January 29, 1960 (3)

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. EASTLAND. Mr. President. I am opposed to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] to Senate Joint Resolution 39, relating to the qualifications for voting in Federal elections. Legislation to abolish payment of the poll tax has been kicking around the Congress for the past 25 years, and during this period of congressional debate a number of States, through their own initiative, have proceeded, by State action, to repeal the poll tax requirement. Is it not better to permit this trend to continue through State action rather than to incite a longdrawn-out poll tax controversy in the Halls of Congress?

I believe in the poll tax. Although that question is not within my power to determine, I certainly believe that my State should retain the poll tax and the money derived therefrom to help finance our public school system. I have never found that it prevents anyone from voting. It has nothing to do with preventing anyone from voting. In order to be qualified to vote in Mississippi, a person must pay the $2 poll tax for 2 years before an election. After he becomes 60 years of age, he is . exempt. It is a very good and efficient system to raise money for public schools and education.

We hear much said about the Soviet Union, , and the advantages it has over the United States in the field of education. I know that funds received from poll tax payments in the State of Mississippi provide for a more efficient school system there.

It is the judgment of the senior Senator from Mississippi that a person who does not care enough for the franchise to desire to pay a poll tax as a qualification should not be permitted to vote, because I do not believe that he cares enough about his citizenship. I think it is a very wholesome and very fair tax. Mr. President, I do not challenge the constitutional amendment approach taken by the proponents sponsoring the amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 39. However, I do challenge the wisdom of the approach. As a matter of fact, the chief sponsor of the amendment, the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND], in testifying before a subcom ... mittee of the Committee on the Judiciary on a similar proposal in the 83d Congress, stated:

I would like to see the abolition of poll taxes as a. prerequisite for voting accomplished as speedily as possible in the five States in which the poll tax requirement still exists, and I would prefer to see that accomplished as a result of action taken by the States themselves.

If the poll tax is to be abolish~, it is much better that it be done by the people of the States involved. After all, this is a Union of sovereign States, and this is a question which must be decided at the State level.

Let me say again that I believe in the equity of the poll tax. I hope that the people of lllY State will not exercise their power to repeal the poll tax. This requirement, as a qualification, remains in only five States, namely Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. I say, let those five States take action themselves, either to retain or to repeal, as they desire.

We all know that the payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting is as old as America itself. The matter of the qualification of electors in · the several States to vote in the election of Federal officials is governed, first, by section 2, article I, incorporated and drafted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It provides:

The House o! Representatives shall be composed of Me · 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.

That provision was included in our original Constitution and remains operative today, spelling out with great clarity tha;t the House of Representatives shall be chosen every second year in the States by the . people of the States and that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

It is crystal clear that that provision means that each State is specifically allowed to retain the power to prescribe the qualifications for the electors of the most numerous branch of its State legislature and the Federal Constitution simply prescribes those same qualifications as the qualifications which shall be applicable to those who are allowed to participate in the election of Federal officials.

In 1912, the Congress of the United States submitted to the various States the 17th amendment, to provide for the direct election of Members of the U.S Senate. Prior to the adoption of the 17th amendment, U.S. Senators had been elected under the preceding provision of the original Constitution, under which the legislatures of the several States elected U.S. Senators. The first paragraph of the 17th amendment states:

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. Thus, the qualifications clause of · the 17th amendment for the election of Senators is the same as the qualifications clause for the election of Representatives. In other words, this means that the States are to determine the qualifications which apply to elections for Representatives and Senators.

During the course of my remarks in the U.S. Senate on September 14, 1959, addressing myself to this very section of the Constitution, the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] observed:

I point out to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi that that is the only language in the Constitution of the United States which appears in two places in identically the same words. It appears where the Senator has stated, in section 2' of article I; and in the 17th amendment, providing for the popular election of Senators, the identical language appears again.

There are those who like to contend that the 15th amendment somehow was a restriction upon section 2 of article I of the Constitution. That, of course, cannot be true since the 17th amendment, which was ratified some years after the 15th amendment, repeated the earlier language of the Founding Fathers in article I and is the latest expressed of the will of the people 1n the writing of their Constitution.

Thus, the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia was affirming the principle which has existed for more than a hundred and fifty years, and which the Founding Fathers intended and contemplated, namely, that it is the States themselves who have the power to determine the qualifications of their own electors. The question of whether the States or the Federal Government should determine the qualifications of electors of Representatives was thoroughly debated by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. On August 6, 1787, Mr. Gouverneur Morris moved to strike from article IV, section 1, of the existing draft-which became article I, section 2, in the final draft--the words:

The qualifications of the electors shall be the same, from time to time, as those of the electors, 1n the several States, of the most numerous branch of their own legislatures.

Gouverneur Morris' purpose · was “in order that some other provision might be substituted which would restrain the right of suffrage to freeholders." The motion to strike was defeated.

Gouverneur Morris argued that another objection against the clause, as it stood, was that it made the qualifications of the electors of the National Legislature depend upon the will of the States, which he thought was not proper. Colonel Mason opposed the striking of the sentence, stating:

A power to alter the qualifications would be a dangerous power in the hands of the Federal Legislature.

Mr. Ellsworth argued that he thought “the qualifications were on the most proper footing. The right of suffrage was a tender point, and strongly guarded by most of the State constitutions"­ Fifth Elliott's Debates on the Federal Constitution, page 385, and the following.

The debates in the Constitutional Convention reveal very clearly that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the States should prescribe the qualifications of electors of Representatives in Congress by section 2 of article I. As Hamilton pointed out in The Federalist, this constitutional provision conformed to the "standard," meaning voting qualifications, established or to be established by the States-The Federalist, No. 52.

The qualifications prescribed by the State constitutions in force in 1787 and which were carried over into the Federal Constitution, demonstrate conclusively · that the words . "qualifications" and "qualified" were directly related to requirements for voting.

The constitution of Pennsylvania, 1776, provided in section 6 thereof:

Every freeman of the full age of 21 years, having resided in this State for the space of 1 whole year next before the day of election for representatives, and pay taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector.

That was a property qualification.

The constitution of New York, 1777, provided in article VII thereof:

. That every male inhabitant of full age, who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of this State for 6 months immediately preceding the day of election, shall, at such election, be entitled to vote for representatives of the said county in assembly; if, during the time aforesaid, he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of 20 pounds, within the said county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of 40 shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to this State.

That was a property qualification.

The constitution of North Carolina, 1776. provided in article vm thereof:

That all freemen of the age of 21 years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within this State 12 months immediately preceding the day of election, and shall have paid public taxes, shall be entitled to vote for members of the house of commons for the county in which he resides • .

New Hampshire was the first State to have the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 states:

The senate . e shall be the first branch of the legislature; and the senators shall be chosen in the following manner, viz: Every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town privileges in the several counties in this State, of 21 years of age and upwards, paying for himself a poll tax, shall have a right at the annual or other meetings of the inhabitants of said towns and parishes, to be duly warned and holden annually forever in the month of March; to vote in the town or parish wherein he dwells, for the senators in the county or district whereof he is a member.

And every person qualified as the constitution provides shall be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of electing and being elected into any office or place within this State, in that town, parish, and plantation where he dwelleth and hath his home. The members of the house of representatives shall be chosen annually in the month of March, and shall be the second branch of the legislature.

All persons qualified to vote in the election of senators shall be entitled to vote within the town, district, parish, or place where they dwell, in the choice of representatives.

Article II of the constitution of Mary .. land, provided:

That the house of delegates shall be chosen in the following manner: All freemen, above 21 years of age, having a freehold of 50 acres of land, in the country in which they offer to vote, and residing therein-and all freemen, having property in this State above the value of 30 pounds current money, and having resided in the county, in which they offer to vote, one whole year next preceding the election, shall have a right of suffrage, in the election of delegates for such county; and all freemen, as qualified, shall, on the first Monday of October 1777, and on the same day in which they are respectively qualified to vote, at the courthouse, in the said counties; or at such other place as the legislature shall direct; and, when assembled, they shall proceed to elect, viva voce, four delegates, for their respective counties, of the most wise, sensible, and discreet of the people, residents in , the county where they are to be chosen, one whole year next preceding the election, about 21 years of age, and having, in the State, real or personal property above the value of 500 pounds current money; and upon the final casting of the polls, the four persons who shall appear to have the geratest number of legal votes shall be declared and return duly elected for their respective counties •

The applicable provisions of the constitution of 1776 of the State of New Jersey are:

ART. IV. That all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth 50 pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for 12 months immediately preceding the election shall be entitled to vote for representatives in council and assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.

ART. XIII. That the inhabitants of each county, qualified to vote as aforesaid, shall at the time and place of electing their representatives, annually elect one sheriff, and one or more coroners; and that they may reelect the same person to such offices until he shall have served 3 years, but no longer; after which, 3 years must elapse before the same person 1s capable of being elected again. When the election is certified to the Governor, or Vice President, under the hands of the six freeholders of the county for which they were elected, they shall be immediately commissioned to · serve in their respective offices. · · ·

The 1778 constitution of the State of South Carolina · provides:

The qualification of electors shall be that every free white man, and no other person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and believes in a future state of rewards and punishments, and who has attained to the age of one and twenty years, and hath be e n a resident and an inhabitant in this State for the space · of 1 whole year before the day appointed for the election he offers to give his vote at, and hath a freehold at least of 50 acres of land , or a town lot, and hath been legally seized and ' possessed ~ ed of · the same at least 6 months previous to such election, or hath paid a tax the preceding year, or was taxable the present year, at least 6 months previous to the s a id election, in a sum equal to the tax on 50 · acres of land, to the support of this government, shall be deemed a person qualified to vote for, and shall be capable of electing, a representative or representatives to serve as a member or members in the senate and house of representatives, for the parish or district where he actually 1s a resident, or in any other parish or district in this State where he hath the like freehold. Electors shall take an oath or affirmation of qualification, if required by the returning officer.

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, article II, is as follows:

There shall be a meeting on the first Monday in April, annually, forever, of the inhabitants of each town in the several counties of this Commonwealth, to be called by the selectmen, and warned in due course of law, at least 7 days before the first Monday . in April, for the purpose of electing persons to be senators and councilors; and at such meetings every male inhabitant of 21 years of age and upward, having a freehold estate within the Commonwealth of the annual · income of 3 pounds, or any estate of the value of 60 pounds, shall have a right to give in his vote for the senators for the district of which he 1s an inhabitant. And to remove all doubts concerning the meaning of the word "inhabitant," in this constitution, every person shall be considered as an inhabitant, for the purpose of electing and being elected into any office or place within this State, in that town, district, or plantation where he dwelleth or hath his home.

The selectmen of the several towns shall preside at such meetings impartially, and shall receive the votes of all the inhabitants . of such towns present and qualified to vote for senators.

The Georgia constitution of 1777, article II, states:

All male white inhabitants of the age of 21 years, . and possessed in his own right of 10 pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall ha,ve been resident 6 months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having ~ a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally. ·

The constitution of Virginia, of 1776, states as follows:

The right of suffrage in the election of members for both houses shall remain as exercised at present; and each house shall choose its own speaker, appoint its own officers, settle its own rules · of proceeding, and direct writs of election, for the supplying intermediate vacancies.

Mr. President, it is abundantly clear from a review of the constitutions of the Original States that at the time those States entered the Union all had either a poll tax requirement or property ownership or taxpaying requirements, and that the words "qualified" and "qualifications" were used in referring to those conditions. Furthermore, it is clear that these conditions had to be complied with before a person became eligible to vote. Not all citizens could vote. Only those who qualified by meeting the requirements specifically set forth in the State constitutions. This historical fact was commented upon by Mr. Chief Justice White, speaking for the Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett (21 Wall. 162), of the qualifications requisite for voting in the various States at the time the · Federal Constitution was adopted. He said:

When the Federal Constitution was adopted all the States, with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had constitutions of their own. These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions we find that in no State were all citizens permitted to vote. Each State determined for itself who should have that power. • • • In this condition of the law in respect to suffrage in the several States it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change fn the condition of citizenship as it actually ex­ ' isted, if intended, would have been expressly declared.

It is clear that the framers of the Constitution of 1789 simply carried over into it, in section 2 of article I, the idea that the word "qualifications" included requirements for the payment of a poll tax or the payment of a property tax and the ownership of property where such requirements exist under State law. As a matter of fact, the ownership of property as a prerequisite for voting was carried over from colonial days up to the year 1933 by the State of Pennsylvania. Thus, while there are remainin• today only five States having therequirement of the payment of a poll tax, since the inception of our Union of States these States at one time or another had in their laws provisions similar to the poll tax provision. It is still a qualification for voting in municipal and town · elections in the State of Vermont.

During the past 150 years one after another of our sovereign States, by the actions of their own State legislatures, have repealed the poll tax provision, so that only five States are left. If it has taken 150 years for the majority of the States to repeal their poll tax provision, is there any great haste, or is there any reason to believe that the five remaining States should not be permitted through their own legislative process to repeal this prohibition, or to retain it, rather than directing the adoption of a constitutional amendment specifically at them?

I submit, Mr. President, wisdom requires that Congress abstain from this field of legislation, and leave the matter · to the action of the State legislatures of these five States.

Mr. President, it is well settled that it is the right of the States alone to determine the qualifications of their voters, and that principle, as I stated earlier in these remarks, was carried over from the charters of the Colonies into the State constitutions of the Original States and was incorporated into our Constitution by the drafters of that document.

Mr. President, in the judgment of the senior Senator from Mississippi, one of the basic factors in our system of government is that the States themselves have the right to choose, to decide, the qualifications of electors. That is a State prerogative. But under the amendment of the senior Senator from Florida, there would be an invasion of the rights of the · States and a fracture of one of the fundamental pr - principles of the American Government.

Section 2 of Article I of the Constitution 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 legislature.

James Madison, one of the writers of The Federalist papers, in discussing the qualifications of electors in the electing of Federal officials, stated in Federalist No. 52, at pages 341 to 342:

I shall begin with the House of Representatives.

The first view to be taken of this part of the Government relates to the qualifications · of the electors and the elected.

Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. · The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent .on the Convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the Federal Government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the Convention.' The provision made by the Convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It wm be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this · part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the Federal Constitution.

During the debates in Congress on the 17th amendment, providing · for the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people, rather than being selected by the State legislatures, the . principle was enunciated time and time . again that the States alone are to determine the qualifications of the voters.

During the course of that :floor debate it was repeatedly stated and agreed that the States alone are to determine the qualifications of their voters. It is the State who, in the first instance, says who can and who cannot vote; and then, after the State determination, the Federal Government guarantees to those whose status has been determined by the States, the right to exercise that franchise. In other words, the Federal Government is not to interfere with any qualifications which the State fixes with reference to the voters.

But what is being attempted here today? The Congress by constitutional amendment would be interfering with a qualification of a voter that has been fixed by the State and has long been observed by the State, namely, that a voter, to be qualified, must have paid a poll tax.

During the course of the debate on House bill 1024, providing for elimination of the poll tax in elections of Federal officers, the then senior Senator from Florida, Mr. Andrews, made some interesting remarks on the floor of the Senate on November 21, 1942. His words then are as pertinent today as they were on that day in 1942; and at this time I wish to quote some of Judge Andrews' remarks: ·

If any citizen desires to know who are qualified to vote for Representatives and Senator . s in his State, all he has to do is to look at the constitution of his State and the statutes of his State, and he will find the answer. He will not find it anywhere else,

The paying of a poll tax is inconsequential so far as the mere qualifying of electors in the States to vote is concerned. The amount is not excessive; in fact, in many States it is only $1 a year. The requirement for the payment of a poll tax has been in vogue in most of the States comprising the Union for many years; in fact, before the Constitution there was a poll-tax requirement in the Colonies. In 32 States of the Union there is now levied a poll tax, but it so happens that in only 7 or 8 States of the Union the prepayment remains a qualification for registration and participation in elections at the polls.

· The registration books constitute an honor roll of citizenship; indeed, they evidence the fact that a man or a woman is a member of the great body of interested and responsible citizenship of the United States and thus entitled as a citizen of the United States to · express his or her views and wishes at the polls.

Some States have abolished the poll ta.x as a prerequisite to voting. It happens that my own State of Florida is one of the States which has entirely abolished the poll tax. In 1937 an act was passed by the Florida Legislature repealing the law providing for the payment of a poll tax as a qualification for registration and voting. TJ;le next regular session of the legislature in 1939 elim· inated all poll taxes entirely. There were a great number of people who felt that the poll tax should not be repealed because the proceeds, though small, went · directly to public education. Originally the poll tax was not levied for public-school purposes. Three-quarters of a century ago the poll tax was collected from persons who did not put in a prescribed number of days work on the public roads. · . Since that time, however, public education has been developed and expanded, and the public school system has become so necessary for the education of our people that, by statute, the proceeds from the poll tax have been devoted to the support of public schools. The repeal of the pOn tax in Florida did not have any effect whatsoever on the casting of ballots so · far as race, color, or previous condition of servitude were or are concerned.

The registration of voters regardless · of race, creed, or party affiliations was greatly increased; but, so far as I am advised, there was no increase whatsoever in the vote cast by our colored people; yet there has been created all over the United States a feeling that if the pending b111 could be passed it would have a profound effect upon the number of votes cast by the colored people. What has happened in the State of Florida is sufficient to show that no such result would be brought about. All may vote who are qualified and register in the poll books. There are infinitely more poor white people who probably did not vote by reason of the poll tax than colored.

I was in favor of the abolition of the poll ta.x in my State not only for the reason I have stated but for another reason. The poll-tax requirement for voting afforded designing politicians an opportunity by collaboration with the heads of great organizations, to provide means whereby people who do not feel able to pay their poll tax had it paid for them, on condition they agree to vote a certain ticket. Such things perhaps have occurred all over the United States.

The question may be asked why should a person who believes as I believe, that it was wise to abolish the poll tax in Florida; oppose the pending bill? I have just read from the Constitution of the United States which provides, in clear terms, that the power to provide qualifications for voters was and is a power retained by the States. If the Congress can pass a law doing away with the qualifications now so provided in certain States, it could go further and pass a law providing that there shall not even be registration, which is now the prima facie evidence that one is entitled to vote. If such an attempt had been made during the Constitutional Convention, or during the time the Bill of Rights was under discussion; it would have failed.

As Judge Andrews so cogently observed in 1942, if the Congress can pass a law doing away with the voter qualifications now provided in certain States, as is here attempted by way of a constitutional amendment, it can go further and provide that there shall not even be voter registration. If this path · is pursued by the proponents, there will be no authority left in the States over their own voters and the inevitable result will be Federal preemption of th e entire voter field.

Mr. President, the amendment offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Florida is certainly a long step in the direction of federalization of elections and the control of all elections, even in the counties and in the towns, by the Federal Government. ·

I say that if this course is followed by _ the Congress, the words of Chief Justice Fuller in McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), at page 36, no longer will have meaning. Chief Justice Fuller said:

The "right to vote" protected or secured by the Constitution is, and only is, the right to vote as established by the laws and constitution of each State.

If we deprive the States of the power to determine the qualifications of their voters, the right to vote will be only that right conferred by the Federal Govern- · ment. The States will have nothing to say about their own voters.

Mr. President, in the 83d Congress there was before the Senate Joint Resolution 53, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to grant to citizens of the United States who have attained the age of 18 the right to vote. On May 21, 1954, after debate, the Senate reJected that proposed constitutional amendment. It was the considered judgment of the Senate on that day that the power of the States to determine the age at which its citizens may vote is a qualification which should be retained by the States themselves. I believe that the arguments made on the floor of the Senate in the 83d Congress by those opposing a constitutional amendment which would lower the voting age to 18 are equally applicable here today in opposing this constitutional proposal to outlaw the poll tax. It was stated again and again on the floor of the Senate, in the debate on the constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to 18, that the States themselves should determine the qualifications of their own voters; that if a constitutional amendment were adopted lowering the voting age to 18 and taking that power from the States, then there would be other attempts by way of constitutional amendments to take other powers concerning voters from tlie States. The end result of this would be to lodge all power and control over voting requirements in the Central Government, rather than in the States, where the Constitution properly determined they should be. During that debate on the 18-yearold amendment, Members of this body echoed and reechoed the statement that the Federal Government should not invade the States and say to their people: "We are going to tell you what to do and we will deny to you the right to legislate in this vital field of maintaining and operating the elective process and deciding the qualifications of your electors."

In that debate a most persuasive . speech was delivered in opposition to favorable consideration of that constitutional amendment by the senior Sentor from Georgia [Mr. RussELL]. It is so pertinent to the rna tter under consideration here today that I desire to quote some remarks of the Senator from Georgia, He stated:

It so happens that I represent in part in this body the one state which allows persons to vote on attaining the age of 18. That was brought about by using machinery provided under our State law. There is not a single State in the Union which does not have adequate machinery at the State level to enable it to fix the age of voting at any age. I think that · permitting all those attaining the age of 18 to vote in my State has wor'ked very well. I have no complaint to make with regard to that; but I do not · propose to vote to coerce any other State of the Union to follow the example of my State. Neither do I propose to vote for an amendment which would put my State in a straitjacket which would prevent it from making a change in that regard. For illustration, suppose in the next few years the Legislature of Georgia decided that the age of 18 . was 1 year too soon to allow persons to vote, and the people of my State wished to change the voting age to 19. That right is gu a ranteed to the people of my State by the terms of the Federal Constitution. If they wished to do so, the voting age could be changed _ to 19 instead of 18. I do not propose to encase the people of my State in any Federal straitjacket such as this measure offers.

Mr. President, States are fast losing their identity as units of government. Our once . proud dual system seems to be giving way to the view that all power should be concentrated in Washington, that only W a shington has the wisdom to direct and control the people of the United St a tes in every detail of their daily lives. We know we have achieved our present greatness not through the concentration of power in the Federal Government, but because the functions of Government were kept close to ~he people, and all the people took great interest in their Government, because we have felt greater responsibility for local governments, and because, embraced within the Federal Government, we have 48 laboratories of government, each of which could try out measures and undertake to adapt it s elf to different conditions . and different laws. The people of the United States have not heretofore considered it to be advisable or desirable to have every bit of the power of Government concentrated in Washington, with an allegedly allwise Congres sending word down to the States, which would reflect upon the intelligence, integrity, and capacity of every State legislature , the Governor of every State in the land, and telling them, "You have the machinery available to you right at hand to fix the voting age within your State, but you have not the intelligence, the patriotism, and the integrity to use it properly.'

I do not want the Federal Government to invade the States and say to their people, "We are going to tell you what to do. We are going to put you in a straitjacket. Henceforth and forevermore, you will be denied the right to legislate under St a te laws 1n this vital field of maintaining and operating the elective process in this Government and deciding the qualifications of your electors."

This step will be followed by others; perhaps the insistence that the votes should be counted ' d here in Washington ; and when that day comes the Republic will be gone. It will be well for us to remember what took place with regard to the election which resulted in what is known as the Tilden-Hayes case, when the Federal Government undertook to operate the election machinery of some of the States.

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. RusSELL] predicted in 1954 what could happen today. He said that one proposed constitutional amendment after another could be brought up designed further to limit the power of the States. And if that procedure were followed, ultimately there would be no power left in . the States, but all power would be in the Federal Government, and that would be the doom of the United States . .

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TAL•

MADGE in the chair). Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Georgia?

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I am flattered to have the distinguished Senator read my remarks with respect to the proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to freeze the voting age requirement. My State, it so happened, was the only one at that time which would permit voting at the age of 18, but, as I stated, I did not · proP<>se to coerce any other State.

It so happens that my State does not collect any tax for the right to vote.

Of course, there is a great misunderstanding about the poll tax. I found one eminent Member of this body once who · thought the word "poll" in relation to the poll tax had something to do with the voting place. As a matter of fact, this tax is a capitation tax or a head tax, and it is designated by one of the oldest of the four letter Anglo Saxon words “poll,” which means "head." This is a head tax.

I assure the Senator that I feel as strongly on this subject today as I did when I made those remarks in 1954. I am delighted that the Senate of the United States on that occasion failed to give the two-thirds vote necessary to propose the amendment to the Constitution, even though that proposal had the endorsement of a new national ad- ministration and one of the most popular Presidents this country had ever known.

People learn as they go along. I am delighted the President of the United States has not revived the demand that we amend the Constitution and shrink the electoral process by action in the National Capital. There is no doubt about the fact that, if it is permitted to prevail, the demand on the part of · a group of self-righteous reformers that everything in this country conform to their views will ultimately destroy the way of life which has given us the greatest civilization the world has ever known. A group here in Washington, D.C., subject to the demands of power politicians, continually says to Members of Congress who are slaves of pressure groups, “You must conform-you must conform-to what we think is the proper rule of conduct."

They say that the 50 States must conform; that the more than 3,000 counties of this great land of ours, confronted with different problems and having different schools of thought-indeed, having different ethnic strains of peoplemust conform. ·

Mr. EASTLAND. Is it not true that the whole theory of our Government is that there should be no conformity?

· Mr. RUSSELL. I was coming to that point. · We are told that 170 million American citizens who have been free men must conform to the views of this group as to what kind of citizens we should have. They propose to make robots out of the American people-to make us all in one mold, to make us all of one kind, to make us all think alike. They will wind up by having us drink alike, eat the same foods, pursue the same rules that are laid down in Washington, D.C.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator agree that when we go into the field of federalizing elections, which the Holland amendment would do, it will destroy this country and destroy the liberties of the American people?

Mr. RUSSELL. I was very pleased when · the Senator read my prediction in 1954. I stand on that same position today. If the day ever comes when we federalize elections and bring the ballot boxes to Washington, D.C., to have the v.otes counted-if we break down the compartments of the 50 States of the Union-that day we will have invited a dictatorship and a destruction of individual liberty in these United States.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the Constitution provides that the States are to prescribe the qualifications of electors of the most numerous house of the respective State legislatures, and within those qualifications is the qualification of age of the voter. In the nature of suffrage there must be the age qualification, and the States by their own constitutions prescribe the age at which a voter is eligible to vote. By constitutional amendment the Congress attempted to limit the power of a State to determine at what age its citizens may vote. That attempt was defeated on the floor of the U.S . Senate on May 21, 1954. Another qualification the States have imposed in the past, and which ls now observed as a requirement by only five States, is the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting. Here today, is an attempt to limit the power of the States in that area. If that proves successful, then what can be done next? A residence requirement is common and perhaps universal, but the time of residence varies greatly in the different States ' and each State, within its own constitution, prescribes a residence requirement as a voting qualification. It follows that there could be next on the horizon a constitutional amendment taking from the State the power to determine the residence requirement for its own electors.

Registration of voters is commonplace and proper qualification. · The several States, by their constitutions, establish registration requirements. Possibly within the near future attempts will be · made, via the constitutional amendment route, to take away this power of the State to determine registration requirements for its voters.

A number of the States have literacy and educational tests as a proper qualification for a voter. A constitutional amendment could be proposed to take that power from the States.

The end result will be, if the present action is successful, to limit the power of the State to determine its qualifications by way of a poll-tax requirement, and all of · the other voter qualifications followed by the States today will be taken from them and lodged in the Central Government.

I say it is possible, of those who feel that the State should have no power at all over the qualifications of its own electorate continue their efforts, there will be no State power over the electorate, but everything will be in the hands of the Federal Government. In my judgment, the adoption of this amendment today would be but a step in the direction of concentrating in the Federal Government · all power over State electors, and if the proponents are successful in having this constitutional amendment approved, the · other steps will inevitably follow: .

· Mr. President; - I should like to cor- rect a misapprehension which has existed for as many years as the poll tax controversy has been before the Congress, that the poll tax, as such, in effect in the five States is discriminatory between the races. Nothing could be further from the truth. The present poll tax qualification existing in the five States of Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia does not discriminate in any way, shape, or manner as between the races. These poll tax laws apply to whites in exactly the same manner as to Negroes. Nonpayment of the tax is a bar to a white person voting the same as in the case of a Negro. The discrimination, if any, is between those who conform to the law and those who do not. The poll tax laws merely provide that before voting a citizen must have paid a poll tax.

The impression also exists that those who oppose legislation repealing the poll tax are trying to preserve poll taxes as such. Our opposition to this measure is predicated on the basis that any action by way of repeal should come from the States themselves rather than by action of the Federal Government. In opposing favorable consideration of this amendment we stand on the principle that fixing qualifications for voting should continue to be the right of the States and should not be taken over by the Federal Government.

Past history reveals that the poll tax has been, is being, and can be ended by action of the States themselves, thereby making action by the Federal Government in this field unnecessary. The charge has been made that discrimination against Negroes keeps them from voting. In my State a person over 60 years of age is exempt from payment of the poll tax. In some States the age is 50 years.

It is our strong feeling that those who demand action by the Federal Government, by way of the constitutional amendment route indirectly give aid and comfort to those who try to break , down our American system of government by taking from the States functions which they should exercise and always have exercised under our constitutional form of government. If the effort to whittle away part of the sovereignty of the States is successful in this instance it can be accomplished in other fields, and eventually there will be little left of the States as governmental entities.

Mr. President, more than 150 years ago the framers of our Constitution debated at great length in the Constitutional Convention the question of the qualifications of electors. After full and unlimited debate the collective judgment of that great Convention recommended that the qualifications requisite for Members of the U.S. House of Representatives be the same as those requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. There were those in the Convention who desired to place the power of determining qualifications in the National Government. However, the Members of the Convention determined that the right of fixing the qualifications should be within the power of the States, and that power has remained with the States for more than . 150 years. Today, because there are five remaining States that have a qualification on their statute books . pursuant to their own constitutions, it is proposed that Congress reverse the action taken by the framers of our Constitution in 1787. Mr. President, I believe . the Senate of the United States is striking a mortal blow at the sovereignty of our individual States in limiting the power of the States to determine the qualifications of its voters.

In the 77th Congress the Committee on the Judiciary had under consideration S. 1280, a bill concerning the qualifications of voters or electors within the meaning of section 2, article I of the Constitution and making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. A subcomm i ttee of the Committee on the Judiciary submitted an adverse report to the full committee on this proposal. The adverse report of the subcommittee contained a statement which bears repeating at this point. The statement is this:

It is acknowledged by the proponents of this bill that Congress has no power to fix or alter the qualifications of voters for State office and so they propose only to abolish the poll tax for election of Federal officials. To do this, they must deny that a poll tax is a qualification. Otherwise, they would be forced to admit an attempt to disregard section 2 of art i cle I. This they cannot do without conceding the unconstitutional character of the bill. So they adopt the ingen i ous ruse of declaring in the first section of the measure that the poll-tax requirement is not a qualification of voters but an interference with the manner of holding a Federal election and as such subject to regulation by Congress under section 4, article I. Here, however, they are met by the historic fact that when the Constitution was adopted all of the original States had property or tax qualifications for voters.

The framers of the Constitution knew, for example, that the actual payment of a State or county tax was a voting qualification in Pennsylvania when the instrument was drawn and that the other States had similar provisions. The framers accepted these qualifications, whatever they might have been in all of the States, by the language of section 2 of article I and nowhere did they give Congress the power to alter them. They did give Congress the power to alter State regulations governing the times and manner of choosing Senators and Representatives as well as the places of choosing Representatives, but no such supervisory power over voting qualification was granted. Certainly : such power cannot be implied by contending that although the Constitution makers, wlio were perfectly familiar with property qualifications, did not have them in mind when writing section 2 of article I which deals with qualifications, but did intend to give Congress power to change them when they wrote section 4 of article I which deals with the manner of holding elections.

It would be difficult to imagine any language more clear than the first clause of section 2, article I:

"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." · ·

If Congress by law should undertake to provide, as the proponents of this bill urge Congress to do, qualifications for the electors of Members of the National House of Representatives other than and different from those "requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature” in any State, it would be acting in direct contravention of the mandate of the Constitution that . they should be the same.

It should be noted that the chairman of the subcommittee considering the proposal at that time was the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY], who was then and is now a member of our Committee on the Judiciary and one of the leading constitutional lawyers of all time. That subcommittee, in considering S. 1280, also stated: -

It is better to await the wise action of the remaining States than by a strained construction of the Constitution to apply by statute the power of the central Government to force upon any State a particular course of action in a field which the Constitution left to the States.

I submit that the statement of the then subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary is as appropriate today as it was 17 years ago. It is my considered judgment that the Congress would be wise today to await the action of the five remaining States, by action of their State legislatures, rather than to whittle away by constitutional amendment a power which was left to the States themselves by the framers of the Constitution.

Throughout the history of our country regulation of voting has been traditionally and appropriately a function of the States. In fact, the intrusion of the Federal Government into the regulation of voting has been generally considered unconstitutional except in those instances precisely defined in the 14th and 15th amendments. In Minor v. Happerset (88 U.S. 162 0874)), Mrs. Minor was refused registration to vote for electors for President and Vice President of the United States, and for a Representative in Congress at the general election held in November 1872. She was refused because the Missouri constitution authorized voting my male citizens only. Mrs. Minor contended that the right to vote at elections affecting Federal offices was a right and privilege secured to her - bY the Constitution of the . United States which could not be abridged by the State of Missouri. The Court said:

If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may suggest the absence of a quorum without losing my right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. EASTLAND. 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. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

(At this point Mr. EASTLAND yielded to Mr. MAGNUSON to introduce a bill (S. 2935), and debate ensued which appears earlier in today's RECORD under the appropriate heading.)

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield, so that I may suggest the absence of a quorum, if it is understood that in yielding f . or that purpose he will not lose the floor?

Mr. EASTLAND. Yes, if unanimous consent for that purpose is given.

Mr. HILL. I so request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPARKMAN in the chair). Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. EASTLAND. Then, Mr. President, I yield.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to can the roll.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceed- ings under the quorum call may be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BIBLE in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Mississippi has the floor.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, at the time of the interruption I was quoting from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Minor against Happerset. I continue the quotation:

The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of . citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case, one need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.

It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. The Members of the House of Representa tives are to be chosen by the people of the States, and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the States, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the State. Each State must appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice President. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place . ce of choosing Senators. It is not necessary to inquire whether this power · of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications ot voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts.

The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guarantee for the protection of such as he already had. No nevt. voters were necessarily made by it; Indirectly, it may have had that effect, because i.t may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen (Minor v. ~perset, 88 U.S. 162, 170 (1874)):

Finally the Supreme Court said:

Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly 90 years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred Citizenship, did not necessarily confer the :right of suffrage. If uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be (Minor v. Happerset, 88 U.S. i62, 170 (1874)).

This was the consistent doctrine of the Supreme Court for generations. In United States v. Reece (92 U.S. 214 0875)), election inspectors we . re indicted under sections of a. postwar Civil Rights Act for depriving a Negro citizen of the right to vote in a municipal election. The Court held that those sections of the statute were vague and indefinite, therefore unconstitutional, because they did not precisely limit the definition of the Federal crime to deprivation of voting rights protected by the 14th and 15th amendments.

The Court said-United States v. Reece (92 U.S. 214, 217-218 0875)) :

The 15th amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. It prevents the States, or the United States, however, from giving preference, in this particular, to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Before its adoption, this could be done. It was as much within the power of a State to exclude citizens of the United states from voting on account of race, etc., as it was on account of age, property, education. Now it is not. If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted by law to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. Previous to this amendment, there was no constitutional guarantee against this discrimination; now there is. It follows that the amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This, under the express provisions of the second section of the amendment, Congress may enforce by appropriate legislation.

In the case of Breedlove v. Suttles (302 U.S. 277, 238 (1937)), a Georgia statute making a poll tax a voting prerequisite to Federal and State elections, was attacked on the ground that it violated the 14th and 19th amendments. The tax in question applied to all inhabitants of Georgia between the ages of 21 and 60, with an exception for females who did not register for voting. The court held that the classification of the law, not being an invalid discrimination, . did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court also held that the exemption for women who did not vote was not in violation of the 19th amendment. · In the course of its opinion the court also stated clearly that the poll tax was not prohibited by the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment and was a proper qualification for voting for the States to impose.

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 19th 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.), Ex Parte Yarbrough (110 U.S. 651, 664-665), McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1, 37-38), Guinn v. United States (238 U.S. 34.7, 362). The privileges and immunities protected are only those that arise from the Constitution and laws of the United States and not those that spring from other sources (HamiLton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 261).

The question of Virginia poll tax as ~ prerequisite to voting was reviewed by a special three-judge court as recently as 1951 in Butler v. Thompson (D.C.E.D .. Va., 97 F. Supp. 17, affirmed, 341 U.S. 9-37) . Judge Dobie quoted from an earlier opinion in the case of Saunders v. Wilkins (152 F. 2d 235, 237), as follows: The decisions generally hold that a State statute which imposes a reasonable poll tax as a condition of the right to vote does not abridge the privileges . or immunities of citizens of the United States which are protected by the 14th amendment. The privilege of voting is deri.ved 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 Constitu- tion which provides that the electors 1n 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 con- stitution and statutes of the State of Georgia did not offend the Federal Constitution. In the case of Pirtle v. Brown (118 Fed. 2d, 218, 221), the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit considered this question; Whether or not the Tennessee Constitution and statutes, which make the payment of a poll tax a condition precedent to the right to vote for Members of Congress, are repugnant to any of the provisions of the Constitution of the United SOO!tes.

Pirtle, otherwise qualified, but having failed to pay the poll tax required by law, attempted to vote. '!1le defendants, judges of election, declined to allow him. In the action brought by Pirtle, the Federal District Court rendered judgment for the defendant. Pirtle appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The contention of the appellant, Pirtle, was that article IV, section 1, of the Constitution of Tennessee, and section 2027 of the Tennessee Code, violated - the "privileges and immunities" claU.Se of the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that this point had . been conclusively decided against appellant - in the case · of Breed- love against Suttles · , · and that the Tennessee Code · and Constitution did riot violate the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Federal Constitution.

In so holding, that court said:

But in any event, we are not dealing with the question whether the payment of poll tax as a prerequisite to voting violates some natural right or fancied political right. The inquiry is, whether such provision denied any privileges or immunities protected by the Federal Constitution. We have already seen that article I, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the elector for Members of Congress no other privileges than those accorded him by the State as an elector for the most numerous branch of the State legislature. But appellant goes beyond this. He urges that the quoted provision of article IV, section 1 of the Constitution of Tennessee and section 2027 of the code violates the "privilege and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment; that his right tp vote for a Member of Congress is not taxable, regardless of whether the amount of the tax imposed is trifling or substantial. We need not · labor the point. It has been conclusively decided against appellant in Breedlove v. Suttles, supra (302 U.S., p. 283, 58 S. Ct., p. 208, 82 L. ed. 252), where the court said:

"2. 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 confererd 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. Minor v. Happersett (21 Wall. 162, 170, et seq., 22 L. ed. 627; Ex parte Yarbrough (110 U.S. 651, 664, 665, 4 S. Ct. 152, 28 L. ed. 274); McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1, 37, 38, 13 S. Ct. 3, 36 L. ed. 869); Guinn v. United · States (238 U.S. 347, 362, 35 S. Ct. 926, 59 L. ed. 1340, L . L.R.A. 1916A, 1124). The privileges and immunities protected are only those that arise from the Constitution and laws of the United States and not those that spring from other sources. Hamilton v. Regents (293 U.S. 245, 261, 55 S. Ct. 197, 203,79 L. ed. 343) ."

I believe that it would be inconsistent for the Congress today to propose the enactment of a constitutional amendment to outlaw the poll tax by such route, in view of the fact that the principle has been long established that the States alone are to determine the qualifications of their voters. This · would be the first time the principle of a State determining the qualifications of its voters has been vitiated on grounds other than race or sex. It is sound reasoning to me that Congress should not be spending its time trying to outlaw a qualification for voting required by only five States, and that this State action by so small a minority ' should not engage the attention of the Congress and the constitutional amendment route. It is my feeling that the pro- . ponents of this proposal could better use their time by advocating the abolition of the poll tax through the State legislatures themselves, that is, work on the State legislatures of these States now having such a tax rather than to seek action by the Congress by way of a constitutional amendment.

However, even if there were only one State remaining that required payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting, we should not vitiate the right of a sovereign State to determine the qualifications of its own voters. Any action relating to a determination of the qualifications of the voters should come from the sovereign States themselves. If this proposal directed at five States is adopted by the Congress and ratified by three­ fourths , of the States, a pattern and precedent will be set so that subsequent action could be taken to initiate further constitutional amendments which would whittle away at the power of the States to control the · qualifications of their voters. It would be logical, if this constitutional amendment process were adopted, for a succeeding Congress to attempt by constitutional amendment to remove from the laws of the States the educational . qualifications provided in various States as a prerequisite to voting. Successive steps could follow which, if carried to their ultimate conclusion, could deprive the sovereign States of any control whatsoever over the · qualifications of their own electors. I can only repeat that the sensible and logical approach, if the proponents so desire, is to seek repeal of the poll tax provision through the State legislatures, rather than by cluttering up the Constitution with an amendment affecting only five States. In other words, I believe that these States should have the power to repeal or retain the poll tax requirement. Mr. President, 17 years ago the Senate was considering legislation outlawing the poll tax as a qualification for electors. During the course of the debate on that bill one of the greatest legal arguments ever made on the Senate floor was delivered by the Honorable JosEPH C. O'MAHONEY, of Wyoming, who has long been recognized as one of the leading constitutional lawyers in this body. I believe that Senator O'MAHONEY's statement made 17 years ago on the rights of states to fix the qualifications of their electors is so persuasive and so informative and cogent in its reasoning that his remarks should be recalled today. Senator O'MAHONEY said:

We now come to the question whether or not the pending bill represents a constitutional attempt to exercise constitutional congressional power. To me the answer to the question is so clear that I wonder how it can be debatable. At the very outset of the hearing on the pending , bill I propounded the constitutional questions and asked the advocates of the bill to present arguments in support of their contention that the power to fix the qualifications of voters resides in a majority of Congress rather than in the States. The answer to that question has been merely the . ingenious and clever stringing together of words, phrases, and emotional appeals by special pleaders who found themselves confronted by language and history which no person can misunderstand.

Bear in mind the fact that the framers of the Constitution clearly intended to make the States equal, and that they were careful to preserve in the States those powers which were not delegated to the Federal Government. We are confronted with the question of what they did about determining who should be the electors and who should fix the qualifications of the electors.

Let it be remembered that the men who sat in the constitutional convention and drew this instrument, which everyone recognizes as one of the most remarkable instruments ever · drafted, did not provide for popular election of Senators. They provided that Senators should be elected by the State legislatures; and of course they neither exercised any jurisdiction, nor attempted to exercise any jurisdiction, over the qualifications of members of the legislatures. Their decision was that so far as the Members of the Senate were concerned the selection should be made by whomever the people of the several States might choose to send to the State legislatures. · · Even in the matter of the election of the President, they · erected a barrier between the people and the Chief Executive by creating the electoral college. The idea was that a group of wise men should be chosen as electors by the several States--chosen independently in the several States; let us not forget that--that such electors should meet in their own States, that they should not come together in any general ' al body to debate, but that, meeting separately in their several States, they, in the exercise of their judgment, should choose the President. The genius of the people of America for selfgovernment was so great, however, that though we have never changed the electoral college, the electors now, as a matter of course, vote for the candidates chosen by the parties by whom they in turn are nominated. Of course, it may be pointed out here with respect to the election of Senators that the 17th amendment made no change in the fundamental concept of the independence of the States or the right of the States to determine the qualifications of the voters.

Bearing in mind that Senators as Federal officials were not to be elected by the people, and that the President was not to be elected by the people, we find the explanation of sec­ . tion 2 of article I, which is the only provision in the Constitution dealing with voters' qualifications. It has already been read during the course of this debate; but for the sake of the continuity of my argument let me read it again:

"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."

What is the answer? One of the principal advocates of the bill before us, in an article which he prepared for a law journal, acknowledged that for years it was · generally assumed that the sole power to fix the qualifications requisite for electors for the House of Representatives resided in the States; and he said there never was any thought otherwise until some bright mind conceived the idea of separating the qualifications requisite for electors of Federal officials from those requisite for electors of State officials, and of arguing that a poll-tax requirement is not a qualification, but merely an interference with the manner of holding an election, because section 4 of the first article provides:

"The times, places, and manner · of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof) but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." So the argument of the proponents of this bill must be that the poll-tax requirement is not a qualification, but an interference with the manner of holding an election.

Can anyone say that that is not a strained construction-so strained, Mr. President, that some of the advocates of the bill are not , content to rely upon it, but say that the real basis of the bill lies in the provision of the Constitution by which the United States is required to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. Then we are asked to believe that a poll-tax requirement is a violation of the principles of a republican form of government. How can that be contended in the face of the fact that the men · who drafted the section, the men who drafted the Constitution, had been chosen by the people of States in every one of which there was some form of a property-ownership or tax-payment qualification?

Mr. President, . ent, the poll-tax requirement as a prerequisite for voting was not abolished in the State of Massachusetts--and I speak of Massachusetts because I was born there, and because I know that it has been one of the most progressive and liberal States of the Union-until 1892. It was not abolished in the State of Pennsylvania until 1933. So during all that time, from the moment when the Constitution was written by men chosen in States which recognized the ownership of property and the payment of taxes as qual i ­ fications for voting, right down to this decade, the right of the States to impose or to repeal such a qualification had been recognized; and no one s.ought to question it until the bright idea dawned that, by calling red blue, we could amend the Constitution-a qualification is not a qualification. Let the Congress by a majority vote so declare, and the necessity of amendment the Constitution as the Founding Fathers directed us to do in article V would be obviated.

Therefore, . it seems to me to be perfectly clear, frOm. the :text of the debate in the Constitutional Convention itself, that the men who drafted this instrument knew precisely what they were doing, and when they defeated Gouverneur Morris' amendment to :fix the qualifications in the Constitution, they did so precisely because , they wanted that right to :fix qualifications to remain with the States.

Mr. President, that is the heart of the question. The States have the right and should retain the right . to fix the qualifications for voters.

I read further: