Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that document printed again, but I call attention to the fact that in several of the New England States the payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite for obtaining such things as hunting and fishing licenses, automobile licenses or motor vehicle registrations, and the like.

Up until recent years, several of the New England States had the payment of a poll tax as a condition for participating in their cherished town meetings. One New England State, Vermont, still retains such a requirement.

The varying requirements in New England alone illustrates the wisdom of our staying away from any general effort to intervene in the field of control of elections.

Incidentally, in my own State of Florida, the constitution contains a requirement that participants in county, district, and municipal bond elections must be "freeholders," and such provision is found in other States as well.

Third, that the remedial effects of this amendment would apply not only to the State laws of all of the States, but to the laws of the United States; in other words, would not rest upon the assumption that the present sentiment so dominant in the Congress of the United States will continue to exist, but would protect the right of citizens to vote for Federal officials notwithstanding any possible later change of attitude by the Congress of the United States.

Fourth, that the proposed amendment would prohibit any other tax that is different from the ordinary poll tax, so-called, from being prescribed as a prerequisite for voting.

Diverting from my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, the last State to have such a tax was the State of Pennsylvania, as is shown in my statements at earlier hearings, and the year of its repeal was 1933. So you see this is not a fancied problem, but one that could be

Senator KEFAUVER. What kind of tax was that, Senator Holland, in Pennsylvania?

Senator HOLLAND. Would you wait a moment until I look it up? Senator KEFAUVER. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. It was a property tax of some kind.

May I read from the constitution of Pennsylvania the pertinent provision?

Senator KEFAUVER. I wish you would.

Senator HOLLAND. It is section 4 of article VIII on suffrage and elections. I quote it in full:

If 22 years of age and upwards, he shall have paid within 2 years a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least 2 months and paid at least 1 month before the election.

That was an amendment of November 5, 1901, repealed in 1933. Senator KEFAUVER. That was a county tax; is that correct? Senator HOLLAND. A State or county tax.

Fifth, that the proposed amendment would prevent either the United States or any State from setting up any property qualification as a prerequisite for participation in an election of Federal officers, with the exception of qualifications relating to those citizens who by law are denied the right to vote because they are paupers or persons supported at public expense or by charitable institutions.

I would like to amplify that point, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to explain briefly why that particular exception has been made. Some years ago when I referred the proposed amendment to the Library of Congress and to the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate, they called to my attention the fact that if we excluded property qualifications in general terms, that we might run into opposition from States which have, either in their constitutions or statutes, provisions which prohibit participation in elections by paupers, or persons who are inhabitants of public institutions and charges upon the general public.

The Library of Congress called my attention to the fact that various States have adopted such procedures because it had been found that corruption in their State elections had resulted from efforts to dominate the voting of inhabitants of poorhouses and institutions of that kind to the degree that they felt that it was important to prohibit the voting of such public charges.

For the record, the following 12 States, which are widely scattered, have varying provisions on this subject: Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, in my judgment it would be wholly futile to prohibit a denial of the right of suffrage under the imposition of the poll tax while at the same time leaving the way open to any State which might want to limit the number of its electors, to do so by the imposition of another tax or the enacting of any property qualification which it might see fit to impose, thus leaving those two additional possibilities in the picture. The same restriction would apply to the Congress.

I call to the attention of the distinguished chairman that when the Constitution was first drawn, the matter of limitation of electors under tax payment requirements, meaning taxes other than poll taxes, and under property qualifications, was a greater general deterrent to voting than was the poll tax, which at the time existed as a prerequisite to voting in only one State, the State of New Hampshire.

It seems to me, particularly in view of the fact that the property qualification and the taxpayment qualification, other than poll taxes, have been included within the various qualifications for voting by various States as late as 1930 or thereafter, that any method of dealing with this subject should be sufficiently broad to prevent the defeat of the wholesome objectives of the joint resolution by simply having various States turn to other means of gaining the same end.

Senator KEFAUVER. Let me ask, Senator Holland, was this second provision (referring to the denying of the right to vote to paupers or persons supported in public institutions) in the other resolutions you have filed?

Senator HOLLAND. It was not in the first one, Mr. Chairman, but it has appeared in later bills. It has been appearing for the last several Congresses in my resolutions.

My administrative assistant advises me that it appeared for the first time in the bill introduced in the 83d Congress and has appeared in those introduced in the 84th, 85th, and 86th Congresses. It did not appear, therefore, in the first two Congresses in which the measure was advanced and, as I have already stated in the record, it was put in because of the strong advice from the legislative counsel of

the Senate and from research people in the Library of Congress, to the effect that these constitutional and statutory provisions in various States applicable to paupers or public charges would probably bring on unnecessary opposition unless that matter was clarified in the amendment.

Senator KEFAUVER. May I ask, Senator Holland, if we could take about a 10-minute recess to see if we can get the matter of our sitting this afternoon straightened out?

Senator HOLLAND. I hope you will, Mr. Chairman, because I do not want to embarrass either the chairman or the committee or the Senate. I came over in good faith on the invitation to testify.

(Short recess.)

Senator KEFAUVER. You may proceed.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the case in support of Senate Joint Resolution 126 has been fully and completely made in the records of this subcommittee. I am perfectly willing to stand on that record which shows, first, the desirability of prohibiting the poll tax requirement in connection with the elections of elective Federal officials; and, second, that without a shadow of a doubt the only legal way to approach this problem is through the adoption of a constitutional amendment.

With regard to the latter, let me say that one thing which makes this problem particularly difficult is the fact that it is tied with other matters, well known to the chairman, which violate the traditions and settled convictions of the people in the Southern States. This fact makes it necessary, it seems to me, that any constructive step taken in this matter be taken in such a way that there can be no question whatever as to its validity and as to its being a democratic and sound way to proceed.

Anything less than that will not be acceptable. We must secure throughout the entire Nation a more wholesome and a fuller participation in Federal elections by all intelligent citizens who have the qualifications of age, mentality, residence, law observance, and so forth, that may be prescribed by the separate States.

I hope this subcommittee will report Senate Joint Resolution 126 at an early date and that it will soon be submitted by the Congress to the States for ratification.

Mr. Chairman, off the record.

(Off the record.)

Senator KEFAUVER. I want to thank you for your statement and to compliment you on your statesmanship in presenting the resolution. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Senator Holland's statement on Senate Joint Resolution 29 on April 11, 1956, follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity of appearing before this subcommittee in behalf of Senate Joint Resolution 29, a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the qualifications of electors.

I have long been interested in the poll-tax question, and as far back as 1937, as a member of the Florida State Senate, I participated in the successful fight to remove the poll tax as a Florida requirement for voting. The constitution of Florida permits the legislature, in its discretion, to impose a poll tax not exceeding $1 per year and to prescribe the same as a prerequisite for voting. The action which we took in 1937 has, in my opinion, been beneficial to the State of Florida and to the cause of clean politics in our State. It is a matter of record that largely increased percentages of citizens have participated in the elections since that date, and it is also a matter of common knowledge that abuses which had crept in under the poll-tax system, under which in some counties there was considerable control of local elections through the payments of poll taxes for citizens by others, have ceased to exist so as to bring about more wholesome conditions in Florida politics.

I would like to see the general 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 result accomplished through action taken by the States themselves. However, I sincerely believe that some of the 5 remaining States, all of which have constitutional provisions requiring the payment of a poll tax, will welcome the opportunity to remove the poll-tax requirement in presidential or congressional elections by ratifying such an amendment to the Federal Constitution as we propose in Senate Joint Resolution 29.

In other words, I think that some of the various States that feel like it is wise for them to continue poll-tax requirements affecting some of their local determinations will welcome the opportunity to approve this amendment and to enable all of their citizens otherwise qualified to participate in the election of Presidents, Vice Presidents, Senators, and Representatives.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Holland, do you not feel also that when the people and the officials in these States see the wider participation in voting, and the benefits coming from removing the poll tax as a prerequisite for Federal voting, that that might be an inducement for them to amend the Constitution so as to eliminate the poll tax altogether?

Senator HOLLAND. I do, Mr. Chairman. I believe so strongly that wider participation by the citizens generally in elections is a salutary thing, and will so demonstrate itself wherever it is realized that I believe for all purposes poll taxes will be eliminated more quickly in the five States remaining if they see how its works in the presidential and congressional elections.

I think the question has now become such a small one in terms of the area affected that the Federal Congress is justified in submitting an amendment to the Federal Constitution which I believe would result

in speedy adoption by the approving action of 36 or more States and might even result in affirmative and more complete State action being taken by all of the 5 remaining poll-tax States before 36 States could act. As a matter of fact, when I appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1949 to comment on a bill similar to Senate Joint Resolution 29, there were 7 States in which the payment of a poll tax was required, whereas today there are but 5.

It will be recalled that I introduced legislation similar to Senate Joint Resolution 29 in the 81st Congress, the 82d Congress, and the 83d Congress for several other southern Senators and myself. These resolutions were never acted upon by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to which they were referred.

I wish to pause to say that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota presided at one committee hearing and did me the kindness to listen to my rather exhaustive statement and to have printed my statement on this question in the 83d Congress, and to do his utmost to get the question submitted.

Senator LANGER. I thank you, Senator. I want to say you made a very fine presentation at that time.

Senator KEFAUVER. The Senator from North Dakota is always interested in giving the people every possible participation.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I call your attention to the fact that the resolution before you today was introduced by me, not solely for myself but also for nine other Senators from Southern States, as follows: My colleague from Florida, Mr. Smathers; Mr. George, of Georgia; Mr. Ellender and Mr. Long, of Louisiana; Mr. McClellan and Mr. Fulbright, of Arkansas; Mr. Ervin and Mr. Scott, of North Carolina; and Mr. Thurmond, of South Carolina. I deeply regret the fact that Senator Thurmond recently requested that his name be removed from the list of cosponsors, and I call that fact to the attention of the committee at the outset. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to insert into the record a copy of Senate Joint Resolution 29 and an analysis of the legal sufficiency of Senate Joint Resolution 29 made by Samuel H. Still, American Law Division of the Library of Congress.

Senator KEFAUVER. Without objection, the resolution and analysis as referred to will be printed in the record at this point. (The resolution and analysis referred to are as follows:)

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, Washington, D. C., April 9, 1956.

From: American Law Division. Subject: Analysis of Legal Effect of Senate Joint Resolution 29, 84th Congress, 1st session.

The constitutions and statutes of the various States have been examined to determine the nature of such economic barriers to qualifying for voting as are now exercised in the States. These economic qualifications imposed by the States have been examined in the light of Senate Joint Resolution 29, introduced on January 26, 1955, proposing to amend the Federal Constitution. The proposal is designed to eliminate any requirement that a tax be paid or property be owned in order to qualify for voting for presidential electors, United States Senators, or Representatives in Congress. The amendment would apply to both primaries and general elections.

Each State generally exacts the same qualifications requisite for voting in the primary as in the general election and for voting for State as for national officers.

A table indicating States wherein constitutional or statutory provisions would be affected by Senate Joint Resolution 29 is attached.

« AnteriorContinuar »