for example, would be proscribed, even though its literacy test would appear to be the minimum necessary to the orderly conduct of an election-such as name, date and place of birth, current residence, occupation, and, if the voter has voted before, the county and precinct in which he voted. The administration concedes that the Virginia literacy test is reasonable and that there is no evidence that it has been used to discriminate against Negroes.

I might add here, by way of parenthesis, that a good case can be made for more, rather than fewer literacy requirements for voting. This bill is designed to permit total illiterates-even morons-to vote. As the Washington Evening Star observed editorially last Sunday, the educational voting level is low enough now without enacting a Federal law to push it down even further.

This bill fabricates out of whole cloth and relies upon an unproved and unprovable assumption that any State using a literacy test has violated the 15th amendment if 50 percent or fewer of those of voting age were not registered on November 1, 1964, or did not vote in the 1964 presidential election. Lack of participation in elections is, of course, brought about by many factors, including a strong, one-party system, confidence in victory, dissatisfaction with both candidates, bad weather-or just a plain lack of concern.

H.R. 6400 is flagrantly violative of the rights of the States guaranteed to them by the first article and by the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constiution of the United States. The seven States found guilty in advance under the infamous and insulting formula provided for in the bill would be slapped down by the Federal power, and Federal registrars would supplant State and local authorities. Indeed, this is the whole aim and purpose of the bill. It is in no sense national legislation. Its aim and purpose is not to state a general rule of law applicable to all, but to subject certain States to special laws. It is as to those States to which it would apply-a reenactment of Reconstruction-an ex post facto bill of attainder. However, if enacted, there would be slight hope for judicial relief. Five members of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, stood and applauded when Mr. Johnson concluded his so-called voting rights address to the joint session.

This bill is proposed in and starkly reflects the prevailing atmosphere of ruthlessness and hysteria, hate, and total political cynicism. It is supported by some sincere and well meaning, though in our view, totally misguided people, including a great many clergymen and college professors who should know better. It is also supported-and not surprisingly-by the Communists and fellow travelers, which, one would think, should give pause to the more hot eyed among us. We earnestly urge that H.R. 6400 be defeated, or at least held up until the country cools off and regains a calmer, more normal view of things. In this connection, I should like also to offer for the record an editorial, "In a Time of Frenzy", by Thurman Sensing, executive vice president of the council. The editorial appeared in the April 1, 1965, council bulletin.

Thank you.

EDITORIAL: IN A TIME OF FRENZY

(By Thurman Sensing)

The last few weeks mark one of the worst stampedes in the history of our country. Unscrupulous conflict managers engineered turmoil in the streets and highways of Alabama, misleading a large section of the American people into believing that a terrible injustice had been committed.

Using massed groups of clergymen, who were cleverly persuaded by the National Council of Churches that a political drive actually was a moral crusade, the conflict managers then carried their revolutionary campaign inside the doors of the White House, with squads of beatniks sprawled in the corridors of the Executive Mansion. President Johnson, feeling the intense pressure, quickly succumbed. He went over to Capitol Hill and virtually demanded of Congressusing the very theme song of the street agitators "We shall overcome”—that the Constitution be set aside and that the Federal Government grab control of the election machinery in six Southern States.

Back in the 1930's, Sinclair Lewis, the novelist, wrote a book entitled "It Can't Happen Here." Well, it is happening here in America. In conditions of emotional frenzy and contempt for the law of the land comparable with Nazi Germany after the Reichstag fire, the Johnson administration has all but pointed a gun at Congress in calling for a voter registration law that is completely unconstitutional.

Article I, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives to the States the right to determine the qualifications of voters. This has been the American way since the Constitution was ratified by the States. But if Mr. Johnson's registration bill is enacted into law, the Constitution will have been breached. The American system will have undergone a totalitarian change. Six States will have been deprived of one of the foundations of republican government and will be in a Reconstruction era identical with the military occupation of 1865. The L.B.J. voter bill is an appalling piece of legislation. Contrary to all American traditions of justice, six States will be presumed guilty. If in 1964 not more than 50 percent of the persons of voting age noted in the 1960 census actually voted, then the Federal Government automatically assumes that people were discriminated against and deprived of the vote. This is a cruel. wicked and un-American assumption. There are places where voting has been discouraged. But there also are vast areas-entire States--where voter registra tion proceeds with absolute fairness and equal application of the laws. These areas and States are to be slapped down by the Federal power, and Federal registrars are to usurp States' rights.

The L.B.J. voter law is grossly discriminatory in another way. It is legislation aimed at a particular section of the country. Nothing in the bill is aimed at dealing with corrupt voting practices elsewhere in the Nation. Yet Americans know full well that big city machines in the metropolitan centers of the North are a synonym for voter corruption and manipulation. Yet Mr. Johnson feeds on these machines, so he does nothing about them.

What Mr. Johnson has proposed is not democracy; it is mobocracy. By endeavoring to shatter all qualificattions for voting, he uses a crowbar to break down standards erected for the purpose of promoting good government in this land. He would turn over the government of towns and cities, counties, and States, to that element in our population which is least qualified to understand the public business and most poorly qualified to make decisions regarding the community's well-being.

The suspicion is naturally aroused that, in bowing to the street and highway agitators, Mr. Johnson hopes that powerful new political engines will be created in the South so as to turn the Southern States into captive communities for his reelection.

The founders of the Republic feared the rise of dictatorship, and therefore they created the judicial branch of the U.S. Government. But the day that Mr. Johnson spoke to Congress, the members of the Supreme Court were present in the legislative chamber, clapped loudly, and showed their approval of his revolutionary demands. It is shameful that judges should become a claque. And the American people can only hope that any legislation produced in a time of frenzy and totalitarian ruthlessness will be subjected to judicial second thoughts. If the Justices of the Supreme Court ciose their eyes to the law, then there can be no hope for redress until such time as the court of last resort—the American people can see past the machinations of the anarchists and turmoil promoters who present revolution as a crusade.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE W. FAGG, ARLINGTON, VA.

The essential conflict arising in the consideration of the proposed voting rights bill (H.R. 6400) is that between the rights of States to set qualifications for its voters, as is clearly implied in article I, section 2 of the Constitution, and the right of a person not to be denied his vote on account of race or color, as is specifically stated in the 15th amendment. In basic principle there is no reason why these provisions of the Constitution cannot be reconciled. In other words. there is no reason in principle why a State cannot be allowed a wide latitude in the choice of the qualifications it wishes to impose without making those qualifications in any way discriminatory as to race or color.

However, it has become apparent in certain States that the voter qualification laws of these States have been executed in such a fashion by certain local registrars as to deny persons the right to vote on account of race or color. Cases are replete with instances where State voting qualifications, although they are stated with no suggestion of racial discrimination, have been distorted in application and made impossibly difficult by local registrars so as to deny persons of the Negro race the right to vote.

Thus the root of the problem is not in any State's voter qualification law, which could not stand if it violated the 15th amendment, but in the execution of the law by certain local registrars in certain States.

Whereas the provisions of title I of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 specify the legal action to be taken in cases of the use of voter qualifications to deny the right to vote by reason of color, this law has been shown in the past year not to be effective. One of the prime reasons for this is that in Federal suits against registrars or other persons responsible for the denial of voting rights, the most that can be expected is that the person or persons for whom the Attorney General brings suit will gain their right to vote. There is no means provided in title I of the Civil Rights Act, for effectively guaranteeing that discriminatory voting practices will no longer exist in a locality once they have been proven to exist. Clearly a method for insuring that discriminatory practices do not continue in such cases is to require that federally appointed registrars or examiners, either supervise such local registrars, or serve themselves as registrars in order to execute the existing State voting qualification laws in a nondiscriminatory fashion. This procedure should be instituted as soon as a case of discriminatory practice in the locality has been proven to exist in the Federal courts. The presence of the Federal registrars should be maintained until such time as the Attorney General determines that there is no longer reason to believe that discriminatory use of the State voting qualification laws will be resumed.

It should be emphasized that such a method fully respects the existing, constitutionally legal, State voter qualification laws, while at the same time insures effective enforcement of the 15th amendment. The respect of such State laws must be maintained otherwise article I, section II of the Constitution will be violated.

This is feature of the voting rights problem to which the voting rights bill, H.R. 6400, does not pay sufficient heed. In section 5(b) of this bill it is stated that, “Any person whom the examiner finds to have the qualifications prescribed by State law in accordance with instructions received under section 6(b) shall promptly be placed on a list of eligible voters." In section 6(b) it is stated, "The times, places, and procedures for application and listing pursuant to this Act and removals from the eligibility lists shall be prescribed by regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission and the Commission shall, after consultation with the Attorney General, instruct examiners concerning the qualifications required for listing."

The import of these statements is that the voting qualification laws of the States affected in the bill will be executed subject to the discretion of the Civil Service Commission. Such a provision does not respect the constitutional right of States to maintain voter qualification laws because, in effect, it makes it possible to abrogate these laws at will.

It should be sufficient chastisement for a State or locality that it has been proven that its laws are not executed in a nondiscriminatory fashion and that they be forced to execute them so without depriving it of the fundamental sovereignty it has the constitutional right to possess.

A further advantage of the above-suggested method is that it applies to any locality where such denial of voting rights exists. There is no formula, as in H.R. 6400, based on the percentage of the State's population registered or voting in the 1964 presidential election, which clearly leaves it possible for discriminatory practices to continue in many localities. Neither would the method suggested in this testimony penalize an entire State for the shortcomings of a few localities therein, since the suggested legislation would apply directly to the locality where the discrimination exists.

Finally the legislation suggested herein does not entail the presumption that a State or locality is guilty of discriminatory voting practices until proven innocent as is clearly implied in section 3 of H.R. 6400. Such a presumption clearly runs counter to all basic legal tradition.

Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that through the method discussed in this testimony the right of a State to establish voter qualifications, and the right of a person to expect that these qualifications be administered without discrimination as to race or color, can be reconciled.

TEXT OF BILLS

[H.R. 685, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide that the representation in the House of Representatives of each of the several States shall be reduced in proportion to the number of adult inhabitants of such State whose right to vote is denied or abridged

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) subsection (a) of section 141 of title 13 of the United States Code is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following: "Each census taken under this section shall also include a computation of the total number of inhabitants of each of the several States, being then twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, whose right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, has, within four years before the census date applicable to that census, been denied or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime."

(b) Subsection (b) of such section 141 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "In determining the total population of any State for purposes of the apportionment of Representatives, the number of inhabitants determined with respect to that State under the last sentence of subsection (a) shall be subtracted from the whole number of persons in such State, excluding Indians not taxed."

(c) Such section 141 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(c) The Secretary shall, in the year 1966. take a census of population as of the first day of April which shall be known as the census date."

SEC. 2. Subsection (a) of section 22 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress", approved June 18, 1929, as amended (2 U.S.C. 2), is amended (1) by inserting "(1)" immediately after "(a)", (2) by striking out "the seventeenth and each subsequent decennial census of the population" and inserting in lieu thereof "the most recent census of the population conducted under section 141 of title 13", and (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(2) On the first day, or within one week thereafter, of the first regular session of the Eighty-ninth Congress, the President shall transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained under the census of the population conducted under section 141 (c) of title 13, and the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled under an apportionment of the then existing number of Representatives by the method known as the method of equal proportions, no State to receive less than one member."

[H.R. 1568, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To protect the right to vote in Federal elections free from arbitrary discrimination by literacy tests or other means

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That (a) Congress finds that it is essential to our form of government that all qualified citizens have the opportunity to participate in the choice of elected officials.

(b) Congress further finds that the right to vote in Federal elections should be maintained free from discrimination and other corrupt influence.

(c) Congress further finds that many persons have been subjected to arbitrary and unreasonable voting restrictions on account of their race or color; that literacy tests and other performance examinations have been used extensively to effect arbitrary and unreasonable denials of the right to vote; and that existing statutes are inadequate to assure that all qualified persons shall enjoy the right to vote.

(d) Congress further finds that education in the United States is such that persons who have completed six primary grades in a public school or accredited private school cannot reasonably be denied the franchise on grounds of illiteracy or lack of sufficient education or intelligence to exercise the prerogatives of citizenship.

(e) Congress further finds that large numbers of American citizens who are also citizens of the several States are deprived of the right to vote by virtue of their birth and education in a part of the United States in which the Spanish language is commonly used; that these citizens are well qualified to exercise the franchise; that such information as is necessary for the intelligent exercise of the franchise is available through Spanish-language news sources; that lack of proficiency in the English language provides no reasonable basis for excluding these citizens from participating in the democratic process.

(f) Under article I, section 4 of the Constitution; section 5 of the fourteenth amendment, and section 2 of the fifteenth amendment; and its power to protect the integrity of the Federal electoral process, Congress has the duty to provide against the abuses which presently exist.

SEC. 2. Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971) is amended to read as follows:

"(b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such person to vote or to vote as he may choose in any Federal election, or subject or attempt to subject any other person to the deprivation of the right to vote in any Federal election. 'Deprivation of the right to vote' shall include but shall not be limited to (1) the application to any person of standards or procedures more stringent than are applied to others similarly situated and (2) the denial to any person otherwise qualified by law of the right to vote on account of his performance in any examination, whether for literacy or otherwise, if such other person has not been adjudged incompetent and has completed the sixth primary grade of any public school or accredited private school in any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

"Federal election' means any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing or selecting any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate, or Commissioner from the territories or possessions."

SEC. 3. If any part or provision of this Act is held invalid, all other parts or provisions shall remain in effect. If a part or provision of this Act is held invalid in one or more of its applications, the part or provision shall remain in effect in all other applications.

[H.R. 2649, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend section 2004 (e) of the Revised Statutes to provide for the appointment of Federal registrars to protect the right to vote in Federal elections from discriminatory practices

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2004 (e) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(e)), as contained in section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 90), is amended by adding immediately after the first paragraph thereof the following new paragraph:

"In addition, if, in any such proceeding to protect any voting right or privilege under this section, the court finds that any person has been deprived, on account of race or color, of any such voting right or privilege pursuant to any discriminatory pattern or practice in the administration of election laws, the court may issue an order appointing as many Federal registrars as may be necessary to oversee, supervise, and superintend the election procedures and processes in the State concerned, or in any subdivision of such State. Such order and appointments shall be effective until such time as the court subsequently finds that such discriminatory pattern or practice has ceased.".

[H.R. 2477, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide that all citizens of the United States may vote at all elections without being required to take literacy tests

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of section 101 as precedes paragraph (d) thereof in title I, relating to voting rights, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 241) is amended to read as follows: