March 9, 1971 (4)

The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution-Senate Joint Resolution 7-proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States extending the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, what is the pending question before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BELLMON) . The question is on agreeing to the amendments-No. 11-offered by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) to Senate Joint Resolution 7.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank the Chair.

QUORUM CALL

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I rise to support the pending measure, Senate Joint Resolution 7 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States extending the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution so that it may be submitted to the legislatures of the several States for their consideration.

Last March, almost a year ago, the Senate attached to another measure a provision to lower the voting age in State and national elections by simple statute. At that time I warned that such a course was unconstitutional and that the matter could not be resolved on the basis of legislation alone. The Senate was urged to reject that proposal and to proceed to approve a constitutional amendment for the ratification by threefourths of the States. It was my posi­ sence. tion then as it is now that the question of voter qualifications should be left to the States for decision. In its decision on this new law, Oregon v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court upheld this position. While stating that Congress has the power to set the voting age for presidential and congressional elections, Mr. Justice Black speaking for the High Court struck down the statute as it applied to State and local elections.

The result of this decision is that election nightmares potentially face 47 States in 1972. Without an amendment such as we are considering today, all but the three States which currently permit 18-year-old.s to vote may have to hold what, in effect, will be dual elections in November 1972. All voters 18 or older would be permitted to register and vote in national elections, but only those 21 or older-or whatever the minimum age for the particular State happens to tiewould be eligible to participate in State and local plebiscites. Leaving aside the obvious question of why an 18-year-old citizen should be permitted to vote for President of the United States but not for city councilman, the prospect of this type of dual system is disturbing. I fear that the result would be utter chaos.

In Nebraska alone, this system would result in about a 30-percent increase in election costs, approximately $300,000- not a big sum, in terms of the sums we consider here from day to day, but for a State with approximately 1,450,000 people and without some of the spectacular forms of wealth which other States are blessed with, it is a great deal of money, almost a third of a million dollars. Of course, it would go on in that way for each election which would follow, without the adoption of the present constitutional amendment.

Secretary of State Allen J. Beermann has indicated that "dual sets of ballots, registration forms, poll books, and abstracts" would have to be maintained for the two types of elections. Across the Nation this requirement might add between $10 and $20 million to the cost of holding elections. States would be hard pressed to find these additional funds at a time when budgets are especially tight. Secretary of State Beermann also believes that it would be necessary “to efficiently separate the younger voters and to include them upon their reaching the State's voting age, 20," which is the present age in my State. Another problem might arise in computing "total votes cast" which is used in Nebraska to compute the number of signatures necessary for certain petitions. The problem would arise in that there would be a different number of votes cast for President and for Governor, respectively.

It is most important that we submit this proposed amendment to the States for ratification promptly. For this amendment to be effective in 1972, 38 State legislatures must give their approval. But time is slipping away for this approval to be achieved during the current legislative session. Nearly 20 will not meet next year unless brought into special session. Thus, time is of the esThis Senator has been in favor of permitting our young people to participate in the electoral process for a number of years. It has been his position, however, that that decision should be made by the States themselves in one of two ways. One way is by enacting amendments to their own State constitutions, if that is necessary, or by adopting necessary legislation to achieve that purpose. The second way in which it could be done so that the States would resolve that issue and make the decision would be the method that is submitted in Senate Joint Resolution 7, which would propose an amendment to the Federal Constitution. In one or the other of these ways, the State would then make the decision.

Just last November, the voters of my State of Nebraska voted to lower the voting age from 21 to 20. I favored that constitutional amendment and I voted for it. In 1968 a proposal to lower the voting age to 19 was on Nebraska ballots. I favored that idea and voted for it, although a majority of my fellow citizens did not. I did so in the belief that the youth of this Nation are intelligent enough to make a significant contribution to this country through the ballot One of the arguments used, of course, is that if they are old enough to :fight, they are old enough to vote. I do not know that that has any particular applicability here. A much more solid, substantial, and logical basis would be that they have the intelligence and the knowhow and the ability to cast a ballot and do it well-those of them who will do so. It was forecast by many of the witnesses that very likely the total number of 18 to 21 years of age citizens voting would be relatively small to start with, but in due time I would have every confidence that they would respond in bigger numbers. It is therefore a great pleasure for me to support the proposed national amendment, urge its approval in this body, and ask that the various State legislatures ratify it as promptly as possible.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, ·will the Senator yield?

Mr. HRUSKA. I yield.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presiident , I take just a moment to compliment the able Senator from Nebraska on the statement he has just made. I have joined with him in the past, I think, in taking the position that this matter should be effectuated by way of constitutional amendment rather than by a Federal statute.

Last year, I voted for the amendment lowering the age to 18. I voted for it as as an expression of personal support for the idea. But I voted against the act itself on final passage because I believe that the setting of qualifications of voters is a matter which has been left to the States under the Federal Constitution. Article I, section 2; article n, section 1 ; and the 17th amendment to the Fede r al Constitution all make it indubitably clear, in my judgment, that the prerogative of determining the qualifications of voters is a prerogative that is left to the respective States.

It is for that reason-believing as I did that this is a matter which the Federal Government could not legislate and that only the people could determine it under the Constitution-that I voted against the act. But I say again, I voted for the amendment as an expression of my position and as more or less a statement of principle anent the subject of lowering the voting age. I join the Senator today in expressing support, if he will allow me, for this proposal which is before the Senate and which, in my judgment, is the proper way to go about the whole matter.

We will be providing the people of the United States with an opportunity to vote upon a con : titutional amendment to lower to 18 the age for voters in State and local elections.

I compliment the Senator.

Mr. HRUSKA. Of course, the bulk of the required majority approved in both bodies is the other way of going about it. There is, needless to say, but I shall say it, the fact that we would have been far ahead had we taken the words of caution to heart and proceeded a lot more providently and a little more deliberately and adopted at that time the resolution we have before us today. By this time, I have an idea that most legislatures that wanted to favor this would have acted. This is March and most legislatures meet in January, but that is water over the dam. We should pay attention to what is before us, rather than commiserate about what could or could not have happened by the adoption of another course cf actior.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield?

Mr. HRUSKA. I yield.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I feel that the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from West Virginia have put this matter in its proper perspective. When the question of lowering the voting age came before the Senate last year, I took the same position as did the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from West Virginia, that the question of the voting age was a matter to be determined by the citizens of the individual States. Ever since we have had a Union, each State has had the right to make its own decision as to what age would entitle its citizens to vote. As we all know, four States have lowered the voting age-two to 18, one to 20, and one to 19. In the last election, other States lowered the voting age I think that is the appropriate procedure. I was very much opposed to the procedure taken a year ago by the Senate and Congress in attempting to lower the voting age by statute.

As a result of that, as the distinguished and able Senator from Nebraska has just pointed out, this Nation finds itself in the fix it is in today. So I think it is most appropriate that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska should present to the Senate the resolution he has now presented.

Mr. HRUSKA. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his contribution.

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield?

Mr. HRUSKA. I yield.

Mr. FANNIN. I join my colleagues from West Virginia and Virginia in commending the very capable and articulate Senator from Nebraska who has so capably placed this issue in its proper perspective before the Senate today.

· I, too, felt as I did, as other Senators have expressed it, that this issue should have been settled and should be settled now by a constitutional amendment.

I have always felt that the people of this country at the State level, as provided in the Constitution, have the right to make this decision. Some States have already made that decision, and the resuit has been beneficial. Thus, I feel that this is the proper method in which to determine this issue. I certainly commend the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for the manner in which he has presented his case.

Mr. HRUSKA. The Senator from Arizona is very generous. We all know that the State legislatures did not have to wait. They do not have to wait today, in order to take action on their own, to permit voters to vote from the age of 18 and up. Any time they wanted to, since the beginning of their entrance into the Union, they could have fashioned it into their Constitution or enacted legislation accordingly, and gone into business along that line.

The fact that they did not, may or may not mean something when this resolution comes before their legislatures to be acted upon. Only the future will tell that.

Mr. FANNIN. I wholeheartedly agree with the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. HRUSKA. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his contribution.