The trip resulted from a meeting with Speaker McCormack and other members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, along with members of the clergy. Catholic and Protestant leaders attended as did the Rev. Virgil Wood, who is head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Massachusetts. The martyrdom of Rev. Reeb had a naturally tremendous impact on these religious leaders and they were most concerned that the people of Alabama understood how the people of Massachusetts felt about it. Congressman Boland and I arrived in Montgomery, Ala., late Sunday, March 14. We spent all day Monday in Montgomery and Selma, traveling between the two cities over the same U.S. Highway 80 used by Dr. Martin Luther King and the 3,500 voter rights marchers. We called at the Federal District Court in Montgomery and talked with U.S. Marshal William M. Parker, Jr., and his deputies, Floyd Marshall and Robert Montgomery. We also were privileged to meet and talk with Judge Frank M. Johnson, who later that week issued the historic order allowing the Selma-to-Montgomery march. While it is easy to praise the high wisdom and capabilities of this man in retrospect, now that the decision has been made and the march has become a fact, I can assure you that we were tremendously impressed with Judge Johnson even before the decision. I might add parenthetically that at the time of his appointment by President Eisenhower, he was the youngest Federal court judge in the country at the age of 35. He seemed to have a complete grasp of the situation in Alabama. He was firm and yet completely fair to both sides of the issue. We left Montgomery and drove the 50 miles to Selma. At the post office in Selma we met and talked with a number of Federal officials, including Joseph Sullivan who is head of the FBI contingent there. Mr. Sullivan seemed to have things well in hand. He appeared to be a man of considerable experience, and like all the Federal representatives we met, seemed completely competent and fit to handle the terrific responsibilities he faced. We visited the U.S. attorney's office and talked with Paul Douglas, Jr., who had just been sent down a few days previously by the Justice Department. Mr. Douglas is the son of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. We then went over to the courthouse in Selma to observe first hand the cause for all the violence and bitterness-voter registration. We saw about 100 Negroes waiting in line to sign the registrar's book and to be given their registration number. This was but the first step in the long drawn-out process of registering. We were told that on the first and third Monday of each month, a block of these numbers is called. If a person's number is included, he must go to the courthouse and be interviewed. He must also take an examination. The lines which necessarily form for these interviews and examinations become quite long and slow moving. If the registrant leaves the line for any reason and his number is called during his absence, it is repeated once. If he fails to respond, he must start all over again, waiting in line to sign the book and be given a new number. A second weakness in the system is that each registrant is required to have another registered voter act as his so-called sponsor. If a registrant could not arrange a sponsor, he could not register. And each "sponsor" could only act once could only sponsor one registrant. Prior to the present registration drive, there were only 325 registered Negro voters in Selma, so that you have a situation where a very limited number of Negroes could be registered. This situation, I am advised, is a matter of procedure specified by the county election boards. Some counties have no such specification. Dallas County does and, I understand, one or two others do. It is not a specification of Alabama State law. I am advised that there is no apparent requirement in the system to prevent a newly registered voter from sponsoring another registrant immediately which, to my way of thinking, clearly gives the lie to this kind of requirement. It is a delaying tactic, pure and simple, and achieves no useful purpose whatso ever. I am certain that this sort of procedure can and should be attacked and eliminated in this legislation. So long as delaying tactics and needless redtape are allowed to exist, irrespective of the letter of the law, the law itself will be meaningless. A trickle of voters will be registered in keeping with the law while the vast bulk stand helplessly in line, waiting for their number, seeking a qualified witness to vouch for them, meeting frustration and confusion at every turn. It is up to the members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, and to the Congress to rip away this tangle of redtape that keeps these citizens staggering and reeling, forever off balance and never able to exercise their legal, constitutional rights. With these facts in mind, I was doubly impressed with the incredible patience of these people and the tremendous capacity for leadership by men like Martin Luther King who are still able to inveigh against violence on the part of his followers. God forbid if he and his kind ever lose control. This is another reason why we must act swiftly and without any more delay in enacting an effective voter rights bill. I was told during my visit of the fear among the voter rights leaders that some impetuous firebrand might incite the Negro population to retaliate against the police with the same kind of brutality that took the life of James Reeb. There are already stories of unsavory characters-I have heard them called beatniks-who have infiltrated the movement from time to time and, for purely personal reasons, have sought to stir up trouble and violence. The consequences of letting people like this take over the movement or even becoming directly identified with it would, to my way of thinking, be just as dangerous as turning over the police responsibility in Selma and Montgomery completely to the clubswinging posse. There are some who question what is now occurring in Alabama and say that it will have little or no effect. I do not believe that this is correct. These very hearings are a direct result of the incidents and marches that have taken place in Selma. In the county of Montgomery since these marches began there have been 500 additional Negro voters registered. In 1961, 11.3 percent of the Negro voters in Montgomery County were registered. In 1964 this percentage had increased to 21.9. Yet the relative number of registered Negro voters to registered white voters has changed little. I should like to include for the record figures which I recently received from the Justice Department, which illustrate what I have said. But while the impetus for these hearings may have been given by the Selma marchers and the incidents which are still all too vivid in our minds, legislation by this Congress should not be limited to correcting the wrongs suffered by one group of citizens in several States of this Union. It must, as I have said, be designed to prevent the perversion of voting rights whenever and wherever they may occur, no matter what group of individuals is involved. The bill which is now before you and which I introduced weeks before the incidents in Selma is designed for this purpose. Section 1 of my bill amends the existing voting rights law to make it applicable to all elections-Federal, State, and local. Section 2 is a technical amendment which deletes the definition of "Federal election" from title 42, section 1971, of the United States Code. Section 3 requests that a Federal court makes a finding of a pattern or practice of voter discrimination within a particular area, as authorized under the voting rights laws of 1960 and 1964. If 50 or more persons within a particular area, who are of the same race as those discriminated against and who are qualified to vote under State law, have been denied the right to register or to vote in any election conducted within that area, this shall constitute a conclusive finding of the existence of a pattern of discrimination and the court shall immediately make such a finding. A person shall have been denied the right to vote if a government official has (1) deprived or denied him the opportunity to register to vote within 2 days of making application thereof; (2) deprived or denied him the right to vote, or (3) found him not qualified to vote although he is so qualified. If the court within 40 days after the Attorney General has requested a finding of a pattern or practice of discrimination, fails to make such finding, the President shall make such finding if he receives statements under oath from 50 or more persons within the particular voting area who state that they have been denied the right to register or vote because of their race or color. Where the court, or in the alternative, where the President finds the existence of a pattern or practice of discrimination, the court or the President shall appoint one or more Federal registrars from a panel of no less than 10 persons who shall be named by the President. Federal registrars shall be appointed for 1 year and thereafter until the court or the President (depending on who has made the appointment) finds that the pattern or practice of discrimination has ceased. Federal registrars shall be existing Federal officers or employees who are qualified voters within the judicial district in which the legal action was instituted by the Attorney General. Such registrars will serve without pay, except for their existing Federal compensation, but they shall receive necessary travel and living expenses. Federal registrars shall have the following duties: 1. Receive application to vote by persons of the same race and color within the particular voting area as those who have been discriminated against. 2. Receive such applications up to 30 days before any election regardless of any registration deadlines or other time limitations that may have been estab lished under State or local law. 3. Applications so received shall be determined forthwith. 4. In passing upon an application, a registrar shall find that an applicant with a sixth grade education has fulfilled all literacy, education, knowledge or intelligence requirements that may have been established under State or local law. 5. In passing upon an application, a registrar shall disregard any poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. 6. Issue voting certificates to applicants who are found qualified to vote. 7. Oversee all elections within the particular voting area until the court or the President (depending upon who has made the finding) declares that the pattern or practice of discrimination has ceased. 8. Make tallies and report to the court and to the Attorney General any persons who, holding voting certificates issued by the registrar, have been denied the right to vote. The court shall hold any State or local officer in contempt of court who has denied a person, holding a voting certificate, the right to vote. Where the court finds that 50 or more persons within the particular voting area, holding voting certificates, have been denied the right to vote, the court shall void the election except when it is an election for President. If the court fails to void the election the Attorney General shall seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of the United States to require the court to take such action. Where the President has made the finding of a pattern or practice of voter discrimination, the President shall declare an election void under the same conditions that a court is so empowered to do, and he shall request the Attorney General to institute necessary legal action to have the voidance of such election enforced. The action of a court or of Federal registrars taken under the authority of this section shall remain in full force and effect pending appeal unless stayed by an order of the Supreme Court. Section 4 authorizes the necessary funds to carry out the provisions of this act. Section 5 states that if any provision of the act or the application of the provisions of this act to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the act and its application to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected. I include as part of this statement, Mr. Chairman, a section-by-section analysis of the provisions of my bill, H.R. 4549, and existing procedures found in title 42 of the United States Code. A comparison between my bill and that recommended by the administration shows that both deal with existing procedures. However, H.R. 4549 amends the existing procedures while the administration's proposal would supplement existing procedures. Both permit a more accelerated approach to mass denials of the right to vote on account of race or color. I think that it is clear that the principal differences between the two proposals lies in their scope. The administration's proposal is quite narrow by comparison with the bill that I have introduced. The practical effect of it would be most likely limited to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and Alaska, 34 counties in North Carolina, and 1 county in Arizona. Elsewhere, the "tests and devices" would remain valid. Discrimination with respect to the right to vote on account of race or color of a lesser magnitude would not be reached by the administration's proposal. Mr. Chairman, the denial of the right to vote cannot, and must not, be judged by the magnitude of the denial. The injury to this democracy is, in a certain sense, as great as if all were denied the right to vote. If a man commits murder the act is complete in and of itself. We do not judge him more severely under the law because he has killed 20 men by this act. The bill which I have introduced will not only deal with mass discrimination, but also with lesser, but nevertheless obnoxious, interference with the right to vote. It would have application not only to the Negro population, but also to the Puerto Rican population, the native Indian population, the oriental population. It would prevent any group of individuals acting under the color of law from denying any substantial number of individual Americans the right to vote. The legislation which this Congress passes must not be designed to correct a particular situation in certain States. We have before us the opportunity of destroying this disease which can destroy our democracy. We have the chance before us of stopping the marches, the discrimination, the incidents that have for so long marred our country. Let us not, for political expediency, lose this chance. Let us pass not a weak and indecisive bill, for such a bill will only prolong the agony of this country. Let us strike out with force and vigor. Let history show that we did not lose our God-given opportunity, and let it show that we acted with courage and honor. Mr. Chairman, the times demand a strong civil rights bill such as I have introduced. This country needs such a bill and I respectifully urge the members of this committee to act favorably on my bill. COMPARISON OF VOTING RIGHTS BILLS Conte bill (H.R. 4549) No change in existing law. Existing law (42 U.S.C. § 1971) All persons qualified to vote at any election, including those for Federal, State or local offices, or primaries or other voting processes at which officials or candidates for public office are chosen *** shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections. Strikes the word "Federal" to apply ex- In Federal elections, no person acting isting provisions to all elections. No change in existing law_. Same as existing law, with the added provision that the court shall make a finding "forthwith". under color of law shall (a) apply any standard, practice or procedure different from those applied to other individuals in the same political subdivision who have been found qualified to vote; (b) deny the right to vote because of any error or omission not material; (c) apply any literacy test not administered wholly in writing In case of denial or deprivation of the right to vote, the Attorney General may institute for the United States a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief. The Federal district courts shall have jurisdiction, but the Attorney General or any defendant may request a three-judge Federal court. Judge (s) to hear the case shall be designated immediately. In any court proceeding, in the event that the court finds that any person has been deprived on account of race or color of any right or privilege hereby secured, the court shall, upon request of the Attorney General and after each party has been given notice and the opportunity to be heard, make a finding whether such depriva tion was or is nuranant to a nottown COMPARISON OF VOTING RIGHTS BILLS-Continued If the court finds that 50 or more per- No such provision. Existing provisions deleted_-_-_ The court, upon finding of a pattern or practice of discrimination, shall appoint one or more Federal registrars from a panel of no less than 10 persons so designated by the President. This panel shall consist of existing Federal officers or employees who are qualified voters in the judicial district. If the court finds a pattern or practice of discrimination, any person of such race or color residing within the affected area shall, for 1 year and thereafter until the court finds that the pattern or practice has ceased, be entitled, upon his application, to an order declaring him qualified to vote, upon proof that (1) he is qualified under State law to vote, and (2) has, since the court's finding, been deprived of or denied the opportunity to register or otherwise qualify, or found not qualified by any person acting under color of law. An applicant so found qualified shall be permitted to vote in any election. Applications for such order shall be heard within 10 days. The court may appoint one or more persons who are qualified voters in the judicial district, to be known as voting referees. * * * If the court, within 40 days of the No such provision. Existing provisions deleted___ Voting references shall receive applications for court orders of qualification to vote, take evidence and report findings to the court. Upon receipt of such reports, the court shall issue an order to show cause within 10 days or less, why a court order of qualification should not be issued in accordance with the report. Upon expiration of the time period, such court order shall be entered unless a statement of exceptions has been duly filed. Issues of fact and law raised by such exceptions shall be determined by the court, or by the voting referees in accordance with procedures fixed by the court. |