February 2, 1960 (2)

The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) to amend the Constitution to authorize Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House of Representatives.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to all amendments to Senate Joint Resolution Particularly I rise in opposition to the amendment presented by the senior Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] which would set into motion an amendment to the Constitution of the United Sta te s which would declare, in essence, that payment of State poll taxes levied by States would become a Federal matter. This amendment to the Cons tit ution would make it unconstitutional for a State to require payment of poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. I have contended all along that matters pertaining to the qualification of voters fall within the jurisdiction of the States, and not the Federal Government.

Particularly, too, do I rise in opposition to the amendment presented by the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Javits]. The fundamental basis upon which I build my opposition is that poll tax legislation is a State matter, and a matter in which the Federal Government has no business. By Federal Government I mean the Congress of the · United States, the President of the United States and all of his officers. This matter has been settled, once and for all, I hope, by several court rulings, the latest of which was rendered by the United States Supreme Court on May 28, 1951, in Butler v. Thompson (341 U.S. 937).

Mr. President, before I go further, I wish to point out to the Senate of the United States that South Carolina has no poll tax prerequisite to voting and that we have not had any such requirement for the past 9 years. The people of South Carolina decided that matter by a constitutional amendment which was ratified by the general assembly in 1951.

It might be news to some to know that it was first written into the constitution of South Carolina in 1868, in Reconstruction Days, when the colored people had charge of our State government; and it was reenacted in 1895, and remained in the law until 1951, when repealed by the people of my State.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Can the Senator tell me offhand what States still impose a poll tax as a condition for voting?

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. There are only five such States. I cover that point in my discourse, and will go into it later. Then I shall be glad to answer the question of the Senator.

Prior to 1951 we fought, just as bitterly as we fight today, attempts by the Federal Government to repeal State laws requiring payment of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting in State elections. South Carolinians removed payment of poll taxes as a voting requirement. It was their State right to make such a decision. Other States may not wish to change their poll tax laws, and we have no right in the Senate to force such a change upon the people of any State. The right to establish certain qualifications for voters has been guaranteed to the individual States by the Constitution even since we became a nation.

I call attention to the fact that poll taxes were in effect even prior to the adoption of the Constitution, in colonial days.

"Whether or not any individual Senator believes the payment of a poll tax should or shoud not be a qualification for voting has nothing to do with the underlying principle which is at stake here today. The principle that is involved is not th e poll t ax itself, but the principle of the right of States to control their own election machinery and to set forth qualifications o ns which citizens must meet before they are eligible to vote.

Mr. President, it is - obvious to me and other Members of the Senate who have studied the Constitution and who know anything about the history behind all of this type legislation, that the amendment proposed by the senior Senator from New York and others is unconstitutional, and would be so declared by the courts, in my opinion.

The reason for this is found in the decision of Butler against Thompson, which I have cited previously. It was on May 28, 1951, in this case on appeal from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District . of Virginia, that the . Supreme Court granted a motion to affirm the lower court's judgment on a poll tax situation. The lower court had stated that the decisions generally held that a State statute which imposes a reasonable poll tax as a condition of the right of vote does not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States protected by the 14th amendment.

I quote in part the exact language of - this decision:

• • • · the decisions generally hold that a St ate statute which imposes a reasonable poll tax as a condition of the right to vote does not abridge the privileges or immunities of cit iz ens of the United States which are protected by the 14th amendment. The privile lege of voting is derived from the State and not from the National Government. The qualification · of voters in an election for Members of Congress is set out in article I, section 2, clause 1 of the Federal Constitution which provides that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. The Supreme Court in Breedlove v. Suttles (302 U.S. 277, 283, 58 S. Ct. 205, 82 L. Ed. 252), held that a poll tax prescribed by the constitution and statutes of the State of Georgia did not offend the Federal Constitution.

Mr. President, the language is clear and explicit: The privilege of voting is derived from the State and not from the National Government. There is no clearer way to state the matter.

There are legislators in the Senate and in the House who carry around in their hip pocket, as Bibles to follow, so to speak, the decisions of the Supreme Court. Hardly a day goes by in Washington that some legislator does not cry out about Supreme Court rulings being the law of the land. Certainly they have hammered this home sufficiently about the 1954 school integration decision. While I do not agree with these legislators that any Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land, because Supreme Courts are subject to error as is any other human group, I wish that the Senators who feel that Supreme Court rulings in cases of integration are laws of the land would be consistent and, in this instance, agree that the decision in Butler against Thompson · equally be considered the law of the land. In light of this, I should hope, too, that the sponsors of this amendment would withdraw it since the Supreme Court has stated it is a State matter and that the Federal Government has no business meddling in such State matters. Of course, I imagine this would be too much to expect at this time.

In the .lower court's decision in Butler against Thompson, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, the following language was used, which is as clear as any language anyone can cite:

To make payment of poll taxes a prerequisite of voting is not to deny any privilege or immunity protected by the 14th amendment. Privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the State and, save as restrained by the 15th and J9th amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the State may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate. (Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 170 et seq., 22 L. Ed. 627; . Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 664-665.)

Surely this language of the highest Court in the land should be clear enough to those who would try to legislate in CongresS on a State matter that they are in error in trying to do so.

For the moment, so much for the unconstitutionality of the amendment proposed by the senior Senator from New York and others.

I should like to go into the amendment proposed by the senior Senator from Florida.

At the outset I must admit that anyone can offer any amendment to the Constitution and be within the law, so to speak. However, anyone can certainly question the wisdom of any such amendment proposed.

In the first place, there are only 5 States which still have the payment of the poll tax as a prerequisite to vote. · This means 45 other States do not require the payment of poll taxes in order to make one eligible to vote. At this late date, to go through the very expensive and cumbersome procedure to amend the Constitution in order to force the will of 45 State upon 5 remaining States is certainly poor sportsmanship and poor business, to say the least.

The great danger in the amendment proposed by the senior Senator from Florida is not just that it would keep the five remaining States from requiring the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to vote. The real danger lies in the grotesque form which this amendment to the C onst itution would take.

It would become a wedge in the door for further amendments and even unconstitutional legislation to enable the Federal Government to completely control all elections in the United States. If we have the right to pass j'udgment on a small matter like poll tax provisions, then what will prevent us next year from coming back and proposing the elimination of other, or even all, State prerequisites for voting?

The great trouble is that the Constitution will become a cold document instead of a living charter to guide us. I have looked into some State constitutions and have seen how they have been amended and amended and amended. They have almost become codes instead of constitutions. I think constitutions should be brief and should cover all the points which constitutions should cover, and that the legislatures should legislate on all matters which are not contrary to the constitution.

If States are not allowed to maintain this important right of establishing qualifications for their electors within the · · safeguards now contained in the . Constitution, then those who wish to take - away this one constitutional right might well try to broaden the amendment proposed by the Senator from Florida in some future amendment to include all qualifications.

I think it would be well at this point that we refresh our minds with the provisions of article 1, section 2, of the Constitution, which provides:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the · qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislation.

The Congress recognized this reservation of power within the several States when the 17th amendment to the Constitution was proposed by the Congress to the States for their ratification. That amendment in its first paragraph pro- . vides:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof for 6 _ years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. Historically, the voting privilege was extended to make inhabitants of a State in all the Original Thirteen States upon the basis of the State laws of those States. Some of them required a specific poll tax. All of them required the ownership of varying amounts of property-either real estate or personal property. Each State had varying other laws-First, age; second, residence in the · State; third, residence in the county, district, or precinct; fourth, innocence of crime or conviction of crime; fifth, and many other provislons-which determined the qualifications for voting.

Various States have various laws on these subjects; but all of them, r..s will . be noted, provide for residence not in the United States, but in the States, and even in - the counties, · districts, or precincts.

It is my contention that we in the Congress have no right to interfere with the time-honored and respected provision of our Constitution that each . State has the right to determine for itself who within its borders is qualified to vote. While each of the original Thirteen States imposed some sort of taxation upon its eligible electors, and while the requirement of a poll tax now exists in only five States; namely, Alabama, Ax• kansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia-we should not by our act attempt to sit in judgment upon a matter exclusively within the wisdom, discretion, and judgment of the people of the State& concerned.

It is not too much to suppose that the remaining five States in due time will dispense with the requirement of a poll tax. But this is a matter solely of their concern, not of Congress. Why, then, should we set the date for them. It is their constitutional prerogative to do with this particular requirement as they see fit. It is nei.ther our function nor our duty to impose our will upon them by even a constitutional provision for the Constitution already provides in this case. Anyone has the right to propose it, but we have the responsibility to look beyond the immediate effects of such proposals and act wisely-in this case to reject it. If we approve this amendment, then what will prevent us from setting · the age limits, the residence restrictions, the registration provisions and all the other numberless details which each of the 50 .States acting within its reserved powers may establish for the exercise of. this privilege of voting. The entire purpose of the two constitutional provisions . I have set forth can be whittled away, so that the entire reservation of a State's power may become meaningless and worthless.

We would then be ready to have set up in Washington a bureaucracy clothed with power to establish the eligibility of voters in each State. When a vacuum is created by removing State powers, Federal powers are invited to fill the void. Such action, I contend, would be contrary to the express will of our Founding Fathers. Had such action been taken or proposed in 1787 there would have been no United States of America. The Colonies would have rejected a union. The debates in the Continental Congress; the Federalist Papers, and the minutes taken of the deliberations of the Representatives in that Congress prove this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do not believe in the theory of government that all wisdom is here at the seat of our Government. I believe in States rights: I believe we govern too much from Washington. I believe, as Jefferson believed, that the people · governed best are governed least. He ~ also believed that the greatest wisdom for government resided in the people and when removed from the people, bad gov- ernment usually followed;

The elective process is one of the most vital, sensitive, and important powers remaining with the people of our several States. I would not as a citizen of South Carolina wish to impose one · of · its · laws upon the State of New York, or Tennessee, or Florida, or Utah, or any other State, through a constitutional amendment if such a law violated a power reserved to any one of those States.

The Federal branches of Government have too often raided our States' powers, usurped them, and imposed our will upon them. The time has come to halt this trend. The time has come for us to give back to the States some of the powers the Federal Government ought never to have assumed.

The Federal Gove:r:nment is now topheavy and is becoming more so. The Federal Government has drained the States of their sources of revenue. We have allowed laws to be construed so generously and oftentimes so unwisely that in many instances only · the imaginary line divides our sovereign States. Thus sovereignty is destroyed. The rights of the people are lost. . They are in a Federal straitJacket. We lose our greatness as a Nation when the rights of our States are destroyed. These are not mere . · words. These .are eternal truths.

Mr. President, in summary we come back to the original joint resolution which was studied thoroughly by the Committee on the Judiciary and reported without amendment by the senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER].

This proposed amendment to the constitution of the United States gives to the States, through their elected executive authority, the power to make temporary appointments to fill vacancies occurring in the House of Representatives in time of emergency.

This joint resolution, without all these hampering, politically inspired amendments, is sound legislation. It does not take from the States any rights, but it gives to the States a right. · This proposed amendment to the Constitution is vital in this day of possible widespread destruction. If an atomic bomb .were to be dropped on Congress while in session, the Nation could possibly be without a Congress. It would Qe tremendously important that the executive au- thorities of the various States have the power immediately to fill such a vacuum . of authority in the Federal legislative branch.

If the sponsors of the various amendments to Senate Joint Resolution 39 are successful, I predict that this legislation will never be passed by the Congress. That being so, the sponsors of these amendments will have rendered their country a terrible disservice; and we will hold them responsible if some catastrophe occurs and if our Congress cannot conduct its business. The sponsors of these amendments . ents should prepare their suggested legislation and should submit it to the proper committees of the Senate for . thorough study. Such measures should be acted on separately, and should not be tacked on as piecemeal patches that will destroy the meaning and sense of Senate Joint Resolution 39. ·

These amendments threaten to destroy the results of the long study and the hard · work of the Judiciary Committee which -went into Senate Joint Resolution I should · think that by now we would have learned that we cannot legislate on the floor of the Senate without becoming embroiled and entangled in time-consuming and effort-wasting debate. This is what has happened in this instance. A universally supported important Senate joint resolution has become bogged down because of attempts to legislate on the floor of the Senate.

I hope the Senate will have the good sense to reject all amendments being proposed as attachments to Senate Joint Resolution 39. In doing so, the Senate will be paying respect to the labors of the Judiciary Committee and, simultaneously, will be rendering the Nation a tremendously important service.

Mr. President, in July 1948, the late Senator Burnet R. Maybank spoke at great length in defense of retention by the States of powers controlling the qualifications for voters. In particular, he referred to the requirement of paying poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting . . At that time South Carolina still had this requirement. Bu, as I pointed out earlier, it was subsequently repealed by constitutional amendment that was ratified by the state legislature.

The late Senator Maybank pointed out some very important facts concerning the history of South Carolina's poll tax. I wish to quote from what he said:

The practice, custom, and tradition of levying a poll tax in the State of South Carolina had its origin prior to the American Revolution. In 1702 the general assembly passed an act for the purpose of raising re ve nue to be used in the defense of Charles Town. This act provided that 550 British pounds per annum be raised by a poll tax (spelled p-o-1-e). It provi de d for the payment of 20 shillings per annum by each man within the bounds of the town who was cap a ble of bearing arms. It is interesting to note that this act also provided for the payment of 20 shillings per annum by every single woman or widow who was a housekeeper within the bounds of the town. Thus we find that from the earliest time the poll tax was used as a revenue measure, which, indeed, it is today in South Carolin a .

This is proof that the existence of a poll tax came prior to the Constitution, and, for that very reason, was a right retained by the States under our Constitution. It is another reason why we should not tamper with th is State right. We would be going behind the Constitution and, in a sense, breaking faith with those who wrote the Constitution if we were to do so. .

I wish to quote further from what Senator Ma:ybank said:

In 1876 Wade Hampton was elected Governor of the State of South Carolina, thus returning the official leadership of the State back to the citizens of South Carolina. Shortly thereafter the legislature passed an act providing for the collection of a poll tax referred to in the constitution of 1868. This act was ratified on March 22, 1878, and reads as follows:

"That the several county treasurers shall retain all the poll tax collected in their respective counties; and it is hereby made the duty of the said county treasurer in collecting the poll tax, to keep an account of the exact amount of said tax collected in each school district in his county • • • and the poll tax collected therein shall be expended for school purposes in the school district from which it was collected."

From this we see there was a definite pu rp ose and need for poll tax legislation; and · the requirement that people pay this tax before they could vote was a. necessary way to enforce payment of the tax. If a. citizen desires the right to vote, he should carry with that responsibility the support of his State and its institutions-in this instance, the schools. I do not think it is too much to ask a citizen to pay his fair share of the burden of the cost of government if he is going to have a · voice in saying how the government is to function. The late Senator Maybank was discussing the constitutionality of legislation proposed at that time, 1948, which was legislation that would be comparable to what we are considering in the · Senate today. Here is what Senator Maybank had to say:

The proposed legislation is in direct conflict with article I, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States in that it attempts to take from the several States a right guaranteed to the States by the Constitution. This proposed legislation, known and designated as H.R. 29, and entitled "An act making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election for national officers," is in effect changing the qualifications for electors for national officers in violation of article I, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

Article I, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature."

This section of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. The framers of the Constitution wisely decided that the qualifications requisite for electors of the House of Representatives should be left entirely to the several States. It is true that the qualifications of these electors may not be the same in each of the several States, which itself shows that the framers of the Constituion did not desire uniformity.

Mr. President, ever since this speech was made by Senator Maybank, the Supreme Court has ruled generally, but in most specific terms, that there is no such thing as Federal suffrage. There is only State suffrage and the power to create such suffrage was not one granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, but, on the contrary, to the several States. This guarantee of State suffrage to the States is the most important single bulwark against a Federal Government controlling the ballot boxes of the Nation. If Federal control of the ballot boxes of the Nation were to ever come about, we would no longer be a United States, but we would be a Federal institution which could be controlled by a handful of directors sitting in Washington. God forbid that this ever happen.

Mr. President, I have heretofore referred to the fact that if the Federal Government is given the power to nullify the poll tax requirements, the power is vested also by the proposed amendment to regulate other matters affecting the eligibility for voting. The age limit is one. In some States the age limit has been reduced to 18. In others it is maintained at the age of 21, when it is generally accepted that one attains his majority. If it is agreeable and suitable to the people - of some States to allow their citizens to vote at 18, of what possible concern should that be either to us here in Washington or to the people of any of the other States which maintain the requirement at the age of 21? Certainly, it is no concern to the citizens of my State of South Carolina that our good neighbors in Georgia have set the eligibility age at 18, rather than 21, in accordance with the South Carolina requirements.

Some States require residence for 6 months, others for a year, and others for varying lengths of time. Affidavits as to residence, proof of payment of taxes, and many other detailed requirements are set out in the many laws of our several States on this question alone. Should we tamper with the local problems involved? Some people live part of the year in one State and the rest of the year elsewhere. In which State should such a citizen vote? I contend the length of one's residence within a State which may entitle him to vote is a matter strictly within the State's rights which may be affected by the one applying for a voting privilege. It is none of our concern. What right have we, other than by mere force of numbers, to meddle into the local affairs which have been considered State prerogatives since the founding of our Government? I am old fashioned enough in many things to believe in the doctrine that what was good for our fathers is good for us. · Especially do I hold this view in relation to the decentralization of government and in permitting the people of the States affected the greatest latitude of choice in running their local affairs. The rule of the thumb established here, conformity at all times to the prevailing but ever-changing attitude of Washington or a permanent constitutional straitjacket established under Federal authority, are attitudes and judgments which do gross violence to the powers reserved to the people of our States. We should leave this power where it was originally vested.

As was so clearly stated yesterday, the proposed amendment and the statute lead in the direction which eventually would permit idiots, lunatics, criminals, and a horde of others now disqualified to vote. All we might need in the future would be a lot of ballyhoo trumped up by some so-called aggrieved minority group to start the ball rolling in many directions otherwise considered by the States as elements of disqualification. The theory would be that Washington would establish the pattern, cut the cloth, and manufacture the garment. The people in the States would be required to use the garment whether or not it fitted their desires or needs. I have no sympathy for any movement that will rob the people of our sovereign States of powers solely and wholly vested in them.

While I cannot question the right of the Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to do away with the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting, I do seriously question the wisdom of our invasion into a. field heretofore strictly reserved to the States. Let each State continue to be the final arbiter · of its law$ , pertaining to the eligibility of its electors. · That was the rule in the beginning. It has _ been the rule since 1789 Under it we have prospered and remained strong as a representative democracy longer than any other nation in the history of mankind. Why now meddle, tamper, or tinker with one of the fundamentals? There is no need for it. There is no demand for it except · under the color of claim that some are being disfranchised. There is no evidence--worthwhile evidence--to support such a contention.

Mr. President, I share wholeheartedly the views expressed by the dist i nguished Senators from Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi on the two questions now before us. The many - local problems which we attempt to solve here by Federal legislation can and should be solved at the local level. There the people are in day-by-day contact with their needs, desires, and requirements. We cannot, by necessity, know them as well as they do. We cannot solve these problems as adequately and satisfactorily as they The last resort of the right to vote is fixed by the Constitution to be within the province of the laws of each of the 50 States. Uniformity is neither required nor desired. It is diversity of opinion and action that makes for progress. Uniformity leads to inaction, decrepitude, and finally to decay and ruin. Difference makes for progress. It makes for human betterment and achievement. It · is because we, as individuals and as States, have acted individually that we as a people and a Nation have prospered. Shall we by our act here begin a further erosion of these fundamental principles?

The contention is urged that the imposition of a poll tax in some way violates or infringes upon the provisions of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. This is no new contention. It has been shown again and again that there is no violation of rights guaranteed to our citizens by the amendments because of a State's poll tax requirements. In the case of Pirtle v. Brown (118 Federal 2d 221), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States ruled upon the question as to whether the matter was within the jurisdiction of the State, and said:

-To make payment of poll taxes a prerequisite to voting is not to deny any privilege or immunity protected by the 14th amendment . Privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the State and , save as restrained by the 15th and 19th amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the State may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate (citing cases). The privileges and immunities protected are only those that arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and not those that spring from other sources. Ham i lton v. Regents (293 U.S. 245, 261; 79 L. Ed., 343) . ·

The Supreme Court of the United States has held, in the case of Breedlove Bridges v. Settles (302 U.S. 277, 278), that the power to require a poll tax is a power reserved to the States unde~ the Constitu• tion. - Breedlove atempte-d to vote in Georgia without the payment of a poll tax. His contention was that the Georgia Carroll constitution and statute requiring the payment of a poll tax and a registration certificate violated the 14th and 19th amendments to the Constitution. The Court, at pages 283 and 284, said: : ~

To make payment of poll taxes a prerequi­ Kefauver site of voting is not to deny any privilege or immunity protected by the 14th amendment. Privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the St a te * • • the payment of poll taxes as a prerequisite of voting is a familiar regulation long enforced · in many States and for more than a century in Georgia • • * and the e xa ction of payment · before registration, the right to vote is neither denied nor abridged on account of sex . . It is f a nciful to suggest that the Georgia law is a mere di s guise und e r which to deny or abr i dge tJ;le right of me n to vote on account of sex.

My contention is that we should not by a constitutional amendment authorize a further depriv a tion of rights to even five States which require the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite of voting. My State has no such require- , but my State should not attempt in this regard to impose its will upon Mis s issippi, Texas, Arkansas, or the others. If we can set such a pattern for eligibility, we can raise or lower the age requirements; we can dispense with the residential qualification; we can become the overlord of all the qualifications. We can turn our backs on the superior wisdom, judgment, forbearance, and patience of our Founding Fathers.

Certainly, for the reasons I have given and the constitutional bases for them, we, in the Congress, wholly lack the power to pass an act which would so impinge upon the powers · and prerogatives reserved to our States. Because there may be the necessary votes at hand gives us no moral or legal right to impose our will in an unconstitutional manner. It would be an act of unadulterated deceit to curry · favor with a minority group by passing a fanciful act to satisfy their morbid desires when we know, or should know, that such an act will not satisfy the elementary constitutional requirements involved. It is sheer hypocrisy on our part to fritter away our time in such an unnecessary endeavor. Let us stand by the Constitution, uphold our Founding Fathers, and get along with worthwhile considerations of the Nation's pressing problems. We have plenty to do in attending to our constitutional duties.

Mr. President, I raise the point of no quorum; without · losing my right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LAUSCHE in the Chair). The clerk Will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Case, N.J. Fong Allott Case, S. Dak. Frear Anderson Chavez Fulbright Bartlett Church Goldwater Beall Clark Gore Bible Cooper Green

Cotton Gruening

Brunsdale Curtis Hart Bush Dirksen Hartke Butler Dodd Hayden Byrd , Va. Douglas Hennings Byrd, w . va. Dworshak Hickenlooper Cannon Ellender Hill Carlson Engle Holland

- Ervin Hruska

Humphrey McNamara. · schoeppel Jackson Magnuson Scott Javits Martin Smith . Johnson, Tex. Monroney Sparkman Johnston, S.C. Morse Stennis · Jordan Morton Symington Keating Mundt Talmadge

Muskie Thurmond

Kerr Pastore Wiley Kuchel Prouty Williams, N.J. Lausche Proxmire Williams, Del. Long, Hawaii Randolph Yarborough Long , La . Robertson Young, N.Dak. McCarthy Russell Young, Ohio McClellan Saltonstall

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], and the Senator from Montana [Mr. MuRRAY] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND] is absent because of illness and is confined to the hospital.

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. NEuBERGER] and - the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O ' O’MAHONEY] is absent because of illness.

The Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] is absent on official business attending the Latin-American Trade Study Mission as chairman of the Latin-American Trade Subcommittee of - the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] is absent on official business.

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART] is necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND]. .

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Holland amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, this is one of the most important actions we could possibly take.

What we · are doing today is to add another bulwark to the most important of all our constitutional rights-the right to vote.

This is a country where we expect people to do things pretty much for themselves. I have always held to the philosophy that if I can protect a man's vote I have . given him the most important right that he can possibly have.

When a man has the vote, he has the power to help himself. And he stands on a par-where he should stand-with every other American.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. JAVITS. I understand that it will be in order, after action is taken on the Holland amendment, for me to move as substitute for the entire joint resolution a statutory provision to accomplish the same result. Is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry. ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator will state it.

Mr. KEATING. Do I correctly understand that if the · Holland amendment is agreed to, and my colleague from New York offers his statutory substitute for both the proposed constitutional amendments, and that fails, then the time. original joint resolution will be open either to amendment of the wording of the original Kefauver resolution, or by way of other amendments in the nature of an original constitutional amendment to the resolution?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. portions of the original resolution would be subject to amendment. Also, amendments to strike out and insert would be in order, provided that an amendment to strike out and insert should include more than that upon which the Senate is about to act-in other words, making a substantial change in the net result.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator will state it.

Mr. KEATING. It is my desire to offer a resolution amending the Constitution, to provide for the right of franchise to the citizens of the District of Columbia. ' Would that be in order after the Javits amendment had been disposed of?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is whether an amendment to give the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote would be · in order?

Mr. KEATING. Yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be in order.

Mr. KEATING. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HOLLAND subsequently said: Mr. President, my colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], is absent on official business in Latin America. He has asked me to have placed in the RECORD, just prior to the vote on my amendment, a statement of his position on it. I ask unanimous consent that that may be done.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT BY SENATOR SMATHERS

I am particularly pleased to be a cosponsor with my very able colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND], who has introduced the pending resolution, which provides that the right of citizens to vote in any Federal election shall not be denied or abridged by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax, or to meet any property qualification.

I know only too well of the long fight my distinguished colleague has had in bringing this measure to the floor of the Senate where it is today. Its sponsors are wide and varied, and its objective is highly laudable.

I regret that because of my official duties as chairman of the Latin American Subcommittee of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee I am required to be absent at this particular time, because I, too, would like to be personally present here today to give my wholehearted support to its adoption.

Because of my official absence, I have asked my distinguished senior colleague to EASTLAND] announce my support of the proposal.

Mr. SALTONSTALL subsequently said: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed just before the vote on the Holland amendment a statement on that amendment which I had intended to make, but did not have the opportunity to make at that precise There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SALTONSTALL

I am opposed to a poll t ax as a voting requirement for a U.S. citizen; I am opposed '!'he to the use of such a device to deny the right of any American to vote.

I have voted for the Holland amendment Bartlett because I feel that the poll tax can only be eliminated by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Under our Constitution, the right of franchise is a matter of the several States to determine for themselves. This is an area traditionally reserved for the States.

I do not believe, therefore, that prohibition of the poll tax can be brought about simply by passage of a Federal statute. It must be effected by the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution. This, in Church my opinion, is the only way to solve this Clark problem and to eliminate the poll tax requirement.

The . PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from . Florida [Mr. HOLLAND]. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. Ervin The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. GOLDWATER (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the junior Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "yea." If I were permitted to vote I would vote “nay.” I therefore withhold my vote.

The rollcall was concluded.

Mr ~ JOHNSON of Texas. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE], the Senator table. from Utah [Mr. Moss], and the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY] are absent agreed to. on official business.

The Senator from · Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND] is absent because of illness and is confined to the hospital.

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. NEuBERGER] and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] are absent because of illness.

The Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] is absent on official business attending the Latin American Trade Study Mission as chairman of the Latin American Trade Subcommittee of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD), the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. NEUBERGER] would each vote "yea."

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. is paired with the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY]. If present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi would vote "nay" and the Senator from Wyoming would vote

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] is absent on official business and, if present and voting, would vote "yea."

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. HART] is necessarily absent.

The result was announced-yeas 72, nays 16, as follows:

YEAS-72

. Aiken Dworshak Long, Hawaii Allott Engle Long, La. Anderson Fong McCarthy

Frear McNamara

Beall Gore Magnuson Bible Green Martin Bridges Gruening Monroney Brunsdale Hart Morse Bush Hartke Morton Butler Hayden Mundt Byrd, W.Va. Hennings Muskie Cannon Hickenlooper Pa st ore Carlson Holland Prouty Carroll Hruska Proxmire Case, N . J. Humphrey Randolph Case, S. Dak. Jackson Saltonstall Chavez Javits Schoeppel

Johnson, Tex. Scott

Jordan Smith

Cooper Keating Symington . Curtis Kefauver Williams, Del. Dirksen Kerr Williams, N.J. Dodd Kuchel Yarborough Douglas Lausche Young, Ohio

NAYS—16

Byrd, Va. Johnston, S.C. Talmadge Cotton McClellan Thurmond Ellender Robertson Wiley Russell Young, N.Dak. Fulbright Sparkman Hill Stennis

NOT VOTING-12

Bennett Kennedy Murray Capehart McGee Neuberger Eastland Mansfield O'Mahoney Goldwater Moss Smathers

So Mr. HoLLAND's amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the The motion to lay on the table was

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I wish to compliment the able Senator from Florida for the very earnest and successful :fight he has made in connection with having brought the amendment before the Senate, and upon having received such a wonderful vote in its favor. He has demonstrated his well-known effectiveness and his capacity to approach a problem from the standpoint of the national interest.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the distinguished majority leader.