FDR Choice-leading contenders on ballot. 1 10 ballots: all ten delegates stayed with Wood for 2 3 Eisenhower and Taft only candidates on ballot Kefauver only candidate on ballot (entering dele- Kefauver only candidate on ballot. % 1 2 3 4 5 Last 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1005 Comments: Since all of the candidates were entered the only candidate who entered delegates in the pri- 1 Wood only candidate entered. Comments: With only the one candidate entered the delegates stayed with him in spite of the fact that they were not legally bound. This is not usually the case. * % 1 2 3 4 5 Last 73 5 0 18 9 5 0 Choice-Whether or not leading contenders entered. 1 Wood and Johnson only candidates entered. Comments: Though two out of the three leading candidates were on the ballot, the delegates did not consider themselves bound, in spite of the legal provisions. 1 Choice Whether or not leading contenders on 5 No contests in Democratic Party according to fig- Leonard Wood only candidate entered. Taft and Stassen only candidates entered. 14 out of 16 votes for Taft; none for Stassen. Comments: The 1920 contest would seem to bear out 2 46 ballots; Wilson never got less than 73% of the 4 Write-in votes for all major candidates. 5 6 7 Write-in votes for McAdoo and Smith. Norris only candidate on ballot; write-ins for Roosevelt only candidate on ballot. 8 Write-in votes for Dewey, Taft, and Vandenberg. Write-in votes for Dewey, Stassen and MacArthur. 10 Taft, Warren and Stassen on ballot. Kefauver only candidate on ballot. Comments: Even though there are a large number of 9 11 12 (The following is an excerpt from an unpublished manuscript by Dr. Paul T. David, University of Virginia, entitled "Equitable Representation in State Legislatures: Senator Clark's Proposals for Federal Action," dated August 16, 1960. It concerned Senate Joint Resolution 215, introduced in the 86th Congress by Senator Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, which proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and provided for ratification by conventions in the States. A companion bill, S. 3781, dealt with how ratifying conventions shall be held in the States when this mode of ratification is specified by Congress.) THE CONVENTION SYSTEM OF RATIFICATION (By Paul T. David) The notion that an amendment of the Federal Constitution might be possible as a means of reforming representation in State legislatures is not entirely new. The writer recalls a casual discussion of the idea some years ago with Senator Clark's administrative assistant, James L. Sundquist. We were not under the impression that the idea was original with either of us, but so far as we were aware, it had never been reduced to writing or buttressed with the kind of research that would be necessary as the earliest preliminary step. The idea would never have seemed promising if it had been necessary to rely upon the consent of the State legislatures under the procedure that has been most often used in amending the Federal Constitution. From the first it appeared desirable to make use of the alternative procedure for ratification by conventions in the States, under which prohibition repeal was achieved in less than 10 months from the time when the repealer amendment passed Congress. But even this intended procedure left many questions for study. What would happen to a proposed amendment on which the legislatures had a direct interest in preventing action? Could they simply refuse to submit such a proposal to ratifying conventions in the States? Or could they provide for the conventions, but make them so unrepresentative as to prejudice action? What ultimate authority resides in Congress to deal with obstructionist tactics in State legislatures either in anticipation or after the fact? 1 DEBATE BEFORE PROHIBITION REPEAL All of these questions of constitutional strategy were examined at length by scholars, publicists, and legislators during the controversy that preceded repeal of the prohibition amendment. The State legislatures were generally under attack by the proponents of repeal from 1918 to 1933, first, for having ratified 1 Before going to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, the writer was encouraged to work on the problem of a Federal amendment by John E. Bebout and John P. Wheeler, Jr., of the National Municipal League, the latter of whom was directing the League's State Constitutional Studies Project and kindly supplied a set of the research documents it was then producing. Of these, the most important was the prepublication version of "State Constitutions: Reapportionment" (National Municipal League, 1960), by Prof. Gordon E. Baker of the University of California, Santa Barbara. After studying this report, the first draft of a proposed amendment was prepared by the writer in December 1959, rapidly revised in conversations at the center, reproduced, and circulated for discussion by a group of friendly critics. The problems that then came to the surface required further work. leading to a more elaborate draft. This was presented in a 15-page memorandum, reproduced at the center, on Mar. 3, 1960; about 50 copies of this eventually got into circulation. (Prof. A. Leo Levin of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, previously noted as one of the fellows at the center, was especially helpful on the problems involved in the preparation of the Mar. 3 draft.) Through Mr. Sundquist, Senator Clark indicated interest in introducing the proposed amendment. After the memorandum of Mar. 3, 1960, became available, it was used as the basis for further work by members of the Senator's staff. At conferences on May 12 and 13, 1960, attended by Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., of the staff of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Alan Rosenthal, an APSA congressional fellow assigned to Senator Clark's office; Mr. Sundquist; and the writer, it was agreed that the most satisfactory drafting formula would consist of the proposed joint resolution, worded as briefly as possible and with a grant of authority to Congress to deal with details, and the two bills, each of which would incorporate a portion of the detail previously included in the proposed amendment. Drafts along these lines were prepared, were later redrafted extensively by the Legislative Counsel of the Senate and by Senator Clark, and reached introduction on June 29, 1960. See Congressional Record of that date, pp. 13827-13836, and reprints of this material distributed by Senator Clark's office. |