1 "Thus, of 5,603 persons in that age group, 4,865 (86.8 percent) are. from jury service, and only 738 white males in that age group are ata. jury service. "In view of this situation, a number of persons-including Nege women and others filed suit in August 1965 in the U.S. District Cour Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division (White, et al. v. f civil action 2263-N) against various Alabama officials responsib selection in Lowndes County. The U.S. Department of Justice iL ́--support of the plaintiffs. On February 7, 1966. the court ruled th* A. law excluding women from jury service is unconstitutional on the IT it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. "This decision does not necessarily settle the issue. There will per further litigation, both in Alabama and in other States, for at least tw "First, there have been past decisions by the Supreme Court and courts which have either ruled, or assumed, that it is constitutionally for a State to provide different treatment for women and for men ca total exclusion of women) in relation to jury service: Hoy v. Florida, po 60 (1961); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303. 310 (1880); Fays! 332 U.S. 261, 289–290 (1947); State v. Emery, 224 N. Car. 581. 31 SE 157 A.L.R. 441, annotation at 461 (1944); Bailey v. State, 214 Ark 472 2d. 424, 9 A.L.R. 2d. 643 (1949); Black v. State, 215 Ark. 697, 222 8W (1949); Commonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398, 177 N.E. 656 (1981) 284 U.S. 684 (1932); compare Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 1971– "Second, the district court decision in White v. Crook relates only to a . law. In view of the variety of the State laws relating to jury service bru it is probable that extensive litigation will be required before women are equally with men in connection with jury service in all States. "Accordingly, the judicial case-by-case method will take a lotg discrimination against women in the selection of State court jurors T.therefore occurs: Why was the Douglas-Case-Hart-Javits, etc., bl drafted to end sex dicrimination in selecting Federal court jurors 10*1 selecting State court jurors? The answer probably is that since the drafted before issuance of the opinion in White v. Crook (which was 15a7 on February 7, 1966), those who drafted the bill may have doubted view of the above cited decisions, Congress could constitutional'y jezsute subject of sex discrimination in the selection of State court jurors "I think Congress has such authority. The equal protection ca 14th amendment is not restricted solely to the protection of Negroes any State from making a distinction between classes of persons uniess cation is based upon a reasonable and rational ground which bears i proper relation to the attempted classification and is not a tee selection. Gulf, Colorado & S. F. Ry, v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 165 (1896) v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 478 (1954). "Insofar as its rationality with respect to jury service is cou erne! no difference between a legal distinction predicated solely on race courts have uniformly held is unconstitutional) and one resting basis of sex. In neither case does the distinction bear a reasonal ie reto either civic responsibility, the quality of juror selection, or the pret tioning of the jury system. "Hence, women have a constitutional right, under the equal protect of the 14th amendment, to be free from State-imposed discrimination. on their sex, in the selection of those who serve on either grand or pe This is the rule adopted by the district court in White v. Cronk. S* the 14th amendment authorizes the Congress "to enforce, by appropriate res tion," the guarantees of the equal protection clause, and thus to e". tion prescribing methods and procedures to eliminate discrimins, a 1 court juries on the basis of sex. "In Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946), the Supreme ( that a criminal conviction in a Federal court case where women bad e posely excluded from the jury, violated the Federal statute regarding the fication of jurors. Justice Douglas, speaking for four Justices, expressst lowing views which are equally pertinent to the constitutional above: "The American tradition of trial by jury, considered in connect.ot criminal or civil proceedings, necessarily contemplates an impartial jury (5 ross-section of the community * * *. This does not mean, of course, that ry must contain representatives of all the economic, social, religious, litical, and geographic groups of the community; frequently such comresentation would be impossible. But it does mean that prospective all be selected by court officials without systematic and intentional exf any of these groups. Recognition must be given to the fact that those for jury service are to be found in every stratum of society. Jury ce is an individual rather than a group or class matter. That fact e very heart of the jury system. To disregard it is to open the door distinctions and discriminations which are abhorrent to the democratic trial by jury. conclude that the purposeful and systematic exclusion of women from I in this case was a departure from the scheme of jury selection which adopted. said, however, that an all male panel drawn from the various groups community will be as truly representative as if women were included. ught is that the factors which tend to influence the action of women same as those which influence the action of men-personality, backeconomic status-and not sex. Yet it is not enough to say that women ting as jurors neither act nor tend to act as a class. likewise do not act as a class. But, if the shoe were on the other foot, ild claim that a jury was truly representative of the community if all e intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel? The truth he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one ent from a community composed of both; the subtle interplay of influon the other is among the imponderables. To insulate the courtroom her may not in a given case make an iota of difference. Yet a flavor, et quality is lost if either sex is excluded. The exclusion of one may nake the jury less representative of the community than would be true onomic or racial group were excluded. (329 U.S. at 192-194.) e] exclusion of women from jury panels may at times be highly prejuthe defendants. But reversible error does not depend on a showing of e in an individual case. The evil lies in the admitted exclusion of an class or group in the community in disregard of the prescribed standjury selection. The systematic and intentional exclusion of women, like usion of a racial group, Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128, or an economic I class, Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., supra, deprives the jury system of d base it was designed by Congress to have in our democratic society. leparture from the statutory scheme. *** Such action is operative to the basic democracy and classlessness of jury personnel.' (329 U.S. at "PHINEAS INDRITZ." AUGUSTA, GA., May 12, 1966. man EMANUEL CELLER, n, House Judiciary Committee, ton, D.C.: ge that your committee report the civil rights bill, H.R. 14765, without THE AUGUSTA REAL ESTATE BOARD, INC. SLIDELL, LA., May 21, 1966. ANUEL CELLER, n. House Judiciary Committee, fice Building, ton, D.C.: pard strongly urges you to vote against the proposed Federal forced law (H.R. 14765) because if adopted it would destroy the American of freedom of contract-the right of individuals to choose. -spectfully, ST. TAMMANY BOARD OF REALTORS, President. LAFAYETTE, LA., Mop & Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Our board strongly urges you to vote against the proposed Fabr housing law (H.R. 14765) because if adopted it would destroy the in tration of freedom of contract-the right of individuals to choose. Respectfully, LAFAYETTE, La., Vey '• MARY ALICE R. BRIGNAC SAN PEDRO, CALIF.. Ve? EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Please exert every effort to defeat the administration proposal be` ⠀⠀ title IV Civil Rights Act of 1966 that would strip from home and prog**** their traditional right to choose to whom they may sell or rent. TONY CALITAT President, San Pedro Board? COLUMBUS, Ga., Mas Representative EMANUEL CELLER, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Re H.R. 14765, S. 3296, we urgently request you use all effort at! =* at your command to have title 4 eliminated from the above bills. Respectfully, COLUMBUS REAL ESTATE BA Hon. ELIGIO DE LA GARZA, Washington, D.C.: LAREDO, TEX, Man The Laredo Board of Realtors, in the interest of all property wit unanimous opposition to title four of the Civil Rights Act of 196 ~6~~ as H.R. 14765. We urge you to use all your influence with me AN House subcommittee now considering this legislation to stop all 2 * * bill immediately. E. J. DETS CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, Washington, D.C.: Members of Alaska State Association of Realtors strongly rejection of title IV of H.R. 14765 and Senate bill 3296. Depriva44 owner of his rights of choice is removing one of the basic freed (0) D our National Constitution. We urge you and Congress to uphold way of freedom of choice. W. RALPH F President, Alaska Association at ja ROME, GA., May 12, 1966. man EMANUEL CELLER, of the House Judiciary Committee, on, D.C.: y urge you report the Civil Rights Act bill H.R. 14765 (without) W. P. HOPKINS, President, Rome Real Estate Board. TUCSON, ARIZ. ANUEL CELLER, fice Building, Washington, D.C.: ght of self-government by free elections, of trial by jury and of freedom ct for ones own property all are basic to the principals upon which our was founded. Legislation which would deprive our citizens of these nder the guise of civil rights, is un-American and constitutes legal dision of the highest order, an end to the evil to discrimination in housing sight by means of education, persuasion, and example. Any attempt to his by force of law can only destroy all of the good work thus far accomIn every instance where State legislation comparable to that of the bill was submitted to a referendum of the people, it has been rejected helming majorities. Voluntary efforts are achieving the effort. Tucson, proof of the success of this voluntary effort. the objective of open occupancy is praiseworthy, this proposed means of shing it is 100 percent wrong, since true and lasting acceptance of neighneighbors can be accomplished only by understanding and education fosluntarily by churches, schools, and all men of good will it cannot be by the Federal Government with its vast power wiping out the freedom e and contract for all citizens under the guise of providing a new right rity groups. erefore strongly urge that you use your best efforts to retain the basic s of our people by causing the defeat of title IV of H.R. 14765. equest respectfully submitted by the 515 members of the Multiple Listing of Tucson. RAYMOND S. LUETY, President. CLEARWATER, FLA., May 13, 1966. L CELLER, in, House Judiciary Committee, ffice Building, Washington, D.C.: continued opposition to the enactment of H.R. 14765 is earnestly solicited. tramples on the basic and fundamental rights of Americans to dispose te property to the person of their choice and introduces an element of ion in the dealings of a property owner with the person who seeks to buy his property. These things are not in the public interest. CLEARWATER-LARGO BOARD OF REALTORS, LANDER, WYO., June 2, 1966. ntative EMANUEL CELLER, gton, D.C.: careful consideration of the merits of H.R. 14765, the Fremont County of Realtors expectes your negative vote on this flagrant infringement of omeowner's rights as provided by the Constitution of the United States. K. L. MARTINSEN, Secretary. MARTINSVILLE, VA., May 24, 1966. entative EMANUEL CELLER, trongly urge you to vote against House bill H.R. 14765. We are opposed al, religious or ethnic discrimination. We insist the element of compul sion, of legal coercion, between a property owner and a person with «. does business, is not in the public interest. MARTINSVILLE-HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF Ram”. ALBANY, GA., May Li Congressman EMANUEL CELLER, The Albany, Ga., Board of Realtors request that the House Judrumittee report the 1966 Federal Civil Rights Act without title IV. J. LAMAR RESESE, J. Resident Albany Board of ST. AUGUSTINE, FLA., May 1: D HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: We urge your opposition to H.R. 14765 and all other such forced boa lation that might be introduced. ST. AUGUSTINE-ST. JOHNS CTM RIVER GROVE, ILL, May ♬ Congressman EMANUEL CELLER, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: As Chairman of the legislative committee for the Leyden Board of Real wish to go on record as being opposed to bill H.R. 14765; we also feel tha opinion of the majority of the one hundred thousand people from Leyors ? ship. FRANK STIZY Leyden Board of Bras CITIZENS LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTER Hon. Congressman EMANUEL CELLER, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: The Citizens Legislative Action Committee of 11mas t hereby wish to notify you that we are against H.R. 14763 (Federal E Housing" Law), especially Part IV of the suggested legislation, which t on the rights of the owner of private property, and makes it unlawful for a fe erty owner to refuse to sell, rent, or lease said property to someone 24 (1) own choice. A bill such as H.R. 14765 is, in our judgment, unfair, unconstit would subject the citizens and private property owners to the loss of inherent rights through the exercise of a Police System similar to th exercised in Communistic Governments that take personal privileges and away from individual citizens. This Federal "Forced Housing" Law purports to grant rights, and to one group by destroying the constitutional rights and privileges & force of law. We humbly ask that you kindly protect the rights of citizens 11 owners in this Great Country of ours by protecting and safe-guard tg stitutional rights and freedoms in the defeat of this proposed legisa" 4 respectfully thank you. Sincerely, OMAR CALZARETTA, Chairman Citizens Legislative Action Coma va |