so, they are beginning to doubt the true worthiness of the news media. I think this has had a large impact on the thinking of the general American public. I recall, I think, that Gallup reported something over 80 percent of the American people reacted favorably toward the Agnew attack, and I think the time has come to strengthen the conviction across this country that our kids are not bad. Governor Reagan of California, told me that of 1,300 people who were demonstrators at a college of 82,000, there were only 600 of them even students. And we have had a little problem at the University of Arizona the other day, not a big problem. As you know, there is a strong feeling by the blacks against the Mormon Church, and we play Brigham Young and some blacks protested, and it got a little rough.

Well, it turned out that the majority of them were not students, on both sides, whites or blacks, but they are the ones that made the front page of the paper, not the young people who are pitching in and trying to help things.

So, I believe that the press and the media, if they are as liberal minded as they seem to be, could very well take this thing on as a cause. This is merely an extension of a basic right that all people have in this country, in my opinion, because they are citizens of the United States.

Senator Cook. Let me ask you, on this business of whether you need a constitutional amendment to provide that one can vote at 18-years-old, Why would those that want a constitutional amendment set a specific age with such an amendment in the Constitution today, when there is no such amendment now?

Senator GOLDWATER. Well, I will speak from my past.

Until the Supreme Court made its decision, I thought the States had not given the Federal Government, under the 10th amendment, the right to determine voter qualifications. Now, it is quite clear to me that in several recent cases the Supreme Court has given us this opportunity. It is quite clear to me that in 1965, we did tell the states that such restrictions could not be applied as to Indians, or to Negroes, and so on. In fact, everybody in some seven States was allowed to vote, whether he could read or write or not. Fundamentally, I would think better of a constitutional amendment. But to me, that has been decided by the Supreme Court, until we legislate otherwise or the Court reverses its decision. That is the rule of the game.

Senator Cook. I think you have brought out a very interesting point in your statement, because when women's suffrage went into existence, it did not go into existence for national elections alone, but when the poll tax went into existence, the 24th amendment, it did cover Federal elections alone. A very interesting point in your statement, was United States v. Texas, in 1966, when the Court sustained the power of Congress to prohibit the use of poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in State elections. Although the Court recognized that the poll tax system in Texas had the important function of serving as "a substitute for a registration system," it held that payment of the tax as a precondition to voting must fall, because it restricted "one of the fundamental rights included within the concepts of liberty."

In essence, the Court was saying, since Congress had passed a Statute pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment that it was not necessary for the Congress of the United States to adopt the 24th amendment, and it was not necessary for the required number of States to adopt it, because they ruled in 1956 that although the 24th amendment dealt exclusively with Federal elections Congress could have acted pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment to prohibit poll taxes in all elections. I think this is very interesting in the point that we are trying to develop, and this is that nowhere in the Constitution does it say "21."

Senator GOLDWATER. That is right.

Senator Cook. Nowhere does it say any age. Many States have 21, one has 20, one has 19, and two have 18. So, the only point is: Are we the one to lead or are we going to be led by the constitutional restrictions in a number of States, because of past history? I want to close with this, because I think Senator Fong brought this out:

He said: "Do you think we ought to pursue this even though we have the records from many States that they do not want it?" Well, I do not want the young people to get concerned that we may not do this because some States do not want it, because I would suggest that a majority of the Members of the Congress and a majority of the Members of the Senate voted sometime ago to impose a 10 percent surtax, and they voted to continue it, and I do not think there was anybody in the respective 50 States that wanted it done. So, I can only say to you that I do not think we should put this on the basis of the fact that because a State has turned it down that, therefore, I have a mandate to vote against what you think really is logical, and that is that the 18- and the 19- and the 20year-olds are a viable and absolutely important part of this society today, and have a tremendous amount to contribute and should contribute it.

I want to thank you very much for your statement.
Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you.

I might say that when we got the Volstead Act-and I cannot remember, I was quite young at the time, but I cannot remember my father being enthusiastic about it, nor any of the visitors that came to the house, and we finally had to repeal it.

I will close with this: Let us give it a try, and let us pass your bill, and this will give the States a chance to have it heard before the courts. I think it is very wise that your bill be introduced. I do not like the idea of trying to tack it onto the voting rights bill. We have not really had sufficient testimony on it, and I would hope that your bill will receive thorough consideration by this subcommittee and by the full Committee on the Judiciary. I want to thank you again, gentlemen, for allowing me to be with you. It has been a real pleasant experience.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Senator. We appreciate the contributions you have made.

Our next witnesses are Mr. James Brown, Jr., the national youth director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Miss Philomena Queens, the youth regional chairman

of the Middle Atlantic Region of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. We appreciate very much both of you coming, and letting us have the benefit of your thoughts.

Mr. Brown, I know, has been particularly active and has tremendous appreciation of the feelings and the concerns of young people today, and I think it most appropriate that both of you take the time to share these thoughts with us for our record.

STATEMENT OF JAMES BROWN, JR., NATIONAL YOUTH DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, AND MISS PHILOMENA QUEEN, YOUTH REGIONAL CHAIRMAN, MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very kindly, sir.

Senator Cook. Mr. Chairman, before they begin, may I say that I do plan to make a speech on the floor at noon on this subject, and if I have to get up and leave I want you to know and to please excuse me, but it is for the purposes for which we are here, and I am going to move my form, at least, over to the floor of the Senate at 12 o'clock.

So, I did not want to get up and walk out on you.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very kindly.

Senator Bayh and honorable members of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify before you this morning in favor of Federal action to lower the voting age to 18.

I come to you this morning representing the Nation's oldest, largest and most effective civil rights organization, the NAACP. Especially do I represent its youth and college division where I serve as national director and which has a national membership of more than 67,000 young Americans, many of whom are between the ages of 18 and 21, and are, therefore, needlessly disenfranchised save those who reside in the States of Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska, and Hawaii, in which the voting age has been lowered already.

The NAACP has a long and glorious history of seeking to redress grievances of the blacks, the poor, the downtrodden, and the "victims" of unfair and illegal actions and deeds.

The disenfranchisement of approximately 10 million young Americans deserves, warrants and demands the attention of the NAACP. We can find no moral, legal, or political reason to justify keeping these young people on the outside of the decisionmaking arena of this country.

In a statement released March 12, 1969, our executive director, Roy Wilkins, made the following observation:

Any sound expansion of the electorate is to be welcomed. Throughout its 60year history, the NAACP has consistently worked for expansion of the vote. Early in this century we campaigned in behalf of women's suffrage. Our efforts to eliminate barriers to voting by Negro citizens and the propertyless are even more well known.

There is no evidence that the age 21 automatically confers electoral wisdom upon an individual. Young people 18 years of age now have virtually full legal liability in all of the States. They assume the major responsibilities in life

and death in combat with our Armed Forces. It is difficult to see how in all justice they can be denied their manifest wish to join in settling the burning issues of the day at the ballot box.

Perhaps aside from the moral argument, the soundest offering I could present to this distinguished committee this morning would be the intellectual argument that today more than 80 percent of the 10 million plus young Americans between the ages of 18 and 21 have completed high school, with 40 or 45 percent of these continuing their educational growth at the college level.

President Richard M. Nixon on May 6, 1968, made the following statement:

It's not because they are old enough to fight but because they are intelligent enough to cast an informed ballot. The new generation is far more educated and knowledgeable than its predecessor *** I strongly favor extension of the franchise to 18-year-olds.

Certainly, the educational attainment of today's 18-year-olds, coupled with involvement and desire, must equal their right to full participation in our democracy.

I need not remind this committee, I am sure, of the many legal responsibilities-most of which were unsought, I might add-that are accorded to 18-year-olds in America.

In most States, 18-year-olds are held legally responsible for purposes of contracts and before the courts of law. Young Americans are taxed like other Americans and, therefore, contribute significantly to the economy of this country yet youthful Americans unlike most other Americans are denied their right to participate in decisionmaking as it pertains to electing the leaders of our great country and deciding issues. The cry of "taxation without representation" continues to have a voice in this country. For indeed, young Americans between 18 and 21 years are taxed without having the opportunity of helping decide who their representatives in our Government will be.

Again, I would like to reiterate my earlier contention:

"We, in the NAACP, can find no logical, moral, legal or political reason to justify the continued denial of the ballot to 18-year-olds." Lastly, I would like to call to the attention of this committee the rampant frustration that is prevalent among young people today and what I consider the chief reason for the same. Young Americans are no longer willing to sit on the sidelines while the events affecting "their destiny are being played on the field." Youth has said in a resounding voice, they are going to help shape their own destiny as well as that of their country.

To further emphasize this point, this past April, the NAACP sponsored a National Youth Mobilization Conference to seek to have the voting age lowered to 18. Our conference was headquartered here in the Nation's Capital and attracted more than 3,000 youth, both black and white, representing some 40 organizations and 33 States including the District of Columbia.

For 2 days, the 21st and 22d of April, these youth heard speakers pledge their support including your distinguished chairman, Senator Bayh, as well as lobbied on a face-to-face basis with their representatives here in Congress to make their wishes on the question of "Vote-18" known.

The only question that remains to be answered is: What tools of expression adult America is going to give its youth? The ballot is without question the most potent manner of expression in our democracy. Youth knows this and wants that voice. And we, in the NAACP, admit they should have it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

Why don't we ask Miss Queen if she will give us her statement, and then if we have time I would like to ask you some questions, and I am sure other members of the panel will also.

Miss QUEEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.

I am Philomena Queen, youth regional chairman, Middle Atlantic Region of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and one who has yet to reach the age of 21.

It is my distinct pleasure to have this opportunity to appear before you to exercise the democratic process in seeking to bring swift and equitable redress to a grave injustice.

Like the overwhelming majority of young people between the ages of 18 and 21 and many millions of citizens over the age of 21, I strongly feel that the precision and sacred right to vote should be extended to include young citizens who have reached the age of 18, and I respectfully urge the immediate and favorable recommendation from this committee, that the voting age in Federal, State, and local elections be lowered to age 18.

I recognize and respect the honest opinions of those who feel that age 21 should remain as the magic number to give young citizens the opportunity to effectively participate in the politics of American life and, in effect, help determine our own destiny. I know that it seems revolutionary to some that the voting age should be lowered, but I submit to you that these same feelings existed during the years when women, age 21 and over, were denied the right to vote.

There are many philosophical and factual reasons to be presented in support of lowering the voting age, however, the most simple reasons are that we the voteless minority of this country are intelligent, interested, sensitive to the issues of our society, and have earned the right to be included. There is no justifiable reason for keeping us shut out.

We see in our society wrongs which we want to make right; we see imperfections that we want to make perfect; we dream of things that should be done but are not; we dream of things that have never been done, and we wonder why not. And most of all, we view all of these as conditions that we want to change, but cannot. You have disarmed us of the most constructive and potent weapon of a democratic system-the vote.

I want to share with you some specific reasons in support of lowering the voting age to 18.

1. Age 21 is both arbitrary and hypercritical. Establishing age 21 is arbitrary in that it is not based on any educational or scientific fact. There never, to my knowledge, has been any evidence to support any conclusions that age 21 confers instant electoral wisdom on a voter; nor to the contrary, that all under age 21 are victimized with automatic electoral imprudence.