March 10, 1971 (3)

The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States extending the: right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older.

The PRESIDll~G OFFICER. The Chair wishes to inquire of the Senator from Montana if the time for colloquy which has just taken place is to be subtracted from the allotted time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.

Mr. PERCY and Mr. BAYH addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair believes the Senator from Illinois had requested recognition.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, because we are under controlled time I will limit my comments. If the Senator from Indiana wishes to be recognized, my remarks on this subject will only take 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. BAYH. I was going to make a 30 second observation relative to the question that I thought was rightfully posed by the Chair. We are in the midst of debating a major matter, and I think 1 hour is not excessive for Senators to express their thoughts. I will he quiet now so Senators can express themselves.

I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana will be in charge of the time.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I agree that this is an extremely important subject. I have long advocated the extension of the franchise to 18-year-olds. I cosponsored legislation which passed in the last Congress lowering the voting age, and I was very pleased when the Supreme Court ruled the 18-year-old vote constitutional when applied to Federal elections.

Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court decided that the new law franchising citizens 18, 19, and 20 years old was unconstitutional for State and local elections. As a consequence, State and local election boards face what may be an administrative nightmare unless we take the remedial action that is available to us today.

I speak with deep feeling with reference to the administrative nightmare facing Sta.te and local election boards. I have spent every election since 1948 in the polling booths in Cook County, and particularly in Chicago. I have observed e d the voting practices, the charges of irregularity, and the great problem we have in the two party system, even in a simple election, to insure an honest vote and an honest count.

I cannot imagine the complexities that will be added if we impose this tremendous burden. I do not make this charge in a partisan sense. Republicans through the years have charged that elections in Cook County have been stolen; and the Democrats, in turn, have charged that down State elections have been derelict in assuring honest elections and count; but there is no use adding to the complexities.

The mere prospect of dual voting machines or separate paper ballots, one listing all offices and candidates and the other-for younger voters-listing only Federal cand i dates, should by itself be enough to convince us to support the constitutional amendment that is now before us. If it is enacted by the Congress and ratifi e d by three-quarters of the States , we will have a uniform national voting age for all elections-Federal, State and local. Not only would this relieve the States and localities of the administrative burdens connected with dual election procedures, but it would also save them the millions of dollars that implementing such procedures would unquestionably entail.

But the principal reason for my support of the constitutional amendment giving the right to vote to 18-year-olds in State and local elections goes far beyond the serious mechanical problems posed by dual elections.

It also goes beyond the often cited issue of the "voteless soldier." The argument that an individual who is old enough to fight and die for his country should also be old enough to vote is certainly very persuasive, but there are others that are equally impressive. Eighteen-year-olds are regarded as adults by the penal codes, by the insurance companies, by the state agencies which issue automobile operator's licenses. They can enter the Federal Civil Service; they can be taxed; they are legally entitled to marry in any State. In brief, Americans who are 18, 19 and 20 are adults in virtually every legal sense. There is no justifiable reason for withholding from them the most basic of their civil rights-the right to vote, in any and all elections.

It makes no sense to young people today to say that they are qualified and empowered to vote for President and Vice President, for Senator and Congressman, but that they cannot vote for their mayor, city councilman, Governor, and in Cook County they cannot even vote for a sanitary district candidate. The contention that young people are too ill-informed about public affairs to exercise wisely the right to vote can have little credence. Perhaps this argument had some validity at the turn of the century, when only 6 percent of the Americans who had reached 18 were high school graduates, or in 1940, when only about half had completed high school.

But in the year 1971, when 81 percent of all Americans have graduated from high school by the age of 18 and when nearly half of the 18-, 19-, and 20-yearolds are college students, young Americans have the education and the maturity to participate fully in our political process. Anyone who watches television or reads a newspaper understands that they already are deeply involved in questions of public policy. Their commitment is likely to become even deeper if we give them a peaceful means to achieve the ends they seek.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, how much additional time does the Senator need?

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for 3 additional minutes?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from lllinois.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, the argument that the vote should be denied to young people because a small minority of them hold views that are unacceptable to many adults would not be worth discussing if it were not so prevalent. To do so would be comparable to taking the franchise away from any group whose views are not held by a majority of Americans-whether they be prohibitionists, Presbyterians or-for that matter-Republicans. Diversity of belief is one of this country's most important assets. It must be encouraged-not merely tolerated-if we wish to avoid the intellectual stagnation that is characteristic of nations in which ideas are imposed upon the people.

It is true, of course, that if the State legislatures were to act to lower the voting age to 18 in State and local elections, a constitutional amendment would not be required. But even if this is theoretically possible, I do not believe that any among us is naive enough to believe that the legislatures will act swiftly enough to avoid chaos by the next general election. If we wish to have a uniform voting age requirement-­ and to have it in time for the 1972 elections-we must amend the Constitution. My own State of Illinois is one of the several States that have rejected the 18-year-old vote proposition at the polls. But these decisions were made before the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the 18-year-old vote in Federal elections. I strongly believe that, in light of this ruling, it is very likely that the electorates in these States would now view the question somewhat differently. I cannot conceive of any State ' s voluntarily selecting a dual system of voting.

The Census Bureau's projections indicate that approximately 11.5 million Americans between 18 and 20 years old will be eligible to vote in the 1972 elections. We will determine today whether or not they will be fully or partially enfranchised citizens, eligible to vote in all elections or simply in presidential and congressional contests.

Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. CooK) has noted that in his State, which has permitted 18-yearolds to vote for 15 years, the rise of the Republican Party has paralleled the enfranchisement and increased participat i on in politics of 18-to-20-year-olds. Many other political analysts feel that a majority of young people tend to be Democrats. And Richard M. Scammon, the perceptive director of the Elections Research Center, has suggested that young voters will in all likelihood behave in much the same way at the polls as their elders do.

Obviously we will be dealing principally in speculation until young people actually begin to vote in l a rge numbers. I , for one, am perfectly willing to compete for the allegiance of young people, and I am sure that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree that this type of healthy competition is the essence of politics.

The basic question we are examining today has nothing to do with political parties. It can be summarized in one word-justice. We must give 18- to 20- year-olds the vote because it is right. Mr. President, I strongly urge the adoption by the Senate of this constitutional amendment.

I would like to close by stating that young people in this country have had a tremendous impact on public affairs. It was young people who went South to register voters, and had their skulls cracked open sometimes, but that resulted in the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and a whole new policy. It was young people who started the trend to get out of Vietnam rather than deeper into it. Young people saw that this war was get­ tee: ting no place fast, and we had to have a policy of getting out and a clear-cut policy enunciated to the South Vietnamese, rather than getting into it deeper. They were right. Everyone agrees with that. Young people brought about the environmental control situation we face today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TAFT). The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. PERCY. May I have 30 seconds more?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Tilinois.

Mr. PERCY. I would like to explain that my vote in favor of the tabling motion was not a vote against representation for Washington, D.C. I believe deeply in a voting representation for Washington, D.C., but I firmly believe that this issue on the 18-year-old vote before us is so important that we should not encumber it with any other single issue.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. CooK). However, I would like to preface the Senator's remarks with an observation that I think should go into the RECORD. He has been an eloquent and faithful member of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, who has advocated lowering the voting age since he came to the Senate. The State of Kentucky has practiced that principle, and I think we can look to him because of his firsthand experience. The chairman of the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee is deeply grateful to the Senator from Kentucky for the time and effort he has devoted to that subject, and to the subcommittee.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his remarks.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 7, a measure permitting 18-year-olds to vote in all elections-State and local as well as Federal.

Since 1955, when the voters of the Commonwealth of Kentucky ratified an amendment to the State constitution, this age group has voted in all primary and general, local, State, and National elections subject to the same residency and registration requirements as all other voters. We have now had the benefit of 14 years' experience, and it has been a complete success. I know of no public official in Kentucky who has not been satisfied with this experience. As is often the case , the Federal Government is often behind some States in the enactment of progressive and rational legislation. Since 1942, when the first joint resolution was introduced, by then Congressman JENNINGS RANDOLPH, to amend the Constitution and lower the voting age to 18 for both Federal and State elections, a similar proposal has been introduced in every Congress. Each year it gained momentum and support. It was endorsed by President Eisenhower in his 1954 state of the Union address, again by President Johnson in a message to the 90th Congress, and by the Nixon administration in the 91st Congress. Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst said in testimony before the Constitutional Amendments SubcommitAmerica's 10 million young people between the ages of 18 and 21 are better equipped today then ever in the past to be entrusted with all of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. Their well-formed intelligence, enthusiastic interest, and desire to participate in public affairs at all levels exemplifies the highest qualities of mature citizenship.

By March of last year, the question of lowering the voting age became by which method, rather than why or when. At hearings held by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments a number of leading constitutional law scholars suggested that the Congress, under the 14th amendment, could a~­ complish this by a Federal statute. The concept gathered broad support from such diverse thinkers as Senator EDWARD KENNEDY and Senator BARRY WATER.

On March 9, 1970, I introduced with the support of Senators GoLDWATER, DOMINICK, SCOTT, JAVITS, PACKWOOD, HAT­

FIELD, CASE, BOGGS, SCHWEIKER, BROOKE,

FONG, PERCY, YOUNG of Ohio, BAYH, RIBICOFF, McGEE, CHURCH, CRANSTON, and HuGHES, S. 3560, a bill to lower the voting age to 18 years by statute.

I ask that my remarks concerning that bill be inserted in the RECORD at the end of this speech.

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

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, 3 days later Senator MANSFIELD offered an amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1970, the pending Senate business, which would accomplish this same purpose. Withil .. 3 months the measure was passed by the Congress. After having been signed into law by President Nixon, an early decision by the Supreme Court was sought to determine the bill's constitutionality. In Oregon against Mitchell, by a narrow 5-to-4 decision, the Court upheld those sections of the act allowing 18- year-olds to participate in Federal elections but denying them a similar right in State and local elections. As a result of this ruling, 10 million young people from ages 18 to 20 in 47 States may vote for their President, Senator, and Congres sma n, but not for their Governor, mayor, and other local officials.

While the Court may have been constitutionally correct, its decision lacked reason, understanding, and practicality. All of the arguments made in favor of enfranchising this age group have been brought forth, debated, and accepted. That they apply equally to both Federal and State elections cannot be denied.

A report by the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee, "A 50-State Survey of the Costs and Other Problems of DualAge Voting," pointed out the difficulties in implementing this decision at the State and local level. Because of the Court's decision, special and separate facilities and procedures will become a necessity in order to accommodate two classes of voters. By age, voters will have to be separated at the time of registration and at each election. In those areas of the country which do not require registration it will be necessary to verify not only the voter's identification and residence but also his exact age.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator has expired.

Mr. COOK. May I have 3 more minutes?

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, at least 50 percent of the country's voters vote by machine. Some election officials have stated that their voting machines cannot be adapted in order to "lock out" State and local elections. Others say it is possible but that it would require an additional person at the polls and would likely result in delay, confusion, and possible fraud. Reliance on paper ballots put an additional burden on those using machines. Where paper ballots are still in use, special ballots will have to be used. Also, additional administrative burden will necessarily result in added costs to the States. There will be the initial expense for new equipment and the continuing expenses of maintaining dual sets of registration books, additional election supervisors, and voting personnel clerks. The subcommittee report estimated this cost to be between $10 and $20 million.

To avoid this additional cost and to grant full and complete citizenship to this age group, there are two alternatives. The most difficult would be amending each State constitution. Only eight States reported to the subcommittee that it would be possible to complete such action in time for the 1972 elections. The quickest method is the passage and ratification of an amendment to the Federal constitution. Should the Congress report out such a measure, at least 35 State legislatures may act upon it before 1972. In addition, a number of legislatures will be holding special sessions for various reasons, including apportionment required by the 1970 census.

The right to vote-in all elections-is a basic right for the young people between 18 and 21. We must not tarry in the fulfillment of this objective. As President Johnson so eloquently stated:

Today, the young people of America are asking the opportunity to give of their talents and abilities, their energies and enthusiasms , to the greater tasks of their times. I believe their proper request can and must be properly answered by a national affirmation of our faith in them. For a nation without faith in its sons and daughters is a nation without faith in itself.

EXHIBIT 1

[From th e CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Mar. 9,

1970]

ALLOWING 18- YEAR-0LDS To VOTE

Mr. CooK. Mr. President, the question of allowing 18-year-olds to vote has become not whether but when and how. With the exception of a few aged relics in Congress, the overwhelming majority of the peoples' representatives now realize we must enfranchise 18-year-olds and do it as soon as possible. Since almost all Senators now recognize the need to lower the age of democratic participation to 18 and are familiar with the arguments for such a step, I will be very brief in describing the other ways in which this age group fully participates in our society. Deputy Attorney General Kleindienst, indicating the support of the Nixon administration for lowering the voting age, named just some of the ways in which they are currently involved, in his testimony before the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee the other day. He stated:

"We do not wait until 21 years of age to permit our young people to enter the labor market or to require the payment of income taxes. Before 21 many states permit our young men and women to shoulder the responsibility of marriage; we ask that they man our Armed Forces and "provide for the common defense." We hold them liable for their ciVil and criminal actions."

In that regard, I should like to note for the Record that, according to Defense Department statistics of June 1968, of the 3,510,000 men in the Armed Forces, 27,000 were 17 years of age, 123,000 were 18 years of age, 266,000 were 19 years of age, and 567,000 were 20 years of age. In other words, of the 3,510,000, 983,000 were under 21.

With regard to the present conflict in Vietnam, I should like the RECORD to show that of this group and of those who have lost their lives for this country, nine were 17, 2,413 were 18, 6,368 were 19, and 10,421 were 20.

Little more needs to be said in answering the question "whether?" except to relate, briefly, the experience in my own State of Kentucky. In 1954, the general assembly of my State enacted a bill submitting to the electorate the matter of lowering the voting age to 18. In November 1955 the voters ratified the proposal with little or no controversy. We have now had the benefit of 14 years experience with responsible voter participation by this block. Contrary to the allegations of many of my conservative friends, there has not been any discernible pattern of voting behaVior. In fact, it could be strongly contended that the growth of the Republican Party in Kentucky, generally considered to be the more conservative of the two parties, has directly paralleled the enfranchisement and increase in participation of this age group.

Every major statewide candidate in recent memory has had a fulltime youth chairman whose sole function it was to seek out and secure the support of this block of roughly 100,000 potential voters. For those who attend a college in Kentucky, politics is a way of life. Some argue we should keep politics off the campuses. I agree to the extent that that means political interference by State officials or even Federal officials with academic and political freedom of thought and expression. I most emphatically do not agree if it means college people should not be allowed to vote and in a meaningful way support the candidates of their choice.

Politics on the campus in Kentucky means that for a candidate to be credible he must appear and subject himself to the intelligence and insight of today's politically sagacious youth. Our bright young Kentuckians are a great force against the hypocritical handshaking, backslapping, baby kissers of the old school of politics. In fact, it could be argued very persuasively that their participation has significantly up-graded both the caliber and the campaigns of the Kentucky politician of today.

In summary, the Kentucky experience has been a complete success, and I would venture a wager that one could not find 1 percent of Kentuckians, whether liberal or conserv.ative, mountaineer or farmer, city dwellcxvn--367-Part 5 er or tobacco grower, who would advocate raising the age.

The next question is, "How?" We have traditionally believed that lowering the voting age must be done by constitutional amendment, primarily because we took this course in enfranchising blacks and women. This view, however, does not take into account our living Constitution and the expanding role of the 14th amendment when aided by an act of Congress , in striking down the irrational barriers which States have placed between those who would otherwise be qualified to vote and the ballot box.

The expanded role of the 14th amendment in this area, when supported by an act of Congress, is a relatively new feature in the constitutional law of our land traceable to the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the case of Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, which rules section 4(e) of that act constitutional. It is upon the authority of this case that we can reasonably predict that a statute lowering the voting age to 18 under the authority of the 14th amendment, section (5), would be upheld as constitutional.

Let us look briefly at the facts of that case to see how they apply to what we are seeking to do this year. The Morgan case tested the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act which provides that no person who has successfully completed the sixth primary grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which the language of instruction was other than English shall be denied the right to vote in any election because of his inability to read or write English. New York claimed the statute to be justified because of a State interest in assuring intelligent use of the franchise.

As Prof. Archibald Cox pointed out in his testimony before the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee, in the absence of statute, the Supreme Court might have sustained New York's position. However, the court said, in effect, as Professor Cox put it, that "Congress may decide, within broad limits, how the general principle of equal protection applied to actual conditions." The Court cited, in Morgan, the early case of Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 345, in describing what section (5) of the 14th amendment intended to give to Congress- "It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation. Some legislation is contemplated to make the amendment fully effective." Section (1) of the 14th amendment provides that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. The equal protection clause is violated by any State which imposes an arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination or an invidious classification. This is then f'ollowed by section (5) of the amendment which gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment by "appropriate" legislation. It would be entirely possible to find two different results on the same set of facts where in one instance Congress had acted pursuant to section (5) to strike down invidious discrimination and in the other case where it had not so acted. Thus, the speculation earlier that the result might have been different in Morgan in the absence of the passage of 4(e) of the Voting Rights Bill pursuant to section (5) of the 14th amendment.

In support of this assertion, the Court said in the Morgan case:

"Without regard to whether the Judiciary would find that the equal protection clause itself nullifies New York's English literacy requirement as so applied, could Congress prohibit the enforcement of the state law by legislating under section (5) of the 14th Amendment? In answering this question, our task is limited to determining whether such legislation is, as required by section ( 5) , appropriate [emphasis added] legislation to enforce the equal protection clause."

The Court then proceeded to consider whether section 4(e) was "appropriate" legis1ation-the McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 421, standard. In deciding what was appropriate legislation to enforce the equal protection clause, the Court said:

"It was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations-the risk of pervasiveness of the discrimination in government services, the effectiveness of eliminating the state restriction on the right to vote as a means of dealing with the evil, the adequacy or availability of alternative remedies, and the nature and significance of the state interests that would be affected by the nullification of the English literacy requirement as applied to residents who have successfully completed the sixth grade in a Puerto Rican school. It is not for us to review the Congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we are able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did." [Emphasis added.]

The question, then, is whether the language and logic of Morgan would be equally applicable to a statute passed by Congress pursuant to section (5) of the 14th amendment lowering the voting age to 18. Under the 14th amendment, in the absence of statute, the question would be whether denying the right to vote to 18-, 19-, and 20-yearolds is arbitrary or capricious. I agree with Professor Cox that the Supreme Court would not so hold.

However, if Congress passed legislation under section (5) of the 14th amendment then the Court, it is reasonable to predict, would uphold the constitutionality of such a statute, with a supporting sta.tute the COurt's inquiry would be, under Morgan, could it "perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict (between state interest in not allowing 18, 19 and 20 year olds to vote and Congress' interest in lowering the age to 18) as it did."

In examining the congressional basis for the passage of such a statute the Court would surely find as Cox put it:

"Congress would seem to have power [under section (5), 14th Amendment] to make a similar finding [as in Morgan, that English language requirement is constitutionally irrelevant] about the state laws denying the franchise to eighteen, nineteen, and twenty year olds even though they work, pay taxes, raise families, and are subjects to military service."

I might suggest, for those who would deny the vote to 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds, in regard to that service, that we allow young men at 18 to go into officers' candidate school in this country and become officers in the military service of this Nation.

It is clear to me that we are constitutionally able to proceed with the long-overdue task of lowering the voting age to 18 in all elections in one of two ways.

The final question is "when?" We may, out of some inexplicable reverence for the past, choose the difficult route of the constitutional amendment or we may, recogniz ­ ing that we exist under a living, changing Constitution, choose a more expeditious alternative. I see no virtue in masochistically proceeding with a constitutional amendment which will require years to ratify, when the Congress could have the courage to act now to remedy one of the most pervasive injustices of our day.

I, therefore, introduce for appropriate reference a bill to provide for lowering the minimum age at which citizens shall be allowed to vote in all elections to 18. Also, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its entirety at the end of my remarks, and that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Mr. GoLDWATER, Mr. DOMINICK, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. CASE, Mr. BOGGS, Mr. SCHwEIKER, Mr. BROOKE, Mr. FONG, Mr. PERCY, Mr. YoUNG of Ohio, Mr. BAYH, Mr. RmiCOFF, Mr. MCGEE, Mr. CHURCH, Mr. CRANSTON, and Mr. HUGHES.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BYRD Of West Virginia in the chair). The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, will be printed in the RECORD at this point.

The bill ( S. 3560) to provide for lowering the minimum age of which citizens shall be eligible to vote in elections, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, and ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

s. 3560

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Voting at Eighteen SEc. 2. (a) The Congress finds and declares that the imposition and application of the requirement that a citizen be twentyone years of age as a preconditior to voting in ... ny primary or i::l. any election-

( 1) denies and abridges the inherent constitutional rights of citizens who are eighteen years of age but not twenty-one years of age to vote, which is unfair in view of the national defense burdens imposed on such citizens;

(2) has the purpose and effect of denying to citizens who are eighteen years of age but not twenty-one years of age the due process and equal protection of the laws that are guaranteed to them under the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, particularly in view of the unreasonable classification based upon the proposition that such citizens are not intelligent or mature enough to exercise the right to vote; and

(3) does not bear a reasonable relationship to any compelling State interest in the conduct of elections.

(b) In order to secure the constitutional rights set forth in subsection (a), the Congress declares .-hat it is necessary to prohibit the denial of the right to vote to citizens of the United States eighteen years of age or over.

SEc. 3. No citizen of the United States who is otherwise qualified to vote in any State or political subdivision in any primary or in any election shall be denied the right to vote in any such primary or election on account of age if such citizen is eighteen years of age or older.

SEc. 4. (a) In the exercise of the powers of the Congress under the necessary and proper clause of section 8, article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution the Attorney General is authorized and directed to institute in the name of the United States such actions against States or political subdivisions, including actions for injunctive relief, as he may determine to be necessary to implement the purposes of this Act.

(b) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this Act, which shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code, and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. It shall be the duty of the judges designated to hear the case to assign the case for hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

SEc. 5. Whoever shall deny or attempt to deny any person of any right secured by this Act shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. SEc. 6. As used in this Act the term "State" includes the District of Columbia.

SEc. 7. The provisions of this Act shall take effect with respect to any primary or election held on or after January 1, 1971.

Mr. CooK. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcORD a statement made today by the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GoLDWATER) the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments entitled "18 Is Old Enough."

This is one of the finest statements I have ever read on this subject, and I recommend it to the reading of all Senators.

EIGHTEEN Is OLD ENOUGH

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to testify on the important question of whether or not the minimum voting age should be lowered to 18.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that I think it should. This is a goal that I have worked for over a long period of years. And I am delighted to be able to restate my post tion at this time.

The main argument that I have heard against the proposal is the claim that young persons are not mature enough. They are said to be too rebellious and militant.

But I want to say here and now that this kind of reasoning is nonsense. Talk about young people being irrational. What about the supposedly mature persons who would deny the right to vote to nearly 11 million citizens just because a tiny minority has engaged in militant behavior?

When will people learn that what they see and hear through the mass media is not necessarily typical of the way things really are? Yes, if all people do is to sit in front of their T.V. screens or skim over the headlines, then the predominate image which they are going to get of our young men and women is one of an unclean, vile-tongued, rock-throwing, campus-storming, street-rioting bunch of hoodlums and misfits.

But, Mr. Chairman, I want to state as firmly as I can that this picture is distorted, stupid, and absolutely wrong. All that the major networks and liberal newspayers have achieved by their endless over-exposure of the extremist tactics used by a piddling few of our young Americans is to prejudice the judgment of many of their elders against youth in general.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the public to think for themselves. I want the average American to make his impressions from what he himself has actually seen. Don't rely upon the defamatory bunk which you are being fed by liberal journalists and reporters who are falling all over each other to see who can shock their audience the most.

If the average viewer or the average reader could travel through the length and breadth of our nation as I have to meet with students on the campuses of universities, both large and small, then I know that they would agree with me that this generation of young people is the finest generation that has ever come along.

Mr. Chairman, I have probably visited more colleges and universities in th e last decade than anyone in the country. And I am constantly impressed by the wisdom and interest, and concern with vital matters, that is shown by the students whom I have met.

In fact, their grasp of national issues is downright amazing. Far from being the possible victims of demagogues, I think the challenging, probing minds of today's youth will serve to expose the dishonest politician quicker than anything else.

Unless a person has honest convictions and si cere principles, these eighteen year olds. and 19 year olds, Will shatter his veil of hypocrisy in short order. They will see through the phony promise and the faked crisis sooner than many of their elders do. Mr. Chairman, I have confidence in our nation's educational system. I have pride in the way our young people are being taught to analyze Issues and to think things through for themselves. Unlike many older persons, these young Americans are willing to question what they read and what they watch in the mass media.

Some people, who should know better, say eighteen-year-olds are too idealistic. They before are said to be unable to follow the complicated, practical reasons why the things politicians promise them don't really happen.

Well, I want to say that this is exactly what we need more of in this country. We need more citizens who are concerned enough to pose high social and more goals for the nation. Civil servants and legislators, of any political party, need to be prodded to cut through the bureaucratic jungle of red tape so that the government will serve the people in the way it is intended.

Some more idealism will do us all good. It will help remove the crusty, shop-worn reasons why the policies and goals which are promised to voters don't ever seem to get accomplished. It wil make us find the positive answers that will put us on the right track. Instead of explaining why this law or that program can't benefit the public the way we thought it would when it was passed, idealism will send us searching for innovations and new departures that will get the job done.

Whether we are speaking of world peace, cleaning the air and water, stopping crime in the streets, eliminating smut in the mails, or any other important goal, the energies and enthusiasm and urgings of young Americans will help us do our best.

Mr. Chairman, I support ext.ending the vote to young citizens because I know it is right. I do not rely on the argument that because a person is old enough to serve in the Armed Forces he is old enough to vote. That is a duty of citizenship.

But there are other impressive arguments which demonstrate that eighteen-year-olds have reached maturity. Insurance companies hold a person to be an adult when he is eighteen. Eighteen-year olds are treated as adults by penal codes. Eighteen-year-olds are allowed to obtain unrestrict.ed automobile operator's licenses in every State. Young America s can enter the Federal Civil Service at 18, be taxed at 18, and marry in any State at 18. Indeed, 25% of all girls are married at 18 and 19, and 50% are married at 20. So they can raise families, hold jobs, be taxed. be tried in adult courts, and be trusted on the public highways. And yet they are not allowed to vote.

Mr. Chairman, this attitude is outmoded and archaic. It is literally based on a tradition which dates back to medieval times.

Perhaps, in the days around the turn of the century , it once had meaning. In 1900 only 6% of Americans who had reached 18 were high school graduates. In fact, as late as 1940, only one-half of all 18-year-olds had completed high school.

But this is 1970. This is the age of instant communications, all-news radio stations, T.V. news, and the most avid political concern on the part of young Americans that I have ever witnessed.

Today fully 81% of Americans have graduated from high school before they reach 18. Almost 50% of 18-, 19-, and 20-year olds are enrolled in college. And the education which they are receiving is more advanced and intense than at any time in our history.

In short, youth today is better informed and better equipped than any previous generation. They are without a doubt equally mature, both mentally and physically, as the average citizen who had reached 25 when I was growing up. In fact, they may be better able to comprehend the dramatic technological advances and changing perspectives of modern life than many of their parents.

Therefore, I hold that there is no sensible reason for denying the vote to 18-year-olds. What's more, I think we have studied the issue long enough. The voting age should be lowered and lowered at once across the entire nation.

To my mind, the change can validly be achieved by either a Constitutional Amendment or a statute. For once a person reaches the conclusion, as I have, that there is no reasonable justification for denying the right to vote to eighteen-year-olds, then it is quite clear that Congress can act to protect and enhance that right.

It is true that the States possess a power to set reasonable qualifications for voters in their elections. When these requirements are applied in a sensible way, they should not be altered by Federal intrusion.

But not even the strongest advocate of State's rights could claim that a State may limit the right to vote on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds. It would be nonsense to say that a State could fence out all lefthanded persons from the polls. Or all Catholics. Or all males with long hair.

Clearly there are limits as to how this authority may be used. To say that the States may establish voting qualifications is not to say that their power is absolute.

To me, where there is a conflict between the fundamental, personal right to vote and the purely administrative power of a State to regulate its elections, the State power may prevail over the right of the individual citizen only if it serves a major and compelling State interest. Since no such interest has been shown in the case at hand, I believe it is entirely fitting for Congress to act to Clause. protect the freedom to vote of young Americans.

While I am not a lawyer, I would like to present a few arguments which will establish the principles on which I base my conclusion.

The first principle which I want to set forth is as old as our Union itself. This is the concept that Congress may act by statute to secure the rights which are inherent in National citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most firmly imbedded concepts of Constitutional law is the premise that there are certain fundamental personal rights of citizenship which arise out of the very nature and existence of the Federal government. Without these basic rights, there would be no national government and no meaning to United States citizenship. Thus, in the case of Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wallace 418, 430 (1870), the rights of National citizenship were held to embrace "nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted."

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted these rights as belonging to United States citizenship, as distinguished from citizenship of a State. In the SlaughterHouse Cases, 16 Wallace 36, 79 (1872), the Court remarked that these fundamental rights "are dependent upon citizenship of the United States, and not citizenship of a State."

Perhaps the best exposition of the scope of National citizenship is found in the opinion Written by Justice Frankfurter in United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 70 (1951). At pages 79 and 80, the learned Justice presents a history of the broad recognition accorded to what he calls the "rights which arise from the relationship of the individual with the Federal government."

Consqeuently, the existence of a separate category of implied rights that are based upon the nature and character of the nation~! government has been confirmed in case after case throughout the history of the nation.

Furthermore, it is well settled that the right to vote is included among these fundamental rights, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 663, (1884), is but one of many decisions by the Court in which the right to vote for Federal officers has been held to be a right granted or secured by the Constitution and not one that is dependent upon State law.

The rule was expanded by the recent case of Texas v. United States, 384 U.S. 155 (1966), in which the Supreme Court affirm.ed the decision of a three-judge District Court that the right to vote in all elections, State or Federal, "clearly constitutes one of the most basic elements of our freedom--'the 'core of our constitutional system."

It is clear that Congress may act to protect a national right under the Necessary and Proper Clause. As it was said by Chief Justice Waite in United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 217 (1875), "Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by COngress. The form and manner o! the protection may be such as Congress in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion shall provide."

The doctrine was also defined in Straucter v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 310 (1879), where the Court held that: "A right or an immunity, whether created by the Constitution or only guaranteed by it, even without any express delegation of power, may be protected by Congress."

Mr. Chairman, the test to be applied in cases where Congress is acting to enforce or enhance an inherent Constitutional right is the one laid down by Chief Justice Marshall for all cases involving the power of Congress under the Necessary and Proper According to this rule, three questions u.s. 634) must be asked: (1) Is the end "legitimate?" (2) Is the statute "plainly adapted to that end?” and (3) Is the approach used "not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of Constitution." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316, 420 (1819).

In applying these standards to the proposal at hand, I believe the Courts would uphold the power of Congress to pass a statute reducing the voting age in all elections, Federal, State and local.

First, there can be no doubt that the end is "legitimate." The legislation would be designed to protect the fundamental right to vote for almost 11 million citizens.

Second, the proposal is "plainly adapted to that end." By removing a voting impediment which Congress has found to be unnecessary and unfair, the Constitutional right to vote wm be immediately and effectively enhanced for millions of Americans.

Third, the law is "not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution."

Here is where the crux of the whole issue must stand or fall. It wm unquestionably be argued by some that since the Constitution allows the States to create reasonable voting qualifications, Congress may not override those State requirements.

However, I believe that the rule of United States v. Texas, 252 Federal Supplement 234 1966), which I have cited above, settles the question.

In this case, a three-judge District Court, convened under section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, sustained the power of Congress to prohibit the use of the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in State elections. Although the Court recognized that the poll tax system in Texas had the important function of serving "as a substitute for a registration system," it held that payment of the tax as a precondition to voting must fall because it restricted "one of the fundamental rights included within the concept of liberty." (252 Federal Supplement 250.)

In reaching its decision, the Court said it was following the rule announced by the Supreme Court that "Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling,” Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524 (1959).

Also, the lower Court cited the principle of McLaughlin v. State of Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196 (1964), that such a State law "will be upheld only if it is necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy."

Since the judgment of the District Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court, 384, U.S. 155 (1966), I believe it offers the controlling principle which must be applied to cases involving a conflict between the assertion of an individual's Constitutional right and a State law that touches on th111t right but serves a permissible State objective.

Another recent case that follows the same rule is Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). This case concerned the validity of waiting periods imposed by the States to deny welfare assistance to new residents of the States.

The case is relevant to the question which we are considering because the Court specifically rejected the argument that a mere showing of a rational relationship between the qualification and a permissible State purpose is enough to justify the denial of welfare benefits to otherwise elegible applicants. The Court held that "in moving from State tv State or to the District of Columbia appellees were exercising a. constitutional right, and any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to prom-ote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional." (894 Since the State qualifications involved here a~so touch on the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right, I believe the same rule wm be applied. Congress may, in order to protect the exercise -of the right to vote, reg­ '.l· . ate State laws which deny that right, unless the State laws are shown to be necessary in order to promote a "compelling" State interest.

Under this standard, I conclude that Congress may, consistent with the Constitution, establish a minimum voting age of 18 years. There simply is no compelling reason why a State has to deprive citizens who are between the ages of 18 and 21 of their right to vote. As I have discussed earlier in my statement, the only reason put forth to justify the present minimum of 21 is a distrust of the intelligence of maturity of young persons. There is no rhyme or reason to either of these points in today's setting. They are based s· ~: strictly on emotion rather than facts. Unless A. State can come up with a better explanation than this; I believe Congress can and sh-ould act to enhance the right of young citizens to vote.

Mr. Chairman, there is another ground upon which Congress may act. For the Supreme Court hu held that Congress may act independently of the courts to enforce the guarantees of th-e Fourteenth Amendment. This doctrine was first announced in the recent case of Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966).

There the Court was faced with deciding whether or not Congress could preclude the enforcement of New York's English language literacy test as applied to Puerto Rican residents of that State. The Court was also faced with its decision in Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board, 360 U.S. 45 (1959), in which it had rejected a challenge to the English literacy test of North Carolina.

Nevertheless the Court held that Congress could override the New York law. In writing the Court's opinion, Justice Brennan said that the true question wa.s: "Without regard to whether the judiciary would find that the Equal Protection Clause itself nullifies New York's English literacy requirement as so applied, could Congress prohibit the enforcement of the State law by legislating under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?" (384 u.s. 649)

Justice Brennan said: "In answering this question, our task is limited to determining whether such legislation is, as required by section 5 , appropriate legislation to enforce the Equal Protection Clause." (384 U.S. 649-650).

The basic test of what constitutes “appropriate t e legislation , " according to the Morgan decision, is the same as the one formulated by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, when he defined the powers of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause. As adapted to legislation passed under section 5, this test requires that three questions shall be asked: ( 1) Is the statute designed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment? (2) Is it "plainly adapted" to that end? and (3) Is it consistent with "the letter and spirit of the Constitution?" (384 u.s. 651).

In deciding the answers to these questions, the Court said: "it is enough that we are able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might predicate a judgment" for acting as it did. (384 U.S. 653).

Thus the Court upheld the power of Congress to preclude the enforcement of the New York literacy requirement. And so, I believe it would uphold the power of Congress to age. preclude the enforcement of State laws which deny the right to vote to eighteen-year-olds. It may be granted that the Courts have never held that the enforcement of a. 21-yea.r­ old voting requirement 1s invalid. But according to the rule of Morgan this doesn't matter. When the case involves an enactment of Congress which 1s designed to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, the question is not whether the judicial branch itself would decide that the State law violates that Amendment. Rather the question is whether or not the Congressional measure is appropriate legislation under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Under this doctrine, I have no difficulty in believing that the enactment of a uniform voting age is Constitutional. The identical analysis would apply here that I have given above with regard to the power of Congress to act under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The proposed statute is clearly meant to carry out the legitimate purpose of enhancing the right to vote, is plainly adapted to that end, and is consistent with the Constitution in the absence of a compelling State interest.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my discussion of the authority under which Congress may act. But we must also consider the policy questions. Is this an appropriate issue to tackle by legislation? And is this the time to do it?

Only two States have set the voting age at 18. Should we impose a standard on 48 States which has been accepted in merely two States?

Since 1960, voters in nine States have turned thumbs down on proposals to reduce the voting age below 21. Should we change the laws in these States whose residents have expressly voted not to do so?

In 1970 the voters of ten States will be asked to pass on amendments which would lower the voting age in their States. Should we preempt the issue and remove the choice from the local citizens themselves?

These are the kinds of hard questions which we must consider and discuss in detail. We must set out the conflicting considerations fully and fairly. We must balance a proper concern for the preservation of State authority against the attractive opportunity to enhance the right to vote for nearly 11 million citizens-a full 15% of the number of Americans who went to the polls in 1968. So, let each of us make his own decision. enough. Let us determine what we believe the citizens in our State want us to do and what we believe to be right .

To me, one thing is clear. The idea has found its time. This is the year to act. The proposal for giving full citizenship to young Americans is right. I know it in my heart.

For my part, I shall join with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Cook) in proposing a bHl to extend complete voting privileges to all Americans between 18 and 21. Our bill is not a gesture. It is not put forth merely to promote a discussion. We are firmly convinced that Congress may act by way of a statute.

But we don't intend to risk the voting opportunities of tens of millions of Americans by tossing the age issue into the Voting Rights struggle .

Nor do we intend to cast a cloud over the 1970 general elections by enacting a law whose validity is likely to be unsettled by the time the elections are held.

Let's face it. There have been no prior extensive hearings in the Senate. There has been no previous consideration of the Constitutional issues in the House of Representatives. And the Chairman of the House Committee which holds jurisdiction over the subject is known to possess a career-long record of opposition to dropping the voting In circumstances such as these, the House is not about to follow the statutory route until it can study the matter for itself.

This means that passage o'f the Voting Rights bill is certain to be endangered, and at the very least held up, if the voting age question is tied to the pending Senate bill. Let's also face up to the fact that we do not yet have the kind of solid legislative record that is needed to bring the issue before the Courts. We have only the testimony of two or three United States Senators and two Professors of law to show that this can be done by a statute.

While this might be impressive to those of us who are among this group, I am not so certain we have won our case before the entire Congress or before the nine men in black robes who sit in the chamber across the street.

We st111 need to hear the ring of clashing viewpoints that will help us sort out and refine the strongest legal arguments for our cause.

We still have not heard from any State or local officials who might want to advise us of their problems or give us their recommendations as to the swiftest way in which the Constitutional questions can be decided in the courts.

Therefore, the junior Senator from Kentucky and I wm seek to lower the voting age by means of a separate bill, which can be considered on its own merits.

Our bill will provide for the unusual step of an appeal directly to the Supreme Court from a three-judge District Court. By removing the Court of Appeals as the "middle man," the time between the filing of the case and its disposition by the Supreme Court w111 be greatly shortened.

And if there are any other means by which we can improve this feature of our bill, I will stand ready to support it.

For example, I am working on the draft of a provision which would allow a court action to be filed for the purpose of obtaining a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the statute. Something on this order has been used in the original Voting Rights Act of 1965, and if appropriate here, it would provide a means to settle the legal issues without tying up an election.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I agree 100% with the proposal to grant full voting rights to our young Americans. To me , 18 is old Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a four-part summary on the most recent State actions to lower the voting age, and I ask that this material be inserted at the end of my statement .

APPENDIX TO SENATOR GOLDWATER'S TESTIMONY I. 18-, 19-, AND 20-YEAR-OLD POPULATION

1. Age 18: Male-------------------------- 1,830,000 Female ----------------------- 1, 776, 000 2. Age 19: Male-------------------------- 1,781,000 Female------------------------ 1, 729,000 3. Age 20: ~le -------------------------- 1,791,000 Female ------------------------ 1, 747, 000 Total naales ______________ 5 , 402,000 Total fenaales ____________ 5,252,000 Total population _________ 10,654,000 SoURCE.-United States Bureau of the Census, as of July 1, 1969.

U. RECENT STATE ACTION TO LOWER THE VOTING

1. Alaska. In 1969 the legislature passed an amendment to lower the voting age from 19 to 18. The proposal will go to the voters in the 1970 elections.

2. California. In 1969 the California Constitutional Commission recommended lowering the voting age to 19.

3. Connecticut. In 1969 the Connecticut legislature approved an 18-year-old vote proposal which will go on the ballot in November,1970.

4. Delaware. The State legislature passed a 19-year-old vote amendment in 1969. If repassed by the legislature in 1970 or 1971, it will take effect.

5. Hawaii. In 1969 the legislature approved an 18-year-old vote amendment. It will be on the ballot in 1970.

6. Maine. In 1969 the legislature passed a 20-year-old amendment. It will go before the voters in 1970.

7. Massachusetts. In 1967 the General Court approved a reduction in the voting age to 19. That approval was confirmed again by the General Court in 1969. It wm be submitted to the voters in 1970.

8. Minnesota. In 1969 the legislature approved an amendment lowering the voting age to 19. This proposal will be on the ballot in 1970.

9. Montana. In 1969 approval was given to a 19-year-old amendment by the legislature. It will be submitted to the voters in 1970. 10. Nebraska. The legislature approved a 20-year-old vote amendment in 1969. This proposal will be submitted to the voters in 1970.

11. Nevada. In 1969 the legislature approved an 18-year-old voting amendment. It must reapprove in 1971 to place the question on the 1972 ballot.

12. Oregon. The legislature passed a 19- year-old vote amendment in 1968. It will go to the voters in 1970.

13. Wyoming. In 1969 the legislature passed a 19-year-old vote proposal. It will be submitted to the voters in 1970.

IU. VOTER APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE

1. Alaska. The State constitution contains a provision making all citizens 19 years of age and older entitled to vote. The constitution was approved by a 2 to 1 majority of the voters on April 24, 1956.

2. Georgia. In 1943 the voters ratified the 18-year-old voting amendment. The vote was 42,284 (yes) and 19,682 (no).

3. Hawaii. The State entered the Union in 1959 under the constitution of 1950, which lowered the voting age to 20. Ratification: 82,788 (for) and 27,109 (against).

4. Kentucky. In 1955 a referendum was held to lower the voting age to 18. The proposal passed by a 2¥2 to 1 margin: 190,838 (for) and 107,650 (against).

IV. VOTER REJECTIONS OF PROPOSALS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE

1. Idaho. In 1960 a referendum was held on the proposal to amend the constitution to lower the voting age to 19. The measure was defeated: 113,594 (yes) and 155,548 (no). 2. Hawaii. In 1968 the voters specifically rejected a part of the new constitution which would have lowered the voting age to 18. The vote was 72 , 930 (yes) and 80,660 (no). 3. Maryland. In 1968 a constitutional provision to lower the voting age to 19 was defeated by the electorate. The vote was 283 , 050 (yes) and 366,575 (no).

4. Michigan. In the 1966 elections, the Michigan voters defeated a referendum to lower the voting age to 18. The vote was 1,267,872 (yes) and 703,076 (no).

5. Nebraska. In 1968 a proposal to lower the voting age to 19 was submitted to the voters. The vote was 246,672 (yes) and 255,- 051 (no).

6. New Jersey. In 1969 the voters decisively rejected a proposal to lower the voting age to 18 years old. The vote was 788,978 (yes) and 1,154,606 (no).

7. North Dakota. In 1968 a 19-year-old voting age amendment went to the voters. It was rejected: 59,034 (yes) and 61,813 (no). 8. Ohio. In 1969 the voters considered a 19-year-old vote amendment. It was rejected: 1,226,590 (for) and 1,274,334 (against).

9. Oklahoma. In 1952 the proposal to lower the voting age to 18 was overwhelmingly defeated at the referendum . The vote was 233 , - 094 (yes) and 639,224 (no).

10. South Dakota. In 1958 the voters defeated a proposal to lower the voting age to 18. The vote was 71 , 033 (yes) and 137,942 11. Tennessee. In 1968, the voters rejected a referendum proposal to allow the Constitutional Convention to consider lowering the voting age to 18. The vote was 236,214 (yes) and 290,922 (no).

SOURCE.-For Items 2, 3, and 4: Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, Report Number 69, 241, December 11, 1969.

RESUMPTION OF PROCEEDINGS

Mr. GoLDWATER . Mr. President, the goal of extending full voting rights to all Americans 18 and over is one which I have worked for throughout a long time.

Today it was my privilege to restate my position before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. At that time I announced that it was my intention to join as a coauthor of a bill to be introduced today by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOK).

Our bill is designed to establish a nationwide minimum voting age of 18 and to obtain a swift judicial decision on the constitutional issues involved.

Our bill is not a gesture. It is not put forth merely to promote a discussion. We are firmly convinced that Congress may act by way of a statute.

But we do not wish to risk the voting opportunities of tens of millions of Americans by adding the age issue into the voting right struggle.

Nor do we intend to cast a cloud over the 1970 general elections by enacting a law whose validity is likely to be unsettled by the time the elections are held.

In our view, the responsible way to handle this proposal is to offer a completely separate bill to lower the voting age, which can be considered in committee and stand on its own merits.

One important feature of our bill is that it provides for the unusual step of an appeal directly to the Supreme Court from a threejudge district court. By removing the court of appeals as the middle man, the time between the filing of the case and its dispos i tion by the Supreme Court will be greatly shortened.

And 1f there are any other me a ns by which detail. we can carry out this goal of our bill, I will stand ready to support it.

For example, I am working on the draft of a provision which would allow a court action to be filed for the purpose of obtaining a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the statute. Something like this has been used in section 10(b) of the original Voting Rights Act of 1965. And, if appropriate here, it would provide a means to settle the legal Issues Without tying up an election .

It is this kind of question that we need time to study in detail.

We also need to hear the ring of clashing viewpoints that Will help us sort out and refine the strongest legal arguments th a t will support our cause.

Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I believe the wisest course is for Congress to act on separate legislation, rather than on an amendment to the voting rights bill .

Mr. President , to my mind Congress may properly act by means of a statute.