Embassy, etc.) even if they do not expect to remain here. Also enumerate the members of their families if they are living with them in this country. 33. Persons with no usual residence Enumerate as residents of your ED all persons who have no other residence or fixed address. For example, a man who has given up his room in a nearby city and is staying in your ED for a few days before continuing his journey to another State is a person with no usual place of residence. Persons in railroad, highway and other construction camps, convict camps, camps for migratory agricultural workers, 1-night lodginghouses, or other places that have shifting populations composed mainly of persons with no fixed place of residence, should be enumerated where they are staying on the date of enumeration. 34. Persons with usual residence elsewhere Usual residence elsewhere means a definite house, apartment, hotel room or suite, or other living quarters held for a person and immediately available to him on his return. In addition to guests, persons with a usual residence elsewhere will include college students temporarily home on vacation, members of the Armed Forces stationed elsewhere but home on leave, inmates temporarily absent from institutions and persons who live and work most of the week in another area. Persons who claim a usual residence elsewhere and who were staying in your ED on the night of March 31 should be reported on Individual Census Reports if there is no one at home to report for them (see par. 134). 35. Doubtful cases It may sometimes be difficult to tell whether a person is in your ED only temporarily or whether your ED is now his usual place of residence. In general, the decision is to be made on the basis of the nature and purpose of the stay. If there is still doubt, try to determine whether a person in your ED is there simply on a visit or a business trip, or whether he has a job in the community, has entered his children in school there, etc. For example, a woman staying in your ED to establish legal residence for divorce purposes who also has taken a job there or entered her children in a local school should be enumerated as a resident in your ED. In doubtful cases, count the person as a resident of your ED if his stay is expected to total 6 months or more (including time already spent there). Mr. LINDSAY. Thank you very much, Doctor. Mr. RODINO. Thank you very much, Doctor, and your associate. This concludes the hearing for this evening. We will reconvene on Tuesday next at 10:30 a.m., when we will be hearing from Members of Congress. We are adjourned. (Whereupon, at 6:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 23, 1965.) VOTING RIGHTS TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 of the The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Celler (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Celler, Rodino, Rogers of Colorado, Donohue, Brooks, Kastenmeier, Corman, McCulloch, Lindsay, and Mathias. Also present: Representatives Gilbert, Edwards, Tenzer, Conyers, Grider, King, Hutchinson, and McClory. Staff members present: Benjamin L. Zelenko, counsel, and William H. Copenhaver, associate counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order for further consideration on bills on voting rights. We have the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Yates. Mr. Yates, we will be glad to hear from you. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. SIDNEY R. YATES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. YATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on the bill that I have introduced, H.R. 6264, which would reduce congressional representation for those States which continue voter discrimination in accordance with the provision of section 2 of the 14th amendment. Let me say at the outset that I am not making this proposal as a substitute to the direct voting rights approach of the President's bill but as a supplement to it. I am in favor of the most direct route which is contained in the President's bill and the expeditious procedures that are outlined in that bill. The bill that I have filed, however, would be a companion bill to that which has been filed on behalf of the administration. I support the President's bill which is filed to supplement the voting rights provisions of the 1957, 1960, and 1964 acts. But my bill, Mr. Chairman, would make the most direct route even stronger. It would provide the States with a powerful incentive to give the right to vote to all of their citizens or suffer a reduction in their representation in the Congress. Whatever form the final rightto-vote bill takes, it will be considerably strengthened if the bill that I have filed is made a part of the law. For no matter how careful we may be, no matter how strong the bill is that this committee approves, the possibility still exists as was pointed out by the President last week in his very eloquent address that "ingenious" methods are devised by voting registrars determined that some people shall not vote. No matter what the provisions of this bill may be, delaying tactics can be taken. I suggest that it would be most sanguine to assume that passage of the voting rights bill would bring a change of heart and full cooperation from hostile registration officials. There is another reason for filing my bill, Mr. Chairman. The bill is more than a bill to protect the rights of our Negro citizens; it is a bill to protect the rights of the States which comply with the Constitution. Failure to enforce the 2d section of the 14th amendment gives a number of States under-representation in the Congress. They are entitled to additional seats in the House. Therefore, this bill I am filing is a States rights bill, too. It is a bill designed to provide fair treatment to the States under the Constitution. States which discriminate in voting are now over-represented. Those which abide by the Constitution are now penalized. To show the validity of this argument may I refer to a study which is on file in the Federal Court for the District of Columbia in a suit filed to enforce the provisions of the 2d section of the 14th amendment. It shows that if section 2 had been implemented following the 1960 census The CHAIRMAN. What happened to that case? That case was dismissed, was it not? Mr. YATES. No; it is still pending. Mr. YATES. Yes; still pending, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. For how long? Mr. YATES. I would say about a year. Briefs are on file and arguments had. I am quite sure the case is still pending. As a matter of fact, I talked to some of the lawyers in the case no longer than 10 days ago and they gave no intimation that the case had been dismissed. The CHAIRMAN. Is that in a three-man court? Mr. YATES. It is pending in the district court. I do not know whether it will be heard by a three-man panel or not. A motion has been filed to dismiss the suit, but the court has not yet ruled on this motion. The study in that case shows that if section 2 had been implemented following the 1960 census, States in the South would have lost a total of 21 seats which should rightfully have gone to States in the North and in the West. According to that study Texas would have lost six seats; Virginia, four seats; Alabama, three; Mississippi, two; South Carolina, two; Georgia, two; Florida, one, and Louisiana, one. Those seats would have gone to States in the North and in the West. Mr. ROGERS. May I interrupt and ask how you would assign these to the North and the West? Mr. YATES. Mr. Rogers, they would be assigned on the same basis as seats are assigned at the present time, on the basis of the population figures compiled by the census. The bill that I have filed indicates a certain formula by which States that deny voting rights would have their population figure reduced in proportion to the number of voters that are not permitted to vote. The apportionment of the 435 Representatives would then be based upon these adjusted population figures. Mr. ROGERS. Your bill permits the Bureau of the Census to make this determination? Mr. YATES. Yes; the Constitution requires that this determination be made. What my bill does is to require the Bureau of the Census to gather the information and make the computations necessary to enforce the 14th amendment. It never has been enforced up to now. The purpose of this bill is to see that that provision is enforced and to set up a formula for doing it. Reasons advanced in the past have been that they have not been able to do it and that they have not been authorized by Congress to do it. They do not know if a voter is apathetic. Mr. ROGER. That is the reason I am asking the question. Mr. YATES. You want to know the formula itself? Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Mr. YATES. I will get to that in a moment, Mr. Rogers. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. In that suit pending in the district court, do you know whether or not the Government prepared any case of its own? Mr. YATES. Yes, it has, Mr. Chairman. The defendant is the Secretary of Commerce, and he moved that the suit be dismissed. The CHAIRMAN. Ám I correct in the statement that the Government is opposing the petition? Mr. YATES. Yes, you are correct in that statement. The representations made in the brief filed by the Government are to the effect that the executive branch does not have the authority to enforce Section 2, so that the Government is opposing the prayer of the suit. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask: Did you state a certain number of Members of the House, should be distributed to other States? Mr. YATES. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose the States thus deprivileged change their position, disclaim themselves, if I may use that term: Would they get the Representatives back? Mr. YATES. They would, indeed, Mr. Chairman, at such time as the census is taken. The CHAIRMAN. Then the other States would lose that Member and he would go back to those States from which he originally came? Mr. YATES. In the same way a State loses a Member because of population changes. Mr. ROGERS. May I interrupt there? Your bill would become effective after the 1970 census? Mr. YATES. That is correct. Mr. ROGERS. If I interpret your answer to the chairman correctly, after the census of 1970 if the Bureau of Census, according to the formula that you set forth here, should determine that the 25 House Members from the South come from States which had not complied with the 14th amendment those 25 would go to the North and the West. Mr. YATES. Or to such other States that are entitled to it by population under the census. Mr. ROGERS. Under the census? |