Mr. HANSEN. I certainly would offer no objection, Senator, and I thank you very kindly.

(The article referred to may be found in the appendix.)

Mr. HANSEN. These proposals reaffirm a conclusion I reached with great reluctance when working on a model presidential primary law with Mr. Richard Childs of the National Municipal League and Dr. Paul David, whom I have already mentioned.

All three of these bills differ substantially in their approach to the problem. They reflect, as did my correspondence with Mr. Childs and Dr. David, the multiplicity of schemes and methods for making the presidential primary operative. Few people are able to agree on the ideal solution and the ideal provision for a law-State or National.

I think the reason for this diversity of approach is very simple. Few of us are able to agree on what the purpose of such legislation should be. I have heard a great deal of testimony this morning and I venture to say that nearly every witness had a different concept of what the purpose of the primary should be. Exactly what are we trying to accomplish and what were they trying to accomplish back at the turn of the century in the progressive era, when these laws were first enacted?

On the basis of my research, I feel that the basic purpose of the primary as originally envisioned in Nebraska and Oregon in 1908 was twofold:

First, to broaden popular participation in the nominating process— to give the people an opportunity to register their choice among the leading contenders hence, the very designation presidential preference primary; and second, to reflect that preference in the convention by action of their State delegations.

I have encountered many critics and much opposition to this simple statement of objectives, but I think most Americans-Democrats and Republicans alike-respect the judgment of elder statesmen who lived at the time and who pressed for enactment of these laws.

I have here, Senator, letters from the Honorable Bernard Baruch, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, and President Herbert Hoover, in which they state their basic agreement with me on the purpose of the presidential primary.

Senator KEFAUVER. These letters will be printed at this point in the record.

(The letters referred to follow :)

Mr. RICHARD H. HANSEN,

NEW YORK, N.Y., December 20, 1960.

Librarian, University of Nebraska, College of Law, Lincoln, Nebr.

DEAR MR. HANSEN: Your letter of November 28 has just reached me here in South Carolina where I am spending the winter.

I do not know much about the history of presidential primaries, but the

statement you quote seems to me to be accurate.

Sincerely yours,

BERNARD M. BARUCH.

Mrs. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT,
New York City, N.Y., November 30, 1960.

DEAR MR. HANSEN: Thank you for your letter of the 28th. The statement you sent is a good one but it doesn't always work out and it should be universal in all States.

The disadvantage is that there must be a preconvention campaign against those whom you must later work with and which leads to giving the opposition much ammunition.

Some better ways might be devised.
Very sincerely yours,

Prof. RICHARD H. HANSEN,

ELEANOR ROOSEVELT.

WALDORF ASTORIA TOWERS,

New York, N.Y., December 2, 1960.

The University of Nebraska, College of Law, Lincoln, Nebr.

DEAR PROFESSOR HANSEN: I would agree with the description of the purpose of the State primaries as stated in that quotation and I have always supported them, usually with some remark upon the obnoxious procedure of "convention" States.

Yours faithfully,

HERBERT HOOVER.

Mr. HANSEN. I might say also, Senator, at this point, that I found a statement of yours in the hearings on the 83d Congress, 1st session, which reflected this viewpoint to a great extent. You had stated on page 12 of those hearings that the people should have a choice, that this was one of the basic purposes of the presidential primary and I recall in Nebraska and in these hearings, you say this many times over and over again.

My research, as published in the Nebraska Law Review last year reveals that the leading contenders for the presidential nomination have been entered in only 12 percent of the primaries held since 1912. The exact figures are, I think, 24 out of a possible 185 contests. These figures are set out in the chart on page 476 of my article. So it is obvious that the primary laws in most States have failed to accomplish the first purpose-that is, to give the people an opportunity to express their preference. If you have one candidate on the ballot, that is not much of a choice. The Russians do that well.

Of equal importance has been the subsequent action of the delegates in the conventions following these 24 instances, when all of the candidates appeared on the ballot.

I might say at this point, Senator, that before the time that any article was published, no one had ever considered the primary laws in relation to the action subsequently of the delegates in the convention. Now, this seemed to me to be very important, to see what effect the laws were having in carrying out this second purpose of the presidential primary.

Senator KEFAUVER. Maybe no one has ever written it down, but I certainly know a lot of people who have considered it.

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, Senator, I am sure that is true. It has never been put out in exact figures before, and I think when you consider

the figures in relation to the law, there are some rather startling conclusions that can be reached that have not heretofore really been thought out to their fullest extent. I think that they destroy some preconceived notions that all of us have entertained about the primary, In these 25 instances when the people have expressed a clear preference in the primary-in other words, where all candidates have been entered the delegates to the national convention supported the winner regardless of whether there were any provisions for binding or pledging the delegates.

When I talked to President Truman in 1953 on this subject, he mentioned to me that one of the most important provisions in the primary law should be pledging and binding the delegates and I agree with him, because I had not seen these figures or carried it out to see what happens when all the candidates are on the ballot. It is very interesting.

The convention delegates, I had always thought before 1953, were all rather dishonorable men and I think I was looking through the smoke in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, and I thought they would not carry out the mandate in the primary. But it is clear here that when all of the candidates are on the ballot, regardless of whether they are pledged or not, the delegates will support the winner.

Experience in Nebraska offers three concrete examples. In the 1912 Republican primary Teddy Roosevelt received 54 percent of the popular vote in the preference primary. In spite of the pressures exerted on the delegates by the Taft supporters at the Republican convention, and we had Taft supporters in 1912 as well as 1952, the entire Nebraska delegation supported Roosevelt and joined with him when he left the convention and formed the Bull Moose Party.

In the Democratic primary that same year in Nebraska Senator Bennett "Champ" Clark received 44 percent of the preference voteyou will note a plurality-and despite the fact that Nebraska's own William Jennings Bryan defected on the 13th ballot, and in Nebraska, led the floor fight for the nomination of Woodrow Wilson, 75 percent of the Nebraska delegates voted for Clark until Wilson's nomination was certain.

In 1948 Harold Stassen won our famed "all-star" primary and the Republican delegates supported him at the convention, with a few defections, until Dewey's nomination was made unanimous on the fourth ballot. The figures are shown on page 500 of my article in chart III.

I think that all of this means that in spite of the fact that we have had primary laws of some type since 1912, the majority of them have been poorly drawn and lacked the mechanics essential to accomplish the fundamental purposes of the laws, as I have stated them and as they have been stated by the distinguished people to whom I have referred earlier.

Senator KEFAUVER. I have forgotten the exact figures, but in 1952, I had the privilege of winning a majority of the votes in the Democratic preferential primary in Nebraska, but lost several delegates. Mr. HANSEN. That is correct, Senator, and this proves exactly what I am trying to say. You will recall that support on the other side was given tacitly by President Truman to Senator Kerr. But all of the candidates were not entered and this is the point I am making,

I feel that if all the candidates had been entered in that primary, then it would have meant something. The delegates would have felt they had a mandate to support you when you won the preferential primary and you would have received much greater support than you did at the convention. However, I will say that I am proud that our Nebraska delegates came through as well as they did. I wish they had done better.

Senator KEFAUVER. They did very well and I am grateful. But the trouble was that people who later became candidates were not candidates at the time of the primary.

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I remember Senator Kerr was running only if President Truman was not.

Senator KEFAUVER. And then Mr. Stevenson did not become a candidate until he got drafted.

Mr. HANSEN. Right. All of which I think indicates that the primaries should be held much later, you might say in the season when all of the candidates are entered and in the field.

Senator KEFAUVER. Even then, under the law, there is no way of making them run in the primary. They have to give their consent to run in Nebraska.

Mr. HANSEN. I am getting to that, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. All right.

Mr. HANSEN. Going back to our experience since 1912. The laws since that time were drawn by individuals in different States, with different concepts of the mechanics necessary, without previous consultation or experience, who, by and large, have drafted bills so widely variant that we have yet to see what the presidential primary would accomplish if the laws approached uniformity.

But uniformity alone is not enough. The uniformity must be in large enough States to enable us to see the effects of the laws on a large scale. I am sure that you will agree with me that the value of any primary depends upon whether all the candidates are entered and the size of the State's delegation at the national convention. A primary in Montana or Nebraska, with one candidate on the ballot, does not have the same significance as one in California where all the contenders are entered.

Well, for instance the California primary of 1956, when you and Adlai Stevenson ran. I think that had a greater national significance and impact than a primary in Montana, say, where only one candidate is entered. I do not think the delegates have any moral reason to feel bound under such a primary law.

What provisions in the laws, then, have operated to prevent all the candidates from appearing on the ballot in the primaries? First of all, as you mentioned just a minute ago, Senator, the consent and withdrawal provisions in the laws. These sections allow a candidate. to choose to run in the States where he can win and avoid contests where he is likely to lose.

Now, this is quite a different purpose from the one just stated of giving the people a choice. Here we are giving the candidate a choice. The laws since 1912 have operated by and large to give the candidate a choice, not the people.

In the 24 instances when all of the candidates were on the ballot, 1 took place in a State with both consent and withdrawal provisions, 70784-61-pt. 2--10

2 where there were constant provisions only, 3 in States with withdrawal provisions only, and 18 in States with neither consent nor withdrawal provisions.

I think this shows that consent and withdrawal provisions have acted to keep all of the candidates from entering the State primaries. Now, there are varying reasons why these provisions have been enacted. I think one of the dominant ones is the experience factor. I would differ with you, Senator, on this. I think it has a very sound basis.

Thomas E. Dewey remarked in a letter to me regarding national primaries that "any man who has the time and money to run in 50 State primaries is an unemployed millionaire."

I well remember the difficulties we had in 1952 in the primary when you were running and when we tried to support you in Nebraska. It was a tough "go" financially. If this is magnified to the Federal level, unless we figure some way to equalize the burden between the candidates, I feel that it could operate to make it a rich man's game.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, the one thing I had in mind about that is that if you have to run in State primaries all on different days, that is one thing. But if there is a nationwide primary on 1 day, then there would be more likelihood of the national networks carrying nationwide programs.

Mr. HANSEN. Senator, I concur in that remark heartily, to the extent that I would favor the States going at this themselves and trying to get uniformity in several of the large States first and trying to meet this expense factor on an experimental basis, as Mr. Cox has suggested in his letter, before we get involved in the mechanics of the thing on the Federal level.

The States have failed significantly to meet the expense problem and until it is solved we will have consent and withdrawal provisions which prohibit the people from having a choice among all the leading contenders.

With apologies for this somewhat lengthy background, let us consider the provisions which should be, I think, in any national primary law. From the preceding and from my research, I feel very strongly that the primary consideration, if you will excuse the pun, is that all the candidates must be on the ballot.

Senate Joint Resolution 1 defeats this purpose at the first step by providing in section 2 that the candidate must file. Senate Joint Resolution 9 is not clear on the point, apparently leaving the matter to the State legislatures, which is where we are today.

It should go without saying that by proposing a law which would place the names of all the candidates on the ballot-and here I might refer to the law in Oregon, at the present time, which allows the secretary of state to place the names on the ballot-by proposing such a law, we have a concomitant duty to equalize the burden of expense for the candidates and the amount of time required for an incumbent Governor or Senator to campaign in the primary. This has been mentioned already today. I do feel there is some validity to it, and I do feel, Senator, that your suggestion of the uniform date and the suggestion of using mass communication media is an answer to this. Prof. J. B. Shannon has suggested another solution and that is when people fill out the tax forms in their States, if they wish to vote in the presidential primary, fill out a little tab and send in a dollar to