Изображения страниц

preferable to the present system. But I repeat, at the risk of being a bore, that it seems to me that now is the time to wipe the slate clean and 'to start off with a consistent method of election which follows through in principle from beginning to end in any contingency.

Thank you.
Senator Bayh. Thank you very much.

Let me ask one question. You have been kind enough to let me interrupt your testimony with others.

We have two proposed means of ratification. One is a traditional method which has been utilized on all but one occasion. That is the method where the State legislatures do the ratifying. The other one, which is suggested by the distinguished minority leader, defers ratification to State conventions. The philosophy is that if the people really are committed to direct election then the convention system best serves that end. In other words, if they really are presently being deceived as to how the President is chosen, then it would be almost a national referendum, through the State conventions.

Now, what is your judgment about the relative merits of the two proposals?

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. Well, I believe this is a matter of some urgency in the present state of the world and the present state of our country. I believe it is a matter of some urgency. I think that the fastest way to amend the Constitution and the perhaps most direct way is the conventional way, through the legislatures of the various States. I do think that the people would in the alternative method vote to do the same thing, but I do think that the 38-State ratification would be faster and I believe we need to do this job as quickly as we can, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Bays. But the argument is made, and I do not think anyone knows conclusively, that speed would be one of the assets of the State convention method. As I recall, the fastest ratification of an amendment was the repeal of prohibition. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the only time we have used the State convention method. That does not necessarily mean that it would follow suit here.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that as important as this is, the urgency for the repeal of the 18th amendment would have made it fast no matter how it was done, because I believe that many of the folks who were planning the action to repeal that amendment were very thirsty at that time and it had a more direct impact.

I do not mean to be light about it, but I do not think that is a fair example. I think that a matter as complicated as this and a matter as serious as this could be filibustered and could be delayed by conventions, whereas the State legislatures, who have already shown, according to Senator Burdick's poll, an inclination toward the direct election method of selecting the President and with the support of the various diverse groups that have shown interest here today or during the course of your hearings, it would seem to me that that is the more orderly way. I am not, however, the greatest expert in the world on that and I recognize that.

Senator Bays. Nor am I and I appreciate getting your opinion. I just wanted to get your thoughts.

I appreciate your testifying, Mr. Schlossberg. I will not detain you further, but we appreciate the contribution that you and the UXW have made.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. Thank you, sir.

Senator Bayh. I regret the fact that we had to terminate our dis. cussion, but the full Judiciary Committee is meeting now on this riot legislation and I am going to have to get up there. Counsel has advised that there is other material that-let's put it this way: If someone does desire to have other material put in the record, we will be glad to put it in. I am going to have to leave at this particular time because of the full committee hearings on the riot legislation.

Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)
(The following statements were received by the subcommittee:)

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 1, 1366.
Chairman, Judicial Subcommittee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to request that this letter be made part of the record in the hearings that your committee is now holding on the question of changing the electoral system for electing the president.

I believe the president, the vice president, a representative to the CX, and the chairman of a board to review the Supreme Court should be nominated and elected by the people directly in at-large elections. If any candidate fails to get majority support in the initial elections, decisive run-off elections should be provided.

In addition, I suggest that the vice president, the immediate past president, and the losing presidential candidate winning the most votes be made honorary members of the United States Senate and be given the privilege of voting on all questions.

Finally, the 22nd Amendment limiting the president to two terms should be repealed. We should always have access to the services of the best woman or man willing to serve in this capacity. Respectfully yours,


CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, August 16, 1967. Hon. BIRCH BAYA, U.S. Senator, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C.

DEAR BIRCH: I join with you in supporting a direct Electoral College system instead of the present Electoral College System. I know you have worked extremely hard to bring about this change and I am certain that it will be a success. The United States Government as the largest of all businesses must reflect change to keep pace with our population.

I regret I will not be able to appear at Washington for the hearings on August 21st, 22nd and 23rd as I have several previous commitments.

I would be extremely happy to send a letter or telegram in support of the change in the Electoral College system. Sincerely,

John J. BARTON, Mayor.


Indianapolis, August 16, 1967. Hon. BIRCH E. BAYH, U.S. Senator, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR BAYH: Your letter of recent date and the accompanying material on S.J. Res. 2 have been thoughtfully reviewed. I appreciate the courtesy er. tended me in the request for my comments on the proposed amendment. The following observations will, I hope, be of interest to you and the other members of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.

The basic changes which this Amendment would make the direct election of the President and the Vice President and the abolition of the Electoral College encompass two matters which have enjoyed a long debate in our Nation. The historical role of the Electoral College has been the subject of many learned discussions by scholars and interested citizens. The practical applications of the various proposals to alter or abolish the Electoral College system have been thoroughly aired. I cannot add to this wealth of information. In my personal judgment, the voters of our Nation should have the opportunity to cast a direct vote for the candidates for President and Vice President.

Two other sections of the Amendment as proposed also deserve a careful review and comment.

The lack of any definite standards for qualifying voters to vote in a Presidential election could lead to a situation in the States where the true intent of the popular election principle was done violence. I would prefer to see, within the Amendment, provisions for certain minimum standards on voter eligibility, especially as to age. The Amendment's language as it now exists is rather vague.

The provision for a “run off” election if no candidate receives the necessary 10% of the total vote cast also bears careful scrutiny. Even though the likelihood of this situation occurring is remote, it would seem more appropriate to merely alter the existing provisions which now govern such a situation. The elected members of the House of Representatives voting individually and not as a stateby-state unit could provide a suitable representative forum to decide the question.

I commend you and your colleagues for the many hours of hard work and deliberation that have gone into the drafting of this proposed Amendment and feel confident that all possible positions on the matter will receive the most equitable review. Sincerely,

ROGER D. BRANIGIN, Governor of Indiana.


Beverly Hills, Calif., August 16, 1967. Hon. BIRCH BAYH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR : If there is anything I can do to help on your Constitutional Amendment bill, please call me. It will be impossible for me to be in Washington August 21, 22, 23.

I think that you have done a magnificent job. I think the changes are long overdue and you may rest assured the former Governor of California will give you all the help he possibly can. Warmest personal regards. Sincerely,



Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the United States Senate's Committee on the Judiciary I am submitting this statement as a private citizen and as a social scientist and not as a spokesman or representative of the organizations in which I hold membership.

I support the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment for the purpose of abolishing outright the Electoral College method of electing the President and Vice President of the United States. I take this position not only because I believe that direct, popular election of the President and Vice President is within the purview of the democratic way of life, but I stand in this posture also because I believe that the abolition of the Electoral College and direct, popular election of the President and Vice President will go a long way further in the movement towards eliminating the so-called “color problem” that has been with us in America for several centuries !

During the last several years I have been making a private study of the historical origins of our Presidential Electoral College. I have found that the so-called “color problem” (the slavery question) in America was the real, compelling reason our Founding Fathers provided for the Electoral College in the Constitution in the first place. The Founding Fathers did not provide for the Electoral College because they feared too much democracy and the direct participation of the people as such !

I have also found that this same problem—the so-called “color problem" in America is, ironically, both the same argument held for retaining the Electoral College and also for its abolition. This is demonstrated in the extracts of my study, which I am attaching here as a portion of my statement. I have titled tbe study “Some Historical Origins of the American Presidential Electoral College System.”

I must confess here that I at one time supported the position of only "reforming" the Election system—i.e., retaining some portion of the Electoral College somewhat along the lines of the original proposal of the President on this matter. The study I have been making of the historical origins of the method of electing the President and Vice President has thus convinced me that the Electoral College ought to be abolished outright-in keeping with the "One-Man, One-Vote" doctrine as enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Gray vs. Sanders, 372 C.S. 368, 381 (1963), if nothing else.

If the Electoral College is retained, it will be one of the causes for the continuance of the "color problem” and the concern for voting for the President and Vice President ad infinitum by color blocks—especially those of the large cities and states and their Ghettoes. Electoral College voting creates and finds the racial ghettoes useful.

U.S. SENATE, May 11, 1967. Hon. BIRCH BAYH, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed is a copy of a resolution I received from the Greater Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce in support of the nationwide popular vote method to elect the President and Vice President.

I am forwarding this to you in light of the hearings scheduled for Electoral College Reform next week. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely,


RESOLUTION Bt it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Greater Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce that it favors the Nationwide Popular Vote Method of electing the President and the Vice President of the United States; and

Be it further resolved that the Board of Directors believes that the present method of electing the President and Vice President of the United States now used ; i.e., the Electoral College, is invalid, unfair, uncertain and undemocratic. The Committee asks the Board to take this action because:

1. Sen. Quentin N. Burdick of North Dakota, a supporter of the Nationwide Popular Vote method, conducted an opinion poll in 1966 which showed that of 2,500 state legislators in the United States, 58.8 per cent favor abolishing the Electoral College and electing the President and the Vice President by direct popular vote. This indicates excellent prospects for ratification of this amendment.

2. The American Bar Association Commission on Electoral College Reform endorsed the Nationwide Popular Vote on February 13, 1967.

3. In 1965, President Johnson proposed a method of Electoral College Reform which would have retained the "winner-take-all” system whereby all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate winning a plurality of the popular votes. This proposal was unacceptable to the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and received little support in Congress. This year, the President failed to resubmit his proposal. This would indicate he has abandoned the proposal entirely.

4. Sen. Birch E. Bayh of Indiana, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, following hearings before his subcommittee in 1966, abandoned his support of President Johnson's proposal and announced his support for the Nationwide Popular Vote.

5. The 1966 Gallup Poll indicated strong support for the Nationwide Popular Vote.

6. Twenty-two senators and four congressmen have sponsored or cosponsored resolutions favoring adoption of the Nationwide Popular Vote.

7. The objective of Electoral College Reform could be best promoted at this time by giving exclusive endorsement to the Nationwide Popular Vote concept because :

(a) It would enable the Chambers of Commerce to cooperate fully with the American Bar Association and possibly other groups in conducting national or regional symposia on the subject.

(b) It would facilitate the development of timely and effective recommendations to Congress, including presentations at hearings

expected early in May. Be it further resolved that copies of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Greater Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce be sent to all United States Senators, U.S. Congressmen from the State of North Carolina and all other interested parties.

Adopted this 21st day of April, 1967, Board of Directors, Greater Winston-
Salem Chamber of Commerce, Winston-Salem, N.C.

Erecutive Vice President.



January 22, 1967 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

HONORABLE GENTLEMEN : This is to express my faith in the electoral college as originally designed, and to suggest changes which would be in keeping with the present needs. If this letter has been addressed to the wrong committee, I would appreciate your sending all (14) copies to the proper committee. It is requested that this letter be included as testimony in the hearings scheduled on changes being considered regarding the Presidential elections.

To understand the electoral college one must consider the historical record. The only weaknesses were (1) that no provision was made for the growth of political parties with the apparent need for a Pre ent and Vice President both to be of the same party, and (2) that no provision was made for nomination to these two offices. Correction of the latter error might have been sufficient if acted upon early enough, but now that we have large political organizations we must consider this as two weaknesses.

At first there was nomination by Congressional caucus-in fact, that was the reason of the first Congressional caucus. It was not until 1828 that the first national political party nominating convention was held. The nominee was Andrew Jackson, who won the election. He was also the first President to be threatened with assassination. He believed that “to the victor belongs the spoils", and it was not long until the bureaucratic bulge began; until 1819 there were only six members of the Cabinet, the Secretaries of State, Treasury, War and Navy, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General.

Until 1828 the record shows that the powers originally vested in the Office of the President were sufficient for every need–Tripoli, the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the treaty of Ghent, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, the Monroe Doctrine, banking and currency, solvency and expansion. The real troublemaker was the rise of political factions; please read “The Federalist Papers", No. 10, Madison on factions.

The fact is that since 1828 we have not been using the electoral college system for choosing Presidents and Vice-Presidents. We have been using a national political party nominating convention system, and routing it through the electoral college to make it legal. Under this system we use, election of our two highest officers begins at the party precinct conventions which are held following the primary. Thus it is probable that Presidential nomination rests upon the shoulders of less than 1% of the voters of an election in which less than 10% of the eligible electorate voted. Even those who attended the precinct convention are three steps removed from nomination, and those who did not vote in the primary are completely disenfranchised regarding nomination. Since nomination is now imperative before election, this is hardly “one man, one vote” procedure !

Correction is much more easily made than appears at first glance. It is basically this: The state legislatures must be made the nominating committees for our two highest offices, and they should choose the Presidential electors, but this power must be closely prescribed. Legislation setting up procedures to be followed should cover these points :

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »