March 27, 1962 (3)

Mr. JAVITS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I refer the Senator again to the wordsEach state shall appoint, in such manner as the ,legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, How does the Senator get away from the point that that provision, together with the later provision which I have already d 'b th h 0 1 0 f F d 1 read, ' prescri es e w e any e era approach to the question of the naming of electors?

Mr. JAVITS. The fact is that when a voter votes for electors in a State, that being the method which the legislature has chosen for the designation as electors, a voter shall not be subject to the requirement of a poll tax. I do not · see where there is any inconsistency in the scheme of control when we deal solely with what shall enable the voter to vote or what shall prevent him from voting. I do not see that that would in any way cross over or negate any of the provisions of the Constitution with respect to electors which the senator has read.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I call to the senator's attention a statement of Mr. Katzenbach, the very able Assistant Attorney General, appearing on page 368, part 2 of the hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. I shall read only one sentence:

However, whether Congress may enact laws to abolish the poll tax as a condition for election of presidential electors . presents a more difficult question.

The learned Assistant Attorney General differentiated between the two cases, that is, the selection of presidential electors and the selection of Senators and Representatives.

The Senator from Florida thinks that the constitutional provisions with reference to the election of Senators and Representatives are perfectly strong and clear and that they make the question a constitutional one, as has already been stated by his good friend from Kentucky. But it seems to the Senator from Florida that the learned Assistant Attorney General who · was testifying very properly _ called attention to the fact that on the question of the selection of · electors for President and Vice President even a more . difficult situation was presented. 1 wondered how the distinguished Senator from New York got around that Mr. JAVITS. I just made my . reply to that question. Will the Senator be good enough to key us again to. the hearings to which he referred?

Mr. HOLLAND. I referred to the . second volume of the hearings. · . Mr. JAVITS. I should like to read -it into the RECORD so we all know what we are talking about. It is the second volume , of . the hearings before . the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Commit _ tee on the Judiciary of the Senate held . June 27, 28, and 29, - 1961.

In that regard I should like to point out the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Katzenbach's superior, as recently as March 13, 1962, in which he said: . I believe Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact legislation abolishing State poll tax laws applied to Federal elections.

I hold with the Attorney General. I have defined my reason for that conclusion in terms of the law as being an effort by my substitute for the Senator's \ constitutional amendment to reach the voter when, as, and if the voter is exercising his privilege of voting. At that point I say he shall not be in any way subject to the requirements of a tax, to wit, the poll tax.

Mr. HOLLAND. The question as to which is the superior as between the Attorney General and the learned Assistant Attorney General might be the subject of some argument in debate, but I will not debate that with the former attorney general of the State of New York, who may be prejudiced in favor of attorneys general. I merely wished to comment that the Assistant Attorney General had made a very scholarly statement on this subject, as is shown by his testimony, and that he very carefully delineated the difference between the election of Senators and Representatives, on which I personally believe · ~he Constitution is completely clear, and stated that it was a still more difficult question to see how a State could be deprived of setting up machinery "in the manner" that the legislature might determine for the election of its own electors.

Surely the Senator recognizes the . fact that here is a new question, a different question, and, the Senator from Florida thinks, a much more difficult question.

Mr. JAVITS. I do not quote the authority of the Attorney General as being supreme and conclusive and superior in legal judgment to that of Mr. Katzenbach. I was only giving the facts about the hierarchy of authority. I rather rely upon my own opinion that what I seek to do by statute is unaffected by this provision of the Constitution as it relates to the , voter if, as, and when he is a voter in respect of elections for officials under the Federal Constitution. All that the Senator has · read demonstrates that this elector is an official contemplated by the Federal Constitution. When, as, and if a voter is to vote for the elector, I do not wish that voter--and that is all - I have tried to do by this statutory approach-to be subject to any taxes.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank my distinguished friend from New York. · I am sorry that we are not <;>f the same opinion. As I understand it, he is for his amendment, but he is also for my amendment if his amendment fails. In any event I am glad to have his support even on that kind of condition.

Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from Florida is very gracious. Let us leave it that I am for doing something, and that if we want to do something we should adopt my amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President, I rise to support the proposal, in the nature of a substitute to Senator HoLLAND's amendment, which has been offered by the Senator from New York, and which is sponsored by a group of bipartisan Senators on both sides of the aisle. Just as the opposition to effective civil rights legislation has been bipartisan in nature, I have always felt that the advocacy of civil rights should also be bipartisan in nature. We were very happy, therefore, when the Senator from New - York, with his great ability, was willing to lead the fight for the method of statutory enactment rather than constitutional amendment for the abolition of poll tax.

I cannot , however, agree with the Senator from New York , who is my very dear friend, in the caustic criticism which he has made about the conduct of the Kennedy administration. When all the difficulties are considered, I believe the Kennedy administration has made great progress in the field of civil rights, as was recognized in the statement recently issued by the Southern Regional Conference. However, I am always happy to join with the Senator from New York in this struggle for civil rights. He is a host in himself. I am also always happy to have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will join with us. I only hope that in the vote, which is coming shortly, he will be able to muster as many votes on his side of the aisle as we may be able to muster on our side, and that we may have, therefore, a rivalry in well doing. Let the rollcall show where the · balance of merit may lie.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. ' It is always an occasion when we have a ' debate of this character to speak about bipartisan cooperation, which in all the 6 years that I have been in the Senate has been probably the most gratifying personal experience that I have had. It is a unique instrument which has been forged here in this civil rights struggle. I wish we had more troops. But we certainly have no need to doubt the loyalty or zeal of those we do have.

The Senator from Illinois came to this cause long before I did-not that I had not wanted to, but I was not in the legislature and in the seat of authority to do so. The Senator from [Illinois is rightly considered-and if not, I shall make that nomination - the very dean a :. 1d inspiration of the bipartisan civil rights struggle in this country. This struggle will ultimately succeed. We, at least, whatever may be our successes or failures of the interim, have the gratification of knowing that what we struggle · for is not only morally right and essential for the future of our country, but also must succeed because our country's well being will tolerate no other resolution of these controversies and debates. If the Senator from Illinois will have no other place in history-and he deserves one for his economic work and many other efforts in which he has engaged-his place in history is absolutely secure in this field by the acclamation of not only the people who are affected and by the American people , but, I would like to add, by the acclamation of those colleagues in · the Senate · with whom he has worked so closely in these things, including myself.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New York for his gracious comments, of which I am undeserving. The Senator from New York is a most cooperative and able colleague. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. I am not interested in staking out any claim in this field for myself. I do, however, wish to stake out a claim for the zeal with which the northern and western members of the Democratic Party have fought for civil rights. I hope that the very able Senator from New York will be able to muster as large a proportion of his colleagues in this cause as I hope we will be able to muster on our side.

I. THE LEGISLATIVE Q UE S T ION BEFORE THE

SENATE

Madam President, it is not my purpose, as a layman, to enter into any long discussion of the constitutionality of Federal statutes outlawing poll taxes or discriminatory literacy tests. Suffice it to say that the able argument of the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Javits] and the statement by the Attorney General have personally convinced me that such a law could be constitutional. At the very least it can be said that there are very strong grounds upon which the Supreme Court could declare such statutes constitutional, and that the members of the Court could do this without inflicting the slightest scar upon their judicial consciences.

I am ready to leave the question of the constitutionality of such a statute to the Justices of the Supreme Court and, I believe, we of the legislative branch should instead center our efforts upon the legislative questions as to whether, first, it is good public policy for us to try to abolish the poll tax, and if so; second, what is the most effective method of accomplishing I know it is always a temptation for legislators to discourse at length gn the constitutionality of bills which are under consideration, but I suggest that these constitutional discussions are primarily influenced by the political and economic interests and emotional feelings of the participants. This, at least, has been the prevailing practice in the long history of social legislation.

We will recall now when the Wagner Act was proposed, many solons in this body declared pontifically that it was . clearly an unconstitutional use of the commerce clause. The Supreme Court held otherwise.

When unemployment compensation and old-age security were up for action, it was argued that this was an obvious misuse of the taxing and spending powers of Congress. The Supreme Court held otherwise. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was introduced it was vehemently contended that this was a manifest misuse of the commerce clause as well as a violation of the fifth amendment which prohibits the Federal Government from taking property without due process or law. The Supreme Court held otherwise.

This experience should teach us all to be chary about pronouncing on the constitutionality of outlawing the poll tax by statutory enactment. We may more appropriately center our attention upon tlle proper ends to be sought and the best means to be employed.

This morning, at an early hour, I was reading some Gilbert and Sullivan. I came to a · verse in "Iolanthe" in which W. S. Gilbert wrote about the House of Lords. In the early part of the 19th century, the House of . Lords was the supreme legislative body in England. It regarded itself as the greatest deliberative . body in the world, a description which is now frequently - applied by Senators to the Senate of the United States. Mr. W. S. Gilbert expressed his opinion of this claim: in some verses which I think are still amusing and still appropriate: And while the House of Peers withholds its legislative hand,

And noble statesmen do not itch To interfere with matters which they do not understand, ' .

As bright will shine Great Britain's rays As in King George's glorious days.

II. POLL T,AX UNSUPPORTED BY POLITICAL THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

Despite the recent speeches by certain Senators, not many will now openly defend the imposition of a . poll tax as a requirement for voting. It was put into general effect in the South not immediately after the Civil War, not immediately after 1877, when the Federal troop-s were withdrawn, but between 1895 and 1910 for very specific reasons which I shall later discuss. The philosophic argument for it rests upon much the same ground as property requirements for voting; namely, that people without property or who are not able to afford the payment of a poll tax, either have no vital interests which the Government should ' protect or are so unqualified to vote that they cannot properly use the franchise. Traces of these arguments were contained in the first speech on this subject by the erudite junior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT].

But if the history of the United States and of modern democracies teaches anything it is that while the proper protection of property is · a function of government, it is not the only one. Governments should also protect the lives and liberties of its citizens, and in the Declaration of Independence, the founders of our Republic boldly declared that one of three basic rights of the individual which governments were instituted to secure wa.s no less than "the pursuit of happiness." · This · was next · reaffirmed by the Articles of Confederation w;hich declared that one · of the purposes of the new confederation was to aid , in the general welfare.

The Constitution itself in 1787 not only declared that one of the six · main · purposes for the new Republic was to "promote the general welfare," but also in article I, section 8, prescribed that Congress might use its taxing and spending powers not · merely for "the common defense" but also for the "general welfare." Lincoln well summed up this principle at Gettysburg when he said that ours was a Government for the people as well as of the people. · But it was and is something more. It is also a Government by the people. Not only did Lin-:­ coln so state, but the very preamble of the Declaration of Independence lays down as a fundamental axiom that gov• ernments "derive their just powers from the consent of the go:verned."

The people ' therefore were ultimately to control, · and while this was originally strained through independent intermediate bodies iri the choice of the President and the Senate, these barriers have now been eliminated. Property qualifications originally imposed by the States have also been repealed and the continuation of the poll tax is an anachronism which cannot be defended in a modern democracy. ·· People have the · right to protect their dignity and welfare as well as their property. Participation in public affairs makes them more informed and better rounded citizens.

IU. POLITICAL . REALITIES BEHIND ADOPTION OF '-rHEPOLLTAX

So much for political theory. But the political realities which caused the poll tax to be accepted in the South were of a direct and practical nature.

Here I shall rely upon the testimony of the most eminent historian of recent southern politics in the person of C. Vann Woodward, who has told the story in great detail in his books "Origins of the New South," and "The Strange Case of Jim Crow." First, however, let me qualify Mr. Woodward as a sympathetic authority on the South and defend him against the inevitable charge that he is either a northerner or a Yankee sympathizer.

I have looked up Mr. Woodward's record and checked it. It shows that Pro­ · fessor Woodward was born in Arkansas and took his degree at Emory University in Georgia. He did his graduate work at the University of North Carolina. He taught at Georgia Tech, then at the University of . Florida, and following that at the University of Virginia. He has taught in Tennessee and Texas, and indeed, throughout the South, anc he is now professor of American history at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, which is at least half a southern city. I want to be strictly accurate in what I say, and I must admit that . he did lecture for a year at Oxford. But . I do not consider this to be a disqualification but in fact the opposite.

In fact, · some of my best friends have . been Oxford men. I submit, therefore, that Mr. Woodward · is southern born, raised; and · educated, and · almost his entire life has been spent in the South. If his credentials should be further questioned, let it be recorded that one of his grandfathers fought in the Confederate Army · for 4 years, and it is my impression that he was wounded defending the Stars and Bars. Certainly, as a good southern soldier, he showed his patriotism by trying to kill as many northerners as he could.

In view of all this, I think it must be admitted that Mr. Woodward comes to us with an impeccable record from the southern point of view.

And now, what does this patriotic and learned son · of the South tell us about the importance of the poll tax? He points out that the rise of the Farmers Alliance in the South in 1892 and particularly in 1894 frightened the dominant economic and political groups · of that region.

These States had been run from 1877 on—that was the year when Hayes withdrew the Federal troops-by the planter aristoCracy, the · big merchants, the bankers, the manufacturers, and the railroads. We sometimes think of the Farmers’ Alliance, or, as it became known in the West, the Populist movement, as purely a western movement; but it was probably stronger in the South than it was in the West. The Farmers' Alliance so light, on the State level, · more popular education, a reform of the tax structure, control over railroad rates, · and many other features. Nationally, the Populist Party which became its predominant political arm advocated a Federal income tax, the direct primary and direct election of Senators, the nationalization of the railways, a Federal credit system, and other features thought at the time to be radical.

The alliance also had a parallel Negro organization which at one time claimed almost a million members. This parallel Negro organization was kept separate for social purposes but cooperated closely in political and economic efforts. It worked with much the same objectives, and there was a general attempt on its part to unite the poor whites and Negroes upon a common program of economic and political reform.

The Populist movement functioned as a separate party in a number of Southern States; such as, Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas, and, under the leadership of Ben Tillman, inside the Democratic Party in South Carolina. In 1894, the Populists sometimes in fusion with the Republicans, polled an extraordinarily high percentage of the vote in most of the Southern States. Percentages of votes for Populist and Fusion

State tickets in 1894

State: Percent Virginia----------------------------- 27 North Carolina______________________ 54 Cleorgia _______ : ~-~------------------ 44 . Florida ________ · .:.____________________ 21

Alabama ________________________ . ___ . _ 48 Mississippi_ ________ · ------------ · ----- 27 Louisiana (1896) -------------------- 44 Texas----------------~-------------~ 36

It w · m be seen that the Populist movement and the Republicans carried North Carolina.

At that time the Georgia movement was led by Tom Watson, who worked very closely with the Negroes.

Alabama ' a gave 48 percent of its votes for the Populist and Fusion State tickets. They nearly captured Alabama.

This extraordinary showing frightened the dominant political and economic groups in the South, and they moved swiftly to defeat it.

One of the two major devices which they used was to impose literacy tests together with property and poll taxes. Mississippi had instituted this system earlier, in 1890, probably as a reaction to the LOdge bill. - Other States began · to follow suit, such as South Carolina in 1895, Louisiana in 1898, North Carolina in 1900, Alabama in 1901, Virginia in 1902, in the celebrated Virginia constitutional convention, Georgia in 1908, and Oklahoma in 1910. · Other States which adopted the poll tax were · e Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas. In · a · relatively short time the whole South was covered with poll tax provisions, as well as with a web of other provisions.

Professor Woodward's comments on this device are penetrating · :

With its cUmulative · features and procedures artfully devised to discourage payment, the poll tax was esteemed, at first by some of its proponents as the most reliable means of curtailing the franchise not only among the Negroes but among objectionable whites _ tes as wen (Woodward, "The Strange Case of Jim Crow," p. 67). - The second major device was to split the poor whites apart from the Negroes so that a political alliance between them would be impossible. This led to the · Passage of segregation laws and ordinances-with which we are dealing today-which, as Woodward shows, are of a far more recent date than is commonly believed. Racism was therefore substituted for Populism, as an emotional driv­ -ing force for the poor whites. It was a tragedy that many of the popular lead- ers in the South accepted this substitute and pursued it vigorously. Ben Tillman, of South Carolina, may have been the most conspicuous; but Heflin, of Alabama; Vardaman, of Mississippi; and · Jeff Davis, of Arkansas, were not far behind. Tom Watson, of Georgia-who early had been a most eloquent advocate of economic and other cooperation be­ · tween the races-held out against racism longer than most; but he finally suc­ · cumbed, and finally rode to political power · upon the doctrine of white supremacy in its most virulent form, embracing both anti-Negroism and anti­ . Semitism.

The basic purpose of the poll tax was, therefore, not to raise revenue, as has been alleged, and as the junior Senator from Arkansas [Mr . . FULBRIGHT] has suggested. It was designed, instead, to limit the franchise. It was intended to reduce the number of low-income citizens who could vote. It disenfranchised poor whites as well as poor Negroes. But since the Negroes . were on the average . much poorer than the whites, it disenfranchised more Negroes than whites .

It was one of the devices used by the economic and political aristocracy of the South to keep the rest of the South in subjugation.

A web of other restrictions, such as property, literacy. ability to pa;ss socalled citizenship tests, the "white primary” and so :forth, was also woven and still further restrict-ed Negro suffrage; but it was made somewhat easier for the whites to penetrate these measures. The poll tax and its allied restrictions had the p1anned-for effect. Woodward states:

In the seventies, eighties, and nineties. the Negroes voted in large numbers. White leaders of opposing parties encouraged them to vote and earnestly solicited their votes. Qualified and acknowledged leaders {)f southern white opinion were on record as .saying that it was pr.oper, inevitable and desirabie that they should vote. Yet after the disenfranchisement measures were passed around 1900, the Negroes ceased to vote. And at that time, qualified . and acknowledged leaders of white opinion said, "It was unthinkable th a t they should ever be permitted to 'VOte" (Woodward, "The Strange Case of Jim Crow," p. 91).

Thus in Louisiana there were 130.300 Negroes registered in 1897. but only 5,300 in 1900, and 1,340 in 1904, or a decrease of approximately 129,000. The number of whites who were registered was also reduced by 72,000-from 164,000 to 92,- 000-Woodward, "Origins of the New South;' pages 342-343.

Following these measures of disenfranchisement, the per-centage of voters who went to the polls decreased sharply. In Virginia, between 1892 and 1902, the vote for Congr-essmen fell off by 56 percent; in Alabama, the decrease was 60 percent; in Mississippi, 69 percent; in Louisiana, 80 percent; :and in North Carolina, 34 percent. Florida .showed a decrease of 69 percent; Arkansas. of 73 percent; Tennessee, of .50 percent; and Georgia, of 80 percent-Woodward, in the work cited, page 345.

The net effect of all these restrictive provisions, of whicl:. the poll tax wa-s only one, was therefore to disenfranchise s, large percentage of the voters, both black and white, but of course primarily black, for-as I have said-there were always escape hatches, under the literacy and property tests, through which the whites could be allowed to pass.

But these restrictions, combined with ~e white primary ami the one-party system, operate to reduce "the percentage of those voting in the Southern States to the lowest levels in the country. Senators and Representatives from the South came to be elected by relatively mnan oonstituencies.

IV. POLL TAX STILL A VEHICLE OF tJISENFRA'N­ CHlSI'XENT

In the 1930's and 1940's strong movements developed throughout the country to abolish the poll tax. National ac­ tion was proposed and defeated, but some State action followed. A good deal of the State action was in response to this and was an attempt to head off further northern efforts k outlaw the poll tax, by national legislation. North Carolina had already led the way in 1920. Huey Long was instrumental in getting the poll tax repealed in Louisiana in 1934; and I have often felt · that the memory of Huey Long has perhaps been somewhat unjustly attack-ed, for a large part of his program was an attempt to restore power to people who ha"d · been stripped of that power by the restrictive legislation of some '35 years before. - m:-e.

Plorida followed, in 193'7, in repealing the _pon tax, as the Senator from Florida has said. Georgia, under Ellis Arnall, abolished the tax in 1945; and then the movement halted for a few years. But in the early 1950's, after further national efforts had failed, South Carolina and Tennessee joined their sister States. But Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas stood fast. In three of these States--Virginia, Arkansas, and T-exas-proposals to abolish the poll tax have been defeated; and those who now TABLE 6 Amount ol .Is tax cumulative and if so for State poll tax per how long (yes or no) year

Arkansas _______________ $! ___________ No _____ -------------------- _______ Alabama. ________ ------ $1.50 ________ Yes (2 years preceding election year).

MississippL ____ -.- ---- $2 plus $L .. Yes (2 years preceding year).

$L50 ______

Texas.- Virginia_ -- ______________ ------ ---- --- $1.50 ______ No·--------- · ----------- -- ----- Yes (3 year . s preceding ele . ction year).

1 In Virginia, receipt is only required to prove that voter the 3preceding years.

Source: Mollie Z. Margolin. "'Qualification of Voting,” Legislative Reference Service, June H l 61, 229 pages. Ogden,

Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President, defenders of the poll tax commonly lay great stress upon the relative smallness of the tax, as an argument that its paym-ent is not a deterrent to voting. It is pointed out that th~ poll tax in Arkansas is $1; that in Alabama, Texas, and Virginia, it is $1.50; and that in Mississippi it i.s .$2, plus another dollar. There is no one so poor, it is contended, that he cannot afford to pay from $1 to $2 for th.e privilege of voting. And if one does not pay it. the failure to do so is said to be proof that the citizen is indifferent to this privilege, and hence does not deserve to be accorded it.

It is no doubt true that the rise in the r.eal incomes of southern people during the last 25 years has made the mere size of the poll tax less onerous than it was; we of the North are very happy that there has been that increase. The Democratic Members of Congress . from the North and from the West have consistently voted for measures which would develop the economy of the South. We should realize, however, that between 20 and 25 percent of the population of the country is still on a poverty level of existence, and can be accurately described as "ill fed, ill housed, and ill clothed." The percentage 1n this class is, of course, appr.eciably greater in the South than for the Nation as a whole.

When some 25 -years ago, President FranKlin D. Roosevelt in his inaugural address referred to "one-third of the Nation" as "ill clothed, ill housed, and · m fed," apparently that was a somewhat inaccurate -statement, because · the actual figures show that at that time approximately three-eighths of the peoenjoy the pr-esently limited franchise seem to be reluctant to · broaden it so to admit others. I think it is recognized that the perhaps for repeal in the other two States--A1abama and Mississippiare slight.

But, Madam President, this is not a small matter, because in 1960 these 5 States had a total population of 21 million, or approximately 12 percent of the population of the United States.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to hav-e printed at this point in the RECORD a table which I have prepared, which shows the present poll tax provisions of these States.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Maxi- How long Is receipt mum before eleo- required to

State tion must prove eligicharge poll tax be bility at paid election

Months

$1.00 '? Yes.

8.00 9 No.

election 4.00 . 9 Yes.

1.50 9 Yes.

4.50 6 No.t moving from another county has paid poll tax there during summary of State laws, etc., Library of 'Congress, "Poll Tax in the South.•• pie of the Nation were in that condition. Of course since that time improvements have been made; but the percentage in the South is still appreciably greater than that in the North.

In this connection let me point out that the title of Mr. Galbraith's book, the Afiluent Society,'~ is in many respects perhaps an unfortunate one., for uur society is not wholly an affluent one, and there are deep and wide pockets of great poverty and misery. Even the payment of a dollar or two is a heavy burden for an adult to bear in such a famUy, particularly when the benefits -are at best intangible, and doubt1ess seem to many to be illusory. ·

The poll tax deterrent is moreover compounded in the three States where the requirement is cumulative. In Alabama and Mississippi the tax must be paid for the '2 years prior to the year of election, and h-ence comes to a total of $3 and $4, respectively.

I may say that until recently Alabama h-ad a cumulative provision of 24 years, which meant that before one went on the rolls, he had to pay $36 before he could qualify. To the credit of Alabama, th-e 24-year cumulative provision has been abolished, but, even so, one must :pay the tax for 2 years prior to the election.

In Virginia, the cumulative requirement is '3 years and the total is $4 50. Since a very large proportion of the citizens have not paid their poll tax, and are at present disqualified, they must therefore make a very sizable initial payment te acquire eligibility. The cumulative requirement is therefore a further substantial deterrent.

Added to this is the fact that in three of the States-Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas-the poll tax must be paid 9 months, and in Virginia 6 months, before the election. It is difficult for the average citizen to remember that the payment is required that far in advance, and since there is very little publicity on this point, a citizen must be very alert indeed to be able to qualify. The right to vote should not be made as difficult as that. It , of course, operates most severely against the poor, the less educated, and those most severely buffeted by the immediate problems of life. But the more absentminded also miss out.

A :final hurdle is set up in the three States which require the prospective voter to bring his poll tax receipt with him before he can vote. This is not only true in Texas and Arkansas, where no other registration is required, but also in Mississippi, where it is . It is very easy, therefore, for people who have paid the poll tax to forget that they must keep on their person the physical proof of this payment when they go to vote. This is particularly true because of the fact that this requirement tends to be obscured and not emphasized, so that it is very natural for the prospective voter to lose or mislay his receipt.

All these plus other restrictions, together with the absence of an effective two-party system, cause the 11 Southern States to be at the bottom of the list in the proportion of those of voting age who vote in general elections.

I ask unanimous consent that a table covering the percentage of civilian population of voting age who voted in the presidential election of 1960 be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: 1960 election score board-How the States ranked in percentage of civilians of voting age who voted in the 1960 presidential election

Civilian

Rank State population Total Perof voting vote centage

1 Idaho ___________ 372,000 300,451 80.766

2 New

Hampshire ___ 367,000 295,761 80.588

3 Utah ___________ 469,000 374,981 4 North Dakota __ 350,000 278,431 79.551

5 South Dakota __ 388,000 306,087 78.831

6 West Virginia ___ 1,085,000 837,781 77 .214

7 Minnesota ______ 2,003,000 1, 541,887 76.978

8 Connecticut_ ___ 1,590,000 1,222,883 76.910

9 Indiana _________ 2, 784,000 2, 135,360 76.701 10 Massachusetts Iowa ____________ __ 3,230,000 2, 469,480 76.454 11 1,669,000 1, 273,820 76.321 12 illinois __________ 6,244,000 4, 757,394 76 . 191 13 Rhode Island ___ 533,000 405,534 76.085 14 Wyoming _______ 186,000 140,892 75.748 15 Delaware _______ 264,000 196,683 74.501 16 Maine ______ __ __ 574,000 421,767 73 . 478 17 Michigan Alaska __________ _______ 4,519,000 3, 318,097 73.421! 18 83,000 60,762 73.207 19 Colorado __ - ---- 1, 007,000 736,246 73.112 20 Missouri_ _____ __ 2,651, 000 1 , 934,422 72.969 21 Washington ____ 1, 703,000 1, 241,572 72.905 22 Wisconsin_----- 2 ,373, 000 1, 729,082 72.864 23 Vermont_------ 230,000 167,324 72.749 24 New J ersey _____ 3, 827, 000 ' 2, 773, 111 72.461 25 Montana_------ 387,000 277,579 71.725 26 Nebraska Ohio ____________ ______ _ 857,000 613,095 71. 539 27 Or egon _________ 5, 833,000 4, 161,859 71.349 28 1,089, 000 775,462 71.208 29 Kansas_-------- 1, 315,000 928,825 70.633 30 California __ ---- 9,219, 000 6, 507,082 70.583 31 New Pennsylvania York ______ ___ 7,102,000 5, 006,541 70.494 32 10,788,000 7, 291,079 67.584 33 Oklahoma_----- 1,399,000 903,150 64.556 34 New Mexico __ ~- 491,000 311,118 63 .364 35 Nevada _________ - 174,000 107,267 61.647

1960 election score board-How the States ranked in percentage of civilians of voting age who voted in the 1960 presidential election--Continued

Civilian

Rank State population Total Perof voting vote centage

36 Kentucky Arizona _________ , 1, 876,000 1, 124,462 59.939 37 680,000 398,491 58.601 38 Maryland ______ 1, 819,000 1, 055,349 58 . 017 39 Hawaii _________ 321,000 184,745 57.552 40 North Tennessee Carolina_ ______ 2,521,000 1,368, 966 54.302 41 2,079,000 1,051, 792 50.591 42 Florida_-------- 3,099,000 1,544,180 49.828 43 Louisiana _______ 1, 770,000 807,891 45.604 44 Texas __ _________ 5, 329,000 2,311,670 43.379 45 Arkansas _______ 1,029,000 428,509 41.643 46 Virginia ________ 2,244,000 771,449 34.378