My reasons for believing that the method of constitutional amendment, however cumbersome, is the only sure cure for the problem, stem largely from the clear language of section 2, article II of the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors."

This seems to me clearly to give plenary power to the State legislatures over the selection of electors, which would include, since they are all now popularly elected, the power to set the qualifications for voting for such electors. This, in turn, includes any residency requirement.

Now it might be argued with considerable logic (in my judgment at least) that the 14th amendment could be so construed as to grant to Congress the right to set voting qualifications insofar as they relate to elections for presidential electors and Members of Congress. But, as is well known, since the time of the civil rights cases (109 U.S. 3 (1883)), the Supreme Court has fairly consistently held to the view that the 14th amendment does not constitute a positive grant of new powers to Congress to legislate in this area so much as it prevents the States from taking certain positive steps which abuse the privileges and immunities of citizens, deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny persons equal protection of the laws.

A citizen prevented by the residency requirements of a State from voting for presidential electors might, of course, bring suit under the 14th amendment claiming a denial of the equal protection of the laws. However, so far as I know, no one has brought such a suit, and the decisions in this area of political questions seems to me to offer little hope that the Supreme Court would be likely to find for the plaintiff in such a case.

It is in this context, then, that I should think the most certain approach to the problem lies in constitutional amendment.

My own preference would be for an amendment which approached the problem not only of the voter who loses his right to vote for presidential electors through moving, but also those who lose in this way their right to vote for Members of Congress. To mention a personal note: I was once disfranchised altogether and prevented from voting in a senatorial election in which I had personally worked actively for one of the candidates, because within 10 days of the election I had to move a few miles away and out of the precinct in which I had formerly lived. This must be a fairly common occurrence today.

Since you have invited me to do so, I will be bold enough to suggest one form such an amendment might take:

"The Congress shall have the power to set all requirements and qualifications for voting for electors for President and vice President of the United States and for Members of the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States. Nothing in this section shall be construed, however, to deprive the respective States of the power to provide other and different requirements for voting for officers of the State and of other jurisdictions within and subject to the State: Provided, That such other qualifications do not contravene any other provision of this Constitution."

Such language might be considered too broad; politically, such an amendment might encounter opposition from some who fear, for a variety of reasons, such broad control of the National Government over voting requirements for national officers. On the other hand, the problem of disfranchisement through residency requirements, it seems to me, is only part of a larger problem: the need for a right to vote in national elections which is under the jurisdiction of and enforcible by the National Government. This suggested amendment-or some version thereof-would, I think, meet that larger problem.

Under authority of such an amendment, were it adopted, one may hope the Congress would pass legislation setting U.S. citizenship as the sole criterion for voting for presidential electors (or, at the most, requiring in addition thereto, residence within the boundaries of the United States for some minimum period just prior to any presidential election). Qualifications for voting in elections to choose U.S. Senators would perhaps be confined to those who had been a resident of the State concerned for some minimum period, regardless of the period of their residency within any lesser subdivision. The residency requirement for voting for Members of the U.S. House of Representatives might include, in addition to residency with the State, a reasonable minimum period of residency within the congressional district in which one votes.

Let me say again that I appreciate your interest in my views. I hope the foregoing may be of some value to you in your search for a solution to this problem of increasing seriousness.

Sincerely yours,

RHOTEN A. SMITH, Professor of Politics.

There have been certain small but encouraging trends to liberalize residency requirements in recent years. Some States have lowered their overall requirements. Others have eased the restrictions on intrastate movement.

Even more heartening are the reforms seven States have adopted to safeguard the vote in presidential elections of those who have moved from one State to another.

Connecticut and Vermont permit ex-residents to vote for President by absentee ballot within certain specified time periods. This is referred to as the Connecticut approach.

The Wisconsin approach adopted by Wisconsin, California, Missouri, Ohio, and Oregon waives all or part of the normal residence requirements for new residents who wish to vote for presidential and vice presidential electors.

I had known about an earlier recommendation of the Council of State Governments, made in 1955, for the adoption of a model law patterned after the Connecticut plan. A more recent report, dated January 1961, explores what the States can do on their own initiative to remedy existing inequities and to avert Federal interference in a field traditionally reserved to the jurisdiction of the States.

The study considers both the Wisconsin and Connecticut approaches, the breadth and gaps in their respective coverage, and the encouraging statistics of increased voter participation in the States which have adopted either of these two plans. Both approaches, the report points out, deal solely with presidential elections, but each solves only half the problem. Connecticut's absentee ballot system makes no provision for new residents; the Wisconsin plan takes care of new residents but ignores the plight of former residents. Very sensibly, the report suggests that the States adopt both methods.

Along this line, Gov. John Dempsey of Connecticut, whose State was the first to permit ex-residents to vote for President by absentee ballot, informs me that his secretary of state this year sponsored the introduction of additional legislation. The new bill follows the Wisconsin approach and would reduce the 1-year residence requirement to 60 days for voting in presidential elections.

Apparently Connecticut can bring about such a reform by legislation. Unfortunately, as the National Governors' Conference study notes, most States must amend their constitutions to achieve the same result.

forms me.

This is the problem, for example, in Delaware, Governor Carvel's office inGovernors Rockefeller, of my own State of New York, Quinn, of Hawaii, Kerner of Illinois, Combs of Kentucky, Meyner of New Jersey, Sanford of North Carolina, Lawrence of Pennsylvania, Rossellini of Washington, and Gage of Wyoming have written to me that they face the same obstacle.

To circumvent this difficulty, the Governors' conference report suggests an ingenious legal alternative. I quote from page 5 of the report.

"It has been indicated in the preceding discussion that virtually all State constitutions refer specifically to residence requirements for voting-thus proposals to shorten or eliminate the waiting period for voting in presidential elections would apparently have to be accomplished by State constitutional amendment. However, it has been suggested that the qualifications for those voting for presidential electors can be established by State legislative action alone. The line of reasoning used in support of this contention is the assumption that qualifications for voting in presidential elections may be governed by the provisions of the Federal Constitution which says: 'Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors.'"

The report notes that during the early years of the Republic, State legislatures selected the presidential electors themselves:

"It was apparently taken for granted that this was a matter left up to the State legislatures to decide. Only gradually was legislation adopted in the States to provide for popular election of presidential electors."

The report cautions the States not to proceed precipitously in this matter, since there is no thorough study of the constitutional questions involved. Such a study was recently initiated by the Council of State Governments.

Interestingly enough, Governor Meyner, of New Jersey, mentioned this very point last December. In returning a bill to his State's general assembly, the Governor wrote:

"At least one case has suggested that this provision (i.e., art. 2, sec. 1, clause 2) empowers a State legislature to disregard the constitution of the State in determining the manner of appointment of presidential electors (McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)). In the absence of a definitive decision, however, we should not lightly assume that the legislature can override our constitution in this respect."

Governor Meyner also disagrees with another contention of the Governors' conference study. According to that study:

"Absentee voting provisions are usually statutory in nature and can be amended by simple enactment of the law. This is the Connecticut approach to preserve voting rights and can in most instances be adopted by the States promptly."

Governor Meyner, in the same message from which I quoted above, applauds the movement toward reducing residence requirements. But he points out, in his veto of Connecticut-type legislation, that his State's constitution specifically limits the vote to residents:

"Thus, our constitution gives the legislature no power to extend the vote to persons who are not domiciled in New Jersey and in the county for the requisite periods. It is plain that this bill cannot be sustained under the State constitution."

Presumably, other States may run into the same difficulty.

Another objection to the absentee ballot system raised by Governor Meyner was also cited to me by Governor Hatfield of Oregon:

"The State of previous residence has no obligation to the citizen who has moved to another State."

The absentee ballot system, he continues, ignores "both the administrative difficulties and possibility for fraud." The Oregon system, which permits new Oregon residents to vote for President and Vice President after only 30 days' residence, is, according to the Governor, far superior.

Here, then, are the merits and defects of the solution advanced to permit newly moved citizens to retain their right to vote in presidential elections. The Connecticut absentee voter plan covers former residents, but ignores new residents, increases administrative difficulties, widens the possibility of fraud, and may be constitutionally infeasible in some States. The Wisconsin system of waiving the usual requirements for new residents who wish to vote for President and Vice President is simpler and more straightforward, but it omits newly removed residents and adoption usually requires use of the cumbersome, time-consuming, and difficult constitution-amending process.

I am reassured by the letters I have received from so many Governors. Most of them are fully aware of and concerned about the injustices I have described. Thirty-two Governors have written to me as of this date. All but six emphatically agree that this problem requires serious attention.

As expected, the overwhelming opinion of the chief executives from whom I have heard is that this is most definitely an area of State jurisdiction and responsibility. Only two Governors mentioned Federal action favorably. Governor Guy, of North Dakota, thought uniformity on voting in Federal elections could be achieved only by a Federal election law. Governor Egan, of Alaska, suggested that Congress investigate stringent absentee-voting requirements.

The Governors of three States in which the residence requirements for new residents have been lowered for presidential elections write that they are quite satisfied with the results. The Governors of 12 other States say they also favor the Wisconsin approach. In six of these States, legislation liberalizing residency requirements for new residents was introduced this year.

Only two Governors indicated they favored the Connecticut approach, and one of them favors it in coordination with the other method. Connecticut itself, as I have mentioned, is moving toward adoption of the Wisconsin model.

I was glad to have my belief confirmed that this is a nonpartisan issue. Of the 26 Governors who responded affirmatively, 16 are Democrats and 10 are Republicans. This is roughly the same ratio as there are Democratic and Republican Governors presently in office.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to report that the chief executive of my own State, Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller, is intensely interested in the matter of residence requirements. In the closing days of the recent session of the New York

State Legislature, he recommended a complete revision of the suffrage article in the State's constitution.

The Governor's suggestions are thorough and comprehensive. First, he would bring about a general reduction for the State's newcomers. Requirements for residence in the State would drop from 1 year to 6 months, and in the county from 4 months to 3. The 30-day election district requirements would be unchanged. Once a citizen has qualified under these regulations, suggests the Governor, he should be permitted to retain his voting right no matter how close to election day he may move, so long as he remains in the State.

In addition, paragraph 3 of the proposed amendment would empower the legislature to provide special procedures that would permit newcomers with at least 30 days residence in the State to vote for presidential and vice presidential electors.

Finally, the amendment would permit the legislature to make special provision for ex-residents who had moved to another State within 1 year of the election and had not yet met the requirements of their new State. The voting rights of these persons would be limited to a presidential election.

If these proposals are adopted, and I certainly hope they will be, New York will have it the most advanced residence requirement law in the Nation. With Governor Rockefeller's support, there is every hope that the measure will be adopted.

Senator KEFAUVER. Is it not true also that if the chief executive and legislature of a State want to do something about residence requirements, in many cases they are met with provisions of the State constitution which would prevent a change?

Senator KEATING. That is right. In many instances it would involve a change in a State constitution and that, of course, is a somewhat cumbersome process.

In our State, the legislature has to pass an amendment twice and it has to be submitted to the voters twice. Many other States have a rather cumbersome process for changing their constitutions.

I recognize that there is merit in combining an amendment such as mine with a proposal to insure that voters who move to a new State or district and cannot meet the residence requirements in that district will be able to vote absentee in their place of previous residence. The distinguished chairman of this committee, as he just pointed out, has an amendment along those lines which I feel would be highly desirable. It would involve some intricate mechanical problems, but it would result in every qualified citizen having the right to vote somewhere, and I hope eventually we will realize that goal.

To my way of thinking, State and the local residence requirements have absolutely no bearing on the competence of an American citizen to cast his vote in a national election for President and Vice President.

Is it the intention of the chairman to print Senate Joint Resolution 90 at the beginning of the hearing? If not, I was going to ask that it be inserted at this point. Perhaps I should.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes. It will be printed along with the other resolutions at the beginning of the hearing.

Senator KEATING. Let me make it absolutely clear at this point that my amendment would not apply to State or local elections or to elections for the Senate or House of Representatives.

Many States and election districts already have adopted residence requirements lower than 90 days for presidential elections. I believe this is desirable, and I am hopeful that all States and political

subdivisions will be able to set their requirements for new voters well below 90 days for presidential elections. The four States which have already done this are: Wisconsin, 10 days; Ohio, 40 days; California, 54 days; Missouri, 60 days. In addition, six States have legislation pending to liberalize their residence requirements for presidential elections, including New York State, where Governor Rockefeller has proposed a special 30-day requirement for presidential elections.

As I just pointed out, on the basis of my survey of Governors on State and local residence requirements, I am aware that most State chief executives believe residence requirements for voting are and should be solely within the jurisdiction of the States. While I agree with them on the fundamental jurisdictional issue, I am afraid that there are many States and areas in which residence requirements will never be liberalized unless some minimal Federal action is taken. I believe that my 90-day amendment represents a reasonable and workable solution, without at the same time infringing unduly upon the prerogatives and responsibilities of the States.

Mr. Chairman, there are two other amendments before this committee in which I am very much interested. The first concerns the 18-year-old vote. I have introduced a constitutional amendment on this subject in the 87th Congress (S.J. Res. 67) and have introduced similar amendments in both the Senate and the House over the past 8 years. I strongly believe that 18 year olds, in this day and age, have sufficient education and a broad enough understanding of national issues to intelligently express themselves at the polls. I am delighted that the new administration has endorsed this proposal as it relates to the soon-to-be-considered District of Columbia election code.

It is the argument that additional educational advantages have led to the earlier maturity on the part of our young people as regards governmental affairs which I think is the strongest argument for this amendment.

We hear the argument that if a man is old enough to fight he is old enough to vote. That has some merit and is not to be lightly cast aside. But I do not believe it is the strongest argument in favor of lowering the voting age.

If I may indulge in a personal reference, my daughter, who studied the normal subjects in school, at 18 knew more about her Government and how it was run and who was qualified to run it in State, local, or National levels, than I did at 21. I think, eventually, we are going to come to this throughout the Nation. I personally think that young people at 18 should have the right to vote.

Next is the poll tax amendment.

Senator KEFAUVER. One other point about that is, that with modern science and medicine and medical care, the average life of our citizens has increased very greatly. I do not know the number of years, but the average age of the voter now is considerably older than it was, say, 20 years ago.

Senator KEATING. Yes.

Senator KEFAUVER. This would give us a better balance between youth and age, would it not?