report out this resolution, pass it through the Congress, and refer it to the States. We in the District will do our part to see if we can achieve State ratification in time for us to participate in the presidential election of 1964.

Gentlemen, this amendment is long overdue. The founders of our Constitution conceived of the District as a special constitutional ward of the Congress. We who live here among the handsome Federal monuments realize that, through an accident of birth, we are in fact America's stepchildren. We recognize that the constitutional status of the District must remain unique. We recognize that with our tiny fraction of the total area of the United States our political rights and privileges are frequently overlooked by the States. If this resolution is ratified and enacted, we will then be able to hold our heads high among the States. Despite our continuing unique status, we too will at last belong to the family of Americans.

Senator KEFAUVER. The statement of Mrs. Zilla H. Daniel, executive secretary of the Washington chapter of the Americans for Democratic Action will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY OF MRS. ZILLA H. DANIEL, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ON BEHALF OF WASHINGTON CHAPTER, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION, BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO GRANT NATIONAL VOTING RIGHTS TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The Washington chapter of Americans for Democratic Action has always supported the extension of national representation to the people of the District of Columbia. We do not believe it is necessary to justify, before this committee, an extension of democratic rights to the people of the Nation's Capital.

In the past, we have been skeptical of effects to achieve a national vote. Opponents of local home rule have used this as a means of stalling home rule legislation and their interest in national representation usually terminates abruptly with the bottling up of home rule legislation. We recognize, however, that this present effort in the Senate is a sincere and meaningful one. We are grateful that the supporters of this constitutional amendment recognize that it is neither a substitute for local home rule, nor should it be used to lessen the effort to achieve home rule.

In the area of home rule, the ADA has been willing, although reluctantly, to accept a partial grant. We feel that once the people of Washington have demonstrated their capacity to govern themselves in a responsible manner, it will be relatively easy to perfect home rule through the normal congressional process. The process of amending the Constitution, however, is a slow and cautious one. It is essential therefore that any proposal to change the Constitution should be as near to perfection, as close to our ultimate objectives, as possible.

We believe that there are several objections to the pending amendment, at least as it has been reported in the press. We do not believe it is wise to fix in the Constitution the number of electors or of delegates for the District. We believe that these should be apportioned to the District on the same basis as they are apportioned to the several States. We recognize that since the District is now heavily populated, this may result in a long term reduction in the number of delegates and electors. However, to paraphrase Lincoln, just as we do not want less representation for ourselves, neither do we want more.

Perhaps a more serious deficiency is that which provides that the District's delegates in Congress shall be limited in powers to those which the Congress shall determine. We fail to understand the reasoning behind this limitation. Those Congressmen and those State legislators who are opponents of democratic rights for the people of Washington are no more likely to support this limited amendment than they are to support a stronger measure. And even if this amendment survives the hurdles of congressional and State approval, we may find our delegates in Congress doomed to impotency before the same hostile committees that are frustrating the achievement of home rule. We urge that you report out a constitutional amendment that grants the District delegates in Congress the same powers as the Representatives from the States.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to be heard.

(Subsequently there was received a letter from Mr. Morton Gluck, chairman of the home rule committee of the Washington chapter of the Americans for Democratic Action, which was ordered to be made. a part of the record at this point.)

Senator ESTES KEFAUVER,

Chairman, Subcommittee of the Judiciary,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

SEPTEMBER 11, 1959.

DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: On September 9, the Washington Chapter of the ADA submitted a statement on the proposed constitutional amendment to grant the District a measure of national representation. This statement was limited. to comment on the provisions of the amendment as proposed. However, the Washington Chapter of the ADA has always favored the fullest possible representation for the people of Washington.

The executive board of the chapter, in its meeting of September 8, therefore unamimously voted that we specifically request senatorial representation be inIcluded in the proposed amendment. We had hoped to state this in oral testimony at the committee hearings. However, since the press of senatorial business did not permit this, we should like to include this letter and the following supplement to our statement in the records of the hearing.

Under the Constitution, the Senate is the locus of half the national legislative power. Therefore, regardless of the number of delegates which the District is authorized in the Congress, if this does not include representation in the Senate,. it is not full national representation. Indeed, in view of the unique responsibility of the Senate in the area of foreign policy and presidential appointments, the people of the District may thus have no voice in some of the most significant problems affecting our Nation.

It is true that senatorial representation has, in earlier periods in our history, been considered an attribute of statehood. This is no longer true; Senators represent the people of their State and not the State as a sovereign body. The Constitution guarantees the several States certain sovereign powers; it is this. which distinguishes them from territories and from a unique body such as the District of Columbia.

We see no reason why the people of the District of Columbia should not be given representation in the Congress-in both Houses of Congress on the same basis as the States. We therefore strongly urge that you report out a constitutional amendment which grants the District of Columbia proportional representation by voting delegates in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as a full vote for President.

Sincerely yours,

MORTON GLUCK, Chairman, Home Rule Committee, Washington Chapter, Americans for Democratic Action.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Andrew Easter has a statement he wanted to present. Mr. Easter has campaigned for the office of President of the United States.

Get up the statement in writing, Mr. Easter, and we will place it in the record. Meanwhile, have you any remarks you wish to make?

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. EASTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. EASTER. All I would like to suggest is, I think the President of the United States can get out an Executive order and give the people of the District of Columbia a vote.

From the time of 1871, I think it was a mistake they took it away in 1871, and I think it could easily be clarified. If anybody doesn't like it, let them take it to the Supreme Court.

Thank you very much.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much.

(Mr. Easter's prepared statement follows:)

I will work for a United States, not one frustrated by many little divisions who insist on doing as they please and who often refuse to establish any uniformity or continuity with their sister areas in matters of unchallenged value to all. Immediately upon taking the oath of office, in a presidential proclamation, I will declare effective upon such oath, that every man, woman and child, as citizens of each State, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, including the District of Columbia.

The present conditions in this country are the fault of the people. We had to lick the Germans twice before they voted 94 percent of their registered citizens. We should not need any such lesson.

The segregation issue has now been put in gear for eventual meshing through the country, except in the District of Columbia, where neither white or colored citizens have the right to vote as do other free-born American citizens. After extensive campaigning within the District of Columbia, it was proven that the vast majority of the population, regardless of race, creed, or color want an unrestricted right to vote, as they are all taxpayers. How farsighted can we be? Especially when the District of Columbia is the seat and heart of the Federal Government, where all the principles of the Constitution should be applied and proved.

Everyone should cooperate and exercise their constitutional right and duty, so that all would benefit by the development of the resources of this country. Senator KEFAUVER. We will stand in recess subject to further call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)

(Subsequently there was received a letter from Mr. Thomas K. Fulcher, 4910 Fourth St. NW., Washington, D.C., which was ordered to be made a part of the record at this point.)

Hon. BERNARD FENSTERWALD, Jr.,

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 11, 1959.

Counsel, Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee,
Senate Judiciary Committee,

Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: It is my desire to place a statement in the record in reference to the proposal now before your committee to grant to residents of the District of Columbia by way of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States a vote in the Presidential and Vice Presidential elections of the United States and representation of some type in the Congress of the United States.

It has always been my conviction that in a representative democratic form of government such as we have in this country, the right to and privilege to vote should exist for every citizen unless some soundly justified reason existed for the denial of same. In all of the years of my life, I have never been able to imagine or reason why and no one has ever explained to me any reason why residents of the District of Columbia were denied this right and privilege. Residents of the District of Columbia are citizens of the United States and are required to and do bear the same obligations as citizens of the United States residing elsewhere and in due fairness, this ancient wrong should be corrected without further ado.

My statement represents no one but myself, who was a former voter in years gone by in the States of Virginia and Maryland and would once again appreciate and enjoy the same as I plan to remain as a resident of the District of Columbia barring unforeseen happenings.

Sincerely,

THOMAS K. FULCHER.

APPENDIX A

This appendix contains testimony of Hon. Kenneth B. Keating, Hon. Francis Case, Mr. Clarence Mitchell, and Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., given before the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee during hearings on August 17 and 27, 1959, held primarily on Senate Joint Resolution 126, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the qualification of electors," and which were directed at least in part toward the question of the enfranchisement of the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator KEATING. Mr. Chairman, my prepared statement also said, "Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee." I am sorry there are not other members here, but I commend the chairman for conducting these hearings so promptly on this important subject.

I appear here today to support the Holland amendment and to strongly recomment to the committee an additional amendment for the benefit of the disenfranchised citizens of the District of Columbia.

I believe these two amendments are closely related and bear joint consideration in our efforts to remove unreasonable impediments to the right of Americans to vote.

I. The Holland amendment will abolish the most obnoxious of all requirements for voting the poll tax. The payment of such taxes as a condition for voting has been removed by State action in virtually all of the States. It persists in only five: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.

I do not believe a poll tax or other property tax can be defended by anyone as a reasonable basis for determining whether a person is qualified to vote. It is only a pretended qualification designed as a device to disenfranchise a large segment of the prospective voters in the States in which it is still enforced. In my opinion as a lawyer, it is no more entitled to recognition as a "qualification," to use the word in its technical sense, under article I, section 2, of the Constitution than would be a State law that redheaded people could not vote, or those with one arm, or vegetarians.

For that reason, I have always believed that it is within the power of Congress to abolish poll tax requirements in connection with any Federal elections by simple legislation.

However, by instinct and by experience, I am-at least am fast becoming-a realist in my approach to these problems. I know that legislation abolishing the poll tax has been passed in the other body many times but has never come to a vote in the Senate.

Those who insist upon a constitutional amendment must have their way before any action on this subject ever will be permitted. I am convinced that the only way this undemocratic vestige of earlier days will ever be eliminated is by adoption of some such measure as the Holland amendment.

An overwhelming majority of the Senate already have expressed their sponsorship of this approach. This matter has received the fullest discussion over the years. Let us not dillydally over procedures and technicalities at this date. The time has now come for action.

II. I approach the District of Columbia amendment from the same realistic standpoint. My objective here, too, is to get action on a matter which cries out for action.

The District of Columbia has more residents than several States. The disenfranchisement of those otherwise qualified to vote by their location here is

equivalent, in effect, to taking away the right to vote from almost all of the residents of Delaware, Nevada, and Wyoming combined.

Actually there are 12 States with fewer total inhabitants than the District of Columbia. Would the people in any of these States stand for the situation in which the residents of the District of Columbia are placed?

I do not know how many people in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia will be benefited by the removal of the poll tax. In other words, I do not know how many consider themselves now disenfranchised by inability or unwillingness to pay that tax. But I do not believe that that number will be appreciably more than the number of citizens in the District of Columbia, and perhaps less, who would benefit from removal of the absolute bar against their right to vote.

This is not a mere matter of numbers, however, but basically a matter of principle. We cannot justify the denial of the right of a citizen to vote because of his residence in the District of Columbia any more than we can justify the denial of the right to vote because a citizen has failed to pay a fee. Both conditions are entirely inconsistent with our democratic system. Both deserve prompt extermination.

I believe that consideration of the District of Columbia amendment in connection with the Holland amendment is appropriate because they are of the same nature. They are comparable both in their impact and in their justification.

Their joint consideration has certain other advantages, one of which is that such a course provides a basis for prompt consideration of both measures. Let us be frank about the matter. There is virtually no possibility of congressional consideration of the District of Columbia amendment during this session except under the approach I am suggesting. What I am trying to do is take advantage of an opportunity to deal with both proposals at an early date.

I want to make it clear, at the same time, that I will refrain from this effort if at any time I become convinced that joining these two proposals will jeopardize the success of either one. I want the committee's guidance on this after it has considered the subject.

I believe that a strong endorsement of both amendments by this subcommittee and the full Committee on the Judiciary-and I feel certain in the full committee the votes are there to report out the double-barreled measure-I believe this action would virtually assure the adoption of both amendments in the Senate. But if I have miscalculated the situation I will not press my proposal beyond the point where I become convinced that it is the proper thing to do.

Under the provisions of the article which I propose, the otherwise qualified residents of the District of Columbia would be entitled to elect the same number of electors to the electoral college as they would be entitled to elect if the District were a State. They would also be given the right to vote for three Delegates to the House of Representatives.

This would at long last extend to the people of our Federal City the sacred privilege of the franchise which every American should enjoy.

A copy of the proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, is attached, which I would ask be entered in the record at this point.

Senator KEFAUVER. Without objection, it will be.

(The document referred to follows:)

"AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Keating to the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 126) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the qualifications of electors, viz:

"On the first page, line 4, strike out ‘article is hereby proposed as an amendment' and insert in lieu thereof 'articles are hereby proposed as amendments'. "On page 2, line 1, immediately after the comma, insert 'both or either of. "At the end of the resolution add the following new article:

"'ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. The people of the District constituting the seat of the Government shall elect a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in the Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State. Such electors shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of all provisions of the Constitution relating to the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State.