A political party would be recognized as such if at any time within 4 years preceding a primary election more than 10 percent of the total registered voters in the United States had registered as members of the party. Each political party would be entitled to a number of nominating votes equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which each State is entitled in the Congress, and each person for whom votes were cast as nominee for President would be credited with such proportion of his party's nominating votes in any State as he receives of the total popular vote of his party. The person having the majority of votes of his party would be the nominee for President, and provision is made for a second primary in event no person receives a majority of the nominating votes as nominee for President. In case of the death or resignation, prior to the election of the nominee of any party for President, the national committee of his party would designate a successor. In designating such successor, the votes would be taken by States, each State having one vote.

The obvious purpose of the nationwide presidential primary is to eliminate the nominating convention which is claimed to be undemocratic in cutting the people out of the process of selecting a candidate; unresponsive in ignoring their views; and lacking in ethical practices directed to protecting the large public interest at stake. Contrary arguments favoring the nominating convention are that it operates as a major unifying and inspiring force in political parties, arouses widespread interest and engenders enthusiasm among the people in the national plebiscite at which the President is elected. We need not resolve this conflict of views here. Suffice it to say that many States have attempted through enactment of presidential primary laws to avoid what they considered to be the harmful consequences of the nominating convention, and to give the people a more direct voice in the presidential nominations.

Although this was indeed the goal of many State presidential primary laws, generally it has not been realized. Several reasons are advanced for failure of the presidential primary system as it is now operated on a State basis. There are various categories of presidential primaries, merely some of which may be noted here. The most popular form consists of a presidential preference vote and direct election of delegates to the national convention who may be pledged to a particular candidate. One drawback of this method is that in some States there is a presidential preference vote couple with the election of delegates whose particular preferences are unknown to the voters. This leads to confusion. In other States there is a presidential preference vote but delegates to the national convention who are elected directly are unpledged. Some States dispense with the presidential preference vote and provide merely for election of district delegates who are not bound to any one presidential candidate. The result is that often the delegates remain unpledged contrary to the intention and expectation of the voters. Moreover the proportion of the delegates to the convention by primary States is generally not large enough to be decisive except where they are united on a single candidate. In addition, even if the delegates are firmly pledged, other questions arise as to how long they should be bound, what they should do if the candidate to whom they are committed is clearly out of the running, and to what extent they should support the "favorite son.” Then too, there may be a decided shift in sentiment from the time of the presidential primary to the time of the convention. Thus, a strong enough case can be made out for an amendment to the Constitution to establish a uniform presidential primary law for carrying out the popular will and developing a more direct participation by the people in the selection of a presidential candidate.

The idea of a national presidential primary is by no means new. Theodore Roosevelt espoused such a plan in 1912. In his first annual message to Congress, former President Wilson urged "the prompt enactment of legislation which will provide for primary elections throughout the country at which the voters of the several parties may choose their nominees for the Presidency without the intervention of nominating conventions." Under Wilson's plan, the convention would have been retained only to declare the results of the primary and formulate the party platform. The nationwide presidential primary plan was revived again by La Follette in the 1924 campaign. It has been given support more recently by scholars and statesmen interested in the broadest participation by the people in the affairs of Government. Also, the plant has received overwhelming approval in popular polls.

Hansen, "Performance and Potential of Presidential Primary Laws," 39 Neb. L. Rev. 473, 476 (1960). It seems that 22 States now have such laws (id. 476) but the number is constantly shifting.

4 Congressional Record, 63d Cong., 2d sess., p. 44.

Although the nationwide presidential primary may have some advantages and some popular appeal, there are significant objections to it which cannot be overlooked or minimized. One is the expense, which would be enough to discourage many candidates. The skyrocketing costs of conducting TV, radio, and related campaigns would either eliminate many competent candidates or make them excessively dependent on persons and organizations with large funds to spend. This we know is not altogether conducive to the proper functioning of the democratic election process. Another objection, noted by Adlai Stevenson, was that since many presidential candidates will be incumbents of public office, it would not be possible for them to discharge their duties properly and at the same time campaign in each of the 50 States adequately enough to satisfy the needs of an informed electorate. Still another objection to the national presidential primary is the danger of fomenting long-lasting divisions within a party, the thought being that rivalry among party leaders may be intensified and their strife widely publicized on a national scale.

III. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ABOLISHING THE POLL TAX Another important bill before this committee is Senate Joint Resolution 58 to abolish the poll tax as a condition for voting in any primary or other election for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress. This bill has been introduced by Senator Holland for himself and 65 other Senators. It is heartening to note that represented among these sponsors are Senators from every part of the country-north, south, east and west.

There are five States which still impose a poll tax in a national election, viz: Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Virginia. At the threshold, the question arises whether Congress should proceed by constitutional amendment or by statute.

We feel that there is little doubt that Congress may under the Constitution enact legislation to outlaw the poll tax as a condition for voting in elections for U.S. Senators and Representatives. However, whether Congress may enact laws to abolish the poll tax as a condition for election of presidential electors presents a more difficult question. While we think from the recent trend in decisions that the courts would ultimately uphold such a statute, the matter is not free from doubt. In any event, as a practical matter and in view of the widespread support offered by the many sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 58, the poll tax may possibly be laid forever to rest faster by constitutional amendment than by attempt to enact and litigate the validity of a statute. All of us know that long delays are inherent in litigation generally, and this is particularly true when important constitutional issues are at stake. Accordingly, the Justice Department supports the proposed amendment as a realistic technique which seeks the early demise of the poll tax.

At

There may have been some justification for the poll tax earlier in American history. You will recall that it was originally imposed not to burden but to liberalize suffrage requirements, because in the 18th and 19th century a poll tax was easier to meet than general taxpaying or property qualifications. that time a serious attempt was made to recognize the qualifications of the voter rather than the property he owned. The purpose of the poll tax, however, was changed in the late 19th century in order to block and discourage the citizen's participation at the polls. Today it operates unduly to restrict the rights of national citizenship by disenfranchising thousands of white and Negro voters. It is an arbitrary condition which bears no reasonable relation to a citizen's fitness to vote. It tends to discredit us abroad.

The President is unequivocally opposed to the poll tax. He earnestly hopes that early action will be taken by the Congress on this measure, and that it will be ratified by the States without delay.

IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION GRANTING THE RIGHT TO VOTE TO CITIZENS WHO ARE 18 YEARS OLD

Three identical bills-Senate Joint Resolution 20, Senate Joint Resolution 54, and Senate Joint Resolution 67-are before this subcommittee proposing an amendment to the Constitution which would grant the right to vote to citizens who have attained the age of 18. Senate Joint Resolution 20 has as its sponsor Senator Kefauver; Senate Joint Resolution 54 is sponsored by Senator Dirksen,

5 See Corwin and Koenig, "The Presidency Today" (ed. 1956), 131.

and Senate Joint Resolution 67 by Senator Keating. These bills reflect the views of leaders of both major political parties that a party which cannot attract and hold young as well as older voters has no future.

Resort to an amendment to the Constitution rather than a statute rests upon the theory that a minimum voting age is a "qualification" to be determined by State law under article 1, section 2 of the Constitution and the second sentence of the 17th amendment to the Constitution, insofar as elections of Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are concerned. In a Senate report on a similar proposal in the 83d Congress, it was said that "the age at which an individual may be qualified to vote is determined by State law."" Since there are only two States-Georgia and Kentucky which have granted the right to persons 18 years of age and over, the effect of the proposed amendment would, therefore, be to supersede age qualifications to vote in the other 48 States. The proposal, like the 15th and the 19th amendments, does not confer the right of suffrage on persons who are under 21 years of age; its effect is to forbid denial or abridgement by the United States or any State of the right to vote by any citizen above the age of 18 years. Similar proposals have been introduced on many previous occasions. This proposal appears to be in proper form for the object intended. The subcommittee may, however, wish to consider whether it should integrate the voting age of the proposed amendment with section 2 of amendment 14 which provides in part that when the right to vote in certain elections is denied to any of the male inhabitants of a State "being 21 years of age, and citizens of the United States," except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representations in the State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens "21 years of age" in such State. If this difference in treatment between the two provisions is not eliminated at this time it will leave the Constitution open to varying constructions; on the one hand that there was no intention to change the 14th amendment; and on the other, that there was a repeal by implication. In the interests of clarity, therefore, the intention of the Congress should be made plain beyond dispute.

Other than that, the proposal raises an important matter of policy upon which educators may be able to cast more light than lawyers. The question is whether our contemporary educational system, augmented by modern communication media has progressed so far as to provide a sufficiently informed electorate in the present age group 18 through 20. In this connection, it is claimed that students are better educated today and that the recent Army experience of many young men in that age group has invested them with greater maturity and a higher sense of citizenship, and developed a more profound interest in political affairs and the proper administration of government. This may well be true. Of even greater value, it seems to me, is the experience of the State of Georgia which has permitted 18-year-olds to vote for many years. Testifying in support of an amendment to the Constitution similar to the one before us, ex-Governor Arnall described how the 18-year-old voting law had operated in his State since it went into effect:

"It was approved in 1944 and we have had many county, municipal, State, and national elections. We have observed that the young people express a very intelligent viewpoint when they vote. They appreciate the privilege and they exercise it very wisely. As a matter of fact, I do not believe today in my State there is any political party or any political faction or anyone interested in public affairs who would suggest that 18-year-old voting be done away with. It has met with widespread support and widespread approval * **. It has been my experience in watching youth voting in my State that the young people evaluate the issues and the candidates. They exercise a very informed opinion, not just some hearsay."

At prior hearings of the proposed amendment, Senator Humphrey expressed the view that extending the suffrage to 18-year-olds would broaden the base of democracy and encourage participation of people at an age when they are enthusiastic in government and politics. In his opinion, citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 are more inteersted in politics and better informed of political issues than they are later on when they become preoccupied with earning a living and other matters.8

S. Rept. 1075, 83d Cong., 2d sess., 1 (1954).

Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on S.J. Res. 127, 82d Cong., 2d sess.. 66-67 (1952).

Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on S.J. Res. 53 and S.J. Res. 64, 83d Cong., 1st sess., pp. 3-4 (1953).

There is still an additional factor today which favors the proposed amendment. H.R. 7144 and S. 1883 are pending in the Congress to give the right to vote in Federal elections to citizens in the District of Columbia who are above the age of 18. These bills have the support of the President. There is every reason to believe that citizens between the ages of 18 through 20 in the various States of the Union are as qualified to vote as persons of the same age in the District of Columbia. At the same time, it should be noted that voting qualifications have traditionally been left for the States to determine, and it may be that each State is in a better position to judge the age qualifications of its voters than are people who do not live and reside within the State. For this reason the administration, while thoroughly believing in the competence of 18-yearolds to discharge their civic responsibilities as voters, is of the view that this judgment should continue to be left to the States.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Senator, I think I would like to read parts of the statement and because it is quite a long statement I will try to merely summarize some other points in it perhaps.

Senator KEFAUVER. Very well.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I am privileged to appear before this subcommittee which has as its continuing concern the examination, evaluation, drafting and recommendation of proposals to amend the Constitution. As you well know, it is no easy task to improve on the language of the Founding Fathers for the purpose of correcting one problem without creating even more difficult problems which few, if any, may foretell. For this reason, constitutional scholars and statesmen have always stressed the need for exercising careful deliberation and considerable restraint before amending the Constitution.

I think this is particularly true where the proposals affect the Office and election of the President and Vice President, and the right to vote in such elections-proposals which go to the heart of our political system.

The various measures to amend the Constitution before this subcommittee fall into several categories:

1. Abolishing the electoral college and establishing a different system of electing the President and Vice President.

2. Providing for a nationwide presidential primary system in place of the nominating convention.

3. Outlawing the poll tax.

4. Granting the right to vote to citizens over the age of 18.

I would like to consider these proposals in that order.

Among the more important proposals to amend the Constitution are those to abolish the electoral college entirely and to alter the manner in which votes are cast by it for President and Vice President. Although there seems to be considerable sentiment for abolishing the electoral college as being obsolete and undemocratic, there is little unanimity as to how this should be done.

For example, under Senate Joint Resolution 1, the "direct election" plan introduced by Senator Margaret Chase Smith and four other cosponsors, the President and Vice President would be elected by a majority of the popular votes cast for both offices. If no person received a majority of the total number of votes cast for President, a runoff election to choose the President would be conducted 28 days thereafter. A similar provision would control upon the election of the Vice President.

Senate Joint Resolution 23, introduced by Senator Mansfield with Senator Keating as cosponsor, is another bill which provides for the

election of candidates for President and Vice President by popular

vote.

Senate Joint Resolution 12 offered by Senator Mundt and five cosponsors would retain the electoral college, but electors would be elected by the people within single-elector districts established by the State legislatures. Under this so-called district plan, one elector would be chosen in each district, and in addition two for each State, so that each State would have a number of electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. The districts are required to be compact, contiguous in territory, and are to contain as nearly as practicable the number of persons entitling the State to one Representative in Congress.

Most of the bills provide for proportional division of the electoral vote, and of these several provide for election by a majority of the House of Representatives and Senate sitting in joint session if less than 40 percent of the electoral vote is cast for a candidate for the presidency or vice presidency. There are other minor variations of these plans which need not be cataloged for our purposes today.

The Department of Justice does not favor any of these proposals. Instead it submits for consideration the more moderate proposal to amend the Constitution contained in Senate Joint Resolution 132 which President Kennedy introduced as Senator near the end of the 85th Congress.

Senator KEFAUVER. I do not think Senate Joint Resolution 132 of the 85th Congress has been printed in the record, so we will put it in the record at this point.

(S.J. Res. 132 of the 85th Cong. follows:)

[S.J. Res. 132, 85th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for the election of President and Vice President

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during a term of four years, and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as provided in this Constitution. No person constitutionally ineligible for the office of President shall be eligible for that of Vice President of the United States.

"Each State shall be entitled to cast for President and for Vice President a number of electoral votes equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which such State may be entitled in the Congress. Such electoral votes shall be cast, in the manner provided by section 2 of this article, upon the basis of an election in which the people of such State shall cast their votes for President and for Vice President. The voters in each State in any such election shall have the qualifications requisite for persons voting for members of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

"The Congress shall determine the time of such election, which shall be the same throughout the United States. Until otherwise determined by the Congress, such election shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the year in which the regular term of the President is to begin.

70784-61-pt. 2- -6