and senators-elected by the people on a local level-to the hands of an appointive official in the executive department of the National Government through section 5 of the act.

I would not possibly express it more succinctly than the writers of the Declaration of Independence, but with your permission I will update the charge and paraphrase those writers: "*** Congress has forbidden the legislatures of certain States to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation until the assent of the U.S. Attorney General should be obtained."

These words of the Declaration of Independence originally directed to the King of England are certainly analogous to the situation before us today and their meaning rings out clear to those of us under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act who must come to Washington, with hat in hand, for approval of our laws.

It is worthy to note that during the great debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, as reported by James Madison, the idea was offered that the National Congress should have authority to negate all laws passed by the several States contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of union.

This idea of a national legislative veto of State laws was rejectedthe idea of a veto of State laws by the national executive branch was never entertained-however, this idea is today alive, kicking, and strangling one State into stagnation.

Our election laws have not been substantially changed since November 1, 1964, and if this law is extended they will not be substantially changed during our lifetime.

My letter of invitation advised that S. 407, introduced by Senators Griffin, Scott, and Mathias, would extend the act for another 5 years; that Senator Hart plans to introduce a bill shortly that will extend the major provisions of the act for 10 years; and to ban permanently the use of all "tests and devices" as prerequisites to voting; and that Senators Allen and Byrd of Virginia have introduced S. 903 to repeal sections 4 and 5 of the act.

I will address myself to these amendments, but before doing that I would like to make some general observations as a public official who has dealt with this act for 6 years.

I do not feel that you would have asked me to come and take up your time if you were not interested in my opinion as to what the act has accomplished, what its favorable points are, what its pitfalls are, and what we can look forward to if it is merely extended for another 5 or 10 years.

First, I believe the act has accomplished its purpose. I quote Mr. Clarence Mitchell, Jr., as he was quoted in the March 10, 1975, edition of the Washington Post wherein he stated that 300,000 out of 450,000 blacks of voting age are registered in Mississippi today.

There are more blacks holding office today in Mississippi-191— than any other Southern State and only three Northern and Western States had more black officeholders in 1972. And, as reported here this morning, only one other State, the State of Michigan, had more elected black officials than the State of Mississippi. When I assembled this information, I had 1972 information, and New York and California were included in that.

The act having accomplished its purpose, certainly Congress should reexamine its own purpose in continuing to keep a State in harness for another 5 or 10 years or perhaps in perpetuity.

This act has been in effect now for 10 years. Under my interpretation of section 4, if the act were not amended at all but allowed to stand as it is, it would perhaps be in effect insofar as those covered States in the 1965 act are concerned, forever.

There is simply no discernible way that a State could ever prove to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that no test or device was used in any 1 of the 258 municipalities, 82 counties, 410 supervisors, and governmental districts are not listed in here, and other governmental districts as the act has presently been interpreted by the court.

In effect, then, insofar as a covered State being granted a declaratory judgment in the aforesaid court to come out from under the provisions of the act, we are simply chasing rainbows to extend or not to extend. It already carries the words and phrases to extend itself into perpetuity or at least until sections 4 and 5 of the act are repealed.

From observation and a cursory reading of the Washington Post and the New York Times, passage of this act seems to be a foregone conclusion. Mr. Clarence Mitchell, Jr., is quoted in the March 10, 1975, edition of the Washington Post as having said:

We started working on renewal last spring-maybe as early as January, 1974. We worked it out with Congressional leadership-Scott, Hart, Rodino, and so forth-that we would seek extension. We got the House and Senate nailed down on that, then we started working on Justice.

The State of Mississippi cannot afford a full-time lobbyist to constantly bring to your attention the problems caused by the act and the damage done to the legislative process and the people of all races in our State, by allowing section 5 of the act to stand as interpreted by the courts.

I may not be able to overcome the homework done by the special interest groups, including the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, as well as the NAACP and others, but I can and will speak with conviction to get your attention specifically to section 5 of the act which requires any change in our laws after November 1, 1964, to be submitted to the Attorney General of the United States for his approval before such laws may become effective.

I do not the State of Mississippi does not have any objection to the extension of the act forever, if section 4 or section 5 is removed from the act-if not section 4, then section 5.

There is no desire on the part of my State to prevent any person, black or white, from registering to vote and then voting however and for whomever he or she chocses.

Eliminate this idea from your minds. I do not even address this subject other than to make this statement. It is basic Americanism and it is right. We do not quarrel with the right to vote, nor do we quarrel with the protection of that right to vote. We do quarrel demonstrably with section 5 of the act. It has made a province out of a State. It has left the State of Mississippi and its 212 million people to the whim and caprice of unknown and unnamed individuals and groups to successfully object to any law passed by the representatives and

these 212 million people. Representative government in Mississippi has been handed over by section 5 of the act to people who have never received a single vote by any person in Mississippi and more likely who never resided in the State.

This is occasioned by the procedures for submission of the laws of my State and other covered States as published by the Attorney General of the United States.

We could even live with section 5 of the act, if courts had not expanded on the clear meaning of Congress when the act was passed. It simply stated that whenever a covered State or political subdivision should enact or seek to administer any voting qualifications or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force and effect on November 1, 1964, then such change, to be operative, must be first submitted to the Attorney General of the United States, or suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and must either not be objected to by the U.S. Attorney General within 60 days from date of submission, or be approved by declaratory judgment of said district court.

But the U.S. Attorney General and the courts have expanded the clear intent of Congress beyond belief. The U.S. Attorney General has far exceeded his authority under the act, both substantially and procedurally.

I would say, parenthetically, at this point that my personal relations with people in the Justice Department have been fine. We have no quarrel with the individuals, nor the philosophy of those individuals. But we do quarrel with the way that that philosophy is applied to our State.

Some examples of such unwarranted expansions are:

1. Municipal annexation where area annexed does not include a single additional resident, such as industrial sites. There are a number of little towns in Mississippi and we are mostly a rural State. We only have one or two cities of moderate sizes. If they want to go out and create an industrial park to attract industry into town, and go out into a clear wooded area and create an industrial park and make that a place to be annexed, then they have to seek approval from the Attorney General, or file a lawsuit. It has nothing to do with voting rights. whatsoever.

2. Change of polling place regardless of reason, such as destruction of former polling place by fire night before election.

3. Change of elected municipal official to appointive unless identity of appointee is first made known to U.S. Attorney General. We have submitted an act to the Attorney General's Office where in a small town in Mississippi the town marshal, where, by State statute, it has been elected as to whether he could be elected or appointed, the small town decided to make the office appointive, and came to Washington to get permission for that change. And the prime question at issue before the U.S. representatives of the U.S. Attorney General was who do you plan to appoint to this office? Which, I submit, far exceeds any idea that this committee of Congress ever had in the administration of this act. And, the refusal to approve that change stayed in effect until a name was given to the Department of Justice.

4. On submission of legislative acts, requirement by the U.S. Attorney General of names of the legislators voting for and against the

legislation. We do not find that requirement in the act, and we did not find the requirement even in the Attorney General's own instructions for submissions. But yet we have received a request to submit such an act with the names of the legislators who voted for and who voted against. For what reason I simply do not know.

5. A municipality which had operated a municipal bus service where incidentally thereto voters had used the service as transportation to the polls, if it became necessary for economic reasons for the municipality to discontinue the municipal bus service, would this have to be submitted?

6. In a polling place that normally would have three tables, but on a particular voting day could only obtain two tables? Under the existing interpretation of the law, this probably would have to be submitted before they could start to vote.

7. In the event a voting machine breaks down and they must resort to voting by written ballot, must this be submitted as a change? When this was first being discussed, I believe Mr. Katzenbach, who testified this morning, was willing for that particular thing to be excluded from the act. But it was not excluded, so now we have that situation to face.

8. In an area where the population has increased and the necessity for a new circuit or chancery judge is necessary, would this have to be submitted?

Under the act as interpreted by the courts, the conditions required will forever be innumerable and unknown, preventing the normal operation of State government.

The U.S. Attorney General and the courts have been injecting their judgment as to the advisability of a change and basing their decisions on matters that do not pertain to or have any bearing on whether or not the change was racially motivated. Which, in effect, again emphasizes the fact that the operation of our Government has been moved into the Attorney General's Office in Washington, from the House of Representatives and the Senate in Mississippi.

Further, the 60-day limitation means nothing under their submission rules and regulations. They have the option to toll the running of the 60 days at will, keeping the entire State in doubt as to the effectiveness of its laws, far beyond the 60-day period.

However, realizing the reluctance of Congress to hear the drumbeat of Mississippi, who casts only seven electoral votes, elects only five members to the House and two Senators, over the loud and ubiquitous drumbeat of so many well-organized groups and more populous States, I appeal to you that if you do extend the act and do not remove section 4 and especially section 5 therefrom, then I ask that you respectfully consider the following recommendations:

1. Instead of a submission as presently required, that Congress amend section 5 to the submission of any change in any qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard or practice, or procedure, with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on Novembe 1, 1964. Make it clear that this cannot be interpreted to mean any of the expanded meanings given to the present act by the courts. Relate it directly to the right to register and vote as was the original intent of Congress-spell out and describe in detail what is meant by registering and voting and require approval or disapproval to be

based on the meaning of those descriptions, not some vague judgment call by an individual. It is unfair to have the government of a State depend on conjecture.

2. Require the U.S. Attorney General to set up procedures for an adversary hearing when such submission is made, with the end result being a decision-a "yes" or "no"-be given the State within 60 days with no extensions, tolling of the statutes or any other delays. This will at least let the State be in a position to govern itself and will not hold up unnecessarily the progress of the State.

3. In lieu of a submission to the U.S. Attorney General, or the filing of a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, provide for the institution of an action in the U.S. district court of the covered jurisdiction. Or, if Congress feels it cannot trust its own district judges, provide that a three-judge Federal panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals be appointed to hear the case, or the appropriate circuit court of appeals for the covered States. Provide for expedited decisions within 60 days.

This makes sense when you consider this is 1975, not 1965, that would be the jurisdiction of all parties, the submitting State, the objectors, and the Department of Justice.

If some or all of the suggestions made above are not adopted, then we can only look forward to eventual chaos in my State's election process, stagnation in race relations rather than progress, and the eventual loss of representative government.

This act brought the voting problem forcefully to the forefront of the Nation. But, having achieved its remedial purpose, it is destined to go pellmell ahead until it destroys that which it sought to protect.

Trust must begin somewhere, sometime, in a beleaguered State. We have shown our good faith. There has been no person within the last 5 years, to my knowledge, who could not freely register, vote, run for office, or freely participate in the political process of Mississippi.

Do not use us for a political football. We ask only that you assign us our position and put us back in the game on an equal basis with the other 49 players.

I thank you kindly and sincerely for your invitation to appear and be heard today.

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you. There have been challenges to the Mississippi election system by those who feel that Mississippi has historically discriminated against black voters and that since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the Mississippi Legislature has done what it could within the purview of the law, and perhaps even outside the purview of the law, to avoid registering blacks and allowing blacks to

vote.

When I say outside the purview of the law, I am referring now to charges that the attorney general of Mississippi-I assume that is you,

sir

Mr. SUMMER. Yes, sir.

Senator TUNNEY [continuing]. Has issued a ruling that changes in the local election laws do not have to be submitted to the Attorney General of the United States unless the State legislature authorizes that those election changes be submitted to the Attorney General. Is that correct?

Mr. SUMMER. Mr. Chairman, that is either an erroneous statement or a misunderstanding by Mr. Parker.