(S.J. Rés. 126 and the list of sponsors follow :) [S.J. Res. 126, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the qualifications of electors Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: 46 ARTICLE "SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax or to meet any property qualification. "SEC. 2. Nothing in this article shall be construed to invalidate any provision of law denying the right to vote to paupers or persons supported at public expense or by charitable institutions. "SEC. 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I call to the attention of the subcommittee the fact that the 66 cosponsors include members of both political parties and from every area of the Nation, and that it has the sponsorship and support of the majority leader and the majority whip as well as that of the minority leader and the minority whip. Mr. Chairman, in the 81st Congress and in every succeeding Congress, I have introduced for several other Senators and myself a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the qualifications of electors participating in the election of elective Federal officials, including electors for President or Vice President, and Senators and Representatives in Congress. The first five Congresses in which I introduced this joint resolution I was joined by outstanding Senators from the South, and I ask to have inserted in the hearing record at this point the names of those cosponsors: Holland of Florida Holland (Florida) Holland (Florida) 81ST CONGRESS Ellender of Louisiana Long of Louisiana Broughton of North Carolina 82D CONGRESS Fulbright (Arkansas) 83D CONGRESS Ellender (Louisiana) Fulbright (Arkansas) 84TH CONGRESS In fairness to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, let me state for the record that he withdrew his name as a cosponsor soon after the bill was introduced in the 84th Congress. Hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on this proposal in the 81st, 83d, and 84th Congresses, and in each instance the hearing record was printed and is now available. It is interesting to note that in the 81st Congress there was no opposition to the joint resolution in the hearings; the same was true in the 83d Congress; and in the 84th Congress, two opposition witnesses appeared, the Honorable Thomas A. Wofford, then a U.S. Senator from South Carolina, and Clarence Mitchell, director, Washington bureau, NAACP, who filed a statement by J. Pohlhaus, counsel, Washington bureau, NAACP. Mr. Chairman, in past years my testimony has been directed largely to the question of whether a constitutional amendment is necessary or whether a mere Federal statute would legally accomplish the purpose of prohibiting the imposition of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in Federal elections. I think the carefully documented argument I have made down through the years as to the absolute necessity of a constitutional amendment is unanswerable, and the fact that I am joined this year in cosponsoring this proposed constitutional amendment by 65 other Senators leads me to conclude that I need not take the time of this subcommittee today to go into that question in detail. However, Mr. Chairman, in order that Senators may have before them in this record the complete argument on that question, I ask that my remarks beginning at page 2 and concluding on page 55 of the hearings of April 11, 1956, on Senate Joint Resolution 29 of that Congress, be printed at the conclusion of my remarks today. Senator KEFAUVER. Without objection, that will be done. Senator HOLLAND. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the basic argument as to whether a constitutional amendment is necessary centers around the question of whether the required payment of a poll tax (or other tax) or the meeting of any property qualification are "qualifications" within the meaning of article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the 17th amendment to the Constitution. The pertinent provisions of each are included in the Constitution in the same words, though article I, section 2 was incorporated by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the 17th amendment was ratified by 36 States in 1912 and 1913. I may say parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, this is the only provision in the Constitution which appears in the same language in two parts of the Constitution, much less in two parts adopted at such different times. I quote first that part of section 2 of article I of the original Constitution which is applicable: 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. The first paragraph of the 17th amendment reads as follows: 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. The testimony I asked to have printed in the record a few moments ago contains the pertinent constitutional provisions or colonial charter provisions where a State was operating under such a documentat the time the U.S. Constitution was written. It also includes pertinent excerpts from various State constitutions in effect when the 17th amendment was submitted, showing the use of the words "qualify," "qualification," "qualified," and so forth, in connection with poll tax payment requirements or other tax payment requirements or property ownership requirements. It is significant that each of the Thirteen Original States had, in the fundamental documents under which they were operating at the time the Federal Constitution was formed, either a poll tax requirement, as in New Hampshire-and that is the only one that had a poll tax requirement at that time-or property-ownership requirements or taxpaying requirements, both of which were more severe than a mere poll tax payment requirement, or 2 or even 3 of these conditions, and that in 8 of the 13 documents the word "qualified" or "qualifications" or both were used in referring to those particular requirements and conditions. Mr. Chairman, there could be no question at all that the framers of the original Constitution, men who probably knew more about the fundamental setup of the Thirteen Original Colonies and the new States that had come in prior to the adoption of the Constitution than any group living, must have known that the word "qualifications" as then used embraced the payment of poll tax, the payment of property taxes, and the requirement of property ownership, as the case might be, in the various States. It seems to me to be so completely proved beyond any question of doubt that those who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and used the words "qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature" would be bound to know that these States had prescribed, not as a prerequisite of voting, but as a complete qualification for voting, payment of poll taxes, payment of other kinds of taxes, and ownership of properties of various kinds and descriptions, and that all of these conditions for voting had been styled over and over and over again in these various constitutions as "qualifications" or as being necessary to "qualify" electors or as, when existing, having "qualified" persons to serve as electors. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to indulge in a lot of semantics in this argument, but it seems so completely clear to me that the framers of the Constitution understood the word "qualification" to comprise and include such things as the payment of a poll tax, the payment of property taxes, and the ownership of property, that the matter is not arguable. It seems to me and I am joined in this opinion by many constitutional lawyers throughout the country-that the present Constitution of the United States completely prevents and prohibits the accomplishment of the removal of the poll tax as a requirement for voting in Federal elections in any way other than by a constitutional amendment. We sponsors of this joint resolution strongly believe that the proposed constitutional amendment should be speedily submitted by this Congress to the States for ratification and, if so submitted, we believe it will be quickly ratified by at least the required 38 States. Because we are so sure that the requisite number of States would speedily ratify the proposed amendment, we are quite agreeable to the allowing of any reasonable period to accomplish its consideration and ratification by the various States. I suggest a limitation of 2 years. The ratification of the 17th amendment, which was in some respects comparable to our proposed amendment, was completed in a little less than 1 year. The poll tax requirement, now limited to five States-namely, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia has been ac corded far greater importance than it deserves. The fact of the matter is that the amount of poll tax required to be paid in the several States is so small as to impose only a slight economic obstacle for any citizen who desires to qualify to cast a ballot. This requirement operates, of course, equally on citizens of all races and colors, and is generally subject to important exemptions which limit its application, such as the exemption of veterans, of women, and of citizens beyond a certain age. Nevertheless the question has remained a vexing one. May I say, Mr. Chairman, outside of my prepared statement, that in 1937, as a member of the State Senate of Florida, I was one of those who participated in outlawing the poll tax requirement in Florida which was permitted to be levied as a requirement for voting by our constitution. We outlawed it as a requirement for all kinds of voting, that is, going much further than this proposed amendment, which of course confines itself to the Federal field. We have had nothing but good results from that action. It has freed certain counties from control by political machines, which was exercised through the payment of a poll tax, by the so-called "courthouse ring" in most cases, or others who had some selfish interest. It has resulted in a greater participation in voting by people of both races. It has had salutary effects. I am strongly sold upon the proposition that to impede the casting of ballots, as is done by the imposition of poll tax requirements or these other requirements which would be outlawed under this proposed amendment, is a hurtful process which prevents full realization of the democratic possibilities which are best realized when a large proportion of the people come to the polls and vote. I strongly believe that it is sound democracy to have as full participation as possible in our elections. I have been asking for submission of a constitutional amendment on this subject by Congress for a long time, and I still feel that it is much more important to accomplish our purpose in this strictly legal way rather than to waste the time of Congress and the courts in some petty passing of legislation and going ahead with litigation, which operates at most as to only a very few individuals here or there. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention briefly to five details in this proposed amendment, as follows: First, that it is applicable to primaries and other elections in which Federal officials are nominated or elected, namely, presidential electors, Senators, and Representatives to Congress. Second, that the proposed amendment prohibits the imposition of a poll tax as a prerequisite for such voting for Federal officials only, not relating to the voting for State or local officials or upon State or local matters. Senator KEFAUVER. Let us have a brief recess. (Short recess.) Senator KEFAUVER. We will proceed. Senator HOLLAND. I was just calling attention to the five details. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, in the 1956 hearings I had printed in the record a document prepared for me by the Library of Congress entitled "Poll Taxes as Levied in New England States," which illustrated so clearly the type of local control which the cosponsors of the resolution feel should be allowed to continue. I will not ask to have |