March 10, 1969 Holland, Hon. Spessard L., U.S. Senator from the State of Florida. Bingham, Hon. Jonathan B., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of New York. Rankin, Miss Jeanette, a former Representative in Congress from the State of Montana. March 11, 1969 Yarborough, Hon. Ralph, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. Goodell, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of New York. March 12, 1969 Schweiker, Hon. Richard S., U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania. Mundt, Hon. Karl E., U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota. O'Hara, Hon. James G., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan. March 13, 1969 Tyler, Mr. Gus, assistant president of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, accompanied by David I. Wells. Young, Mr. J. Banks, Washington Representative, National Cotton Council, accompanied by Albert R. Russell, administrative vice president. Shull, Mr. Leon, national representative, Americans for Democratic Action, accompanied by Verlin Nelson, legal representative. Kirby, Mr. James C. Jr., professor of law at New York University, accompanied by John A Gosnell, secretary and general counsel, National Small Business Association, Washington, D.C. March 20, 1969 Biemiller, Mr. Andrew J., director, department of legislation, AFL-CIO, accompanied by Thomas E. Harris, associate general counsel. Scammon, Mr. Richard, director, Elections Research Center, Washington, D.C. March 21, 1969 Bellmon, Hon. Henry, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma. Muskie, Hon. Edmund, U.S. Senator from the State of Maine. Kleindienst, Hon. Richard G., Deputy Attorney General of the United States. April 30, 1969 Wylie, Hon. Chalmers, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio. Speiser, Mr. Lawrence, American Civil Liberties Union. Shoemaker, Prof. Robert, North Central College, Naperville, Ill. May 1, 1969 Lance, Hon. Wesely, New Jersey State Senator and president of the 1968 New Jersey Electoral College. Jewell, Prof. Malcolm, Political Science Department, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky. Lowenstein, Hon. Allard K., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of New York. Penniman, Prof. Howard, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. May 2, 1969 Burlison, Hon. Bill D., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri. Cordova, Hon. Jorge L., Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, accompanied by Hon. Ron de Lugo, elected Representative of the Virgin Islands to Washington, D.C. Burdick, Hon. Quentin, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota. Wekselman, Mr. I. Martin, American Jewish Congress. Fleming. Mr. Roger, secretary-treasurer and director, Washington office of the American Farm Bureau Federation, accompanied by Fred Poole and Kit Haynes, counsel. "Election Contests and the Electoral Vote," L. Kinvin Wroth, Dickinson Law Review, June 1961... 801 Katzenbach, Attorney General, et al. v. Morgan. "One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College," John F. Banzhaf III, Villanova Law Review, Volume 13, Winter 1968-Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service: 834 Graphs: Comparative results of presidential elections under present and 877 Contingent election of the President and Vice President; number 878 Tables: Comparative results of presidential elections under present and 880 Contingent election of the President and Vice President by the 892 Party division of each State delegation in the Congress for se- 895 Staff memorandum to the Chairman on State Residency Requirements for voting in Presidential elections___ 904 Staff memorandum to the Chairman on Voting Rights of Americans Living 904 (VIII) ELECTING THE PRESIDENT THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1969 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m. in room G-308, New Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh, presiding. Present: Senators Bayh and Thurmond. Also present: Larry A. Conrad, chief counsel; Clyde Flynn, minority counsel, Burnadette McGorarty, clerk, and Diane Meyer, assistant clerk. Senator BAYH. Our subcommittee meeting will come to order. I appreciate the fact that our distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, is with us this morning. I have suggested, and he has agreed, that because of the very pressing schedule of our colleague from Colorado, Senator Dominick, we permit Senator Dominick to go first. We will then follow with our opening statements. So, Senator Dominick, we appricate your being here. We are anxious to hear what you have to say. STATEMENT OF HON. PETER H. DOMINICK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman and Senator Thurmond, I am delighted to be here. I really appreciate your affording me this privilege and opportunity. I particularly appreciate you letting me go right away. As I said, we have hearings this morning before the Armed Services Committee on the various services secretaries. That is why I have to move so rapidly. Mr. Chairman, the recent election has, as we all know, raised more strongly than ever the general demands for reform of our electoral system and the manner of selection of the highest executive office in this land has come under severe criticism from broad elements across the Nation. The interest in my State of Colorado is great, and I would like to express some of my views to the subcommittee as I see the relationship of the smaller Western States to this problem and particularly the relationship of Colorado. As the committee is probably aware, I am a cosponsor of both Senator Mundt's district plan and Senator Ervin's and Senator Sparkman's proportional plan. I am strongly opposed to complete abolition of the electoral system at this point in our Nation's history, but I do favor revisions in the system. There is no clear indication that abolition of the system is necessary in order to correct the primary objections. In fact, if I may say so, it is a little bit like cutting your head off to cure appendicitis. I don't think it cures the problem at all, and it may result in the death of the Republic. Any plan calling for direct popular election is fraught with difficulties which may prevent its ratification by three-fourths of the States. Certain reforms are clearly necessary such as the problem of the "faithless elector" and the contingent election of a President and Vice President by the separate Houses of Congress. The unit rule of casting electoral votes should also come under intensive scrutiny by this subcommittee, as I am confident it will. But I desire to point out to the subcommittee at the outset my basic objection to any plan adopting a direct popular vote. Such a plan will give the Federal City complex, not only a tremendous boost but even greater influence and control of the election. of the President and Vice President and it would reduce substantially the influence of the smaller States. The present system is weighted in favor of the large industrial States already and particularly the major seven States of California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and Michigan. The direct popular vote would give greater influence to the major urban cities in those and other States. Such influence would attract those interested largely in power. Certain of those cities now are, or have been in the past, controlled by city "bosses" who pledge to "deliver" the vote for candidates of their choice and who in many cases have the machinery to do so. Tammany Hall still exists though such men as Carmen de Sapio are gone from those halls. Mayor Daley has been under sharp attack for the control he has on Chicago and the problems he has there. We all know of the machine that Mr. Pendergast has had in Kansas City, and there are others that come to mind. Obviously in any Federal City complex the influence of these people would be sharply enlarged. This contingency is a serious threat to the smaller States as many do not have total population even equal to that of one of the major cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago or New York. Because of the demands on a major candidate's time, and the expense of a national campaign, these smaller States not only may not see or hear the major candidate, but also television and press coverage may be more limited. Millions were spent on the presidential campaign in 1968 and much more will have to be spent in a direct popular election, because the key to any direct popular vote plan is a fully informed electroate. The best medium for this is probably television, and such time, as we well know, is very expensive. I might say, the chairman and I, just having been in a tough campaign in our States, know already what the cost of this is. Campaign expenses must be dealt with extensively to make any such plan fair and representative. Each of us as Members of Congress must proceed with great caution not to upset drastically the balance of influence between the smaller States and the large urban centers. The direct popular vote plan with its increased influence through a Federal-city complex cannot, at this point in our history, maintain the delicate checks and balances between the States, regardless of size. This is not a State sovereignty versus Federal Government problem, but a shift of influence from the State |