Within the past few days I read the following in a national magazine, “A workable definition of a functional illiterate is the man who believes the proposed legislation of Lyndon Johnson is constitutional." The setting of voting standards is a legitimate exercise of the power of the sovereign States. This power is theirs alone, being clearly and succinctly stated in article I and amendment XVII of the Constitution. Amendment XV is essentially negative or prohibitive in nature. It does not represent an enlargement of Federal authority, but merely restricts State action. Merely saying that the bill is constitutional, as I understand the Attorney General has done on several occasions, does not make it so. I know that the manifold constitutional shortcomings of this measure have been called to the attention of this committee by others. I know also that you are aware that as recently as 1959, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the States to impose literacy requirements for voters. If these were valid in 1959, it is inescapable that they are valid in 1965. All of us know, Mr. Chairman, that the support of this measure is primarily the result of mass hysteria created and nurtured by the national press. An excellent example of this is the cartoon which appeared in a recent issue of the Washington Post, depiciting a State trooper in Selma, Ala., with blood dripping from his fingers, and the caption, "I just got him before he reached the church door." Admittedly, we have little control over irresponsibility on the part of the press, but certainly we are responsible for our own actions. While the above is about what one would expect from the Washington Post, it ill becomes the membership of this body when it abandons its own responsibility, surrenders its own judgment, and succumbs to mob rule. It is most disheartening, Mr. Chairman, but also very true, that passage of this measure may make political points for many of you. The more you abuse the South, the higher your stock rises in the North. And you have probably wondered many times, "When will these southerners learn that this committee is not going to give them any consideration? Why do they persist always in cluttering our minds with talk about the Constitution?" Well, in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, it is frustrating. You have the votes to do just about as you please and the comfort of knowing that the more you castigate the South, the greater your political reward will be. But frustrated and despaired though we be, we must come to you hoping ultimately that the Constitution, which all of us have sworn to uphold, will survive the assault upon it. Where else can we turn? We see the Supreme Court sitting on the House floor wildly applauding legislative recommendations. Can we expect impartial ex amination of these proposals by that body if they become law? We see the President of the United States take his stand before the Nation on the side of those who create and thrive on disorder, chaos, and even violence, albeit in the name of nonviolence. Instead of picking up the chant of the professional agitator, "We shall overcome," it would have been more appropriate for him to say, "I have been overcome." And let no man be misled into believing that passage of this measure will end their activities. Their very existence depends upon continuation of domestic upheaval and their own words tell us not only that they intend no letup, but that they plan to expand their operations. A former President of the United States stated on Monday that these activities were "silly." He added that "they can't accomplish a darned thing. All they want is to attract attention." Mr. Truman is not looking for votes. His position frees him from the pressure of making politically motivated statements. His right of free choice led him to disassociate himself from those who have chosen to make their beds in the temples of the lawless. Mr. Chairman, if the bill is fair, why not let it apply to all the States? Surely the States not covered must be clamoring to enjoy its benefits. Why does it not embrace the District of Columbia, the only area where Congress actually has authority to provide voter qualifications? I notice that the District is not covered, and yet I also notice that only 38.4 percent of its estimated eligible voters participated in the presidential election of 1964. These figures are from the table prepared by the Civil Rights Commission, which I assume is the basis for selection of those States and subdivisions subject to coverage by H.R. 6400. The 38.4 percent is only 0.4 percent higher than the figure given for South Carolina in the same chart. Is voter discrimination so widespread in the District of Columbia? I would assume not, when I am told that one precinct here gave Senator Goldwater only 2 votes to his opponent's more than 3,000. I cannot match that in South Carolina, although I can offer one from my hometown where Goldwater got 55 votes and his opponent received 2,203. And there was a rural box in my county where the Senator received 21 votes and the other candidate collected 301. In fact, Mr. Chairman, is it not strange that five of the seven States to whom this bill would apply voted against President Johnson last November? Perhaps you can convince yourselves that H.R. 6400 is not motivated by vindictiveness, but it will be difficult to convince the openminded citizen of this. I do not ask you to take my word for the fact that there is no voter discrimination because of race in South Carolina. Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the NAACP, stated sometime during 1963 in Charleston, that any Negro not registered in South Carolina had only himself to blame. Within the past 2 weeks the State leader of the Voter Education Project, the drive to register Negro citizens, has stated publicly that his only, repeat only, difficulty is apathy. Two Attorneys General of the United States have sent investigators into my State and on neither occasion was any substantial evidence of discrimination uncovered. I would like also to call your attention to an article which appeared in the Monday, March 22, issue of the Washington Post, on page A-8. The author is Robert E. Baker. Neither the Post nor Mr. Baker are widely heralded for their conservative views. Mr. Baker wrote in part, as follows: "The plain fact of the matter is that Negroes in the South who fail to vote because of apathy outnumber those who do not vote because of discrimination." You may ask then, "Why do you object to this bill when you have nothing to fear? If you are not guilty of discrimination the bill provides a method of relief from its provisions." Mr. Chairman, if you point a loaded gun at my head, surely you would not expect me to take much comfort by any words assuring that you did not intend to fire it. From time immemorial we have found that good government depends upon informed voters. We have seen in our personal experience that the pattern of voting in the Negro precincts does not reflect an independent or individually considered vote as noted in examples given above. We know the pattern of the block vote, slips of paper with numbers or names given to each voter as he enters the polling place, to be returned upon leaving so that they may be passed on to others. Voting for numbers. Herded through like sheep. And you propose to increase this practice by eliminating literacy tests in those States which prevented the President's election by acclamation. I strongly oppose the denial of the right to vote to any qualified citizen, but at the same time, I oppose as strongly measures which can serve only to lower the quality of voting. We cannot hope to improve the quality of voting by eliminating all literacy tests. Quality nearly always suffers when quantity occupies the focal point of one's thinking. No exception will follow if H.R. 6400 is enacted into law. Mr. Chairman, this bill repudiates the golden thread of American justice in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It would require a State or board of registration to bring an action before a three-judge Federal panel to prove they are not guilty of discrimination, even though there has never been an allegation by anyone that they had been discriminated against. This bill defies all judicial reason and robs the people of far more rights than it purportedly seeks to confer on some. In short, Mr. Chairman, this so-called voting rights bill is the most confused and unconstitutional hodgepodge of legislative nonsense ever penned by man. The CHAIRMAN. We will now adjourn and meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 31, 1965.) VOTING RIGHTS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 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, Corman, McCulloch, Cramer, and Lindsay. Also present: Representatives Feighan, Gilbert, Tenzer, Conyers, and McClory. Staff members present: Benjamin L. Zelenko, counsel, and Allan D. Cors, associate counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The Chair wishes to announce the following witnesses for the morning. The Honorable John Dowdy, Representative from Texas; the Honorable John Buchanan, Representative from Alabama; the Honable W. J. Bryan Dorn, U.S. Representative from South Carolina; the Honorable L. Mendel Rivers from South Carolina; Mr. James Farmer, National Director of CORE; Mr. Sidney Zagri, the legislative counsel of the Teamsters Union. We will be compelled to hold a night session at 8 o'clock tonight when we will hear the Honorable David N. Henderson, U.S. Representative from North Carolina; Representative Glenn Andrews from Alabama; the Honorable Richmond M. Flowers, attorney general of the State of Alabama; and representatives from the NAACP of Virginia. I am sorry that we have to call another evening session but I do not see any other alternative. Our first witness is our distinguished Representative from Texas and the very able and efficient member of our own Judiciary Committee. Mr. Dowdy, we are glad to hear from you. I just want to explain that as Chairman I am compelled to go before the Rules Committee this morning to apply for a rule on the constitutional amendment concerning Presidential inabilities. I may not be able to be present throughout your testimony. I am sure you will understand. The committee will be chaired by Mr. Rodino. 625 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DOWDY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Dowdy. I will not take a lot of time because I do not want to be repetitious. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to have heard a few of my observations relating to this proposed H.R. 6400. I have no desire to be repetitious of the testimony and briefs that have already been presented to you, showing clearly and unmistakably that this bill is unconstitutional, and would be so construed by any judge worthy of the title. Possibly in these days it is vain to advance constitutional questions, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has assumed the power to amend the Constitution by judicial decree, and the Executive is here demanding that Congress amend it by legislative act, wholly ignoring the plain provisions of that Constitution, which set forth the manner and means by which it can be constitutionally amended. An incident was related to me, the source being one for which I have high regard, that further leads me to believe we are indulging in wasted effort when we present logic, reason, and constitutional questions. It is this: The Attorney General met with some of the leadership, both parties, of the other body, to discuss the proposed bill with them. When the constitutional questions were there raised, the Attorney General immediately laid them to rest, advising the Members of the other body, there present, that they would not have to worry about that; that he had shown the bill to Chief Justice Warren and four other Members of the Supreme Court and that they "enthusiastically approved" of it. Without going into the ethics of a lawyer talking to the court about a case that might likely come before it, this matter has seemingly been prejudged. The report of this incident was hot from the meeting, almost within seconds, and was res ipsa loquitor-the act speaking. As we are not to be permitted to be concerned about the constitutional aspects of this proopsal, we might turn, for a moment, to the reason advanced for the demand that it be forthwith enacted without having been subjected to the considered judgment which would be ordinarily given to a proposal of such far-reaching significance, that reason, of course, being rioting, mobs, and demonstrations that have been generated. Perhaps this country is to be subjected to mob rule--I hate to believe it-and we certainly do not serve such. But, be it remembered that less than a year ago, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, and the reason most loudly acclaimed in both Houses was that it had been demanded by the demonstrating mobs, and that its enactment would take the mobs off the streets, and put them in the courts. What has happened? The mobs let up until after the election, but the mobleading agitators plainly stated that as soon as the elections were over, they would be back-and so it has happened, and we have even greater mobs, in more places, and with enhanced violence. So, in fear and trembling, under threats and duress, we are told we must enact this piece of legislation because the mobs demand itwhile at the same time, the mob leaders are telling us that enactment will not satisfy their insatiable demands, but that the intensity will be stepped up, and carried to more and more sections of the Nation. If it were not so serious, mob psychology could be called a funny thing. These characters that have been here in Washington, at the White House, at Speaker McCormack's office in the Capitol, and on the streets and I only use them as examples when they are alone, or only two together, they are pitiful, cringing, and cowed, but get them together, in a mob, and get the mob feeling running through them, they lay down in the streets, block the halls of the U.S. Capitol, and take over the White House, and with such fierceness that physical force and strength is required to move them. In every case, these folks yell "police brutality," when, in fact, no more force than is necessary, is used. For this reason, President Johnson did not permit reporters or cameramen to attend the White House invasion, because he knew the purpose, and caused those invaders to be secretly evicted. There is something else about these mobs. When they once learn that their actions will lead to granting of their every demand, there is a multiplication both of their demonstrations and riots, and of their demands. Already we are hearing of planned demands for a "Marshall plan" for the participants in the mobs. History reveals what happens to a country once it surrenders to the anarchy of a mob. After all else is destroyed, then the mob turns upon itself. Something of the sort happened in Alabama, following the 5-day march to Montgomery. In that march, there was a large percentage of white people who had so far forgotten themselves as to participate in such an affair. It was mainly through their efforts that it got so much notoriety, and cost the American taxpayers in excess of a third of a million dollars. Yet when they got to Montgomery, and the pictures were to be taken, and the speeches were to be made, and the dangers were past, the Negro leaders took over, and in effect, said, "You white trash get back now-we are through with you." Now, assuming we are to forget the Constitution, and cravenly submit to the demands of the mobs, and bring all elections, Federal, State, and local, under Federal control, I think it should not be done in a discriminating manner, such as in this bill; and that the purity of the ballot should receive as much protection as the casting of the vote, because if fraud, duress, voting of the dead, and other means of stealing elections is allowed, the right to vote is of not much worth. I would now suggest, in rough form, a few amendments that might help carry out what should be, and seems to be the avowed purpose of the bill. First, of course, it should apply universally and not discriminate and just apply to a few States-six or seven or eight or nine, however you want to interpret it. First, of course, the allegation that the purpose of the bill, or one of its purposes, is to get the demonstrating mobs to go home. A long step in this direction would be a provision in the bill to make it unlawful for a person to cross State lines, or to transport other persons across State lines, for the purpose of participating in, inciting, causing, or encouraging riots or disturbances of the peace in violation of laws or ordinances of States or municipalities. It might be well that |