Senator KEFAUVER. I think your statement was well prepared and offers very good political philosophy as to the realities of the situation.

Senator KUCHEL. Thank you, sir, very much.

Senator KEFAUVER. The committee is honored to have Mr. Brendan Byrne, executive director of the American Heritage Foundation of New York as our next witness.

The American Heritage Foundation, as I understand it, has made modernization of voting laws its project for 1961. It is doing fine work in this field toward progressive requirements for voting, and I understand Mr. Byrne will testify particularly as to that.

Thank you for being here with us. I want to say that I think the foundation is certainly to be commended for taking up this very important project.

STATEMENT OF BRENDAN BYRNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

AMERICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you very much for the privilege of being here and discussing with you the importance of bringing our election laws up to date.

As you know, the American Heritage Foundation, a nonpartisan organization, operated the Freedom Train in 1947-49. That was the red, white and blue train which went around the country in 1947 and 1948 trying to make people aware of the meaning of our American heritage, and to get them to be active, responsible citizens as the best way to preserve our precious heritage.

After the train ended its tour, we of the American Heritage Foundation concentrated on informed voting as the basic act of American citizenship.

The current interest of the American Heritage Foundation in election law reforms is a byproduct of our vote campaigns of 1950, 1952, 1956 and 1960. During each election campaign, we have been deluged with complaints by many good citizens who tell us: "You have motivated me so that I want to vote, but I can't vote because of outmoded election laws."

At first we thought most nonvoters belonged to what we used to call the "Party of Indifference," but we have discovered there is another party-the "Party of Frustration." To this party belong more than 19 million good citizens who are prevented from voting through no fault of their own, but because of antiquated election laws.

Many of these laws were established 100 years ago and do not meet the needs of the highly mobile America of today.

Particularly, there is an interest in reducing residence requirements. We find from the U.S. Census Bureau that some 33 million people move every year. Many of these citizens lose their vote because they can't meet the residence requirements of their new State.

Senator KEFAUVER. You say your calculations show that 19 million people in the last election were not able to vote for the President, because of residence and difficulties of that kind?

Mr. BYRNE. Eight million of the 19 million were disenfranchised by residence requirements. Another 5 million were unable to vote

70784-61-pt. 2 12

prevented because they were hospitalized and could not get absentee ballots. Nearly 3 million travelers were unable to vote because of inadequate absentee voting rules.

In my prepared statement there is a chart which breaks down the various other categories of disenfranchised voters. We hold no brief for people in prison and illiterates who cannot legally vote, but we do think that we should do something about outmoded residence requirements and other restrictions which keep millions of good citizens from the polls.

Several States have already made significant reductions in residence requirements for voting for the President and Vice President.

Oregon recently passed a constitutional amendment which allows a newly arrived resident of Oregon to vote for President and Vice President after having established a residence of 30 days. In Wisconsin, a new resident otherwise qualified to vote for President and Vice President and unable to vote in State of previous residence may cast his ballot after having established a residence of 10 days; in California, after 54 days; in Missouri, after 60 days; and in Ohio after 40 days.

You might ask why the discrepancy in residence requirements. It is because of the varying registration deadlines in each State. For example, in California registration closes 54 days before election day.

Senator Kefauver, your subcommittee is also acquainted with the reciprocal arrangement which Connecticut follows, wherein a former resident of that State, unable to vote for President and Vice President in his new State because of residence requirements, can vote by absentee ballot for President and Vice President in Connecticut for 2 years. Vermont has a similar arrangement for 15 months.

Politics is the art of the possible. There is nothing I would like more than to have all of the 50 States get together and reform their election laws. But since some States are not likely to adopt such reforms on their own initiative, I should like to commend you, Senator Kefauver and your Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments for focusing public attention on the importance of reducing residence requirements for voting for the President and Vice President.

If Oregon can arrange for new residents to vote for President and Vice President after being in the State for 30 days, why can't other States? In fairness, we must recognize some more heavily populated States might need more than 30 days to check the registration rolls and to maintain the necessary legal safeguards against fraud. We must take into consideration the recommendations and practical experience of election officials in various States with different circumstances, lest we open the gate to fraud and corruption, for example, double voting. As a representative of the American Heritage Foundation, which has eminent Republicans and eminent Democrats on its board of trustees, I am convinced of the need for bipartisanship in this matter of voting reforms. Therefore, I would like to marry Senator Kefauver's proposed amendment and Senator Keating's proposed amendment— retaining the best features of each.

Senator KEFAUVER. That is, of course, a bipartisan approach.

Mr. BYRNE. That is right. I would like to retain the latter part of your amendment. Senator, thereby allowing a person to vote in his former State by absentee ballot for 2 years if he does not qualify in his new State. To this I would add Senator Keating's amendment,

stipulating that no State should be allowed to deprive an otherwise qualified voter recently moved from another State to vote for President and Vice President if he has established a minimum of 90 days' residence.

In other words, no State should insist on more than 90 days as a residence requirement for voting for the President and Vice President. If a mobile voter cannot meet the 90 days' requirement in his new State, then, under Senator Kefauver's paragraph, he may vote in his previous State.

Why this compromise? In many States September is the favorite month for moving. Leases expire at that time. Accordingly, the 90day requirement of Senator Keating does not provide adequate protection to those who move at that time.

But these mobile voters are protected by Senator Kefauver's provision that they can vote for a period of 2 years by absentee ballot in their previous State of residence.

I make these suggestions as a citizen and would like to emphasize that although I am the director of the American Heritage Foundation, I am speaking as an individual.

As far as voting for offices other than President and Vice President, I think 6 months residence is adequate.

Other suggestions are absentee voting by mail for all voters who are outside their country on election day and the extension of the ballot to 5 million hospitalized and sick citizens.

For example, there are 11,000 babies born every day, which means that in States not allowing absentee voting by the hospitalized, thousands of mothers who have just presented a new citizen to the Nation, find it impossible to vote. Since the average stay in a maternity hospital is 4 days, this means that more than 40,000 of such mothers could be disfranchised.

I would allow American citizens abroad and other voters away from their States for long periods to register by mail, taking careful precautions against fraud and imposing heavy penalties for violation. This can be done, election officials tell me, by using different kinds of ballots, numbered ballots and colored ballots.

Literacy tests should be objective and discrimination-proof, and corrected by an answer key provided by competent educators. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees 5 to 4 on constitutional issues, in some States, the literacy test includes a requirement that the person read and interpret reasonably the State constitution. How in the world are you going to get agreement on what is a reasonable interpretation of the constitution when learned jurists themselves sharply disagree?

If possible, remove the details of election law requirements from State constitutions. Some State constitutions take from 10 to 20 years to be amended.

For example, I once wrote to a State election official about reducing residence requirements and he replied, "Come back in 10 years when we have the State constitutional convention." So for 10 years there could be no change in that State's election law requirements.

As you know, Governor Rockefeller recently suggested to the New York Legislature that it remove residence requirements from the State constitution.

I believe in permanent tax-free registration with central registration facilities open throughout the year-together with a concentrated general registration drive, closing not earlier than 1 month before election day. Some States close their registration periods too soon, when most people are not thinking about the election. For example, in New York, where you can usually register up to 3 weeks before election day, I was impressed in 1956 with the number of people who came to the office of the American Heritage Foundation seeking to register because they had been aroused by the Suez invasion and the Hungarian revolt. But it was too late; the registration deadline had passed. Of course, we have to take into consideration the practical requirements of election officials. Many of them need at least a month to check the rolls and to eliminate the deceased and former residents. One of the reasons for nonvoting is the complicated jargon of some ballots. You have to be a Ph. D. in political science to understand some constitutional amendments on certain ballots.

The ballot should be shorter and simplified. In England and France, the ballot rarely has more than four or five names. recent election in Little Rock, there were 169 names. In this year's Texas primary, there were 89 names on the Democratic ballot. That wears people out. One good argument against the long ballot is to ask some of your friends, especially those who are students of politics, 2 months after election, "Whom did you vote for?" Few will be able to give an accurate and complete reply.

On one occasion President Woodrow Wilson, after emerging from the polls, admitted he couldn't recall the names of the candidates he had voted for. If he could not, how can you and I?

Of course, you have to be fair and admit under our federal system of government we have a different voting concept from England because we do have local elections, county elections, primary, State elections and that means a longer ballot. But there should be some intelligent way of shortening the ballot, thereby helping the voter to make an informed choice.

On some State ballots, you vote for State engineers, surveyors, and coroners, though most of us have no more qualification for filling such technical offices than we have for choosing the head of the Federal Reserve Board or the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. It is a privilege to be with you, Senator, and I am submitting a more complete statement for the record.

Senator KEFAUVER. Your entire statement will be printed and made a part of the record.

I think also as part of your statement, we should print the information about the advisory committee and so forth inside the front page of this pamphlet which you wrote and are submitting as your

statement.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Byrne follows:)

ABOUT GRASSROOTS GUIDES

In cooperation with the American Heritage Foundation, "Grassroots Guides on Democracy and Practical Politics" are produced by the Center for Information on America, an independent educational corporation, nonprofit and nonpartisan, dedicated to furthering the knowledge and understanding of Amer ica by Americans through informational publications, radio, films, television, and conferences.

The chief purpose of this series is to encourage wider and better informed political activity. It includes two types:

"How To Do It" guides for successful participation, each dealing specifically with a particular political operation;

"What It Is All About" guides, explaining and examining specific features of our self-governing process, with the aim of cultivating a clearer understanding of how our democracy functions.

Each guide is the production of leading authorities and experts, under the general supervision of the center's advisory committees:

Political Advisory Committee:

The Honorable James A. Farley and the Honorable Charles P. Taft. Editorial Advisory Committee:

Dr. L. V. Berkner, president of Associated Universities and Chairman of the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences; Dr. James W. Fesler, professor of government, Yale University; Dr. Kent Roberts Greenfield, chief historian, retired, Department of the Army; Dr. Allan Nevins, professor emeritus of American history, Columbia University, president of the Society of American Historians; Dr. Robert Spiller, chairman of the Department of American Civilization, University of Pennsylvania, former president of the American Studies Association.

Editor:

Townsend Scudder, president of the center.

LET'S MODERNIZE OUR "HORSE-AND-BUGGY" ELECTION LAWS

(By Brendan Byrne, executive director, the American Heritage Foundation) Outmoded State election laws are robbing millions of good citizens of one of the most precious privileges of our American heritage—the right to vote in free elections.

Take the case of Louis A. Novins, president of International Telemeter Corp. He and his wife moved from California to New York in June and thereby became unable to vote in the November elections. They failed to meet New York's requirement of 1-year residence in the State.

"I have a daughter who, when she was following the fleet as her naval officer husband was being shipped around, went for 10 years without being entitled to cast a vote anywhere," says Richard S. Childs, executive committee chairman of the National Municipal League.

PENALIZING MOBILE CITIZENS

Archaic State residence requirements, many adopted a century ago, are the greatest single barrier to voting. An estimated 8 million voters out of 33 million people who moved last year were unable to vote in the 1960 elections because of inability to meet the State, or precinct residence requirements. Twentieth century United States has a highly mobile population, but State residence laws have not kept pace with the mobility of our people. Despite the millions who move yearly, 35 States still require 1-year residence in the State; 3 demand 2 years; and 12 call for 6 months.

County and precinct residence requirements also present a problem. If you move to a new precinct in Milwaukee, Wis., you can reregister in 10 days. But in Natchez, Miss., you lose your right to vote for a year because Mississippi requires 1 year in the election district. In Philadelphia and other cities, you can disfranchise yourself by moving across the street to a new district a month or two before election day. Confusion is compounded by the nationwide custom of observing September 30 as "moving day."

The closeness of the 1960 presidential election pinpoints the importance of removing antiquated voting barriers. Senator Kennedy won the highest office in the land by a hairline margin averaging less than one vote per precinct. (There are 166,137 elections precincts in the United States and his plurality was 112,881.) Would the results have been different if the disfranchised could have voted? Who knows?