In addition, it provides a stable source of local revenue, usually earmarked for a specific purpose such as schools or similar community affairs.

Certainly payment of any lawful tax could be made a prerequisite to voting at the present time. As I have already said, I traced this down and at one time all taxes had to be paid. In former days there had to be a property qualification of some kind. Well, times have changed about the ownership of property, but times haven't changed one bit on the necessity to have some reasonable regulation of this franchise.

Furthermore, this resolution would, for the first time, prescribe some restrictions on the State's power to qualify presidential electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires the State to adhere to any formula in its "appointment of presidential electors." The only reservation is that no Senator or Representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector. Thus, for the first time, the method of the State's determining its representation in the electoral college would be affected by constitutional language.

After a study of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose and ask the following questions:

1. Is the so-called poll tax problem of sufficient importance to justify an amendment of the Constitution?

Now, Mr. Chairman, you and I have been here in the Congress, in the Senate about the same length of time, and when we first came here, this matter was agitated from every hilltop and written about in the magazines and newspapers and was always being pressed and pushed, and I remember some of the first debates that I took any part in here, having just been here a few months, was on this very subject. I was on the Rules Committee. Well, all that has quieted down and has been abandoned. This is no longer really an issue. It has been decided that the pecuniary part or imposition upon any voter was so small and so slight that it certainly didn't have a weight beyond microscopic size in the economic field, and I think it has been pretty generally decided that it is a reasonable regulation of the franchise. That is why I say it is no longer an issue. It is no longer agitated here.

There have been a lot of these States that have repealed this poll tax themselves and that is a matter that certainly is all right with me. My main point here is that each State has the right to pass on this matter itself, paricularly as it is a field in which there has not been invasion by the Federal Government. And I just don't believe that there will be.

The second question: Does not the language of this amendment create two standards of qualifications for electors despite constitutional language, remaining unamended, that the qualifications of electors for the most numerous branch of the legislature must be the qualifications for election of Representatives and Senators?

Now, the language of article I, section 2, and the 17th amendment, remain unchanged. Now, that could be a very serious constitutional question because the language clearly in the Constitution now, and has been so accepted all these years, provides that the qualifications in the States for the most numerous branch of the legislature shall be the qualifications here in these Federal offices.

Now, we are not requiring the States to adopt the same method but we are setting up a separate one in effect by this amendment. Would this amendment prevent any State from imposing new poll tax requirements for local or State elections? This amendment would not prevent passage of numerous new poll tax laws or property qualifications or other requirements barred by the language of this bill in Federal elections only.

No. 4, is there any current reliable statistical information available to prove that the poll tax requirement, at the present time, operates to deprive any group of the right to qualify to vote? Is any reliable statistical material available to show how many otherwise qualified voters have been disenfranchised because of nonpayment of poll tax? I don't know of any real statistics that undertake to give an accurate picture. I can only give my opinion and my opinion is, as I say, based upon experiences, and I have been in contact with the public all these years, that the number that were prevented for this reason is very slight so far as the money payment is concerned.

Now, it may be that they would add up some because of the carelessness or the neglect and the lack of foresight and lack of interest, but I tell you right now, it doesn't make any difference what the background is or what the color of their skin is or anything else. I think unless a person is willing to have some forethought and have an interest to plan ahead and submit to some kind of a small tax or some contribution to the Government, I don't think that they ought to vote. There is always the danger that Congress, in dealing with emotional questions such as this poll tax question has become, actually acts without full knowledge of the current situation, the magnitude of the problem it seeks to solve.

My major point after all is that it is a very serious matter when the Congress or even the people through constitutional processes invade the privileges, the powers of a State of the United States, takes away from those States a power that is positively vested with them, and this is particularly true when it gets down to the very nerves of the privileges of citizenship itself and exercising the right to vote.

Now, this is not a new matter that developed, that came in with the automobile, or something, or has been brought about through electronics. This problem is as old as Government itself. And this is a matter that was dealt with by the constitutional fathers and it was positively placed with the States. And there it has remained all these decades, almost two centuries now, and the small problem, if it could be called a problem at all, the microscopic problem that it represents certainly doesn't justify a constitutional amendment, but affirmatively and I would like to speak on the affirmative points always, if possible-but affirmatively after all, it is a very modest, mild, reasonable, practicable regulation of the right of franchise and any right, the greater it is, the more important it is, the more important is the preserving and protecting powers of the Government to protect it from the wavering of the unthinking and the irresponsible, and as a part of very moderate and reasonable election laws in all the States that I am familiar with, it serves a very fine purpose without injury to any individual.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should leave this matter where it is. I trust that this committee, the subcommittee and the full com

mittee, will reach that conclusion. I rest my case with you and thank you again, sir, very much for being willing to come in here and accommodate me for this afternoon's hearing.

Senator KEFAUVER. Very well. We are glad to do so, and I wish to thank you very much for a very well prepared statement.

(At this point in the proceedings, Senator Stennis left the subcommittee room.)

Senator KEFAUVER. We are glad to have with us Senator Case of South Dakota who is a sponsor of Senate Resolution 60, which has been made a part of the record along with similar resolutions, Senate Joint Resolution 71 by Senator Beall and Senate Joint Resolution 134 by Senator Keating. Senator Case.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS CASE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the privilege of appearing before you. It is my understanding that the problem to which the subcommittee is addressing itself is the disfranchisement of persons in voting for President, Vice President and representation in Congress.

Senator KEFAUVER. That is correct.

Senator CASE. That is, it is the total problem of disfranchisement of people voting in national elections.

I have prepared my statement in the form of a letter addressed to you and with your permission, I shall read the letter. Senator KEFAUVER. Very well.

Senator CASE. My dear Mr. Chairman:

You and your committee are to be commended for taking up the question of suffrage in national elections for disfranchised persons. I urge you to give the right of such franchise to the District of Columbia residents.

This is the ultimate irony: that the people who reside at the seat of government for the nation that preaches to the world about selfgovernment are denied any voice whatever in their own Government. No amount of oratory, no amount of breast beating, no dosage of foreign aid can wipe out the blot of this hypocrisy at home. Not property or the lack of it, not literacy or illiteracy, not the poll tax, not sex, not age but residence and residence alone denies suffrage to those who reside at the seat of government for the United States.

Government for residents of the District of Columbia can never be truly government by the governed until they participate in the election of the national administration and of representation in Congress. No plan for electing a local council can provide true self-government unless the Constitution is changed.

This is true because of the constitutional provision that Congress shall have exclusive legislative power for the seat of government and because the President names judges and certain administrative officials for the District. Every home rule bill, so-called, recognizes that final legislative authority resides in Congress; and, for that reason, every such bill carries language to make clear that Congress can override, amend, or repeal any act or ordinance by the local council.

Conversely, a vote on Presidential electors and Delegates in the Congress will give residents of the seat of government a voice in their real Government and anything less than that will not do so.

The remedy is simple: by constitutional amendment give the peʊple of the District of Columbia the right and the means to vote for Presidential electors and for representation in the Congress.

Since our method of electing President and Vice President is by means of an electoral college based upon representation in Congress, the simple way is to provide for the election of Presidential electors and since the population of the District of Columbia exceeds that of many States, I suggest three Presidential electors and a corresponding representation in the Congress.

Parenthetically, I observe that if you provide only one Delegate in Congress, that with so large a constituency living so close to his office, this one would be overwhelmed with calls and callers. Three Delegates for that reason also would seem the practical answer to the problem.

So, I respectfully and earnestly urge that while you consider this question of suffrage for people who are disfranchised in violation of the principles of self-government which this Nation professes, that you submit to the Senate an appropriate resolution to correct the situation that exists.

I ask permission to place in your hearings following my testimony a statement by Mr. Benjamin McKelway, editor of the Washington Evening Star, presented to the House District Committee, together with an editorial which appeared in the Evening Star on August 14, on this subject.

Senator KEFAUVER. Without objection, they will be printed in the record following your statement.

Senator CASE. For your convenience I offer the following as an amendment to the bill before you to accomplish what I have suggested. That is, if you should decide to report the bill which relates to the poll tax, the two amendments could be submitted together by striking out in line 4 on page 1 the "article is hereby proposed as an amendment" and insert in lieu thereof "articles are hereby proposed as amendments."

And then on page 2, line 1, immediately after the comma, insert "both or either of."

And at the end of the resolution add the following new article, and the language of that new article corresponds to the bill which I introduced. I will just insert that in the record at this point.

SECTION 1. In choosing the President and the Vice President of the United States, the people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States shall be entitled to elect in such manner as the Congress may provide by law three electors and such electors shall possess the qualifications required by article II of the Constitution and whose ballots shall be cast and counted as provided by the twelfth article of amendment of the Constitution. SEC. 2. The people of the District constituting the seat of the Goverment of the United States shall be entitled to elect, in such manner as the Congress may provide by law, 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.

Amend the title so as to read:

Joint resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States relating to the qualifications of electors, and to the granting of representa

tion in the House of Representatives and in the electoral college to the District of Columbia.

It provides that Congress may provide by law for the election of three electors possessing the qualifications required by article II of the Constitution and whose ballots shall be cast and counted as provided by the 12th article of amendment of the Constitution; and further, that the people of the District shall be entitled to elect in such manner as Congress may provide by law these Delegates to the House of Representatives and such powers as the Congress by law shall determine.

I think I have given you in this letter the direct simple statement of the situation. If I might elaborate just briefly, the suggestion has been made, I think, that you might accomplish this purpose simply by adding to the resolution dealing with the poll tax that suffrage shouldn't be denied by reason of residence in the District of Columbia. I do not think that that would accomplish the purpose because such a provision would not be self-executing. If the District of Columbia had a means of voting on Presidential electors or had a means of voting for Delegates or Members of Congress, the prohibition against a denial because of residence in the District of Columbia might accomplish the purpose, but I don't think just to tack language relating to residence in the District of Columbia on to the poll tax amendment would effect the purposes desired.

There is machinery in the District of Columbia for electing delegates to national conventions, as you know. We made that step a few years ago. But beyond that there is no provision for it. And since we do not vote directly for Presidents or Vice Presidents but vote for members of the electoral college for electors, there must be, it seems to me, some affirmative provision for voting for electors.

Similarly, since electors are based on representation in Congress, the consistent thing, at least, with our electoral machinery would be to provide for certain representation in the Congress and use that as the index to the number of Presidential electors that would be voting. So since the State with the smallest representation has at least one Member of Congress and two Senators for a total of three votes in the electoral college, I took the figure three as the logical figure for determining the number of electors, and correspondingly the number of Delegates in the House of Representatives.

Now, I have noted that some Members of the House of Representatives in comment upon proposals similar to this have said, why don't you provide for Senators and not merely Delegates in the House of Representatives?

While I may be anticipating that that argument might be raised here, I think I should give the explanation that I gave them. You can't have Senators unless you have States. Senators are Senators from such and such a State. I do not see how you could establish a plan for Members of the Senate without giving statehood as such to the District of Columbia.

The Constitution provided that the seat of the Constitution might be an area not to exceed 10 miles square which could be created by secession of an area from States. There is no provision or no contemplation anywhere that the District of Columbia would be a new State. So that is the reason why I suggest Delegates in the House of Representatives.