Senator KEFAUVER. The chairman wishes to welcome the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Keating, who is also a member of the subcommittee, who is the author of several resolutions which are being considered here.

Senator Keating has a statement, and we will be glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the chairman has called these hearings on electoral reforms and that so many prominent and knowledgeable citizens have been scheduled to appear before us.

The time for electoral reform is now. The momentum for reform developing out of the 1960 election has brought about a deep and widespread agreement in the Congress and throughout the country that we need to revise and revitalize our outmoded electoral system. We must review our voting mechanisms and discard the "electoral buttonhooks" of the past.

Twentieth century democratic government requires a modern and dynamic electoral system. In the world of the astronaut, we cannot continue to use and depend on an election system geared to the age of the horse and buggy.

Broadly speaking, there are two major problems which we must deal with in the area of electoral reforms.

First of all, we must see to it that in presidential elections a majority of the American people can and do determine who is to be our Nation's Chief Executive. The 1960 election made this need abundantly clear. Only by some accident of fate did we avert having the major candidate with the smaller number of popular votes receive a majority in the electoral college. I do not believe that any candidate would want to be elected to the highest office of our land over an opponent who received a larger number of votes.

A second pressing area for electoral reforms involves our responsibility to insure every qualified American the right to vote. The reason for the relatively low voter turnout in the United States is not simply apathy, but is also attributable to cumbersome and unfair electoral laws which deny to many their right to vote.

There are a number of pending constitutional amendments which would increase voter turnout. Liberalizing residence requirements for presidential elections and eliminating the poll tax are key examples. Another serious bar to the right to vote is discrimination against minority groups. With the possible exception of the poll-tax amendment, this problem is one which can be resolved by Federal legislation and by State and local efforts and does not require a constitutional amendment. I hope that the vigor which this committee is devoting to electoral reforms and to the rights of citizens in a modern democracy to vote will be contagious and will spill over into other fields in which freedom must be buttressed and expanded.

A third and certainly important area in which the right to vote is denied to many involves election fraud and malpractice. This is a difficult problem to resolve by legislation or constitutional amendment. More than anything else, it requires the vigilant efforts and

continued scrutiny of private citizens who believe in the will of a free government.

There are four amendments before this committee in which I am particularly interested and which would have the effect of either solidifying the majority's right to decide or increasing the scope of the franchise. Briefly they are:

(1) Abolishing the electoral college;

(2) Placing a reasonable maximum on residence requirements for voting in presidential elections;

(3) Permitting 18-year-olds the right to vote; and

(4) Abolishing the poll tax.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Keating, the second one, with reference to residence requirements, has not yet reached the subcommittee. I assume that it will be here shortly.

Senator KEATING. I realize that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will order it to be printed along with the others.

Senator KEATING. I would appreciate it if that could be done. First, the elimination of the electoral college. The distinguished majority leader, Senator Mansfield, has taken the lead in introducing a constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 23, which calls for the complete elimination of the electoral college. I am a cosponsor of this amendment and I feel very strongly that it represents the only real solution to the basic problems inherent in the electoral college system.

We cannot indefinitely perpetuate a system which allows the possibility of a minority President, nor should we be willing to entrust to posterity a system which places no legal control over how presidential electors shall cast their vote once they are selected.

Writing shortly after the 1960 election, Roscoe Drummond made this point very well. He said:

My plea that we free ourselves from the tentacles of the electoral system does not rest primarily on what might have happened to the candidates; it rests primarily on what might have happened to the right of the American people to pick their President by majority vote. This election has shown again how the electoral-vote system is a one-way street with a built-in trapdoor through which the will of the American people can disappear at any time.

Mr. Chairman, we must not forget that twice in our history candidates have been defeated who have received a majority of the popular vote for President; in 1876, Samuel Tilden, and in 1888, Grover Cleveland. And, in 1824, Andrew Jackson was defeated by John Quincy Adams in an election which was decided in the House, despite the fact that Jackson's popular vote was believed to be considerably greater than that of Adams,

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on the proposed revision of the electoral college to allocate State electors in direct proportion to the popular vote. This is perhaps the most widely supported revision of the electoral college now before this subcommittee.

Under the electoral college as it is now constituted, in 1956, a voter in Mississippi had the same weight in voting for a candidate for President as did five voters in New York. The proportional allocation system would not redress this imbalance. Similarly, it would not prevent the election of a President by a minority vote.

In the Senate debate on the original Lodge-Gossett amendment, Senator Taft cited an interesting and illustrative example of the latter point. In the election of 1900, William McKinley had a total popular vote of 7,219,000, or 52.8 percent. William Jennings Bryan had a popular vote of 6,358,000, or 47.2 percent. McKinley won the 1900 election with an electoral college vote of 292 to Bryan's 155.

If the proportional allocation system had been used, said Taft, Bryan would have had 218 electoral votes, and McKinley 214. Yet Bryan carried only 17 States in that election, 11 of them in the South, 2 border States, and 4 Western States, while McKinley carried 28 States, including all of the Eastern, Middle Western, and Pacific Coast States, 3 border States, and 2 Western States.

Now, another constitutional amendment in which I am deeply interested relates to residence requirements for voting. This is Senate Joint Resolution 90 which I recently introduced. Eight million Americans were prevented from voting in the 1960 presidential election because they moved shortly prior to November 7 and therefore did not meet the residence requirements of the jurisdiction into which they moved.

I recently introduced a resolution (S.J. Res. 90) proposing an amendment to the Constitution setting a 90-day maximum on residence requirements for voting in presidential elections only. The coincidence of having the number of this resolution (S.J. Res. 90) the same as my proposed maximum residence requirement gives me cause to hope this relationship is prophetic of great success for our subcommittee in this area.

Senator KEFAUVER. Let me see if I understand you. In other words, any State cannot have a residence requirement of more than 90 days for voting for a presidential elector.

Senator KEATING. Just for President and Vice President. The amendment would not even apply to elections for the Senate or the House of Representatives and would not, of course, apply to any local election.

Senator KEFAUVER. That provision is also contained in Senate Joint Resolution 14, which the chairman filed.

But, Senator Keating, what would happen, say, in the case of a citizen leaving Tennessee 30 days before the election, moving to Virginia, and by leaving Tennessee he could not vote there, and he has been in Virginia but 30 days, and he would still not be able to vote.

Senator KEATING. Well, that is right. There would still be a relatively small number disenfranchised even if this amendment were adopted, unless it were coupled with a provision of State law, and I think the adoption of such an amendment would be a spur to the States, that a person could vote by absentee ballot if he had moved within a certain length of time. I would say that this should also be within 90 days, which would insure him the right to vote someplace or the other. My feeling is that every duly qualified citizen should have that right to vote somewhere for President and Vice President.

Senator KEFAUVER. And if the States adopt a uniform statute about absentee voting for 90 days everybody would have that right.

Senator KEATING. Yes, and I recognize that that could be done without an amendment, if enough of the States saw fit to do that, and some have.

Senator KEFAUVER. Most States have one-year residence requirements, some States have 2; isn't that correct?

Senator KEATING. Some have two. They vary all the way from 6 months up to 2 years. There is quite a hodgepodge in the various States on that subject.

I recently conducted a survey of the 50 Governors and received replies from 32. From those replies, I recognize that most of the State chief executives, very naturally, believe that residence requirements for voting are and should be solely within the jurisdiction of the States.

There are two or three who felt that it should be a minimum standard set by the Federal Government, and all, nearly all, recognized the inequity in the present situation whereby so many of our citizens are disenfranchized in every election.

I have a summary of that which I believe might be helpful.

Senator KEFAUVER. Do you wish to put the summary in the record? Senator KEATING. Yes, I will attach that to my statement, if I may. Senator KEFAUVER. Very well.

(The document referred to follows:)

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT BY SENATOR KEATING ON REPLIES FROM GOVERNORS OF 32 STATES ON IMPACT AND REFORM OF RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING (MAY 15, 1961)

On Washington's Birthday of this year, I addressed the Senate briefly on the plight of the approximately 8 million "politically disposed" Americans disqualified to vote by residence requirements in the 1960 presidential election. I included in my remarks at that time excerpts from an excellent study by Mr. Walter Kravitz of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. I later sent copies of that statement to the 50 State Governors.

I have received replies from more than 30 States. Most were quite informative and sympathetic.

Mr. President, the kindest word we can use to describe the current situation is chaos.

Three States, for example, require 2 years' residence within their boundaries before they will permit an elector to cast his ballot. In 35 States the requirement is 1 year; in 12 others it is 6 months.

Three States demand 1 year's residence in the county. Eight others require 6 months; 17 specify anywhere from 2 to 4 months; and 6 others ask 30 to 40 days. Finally, one State actually requires 1 full year's residence in a precinct, and three others expect 6 months' residence in an equivalent locality. Nine States demand from 2 to 4 months, while 23 require from 10 to 40 days.

The situation is not only chaotic. It is unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory, and dangerous.

It is unjust because it penalizes the mobile elements of our population. It is unreasonable because of the great variation in these requirements and because a citizen may be stripped of his vote for a month, or 2 months, or even a year, if by merely moving across the street he also crosses a district or precinct line.

It is discriminatory because the weight of disfranchisement leans most heavily on urban voters.

It is dangerous because it may distort the outcome of a close election, because it alienates responsible segments of our citizenry, and-most frightening of allbecause it encourages the fearful cancer of electoral apathy.

How many persons are affected by archaic State residence requirements? According to the American Heritage Foundation, some 8 million potential voters were barred from voting in the 1960 elections because of inability to meet State, county, or locality qualifications.

In other words, some 71⁄2 percent of the total civilian population of voting age were disfranchised by these residence laws. Mr. President, the percentage margin of victory in dozens of elections last year was less than 72 percent. I refer not only to the popular vote for the Presidency but also to a great many congressional races.

Who are these victims of this anachronism? The tragedy of the whole affair is that they include some of our most intelligent and informed citizens.

The American Heritage Foundation again reports that the disfranchised include many of our better educated and more responsible citizens-people with the initiative and character needed to pull up stakes and seek advancement in a new community. Many are educators, lawyers, clergymen; others are business executives.

A General Electric Co. spokesman reports that 6 percent of its executive personnel were disfranchised in 1960 because of being shifted from State to State. Oil companies, chainstores, and large corporations frequently transfer engineers, managers, salesmen, and their executives. Each change of residence within a year usually disfranchises two votes and in some cases more.

Mr. President, it is no exaggeration to compare apathy in a democracy to cancer. Like that dread disease, apathy may so consume the body politic as to bring about its death.

We have some expert testimony on the relationship between residence disqualifications and political apathy. Consider how the States ranked in percentage of civilians of voting age who voted in the 1960 election. The 8 States with the largest percentage turnout all have laws that encourage voting. The 8 States with the smallest percentage turnout all raise formidable legal barriers to voting.

I do not for a moment deny the basic merit of the principles underlying the requirement of residency qualifications of some sort for voters. Fraud is deterred by such requirements. Furthermore, residence provides some assurance that the citizen has acquired a reasonable familiarity with local candidates and issues.

It is the severity and harshness of some of these requirements that trouble me. Is anything really gained by depriving a citizen of his suffrage because he lacks 2 years' State residence? Does that citizen really lose his competence to vote for State officers because he has moved within a State from one county to another less than 6 months before election day? Is movement from one precinct to another sufficient cause for the total loss of voting rights, even though the move may have occurred within 30 days of the election?

I question both the justice and the wisdom of such severity. Nevertheless, as far as State and local issues and State and local elections are concerned, the Congress does not have a direct role to play and the qualifications for voters can and should be left up to the State.

When we turn to national elections, and especially to the election of the President and Vice President, I fail to see the relevance of residence restrictions. State and local residence requirements have absolutely no bearing on the competence of any American citizen to cast a vote in a national election.

How are we to correct this injustice? The situation is admittedly a delicate one. As matters now stand, the Constitution clearly gives the responsibility for setting voters' qualifications to the States. It is something of a paradox that the question of who votes in a presidential and vice-presidential election is determined at the State and local level.

A Governor of one of our States and two distinguished political scientists have indicated to me that the solution is to be found in congressional action. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to include at this point a very forceful and perceptive letter expressing the same viewpoint from Prof. Rhoten A. Smith, professor of politics at the New York University School of Law. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Senator KENNETH B. KEATING,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW, New York, N.Y., April 26, 1961.

DEAR SENATOR KEATING: I appreciate very much your letter of March 27 requesting some amplification of my views concerning residency requirements. I am happy to respond to this request.