STATEMENT OF HON. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate once again the courtesy of this committee on affording me the opportunity of testifying on the several resolutions pending before the committee to amend the Constitution relative to the election of the President and Vice President.

This committee is well aware of the fact that I introduced resolutions in the 89th and 90th Congresses similar to Senate Joint Resolution 4 which I introduced in this, the 91st Congress, since I testified before the committee on February 28, 1966 and on July 12, 1967.

I feel very strongly that reform of the present system is greatly needed and I endorse the sentiments expressed by President Johnson in his special message to the Congress on January 20, 1966, that there is a great need to reform the electoral college system, although, in my humble judgment, the President's recommendations did not go nearly far enough. To a degree, I also endorse the proposal of President Nixon as presented in his message to the Congress on February 20, 1969, in that he made it clear that he believes that both the proportional and district election plans are preferable to the popular election plan.

A change in the constitutional method of selecting a President and Vice President is long overdue. In an era of tension and the possibility of nuclear warfare we cannot for a moment again consider the possibility of a deadlock among the candidates for President and Vice President such as could have resulted in the past election, leaving a vacuum in national leadership and the possibility of not having a President or Vice President for an indefinite period. We cannot for a moment permit such a situation to occur in the election to the most important leadership in the world.

I strongly feel the electoral vote of a State should not be arbitrarily counted as a whole in favor of the candidate for President or Vice President who receives, in that State, the highest number of individual votes. This method of selection, the winner-take-all system, successfully disenfranchises millions of U.S. citizens and denies them the right to have their votes weighed and counted in the choice of President and Vice President.

The present system of electing the President and Vice President is governed by article II, section I and the 12th amendment to the Constitution and is still unchanged by the addition of the 23d amendment adding the District of Columbia electors. These sections provide that the President and Vice President shall be chosen by electors appointed by each State in a manner directed by its legislature, each State having the same number of electors as the total number of its Members of Congress in both Houses.

This system was agreed upon by the writers of our Constitution for two basic reasons: first, the electors should actually choose the President and Vice President because of their greater knowledge of public affairs than the populate as a whole had at that time and second, in order to protect the smaller States, each State should have two electors representing its Senators, based on its status as a State, in addition to the number of electors, representing its members in the House of Representatives, based on its population.

In this day of much better communications and much greater understanding of public affairs by the average citizen there is no further reason or justification for continuing the presidential electors as such or the electoral college. Under present conditions it is much sounder to let the voters themselves express their preference for President and Vice President in a binding way rather than to delegate their power of election to other individuals.

However it is interesting to note that the same reasons that existed at the time of the adoption of the constitution in 1788 and at the time of the adoption of the 12th amendment in 1804 for the fixing of the number of electors of each State on the basis which included all of their representation in the U.S. Congress, that is, both Senators and Representatives, still exist in even greater degree and operate as strong arguments against the abandonment of the constitutional method of fixing the weight of each State in presidential elections. These reasons were and are:

(1) the vast difference in population of the several States; and (2) the zealous retention in the States of many elements of sovereignty.

The census of 1790 which occurred shortly after the adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of our Federal Government in 1789, showed the population of Delaware at 59,096 and of Rhode Island at 68,825. These were the two smallest of the original States. The same census of 1790 showed the population of the two largest States as follows: Virginia, 880,200; and Pennsylvania, 602,365. Assuming that these statistics reflect accurately the relative population of the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it thus appears that Virginia then had more than 14 times the population of Delaware and approximately 13 times the population of Rhode Island. Pennsylvania had more than 10 times the population of Delaware. Practically the same disparity of population is reflected by the census of 1800, taken shortly prior to the adoption of the 12th amendment in 1804, which did not disturb the setup of the electoral college.

By the 1960 U.S. census, the population of the then largest State, New York, was 16,782,304, and the population of the second largest State California, was 15,717,204. These largest States compared with the smallest States as follows: Alaska had 226,167; Nevada had 285,278. Thus New York had more than 70 times the population of Alaska. It is clear that the disparity in population between the largest and smallest State in 1960 was much greater than was the disparity between the largest and smallest State at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and also at the time of the adoption of the 12th amendment in 1804.

Furthermore, I cannot believe that either the Congress or the American people are any less conscious at this time than were the Founding Fathers of the necessity for preserving the full weight of the States as separate, sovereign units of government which have retained and preserved for themselves many elements of their sovereignty and which are entitled now, as they were in the early days of the Republic, to the retention of their two votes in the U.S. Senate and the counting of their two Senators with their Representatives to make up the total number of their electors to whom they are entitled in the selection of the President and Vice President. To put the presidential election

solely on the basis of population or of votes cast in all 50 States and the District of Columbia would be to downgrade very greatly all of the smaller States in the Union, including not only the two smallest States which I have named, Alaska and Nevada, but each of the 32 States whose population is less than the average population of all 50 States, or about 3.6 million persons in 1960.

It will be understood that all of these population statistics are based on the 1960 census necessarily, since that is the last one available.

As just one instance of the terrific impact of popular election of the President and Vice President, and assuming that in all States the votes cast would be approximately in proportion to total population, I call attention to the fact that the District of Columbia-763,956-would by this method be given more weight in a presidential election than Alaska-226,167-and Delaware 446,292-combined, or greater weight than Wyoming-330,066-and Vermont-389,881-combined. The District of Columbia-763,956-would be given greater weight than any of the following 11 States: Alaska, 226,167; Delaware, 446,292; Hawaii, 632,772; Idaho, 667,191; Montana, 674,767; Nevada, 285,278; New Hampshire, 606,921; North Dakota, 632,446; South Dakota, 680,514; Vermont, 389,881; and Wyoming, 330,066.

I was glad to support the 23d amendment by which the District of Columbia was given the same weight as our smallest State in the electoral college for the election of the President and Vice President, but I am not prepared to approve this additional adventure by which the District of Columbia-which does not have any of the duties or responsibilities of sovereign statehood-would be given greater weight than any of the 11 States which I have listed and much greater power in the election of Presidents than is conferred on it now by the 23d amendment. Sometimes in this day of constant pushing for increased centralized, Federal power, we are prone to forget that the States are still sovereign in so many fields and that by their laws they handle so many of the matters which are completely vital to all of their citizens. While the States have lost some of their jurisdiction due to Federal encroachment, the States still retain and administer most of the matters which vitally affect the lives of their average citizens such as the following:

Taxing real and personal property; operating the public schools; keeping vital statistics, such as registration of births and deaths; appointment of guardians for minors and incompetents and handling their estates; ownership and conveyancing of property; providing for the distribution of the estates of deceased persons; providing for the licensing of teachers, doctors, dentists, engineers, lawyers, and other vital professional and business persons and institutions; creating and regulating corporations and trusts; providing for the marriage and divorce of their citizens; handling civil actions and criminal prosecutions; enforcing law and order; taking life as a penalty for certain heinous crimes; providing, through police, firemen, inspectors and sanitary workers, for their security and that of homes and business; providing for the poor house and for hospitals for the insane, the feebleminded and the ill; controlling the highways; regulating the rates of water, power, gas and local transportation and controlling fresh water supplies.

In short, and this is not a full list of the State powers still retained, the States handle most of the important aspects of life for both their

citizens and transients. None of these activities are controlled for itself by the District of Columbia-all by the National Congress. Yet, it is proposed both to give the same weight to the District of Columbia which is given to States according to population and it is also proposed to take away from the small States the equal weight which they were given by the Founding Fathers, and have always had, to represent their State and local interests, not just in the Senate of the United States, but also in the electoral college.

I do not believe that many of the advocates of the direct election. of the President and Vice President have carefully thought the matter through. I do not believe they want to downgrade the States as would be done by the adoption of the proposed direct election amendment. Particularly in the Senate, I cannot believe that the advocates of the direct election of the President and Vice President realize that the proposed action is a direct encouragement to later action toward depriving the States of their equal representation in the Senate. And I realize that that would be very very difficult under the Constitution. We have already seen that the Supreme Court is willing to override ancient, constitutional safeguards when they conflict with its philosophy as to what they feel should be the law in the 20th-century Republic. I am not willing to take this far-reaching step which so completely changes the underlying philosophy of our Republic of dual sovereignty as stated by the Founding Fathers and as practiced with relative success and public approval through 180 years of practical government of our ever-growing and evermore powerful Nation. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note, as shown on the attached table, the great shift in weight of the several States if the election. of the President and Vice President were by popular vote. The large States would be given increased weight and power at the expense of the smaller States as follows:

(a) Under the popular election plan, based on 1960 census figures, and assuming that votes cast would be in proportion to population, 32 States and the District of Columbia would have a smaller voice in the election of the President and Vice President than they have under the electoral college system; five States would retain equal voice, and 13 States would gain a stronger voice.

(6) Under the proposed popular election system, nine States, having 51.5 percent of the population, could control the election.

(c) Under the present electoral system, 11 States, having 50 percent of the total electoral vote, could control the election.

As may be readily seen from the table, the loss in State weight, under the popular election system as opposed to the electoral system, is 83 percent in the case of Alaska; five States would lose over 50 percent of their weight; 10 States would lose over 25 percent of their weight; and 17 States would lose from 4.8 percent of their weight to 25 percent of their weight.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that those Senators from those 32 States who support the popular election plan must have given little thought to the loss of weight of their respective States under the proposal. At this point, I ask that the table referred to be included in my statement as a part thereof.

Senator BAYH. Without objection it is so ordered.

Senator HOLLAND. I say again the figures in this table are based on the 1960 census, which I know is not up to date, but you will never

have population figures up to date but for a very short time, under our present system of decennial census. They will become out of date within a year to some extent, and much more out of date before the next decenníal census.

Mr. Chairman, if one would study the unusual weather phenomena occurring during the period of the month of November that presidential elections occur it could be readily seen how adverse weather conditions could play a part on the fairness of direct elections, and incidentally if the proposals of President Nixon were adopted, we should have a second election coming let us say in December, the chance of disturbance of the weight of many of the States would be even more adversely affected, because the weather conditions in December are even worse in the colder States than they are in November.

A study of the weather conditions would make it completely clear that in the event of nationwide direct election of President and Vice President the people in one or more States might not be given their full weight in comparison to other States of the Nation due to no fault of their own. Of course, adverse weather affects voting in each State, singly, and always has, but the State will still have its full electoral strength and the votes actually cast should be fairly representative of the attitude of the people of the State as a whole.

The district plan, that has been discussed, where two State electoral votes are awarded for each Senator on a statewide basis and one for each separate congressional district in the State, recognizes the Federal system, but it is subject to a marked degree of human and political control and manipulation by those who control the machinery of State government. Besides, the winner-take-all principle would still apply statewide to the two statewide electoral votes and would also apply, in each district, to the district electoral votes. Then, too, there are substantial population shifts and changes that take place between the decennial censuses for which compensation cannot be made. Many who have supported this plan in the past may now have second thoughts in the light of the decisions in the (legislative) apportionment cases which will be discussed later. This plan is still eminently preferable over the present system or that of popular election, in my opinion.

The proportional method of selecting the President and Vice President, which I advocate, is in complete harmony with our constitutional forms. It is precise and not subject to political manipulation or human frailties. It is fair to the States, both small and large, and it gives to each and every qualified elector in a State the right to have his vote counted for his candidate for President and Vice President. I firmly believe that a State should be entitled to electoral votes proportionate to its total representation in Congress.

I further feel that the electoral vote of each State should be divided between candidates in the exact proportion in which the total vote of that State is cast. This is substantially the same plan that was contained in the proposed Lodge-Gossett amendment for which I was proud to cast my vote in 1950 when it was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 64 to 27. I have introduced Senate Joint Resolution 4 which contains this substantial language:

Each person for whom votes were cast for President in each State shall be credited with such portion of the electoral vote thereof as he received of the total vote of the electors therein for President and each person for whom votes