Section 2. Votes cast in accordance with the provisions of this act shall be by absentee ballot, the form of which shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State pursuant to the provisions of [Insert reference to law governing absentee voting in general].

Section 3. [Insert penalty provisions, if desired, regarding double voting.] Section 4. [Insert effective date.]

SUGGESTED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

"SECTION 1. Every citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or older who has resided in any State or Territory six months and in the voting precinct three months, immediately before offering to vote, shall be entitled to vote at any primary election or other election therein, in which candidates for any public office are nominated or elected, except that the privilege of voting shall not extend to persons in confinement for crime nor to persons adjudicated unsound of mind.

"SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this Article by appropriate legislation."

Source: McGovney, Dudley D. The American suffrage medley versity of Chicago Press, 1949.

P. 181.

Chicago, Uni

(The following is reprinted from Good Housekeeping, July 1960:)

THE IRON CURTAIN AROUND THE BALLOT Box

(By Eugene Burdick (coauthor of "The Ugly American"))

Most States provide that ex-felons, insane persons, and noncitizens cannot vote in elections. This seems reasonable. But there is a huge group of people who are intelligent and sane, who have not been in prison, and who are citizens-but who cannot vote. They cannot vote for a single reason: they are mobile. No one thinks this is particularly reasonable, but no one is doing much about it. Meanwhile, there are a vast and steadily growing number of Americans who are currently disenfranchised.

Most States require that before you can vote, even for the President of the United States, you must have lived in your Staate, county, and voting district certain lengths of time. Usually the periods are 1 year in the State, 90 days in the county, and 30 days in the district, but they are much longer in some States. If you merely move across the street 30 days before an election, you can lose your right to vote. Only recently have we come to realize that this antiquated voting requirement is depriving a great many people of one of their most fundamental rights as citizens of the United States-that is, their right to vote.

Take the case of Jim Mainard as an example of how the system works. The name is changed, but the facts are true. Jim, 35 years old and a college graduate with an IQ of 132, is regarded by his corporation as a promising executive. His wife is also a college graduate, and they have three children. Jim was recently transferred from New York to California as the result of a promotion, which also raised his salary to $9,600 a year. The company plans for Jim to spend 2 years in Los Angeles and then to move to San Francisco and there take over management of its west coast headquarters.

The Mainards were unable to vote for the Governor and U.S. Senator and Congressman in California last year, and this year they will be unable to vote for the President of the United States-to say nothing of the possibility of a whole range of ballot proposition which could affect them very directly. The Mainards-to put it quite bluntly-have been disenfranchised.

"We have been moving around so much," Jim says, "that I haven't voted even once since I left college. To have been able to vote in New York, I would have had to have lived in the State 1 year, the county 4 months, and the district 30 days. I lived in the State 1 year all right, but I was on a training program which moved me from one branch of the company to another, each in a different county. Also, the company, like most large organizations, makes a point of moving you in the middle of the summer so that your children can start the school year without missing time. As a result, we always arrived in the new county in August. This never gave us time to qualify for the 4 months' county residency before the November election rolled around."

Not only do most companies move their executive personnel during the summer, but in many large cities the fall is "moving time." As a result, there is a great flow from the city to the suburbs and from one district within the city to another. Many of these people, unless they have taken elaborate precautions, have found themselves unable to vote when the next election came. This August, when Jim Mainard is transferred to San Francisco, he will again have to meet a county residency requirement in time to vote this year.

This is, you might say, an exceptional situation, one of the tiny, but unavoidable, cases that occur in a complex modern society. You would be wrong. Bureau of the Census Abstracts and Sociological Studies indicate that somewhere between 5 and 10 million people move in the United States every year. Most of these "mobiles," as they are called, will be unable to vote in the year they move. Indeed, it is quite possible that if these people were allowed to vote many State and even presidential elections would turn out differently. Scholars have noted, for example, that presidential elections are usually decided by very narrow margins. Even in the "landslide" choice of President Eisenhower in 1956, if 4 percent of the voters had voted differently, Adlai Stevenson might be President today.

It is not, however, the final result of the elections which causes sociologists and psychologists to be concerned. They are much more worried about the psychological damage to a citizen who is, time after time, denied the right to vote. Part of the American promise, a glowing part of our tradition, driven home to us from childhood, is that each of us can share in the shaping of our political life by casting a ballot. But for utterly trivial reasons we now find millions of citizens deprived of the right to vote.

Who are the people hurt by the invisible wall around the ballot box? In general, they are precisely the people who act in the best American traditionthose who have the gumption to pull up stakes and move to take advantage of new opportunities. William Whyte, author of "The Organization Man," the study of the business executive, has proved that the person who moves most often is usually in the higher income brackets. The authors of "They Went to College" have discovered that the higher the educational level of an individual, the more he will move about the country, seeking the best opportunities.

There are a substantial number of mobiles who do not fit this description, of course. This group is made up of migratory workers; workers in such seasonal jobs as lumber, construction, and dam building; drifters; and a sizable number of what we used to call hoboes. In general, these people, psychologists tell us, have little political interest and little political information. They seldom wish to register, and they seldom vote. However, there is considerable evidence that if there were a simple, easily understood manner of registration their political interest would be stimulated. It is altogether possible that they might be turned into active, participating citizens. We should, in any case, make the effort.

There is a third great group of Americans discriminated against by the present voting laws. This consists of the hundreds of thousands of loyal Americans who make their careers in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps or who spend several years in these branches of the Armed Forces as part of their military obligation. The theory is that a serviceman and his family will keep up political ties in their home State. The simple fact is that many career people never serve in their home State, know little or nothing of its politics, and, at the same time, are denied the right to vote in the localities in which they live. A revision or elimination of the residency laws would allow these people to enter the political life of the communities in which they are stationed.

Residency requirements grew out of the need to prevent rigged elections. Candidates used to organize their supporters like small armies, having them march from poll to poll and vote again and again, giving new name and address at each polling place. Some city machines began to "import" voters. For example, large numbers of voters were brought into Memphis from Arkansas, across the Mississippi River. These "visitors" voted and revoted in the city. In cities such as Philadelphia, it was not unusual to have 60,000 illegal votes cast in a single election. The only restraint on multiple and corrupt voting was the ability of the opposition to stop it. Voting, originally conceived as a right of every citizen, was becoming a right which was exercised in an atmosphere of guerrilla, rowdy, alcoholic warfare.

By 1890 most States were moving to correct these flagrant outrages through a registration procedure calling for a residency requirement, which stated that a voter had to have lived in the State, county, and district a set time. The

residency requirement made sense for two reasons. First, it allowed voting officials to verify the voters by checking their names against the addresses. Second, it was reasonable to assume that it would take a new resident some time to learn the issues and personalities involved in State and local politics. Today, however, the conditions which made fraudulent voting possible have almost completely disappeared. The big-city boss, for example, no longer has great masses of newly arrived, politically ignorant immigrants to deploy and have vote as he sees fit. Voting officials have also developed sound techniques, along with a corps of people who understand them well. Today both the voting officials and representatives of the political parties watch elections like hawks, ready to pounce at the faintest sign of irregularity.

There are available any number of sensible procedures which would make it possible for newcomers to vote and which would still eliminate fraudulent voting. One ingenious possibility, among many, would take advantage of the rapidity and skill with which modern electronic machinery can handle cards and information. With this system each newcomer would merely identify himself properly when he entered a new State. He would then be issued a voting license, which would indicate the district and county in which he lived. This information would be coded onto a card and kept in the State capitol, along with separate cards for all other voters. At voting time the voter would receive a keyed card, which would tell him where to vote. A duplicate of the card would go to the designated polling place. When the voter moved out of the district or county, he would merely drop his "license" in the mail, indicating his new address, and the machines would automatically assign him to a new precinct. Such a procedure not only would be workable and avoid the ponderous registration procedures now effective in most States, but would, in all probability, be cheaper than the present system.

Today, moreover, it is no longer necessary for a person to have lived a year in a State before he understands its politics. In recent years we have developed our means of communication and education in enormous strides. If a person has been in a State a short time, -he has had access to enough information on which to base a political decision-through newspapers, television, and radio and through the activities of such nonpartisan organizations as the League of Women Voters. Also, all candidates and parties go to elaborate pains to put their programs before the voters.

There is every indication that American mobility will increase, rather than decrease, in the future. Air travel is getting even quicker and less expensive. Railways have developed family plans that make it easier to move cross-country. The unrolling of the freeways across America is a constant invitation to the venturesome to strike out for new frontiers. Whole communities of trailers now dot the Nation. Around the cities are thick belts of suburban homes which are built, financed, and designed for a rapid turnover in occupancy. It has become almost effortless for a family to wind up its affairs, move a thousand miles, and set up a new home. The rotation and training plans of big corporations and government agencies, the natural impulse of Americans to move on, the increased ease of moving all assure sociologists that an increasing number of our population will become mobile.

The need for doing something to protect the voting rights of this growing number of mobile citizens is made more urgent by the fact that this year we will again vote for a President. If the voting laws remain unchanged, at least 5 million intelligent voters will be denied the privilege of casting their ballot. This is not a party issue. The denied vote cuts across party lines. It is a national issue, and it is time something was done about it on a nationwide basis

(The following is a study prepared by Walter Kravitz, History and Government Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, dated March 28, 1961.)

STATE ACTION TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE, 1943-60

Since the introduction in the 78th Congress, 1st session, of House Joint Resolution 39, calling for a constitutional amendment to extend the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older, at least 47 State governments have dealt with the matter of lowering the voting age in one way or another. This report presents a State-by-State survey of such action, followed by a summary of the most important of these.

The information has been compile from a variety of sources. A completely thorough and exhaustive study would require examination of every State journal of the period under consideration. Few of these are available to us, and it would take many months to check those that are. We have, nevertheless, spot-checked some State journals when provided with specific leads from other sources.

Undoubtedly, we have caught only a fraction of the instances in which bills were introduced only to die in committee. But we have included, we believe, every major State action in this field, especially every instance in which the matter was put to a referendum.

Except for West Virginia, specific age qualifications for voting are embodied by all States in their constitutions; any change, therefore, requires a constitutional amendment.' Wherever pertinent, the method of amendment is explained below.

Alabama

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. It died in committee. We have no record of any action since 1943.

Alaska

The State entered the Union in 1959 under a constitution approved by a 2 to 1 majority of the voters on April 24, 1956. All citizens 19 years of age and older are entitled to vote.

Arizona

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. It died in committee. We have no record of any action since 1943.

Arkansas

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. In the same year, the lower house approved the resolution 84 to 68, but the senate voted it down, 37 to 15. We have no record of any action since 1943.

California

A constitutional amendment was introduced in lower the voting age to 18. It died in committee. action since 1943.

Connecticut

the legislature in 1943 to We have no record of any

Proposals to lower the voting age to 18 were introduced in the legislature in 1955 and 1957. In both years the responsible house committee rejected the

measures.

Delaware

In 1949 a bill to lower the voting age, H.B. 103, died in committee. In 1951 another house bill was similarly handled, while a senate measure, S.B. 187 was favorably reported but not acted upon. In 1953 a proposal to amend the constitution by lowering the voting age to 18 was passed by the lower house, 30-1; the senate did not act. An identical measure, S.B. 31, was passed by the senate by a vote of 16 to 1 in 1955 and received a 15 to 12 majority in the house, but the latter was less than the required constitutional majority and the bill failed. Florida

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. It was defeated. In 1951, five resolutions to the same effect were introduced. One, H.J.R. 71, received the required three-fifths constitutional majority of the house, by a vote of 77 to 13, on April 18. On April 25 the measure failed in the senate, 9-29. In 1953, three bills were introduced; none gained committee approval. S.J.R. 204, in the legislature of 1955, passed the constitutional test in the senate on April 26 by a vote of 26 to 10, and on the following day a reconsideration motion was defeated, 13-24. In the house the measure was approved by the committee and put on the calendar, but never came to a vote. Measures to lower the voting age introduced in 1957 and 1959 were either pigeonholed or reported unfavorably.

1 West Virginia's constitution bars minors, the word being defined by statute.

Georgia

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. It was passed by the senate on February 11, and by the house on March 3. The electorate ratified the amendment on August 3, 1943, by a majority of better than 2 to 1: yes, 42,284; no, 19,682.

Hawaii

The State entered the Union in 1959 under the constitution of 1950, which lowered the voting age to 20.

Idaho

Measures to lower the voting age were introduced in both houses in 1951, and were defeated. In 1959 a proposal to amend the constitution so as to lower the voting age to 19 received the necessary vote of two-thirds of all members of each of the two houses, voting separately. A referendum was accordingly held at the next general election, that of November 1960. The measure was defeated: yes, 113,594; no, 155,548.

Illinois

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. It died in committee. Similar resolutions were pigeonholed in both houses in 1945, 1947, 1949, 1951, and 1953. In 1955 and 1957 resolutions were brought to the floor of the house, but both were defeated. Indiana

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. It died in committee. Constitutional amendments must secure majorities in each house in two successive legislatures, plus a vote by the electorate, in order to succeed. A proposal to lower the voting age was passed by the legislature in 1945, but apparently failed in the next legislature. In 1953, a proposed amendment to give the vote to those 19 years of age and older was passed by both houses, but it was rejected by the 1955 legislature. Iowa

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. It died in committee. Similar resolutions were pigeonholed in 1949, 1953, 1957, and 1959.

Kansas

A constitutional amendment was introduced in the legislature in 1943 to lower the voting age to 18. It died in committee, as did similar measures in 1945, 1947, and 1949. In 1951, another resolution received the vote of a majority in one house, 69-50, but failed to get the required two-thirds vote. In the 1953, 1955, 1957, and 1959 legislatures other resolutions were introduced; none went beyond a second reading.

Kentucky

An amendment to lower the voting age was introduced in the legislature in 1946 but was never reported out of committee. In 1948, 1950, and 1952, similar proposals were released by the committees only to die or be defeated on the floor. In 1954 the legislature approved, by the required three-fifths of the members elected to each house, a proposal to submit to the voters a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. The referendum took place on November 9, 1955, and the amendment passed.

Louisiana

A proposal to lower the voting age was introduced in the legislature as H. 3 in 1946. It was favorably reported from committee but, on June 21, failed in a floor vote, 32-39. Of three similar measures introduced in the same session, two died in committee and the other was buried in the calendar. In 1948, a proposal to amend the constitution to lower the voting age to 18, H. 101, was reported favorably on June 3, and received a majority vote of the house, 48-39, on June 7. The State constitution, however, requires a constitutional twothirds vote for amendments, so the measure failed. In 1950 H. 739, and in 1952 S. 27, both proposing a lowering of the voting age to 18, died either in committee or on the calendar.