To the Indiana delegation to the Congress of the United States: The Ball State News addresses this urgent appeal for congressional action in this session. In the discussions and resulting legislation in the field of civil rights, the Ball State News fears that two important aspects may be overlooked. Therefore, we urgently request that in that legislation these two provisions be included: 1. A law should be written making it illegal for the flag that was the emblem of the Confederacy to be displayed or flown in or over public buildings, whether they be locales of State, city, county, township, or Federal agencies. Further, no such governmental agency should be allowed to devise a banner that imitates or simulates that flag as a devious scheme to circumvent this law. 2. A law should be written to prohibit any governmental official or registrar on any level of government to require any statement from voters at the time of their registration, balloting, or at any other time which would in effect say: "In the case that Alabama (or any other State or governmental unit) should secede from the United States, the voter pledges that he shall support the secession and fight against the United States in any ensuing action." The requirement of such a statement should be a treasonable act punishable in the full severity of laws pertaining to treason. These two practices that exist in several southern areas have been tolerated merely because sensible persons have thought them to be patent nonsense and childish play. There is nothing childish about the murders in Alabama or the Confederate flag on its capitol. It is past time that that element of the South be considered as a comic opera. It is time that every citizen of the Nation be aware of his responsibilities to the Nation whether those responsibilities take him to North Vietnam, Birmingham, or Selma. The Ball State News asks you to plead with Congress to take these two steps along with the others that the march to Montgomery has inspired. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of this organization, I wish to file for the record the attached statement by the undersigned, in opposition to H.R. 6400; also the attached editorial by Mr. Thurman Sensing, executive vice president of the council. With appreciation for your courtesy and with all good wishes, I am, with much respect, Sincerely yours, TYRE TAYLOR, STATEMENT BY TYRE TAYLOR, GENERAL COUNSEL, SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL, IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 6400 APRIL 6, 1965. At a meeting held at Sea Island, Ga., on May 21-23, 1964, the board of directors of the council unanimously reaffirmed its position on force bills as follows: "The council opposes so-called Federal civil rights legislation as a further unwarranted encroachment by the Central Government upon the rights of the individual citizen, the States, and local communities." It strongly opposes H.R. 6400 (along with its companion bill, S. 1560, in the Senate) for many reasons, including It is clearly unconstitutional. The very first article of the Constitution authorizes the States to determine the qualifications of voters in both State and Federal elections, subject only to the proviso that whoever is deemed qualified to vote for "the most numerous branch of the State Legislature" is automatically qualified to vote in Federal elections. This provision-which is repeated verbatim in the 17th amendment-has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, the last time in 1959. It is discriminatory. It would abolish all literacy tests for voting, except in those States, such as New York, where 50 percent or more of the eligible voters ast their ballots in the 1964 presidential election. Thus, the State of Virginia, 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 registration 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 close 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, noState 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. |