voters of New England, the South, the foreign born, the labor unions, the bankers, or any other specialized group of our vast and varied population.

Such a change from the present method of electing a President would also eliminate much of the pettiness, the prejudices, misleading exaggerations, undue praise, unfounded blame, and pointless controversies that presently confuse and obscure the real issues in our presidential elections.

If the selection of the President were turned over to Congress, it would further eliminate the solicitation and donation of great gifts from business and industry now so necessary to finance a national presidential campaign-gifts that, to whichever party made, carry with them the expectation of a manifold return in favors and special privileges.

So let the President of the Nation be chosen by the people who will have to work most closely with him, who know the duties and responsibilities of the Office and who, free from the pressures, excitement, and confusion of a popular political campaign, would be in position to choose wisely and well.

That is my idea of a better and more practical alternative to the present method of electing a President of the United States.

Just one thing further, for those who are historically minded, and that would be to recall that it was not the intent of the framers of our Constitution, whom President Harding used to call the Founding Fathers to have the Chief Executive elected by popular vote, and further, that they also felt Congress should have a voice in the matter. Senator KEFAUVER. When you refer to election by Congress, are you talking about the House of Representatives?

Mr. RUSSELL. No, the Senate also-the entire Congress.

Senator KEFAUVER. What if you had a divided Congress, a Democratic House and a Republican Senate?

Mr. RUSSELL. In that case, I think the Senate votes might be weighted, say by a ratio of 3 to 1, since Senators serve three times longer than Congressmen. In other words, whichever group could muster the greatest number of votes could choose their own nominees. Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Russell, would this not result in a Member of Congress being chosen every time?

Mr. RUSSELL. Not necessarily. Of course, that is what is done in the parliamentary governments of Europe. They invariably pick one of their own members-and who is better qualified to become the Chief Executive of the Nation than an experienced Member of Congress or the Senate?

I do not think, however, that Congress would limit itself to the choice of one of its own Members.

In earlier days, when Senators were elected by the legislatures, each political party therein tried to get the ablest men it could find for the office. That, I think, would be the course followed by Congress in the choice of a President. Each party would try to select for President and Vice President the very best men available in their party.

Senator KEFAUVER. It would mean that people who wanted to be President would then feel they ought to run for Congress to have an inside chance at it.

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, not necessarily. I think as I have just indicated, the fairness of the average Congressman and Senator, would lead him to pick the best man available. A university president like Woodrow Wilson, or a business executive like Herbert Hoover, or any outstanding citizen would stand as good a chance in fact, a much better one, of being chosen as President by the Congress, as he would have of being chosen at a party convention.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Russell, we are very grateful to you for your interest and for coming here and giving us your proposal. Thank you.

Mr. RUSSELL. Just one further word.

If this subcommittee should decide to give serious thought to this plan I have just outlined I am sure the Legislative Counsel could draw up an amendment embodying it, which would be introduced at the proper time.

Senator KEFAUVER. All right, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Russell.

We have hearings tomorrow, so we will stand in recess until 9:30 in the morning in this room.

(Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 9:30a.m., Thursday, June 29, 1961.)

NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING

THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1961

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a.m., in room 457, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Estes Kefauver (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Kefauver.

Also present: James C. Kirby, Jr., counsel for the subcommittee. Senator KEFAUVER. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are honored today in having two members of the Senate who are to testify, distinguished political scientists and students of government, and others who are interested in these problems.

At this point, we will insert in the record the transcript of a portion of a Columbia Broadcasting System public service television program. The program was narrated by Mr. Edward R. Murrow and was shown on January 5, 1961, the day before the joint session of Congress met to count the electoral votes for President. It is entitled "Our Election Day Illusions: The Beat Majority."

(The document referred to follows:)

MURROW. The electoral college. It has been compared to the human appendix; unless, potentially dangerous, requires major surgery for removal.

CARPENTIER. By custom, your Secretary of State has called the electoral group together. The Secretary will have the rollcall made.

MURROW. The ritual of electing our President is so uniquely American that few foreigners have ever witnessed it. As a matter of fact, virtually no American voters or even Presidents have seen this quadrennial sideshow.

ROSITER. Kennedy isn't going to go anywhere without any invitation. I, personally, speak the sentiments of my secretary, but we thank each and every one for your kindness in nominating us for this here wonderful and memorial position that you have given us this morning. It's something that I know we'll take it down with us as long as we live.

MURROW. "Each State shall appoint a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress." The words are 1787; the faces-what the New York Herald Tribune called the dangerous power of the faceless 537.

ELLIS. Now, that Louisiana's 10 electors have been officially convened, I should like to call on each of them to cast their vote for the Presidency of the United States. Edward M. Caramouche, seventh district.

CARAMOUCHE. Present. I shall cast my vote for John Kennedy for President and Lyndon Johnson for Vice President.

ELLIS. Leo Coco, eighth district.

Coco. President.

MURROW. "The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice President."

ROBERT BUNTIN. It is with a great deal of pleasure-a great deal of honor and with a heart full of humility that I second the nomination for Vice President of that great statesman, J. Strom Thurmond.

MURROW. "The person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be President if such a number be a majority of the whole number of electors." You are watching the election of the 35th President as prescribed by the Constitution. When that document was hammered out, here in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, no question caused the Founding Fathers more debate and dissent than how to select a national leader. They did not want the Congress to choose the Chief Executive. But even more, they did not trust the people's judgment. In 1787, how could a Georgia farmer be expected to choose wisely between a Virginia planter and a New York lawyer he could hardly hope to meet, see, or even read much about. They finally came up with the idea of electors, chosen by the State legislatures, who in turn, would pick the President. The electoral college. By 1860, all the State legislatures had gradually turned the job of picking the President over to the people, but always paying careful lip service to the electoral college. And so, to this very day, on the 1st Monday after the 2d Wednesday of every 4th December these ancient rites take place. In our reporting years, we had never seen an electoral college. Astonishingly, we found that in some States, officials were as blissfully mystified as we were on how to conduct an electoral college class.

ROSITER. We ask you for your patience and a little time because this is a little bit new to me. It might not be to Matt here, so if you give us your attentions and be a little patient with us, why, we will start our order of business. I imagine. so far, the next order of business is the distribution of ballots for voting and voting for the presidential ballots be distributed and collected.

MURROW. The election of John F. Kennedy may have hinged on the State of Illinois, where a recount finally confirmed a Kennedy margin of 9,000 votes out of nearly 5 million. No law requires Illinois electors to follow the wishes of the voters. But naturally, they all feel a strong, moral obligation to do so.

BRADLEY. NO, very frankly, I don't. I like the idea of being an elector in keeping with the thought that was expressed in the Constitution with selection of electors. We represent an area and we're to use our own good judgment in selecting whoever we think the best candidate is.

MURROW. That was Tom Bradley of Oak Park, Ill., who happened to think John Kennedy was the best man as did all the free electors of Illinois, in whom the Founding Fathers and the citizens of the State placed their trust.

ROSITER. You heard the motion that was-been regular made and seconded. And all those in favor of that motion will signify by saying "Aye." GROUP. Aye.

ROSITER. Contrary? Looks like the "Ayes" have it. The furniture's got to say here, folks.

MURROW. Richard Nixon won his home State of California by 25,000 votes out of almost 7 million votes cast. The 32 Republican electors who met in Sacramento may have been deterred from any urge to stray by the knowledge that California is one of only a handful of States which requires its electors to follow the election day mandate. Apparently, this didn't stop some patriots who take the Founding Fathers literally. Elector Goodwin Knight, former Governor. KNIGHT. Before coming here today, many of us received messages by mail and wire urging that we cast our ballots for prominent Americans other than Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge. Among those mentioned, were former Governor Shivers, of Texas; Senator Barry Goldwater, of Arizona, and Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia. Conceding that these gentlemen have merit as statesmen, the fact remains it is our solemn duty, in my humble judgment, to vote for those men the people selected on November the 8th.

MURROW. But in Oklahoma, a landslide for Mr. Nixon, Republican Elector Henry D. Irwin, a name to be remembered, voted for Senator Harry E. Byrd, Democrat, for President, and Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, for Vice President. Why did he do it? What manner of man is Henry Irwin?

IRWIN. I was prompted to act as I did for fear for the future of our republic form of government. I feared for the immediate future of our Government under the control of socialist-labor leadership and I wish to retain or maintain as much as possible of our republican form of government as I was able to do as a free elector. I executed my constitutional right and I performed my constitutional duty. The republican form of government never envisioned the rule of the majority. The people who formed the Constitution, the United States, were landowners and propertied people. It is very undemocratic to say that one does