Senator KEFAUVER. Anything else? Harding. Senator CASE of South Dakota. That is all. Senator KEFAUVER. This has been a very interesting presentation, Senator Case, and I commend you upon coming up with a new plan which you have persuasively explained. Mr. Kirby, do you wish to ask Senator Case a question? Mr. KIRBY. Senator Case, your proposal, I believe, preserves the present system of deciding the elections in the House of Representatives where the electoral vote is not decisive? Senator CASE of South Dakota. Yes; if it came to that. Mr. KIRBY. You choose to retain the unit delegation vote in the House in selecting the President? Senator CASE of South Dakota. I think, Mr. Kirby, that the paragraph that relates to that is at the top of page 5: The person having the greatest number of presidential unit votes shall be the President, if such number is the majority of the whole number of such votes, and if no person has such majority, then from the persons having the highest number, not exceeding three, on the list of those receiving presidential unit votes, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately by ballot the President. That is essentially the present system. Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Case, there would be fractional votes under your system? Senator CASE of South Dakota. Only the last fraction; only in the case of a tie, would there actually be a fractional vote. That would apply only to the last unit vote, in the case of a State which had an odd number of electors, and to the last two where the number of electors accorded a State is an even number. Senator KEFAUVER. Now, suppose the vote were, let us say, 47.5 to 52.5 percent, in the statewide vote. Then would each candidate receive elector votes with a fraction like that in it, or how would that be decided? Senator CASE of South Dakota. You first would take the number of votes that would be settled by an even distribution proportionately between the number of electors and the total vote. You would have left the number of electors-to make the thing fairly simple Senator KEFAUVER. Let me state it hypothetically. Suppose in South Dakota one candidate got 47.5 percent; the other candidate got 52.5 percent. Would you take 47.5 percent of 4, which is the number of votes you are allowed? Senator CASE of South Dakota. No. It would work out in that case 3 to 1. We have four electoral votes. In that case it would work out 3 to 1. You see, you could not divide two and two. You would have a stalement there, so that the advantage would go to the candidate that carried the State, that had the margin. But today in a situation like that, the candidate that got 52 percent of the vote would get all four votes, and the other candidate would be washed out. Senator KEFAUVER. In other words, you would not take the percentage of the popular vote in the State and multiply it by the number of electoral votes that you were entitled to? Senator CASE of South Dakota. No. This would retain whole numbers. Roughly it would mirror the percentage division, computed to the nearest whole number. Senator KEFAUVER. Except that in your case, in your bill, the resolution, if you receive less than 33% percent, you would not get any? Senator CASE of South Dakota. That is correct, and that, it was suggested, would get away from the splinter party problem of the complete proportional system. This is based, of course, primarily on the idea of proportional voting; that is, it is more nearly like proportional voting, except that it takes care of the splinter party argument against proportional voting by using this one-third factor. The one-third factor was selected because that is the lowest number of electoral votes that any State can be entitled to. It makes it possible for the States with only three electoral votes to have some reflection in their presidential vote of the popular vote. Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Senator Case. Senator CASE of South Dakota. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair man. (A further statement submitted by Senator Case of South Dakota follows:) MAY 26, 1961. Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER, DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: This is to notify you that, were Senate Joint Resolution 48 to be reported for Senate action by your committee, I would have no objection to changing that part of the proposal relating to selection of the President by the House of Representatives in the case that no candidate for President received a majority of the presidential unit votes cast by the States I would, in fact, join in sponsoring an amendment to the proposal in order to change the provision that, in such a case, the representatives of each State as separate bodies have equal voting power in selecting the President. Equity would dictate that larger States have greater voice in the selection. I would prefer that each Member of Congress, sitting in joint session, have one vote in this selection, thereby accurately reflecting the relative strength possessed by the various States in the general presidential electoral process. This would apply to the selection of both President and Vice President. Final judgment, however, should be left to the wisdom of the committee. I do not consider this particular section of the proposal to be of central importance; and, in fact, this particular section was one of the provisions of the Constitution to which I did not address this proposal, hence it remained as originally provided. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS CASE, U.S. Senator. Senator KEFAUVER. The committee is delighted to have Senator Yarborough, of Texas, with us. The chairman has a great deal of admiration and respect for the Senator. Senator Yarborough is cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 58, which he will discuss at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH YARBOROUGH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, and members of this distinguished subcommittee, I am very grateful for this distinguished chairman's kind remarks about me. I well remember the first time I ever had the privilege of seeing the chairman of this subcommittee. I attended the American Bar Association convention in the city of New York in 1951, the home State of the distinguished Senator from New York, who is here. And the distinguished Senator from Tennessee addressed a session of the American Bar Association at that time on the need for public defenders of people who were accused of an offense and have no money to hire a lawyer to defend themselves. I had been greatly impressed with his record for years before hearing him there in New York City in 1951. I was impressed then, and I have been increasingly impressed with and appreciative of his great services to the public in the succeeding 10 years. It is a privilege to appear before a subcommittee of which he is a chairman. Senator KEFAUVER. The Senator from Texas is very generous. I well remember the meeting he refers to. It has been my great pleasure to be associated with the Senator from Texas since that time. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, with appreciation for the kind remarks of the distinguished chairman, I will continue. Senator KEFAUVER. Before you go on, we are delighted to have Senator Hruska with us. We welcome him to join with us in questioning the witnesses. And he will also testify later. Senator Hruska is an able member of the full Judiciary Committee, who does not have the privilege of being a member of this committee, I am sorry to say. Senator HRUSKA. A privilege which I miss very much, Mr. Chair man. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, as cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 58, the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax in Federal elections, I genuinely appreciate this opportunity to appear and the kindness you have shown in permitting me to come back this afternoon when I couldn't be heard this morning. A number of extremely important election reform proposals are under consideration here, but it is my firm belief that Senate Joint Resolution 58 is among the most important. It is aimed at striking down a financial barrier which stops or discourages a very substantial number of Americans in five States from voting. It is no mere coincidence that in the 1960 presidential election that five of the seven States which had the lowest percentage of citizens voting are States which still require purchase of a poll tax as a ticket to the voting booth. The "1960 Election Score Board," a highly informative booklet prepared by the American Heritage Foundation, shows that my own home State of Texas ranked down in 44th place among the States with only 43.3 percent of civilians of voting age casting a ballot in the 1960 election, despite the fact that it was the most strenuously contested presidential election in the history of my State, with each major party presidential candidate spending several days in the State. And of course Texas had a native son as a vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket. All of those factors caused a high voter interest in my State. But despite that fact only 43.3 percent of people of voting age cast a ballot. Other States where payment of a poll tax is a prerequiste for qualifying to vote ranked low also. This is not to say that the poll tax is by any means entirely responsible for the lamentable failure of many to participate in our incomparable system of government by consent of the governed. But it is to point out the undeniable fact that the poll tax is one of the several barriers to voting, and it should be removed. There are those who scoff at the idea that having to pay $1.50 is a barrier to voting. That is the price in my State, Mr. Chairman; some counties are authorized to charge a 25-cent fee to pay the expenses of collection of it. So it varies from $1.50 to $1.75 in my State. There are those that scoff at the idea that having to pay that $1.50 or $1.75 for a poll tax in January keeps people from the polls in July or November. But let us consider this matter. If you were head of one of the thousands of low-income families in Texas, with weekly pay of $30 or $40 or less, what week would you feel like you could spend $1.75, or $3.50 for yourself and your wife, for poll taxes? You know, $3.50 will buy meat and potatoes and beans for several meals for a family that's barely getting along. Right now we have too many families in Texas and America who can't find the jobs they need even to earn the necessities of life. Those who contend the poll tax is no barrier to voting generally, admit that it may keep a few people from the polls, but they say it is no serious deterrent. I disagree. Like most Americans, I consider the privilege of voting to be our most precious heritage. The fact that a poll tax keeps even a small percentage of people from participation in their free government is sufficient grounds for its abolition, so far as I'm concerned. And in my State, at least, the timing of the poll tax payment is almost as big a deterrent as the tax itself. Surely we are all familiar with the Christmas bills that always come due in January. Christmas comes, the spirit of giving takes hold of us, and often the desire is really bigger than the pocketbook can really afford. But with modern credit, the mother and father buy that little something extra— then comes January when there is rarely enough money to cover the new indebtedness. The poll tax in my State must be paid by January 31 if a person is to vote that year. If they are to vote in May or June or July or August primaries, or April municipal elections or April school board elections or November general elections or any of the bond issues, anything for the whole calendar year, they must pay the poll tax by January 31. Senator KEATING. That doesn't apply to primaries too, does it? Senator YARBOROUGH. It applies to all elections-primaries, general elections, local elections, State elections, all types of elections in |