somewhat in his hands when he suggests that there may be a better way of doing things.

But in all sincerity, it seems to me

Senator KEFAUVER. I appreciate the argument you are making and the point of view, and of course I debated the matter myself and discussed it many, many times; but it seems to me that, if we are in an impasse here and we cannot agree about which is the better method, and if we can get substantial agreement on enough of it to have a chance of getting it through, maybe that is best.

Mr. RAUH. It seems to me, sir, if I may most respectfully disagree, that you still have to get the three-fourths of the States. I have yet to hear from Senator Holland a guarantee that Florida will ratify, or from the other southern cosponsors of this that their States will ratify.

If you take the Southern States out of this, sir, you have got to get all of the rest of them and, therefore, ratification is not going to be the easiest thing to accomplish. The Constitution does require three-quarters of the States to ratify, and when you have a matter which involves regional problems, it becomes very difficult. I do not mean to be critical of the southern legislatures, but I can understand a resentment by the southern legislatures against civil rights action. And, therefore, I do not think by any manner of means that ratification is assured.

It is difficult to get legislation. Anybody who watches the Judiciary Committee operate now is aware of the difficulty of getting legislation. But I by no means think that it is hopeless to put this through as legislation.

Senator Johnson has assured us there will be a civil rights measure I would suggest that this poll tax statute, which affects only five States, be attached to it. I would think that this would be a simple enough thing to accomplish in view of what appears to be Senator Johnson's intention of having civil rights legislation.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, Mr. Rauh, what would you think about a 2- or 3-year limitation within which the States must act, and then if they did not act, you would be in a stronger position to urge legislation.

Mr. RAUH. I think that would be helpful, sir, if you put a 2-year limitation on it, because we would know that that was the time within which it must be done. I would still rather see legislation, but I certainly would agree with the Senator that a short-time limitation would be healthy. You cannot make it too short because some legislatures meet only once every 2 years, and you obviously would have to have a period which would cover every legislature meeting at least once. That would be, I would say, a helpful provision if it were added.

With no time limit, action may be postponed indefinitely. I would certainly favor the suggestion of a time limit, if you are going ahead by constitutional amendment. But I would certainly favor going ahead by statute.

If I may just say a word about the District of Columbia point. I am vice chairman of the District of Columbia Democratic Party, and most interested in the District of Columbia side of this. I would favor Senator Keating's amendment with two reservations:

The first reservation is that it will not take the pressure off the home rule bill. Many people who favor this constitutional amendment do not favor home rule. I do not mean Senator Keating because I know he is for home rule. I would like also to pay tribute to Senator Kefauver. I know of no one who has done more for home rule than you have, sir, and I think everybody in the District of Columbia recognizes the debt which they owe you for the continuous fight you have made for home rule.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, thank you, and I shall continue to be interested.

Mr. RAUH. My first condition, therefore, for support for the amendment would be that it not be considered as a substitute for home rule or in any way a releasing of pressure on home rule. In my judgment, home rule comes first, second, third; everything else must follow that.

Now, if, in fact, it will not adversely affect our chances for home rule, then I would say-and this would be my second condition-I do not see why we should have delegates instead of the real McCoy. If, in fact, we are going to put through a constitutional amendment that affects the District of Columbia, let's make it final and complete. After all, you cannot put a constitutional amendment through about the District of Columbia every afternoon. This is a constitutional amendment which is likely to be the amendment for years and decades

to come.

Therefore, why not, instead of the delegates, provide for the election of Senators and Representatives as in all the States. If we are going to do this job now, I believe we ought to do the whole job. Therefore, I support Senator Keating's suggestion, subject to the two reservations: First, that it not relieve the pressure on home rule; and, second, that it should be amended to give us our rights to Senators and Congressmen and not be limited to delegates.

Thank you, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, to have Senators and Congressmen, you have to have the District of Columbia constituted a State.

Mr. RAUH. If you wanted to call it that. I do not believe, under the Constitution, that would be necessary. I am not sure. I never thought about whether you would create it as a State or something else.

I see no reason why it should not be a State for purposes of having a Senator and Congressman. But I do not see why you would have to call it that in a constitutional amendment. After all, the amendment amends the Constitution and, therefore, it seems to me you could give it such structure as the Congress deemed advisable, and if you felt it better not to call it a State- and I think it would be adopted more quickly probably, if you did not-you can simply amend section 2 to provide for Congressmen and Senators. I do not believe there is any provision in the Constitution which would adversely affect the validity of that amendment.

Senator KEFAUVER. You could say that for the purposes of representation in Congress, the District of Columbia shall be considered a State.

Mr. RAUH. Yes, sir.

And Mr. Taylor calls my attention to the fourth line of section 2 of Senator Keating's proposed amendment, where there appear the words:

to which the District would be entitled if it were a State.

Somewhat similar language might be available under section 2.

I think Senator Keating has done a useful thing in bringing this proposal up. I just stated two conditions to it which seemed to me worthy of consideration.

Senator KEFAUVER. How are you going to write your first condition in the resolution?

Mr. RAUH. I cannot, sir. I simply wanted to express an opinion that I think the residents of the District of Columbia hold, which is that home rule is first and foremost.

Thank you, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much for coming and being with us.

We are glad to have you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. FENSTERWALD. Mr. Chairman, those are the only witnesses we have scheduled for this afternoon. Do you want to adjourn the hearings or recess them at the call of the Chair.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)

POLL TAX AND ENFRANCHISEMENT OF DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1959

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in room 457, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Estes Kefauver (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Kefauver.

Also present: Bernard Fensterwald, counsel.

Senator KEFAUVER. The subcommittee will come to order.

This is a continuation of hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 126, and then also on resolutions having to do with the District of Columbia.

(S.J. Res. 60, 71, and 126 have been previously referred to and printed within the hearing. S.J. Res. 134 is herewith printed.)

[S.J. Res. 134, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide that the people of the District of Columbia shall be entitled to vote in presidential elections and for Delegates to the House of Representatives

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 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:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. The people of the District consitituting 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 State, 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.

"SEC. 2. The people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States shall elect three Delegates to the House of Representatives with such powers as the Congress, by law, shall determine.

"SEC. 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Senator KEFAUVER. The subcommittee is honored to have a very distinguished jurist and lawyer, a member of the U.S. Senate from the State of Mississippi, present as our first witness this afternoon. Senator Stennis, you may proceed.

45742 0-60

-6

77