Based on reports from State election officials, the American Heritage Foundation estimates that about 500,000 votes were invalidated in the 1952 presidential elections-mainly because of incorrect marking of paper ballots and misunderstanding of voting machines. Suggestions to reduce the number of spoiled ballots include

(1) Instruction in use of voting machines in high schools, civic meetings, television demonstrations, etc.

(2) Newspaper publication of official ballots and distribution of sample ballots to schoolchildren to take home their parents, thus encouraging the voter to make up his mind in advance and accelerating the voting process.

ELECTION LAWS IN OTHER DEMOCRACIES

One reason why Great Britain, France, Italy, and other democracies get more of their citizens to vote than the United States is that their election laws make it easier to vote. In European countries, registration is a government obligation. Local election officials are required by law to compile annual registration lists. Registration is permanent. A voter gets on the rolls and stays there until he dies. Mobility is no problem as millions of Europeans spend their entire lives in the community of their birth.

Too many elections cause voter fatigue and discourage voting. There are two types of elections in Great Britain, one to select the district representative in Parliament, and the other to choose borough or city officials. Contrast this with election-groggy United States where the electorate is asked to vote not only in presidential elections but in elections for both Houses of Congress; also elections for State, county, city, and township offices; also elections on referendums and propositions to amend State constitutions and city charters; also school elections and elections on local improvements; also a deluge of primary elections-presidential primary elections, State primaries, county primaries, city primaries, etc. In most general elections abroad, only one or two offices are filled at a time. Foreign ballots are usually short; rarely list more than five names. Contrast this with the situation in Cook County, Ill., where in a single election the voter is asked to fill 72 offices on a single ballot with multiple candidates for each office.

A SHORTER BALLOT

The greatest single barrier to informed voting is the long ballot. There is such a thing as asking voters to vote on so many issues and offices that they find it impossible to vote intelligently on any of them. A 1956 ballot in Little Rock, Ark,. listed 169 elective offices to be filled by the voters.

Donald M. Nicholson, Denver election official, reports that in 1960, Denver voters were expected to make intelligent and well-informed decisions on 7 constitutional issues and 95 candidates for 45 offices.

The Oregon ballot is so long and confusing that school textbooks cite it as the worst ballot in the United States, admits Jack F. Thompson, State director of elections.

Voting participation would soar if voters were not confronted with a bewilderingly long ballot of local, State and National candidates, says former U.S. Senator Edward J. Thye, of Minnesota.

President Woodrow Wilson once confessed his ignorance of 80 percent of the candidates he voted for. In 1959 nearly 9 out of 10 voters stated that they knew little or nothing about candidates listed on the ballot, according to Dr. Gallup. How short should the ballot be? It should be short enough to enable the voter to make decisions on an informed basis. Richard S. Childs, founder of the short ballot movement, believes it should contain no more than five choices. The logical way to shorten the ballot is to remove all minor non-policy-making offices as coroner, sheriff, etc.; and all important offices of a specialized character on which the voter is not qualified to judge; for example, judges, treasurer, attorney general, etc.

The average voter is no more equipped to choose judges, comptrollers, secretaries of States, engineers, and a host of other offices still on many State and local ballots than he is to select the head of the Atomic Energy Commission or Federal Reserve System. A better method would be to remove such technical posts from the ballot and appoint them on the basis of civil service examinations or some other kind of merit system. According to Dr. Gallup, the majority of American adults (52 percent) favor such a move.

Besides stimulating more thoughtful voting, a shorter ballot would help reduce the number of voters who sometimes fail to vote because of confusion over the

long list of candidates and issues. A 1959 Gallup study showed that nearly one voter in five admitted occasionally failing to vote because of the long ballot and uncertainly about the mechanics of voting.

GOBBLEDYGOOK

Another barrier to voting is the bombastic and long-winded language describing constitutional amendments, propositions, and referendums. "The surest way to kill a referendum is to frame it in jargon no voter can understand," says Robert C. Zimmerman, Wisconsin secretary of state.

One result of ballot bombast is that many voters are so confused that they refrain from voting. For example, in the 1960 elections 513,511 Wisconsin voters who voted for President failed to express a choice on an important State referendum.

A few years ago, President Eisenhower, emerging from his Gettysburg polling place, complained that he had trouble unraveling the pompous prose of several constitutional amendments on the Pennsylvania ballot.

Recently, the voters of Englewood, N.J., were confronted with this ballot puzzle: "Shall the provision to substitute No. 3 of title No. 11 under the revised statutes of New Jersey as amended and supplemented, relating to civil service, be adopted in the city of Englewood, county of Bergen, State of New Jersey?" Translation: Should Englewood's city employees be placed in civil service status? The remedy is obvious-simple English as in a recent New Hampshire ballot. Instead of mystifying the electorate, the ballot plainly asked: "Are you in favor of permitting absentee voting in primary elections?" California's amendments are also clearly stated in layman's language.

Another aid to intelligent voting is Oregon's "Voter's Pamphlet," which not only condenses the proposed amendments into easy English but also summarizes arguments for and against each.

OTHER SUGGESTIONS

Literacy tests should be prepared by educators and should be objective and discrimination-proof. Such a test is New York's which consists of reading a short paragraph and answering eight simple questions of fact.

Hold primary elections in late May or early June. Late June, July, and August are poor because of vacations. Most election officials oppose September primaries because of insufficient time for absentee balloting, handling recounts, etc.

If feasible, remove residence and absentee voting requirements from State constitutions. The difficulty of amending these constitutions is a serious obstacle to modernizing election laws. Many States require approval of two consecutive legislative sessions and popular referendum. Amending some State constitutions requires constitutional conventions, some of which meet only every 10 or 20 years. Also some State legislatures do not meet every year.

ACTION TIMETABLE

Let's do all we can to help eliminate the absurd anachronisms that deprive millions of good citizens the right to vote.

Start now. Talk about the problem every chance you get. Interest your local and State League of Women Voters, bar association, chamber of commerce, and civic and educational groups.

After getting the support of public-spirited organizations, concentrate on building public opinion. Visit newspaper and magazine editors. Confer with local and State public affairs people in radio and television and the public affairs officers of companies and labor groups.

Let your State and local officials and leaders of both parties know about your interest in the problem. One way is to present a copy of this booklet to each of them.

Senator KEFAUVER. You talked about the voting requirements, education, in order to interpret the Constitution.

Do any States, any more, have language requirements, that you must be able to speak English?

Mr. BYRNE. Yes. You know, there is quite a discussion about this in New York State. There is a move afoot in New York City to allow reading Spanish to be a satisfactory completion of the literacy test.

I would have no objection, personally, to literacy being attested as the ability to read and write one of the languages used on the ballot not exclusively English.

We have Spanish-speaking people and newspapers in New Mexico; French in Louisiana and parts of New England, and also the Puerto Rican, Spanish-speaking population in New York.

Senator KEFAUVER. As a matter of interest, how are you getting along with your project on voting this year?

Mr. BYRNE. On voting itself, getting out the vote, or election law? Senator KEFAUVER. No, your whole program. Are you getting a lot of interest in the States?

Mr. BYRNE. Yes, tremendous interest, Senator.

I have in my hand a collection of editorials. This folder is entitled "Newspapers and Magazines Throughout the Nation Support the American Heritage Foundation's Program To Improve Voting Laws."

The public support here indicated is most encouraging. There are editorials here from the Christian Science Monitor, from the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Examiner, and leading newspapers representing all political views and all sections of the Nation. They all agree that something should be done about revising our outmoded election laws, especially now when the interest in the recent election is still strong. Editorials observe that after a presidential election, everybody thinks something should be done about archaic voting laws, but as time goes by the interest wanes and we have to start all over again in the next presidential election year.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will not copy it in the record, but for our study and consideration, we certainly would like to have a copy of the brochure of editorials.

(The material referred to will be found in the subcommittee files.) Mr. BYRNE. Yes, sir.

In closing, might I just say that people are saying, "Ask what you can do for your country," and I do think that here is something each of us can do: We can work to restore the franchise to millions of good citizens who, through no fault of their own, are deprived of one of the most precious privileges of our American heritage-voting by secret ballot in free elections.

Senator KEFAUVER. We wish you well in your effort, Mr. Byrne. We want to thank you for your contribution. It has been quite substantial.

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you very much.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Kirby has some statements on the subject of residence requirements for voting which he will explain and file at this point.

Mr. KIRBY. I have a letter from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws showing its efforts in this field. Senator KEFAUVER. That will be made a part of the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS,

Hon. JAMES C. KIRBY, JR.,

Chicago, Ill., May 29, 1961.

Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. KIRBY: Your letter of the 17th addressed to the American Bar Association has been referred to this office, since the conference is the drafting body of the American bar for State legislation.

At the midyear meeting of the executive committee of the conference held in February, our subcommittee on scope and program reported as follows: "Uniform election laws.-This subject matter has been on the agenda of the subcommittee on several occasions during recent years. On each occasion, the subcommittee has recommended that the subject matter be dropped, but the 1960 election has created considerable public interest in the problems involved. In 1955, the American Bar Foundation made a comprehensive study and report on voter registeration systems in the United States at the request of the conference, but the conference concluded that it was inadvisable to undertake drafting of uniform or model legislation, largely because of the substantial differences among State constitutions. In addition, the subcommittee has reported negatively on this subject matter because it has generally been considered to be outside the realm of normal activities of the conference in that it deals with public, political affairs rather than private law matters. Since the election, the subcommittee has received communications asking the conference to undertake activity in this area from Commissioners Armstrong, Kohn, and Malcolm, as well as Whitney North Seymour, president of the American Bar Association, Jerome Weiss, chairman of the Committee on American Citizenship of the ABA, and Whitney Harris, chairman of the ABA section of administrative law. In addition, communications have been received from the American Heritage Foundation again soliciting conference activity.

"Although the subcommittee is not unanimous, a majority of the subcommittee recommends that a special committee be appointed to investigate the subject and report on the advisability of drafting uniform or model legislation dealing with various aspects of the problems involved. It is recommended that the special committee coordinate its activities with the Council of State Governments which recently has renewed its proposals within the area. Furthermore, the subcommittee recommends that the special committee be given the opportunity to investigate not only problems relating to the voting of persons who have moved in between elections from State to State, but also investigate the subject of voting frauds, the modernization of election laws, and election machinery in general. The subcommittee generally does not believe it advisable for the conference to engage in the preparation of uniform or model legislation dealing with the selection of delegates to the national conventions or with reforms in the electoral college. The subcommittee recommends that the special committee report as soon as possible to the executive committee its findings and its recommendations concerning specific pieces of legislation that might be prepared within the general area under investigation. The subcommittee recognizes that it is possible that this subject matter could consume a substantial portion of the conference's efforts during the next few years, but the majority feels that this may be extremely worthwhile. If the activities of the special committee become particularly demanding, some readjustment in the whole conference scheduling may be necessary in order to accommodate this assignment."

The executive committee voted to appoint a special committee on uniform election laws to study the whole field of election laws, giving priority to the questions of absentee voting, absentee voting by servicemen, and the problem of residence requirements for presidential elections, and to make recommendations for the drafting of uniform or model acts in the field.

Subsequently, the president of the conference appointed the following special committee on uniform election laws:

Louis A. Kohn, Chicago, Ill., chairman.

John M. Bailey, Hartford, Conn.

Fred S. Farr, Carmel, Calif.

Henry S. Fraser, Syracuse, N.Y.

George Longmire, Grand Forks, N. Dak.

Harry H. Lugg, Rockville, Conn.

The work of this committee is just getting underway and I doubt that it has anything to report as yet. I am sending your letter and Senate Joint Resolution 14 to Mr. Kohn, chairman of the special committee, with the request that he keep you advised of the progress of his committee.

Sincerely,

FRANCES D. JONES, Executive Secretary.

Mr. KIRBY. Mr. Brevard Crihfield, executive director of the Council of State Governments has submitted a statement and two memorandums concerning the efforts of the council in the field of residence requirements for voting.

Senator KEFAUVER. That will be made a part of the record. (The statement and memorandums referred to follow :)

Senator ESTES KEFAUVER,

THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Chicago, Ill., May 24, 1961.

MY DEAR SENATOR: Thank you very much for your letter of May 17 concernIng Senate Joint Resolution 14 "To amend the Constitution of the United States concerning residence requirement for voting for President and Vice President of the United States." The Council of State Governments has done considerable work in this field and has prepared the attached memorandum entitled "Loss of Voting Rights in Presidential Elections." This memorandum and its recommendations have been specifically approved by the executive committee of the Governors' conference.

Please note that the stated purpose of the report is "to explore what the States can do on their own initiative to remedy existing inequities and to avert Federal interference in a field traditionally reserved to the jurisdiction of the States." In view of this, we would be opposed to Federal action, by statute or by constitutional amendment, which would supersede the authority and the jurisdiction of the States with respect to voting requirements.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on Senate Joint Resolution 14 and we would be happy if you care to place these comments in the record of the subcommittee hearings, which I understand will be held during the latter part of June.

With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely,

BREVARD CRIHFIELD, Executive Director.

LOSS OF VOTING RIGHTS IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Since the recent presidential election, there have been numerous articles by informed writers pointing out that all too many citizens, otherwise eligible to vote, have been disenfranchised by virtue of their having changed place of residence during the year preceding the election for President and Vice President. Many of the authors conclude that the proper solution is Federal legislation which would supersede State authority over election procedures. The purpose of the present memorandum is to explore what the States can do on their own initiative to remedy existing inequities and to avert Federal interference in a field traditionally reserved to the jurisdiction of the States. Specific recommendations are included.