dent of the Senate shall, in presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted-The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority; then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President, shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

AMENDMENT XX

SECTION 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of the successors shall then begin.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

SECTION 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

SECTION 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

SECTION 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

SECTION 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

AMENDMENT XXIII

SECTION 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Senator KEFAUVER. The chairman wishes to welcome the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Keating, who is also a member of the subcommittee, who is the author of several resolutions which are being considered here.

Senator Keating has a statement, and we will be glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the chairman has called these hearings on electoral reforms and that so many prominent and knowledgeable citizens have been scheduled to appear before us.

The time for electoral reform is now. The momentum for reform developing out of the 1960 election has brought about a deep and widespread agreement in the Congress and throughout the country that we need to revise and revitalize our outmoded electoral system. We must review our voting mechanisms and discard the "electoral buttonhooks" of the past.

Twentieth century democratic government requires a modern and dynamic electoral system. In the world of the astronaut, we cannot continue to use and depend on an election system geared to the age of the horse and buggy.

Broadly speaking, there are two major problems which we must deal with in the area of electoral reforms.

First of all, we must see to it that in presidential elections a majority of the American people can and do determine who is to be our Nation's Chief Executive. The 1960 election made this need abundantly clear. Only by some accident of fate did we avert having the major candidate with the smaller number of popular votes receive a majority in the electoral college. I do not believe that any candidate would want to be elected to the highest office of our land over an opponent who received a larger number of votes.

A second pressing area for electoral reforms involves our responsibility to insure every qualified American the right to vote. The reason for the relatively low voter turnout in the United States is not simply apathy, but is also attributable to cumbersome and unfair electoral laws which deny to many their right to vote.

There are a number of pending constitutional amendments which would increase voter turnout. Liberalizing residence requirements for presidential elections and eliminating the poll tax are key examples. Another serious bar to the right to vote is discrimination against minority groups. With the possible exception of the poll-tax amendment, this problem is one which can be resolved by Federal legislation and by State and local efforts and does not require a constitutional amendment. I hope that the vigor which this committee is devoting to electoral reforms and to the rights of citizens in a modern democracy to vote will be contagious and will spill over into other fields in which freedom must be buttressed and expanded.

A third and certainly important area in which the right to vote is denied to many involves election fraud and malpractice. This is a difficult problem to resolve by legislation or constitutional amendment. More than anything else, it requires the vigilant efforts and

continued scrutiny of private citizens who believe in the will of a free government.

There are four amendments before this committee in which I am particularly interested and which would have the effect of either solidifying the majority's right to decide or increasing the scope of the franchise. Briefly they are:

(1) Abolishing the electoral college;

(2) Placing a reasonable maximum on residence requirements for voting in presidential elections;

(3) Permitting 18-year-olds the right to vote; and

(4) Abolishing the poll tax.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Keating, the second one, with reference to residence requirements, has not yet reached the subcommittee. I assume that it will be here shortly.

Senator KEATING. I realize that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will order it to be printed along with the others.

Senator KEATING. I would appreciate it if that could be done. First, the elimination of the electoral college. The distinguished majority leader, Senator Mansfield, has taken the lead in introducing a constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 23, which calls for the complete elimination of the electoral college. I am a cosponsor of this amendment and I feel very strongly that it represents the only real solution to the basic problems inherent in the electoral college system.

We cannot indefinitely perpetuate a system which allows the possibility of a minority President, nor should we be willing to entrust to posterity a system which places no legal control over how presidential electors shall cast their vote once they are selected.

Writing shortly after the 1960 election, Roscoe Drummond made this point very well. He said:

My plea that we free ourselves from the tentacles of the electoral system does not rest primarily on what might have happened to the candidates; it rests primarily on what might have happened to the right of the American people to pick their President by majority vote. This election has shown again how the electoral-vote system is a one-way street with a built-in trapdoor through which the will of the American people can disappear at any time.

Mr. Chairman, we must not forget that twice in our history candidates have been defeated who have received a majority of the popular vote for President; in 1876, Samuel Tilden, and in 1888, Grover Cleveland. And, in 1824, Andrew Jackson was defeated by John Quincy Adams in an election which was decided in the House, despite the fact that Jackson's popular vote was believed to be considerably greater than that of Adams.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on the proposed revision of the electoral college to allocate State electors in direct proportion to the popular vote. This is perhaps the most widely supported revision of the electoral college now before this subcommittee.

Under the electoral college as it is now constituted, in 1956, a voter in Mississippi had the same weight in voting for a candidate for President as did five voters in New York. The proportional allocation system would not redress this imbalance. Similarly, it would not prevent the election of a President by a minority vote.

In the Senate debate on the original Lodge-Gossett amendment, Senator Taft cited an interesting and illustrative example of the latter point. In the election of 1900, William McKinley had a total popular vote of 7.219,000, or 52.8 percent. William Jennings Bryan had a popular vote of 6,358,000, or 47.2 percent. McKinley won the 1900 election with an electoral college vote of 292 to Bryan's 155.

If the proportional allocation system had been used, said Taft, Bryan would have had 218 electoral votes, and McKinley 214. Yet Bryan carried only 17 States in that election, 11 of them in the South, 2 border States, and 4 Western States, while McKinley carried 28 States, including all of the Eastern, Middle Western, and Pacific Coast States, 3 border States, and 2 Western States.

Now, another constitutional amendment in which I am deeply interested relates to residence requirements for voting. This is Senate Joint Resolution 90 which I recently introduced. Eight million Americans were prevented from voting in the 1960 presidential election because they moved shortly prior to November 7 and therefore did not meet the residence requirements of the jurisdiction into which they moved.

I recently introduced a resolution (S.J. Res. 90) proposing an amendment to the Constitution setting a 90-day maximum on residence requirements for voting in presidential elections only. The coincidence of having the number of this resolution (S.J. Res. 90) the same as my proposed maximum residence requirement gives me cause to hope this relationship is prophetic of great success for our subcommittee in this area.

Senator KEFAUVER. Let me see if I understand you. In other words, any State cannot have a residence requirement of more than 90 days for voting for a presidential elector.

Senator KEATING. Just for President and Vice President. The amendment would not even apply to elections for the Senate or the House of Representatives and would not, of course, apply to any local election.

Senator KEFAUVER. That provision is also contained in Senate Joint Resolution 14, which the chairman filed.

But, Senator Keating, what would happen, say, in the case of a citizen leaving Tennessee 30 days before the election, moving to Virginia, and by leaving Tennessee he could not vote there, and he has been in Virginia but 30 days, and he would still not be able to vote.

Senator KEATING. Well, that is right. There would still be a relatively small number disenfranchised even if this amendment were adopted, unless it were coupled with a provision of State law, and I think the adoption of such an amendment would be a spur to the States, that a person could vote by absentee ballot if he had moved within a certain length of time. I would say that this should also be within 90 days, which would insure him the right to vote someplace or the other. My feeling is that every duly qualified citizen should have that right to vote somewhere for President and Vice President.

Senator KEFAUVER. And if the States adopt a uniform statute about absentee voting for 90 days everybody would have that right.

Senator KEATING. Yes, and I recognize that that could be done without an amendment, if enough of the States saw fit to do that, and some have.

Senator KEFAUVER. Most States have one-year residence requirements, some States have 2; isn't that correct?

Senator KEATING. Some have two. They vary all the way from 6 months up to 2 years. There is quite a hodgepodge in the various States on that subject.

I recently conducted a survey of the 50 Governors and received replies from 32. From those replies, I recognize that most of the State chief executives, very naturally, believe that residence requirements for voting are and should be solely within the jurisdiction of the States.

There are two or three who felt that it should be a minimum standard set by the Federal Government, and all, nearly all, recognized the inequity in the present situation whereby so many of our citizens are disenfranchized in every election.

I have a summary of that which I believe might be helpful.

Senator KEFAUVER. Do you wish to put the summary in the record? Senator KEATING. Yes, I will attach that to my statement, if I may. Senator KEFAUVER. Very well.

(The document referred to follows:)

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT BY SENATOR KEATING ON REPLIES FROM GOVERNORS OF 32 STATES ON IMPACT AND REFORM OF RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING (MAY 15, 1961)

On Washington's Birthday of this year, I addressed the Senate briefly on the plight of the approximately 8 million "politically disposed" Americans disqualified to vote by residence requirements in the 1960 presidential election. I included in my remarks at that time excerpts from an excellent study by Mr. Walter Kravitz of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. I later sent copies of that statement to the 50 State Governors.

I have received replies from more than 30 States. Most were quite informative and sympathetic.

Mr. President, the kindest word we can use to describe the current situation is chaos.

Three States, for example, require 2 years' residence within their boundaries before they will permit an elector to cast his ballot. In 35 States the requirement is 1 year; in 12 others it is 6 months.

Three States demand 1 year's residence in the county. Eight others require 6 months; 17 specify anywhere from 2 to 4 months; and 6 others ask 30 to 40 days. Finally, one State actually requires 1 full year's residence in a precinct, and three others expect 6 months' residence in an equivalent locality. Nine States demand from 2 to 4 months, while 23 require from 10 to 40 days.

The situation is not only chaotic. It is unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory, and dangerous.

It is unjust because it penalizes the mobile elements of our population. It is unreasonable because of the great variation in these requirements and because a citizen may be stripped of his vote for a month, or 2 months, or even a year, if by merely moving across the street he also crosses a district or precinct line.

It is discriminatory because the weight of disfranchisement leans most heavily on urban voters.

It is dangerous because it may distort the outcome of a close election, because it alienates responsible segments of our citizenry, and-most frightening of all— because it encourages the fearful cancer of electoral apathy.

How many persons are affected by archaic State residence requirements? According to the American Heritage Foundation, some 8 million potential voters were barred from voting in the 1960 elections because of inability to meet State, county, or locality qualifications.