moving people who have made a choice-to register as an independent—and then forcing them into one or another arrangement and putting all kinds of strictures on behavior that we ought not to be into. You also indicated, I think, a point that we lose sight of. That is, really, political parties are outside the Constitution. We have had to accommodate Government and parties over the years. Some of the accommodation that I now see being offered is either too cozy or too bothersome in terms of not allowing the parties to make the kinds of decisions that they want to. However, the other side of the coin is, as Representative Levin said, the selection of President is too important a question. Again, I hark back to the Illinois situation. Maybe we need to get some more grassroots input, because choices are made. We may not always like the choices, but I thought in a democracy-small d-it was a quantitative decision and some folks on a qualitative basis are now passing judgment on those quantitative decisions. This is an area that I appreciate your go-slow attitude and look forward to some more specific comments from you. Thank you. Mr. SWIFT. If you would be so kind, I would like to submit one question to you in writing that you could respond to in writing and save the time here. It deals with a question I raised earlier. Between the Udall bill's more limited approach and the very detailed regional primary approaches, I am wondering if there is some value to that in which you might in fact feel going beyond that is inappropriate. I will submit that in writing and if you could respond in writing, that would be excellent. [The information follows:] Dr. STEPHEN J. WAYNE, Professor, Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC. APRIL 7, 1986. DEAR DR. WAYNE: I would like to thank you for your participation in the hearing held on March 20th regarding presidential primaries. We appreciate the help you have given the Subcommittee in its work on this subject. As I indicated at the hearing, I had one other question that I did not ask in the interest of time, since I know you had to leave by 11:30. As I mentioned, though, I am interested in the Udall bill, particularly in comparison with the others. While there clearly could be some problems with the detailed regional primary approaches-and adoption of one of those proposals might be inappropriate at this time-is there some value in the limited approach of the Udall bill? Also, enclosed is a copy of your testimony from the transcript of the hearing. Please review it and make any necessary grammatical corrections. Kindly return the corrected copy to the Subcommittee on Elections, U.S. House of Representatives, 802 House Annex 1, Washington, D.C. 20515. We would appreciate it if you could have it here by May 15th. Thank you again, and best regards. Enclosure. AL SWIFT, Chairman. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Hon. AL SWIFT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Elections, Committee on House Administration, DEAR CHAIRMAN SWIFT: While I oppose Congress' imposition of regional primaries on the parties for the reasons I explained in my testimony before your subcommittee, I have mixed feelings about the Udall bill. Its primary benefit would be to reduce the disproportionate influence that Iowa, New Hampshire, and other prewindow states seem to have on the selection of nominees. That is good. The principal disadvantage is that the imposition of a window, combined with the tendency to front-load, would increase organizing and fund-raising efforts in the prenomination years and require a media campaign by prospective nominees. It might even be the forerunner to a de facto national primary or regional primaries if most states frontload. From the perspective of democratic theory, the imposition of a window would probably result in the successful candidates being the choice of a larger segment of the public at the beginning of the process. It would also shrink the pool of potential nominees. Under the circumstances, nationally recognized candidates would be advantaged. On balance, I think the benefits of a window (particularly, if front loading could be prevented) outweight the drawbacks. However, I still have qualms about Congress legislating this change on the parties. The fact is that the early states exercise disproportionate influence because the electorate allows them to. A more interested, more informed, less personality oriented, more issue conscious citizenry is what we really need. You can't legislate these attributes on the electorate. I am returning a slightly edited version of my testimony to your committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. If I can be of any further help, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, STEPHEN J. WAYNE, Professor. Mr. SWIFT. The gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. FRENZEL. I have no questions. I just want to thank the gentleman for his testimony. Mr. SwIFT. Thank you very much, Dr. Wayne. We appreciate it. The subcommittee will stand in recess until immediately after this vote. [Recess.] Mr. SWIFT. The subcommittee will come to order. Our final panel-and we thank you for your generosity in waiting while we had that terribly important vote on the Journal. I am happy to welcome Joseph Prather, who is Senator and President pro tem of the Senate in the State of Kentucky, and Max Cleland, who is the Secretary of State of the State of Georgia. Your prepared statements will be made a permanent part of the record. We will begin with Senator Prather. TESTIMONY OF SENATOR JOSEPH PRATHER, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, KENTUCKY STATE SENATE Mr. PRATHER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and members. I am proud for the opportunity to be here as President pro tem of the Kentucky Senate and as a representative of the Presidential primary task force of the Southern Legislative Conference, the Council of State Governments. I will make my remarks brief and then would be happy to join in with any discussion that might be helpful to the committee. Our effort toward the primary, the Southern primary on the second Tuesday in March, began some several months ago or even more than a year ago when many of the leaders from the various States-and I am talking about the legislative leaders-joined together in discussion on how we might bring an added emphasis to the Southern part of the United States concerning the delegate selection process leading up to the conventions. I know that in Kentucky, and I am a former State Democratic Party chairman also, I have found frustrations in a small State such as Kentucky. There is a feeling that we were insignificant in the whole process because very little attention was paid to the views that we might have and because our number of delegates were not enough in itself to cause the candidates to pay a great deal of attention. We realized that we had a great deal in common with many of the other States who have joined our effort toward the Super Tuesday primary. So, it only made sense to us that we should join that discussion and see if we could not find some common ground and a reason to join together with the other southern States. We found in a meeting just a few months back that there was unanimous support from the legislative leadership in those various States in pursuing the idea of the second Tuesday in March primary for our region. In Kentucky, the Governor has already signed the primary bill. I understand that in Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri the general assemblies there have passed legislation that has now gone on to their Governor, where they will then join Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. So, I think we are assured of seven States with several more that will probably make that step. I know the State of Texas in particular with a large number of delegate votes indicate that they will be coming on board as soon as they have the opportunity to convene in session. We feel that this is going to give a region that does have a great deal in common and that can speak with a unified voice an opportunity to have that voice heard more fully by the candidates who will be offering themselves for the Presidential nomination. We also recognize that, at least for now, we will have the privilege of being early in the nominating process, whereby we hope to have more impact. Now, I understand that as a result of our action, other regions could do the same thing and that that ultimately may result in the necessity for action by Congress concerning some version of the legislation that I have heard discussed this morning. But if that is the case, so be it. We think the regional idea is a good idea. We think that the people are the real winners because we think the added emphasis is going to mean that the voter turnout is going to be greater. You're going to have greater participation, and I think that's what it's all about. I believe that, when you increase participation and when you involve more people, that negates the argument that I hear that says we will lose control if we let this go to the people and let them have a greater opportunity to become involved. Frankly, I thought that that's what we were supposed to do, and that's what we are trying to do in our efforts toward Super Tuesday. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be here. Secretary Cleland. TESTIMONY OF MAX CLELAND, SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. CLELAND. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would just like to second the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Kentucky. He said a lot of things that I have thought about and people in my State have thought about, particularly in terms of better voter participation and better voter involvement in the whole Presidential selection process. My State has the distinction, in the 20 years leading up until 1984, of sharing with South Carolina the leadership in being virtually dead last in voter turnout in the Nation. That's in the general election. We participate very poorly in terms of public participation in our State in the Presidential selection process called the Presidential preference primary. I come to you today as the chief elections officer from the State of Georgia as Secretary of State. We were one of the three States that ultimately got the tag of being part of Super Tuesday in 1984. I might say to you, Mr. Chairman, that that was completely by accident. We were not that smart. But now we're not that dumb. So, we think that, with a little forethought, we can combine our efforts and make it easier, not harder, to campaign in the Southeast, easier on the candidates, easier of the media to focus on the issues, and easier on the public and not have them put their track shoes on every time they turn around and face a Tuesday somewhere. I happen to feel that the present system, which I have participated in-I covered every major primary State in this Nation except Maine in 1980. I can tell you that the present system is the most chaotic, unorganized, and patchwork system in the Western World used to select nominees for a Nation's top elected position. The concept of the individual State primary is sound. When the State of Florida initiated a Presidential preference primary in 1901, it was considered a very good idea. Other States, Wisconsin in 1905, Pennsylvania in 1906, and Oregon in 1910, followed. What has happened, though, is that, since then the implementation of these individual State primaries and caucuses has led to disaster. From the total of 17 primaries in 1968, the number has grown to 30 in 1976 and a record number of 37 in 1980. Now about 75 percent of the delegates at our national conventions are chosen in primary voting. The growth of the system was so fast, once the snowball began to gain momentum, very little if any thought was given to any orderly coordination of the dates for the primaries. Today a candidate for the Presidency must embark on a campaign which lasts well over 2 or 3 years, costs millions of dollars in travel, and is dictated by more than 50 different sets of rules and regulations and laws. Candidates are required to at least extend themselves in a 6-month-long marathon that tends to focus more on the culture or idiosyncrasies of our State-and I have seen it in my State-idiosyncrasies like blowing gnats in Georgia or shucking oysters in Maine instead of dealing with the problems that face the country. There is really no order or rhyme or reason to the current timetable of primaries and caucuses. A prime example of the 1976 primaries: On one single Tuesday simultaneous primaries were held in California on the west coast, New Jersey on the east coast, and Ohio on neither coast. How a candidate is able to focus on the issues while wearing himself or herself down because of timing and geographic considerations is beyond me. These are some of the practical reasons why I, along with the Council of State Governments and the Southern Legislative Conference, have pushed so hard for the past 2 years for a regional primary concept. The Congress has reviewed some 300 measures in the last 75 years to regionalize the primary system, but such a system has not become reality. We in the South now are beginning to create our own regional primary which we believe will allow candidates time to discuss substantive topics with our people, alleviate some of the massive costs of a Presidential campaign and, more importantly, focus the campaign and thereby increase voter awareness and turnout. I would support some system of national regional primaries, but I am also convinced that at the present time, given the complexities of differing election laws in each State and the mandates of individual State constitutions, that a national system cannot be put in place by 1988. But I also think-and the Southern States, I think, will show-that area States can ban together for a unified region for a good cause. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to work with you and your subcommittee in any way to make sure that we come up with some kind of nominating process that we think is the best possible. I do support the concept of the regional Presidential preference primary. STATEMENT OF MAX CLELAND, SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF Georgia Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appear before you today in my capacity as chief elections officer for the State of Georgia and as a citizen concerned about the most chaotic, unorganized, and patchwork system in the world used to select nominees for a nation's top elected position. When the State of Florida initiated a Presidential preference primary as a means for national convention delegate selection in 1901. It was perceived as viable alternative. Other States-Wisconsin in 1905, Pennsylvania in 1906, Oregon in 1910, and then many others-followed suit because they decided the alternative was better than any system that had been devised. Indeed, the concept of such a system was sound. Its implementation, however, was disastrous. From the total of 17 primaries in 1968, the number grew to 30 in 1976, and a record number of 37 in 1980. Now about 75 percent of the delegates at our national conventions are chosen in primary voting. The growth of the system was so fast once the momentum hit in the late sixties, that very little, if any, thought was given to an orderly coordination of dates for primaries. Today, a candidate for the Presidency must embark on a campaign which lasts well over two years, costs millions of dollars in travel and organizational expenses, and is dictated by more than 50 different sets of rules, regulations, and laws-all in an effort to be allowed to represent his or her party in the general election. Candidates are forced to hop from city to city and State to State in a 4-month-long marathon that tends to focus more on the culture or idiosyncrasies of each Statelike blowing gnats in Georgia or shucking oysters in Maine—instead of on the problems facing or Nation today. There is no order, rhyme, nor reason to the current timetable of primaries and caucuses. A prime example from the 1976 primaries: on one Tuesday, simultaneous primaries were held in California on the west coast, New Jersey on the east coast, and |