STATEMENT OF HON. ELLIS ARNALL, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. ARNALL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I am very glad to be here this afternoon at which I conceive to be some inconvenience to yourselves. Being in Washington, I was anxious to register my enthusiastic support of this resolution.

Quite frankly, I am a believer in governmental changes. Changes in government have had this Nation great today, and while the people have given their Government, Federal, State and local, many rights, I do not conceive they ever gave the Government the right to remain static. We are living in fast-moving times. Little did we think, 5 years ago, that we would be calling on these young people to save us from destruction.

I would not question any Member of the Congress in any official action that might be taken by him, but I, for the life of me, cannot understand how any person in public office, by official conduct, or any person in his private thinking, could require young people to go out and die for our land and yet deny them the simple right to participate in saying what kind of Government it is that they want.

Now, there may be people who are so suspicious of youth, who so question their moral fitness and intellectual ability, as to say they are not worthy to cast the ballot.

In determining whether or not a person is to assume the right of the ballot in this land, the fundamental principles and issues involved, it seems to me, are primarily two. The first is, Does the person undertaking to vote understand the issues presented? And the second principle is, Does that person have an interest in the result of the issue which is to be determined?

You may paraphrase that by saying we should require a voter to be a good citizen; that he should have an interest in his Government, and likewise that he should have the ability to understand that issue upon which he may vote. Now, it seems to me that no one could deny, logically, that these young people do have an interest in public decisions. No one can tell me that a young man lying in a foxhole in New Guinea or landing under a hail of white-hot metal at Salerno's beachhead or piloting a Liberator or Mustang over occupied Europe does not have and interest in public affairs such as to justify his participation in our Government through elections.

Do young men in PT boats harrying the Jap fleet and young men in submarines today have an interest in public affairs?

Do young men in the mines and in the factories and on the farms of America have an interest in what kind of Government this is going to be?

And I say, likewise, that young women in our munitions factories, in our airplane factories, in the auxiliary services, all must have an interest in our Government.

Do young people today have the intelligence with which and upon which they may formulate correct judgment on public issues? I have heard much said about the lack of intelligence in some of our young people. I don't know about that. When you consider the plight to which the world has come, certainly no one justly can blame the condition now existing on young people. We older people have been prone to create the circumstances and the situations bringing about wars and conflicts, and then we call upon these young people to give their blood that we may remain freemen and freewomen.

I tell you, gentlemen of this subcommittee, that we have made great progress in this country in the processes of education. Any man or woman who reads newspapers, listens to the radio, reads magazines, periodicals, and books, whether they go to school or not, is bound to have a conception of what is going on roundabouts. Not only that. We have gone to great pains and great efforts to give the young people of our land educational advantages. I may surprise some of my friends when I tell you that I believe in young people. And I want to tell you gentlemen of this subcommittee that any nation that is distrustful of its youth is headed for destruction and ruin.

Unless you, and unless I, can have finer children than we were, children who shall have more opportunities than we had, who will avail themselves of those opportunities as they are now doing, then civilization goes backward and our progress is regressive instead of progressive. No one can convince me that a young man or young woman of 18 today does not have a power of understanding that transcends that of a 21-year-old man or woman of a generation ago.

I think there are two important reasons why the franchise should be given to these young men and young women. First of all, I believe that youth is idealistic. I am going to tell you something else. In my judgment, American youth believes in the American form of government and the American way of life.

It amuses me when some people say young people are addicted to taking up foreign subversive ideas. As far as I am concerned, I have never seen an 18year-old American boy who did not believe that someday he was going to own his business, someday he was going to be a millionaire, and someday he was going to be President of the United States. I believe in American youth.

If you allow the people, through their State legislatures, to put into effect a system that will permit youth voting in this Nation, you will bring to our electorate a high degree of intelligence and courage and candor and enthusiasm badly needed today.

I am not one of those who condemns modern youth as transgressing all rules of morality. I believe our sons and daughters are courageous and honorable and that they have been educated in a way that makes of them good citizens. If that is not true, the mothers and fathers in America have faltered in their duty to the Nation.

In addition to the idealism that youth voting will bring to our overall electorate, I believe that participation in Government by young men and young women between the ages of 18 and 21 will be a fine training and experience for them in public affairs. There are many of our young people who finish school at the age of 18 and who go into business for themselves. The Federal Government says that after a young man or young woman becomes 18 years of age, no further deduction shall be allowed in income tax returns for his or her dependence. The Government cuts them loose. And yet they have 3 years to wait before they can vote.

In the schools we interest our young people in Government, but when they finish school we say, "You must wait 3 years to exercise what you have learned." We set them up in business and say, "You have no right to vote in your Government, although you do operate your business."

It is my firm belief, and I sincerely subscribe to the idea, that youth is entitled, by every right and every reason, to participate in our elections. The training in Government thus afforded them will be invaluable.

We have a progressive series of ages provided for holding public office. For instance, under our present system a man cannot be a State representative in my State until he is 21. I believe he cannot be a Member of the Federal Congress until he is 25. He cannot be a Senator, I believe, until he is 30. Isn't that correct?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct.

Mr. ARNALL. And he can't be President of the United States until he is 35. In other words, we recognize progressive stages in citizenship, and I believe the training and experience which we would give young people at the ages of 18, 19, and 20 would be invaluable to them.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, we had an interesting experience in Georgia last August. On August 3 we submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to our electorate, at which time they voted on whether they desired to reduce the voting age in our State to 18. There had been much talk of reducing the voting age, but that was the first instance where a direct vote on that particular issue was submitted to the people. By a vote of more than 2 to 1, the people approved the lowering of the voting age.

If there had ever been a State in the Union where I, offhand, would have believed the people would have been slow to reduce the voting age, I would have picked my own, the State of Georgia.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Governor, why is that?

Mr. ARNALL. Because we have such conservative people, and yet they ratified this amendment.

Mr. SUMNERS. If these people whom you know as conservative have ratified your amendment by a 2-to-1 vote, why do you think it is necessary for the State Governors to come here-if they do come-and ask that this limitation be put on the governmental discretion of the people of their own States or that the States be compelled to have 18 years as the voting age whether it is their judgment or not?

Mr. ARNALL. I do not view the amendment as such. I view it as a vehicle to bring before our various legislatures in a uniform way this important item, an item of public interest. All I think, and all I hope for, is that this issue may

through proper channels, through an amendment, be submitted to the State legislatures.

Mr. SUMNERS. May I read this provision of House Joint Resolution 39 for the purpose of the record:

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age," shall be forced to permit 18-year-old persons to vote. Why isn't that a limitation on the governmental discretion of the States? Mr. ARNALL. To some extent, it is. But when we amended our Georgia constitution by providing for 18-year-old voting, we were amazed to find that our constitution provided that only male citizens of Georgia could participate in elections. Yet Congress not many years ago submitted an amendment giving women suffrage. Since that time we all agree that while woman suffrage might not be the panacea we hoped for, and might not have been the one grace to save politics, yet we admit that women should have the right to vote, and when I am a candidate for public office I know I am happy to have them vote for me.

Mr. SUMNERS. I ask the question in all seriousness. It is something that bothers a good many of us up here.

Mr. ARNALL. You were in Congress when the woman suffrage amendment was up, were you not?

Mr. SUMNERS. Yes.

Mr. ARNALL. Did it worry the Congress then as to whether they should go in that field?

Mr. SUMNERS. Not to the same extent. After all, the men and women who constitute the mothers and fathers have a vote in the States. It presents itself as a different proposition. The question was that of putting men and women of the same age on the same basis.

Mr. ARNALL. Perhaps it does, but I can't see the distinction. In both instances you brought in new voters.

Mr. SUMNERS. Since women have been enfranchised the voters in the States include the mothers and fathers in the Nation whose children this proposed amendment would affect. The attitude with reference to this sort of proposition would be a little different.

Mr. ARNALL. As I remember it, one of the arguments against woman suffrage was that women had no place in public affairs, that they knew nothing about it, and that therefore we would bring in a group who knew nothing about public affairs.

Mr. SUMNERS. I understood you to make this statement, Governer-and I want you to understand I am asking these questions because we are copartners in governmental responsibility

Mr. ARNALL. You need offer no apology for any questions you wish to ask me. I shall be glad to answer them.

Mr. SUMNERS. Here is your State a great State, I know your people-and it is interesting to me that from this State, its fine Governor who has done a wonderful job on this suffrage matter, according to his views, would want the Federal Government to take over this power with reference to which Georgia has done this job; take it away from the States notwithstanding each of the other States has as complete power to act as Georgia.

Mr. ARNALL. I don't know if you understand me or not. I have some very peculiar ideas.

Mr. SUMNERS. Yes. I do, too.

Mr. ARNALL. One of my ideas is that we have talked too much about State rights and not enough about State responsibilities.

Mr. SUMNERS. I think that is right. I understood from your statement you let 18-year-old boys conduct a business. Do they make deeds?

Mr. ARNALL. Not unless given legal emancipation.

Mr. CELLER. Can a boy who was under 21 disavow a contract?

Mr. ARNALL. Twenty-one is the legal age.

Mr. KEFAUVER. The amendment only went to the matter of franchise?

Mr. ARNALL. Yes. We have lowered the age for a driver's license in Georgia to 15 because there was a pressing need for manpower, and to that extent young people are in business.

Mr. CELLER. But you feel that the boy and girl in Georgia do not have sufficient wisdom that they could still disavow a contract under 21?

Mr. ARNALL. We have some contracts in our State, important contracts, that young people of 18 can enter into and that are valid, such as the marriage contract.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Isn't it also true in your State-you know I live about a half mile from your State line?

Mr. ARNALL. Yes.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Isn't it true that in your State boys 18 years of age can make contracts where they have been turned out on their own responsibility?

Mr. ARNALL. Where they have been given legal emancipation.

Mr. KEFAUVER. And they don't have to have a court emancipation, but merely parental recognition of a separate status.

Mr. ARNALL. Yes.

Mr. SUMNERS. You folks worked that out down in Georgia your own selves, didn't you?

Mr. ARNALL. Yes, but we are like you Texans; when we have a good thing we like to share it with our neighbors.

Mr. SUMNERS. But you don't like to force it on them?

Mr. ARNALL. No, indeed.

Mr. RUSSELL. You speak of the age of 18, and you say that a boy of 18 is doing his bit and rendering service as a soldier. Why don't you make the voting age 17? Aren't you discriminating against the 17-year-old boys? There are thousands of boys of 17 in the service, and some of 16, and some of 15, and I saw in the paper there was one of 12, I think.

Mr. ARNALL. I believe that military service, while an important consideration, is not the sole consideration. I believe we must have some arbitrary period of age in writing a law.

Mr. RUSSELL. But you are discriminating against the 17-year-old boy. Is that being fair to them?

Mr. ARNALL. If you considered only military service, it would not be fair, but there are other considerations. There has got to be an arbitrary period of citizenship. We have an arbitrary period today of 21. Are we not discriminating against the 20-year-old boy fighting in Italy beside a 21-year-old boy, and the 20-year-old boy gets an arm shot off? Government is never perfect.

Mr. RUSSELL. Don't you think as he grows older he becomes more judicially minded, between 18 and 21, and is in better condition, mentally, judicially, and otherwise, to pass on what are the best interests of the country? "As we say by the ballot, so shall we have."

Mr. ARNALL. Assuming that to be true, by the same reasoning we could say that a man from 21 to 25 will grow more mature and be better qualified to vote. Mr. KEFAUVER. Aside from the question of who is to do the job, whether it is the State's duty or the Federal Government's responsibility, isn't the strongest argument you have that boys and girls ordinarily finish high school when about 18 years of age, and at that time civics, political science, and matters of responsibilities in government are very much in their minds, and if they don't exercise those responsibilities immediately, in 3 years they may lose interest? Mr. ARNALL. I believe that is true.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Isn't that the real reason why you in Georgia selected the age of 18 rather than 17?

Mr. ARNALL. That is right. That is the age at which a marriage contract can be made. It is the time when boys and girls finish school. It is the age at which the Federal Government says they are out on their own.

Mr. CELLER. Is that an accurate recitation of what happened in your State? I have seen pamphlets distributed in Georgia, and the slogan was: "If a boy is old enough to fight, he is old enough to vote."

Particularly since you emphasize fighting in foxholes, in the sky, and on the sea, I take it you are impressed with the fact that if a boy is old enough to fight he is old enough to vote.

Mr. ARNALL. I am very much impressed by that.

Mr. CELLER. Is there any connection between being old enough to fight and being old enough to vote? In this sense, it would take some time to get this resolution ratified; you could not possibly get this ratified before 1945 or 1946. By that time we hope the war will be over, so you will not be endowing 18-yearold soldiers with the right to vote. So there is no connection between being old enough to fight and being old enough to vote.

Mr. ARNALL. I think that the fact these young people are fighting has served to rivet our attention on our duty to them.

Mr. CELLER. As soldiers they would not have the right to vote.

Mr. ARNALL. That is true.

Mr. CELLER. Is it fair to offer that as an argument, that if a boy is old enough to fight he is old enough to vote?

Mr. ARNALL. I do not desire, first of all, for the eminent chairman of this subcommittee to allow my argument to be drawn into one line only. You will recall I have submitted a number of reasons, such as participation in government being fine training in citizenship, and the ardor and candor of youth will bring to the ballot box, and other reasons. But another reason is that if a young man risks his life for his Government, he is entitled to vote.

May I tell you a story, please?

I used two little stories in Georgia when campaigning for this amendment. One of them-it is a true story-related to S2c. James Cranford, of Marietta, Ga. Although still under 21, he has been discharged from the Navy because of severe wounds sustained in defense of this country. He secured employment in a bomber factory, and was injured there.

He won a 50-word essay contest on why young people should be allowed to vote. Here is about what he said. He said: "I was at Pearl Harbor. I participated in the Battle of the Coral Sea. I was wounded 22 times fighting for my country. I am not yet 21. Do you not think I have won the right to vote?"

The other story was this. A young man came to see me who had been at Guadalcanal. For 9 months he was at an outpost in jungle land, separated from his comrades.

I said, "What did you think about when you were out there?"

He said, "I had reconciled myself to the fact I was going to be killed. I thought about my life and what I had done. I thought about my family, my mother, and my father. And I thought about my sweetheart. I thought about my country, for which I was going to die. And I thought about God."

Can anyone stand up and tell me that such a young patriot is not entitled to the simple right to register his feeling about governmental policies? I say it is not fair and it is not right.

Let me say this: Any government that requires a young man to go out and die for it should give him the right to participate in elections.

Mr. TOLAN. I think you have a point in the fact that the citizens 21 years and older have made a lamentable showing. Twenty-five percent is a large turnout at local elections 57 percent at national elections. So that these young people don't have a hard record to shoot at.

Mr. ARNALL. No.

Mr. RANDOLPH. May I ask the committee's indulgence to make an observation on Mr. Tolan's comment. In the presidential election of 1940, 67 percent of the eligible voters cast their ballots. We realize that of the 33 percent who did not use their franchise, some were ill, and others could not, for various reasons, participate. It is fair to say that 25 out of 100 were either not interested or derelict in their duty. But of those in the low age brackets, 85 to 90 percent did participate. So we do find that, progressively, as we come to the lower age brackets, there is greater realization of the responsibility of using the ballot. Mr. ARNALL. Unless the subcommittee has something further to ask me, I believe I have concluded what I have to say.

Mr. KEFAUVER. May I ask you one more question, Governor? The amendment to the constitution of Georgia was finally passed in August, I believe.

Mr. ARNALL. August 3.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Have you had any elections at which these young people have voted?

Mr. ARNALL. No State elections. We have had bond elections.

Mr. KEFAUVER. I think it would be interesting if you would tell the committee the response you have had from young people at these elections, and what the young people tell you as to whether their interest in voting has increased.

Mr. ARNALL. Of course, I would hardly be the one to make those statements. I think almost everyone knows the young people were very much interested in the election in which I won the governorship. Therefore, I would be prejudiced as to what they think. They couldn't vote at the time, but they did a great deal in the election.

Mr. KEFAUVER. We have great confidence in your being modest.

Mr. ARNALL. I don't think you can take a young man or a young woman between the ages of 18 and 21 and lead them by the nose. I think they will be

frank. Many of our young people are out of the State and can't participate now, but we are pleased with the amendment. I hear no criticism of it, and we think we have done a worthy thing. I hope our experience will prove it has been worthy.