Results of poll of political scientists' opinions on electoral college proposals: Letter dated June 7, 1961, from Senator Estes Kefauver to heads of departments of political science and government.... Questionnaire mailed by Senator Estes Kefauver to heads of depart- ments of political science and government.. Compilation of answers to political scientists' questionnaire.. List of participating political scientists.. Statements accompanying political scientists' questionnaire submitted by: Fluno, Robert Y., Whitman College, Walla Walla, Wash__ Griner, J. E., Arkansas A & M College, College Heights, Ark.... Gross, Franz B., Pennsylvania Military College, Chester, Pa.. Howell, John M., East Carolina College, Greenville, N.C Prescott, Frank W., University of Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tenn. Prufer, Julius F., Roanoke College, Salem, Va__--- Selman, Jackson W., Jacksonville State College, Jacksonville, Ala... Stroud, Virgil C., A. & T. College of North Carolina, Greensboro, Thames, H. Stanley, East Central State College, Ada, Okla_ Wallace, Lillian Parker, Meredith College, Raleigh, N.C. Weed, Frederic A., San Jose State College, San Jose, Calif._ White, Howard B., New School for Social Research, New York, N.Y Wise, Sidney, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pa.... Wolfe, George V., College of Idaho, Caldwell, Idaho......- Tables submitted by Mr. Gus Tyler: Occasions since 1952 when congressional candidates of one party re- 1950 and 1960 populations of the most populous and least populous 666 Ratio between population of most populous and least populous districts 668 Ratio of electoral votes to population in each State for 1964 and 1968 670 Number of popular votes per electoral vote in each State in 1952 presi- 671 NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1961 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Estes Kefauver (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Kefauver and Keating. Also present: Senator Javits. James C. Kirby, Jr., counsel for the subcommittee. Senator KEFAUVER. The committee will come to order. I am glad that Senator Keating, a member of the subcommittee who is interested in a number of these constitutional amendments, and is the sponsor of several resolutions, could be with us. We expect other Senators to be here later. Our first distinguished witness, Mr. John Bailey, was to be introduced this morning by Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd's administrative assistant, Jim Boyd, says that he is ill this morning and cannot be here. I know that he regrets it very much. Senator KEATING. If the chairman would like to have me send for Senator Bush, I think he is in town. Senator KEFAUVER. I am sure Mr. Bailey would be glad to have a complimentary word from Mr. Bush. Mr. John Bailey, as we all know, is the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and I feel that Mr. Bailey is very well qualified to give worthwhile views on these various resolutions because he is a distinguished lawyer, has a fine practice at Hartford, Conn., and is highly regarded as a constitutional lawyer. In addition to that, Mr. Bailey has had practical experience as the national Democratic chairman and as the national committeeman for a number of years from the State of Connecticut where he was very successful as the Democratic leader. So, with his experience, including personal experience in politics at its best in Connecticut, he would know what would be the effect of a number of these resolutions. I want to say also that I think Mr. Bailey is one of the very fine chairmen of one of our great political parties. He understands organization. He understands the value of clean, forceful politics, and he is one of our great political leaders at this time. We appreciate your coming and being with us, Mr. Bailey. You may now proceed. STATEMENT OF JOHN M. BAILEY, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this distinguished subcommittee and give my views on the subject of the ground rules governing our presidential elections. I am particularly appreciative of the kindness of the committee, and especially you, Senator Kefauver, in arranging a special date since I had to be away at the time of your regular hearings when I originally was scheduled. I also am very much impressed by the fact that you have no less than 20 proposed constitutional amendments under consideration with, as near as I can make out, something like two-thirds of the Members of the Senate as sponsors or cosponsors of one or more of these proposals. This indicates the importance of these proposals and the keen interest in them. As I see it, the proposed amendments before you fall into two different groups: The first group deals with eligibility for voting. The second with the specific process by which Presidents are nominated and elected. I would like to deal with each of these groups separately. In the first category are proposals to eliminate the poll tax and property qualifications for voting in Federal elections; authorization of 18-year-old voting; prohibition of excessive residence requirements; and simplification of absentee ballot requirements. First, I would like to go on record as supporting all of the changes designed to reduce restrictions on voting. Without going into details of specific constitutional language, I feel that it is unworthy of our great country that only 64.7 percent of our total population of voting age participated in the 1960 presidential election and that in some States it was as low as 25.6 percent. I firmly believe that if anything can be done, and everything that can possibly be done, to make it possible for everybody to vote, we should do it. Now this isn't any one-area question. I mean in my own State of Connecticut it is very difficult for a person to become a voter. We have constitutional requirements, first that they have to read part of the Constitution in the English language; secondly, that they have to be brought to the townhall because voters can only be made by a majority of the members of the board of selectmen in the town, with the result being that you can't have it meeting in various places with one member, or you can't delegate the authority. There has got to be there are three selectmen. Two of them have got to be present at one place, and the people have to present themselves at that place, whether in a town the size of Union, with 200 voters, or the city of Hartford where there are some 85,000 or 90,000 voters. Senator KEFAUVER. I didn't understand that, Mr. Bailey. You mean when a voter registers there have to be two selectmen? Mr. BAILEY. There have to be two selectmen present. They are the ones, in our language, that make him a voter, give him the reading test. They have to be physically present, and he has to be physically present, too. Senator KEFAUVER. Well, do they actually go through the process of requiring him to read part of the Constitution? Mr. BAILEY. In English. That is in our constitution, that the Constitution has to be read in English. Senator KEFAUVER. The State's constitution, you mean, or the U.S. Constitution? Mr. BAILEY. The State constitution. Senator KEFAUVER. What if a person speaks Spanish and doesn't speak English? Mr. BAILEY. They have to read it in English. Senator KEFAUVER. I believe New York did have some law like that. Has that been changed? Senator KEATING. We have a State educational requirement which requires an understanding of the English language. The test given does not require any great ability, but it does require a knowledge of the English language. Mr. BAILEY. And we have another problem, Senator, which we are trying to straighten out up there. At the present time if you live in Hartford and you are made a voter in Hartford and then vote for 25 years in Hartford and then you move to West Hartford, you then have to go through the whole procedure again. Once you move across a town line. Senator KEATING. Well, that is much more stringent than New York. Once you are a qualified voter, you are always a voter, although you may have to register again if you move into another election district. Mr. BAILEY. We have to make them again. So I say these requirements are not only in one section; they are all over the country. Whether or not they can be straightened out federally is another question. I mean the States are very jealous of their prerogative of the making of voters. Senator KEFAUVER. What is the residence requirement for voting in Connecticut? Mr. BAILEY. One year. Senator KEFAUVER. And if you move from one county to another is there any requirement Mr. BAILEY. Sixty days. And we have it by towns, Senator. I mean not counties. We have 169 towns, and that is the unit; not counties. Senator KEFAUVER. So your voting unit is the township? Senator KEFAUVER. When you move from one township to another you have to be there 60 days. Mr. BAILEY. Except for a State election. You can go back and vote. If If you haven't moved within 6 months you can go back and vote, but if you live longer than 6 months you have got to be made over again in order to vote in that town. Senator KEFAUVER. How about a presidential election? Mr. BAILEY. Same thing. Part of this was simple neglect on the part of voters which no law can cure. But certainly in millions of cases complex and burdensome tax, qualification, residence, and other requirements kept people from voting who otherwise would have done so. These obstacles should be eliminated insofar as possible so that the United States can at least begin to approach the record of other democratic countries where a far higher percentage of people participate in elections. On the poll tax issue the position of the Democratic Party is particularly strong. Our 1960 platform pledged us to— support whatever action is necessary to eliminate *** the payment of poll taxes as a requirement for voting. I am convinced that these archaic taxes serve no useful present function. They introduce a minor but irritating barrier to full voter participation in elections, and facilitate undesirable politcal practices in some areas. I am convinced that most leaders, even in the States that have them, would be glad to see them disappear, but local action to eliminate them presents real political problems. A constitutional amendment for this purpose would seem to be the best answer all around. The same reasoning applies to other restrictions on voting eligibility. Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Bailey, do you want to finish all your statement and then let us then ask some questions, or shall we do it as we go along? Mr. BAILEY. You can do it either way. You can interrupt me at any time. Senator KEFAUVER. Well, I understand then that the resolutions we have before us to eliminate the poll tax, one of which is sponsored by Senator Holland of Florida and a large number of cosponsors, the other of which is sponsored by Senator Clark from Pennsylvania with a number of cosponsors, is part of the legislative program of the administration? Mr. BAILEY. Our party in the conventions What I quoted to you is in our 1960 platform. The platform reads: support whatever action is necessary to eliminate * * the payment of poll taxes as a requirement for voting. Senator KEATING. Well, the platform went further than that, didn't it? Mr. BAILEY. I just quoted that part of it. Senator KEFAUVER. Well, while we are on the subject, Senator Keating has a resolution, and I have one, in connection with eliminating the restrictions on voting by virtue of moving from one State to another. There are so many voters that find they can't vote in that State they have left, and haven't been in the new State long enough to qualify, and you are in favor of doing something about that. Mr. BAILEY. I am in favor of doing that. I can see some practical problems. I mean that they would have to at least get a certificate and file it with the town clerk or whatever it was from their other State that they were a voter in that State. I just don't think that you can practically work it out that they can just walk down and vote. There have got to be some preliminary steps taken by the voter. In other words, if you moved from Tennessee to Connecticut you would file in the town clerk's office in Hartford a certificate, an affidavit from your voting residence in Tennessee that you were a voter in Tennessee and would be eligible to vote in the presidential election. Senator KEATING. And also it may be necessary to make separate provision for voting for local officers. I assume that we would be |