Senator CASE of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MORTON. It is an ironic paradox that Congress took this step to assure election of House Members from single-Member districts at a time when the general ticket system for electors had been adopted in all but one State.

The statute requiring single-Member House districts set up on a fair and equitable basis with near equal population and embracing contiguous territory was reenacted after almost every national census until early in this century, the last time in 1911.

It should be pointed out that the Honorable Emanuel Celler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, has been urging in several Congresses, including this Congress, adoption of a constitutional amendment which would require the establishment of fair and equitable districting for the election of Representatives.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to emphasize, as did my colleague, Senator Mundt, before this committee, that this amendment, of course, gives to each and every citizen of the United States an equal vote for the Presidency. We do not have that today. Under the terms of this amendment each and every citizen will vote for three electors. Today in a close election we can well have a situation-for instance, the Spanish-speaking of this country could well determine an election, and could be motivated for emotional reasons.

After the 1960 redistricting goes through, the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and California will, I think, have about 26 percent of the total electoral vote. These States, as you well know, have a substantial Spanish-speaking population, with Spanish radio stations, newspapers, and so forth. They could easily be motivated, in a close national election, to vote as a bloc because of something that might have occurred in Buenos Aires or elsewhere, and could swing 26 percent of our total electoral vote.

I think that we, today, all of us, are earnestly seeking fair civil rights. We are earnestly seeking an equal opportunity for all of our citizens. I think that this amendment, which gives to every man and woman of voting age in the United States of America equality in that each can vote for three electors, in keeping with the times, and I strongly urge that the committee favor and approve the resolution. Senator KEFAUVER. We are glad to have Senator Keating, a member of the committee, join us at this time.

And, of course, we are pleased to have Senator Case, who is Senator Mundt's colleague from South Dakota, and who is not a member of the committee, join us.

Senator Case, please join with the members of the committee and counsel in asking questions of our distinguished witnesses, as you wish.

Senator CASE of South Dakota. Thank you.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Morton, we appreciate your coming here and your interest in this problem. We know that, from your service in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and also your experience as chairman of the Republican National Committee, you are well qualified to talk about the evils of the present system, about the electoral system, and how it should be corrected.

Senator KEATING. You mean from a constitutional point of view?

Senator KEFAUVER. From a constitutional point of view; yes. One weakness of the Mundt proposal, as you have pointed out, is that, as presented previously, it had the election of two of the electors statewide representing the Senators and the other electors from congressional districts. And, as you have explained here, one district at present is at present has a population of 150,000, and another 1 million, so that the people in the district with 150,000 would have 6 times the voice in the election of electors as the people in the district with a population of 1 million. And as you point out, this present resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 12, seeks to remedy that by providing, on page 2—

such districts to be composed of compact contiguous territory containing as nearly as practicable the number of persons which entitle the State to one Representative in the Congress and such districts when formed shall not be altered until another census has been taken.

This would contemplate, I take it, that, while the State might go on and still have these disproportionate population districts for the purpose of electing Congressmen, when it came to voting for electors they would have to have another kind of district. Is that correct?

Senator MORTON. Yes, sir. And I think that will be a powerful weapon on the State legislatures to make more equitable distribution, or districting, for the seats in the House of Representatives. The weakness of the original Mundt-Coudert proposal was the fact that we did have districts of such unequal size.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes; I think that was one of the weaknesses, the one that was talked about most. Well, now, the question remains: How would you enforce that; how would a constitutional amendment require that the States have approximately the same number, of people in each congressional district, each electoral district? Senator MORTON. I think you would have to have congressional review.

Senator KEFAUVER. What if they did not do it?

Senator MORTON. You mean if we did not do it here?

Senator KEFAUVER. What if the States did not do it?

Senator MORTON. I think they would have to meet certain standards, and I think we would have to have congressional review and approval of it.

Senator KEFAUVER. You mean if a State, notwithstanding the requirement of the constitutional amendment, did not straighten out its electoral districts, Congress by action could do so?

Senator MORTON. Yes; I think it could, just as the courts today do so. They are required to go at large and my State in 1932, everyone ran at large. I think there will be some States where they will all have to run at large this year, where the States just do not do the redistricting job that is to be done, or next year, I should say.

Senator KEFAUVER. And if they run at large, why, then part of the value coming from the proposed amendment would be lost?

Senator MORTON. Yes; it would, indeed, but I think it would only apply in one election. I think they would straighten themselves out, just as they do in the case of Congressmen running at large.

Senator KEFAUVER. Now, what are you going to do about the States that do not have congressional districts? Mr. Kirby tells me there are three of them. Which are they?

Mr. KIRBY. There are three States which, although they have more than one Representative, still elect some Congressmen at Large. They are Connecticut, New Mexico, and North Dakota.

Senator KEFAUVER. What would you do about those States?

Senator MORTON. I would hope they would redistrict so they do not have a Congressman at Large. I think it is unfair to the Members who serve at large to have the requirement statewise, which a Senator has, with the staff limitations and other limitations that prevail in the House of Representatives. I think that this amendment might encourage those three States to negate the actions which they have taken in the past for Congressmen at Large.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Keating, do you have any questions to ask of Mr. Morton?

Senator KEATING. Yes; I have one or two. We welcome Senator Morton's advice, as his presence here, and contribution which he has made. He takes the position that Congressman Celler, of the House, has taken for some time. This, in one way, could be called the CellerMorton proposal.

Senator MORTON. What is your association?

Senator KEATING. I got into this very fully in the House. We had some hearings on this subject over there. And I always opposed this idea of having the Federal Government step in and have anything to say about how the States should apportion their congressional districts. I realize the Senator's proposal does not do that, but it would seem to me, as you have so properly stated, that the impetus would be most compelling to get the electoral districts the same as the congressional districts.

Senator KEFAUVER. You mean the congressional districts the same as the electoral districts.

Senator KEATING. Yes; that is one way of putting it. In other words, if you set up the electoral districts, and adhered to the standards of compactness and contiguity that are set forth in Senator Morton's proposal, and you did not do that in congressional districts, there would be some very serious objections.

Doesn't the Senator feel that to give the Congress the power to pass on how the States divide up their congressional districts would be unwise? Let's leave out the electoral district for the time being. Does the Senator take the Celler view that the Federal Government should have a supervisory role with reference to the

Senator MORTON. Well, I would say this, first, that this is a moral influence that is brought to bear.

Senator KEATING. By you and Congressman Celler "morally"; is that what you mean?

Senator MORTON. No; on the State legislatures. But we are not telling the State legislatures how to divide up the congressional districts. They can do it any way they please.

Senator KEATING. But if they did not do it the way provided here, you would have congressional review?

Senator MORTON. Electoral districts, right, but not congressional districts.

Senator KEATING. Let me take it a step at a time.

Senator MORTON. I recognize, Senator, that you have-how many is it; 47 votes

Senator KEATING. We have 45.

Senator MORTON. You vote for 45 members of the electoral college; I vote for 10; my good friend, Senator Case, 4. We just want to get it on the act a little bit.

Senator KEATING. I do not blame you. I am trying to get your philosophy here, your underlying philosophy here, as to review by the Federal Government of the actions of the States.

Senator MORTON. Insofar as the electoral college is concerned only. Senator KEATING. All right. Now, let's take this a step at a time. If this were a question of the apportionment of congressional districts, would you say that the Congress should have an overriding authority if the States did not apportion them in a satisfactory way to change it?

In the congressional districts?

Senator MORTON. No. As to electoral districts, they should have, because we are electing a President of the United States and a Vice President of the United States.

Senator KEATING. All right; we are agreed they should not have it as to congressional districts. Would you agree with that?

Senator MORTON. Yes; I agree with that.

Senator KEATING. Well, then, I must say you depart from Congressman Celler in that respect, so that you are in a different situation. Now you think they should have it as to electoral districts; that is to say, the Congress should have the power to override the States if they do not do the proper kind of job as to electoral districts?

Senator MORTON. Yes. I think that all citizens should be equal. I think we should all have an equal voice in the election of the President.

Senator KEATING. In other words, that you and I should have the power to upset Congressman Case's South Dakota decision or Senator Kefauver's Tennessee decision as to electorals?

Senator MORTON. Yes. I think they have to be fair. I think that a President of the United States transcends States rights, if you will, and it should be that each citizen of the United States should have an equal voice in the selection of a President.

Senator KEATING. I am going to come to that in a minute. Don't you feel there would be an almost irresistible effort to change the congressional districts to coincide with the electoral districts if there was a constitutional amendment enacted like this?

Senator MORTON. I agree with you that there would be strong pressure on the State legislatures, as I have said, to make the congressional districts conform with the electoral districts.

Senator KEATING. So that the results, if they did that, and if they did not resist that pressure, would be that then the Congress would be passing on the congressional districts also?

Senator MORTON. Indirectly.

Senator KEATING. Now, you made a point a minute ago that you thought everyone should have one vote, and the majority should control, and that is the basis of the Constitution.

Senator MORTON. Everyone votes with three electors under our proposal.

Senator KEATING. Wouldn't you recognize, and I do not expect you to approve of the system because you have your own plan here, which I may say I consider very much better than the proposal of the per

centage allocation of electors which is advanced sincerely by some people but isn't it a fact that the only way for the majority of Americans to have their voice heard in the election and be sure that the majority elects the President is to do away with the electoral college? Senator MORTON. I do not agree at all. I think we are a Republic, and as a Republic, I think the States, by virtue of being States, should have some additional weight in our electoral college. Now, if you are going to go to your theory, or, it is not yours, but the theory that you just stated

Senator KEATING. As a matter of fact, it is, because Senator Mansfield and I have introduced a constitutional amendment.

Senator MORTON. Well, you might as well do away with the U.S. Senate, and I do not think any of us around this table are particularly anxious to do that.

Senator KEATING. Well, I would not, of course, concede to that. I would be the last to argue that we should do away with the U.S. Senate. But, to get back to my precise question-which is not which system is preferable because, obviously, you prefer this one-my question was: Is there any way to insure that a President is elected by a majority of the American people except by popular vote?

Senator MORTON. That may be true. I do not quarrel with you

there.

Senator KEATING. I do not know; maybe that is not the way to elect a President.

Senator MORTON. I say it is not. I say we are United States of America, 50 United States, and I think that virtue of being States, and we have a Senate of the United States, with two Senators from each State, because we are a United States of America I think each State should have weight in the elector college because it is a State.

Senator KEATING. Well, I respect your viewpoint in that regard, and in every regard. However, I never get terribly aroused over this idea of insisting that we be called a Republic which we are, rather than a democracy. It does not bother me to have this country spoken of as a democracy, but it impresses me that a President should be elected by a majority of the people and there is no way to insure that—if that is your overriding objective-except to have him elected by popular vote. I recognize that does do away the idea that certain States shall have more authority than others as a result.

Now, let me ask just one other line of questions. One difficulty that I have had with this proposal, and, in general, this is what we used to call in the House the Mundt-Coudert proposal, and now as modified some have spoken of as the Celler-Morton proposal, as I have pointed out-nevertheless, here is the thing that has bothered me. In New York, and possibly this does not pertain to Kentucky or South Dakota or other States, but certainly in New York even the League of Women Voters and the most suave politically do not know who are the electors. Their names never appear. Your machines say electors for, and then the names of the President and Vice President. If electors were elected in electoral districts, I would be afraid that the popularity of the elector would be a real factor in the election.

Any political party that did not try to put up a popular man ought to have their head examined. They would both try to select the