網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I must say in all frankness that I do believe that in national elections it is both proper and equitable that some national qualifications be enacted along with the adoption of direct election of our President. For example, I am firmly committed to the reduction of the voting age to age 18. Not only is it unfair that today's active and educated young Americans should have no voice in the future of their country, it is also true that the country will benefit from their participation.

I further believe that immediate provision must be made in our national laws to permit the transient voter to vote in national elections. In today's highly mobile society many qualified Americans are denied the right to vote for the Presidency and Vice Presidency because of residency requirements. This is a patently unjust impediment, and it must be removed.

Another badly needed reform in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, is provision for 24-hour voting coordinated between time zones of the United States. In other words, polling places should be open for a full 24-hour period, and that period should begin and end at the same Greenwich mean time across the Nation. Such a provision would have two salutary effects: It would make voting a great deal easier for many Americans who now find polling hours inconvenient or impossible to meet, and it would also eliminate the bothersome question of whether early returns from eastern States and network computer predictions influence voting patterns in the West where polls are still open.

I recall, Mr. Chairman, if I may allude to my own electoral experience in 1966, that one of the networks projected my race and my election at 6:25 eastern standard time when the polls in the eastern part of my State would not close for another hour and 35 minutes, and the polls in the western part of my State would not close for about 2 hours and 35 minutes.

Senator BAYH. Would the Senator yield. Is this a.m. or p.m.?

Senator BAKER. Well, this under the present law, Mr. Chairman, was p.m., but I must say that if the 24-hour voting plan were adopted, that it would be eliminated entirely, although you'd still be able to vote at 6:25 a.m.

Senator BAYH. The reason I asked the question is that one network had not predicted me the winner this year until after 6:25 a.m. the following morning.

Senator BAKER. And while the chairman and I are of opposite political persuasion on some issues, not all, but of opposite political parties, I must confess that I was awake and watching at that moment.

Senator BAYH. I salute you for your 24-hour suggestion. It is a belief that I have had for some time. It seems to deal with this basic national problem. It is even more pronounced when you are talking about three or four time zones or with the two that are a great source of inconvenience in both of our States that have differing times on election day. Senator BAKER. Of course, Mr. Chairman, the even greater disparity in times when we consider the States of Alaska and Hawaii.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one further point, if I may. Closely connected to the question of reform of the electoral college system is the intelligent controversy over the proper role and function of the presidential preferential primary election. Thoughtful proposals

have been made by men of good will for nationwide presidential primaries. I myself would prefer a system of 50-State preferential primaries. I would prefer to see each of the States determine according to its own judgment, its own light and its own circumstances how best to permit the people of that State to express their preference of a presidential nominee for either or both of our two great national political parties.

Such a system of State primaries in which each candidate for the presidency might enter as an individual and in which delegates to the national nominating conventions would be directly elected by the rank-and-file, the people themselves-would have several advantages over a single national primary, in my view. It would reinforce rather than weaken the essentially federal nature of our government. It would greatly strengthen party structures in each of the States. It would involve many more citizens in the vitally important work of partisan political activity, and provide clear and unequivocal indicators of a given candidate's merit and of his ability to move the people. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the unrest and the disquiet which abounds in this country, mirrored and reflected in many ways, including violence and disorder, at the convention of our national parties, at the inaugural process just recently, in our cities and throughout this land, could be attenuated, relieved and alleviated substantially if we could provide in a constructive way for the more direct involvement of more people, especially young people, not only just in the elective process but in the party political process as with the election of the delegates to the national conventions of our two parties.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I do not favor replacing the cumbersome electoral machinery that has served reasonably well this Republic with the form or the substance of change which would not serve equally well. I am confident, however, that the direct election of the President of the United States will not have a disruptive effect. I am convinced that it will improve the quality of government, the involvement of our citizenry and enhance the prospects for the future of this Nation.

I am hopeful that this subcommittee and this Congress will act affirmatively in these fields.

Senator BAYH. Well, I appreciate very much, Senator Baker, your taking time to be with us. I would like to pursue this further with you, but we have been advised that Senator Thurmond is going to object to our proceeding much further inasmuch as we are now in session, and so I hope that we can continue this colloquy on the floor of the Senate when hopefully a measure will be presented within which we can shore up the weaknesses which exist in our present system.

Senator BAKER. Well, may I again commend the chairman for his perseverance and diligence in conducting these hearings and join with him in hoping we do have affirmative action.

Senator BAYH. I am looking forward to working with you.
Senator BAKER. Thank you, sir.

Senator BAYH. Before closing I would like to introduce in the record a statement of Senator Edmund Muskie. Senator Muskie had intended to be here at this time but was called to Maine and thus is not able to be present.

I will just read six or seven sentences in which he says:

A replacement for the present system should meet several tests. First, there should be no intermediaries who might be "useless if faithful, dangerous if not." Second, the new system should recognize the President as the leader of one nation. It should acknowledge the equal right of all Amercians to elect him without respect to their place of residence.

I feel the Senator from Tennessee hit on a critical election inequality which presently exists in pointing out the fact that many people are disfranchised because of certain residence requirements, many of them out of the country, in fact, and yet being citizens of this country. Finally, Senator Muskie suggests that "The new systematic eliminator or dissolution of a vote once it has been cast" and I feel that these are three points well taken. I submit the whole statement. (Senator Muskie's statement follows:)

Hon. BIRCH BAYH,

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,
Washington, D.C., January 22, 1969.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR BIRCH: I am enclosing a statement in support of S.J. Res. 1 which I should like to submit to the Subcommitee on Constitutional Amendments in lieu of my appearance during your current hearings on electoral reform.

I had hoped very much to appear in person to testify in support of this measure, as I consider electoral reform one of the most urgent issues this Congress will consider. However, previous commitments make it impossible for me to appear. Thank you for your cooperation.

With all best wishes, I am

Sincerely,

EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

U.S. Senator.

Enclosure.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, JANUARY 23, 1969 Mr. Chairman, the important question that each society must answer, Alexander Hamilton wrote, is "Whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force."

No serious man would term the American people "incapable" of making such a choice, yet because of an outmoded, undemocratic, and haphazard system of electing our President, we are insulated from a direct voice in the selection of our President.

According to Edward S. Corwin, we continue to rely "on the intervention of that providence which is said to have fools and the American people in its special care." We do depend on "accident and force."

Earlier this month, Congressman James O'Hara of Michigan and I attempted to remove one element of accident and force from the electoral college system by challenging the vote of Dr. Lloyd Bailey, the faithless elector from North Carolina. The failure of that attempt and the implications of Congress' decision for the future makes the effort to replace the electoral college by constitutional amendment all the more urgent.

The decision to sustain Dr. Bailey's action meant a further dilution of a tradition that was almost unchallenged until 1948-the tradition that electors on a party slate shall honor their party's candidate for President. There were many who felt that this commitment was binding in North Carolina because of that State's ballot law and that it should have been affirmed by Congress.

The action of Dr. Bailey in 1968 was the effort of a single elector to thwart the will of the people of his State. In 1960, however, the same gambit was tried on a much larger scale through the efforts of Mr. Lea Harris of Montgomery, Ala., and Mr. Henry Irwin, a Republican elector from the State of Oklahoma. Following the presidential election of that year, Messrs. Irwin and Harris circularized the Democratic electors of several Southern States and the Republican electors

of several Northern States in an attempt to persuade them to withhold their votes from John Kennedy or Richard Nixon in order to exact from Kennedy promises of policies acceptable to this particular group, or, if sufficient strength was mustered, to elect another man of their own choosing.

Irwin and Harris could find no other electors willing to follow their lead, so only Irwin became a "faithless elector," casting his vote for Harry F. Byrd and Barry Goldwater. The two men circulated a memorandum following their failure in which they state: "We have a sizable list of well-wishers. . . . Enough that if only a portion of them will get busy and start making their plans to become electors 4 years from now, we can definitely control the policies of the Government in 1964. . . . Or appoint the President that year Just know the right people so that you may be selected in whichever way your State selects its electors."

Although this effort failed, and although the faithless electors of 1969 and 1968 did not change the final outcome of the clection, there is no question that a better organized effort or a closer margin in the electoral college could render the will of the people meaningless.

In fact, the anachronism of the electoral college accords a well-organized third party a disproportionate potential power. Had the margin in the electoral vote totals in the 1968 election produced a deadlock, with no candidate receiving a majority, the third party electors could have effectively eliminated the power of the voters to make a choice by voting for one of the major candidates in the electoral college.

Surely the American voter deserves a better chance to influence the outcome of the election.

A second fault with the electoral college is that it does not recognize the character of the office of the Presidency. Many of the proponents of preserving our current system of electing a President claim that it is designed to preserve the integrity and influence of the States in our federal system, especially the larger States. They say that as a method of election and representation, it is a necessary part of the compromise which includes the States' representation in the House and the Senate.

If this Nation had developed as the framers of the Constitution had envisioned-with most of the powers of Government reserved to the States and very few left to the Federal executive, and if there were uniform voting procedures within the electoral college system among the separate States, such claims might be legitimate. But this is not the case.

The President represents all the people of this country equally and at once, and his powers respect no differences among or borders between the States. He seeks and derives his support from the Nation as a whole, not from one State at a time. In light of the characteristics of this Nation and the nature of the Presidency, any effort to correct inequities in the distribution of power in the election of the Congress by perpetuating an inadequate and unfair method of electing the Executive causes much more harm than good and ignores the character of the Office.

In fact, in working together as national organizations for the election of a President, our political parties have been aware of the realities of the office to which our laws have been blind-that is, that the President is the leader of the Nation rather than of the separate States.

Nevertheless, the efforts of the political parties notwithstanding, thousands and millions of our voters are effectively disenfranchised every 4 years. Those voters in each State who do not vote for the candidate who carries that particular State find that their votes do not count. A faithless elector dilutes the power of only the majority or the plurality of a State's voters. The rest of them have already lost their franchise.

Advocates of increased participation in our political system are only indulging in empty phrases if the basic right to cast an effective vote does not exist. As long as we are saddled with an electoral system which reinforces one-party States, which rewards appeals to States instead of voters, and which discourages the exercise of the right to vote, political participation is meaningless to the individual voter unless he happens to be on the winning side.

A method of electing a President which tends to preserve division, which varies the weight of a vote from State to State, and which twice threatens the right to cast an effective ballot is an anachronism in a democratic society. We must do better.

A replacement for the present system should meet several tests. First, there should be no intermediaries who might be "useless if faithful, dangerous if not."

Second, the new system should recognize the President as the leader of one nation. It should acknowledge the equal right of all Americans to elect him without respect to their place of residence.

Finally, the new system must not incorporate any systematic elimination or dilution of a vote once it has been cast.

In other words, we must amend the Constitution to provide for the most direct, effective, and foolproof possible means of electing a President.

By eliminating the elector, we can meet the first standard, and the second can be met by providing for uniform voting procedures. But only through the direct popular election of the President can we insure that all votes count equally, and that each citizen can cast his ballot without questioning its effectiveness. Any other "reform" of the electoral process will be a facade.

In Wesberry v. Sanders (376 U.S. 1), the Supreme Court expressed its concern about the franchise: "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right."

Through the growth and the change of our Nation and the custom of our political practice, one article of our Constitution-that which prescribes the manner in which we shall elect our President-has fallen into conflict with the ideals and the provisions of the rest of that document. If we fail in our duty to correct that basic conflict through amendment, we have compromised all that the Constitution represents.

I hope Congress will approve Senate Joint Resolution 1 and refer the proposed amendment to the States as soon as possible.

Senator BAYH. And I would like to advise those present that we will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock to hear Senator Church, Senator Moss, and Dr. Lloyd Bailey, the presidential elector from North Carolina who was the subject of some considerable discussion in both Houses of Congress; Mr. Ted Sorenson, a former special counsel of President Kennedy, and Dr. Otis Shal and Mr. Dennis Warren in behalf of the national campaign to "Let Us Vote."

They will be testifying. Again, Senator Baker, we appreciate very much your taking time to be with us.

Senator BAKER. Thank you, sir.

(Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, January 24, 1969.)

« 上一頁繼續 »