apportionment must to some extent be affected and controlled by every other provision of the constitution, but in the division of the State into senate districts matters of mere convenience and individual taste are not subjects for consideration *** we are of the opinion that the constitution as it now exists should be construed so as to require that the legislature in dividing the State into senate districts make as close an approximation to exactness in number of inhabitants as reasonably possible in view of the other constitutional provisions, and that such approximation is the limit of legislative discretion. In construing the language of the constitution, as in construing the language of a statute, the courts should look for the intention of the people and give to the language used its ordinary meaning. The ordinary and plain meaning of the words 'contiguous territory' is not territory nearby, in the neighborhood or locality of, but territory touching, adjoining, and connected, as distinguished from territory separated by other territory. Richmond county is not contiguous to Queens county within the meaning of contiguous as thus defined."

ENFORCEMENT OF THE ELECTORAL DISTRICT SYSTEM BY A JOINT SESSION OF THE CONGRESS IN COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTE

Senate Joint Resolution 12 provides for the counting of the electoral vote by the Senate and House in joint session:

"*** the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted✶ ✶ ✶"

Similar language now appears in amendment XII, ratified September 25, 1804. Under this authority the Congress has enacted legislation providing for the rejection of the vote given under certain circumstances. This provision appears as section 15 of title 3, United States Code, 1958 edition, and is actually in enactment into law of rules previously agreed to by the two Houses in deciding a contest over the election of the President growing out of the validity or invalidity of certain electoral votes.

Under such authority the two houses in joint session could refuse to accept votes not cast from districts not formed in accordance with the constitutional requirements of Senate Joint Resolution 12. See Cannon's Frecedents of the House of Representatives, volume 10, pages 11-14 for miscellaneous decisions involving the electoral count and validity of an electoral vote.

SECTION 15, TITLE 3, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress.

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the latter A: and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any

State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State: but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of. (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 675.)

RESULTS OF POLL OF POLITICAL SCIENTISTS' OPINIONS

ON ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROPOSALS

On June 7, 1961, Senator Estes Kefauver, chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, mailed a form letter and questionnaire to 766 of the Nation's political scientists. The mailing list used was the American Political Science Association's list of heads of departments of political science or government in American universities and colleges. This list does not include the names of such persons but lists them only by title and institution.

The following is the form letter mailed by Senator Kefauver:

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS,

June 7, 1961.

DEAR SIR: Please accept my apology for not addressing this letter to you in person. I am writing similar letters to everyone on the American Political Science Association's mailing list of heads of departments, which lists such persons only by official title. This is the best available means of obtaining the views of a cross section of eminent political scientists on questions of unique interest to them and great importance to the country.

The Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments is conducting hearings on 20 resolutions which propose amendments concerning our Federal elections system, including the method of nomination and election of the President and Vice President and qualifications for voting. If you desire digests or copies of these proposals, I will furnish them upon request.

You are doubtless familiar with the various plans which have been proposed for reform of the electoral college. The enclosed questionnaire is designed to poll the opinions of political scientists on these basic proposals. I urge you to complete and return the questionnaire, attaching any statement which you care to make. The results of this poll and your statement will be included in the printed record of the hearings, and I assure you that the subcommittee will give them careful consideration.

If you prefer not to complete the questionnaire personally for any reason, please feel free to refer it to another faculty member on your staff. Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

ESTES KEFAUVER, Chairman.

(The following questionnaire was enclosed with each letter:)

POLITICAL SCIENTISTS' QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Do you favor any amendment to the Constitution which would change our present method of electing the President? Yes____ No---

2. Do you feel the office of elector should be abolished? Yes____ No---3. Do you favor retaining the present electoral voting strengths of the States? Yes__ No____

4. Do you favor election of the President by national direct popular vote? Yes__ No_-_

5. Do you favor a proportional division system by which each State's electoral votes would be divided according to percentages of the popular vote? Yes__ No_--

6. Do you favor a proportional division system which would divide only the electoral votes of States in which the minority candidate receives some minimum percentage of the popular vote? Yes---- No‒‒‒‒

If so, what should this minimum percentage be?

7. Do you favor the district system under which two presidential electors would be elected at large and the balance in single-elector districts in each State? Yes---- No---

8. Do you favor some plan other than those mentioned? Yes____ No____ If so, please include a summary in your attached statement.

9. Do you favor any change in the present method of election of the President in the House of Representatives when no candidate receives a majority? Yes__

10. If so, do you favor election by a majority of the House and Senate in joint assembly with each Member having one vote? Yes---- No---

(Signature)

(Title)

NOTE. Please attach any statement or comments which you wish to make concerning your answers or the general subject under inquiry. Completed questionnaire should be returned by July 1, 1961.

As of July 18, 1961, 254 completed questionnaires had been returned. The following is a compilation of the answers to each question with percentage breakdowns for each:

ANSWERS TO POLITICAL SCIENTISTS' QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTION NO. 1

Do you favor any amendment to the Constitution which would change our present method of electing the President? 1

Yes____
No_.

Number

230

24

QUESTION NO. 2

1

Percentage of total 90.6 9.4

Do you feel the office of elector should be abolished?

Do you favor retaining the present electoral voting strengths of the States?

1 Five questionnaires left question No. 1 unanswered. For tabulation purposes, these were allocated between "Yes" and "No" on the basis of answers to other questions indicating that the person either favored one or more of the proposed changes, or was opposed to all of them.