county on the same basis as the State school funds are apportioned.

That means the per capita amount for each child of school age. In other words if there are 500 children in one district then 500 parts of the total amount of money are apportioned to that district. SEC. 80-723. Apportionment of general school funds: The county board of education shall, after setting aside the funds for the salaries and expenses of the county superintendent's (county school supervisor's) office, apportion the general school funds of the county on the basis on which common school funds (public school funds) are apportioned to the counties.

This is on the basis of the number of - students to the total school population - in the . county.

Twice in Arkansas in recent years, perhaps because of outside agitation, perhaps because _ some persons felt there was a better way to raise money or to provide for voting registration, the people were given an opportunity to express themselves at the polls regarding the poll tax as a requisite for voting.

In 1938, the vote to abolish the poll tax was 42,436; the vote against the abolishment of the poll tax was 83,725. That vote occurred while I was a Member of the other body of Congress.

In 1956, a little less than half a dozen years ago, and since I have been serving in this body, the issue was again submitted to the people of Arkansas. At that time the vote was larger.

The vote in 1956 for abolishing the poll tax was 161,403; the vote against abolishing the poll tax was 210,237. That was the last expression from the people of Arkansas. As long as they have so expressed themselves-and I agree with the majority-! shall defend their right to preserve this process of establishing the eligibility of voters in my State. It is their right to do it, and I defend their right and I advocate their right to do it; and, Mr. President, in standing here today, making these remarks, I make them as their representative, representing a majority of them as they have expressed themselves. _

Mr. President, I should like to cite some illustrations of how the poll tax works in Arkansas. Many persons think it keeps people from voting. Let us see if that is so.

According to the last census, there were 1,786,272 persons in Arkansas. Of that number 575,769 paid the poll tax last year; in other words, about 1 person out of every 3 in Arkansas paid the poll tax. Let us see if the poll tax is keeping anyone in Arkansas from voting: In the last presidential election, in 1960, 428,509 votes were cast in Arkansas. In the year preceding that, 590,501 poll taxes were paid in Arkansas. In other words, 161,- 992 persons in Arkansas who were eligible to vote-at least that many-and who had paid their poll taxes, did not vote. Of course, among the number who voted were some who had not paid a poll tax because they became 21 years of age subsequent to the time of the collection of the tax. But at least 161,992 residents of Arkansas who were eligible to vote did not vote. So who can say that the poll tax is a deterrent to voting? That vote speaks fairly well for the situation in Arkansas. In other words, more than 25 percent of the residents of Arkansas who had paid the poll tax did not vote in the last presidential election; and their failure to vote was not chargeable to any lack of interest due to only two sets of e’ectors, for in Arkansas in that election there were three sets of electors, representing three tickets-the States Rights ticket, the Democratic ticket, and the Republican ticket. Nevertheless, more than one out of every four who had paid the poll tax in Arkansas did not vote. Had they paid it for the sole purpose of voting, Mr. President? No. As I have pointed out, many persons pay that $1 with pride--as a _ small token of their citizenship responsibility. They do not feel penalized when they paid it, nor do they feel that the money is extorted from them. Instead, they want that money to go into the State treasury.

Mr. President, some persons say the poll tax is used in our part of the country to keep Negroes from voting. But that is not true. I can state upon my honor that ever since I began to vote, I know some Negroes who have been voting in Arkansas; and possibly more and more of them are voting all the time. At the last census, the Negro population of Arkansas was 21.9 percent of the total population. I cannot state how many Negroes actually voted in the last election; I have no way of knowing that, but of the 575,769 poll tax receipts which show that poll taxes were paid, 68,970 were issued to Negro citizens--showing that that number of Negro citizens in Arkansas paid the poll tax. Most of those who are public spirited do not mind paying that tax. In other words, Mr. President, more than 10 percent of the citizens of Arkansas who paid the poll tax were Negroes.

Furthermore, Mr. President, I know of no place in Arkansas where a Negro who is otherwise qualified to vote, and who goes to the polls, is denied the right to vote. The Negroes there do vote, and their votes are solicited. The candidates campaign among them, and seek their votes; and the Negroes are encouraged to pay the poll tax. The white people want them to pay the poll tax; they want to swell the school fund.

It has been said that Arkansas is not among the wealthier States, but that, comparatively speaking, Arkansas is a poor State, and that perhaps Arkansas needs Federal aid for education. No doubt, Mr. President, such Federal aid could be used there; but no one in Arkansas is denied the right of suffrage if he is willing to do his part by making just this little demonstration of his interest.

In Arkansas, color has nothing to do with whether one votes or does not vote. The requirement to pay the poll tax applies equally to the whites and to the Negroes, and to the males and to the females; it applies to all alike. There is no inequality. There is no discrimination. Payment of the poll tax is simply the minimum requirement of every citizen.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, at this point will the Senator from Arkansas yield for a question, only?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SMITH of Massachusetts in the chair). . Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator from Mississippi?

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, under the conditions which I stated at the beginning of my remarks-in other words, that I would yield for a question, only, even though it might be a long one-! yield, reserving my right to the floor, and without surrendering the floor; and I ask the Chair to protect me in that. But under those conditions, I yield for a question.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for yielding to me. My question is preliminary to a1~other question: Did not the Senator from Arkansas recite, a few minutes ago, some figures with reference to his own State of Arkansas, showing the number of those who were qualified as electors, and were q_ualified to vote, on the rolls of his State, whereas a considerable percentage of that group were not required to pay the poll tax, after all, because of certain exemptions or exceptions?

Mr. McCLELLAN. Some were.

Mr. STENNIS. I was out of the Chamber for part of that time, so I did not hear all of the Senator's statement. But I did hear some of the figures he recited at that time.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I pointed out that the figures would not be completely accurate with respect to th~ number of persons holding poll tax receipts who did not vote. One hundred forty-seven thousand four hundred and ninety-one less votes than the number of outstanding poll tax receipts were cast in the last general election in Arkansas; and I said that at least 147,491 poll tax payers did not vote, and that the actual number was larger than that, because a number of persons had become of voting age and had voted, but were not reflected in those figures, and that thus the percentage was greater than 25 percent-in other words, that more than one person out of every four in Arkansas who held poll tax receipts did not vote in that election.

Furthermore, there were three tickets in that general election in Arkansas, and that fact resulted in bringing out even more than the ordinary number of votes. Mr. President, in Arkansas, many public-spirited citizens may not choose to vote on a particular issue, but still all of them want the schools of the State to operate. So they pay the $1 poll tax, and pay it with pride.

Mr. STENNIS. Is that not an illustration of the danger of merely reading some cold statistics in a book by someone away from the Senator's State or away from my State, and trying to come here and make an argument on the :floor based upon conclusions that are erroneous insofar as accurate figures are concerned? Mr. McCLELLAN. That is what I have been pointing out all morning. This question should not be a concern of people from other States. We are Americans. We are just as patriotic as they are up here, or out yonder. We happen to have this system. We find it advantageous. We find we need that $1 from each person for our public schools. If that provision is set aside, we will need some other system-and we will be criticized if we do not have it; and it is going to cost more for a person to register than it does to pay this tax. A person will have to register somewhere, and he will probably lose more time as a result of having to register than it would cost him to pay the $1 poll tax.

I point out that those who are back of the proposal we are discussing are quibbling about nothing except a device . to drive us to it. They say, "We are going to make them."

Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will yield for a further question, I direct his attention to a well-known authority on constitutional law, Willoughby, on the "Constitutional Law of the United States," at pages 540 to 541, and if he will follow a reasonably brief quotation, I ask him to tell us whether or not he thinks it is a valid statement and a sound distinction. I now read the quotation upon which my question is based:

A distinction is to be made between the right to vote for a representative to Congress and the conditions upon which that right is granted • • • the right to vote is conditioned upon and determinated by State law. But the right itself, as thus determined is a Federal right. That is to say, the right springs from the provision of the Federal Constitution that representatives shall be elected by those who have the right in each State to vote for the members of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. The Constitution thus gives the right but accepts, as its own, the qualifications which the States severally see fit to establish with reference to the election of the most numerous branch of their several State legislatures.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I may point out to the Senator from Mississippi that that has been the procedure. That has been the law, and it still is. That is the right of the States.

I can hardly conceive that any State is going to breach the right of its citizens. A State must function. A State government must function. The Constitution merely provides, and rightly so, that whatever qualifications are established in Mississippi or Arkansas for its citizens to vote for the members of the most numerous branch of their State legislatures are fair qualifications for those who vote for representatives in Congress and for the President of the United States.

I see nothing wrong with such a proVIsion. Does the country want to centralize government? I know that is what some people want, but I am talking about America and the ' American people. Do they want a centralized, dominating power in Washington? I do not; I shall continue to oppose moves in that direction. I would like to keep the States. I would like to keep this country a republic. It cannot be kept a republic unless the sovereignty of the States is maintained. If that is not done, this country will cease to be a republic. It will all merge into a centralized power, and that is not a republic.

Mr . STENNIS. Will the Senator yield further on the very point on which the Senator has been speaking; namely, the right that springs forth from the constitutional provision? Is the distinction, reiterated when these constitutional amendments were adopted, not one of the most vital parts of the foundation of our Government?

Mr. McCLELLAN. It is an indispensable one if we are to keep a republic, if we want to keep what is frequently called a democracy. Whether or not that is the most appropriate name for our system of government, if we want to keep this Republic as a union of States, the States must be preserved. We cannot have a union of something that does not exist. If the sovereignty of the States does not exist, there is no union. Their sovereignty must be preserved in order to have a union. Without States, there cannot be a union.

Mr. STENNIS. On that very point, is it not a fact that the proposal is another encroachment, another taking away of the authority and power of the various States to which the Senator has referred, and a step that much further down the road toward a nationalized system to which the Senator has referred?

Mr. McCLELLAN. It is. This is another step. Another one and another one will be taken, thus eroding the sovereignty of the States and the Republic.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank my distinguished friend from Mississippi for his contribution. His question forcefully impresses upon us the issue here involved. In a sense, as I have said over and over again, it is only a trivial matter, when there are only five States, to want to make a minor change in their systems only to appease ' se and please some persons who may have another system they like better. It is a trivial thing, in a period of world crisis, for us to be spending so much time on that. But the bigger question involved is the danger of what we are doing to our country. We ought to be attending to some other business. If nothing else, committees ought to be in session right now, studying and assembling information that will enlighten us upon vital issues. Legislative proposals are pending that we need to consider and resolve and in which we need to be right in the manner in which we resolve them and the conclusions we finally reach about them.

What is proposed would help nobody. It may be said, "Well, it will keep that fellow from paying a dollar to vote down there." Is not that something? If this proposal is adopted, that fellow will not have to pay $1 to help educate his children. Will we not be doing him a great benefit? That is what the argument adds up to. We keep the fellow who does not want to contribute to the schools from paying a dollar. That is a great benefit. It is a great public service. Oh, Mr. President, there is absolutely no justification for a constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax in the five States which still have it as a prerequisite to voting. There are any number of reasons why this is so, but I wish to invite attention to excerpts from the 1961 report on voting of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which documents the fact that the abolition of the poll tax is not needed in order to protect the right to vote of anyone, be he white, Negro, yellow, red, or of any other color, or of any race, religion, or national origin.

Mr. President, I did not vote for the Civil Rights Commission. The Commission was established over my protest, or at least notwithstanding my vote against it. What was it established to do? I shall not enumerate all of the things, but one thing it was established to do was to study discrimination in respect to voting, to study whether citizens were being denied the right to vote.

Mr. President, there is no doubt about the fact that the Commission searched every way in the world it could to find something on which to hang its hat, to justify its existence. Had the Commission found anything wrong in Arkansas, I today would be looking it in the face. The Commission would not have concealed it. It would have been spread on the record.

As we all know, the Civil Rights Commission was authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and its life has been extended by subsequent legislation. Again I make it clear that I was opposed to the creation of the Commission. I have opposed its perpetuation, because I am convinced it is not needed, it is a waste of the taxpayers' money, it serves no useful purpose whatsoever, and a primary resulting consequence of its existence and activities is agitation-agitation which serves no useful purpose, from which no good :flows, from which no beneficial results can be accomplished. I hope its life will not be extended again. Nevertheless, Mr. President, there are some of my colleagues in the Senate who place great store by the findings and by the conclusions of the Civil Rights Commission. I hope, if they are to believe anything, what they will believe is what I am now about to bring to their attention. If they do believe it, they will realize they are engaged in something which is almost an exercise in futility when they undertake to proceed, as it has been announced is the intention, with the presentation of a substitute resolution for the resolution which would restore the home or the dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton.

Mr. President, I should like to read briefly from the 1961 report on voting of the Civil Rights Commission, page 22. To be sure that I read exactly what is reported therein, I shall not take the risk of reading from my typed quotation, but I shall read it out of the book of the report itself. This is volume I of the Commission's report of last year, 1961, and I shall read from page 22:

The Commission's investigations and studies since 1957-

Mr. President, this was not a casual inquiry. It has been pretty thorough. It has been going on since 1957, or 4 years-

The Commission's investigations and studies since 1957 indicate that discriminatory disfranchisement no longer exists in all of the 12 Southern States. The Commission used four principal criteria to determine the presence of discriminatory disfranchisement: (1) Sworn complaints to the CommissionMr. President, we may depend upon the fact that the people of Arkansas are pretty high spirited. If they thought they were being imposed upon and discriminated against by reason of a poll tax the Commission would have heard about it- (2) actions instituted by the Department of Justice pursuant to the new civil remedies of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960- Mr. President, since the issue of civil rights is such a great political issue, I am quite certain that had the Justice Department found anything wrong in Arkansas . it would have started a suit­ (3) private-party litigation to secure the right to vote; and (4) the lack of any registered Negroes , or minimal Negro registration, in counties where there is a substantial Negro population. The absence of complaints to the Commission, actions by the Department of Justice, priv a te 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-which does not appear generally to be discriminatory 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, Okl a homa, Texas, and Virginia.

Mr. President, I stated earlier that in my State ever since I began voting I have known of Negroes voting. Not many of them voted many years ago, but the number has steadily and constantly increased.

While I have no way of knowing exactly how many of the 68,970 Negroes who paid poll taxes voted in the last election, at least 12 percent or more of the qualified voters who paid poll taxes in the State were Negroes, whereas in the population of the State the Negroes represent 21.9 percent.

At this point, Mr. President, I wish to emphasize this last sentence, which is a significant finding and conclusion of the Civil Rights Commission and has tremendous bearing on the subject at hand. It states that through its investigation, the Commission has been led to conclude thatwith the possible exception of a deterrent effect of the poll tax-whi~h does not appear generally to be discriminatory upon the basis of race or color-Negroes now appe a r to encounter no sigr ~ significant racially motivated impediments to voting in 4 of the 12 Southern States: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.

Thus, Mr. President, three of the five States which still have the poll tax have been given a clean bill of health as far as voting discrimination is concerned by the Civil Rights Commission itself. The Commission admits that it has had no voting complaints from Arkansas, Texas, and Virginia.

That leaves only Mississippi and Alabama as poll tax States in which voting complaints have been filed and many of these have been proved to be of no substance. Let us read on in the Civil Rights Commission's report and see what it has to say of the other Southern States:

In 1961, then, the problem of denials of the right to vote because of race appears to occur in only eight Southern StatesAlabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee-in which less than 40 percent of the total Negro population resides.

Remember that in six of these States no poll tax is required as a prerequisite for voting, and yet they did not receive as clean a bill of health as did the States of Arkansas, Texas, and Virginia. So the measure is not the purification expedient that some think it is. We observe that three States out of the five that still have a poll tax requirement as a prerequisite to the right to vote have received a clean bill of health from the Civil Rights Commission. The Civil Rights Commission was not my choice; it certainly is not partial toward my section of the country .' Yet in the other States where a poll tax is not required as a condition of eligibility to vote, poss i bly some discrimination is still found. However, in re s pect to those e i ght S t ates the report states:

Even in these 8 States, however, with a tot a l of 3,737 , 242 nonwhites of voting age, some 1,014 , 454 nonwhites are registered to vote. Moreover, discrimination against Negro suffrage does not appear to prevail in every county in any of these St a tes. The Commission has found that in Florida, North Ca r olina , and Tennessee, it is limited to only a few isol a ted counties.

Mr. President, let me reemphasize at this point that in the States of Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee a poll tax is not a prerequisite to voting, and yet the Commission has said that in three of the five States where it is, there is no discrimination worthy of mention. Reading further from the report:

Although arbitrary denial of the right to vote is more widespread in the remaining five States, there too it exists on something like a local-option basis.

So the proposal, if followed, would certainly not correct the condition over which the Civil Rights Commission is concerned, because the poll tax as a requirement to vote has already been removed in most of the States in which the Commission found some discrimination still existing.

Admittedly, Mr. President, we are dealing with a local problem and a very, very minor one at that. The only thing that gives it an aura of importance and significance is its "civil rights" label. In substance, it is really no problem at all, and if it is a problem, in those places where it is one, it can be better dealt with by local interests. That is where the remedy can best be applied and I think the remedy is being applied.

Through the years great progress has been made, is still being made, and will continue to be made.

Before we leave the subject of the laws of the several States, I should in fairness to those States-particularly Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia-that still have a poll tax have printed in the RECORD the laws of those States on this subject, in order to make the RECORD more complete with respect to what the proposed proceeding is directed toward. The following statutes show that the poll tax in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia are used for the support of the public schools of those States:

Article 14, section 259, Alabama Code (1958): All poll taxes collected in this State shall be applied to the support of the public schools in the respective counties where collected.

In effect the law is the same as the law in Arkansas.

Article 8, section 194, Alabama Code (1958): The poll tax mentioned in this article shall be $1.50 upon each male inhabitant of the State over the age of 21 years and under the age of 45 years, who would not now be exempt by law; but the leg i slature is authorized to increase the maximum age fixed in this section to not more than 60 years.

That statute provides for $1.50. Apparently all of it goes to the support of the public schools, whereas in my State, as I pointed out, the amount is only $1. I am not sure whether this amount is cumulative in Alabama. The distinguished representatives of that State in the Senate can indicate, and probably have already indicated in the RECORD, what the situation is. In Arkansas, as I have stated, it is not cumulative. A person can pay the poll tax in Arkansas once every 4 years and vote for the President in a presidential election. He can pay it every 2 years and vote for the Governor of the State and for the Representatives in the House and for a U.S. Senator, when he is on the ballot. So there is no hardship imposed in my State.

I read the statute on the poll tax in the State of Mississippi.

Article 12, section 243, Mississippi constitution: A uniform poll tax of $2 to be used in aid of common schools, and for no other purpose, is hereby imposed on every inhabitant of this State, male or female, between the ages of 21 and 60 years, except persons who are deaf and dumb, or blind, or who · are maimed by loss of hand or foot; said tax to be a lien only upon taxable property. The board of supervisors of any county may, for the purpose of aiding the common schools in that county, increase the poll tax in said county but in no case shall the entire poll tax exceed in any one year $3 on each poll. No criminal proceedings shall be allowed to enforce the collection of the poll tax.

Again, in the States of Alabama and Mississippi the poll tax serves a twofold purpose. It provides revenue for the common school fund and also provides a registration of eligibility to vote within certain ages.

Article 7, section 3 , Vernon's Constitution of the State of Texas, volume 2: One-fourth of the revenue derived from the State occupation taxes and poll tax of $1 on every inhabitant of the State, between the ages of 21 and 60 years, shall be set apart annually for the benefit of the public free schools.

One-fourth of the money collected or 25 cents, is used for the benefit of the public free schools. I do not know where the other part goes. I have not checked into it. I am sure it is used for a worthy governmental purpose.

Section 173, constitution of Virginia ( 1950) , volume 9 : The general assembly shall levy a State capitation tax of, and not exceeding, $1.50 per annum on every resident of the State not less than 21 years of age, except those pensioned by this State for miltiary service; $1 of which shall be applied exclusively in aid of the public free schools, and the residue shall be returned and paid by the State into the treasury of the county or city in which it was collected, to be apportioned by the proper authorities to such county or city purposes as they shall respectively determine.

A search of the constitution and laws of the other States, together with the constitution and laws of the State of Arkansas, clearly refutes any charge that the poll tax is designed as an instrumentality of discrimination or the denial of the ri g ht of a citizen to vote or to have a voice in the government, and to share in its direction. The most it .does, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is to require the very minimum evidence, the very minimum demonstration of those qualities of citizenship that any citizen should possess, particularly any citizen who is to have a voice in our Government.

I strongly believe in the right of every qualified citizen of the United States, irrespective his of race, color, religion or national origin, to register, vote, and have his vote counted.

When I say "to register," I do not mean by any specific means. I mean generally by whatever procedure is provided by the several States and their respective laws. A poll tax receipt is a prerequisite to voting just as much as registration, or having one's name certified on a list as having appeared and signed a document which states that the person is a citizen, of a certain age, and that he is a Democrat or Republican and therefore has the right to vote.

It is both necessary and proper that protection of these rights of suffrage by both State and Federal Governments be insured, but I simply cannot understand the rationale of my colleagues who would attempt to accomplish this by the abolition of the poll tax.

The 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits the States or the United States from giving preference to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted to vote, those of another race and of another condition of servitude, having the same qualifications, must also be allowed the privilege of voting. That is not the issue here. That is not involved. It is a question of how one is registered to vote; that is all. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 authorizes the Attorney General to institute civil actions in the Federal courts to prevent the denial of voting rights.

If the poll tax were preventing the denial of the right to vote-if that were occurring-it would be a violation of the Constitution and of the Federal statute, and it would then be the duty of the Department of Justice to take action. The poll tax is not doing that; therefore, no such action is being taken by the Department of Justice.

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 provides that if in any such suit the court makes a finding that the denial of voting rights is pursuant to a pattern or practice, the court may appoint voting referees to register qualified persons denied this right by local election officials.

Mr. President, I have read the statutes of Arkansas. Nobody in Arkansas can deny a citizen the right to procure a poll tax receipt for $1 if he undertakes to do so. A person who would deny such a citizen the right to procure a poll tax receipt would be guilty of a crime. He could be prosecuted under State law. That simply does not hapen.

In my State, voting campaigns are conducted by various public-spirited organizations and groups. The candidates themselves encourage voting. They support the campaigns to get the people to pay their poll tax, so that they will be eligible to vote. They do a pretty good job in Arkansas, when it is realized that one out of every three persons in Arkansas-and that includes a baby born yesterday or a year agcr-has a poll tax receipt. That is not a bad record; although probably one-fourth of them, after paying the poll tax, do not vote. Perhaps more who pay the poll tax should vote. But the emphasis has been primarily on getting the people to pay the poll tax so as to be eligible to vote. Then as the campaign gets into its heat and fury, the drive is on to get out the vote. So there is really no trouble.

A further denial of the right to vote to these persons would constitute contempt of the court and is punishable accordingly.

Again, that does not happen in Arkansas. There is no denial of the right to vote in Arkansas. If there are violations of the constitutional guarantees of the right to vote in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia, where the poll tax still exists as a prerequisite qualification for voting, then such practices should be thwarted according to law. Statutes are available to deal with them. I am sure the Department of Justice is amply staffed with competent attorneys. Certainly Congress has provided the appropriations and funds necessary to enable that Department to function and to carry out the duties assigned to it. There is every reason to think that if there were discriminations and denials of the right to vote, that agency of our Government would act. It would act promptly, and effectively.

Mr. President, accepting the findings of the Civil Rights Commission-and I wish all those who supported the Commission would now Again I say I thought the Commission was unnecessary, but I surely think those who supported it ought now to accept its findings-particularly in this area of its work.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does the Senator mean accept the finding of the Commission with respect to the States of Mississippi and Alabama, which he has not mentioned?

Mr. McCLELLAN. tioned those States; but I am speaking especially with respect to Arkansas. I am proud of the record of my State. I am proud to pay the poll tax and to carry it as a certificate of good citizenship when I march to the polls to vote. The people of my State are proud of the poll tax. They are not ashamed of it. They do not regard it as a degradation. They do not regard it as something degrading to them that they are asked to pay $1 into their public school fund.

Accepting the findings of the Civil Rights Commission as being completely accurate, the passage of this constitutional amendment would subject three sovereign States out of five having the poll tax requirement for voting to enforced conformity to correct unconstitutional voting practice suspected in the other two States.

In other words, Arkansas, Virginia, and Texas would be required to conform with the way Congress wanted them to act, in order to try to get at two other States. I suppose that is the argument. That would be proceeding in the wrong way, assuming those States needed correction-and I do not think they do.

I submit that vigilance on the part of the Department of Justice, in the application of existing laws would certainly correct any unwarranted voting prac .. tices should any really exist.

Of course, the easy way to solve all problems in this field would be simply to abolish completely the basic right of all States to determine and govern their own election procedures and to pass a Federal statute prescribing all requirements of eligibility for voting for every office from city councilman on up to President of the United States. But our Founding Fathers did not believe that that was the best way. I still have great reverence for their wisdom. It has never been equaled; it has never been matched at any time in the history of civilization. The Founding Fathers were not perfect, but their wisdom has never been matched in the establishment of a government that secures the greatest freedom and the most blessings to the people, such as the one they devised and bequeathed to us. I still revere and respect them.

Yes, the easy way would be to abolish all the powers and basic rights reserved to the States by the lOth amendment. But this would not be in keeping with our heritage. It would not be right. I am sure the Members of this body do not want to do that. Yet we are asked to yield to temptation, to strip the States a little more at a time here and there. If we do, we shall pay for it someday in accept its findings. the loss of freedom.

Mr. President, we owe the next generation a heritage at least equal in richness and quality to that bequeathed to us. I often wonder whether we in this generation who now have the responsibilities of government are failing. Are we going to leave to the next generation a nation of less strength and vitality than the one we inherited? Are we going to leave to the next generation less freedom, less liberty, and one of greater burden than that of our heritage? If we do, to that extent I think we shall have surely failed in meeting Oh, yes; I men­ our responsibilities.

Any claim that the payment of $1 prohibits a citizen from exercising the right to vote certainly must be made with crossed fingers. It can hardly be made with sincerity. Some States feel that the annual payment of 100 pennies by a citizen for the support of the school system for his children and his neighbors' children is not an unreasonable, arbitrary prerequisite to the exercise of the privilege of the ballot, and I point out especially that the funds received from the poll tax in all five of the States which now use this method of voter registration go to the support of the school systems of those States. Two of those States, I believe, use only a portion of that revenue-not all of it--for their schools. But in my own State of Arkansas and in two of the others all of the poll tax money is used for the schools. . Mr. President, I do not advocate that the poll tax is altogether an effective means of obtaining revenue, but certainly it is one source of revenue that is sorely needed by the public schools in · Arkansas. I do not know just how we would make up for the loss of that $575,000 of annual revenue. Of course, we would do it in some way. It is not a hardship on anyone to raise that much revenue for our schools in that way. Actually, it does not deny anyone a right to which he is entitled. If we want to raise that much revenue in that way, why should someone from another State tell us to do it differently?

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. METCALF in the chair) . Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator from Florida?

Mr . McCLELLAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. Why does the Senator from Arkansas think that ratification of this constitutional amendment, which relates only to the election of Federal officials, would deprive his State of the poll tax revenue to which he has referred?

Mr. McCLELLAN. The Senator from Florida and I have served here for a long time, Mr. President, and both of us know there are other things back of this movement. This is only a part of a broad pattern; and I do not go along with it. I have fought against bills that called for repeal of the poll tax laws, for I do not think the poll tax could be outlawed constitutionally by means of a statute as has often been proposed. If the poll tax is to be repealed, the proper method is by way of constitutional amendment. To attempt to repeal the poll tax by the enactment of a statute would not be constitutional. However, only five States still have a poll tax for voting purposes, and those five-and particularly my own State-use the revenue received from that tax for the education of their children. What is so insulting about that to someone who lives outside the State? I should like to know the answer to that question. Why does it offend others who, in my judgment, have no business meddling in our affairs?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield for a question?

Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes, for a question only. _

Mr. STENNIS. In connection with the Senator's point, and in referring to section 1, article II-and I wish to read it, and then I shall ask the question-is it not highly probable that these States would be forced to use in their State elections the same list of electors that they would use in Federal elections, because of the constitutional provision that:

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.

My question is this: If the amendment outla w ing -s o to speak-the poll tax were ratified and were made part of the Constitution of the United States, with the result that the poll tax would be oulawed insofar as Federal elections were concerned, would not it be held that, similarly, the poll tax could not be used in preparing the list of electors for the election of State officials?

Mr. McCLELLAN. Probably that is true. However, in opposing the attempt being made in this case, I point out that if what is proposed were done, it would produce an almost chaotic situation.

I believe that the proposed procedure of having such a constitutional amendment ratified-the one now under discussion, Senate Joint Resolution 58-runs counter to the provisions of the 17th amendment and the provisions of article I, section 2, of the Constitution, identical provisions about the qualifications of voters. But if the pending proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 58, were made a part of the Constitution, it would not repeal either of those sections. It seems to me that if the attempt to impose this resolution were successful, the proposal, as now written, would incorporate into the fundamental law of the land unquestioned conflicts and confusionwhere none now exist-with respect to the declarations on this subject to be found in other articles and amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that would create great confusion. It is true that we do not know what a court would hold. However, certainly we should hesitate to complicate the situation. Even now there are those who apparently do not know how to correctly interpret what seems to be plain language in our Constitution. So we should bewar1! of still further confusing the language to be interpreted by the courts.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield?

Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield for a question only.

Mr. HOLLAND. Did not the Senator from Arkansas join in sponsoring a similar resolution five times heretofore-in the 82d Congress, the 83d Congress, the 84th Congress, the 85th Congress, and the 86th Congress?

Mr. McCLELLAN. That may be correct, for the Senator from Florida and I have held many conferences about this matter; and he knows as well as I do that our purpose was to try to emphasize our opposition to the proposed statutes or bills introduced here, from time to time, for the purpose of changing the law in that way. I have always maintained that if it is to be done, it should be done by way of constitutional amendments; but I never agreed that the Federal Government should try to tell the people of my State what to do about this matter. I did not agree to it then, and I do not agree to it now. That was a perfectly legitimate maneuver that was indulged in here; and I joined in the maneuver, in order to try to prevent the Congress from doing an unconstitutional thing by passing an unjust statute which would impose an undue hardship on my State. I will always oppose any attempt to impose such a penalty on the people in my part of the country. I have never said I would vote for a constitutional amendment of that kind. I would use it here as a countermove to show the un'­ constitutionality of bills introduced and pending and the extent to which some were willing to go to try to impose their will, their outside influence or judgment, upon the people of my State.

I do not advocate that the poll tax is an effective or exclusive means of revenue alone, but certainly it is one of those sources of sorely needed revenue for the public schools in my State.

I would have no objection should the citizens of Arkansas, in their judgment, see fit to amend our State constitution to eliminate the poll tax requirement. If they should decide to do it, I am sure they will have anticipated the loss of revenue and at the same time have something in mind, some source, some means . of replacing the revenues that would be lost if the poll tax provision should be repealed.

If that should be done, if they should vote that way, if they repealed the poll tax, I would know it to be the will of the people of my State, and that other provisions had been made concurrently to provide our public school system with the funds necessary to continue the education of our youth.

I point out that as late as 1956 the people of my State voted on a proposal to repeal the poll tax, and they rejected the proposal. I am representing the will of my people today.

I make no apology for it. I think they are right in that they want to keep the poll · tax as a registration means or in lieu of registration as evidence of a citizen's eligibility to vote.

I have no desire and I would not waste my energy to tell the people of California, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois that they ought to change their registration system. I do not care if they never change it, or if they change it 100 times, so long as they do not violate the Federal Constitution. I certainly accord to them every right that I seek to keep inviolate for my own State and for my own people.

It is their business. I do not want to tell them what to do. I do not want them to presume to try to tell me and my people in Arkansas what to do. But I will not sit idly by and watch the Congress of the United States abolish a provision which the citizens of Arkansas have chosen and successfully employed since 1893. I will not sit idly by and see the provision abolished just for the sake of gratifying the desires of some Senators who want my State to conform to the practices of their States who have no poll tax as a requirement for voting. I am not much of a conformist, anyhow. I like the idea of freedom. So long as my freedom does not trespass upon the equal rights of someone else, I like to exercise and enjoy it.

I also would point out that the poll tax, or the per capita tax, is an ancient and honorable one, far predating the privilege of the ballot. I gave a history this morning . of many other countries · that have used it. There is nothing dish o norable or disreputable about it, as some persons would have us believe, and as some persons would insinuate in the remarks they make about it and the evils they profess to see in it. The poll tax in Arkansas is used for purposes other than for voter registration, as is · illustrated by three Arkansas statutes. I could read them, but I probably will reserve them for some future time, if it should become necessary for me to again speak on this subject.

I should like to make some comments in conclusion. I was thinking about this issue the other day, realizing that there would probably be extensive debate. I was trying to rationalize just what is here involved.

Surely the fact that we have a poll tax in Arkansas of $1 to raise revenues for the education of children, and the fact that we in effect say, "You pay this and that will also amount to a registration and make you eligible to vote," does that-can that possibly in­ · sult the conscience of this Nation? Every penny of it is going toward the education of children. Does that fact insult the conscience of this Nation so that we must have this great furor about it. Must we, the Congress, place ourselves in the attitude of saying to the majority of the people in Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, "This poll tax is an insult to the Nation. We must take you in charge and see that this is not done, and straighten you out"? I do not think so.

The poll tax does no harm. It prevents nobody from voting. It discriminates against no one. There is no harm in it. There is no evil in it. What do the opponents condemn about it? It raises revenue. It serves as a registration. lt enables us to have greater integrity at the ballot. It requires the very minimum in effort on the part of one to demonstrate his good citizenship. Why should we condemn it? Why should we want to abolish it? I pointed out that it keeps nobody from voting. In the last election, when we had a hot election and when Arkansas cast the largest vote she ever has cast, when there were three choices on the ticket, Republican, Democratic, and a States' Rights candidate, more than one person out of every four persons who had paid the poll tax did not vote. The poll tax is keeping nobody from voting. What is the harm in it? What is the evil about it? Why condemn us? Why presume to judge us?

On the other hand, it helps raise money. It establishes a registration list in the State of eligible citizens over 21 years of age who are entitled to vote. It contributes to the public school fund. It helps educate our children. It tells the worthless fellow, who does not like to pay taxes anyhow, who escapes all he can, "If you want to participate in your government, then do something for your government."

Think of what the President said. He said one should not think of what he could get from his Government but think of what he could do for his Government. That is what a person should do. If he wishes to vote, he · can pay $1 to help to educate the children. He can do that for his Government. That is the minimum that should be required of him, it seems to me.

The only way we could reduce that would be 1 penny at a time. We could make it 99 cents, 98 cents-finally we would get down to a penny. We could not reduce it further than that and still require the person to pay anything. Is anyone fussing about 99 cents? It is that simple.

Yes, it will help. Even a white citizen who may be a worthless and shiftless fellow-and occasionally we find one, Mr. President-if he wishes to vote, he has to march up, like a man, like a good citizen, and pay $1, at least. There is nothing wrong with that. That applies to the colored citizen as well , and to any others. There is nothing wrong with it. There is no discrimination in it. It helps and it hurts no one.

Mr. President, can anybody give me a just reason that will be convincing in this regard? If somebody can show me that it is wrong, then I am ready to start voting for centralized power in Washington, D.C., and I shall quit defending the sovereignty of States and the liberties of individual citizens. But it is not wrong and no one is going to convince me otherwise.