impose on our election officials and people any Federal control, and especially those based on presumptions derived from some arbitrary formula and without even the fundamental requirements of fact finding.

This

(4) This county administers a brief and completely fair literacy test. test is applied to every person presenting themselves for registration. The same basis for passage is used for all persons and to my knowledge there has been no attempt at any time to discriminate against anyone because of race, color, creed, or any cause. All tests are administered with the sole aim of determining only the basic requirements of literacy. Registration is not refused for errors in spelling or for poor handwriting, and each applicant is passed if he or she displays to the registrar the basic ability to write a simple and short section of the State constitution in the English language. There is attached to this affidavit and made a part hereof a sample of the test form used in Lenoir County. The only variance from this form is a change from time to time in the section of the constitution utilized.

(5) I have asked Mrs. Alice P. Hannibal and Mr. George B. Lane, two of our best known, most active, and respected Negro citizens to give a brief statement of their views on the registration procedures in our county. Their affidavits speak for themselves and are attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. (6) The right to vote is truly a privilege to be carefully guarded. Of equal importance is the integrity of the ballot itself. To open the ballot to complete illiteracy and to allow registration without any requirement of moral character will destroy public confidence and ultimately our democratic processes.

Neither the Federal nor the State Government has any need or right to enact laws relating to whether or not a man or a percentage of men vote so long as the equal and free opportunity to register and vote exists.

The proposed Federal bill will open the door to election abuse. It will encourage the retaining and use of deceased and disqualified voters on the registration books. Under the guise of illiteracy, votes will be sold and controlled.

This proposed Federal bill constitutes a revolution in American law. If passed and upheld it will have far-reaching consequences in our rights as citizens, and collectively as States. Thereafter, Government can, for any cause or presumption, reach deeper into the fundamental privileges of individuals and the historical rights of the States and their subdivisions until its fingers reach and still the heart of individual liberty and endeavor. Then the dignity and initiative of the individual will be destroyed and with it this Nation.

It is hoped that Congress will not adopt this proposed legislation. The bill is purely punitive and inspired by emotion and unjustified drama. It should shock the conscience of Congress. It would and it will enrage the greater American public when they have time to realize its ramifications.

(7) The information and facts contained in this affidavit are true to the best of the affiant's knowledge, and the affiant would state the same if under oath and testifying.

This 1st day of April 1965.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of April 1965.

F. E. WALLACE, Jr.

Alice P. Hannibal, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. That she is a resident of Lenoir County, N.C., and is the wife of Dr. John J. Hannibal, M.D.

2. That during the past ten (10) years or more, she has taken an active part in local politics and has served as an elected member of the City Council of the City of Kinston.

3. That she takes an active part in working with the citizens of the community in becoming registered to vote and has personally observed the registration of voters during all of the registration periods in Lenoir County for at least the past six (6) years.

4. That the registration officials of Lenoir County, N.C., have, in her opinion, administered the registration requirements in a fair and impartial

manner and have not discriminated against any person or group because of race or other cause.

5. That in administering the literacy test used, the Lenoir County registration officials have applied a very simple requirement of writing a short and easy section of the State constitution in the English language. To take the test each applicant is furnished with the section of the constitution to be written. This section furnished is printed in large type for easy reading. That the registration officials have allowed those taking the test to use sufficient time and have not disqualified applicants because of minor errors.

This 1st day of April 1965.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of April 1965.

My commission expires: September 16, 1966.

ALICE P. HANNIBAL.

THELMA NOE RAINS,
Notary Public.

George B. Lane, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. That he has been a lifetime resident of Lenoir County, N.C., and lives within the city of Kinston within that county.

2. That he is president of Lane's Funeral Home, Inc., and has held that position for more than 15 years.

3. That he is familiar with the registration and voting procedures used in Lenoir County, N.C., having been interested in elections and having observed these procedures from time to time.

4. That he has never heard of any attempt by registration officials to refuse, delay, or discriminate in the registration of voters due to race or creed, or for any other cause. That in his opinion the registration of voters and conduct of elections have been openly and fairly administered.

This 1st day of April 1965.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of April 1965.

GEORGE B. LANE.

THELMA NOE RAINS.

Notary Public.

My commission expires: September 16, 1966.

TESTIMONY BY CONGRESSMAN JAMES T. BROYHILL, OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to comment upon the voting rights bill which is under consideration at this time. In it are involved a complex array of issues.

This is legislation that has as its stated purpose the assurance of voting rights for Americans who allegedly are being denied such rights because of race or color. If such rights are denied, there can be no question that the provisions of the 15th amendment of the Constitution of the United States is being violated. This amendment specifically states that "the Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

In an effort to discharge that responsibility, the Congress has already formulated laws for this specific purpose. However, through failure to enforce these laws or because of their imperfections, or because of unusual delays in the judicial process, we are now told that a new law is needed. Certainly, it is true that until some equitable process is provided for the resolution of the grievances we hear today, the Nation will continue to be plagued by charges of unfairness, by violence, and by strife. The question has arisen in a highly charged and emotional atmosphere and there is no doubt that legislation in some form will be passed. However, there is a heavy responsibility upon this Congress that the issue be met with intellectual honesty and with calm judgment.

Certainly, the right to vote is the basic and essential right and responsibility of citizens in any democratic society. We cherish that concept and in its enhancement we can trace the historical processes of this Nation. The question

is not, shall there be legislation, but what kind of legislation shall it be? The President has submitted a bill to the Congress urging that the administration bill be passed without delay. Unfortunately, it is implied that there is

no need to analyze its provisions in any great detail and that alternatives are both inappropriate and unnecessary. If alternatives are offered, the implication is that they are intended to delay and frustrate the need for a new law. Frankly, I feel strongly that the proposals made by the President need very serious study. I feel that alternatives to the many complex, punitive, and essentially discriminatory provisions in this bill are essential to an effective and fair solution of the issue. I hope that this committee will agree.

At the heart of the White House's bill is a sweeping Federal attack upon legitimate rights and responsibilities of the States to determine voter qualifications and to operate the machinery of elections. There are grave doubts as to the constitutionality of this aspect of the President's proposal. However reasonable and valid the State voter qualifications laws might be, these State laws are pushed aside if the State is singled out by the formula used in the President's bill. It appears that this formula is arbitrarily fashioned to include some of those Southern States where denial of voting rights is most often charged. We have been advised by the President that this issue is not a sectional problem, yet his bill is a tortured contrivance leaving no doubt that it is sectional legislation and intended to be just that.

Certainly, State voter qualifications must be fairly conceived and imposed without regard to race or color. However, the President's bill wipes away the right of certain States to impose voter qualifications at all. With this, penalties for past sins, real and imagined, could be imposed regardless of any genuine future effort on the part of the offending State to comply both with the letter and the spirit of the law.

Unfortunately, we see here mechanisms proposed which I firmly believe fail to meet the problem this country is facing as we follow a philosophy that the end justifies the means.

In my own State of North Carolina, a literacy test is one of the qualifications for voting. Article VI of the State constitution requires that "Every person presenting himself for registration must be able to read and write any section of the constitution of North Carolina in the English language. It shall be the duty of each registrar to administer the provisions of this section."

It is a reasonable requirement, applied not for the purpose of disinfranchising any racial group. The bill now under consideration casts doubt upon all tests of literacy although the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld such tests when they are fairly administered as falling within the constitutional prerogatives of the States.

Actually, legislation dealing with denial of voting rights should not be limited to any geographical area. Neither the 15th amendment nor article I of the Constitution that grants States authority to determine voting qualifications are intended to apply in some areas and not in others. Racial discrimination as a factor in determining who may vote and who may not is as wrong in one State as it is in another. Certainly, any bill should recognize this basic fact and apply to all States equally, without regard to voting histories, percentages of participation in elections, or any other assumptions which may or may not be supported by fact.

Barring 100 Americans the right to vote because of their racial background is just as wrong as the denial of 100,000. The legal and ethical considerations should be the same in spite of the numbers involved.

It is my earnest hope that this committee will agree and that it will make major revisions in this proposed bill.

In my opinion, what is needed is legislation that will assure a quick and effective appeal process for those who believe that they have been denied the right to register and vote solely because of their race or color. Any such bill, I believe, should apply equally to 50 States and not just to 6.

Legislation should be drawn which would encourage any State or voting district to assure that the legitimate voting rights of its citizens are assured and that these rights are available to all who wish to participate in the process of elections. Use of Federal power should be limited to situations where it is found beyond reasonable doubt that the practice of discrimination is being pursued. Fairly conceived and administered voting qualification requirements of the State should be impartially recognized and respected.

Literacy as a qualification for voting should be recognized as a reasonable and proper requirement in any voting rights legislation that Congress enacts. Safeguards such as that which allows for the presumption of literacy based upon proof of completion of 6 years of education in an accredited school are already on a part of our voting rights laws. These safeguards offer a proper solution, in my

opinion, to questions arising from unusual and basically unfair literacy requirements which any State may now impose or demand in the future for the apparent purpose of denying voting rights to any group.

All of these requirements can be met without altering the basic purpose of this legislation or delaying the prompt resolution of disputes through the consideration of all individual complaints.

As I see it, we have before us a matter which requires the Congress to recognize two basic constitutional principles. Both are clear in their purpose and intent. One requires that no person be denied the right to vote because of race or color. The other requires that each State should determine the qualifications of voters residing within the State. These provisions in our Constitution are not incompatible nor are they in conflict. The choice is not an exclusive one requiring that in this situation we choose one and reject the other.

Adherence to the guarantees of the 15th amendment does not require us to ignore the legitimate rights of the States. It appears to me that, in essence, this is what the President's bill demands. This is one of its major shortcomings and the principal reason why valid constitutional objections to it have been raised.

Positive alternative legislation that recognizes the problem of voting rights disputes and offers a simple and fair means for solving the problem wherever it may arise is possible without doing violence to the sound constitutional balance. Unless this Congress makes a conscientious effort to write effective legislation of this kind, we will have failed to protect the rights of all Americans and we will compound the problem by piling new inequities upon existing injustice. If we succumb to hasty and ill-considered legislation, we will be faced with the need for future correction as new turmoil is bred by a law that was superficially intended to alleviate discord and assure voting rights.

I most respectfully appeal to the committee to rewrite this legislation so that we in this Congress can enact a bill that will genuinely meet the needs not only of today, but at any future time, anywhere in this country where unfair denial of the franchise may occur.

STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the privilege to state my views to the Committee on the Judiciary in support of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which President Johnson submitted to the House on March 17, and in support of H.R. 1568, a bill which I introduced on January 5 to protect further the right to vote. I should like to speak first about the meaning and necessity of the President's bill, and specifically about sections 3(a) and 4(a). Section 3(a) which would abolish literacy and other mental tests, examinations of personal character, and voucher requirements as conditions of voter registration for Federal, State, and local elections in any State or political subdivision of a State as to which the U.S. Attorney General certifies that it maintained any of these tests or devices on November 1, 1964, and in which the Director of the Census finds either that less than 50 percent of the persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of such persons actually voted in the 1964 presidential election. Section 4(a) provides that the Attorney General, whenever he has received 20 or more allegations of denial of the right to vote under color of law because of race or color in any political subdivision in which registration tests and devices have been abolished under section 3(a), may have the Civil Service Commission appoint Federal examiners to register voters in that political subdivision.

Under our constitutional separation of powers, it is up to the courts to provide the remedy against abuse of executive authority as well as against improper exercise of legislative power.

Denial to any citizen of the right to vote, not because that person is found unqualified by reasonable and uniform standards, but because of that person's

race or color is an abuse of the authority to administer the registration process. Hence, it is proper that Congress should attempt to protect the right to vote against widespread denial because of race or color by authorizing recourse to the courts.

By the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Congress authorized the Attorney General to initiate civil actions for injunctive relief of denial of the right to vote. By the Civil Rights Act of 1960, Congress enhanced the powers of the Federal courts to prevent discriminatory denial of the right to vote. It did so by authorizing them to appoint temporary voting referees to assist in issuing orders for the registration of persons rejected by local registrars on account of race after the courts had found a pattern or practice of such discrimination. It did so by providing that States as such may be joined as party defendants in voting rights cases.

But the efficacy of our system of divided authority is conditional upon the good-faith compliance of executive officials with court orders enjoining acts which constitute abuse of their authority. We must be able to expect general compliance and cooperation. Whereas, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, private hotel and restaurant proprietors and private employers are accorded the right to trial by jury for criminal contempt of court in regard to proceedings instituted under titles II or VII, registration officials, who are State officials, may be punished summarily by the courts for criminal contempt up to penalties of $300 fine or 45 days in jail for criminal contempt of court in regard to proceedings instituted under the 1957 Civil Rights Act or under title I of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The difference in jury trial provisions signifies what we have a right to expect of executive officials.

When executive officials as a whole refuse to comply with the courts, when they set themselves in concerted opposition to the courts, the courts are in no position to engage them in a power struggle in order to preserve threatened civil rights. The courts could not engage in such a power struggle with executive officials without attempting to take over the duties of public administration themselves. This the courts are in no position to do.

Continuing oversight of executive administration belongs in the first instance to heads of the executive branch itself, who have the responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed. It belongs in the second instance to the legis lative branch. In order to protect the right to vote we have attempted to transfer the duty of oversight or actual execution of the laws to the courts. Let me cite two examples.

The 1960 Civil Rights Act authorized the courts to appoint voting referees whenever they find that a denial of the right to vote is pursuant to a pattern or practice of discrimination. These referees are to receive applications from other persons who claim to have been denied the right to vote because of race or color, to take evidence, and to report their findings to the courts which would then issue orders declaring such applicants as are found qualified to be so. This procedure means that the courts themselves actually undertake the duties of registration officials.

The Civil Rights Commission has found that litigation by the Attorney General to protect voting rights can be successful only if the court requires voting registrars to submit regular reports to the court stating the outcome of every application for registration and the reasons for every rejection. "The only way." the Commission said, “to eliminate the practices by litigation is to win comprehensive decrees with intensive reporting requirements so that literally every act of every registrar is known to the court" (1963 Report, p. 24). A Federal district court has ordered such reports month by month from registration officials in Macon, Montgomery, and Bullock Counties, Ala. This reporting system means that a court itself undertakes continuing oversight of executive administration.

To attempt to transfer to the courts duties which do not belong to the judicial process must end in futility.

Civil actions are instituted so that the court may determine the existence of a right, and may determine whether what is due a citizen has been withheld or denied. It requires time for the court to find through due process of law whether injustice has been done or not.