EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1975

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:45 a.m., in room 9928, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John V. Tunney (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Tunney.

Also present: Jane L. Frank, chief counsel; Marshall Goldberg, majority counsel; J. C. Argetsinger, minority counsel; and Ben F. Dixon IV, research assistant.

Senator TUNNEY. Our first witness this morning is Senator Charles Mathias, who has long been involved in voting rights legislation, both in the House of Representatives as well as in the Senate. Senator Mathias testified at the 1970 hearings before the subcommittee on the voting rights extension bill, which was considered at that time.

It is a real pleasure having you before the subcommittee, Senator Mathias. I hope that you will forgive us for not having had you yesterday, when other Senators were testifying. But it is my understanding that you preferred today.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Senator MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to be here whenever the committee can hear me, and I appreciate your very generous comments. I have a prepared statement which, to save the time of the committee and all the distinguished witnesses that I know are waiting to testify, I would propose to submit.

Senator TUNNEY. That statement will be included in the record at the conclusion of your testimony.

Senator MATHIAS. I would add to that just a few comments. As the chairman has said, I did participate in this committee in 1970, and I participated 5 years prior to that in 1965, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. It is with some amusement that I look back now at all the horror stories that were predicted that would be the result of the passage of the Voting Rights Act; for example, that the roof of the Republic would cave in if we gave the Attorney General the right to intervene on behalf of citizens who were being denied the right to vote.

Of course, these dire results have not occurred. In fact, I think there has been a marked improvement in the right of citizens to exercise their duty at the ballot box, and I think we can take pride and

pleasure that the act has been successful. But I do not think we ought to let success go to our heads, because the idea that the work has been done, that we do not need this legal protection any more, is a very illusory idea. As a matter of fact, we have had in the last year a number of attempts made by the States and by local communities, to restrict or confine, or otherwise inhibit, the right to vote. Rejections of local law for the first 6 months of 1974 were running ahead of the 1973 rate for the same period, and we are not sure, of course, that we are actually getting a chance to review all the local law.

Consequently, I think it is extremely necessary to go forward with this extension. In addition, there is the further problem of the Spanish Americans, who certainly deserve and need some extra protection in the exercise of their rights of citizenship; and I fully support and intend to introduce legislation as more tangible evidence of this support of their right to the legal protection that the Voting Rights Act have given primarily to the black minorities in their community. I would hope that this additional coverage would in no way create a gap because we were not able to get this legislation completed by the expiration date. In order that this does not take place, I shall introduce separate legislation covering the Spanish-American citizens. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Senator.

While serving on the full committee, you will have the same opportunity that I will have to work with this legislation, and perhaps we can fashion a title to the bill to take care of the Spanish speaking, which would be genuinely acceptable and would not delay the consideration of the basic bill, which I think all of us feel ought to be acted on before it expires in August. So I think that we will have to wait and see in committee how the Spanish-speaking amendments are viewed, and if they are going to delay action on the basic bill.

I would like to ask you two questions. Do you favor the 10-year extension? Or the 5-year extension?

Secondly, would you like to see a separate title in this bill to take care of the Spanish-speaking problem?

Senator MATHIAS. In answer to your first question, let me say that I have supported both the 5-year extension and the 10-year extension, at various times. As a serious current matter, the 10-year extension is probably desirable because 5 years would bring us only to 1980.

If we had a 10-year extension, it would take us to 1985, during which period of time we would have taken another national census and would be in the position of having a considerably broader data base on which to base whatever further action Congress might consider.

I think that is desirable, so I would opt in favor of 10 years.

In answer to your question about Spanish-Americans, if we can accomplish, before the expiration date, the enactment of a bill that has a satisfactory Spanish-American title, I would be happy about it.

I am prepared, however, as I said, to introduce separate legislation which would accomplish that purpose and could move on a parallel track with a straight extension bill, if that appears to be a less cumbersome way of doing it; and with less danger of creating a time gap during which this legislation might expire.

Senator TUNNEY. Fine. We ought to work together on this. Those of us who feel the same way, namely that we ought to have some

method of protecting the Spanish-speaking, really should try to get that title into this legislation. Of course we do not want to see the basic bill held up.

Senator MATHIAS. I would think this, Mr. Chairman, that we perhaps have two time limits here that are important to us. One is as far as the Voting Rights Act itself is concerned, we have the imperative of getting it renewed before it expires. I think that there would be some real sense of failure if we allowed it to expire because of congressional inaction.

As far as the Spanish-speaking Americans are concerned, I think perhaps the imperative of time is slightly different, that is, next year's election, that we should make sure that they have the full protection of the law in order to participate in the congressional and Presidential elections of 1976. And, that that might give us a few more months to work on that problem, if we need it. I hope that we will not need it. I hope that it can be accomplished all at one time.

If we do need it, I think that that is the great imperative as far as the additional guarantees are concerned.

Senator TUNNEY. The latter part of this month we are going to be holding 3 days of hearings on the Spanish-speaking problem and we should be able to develop a pretty good record as to the needs and the type of remedial action that is required to meet those needs.

I certainly appreciate your testimony and the cooperative spirit with which you bring forward your proposals to assist us with the Spanish-speaking, and the overall approach to the Voting Rights Act extension. Thank you very much.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

pared

The prepared statement of Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman, when the reconstruction Congresses turned their attention to the measures that they would employ to deal with the issues of the Civil War, they proposed three amendments to the Constitution. The thirteenth amendment abolished the hateful institution of slavery. The fourteenth amendment attempted to secure to the newly liberated slaves the basic rights of due process and equal protection of the laws, extending this protection to areas not covered by the original document.

And, although the fourteenth amendment can be read to include the right to vote, the reconstruction Congresses thought it wise to employ still another amendment, the fifteenth amendment, giving this right separate treatment. Thus was the question of franchise elevated to a singular position, an expression of its central role in our system of government.

Now, in 1975, over 100 years later, the Congress is again considering the methods of securing these basic rights to American citizens. Much has changed, as has been commonly said in the context of this debate.

The civil rights push of the 1960's has secured for that race a new sense of pride and a new opportunity for participation in American society.

Mr. Chairman, we are here to insure the continued progress of this movement, the continued thrust toward equality. Our constant vigilance is required. This we know from continued resistance to full black participation. And we should not forget history's lessons. Once before the clock was turned back and rights which once seemed secure were lost. C. Vann Woodward, the eminent Yale historian, reminds us in his definitive work on the subject, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, that segregation in all walks of southern life was really a product of the 1890's, not the immediate post-Civil War period. And he also reminds us that it grew out of disenfranchisement which itself developed as a response to clashes of political power.

52-004-75- 6

Mr. Chairman, I fully support the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I shall oppose any attempts to weaken that legislation such as the removal of sections 4 or 5 from the bill. I shall make every effort to insure that the extension becomes law before the expiration of the act in August of this year.

I do this, as Senator Hugh Scott and I have both said, in order to insure that the act does not fall victim to its own success.

Success is the correct word. I believe that the Voting Rights Act has been one of the most successful legislative actions that I have ever worked on during my time in the Congress. Some have called it the most successful of all civil rights acts. That is heady praise, indeed, when one considers the strides that have been made in public accommodations and other areas. But considering the importance of the right to vote, perhaps such superlatives are warranted.

Since the passage of the act, there has been a steady decline in the gap between white and black registration rates. In the seven Southern States covered by the act, this disparity has been reduced from 44.1 percentage points to 11.2 percentage points. Voter turn-out in these States has increased, although not uniformly. These factors have been reflected in an increase in the number of blacks who have been elected to office. The civil rights commission estimates that the number of elected black officials, well under 100 before the act, has now increased to 963.

But, despite these tangible signs of progress, we cannot be blind to the problems which remain. There is evidence that the act has not cured discrimination; rather that it has merely contained it.

The Assistant Attorney General for civil rights, J. Stanley Pottinger, has said that "some of the gains of the past ten years are more apparent than real." The closing of the gap between white and black registration rates, for instance, has not been uniform. In some states, they have remained quite large. Similary, the increased voting in the south has been the average trend but it is down in three states while up in four. And black officials, while on the rise, do not begin to reflect their overall ratios in the south.

It should also be noted that the number of new laws to which the Attorney General has objected has not declined-rejections for the first six months of 1974 were running ahead of the 1973 rate. Some states are still not making the required submissions. Others are modifying the rilaws after consultation with the department. The law is clearly having a deterrent effect.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a final word regarding the approach which I believe that we should take with regard to the mounting evidence of discrimination affecting additional minority groups, discrimination which may not be reached under the act because of demographic or other distinctions which fail to operate the "trigger" of enforcement. Chief among these groups are HispanicAmericans.

The issue here is not whether we in the Congress should take steps to deal with discrimination which may rob such people of their rights as Americans. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, we should take whatever steps are necessary. The problem here, as I see it, is whether we shall be able to do so in the limited time available to us without jeopardizing those measures which have already been accomplished. I believe that we should make an effort to do so. I would respectfully propose, Mr. Chairman, that the subcommittee establish for itself a rigid timetable for accomplishing this task. I suggest that a reasonable goal for this purpose might be to have the bill reported to full committee by June 1. That would mean that any testimony which might be needed would be complete by that time and that any field trips which might be necessary would be accomplished.

I would agree with the sentiments expressed here yesterday by Mr. Clarence Mitchell and by the distinguished minority leader that drafting must be done carefully and with an eye to preservations of current precedents-if this means separate titles, it should be done.

Only if these standards could not be met would I have a different view of this course of action. And even then I would not propose that the Congress abandon the search for ways to prevent such discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear here on this legislation-legislation which is a monument to the strength of our American Republic. Abraham Lincoln said that "the ballot is stronger than the bullet." His own life and death proved that. So have those of others in more recent times. In their memory, and for the betterment of the living as well, I urge the continuation of this grand project.

Senator TUNNEY. Our next witness this morning is Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission has developed an impressive record for vigilance on the status of minority rights in this country. We are very pleased to have you with us, Dr. Flemming.

I am one who has long been an admirer of yours and your distinguished public record. All of us are fortunate to have you in the position that you are now in, protecting the rights of minorities in this country and preparing the kind of factual reports that give the Congress the data base on which to legislate in a rational, hopefully nonemotional, fashion.

It is a real pleasure to have you here.

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN A. BUGGS, STAFF DIRECTOR; LAWRENCE B. GLICK, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL; AND DAVID H. HUNTER, ATTORNEY AND COMMISSION STAFF MEMBER

Mr. FLEMMING. I am Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. With me today are Mr. John A. Buggs, staff director for the Commission, Mr. Lawrence B. Glick, Acting General Counsel, and Mr. David H. Hunter, an attorney and member of the Commission staff.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today in support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1970. I will summarize my statement, but I would like to submit the entire statement with attachments, for the record.

In January the Commission published a report entitled, "The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years After", which is an extensive assessment of the current status of minority voting rights in jurisdictions in the South, Southwest, and Northeast that are covered by the act.

In this document the Commission has made a number of recommendations to Congress and agencies of the executive branch which we believe will foster minority political participation. Today I will address myself directly to the legislation before this subcommittee.

We feel that the Voting Rights Act is a symbol of national commitment to the full political participation of all citizens. Its importance is more than symbolic, however. It has led directly and indirectly to significantly increased opportunity for minority citizens to participate in the political process.

The Voting Rights Act has worked, but its work is not yet over. The Commission believes that the Voting Rights Act must be extended and that there is good and sufficient reason for Congress to extend it for 10 years.

In addition, the Commission believes that the special remedies of the Voting Rights Act are also required in certain other areas of the country to provide greater voting rights protection for persons, for example, of Spanish heritage.

The Voting Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in voting everywhere in the United States. Certain provisions of the act are temporary, enacted in 1965 for 5 years, and then extended in 1970 for