The Missouri constitution provides for apportionment and reapportionment of the Missouri Senate on a basis of population. The reapportionment after each census is performed by a 10-member bipartisan commission appointed by the Governor from lists submitted by the two major parties. Yet the Missouri House of Representatives according to the present majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is unconstitutional.

The people of our State have wanted all sections of a very diverse State to have representation in the State legislature in accordance with the democratic, historic traditions of the State and this country. The only practical method of giving adequate representation to the many diverse interests in all sections of the State is to guarantee each county at least one representative, as Missouri always has since its admission into the Union. But, Missouri has 114 counties plus the city of St. Louis. The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that a system of guaranteeing each county at least one representative in a State with a large number of counties is, in its opinion, not constitutional.

Historically the basic unit for representation in the government of Missouri has been the county. The organic laws of the territory of Missouri enacted by the Congress of the United States of America on June 4, 1812, provided that the governor of the territory should cause to be elected 13 representatives and that those representatives were to come from counties laid off in that part of the territory to which the Indian title had been extinguished. That act was altered by an act of Congress passed on April 29, 1816, which provided that the repre sentatives to the General Assembly of Missouri were to be apportioned one from each county in said territory.

On March 6, 1820, the Congress of the United States passed an enabling act authorizing the people of the Missouri territory to form a constitution and State government and providing for the admission of such State into the Union on equal footing with the original States

This act provided that the representatives to form a convention were to be elected upon a county basis with at least one representative from each of the then existing counties. The first constitution, the constitu tion of 1820 of the State of Missouri, provided that each county must have at least one representative in the house of representatives.

The constitution of 1865 also provided that the basic unit for representation in the house of representatives was to be the county, with each county having at least one representative.

The counties, which are of separate classes, have a great degree of local autonomy, each having its own court, clerk, assessor, collector treasurer and sheriff, as well as other county officials.

Now then I should like to show you what the Supreme Court deci sion does to Missouri-a State which, to repeat myself, is one which constitution experts have pointed to as having a model legislative reapportionment system.

The Missouri State Chamber of Commerce in a 1964 bulletin to its members explained that if, in complying with the U.S. Supreme Court decree that both houses of a State legislature must be based on popula tion, the Missouri House were to be kept at its present size (163) county would need to have a population of at least 28,000 to continue to be entitled to a representative of its own-as Missouri counties have always be throughout the history of the State.

The white counties shown on the map below are those with a population of 28,000 or more. It will be observed that 89 out of Missouri's 114 counties would not, under the Supreme Court decisions, be entitled to a representative of their own.

Because of the problem we face as illustrated by this map, both houses of the Missouri Legislature have passed a resolution requesting Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution dealing with the problems of apportioning State legislatures.

I, therefore, appear here and speak on behalf of the people of the State of Missouri. We favor and strongly urge that Congress propose a constitutional amendment, preferably S.J. Res. No. 2.

As of a day or two ago both houses of the legislature in 19 other States, and 1 house of the legislature in 8 additional States, have passed an identical resolution petitioning Congress to call a constitutional convention for this purpose.

Accordingly, I believe that what I wish to say today probably reflects what the citizens in roughly half of the States would say to you If they were privileged, as am I, to appear before this committee. And I might add unless Congress has passed a resolution calling for a constitutional convention by May of this year, that it may well be hat the citizens in 34 States will be asking you to call a constitutional. Nonvention.

Unfortunately, despite the large number of people who are deeply concerned with the implications of the Supreme Court's decisions with respect to the basis on which citizens should be elected to public office, there are still too few who have as yet learned the extent to which they are in the process of being denied the opportunity to have their nterests fairly represented when legislative proposals are considered and acted upon in their State capitols.

It is the hope of many of us that these hearings will provide the eans for millions of citizens to learn of the extent to which they are ing denied the right to fair representation in their government. And it is our hope that when they do learn the facts they will make eir views known to you gentlemen in Congress, in great volume, and in no uncertain terms.

I wish to make it clear that I have no desire to contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has invaded an area which has been reserved, under ur Constitution, to the States. Nor do I wish to contend that the Court has not properly interpreted the intent of the Constitution.

What I do contend is this: I contend that this issue transcends, in portance, almost every other constitutional question which our couny has thus far faced. This issue goes to the very root of the whole cept of representative government. If this root is to be destroyed, e government plant may still flourish but not the Nation. I therere also contend-and contend most strongly-that the Congress of United States has a duty and a solemn obligation to give the citins of the country an opportunity to express their views on this issue the ballot box. It is impossible to see how you can do less. For the life of me I simply cannot understand why any man who lieves in representative government would not be eager to vote for J. Res. No. 2. All this resolution proposes to do, as I read it, is to ve to the voters of this country the right to decide for themselves

P

whether or not one house of their State legislature should be estal lished on a basis of giving reasonable weight to factors other than population.

The Founding Fathers gave us the ballot box not as a symbol of government-but as a tool. It was intended to be used as a means of resolving differences of opinion. And certainly it was intended the it be used in connection with any issue which even begins to approach the magnitude of importance of this one.

I should like to remind you-but more particularly the Nation that to accomplish what this resolution proposes to do it must be ap proved by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate; by two-thirds of the Men bers of the U.S. House of Representatives; by the majority of both houses of the legislatures of 38 States; and finally by the majority the voters in any State which might wish to give fair representatio in one house of its legislature to a broad range of minority interests. This procedure assures that the great majority of the citizens this country have to be in favor of giving fair representation to a bro range of minority interests in one house of their State legislature, or this proposed amendment cannot become effective.

This being so, I should like to ask what the opponents of this resolution are afraid of. What sound reason can they advance for their opposition? Are they fearful that the overwhelming majority of cit izens actually do favor such an amendment to the Constitution?

Perhaps the experiences we have had in Missouri, which have been duplicated in California, in Colorado, and possibly in a number other States-where the citizens of the State have had an opportunit to vote on the question of how one house of their legislature shoul be established-explain the fears of some of the opponents of S.J. R No. 2.

The people of Missouri on three different occasions, in recent years have voted their approval of the present legislative district and re apportionment system.

The first such vote took place on November 7, 1944, when the peop of Missouri voted on the proposition of the creation and adoption a unicameral legislature. This proposition was proposed by the ir tiative process "independent of the legislative assembly" under the provision of section 57 of article 4 of the Constitution of 1875. Th proposition failed to carry. The vote was 401,900 against and 364,7 for.

The second vote in the last 20 years was on February 27, 1945; the the people of Missouri voted on the proposition of whether or not to adopt the constitution of 1945 of the State of Missouri, including the present provisions on legislative reapportionment. That proposition and the constitution were adopted by a vote of 312,032 for and 185,65 against. The fact is that in 1945 the voters of the city of St. Lou and the other urban areas of the State adopted the constitution of 194 including the present reapportionment provisions against a over the vote and protest of the voters in the rural counties and se tions of the State.

Then on November 6, 1962, in accordance with a provision in the Missouri constitution automatically submitting to vote every 20 yea the question of whether or not there shall be a State constitutiona convention, the voters of Missouri rejected the calling of a constitu

tional convention by the overwhelming vote of 519,499 against to 295,972 for.

A major issue in this vote was whether or not the State's legislative district and reapportionment system should be revised. The State chamber of commerce in a research report, a brochure, bulletins, and news stories defended the present system as did other groups, while certain labor union leaders and some big city interests publicly supported the calling of a constitutional convention for the primary purpose of giving greater representation to the big cities.

Thus the people of Missouri, in accordance with democratic processes, have voted overwhelmingly, consistently, and repeatedly in favor of Missouri's present legislative district and reapportionment system.

If, as appears likely, the majority of the voters in the United States believe that the States should be permitted to establish one house of their legislatures giving reasonable weight to factors other than population, what are their reasons for believing as they do?

Let me suggest a few of them:

1. It is an erroneous assumption that population is the only basis for representation.

The United States occupies approximately 32 million square miles of the earth's surface and in 1960 the total population of the United States was about 180 million people. In 1960 there were in the 212 metropolitan areas of the United States, a little over 310,000 square miles of land area and almost 113 million people. Thus 63 percent of our total population resided in the 212 metropolitan areas which occupy slightly less than 10 percent of the total area of the country. Obviously with both houses of all State legislatures constituted solely on the basis of population, 63 percent of our State senators and representatives will be selected in our large metropolitan areas, and the other 37 percent will represent in both houses, the diverse interests found in the other 90 percent of our land area.

It would be surprising indeed if the legislators elected in the heart of New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles-to mention only a few metropolitan areas had much knowledge of or, in fact, interest in the problems of small town merchants and bankers, of miners, farmers, oilfield workers, and the host of other industries and trades which are located outside our large metropolitan areas.

And it would be even more surprising when one considers the vast range of problems the legislatures are called upon to contend witharising out of the large concentrations in our cities of unemployed, welfare recipients, racial minorities, and other minority interests, many of whom are living in slum areas under the most unfortunate kinds of conditions.

You gentlemen know, just as well as I know-and as most citizens to a lesser extent know-the way in which so large a proportion of the citizens in the heart of our large cities are motivated, registered, and voted.

These are some of the important factors which cause so many of Our citizens to be so convinced of the need for the 37 percent of our population living on 90 percent of our land area to have fair representation in our State legislatures.

2. Counties provide the most practical basis of representation for geographic, economic, and community interests.

While allowing each county a minimum of one representative may not give perfect representation to the great diversity of interests in Missouri, it serves this purpose in a very practical way, in that it helps protect all interests of importance from being run over, roughshod, by conflicting interests.

The county is a historic unit of government with election machinery, boundaries well known to voters, political organizations, and long tradition which accustoms voters to consider their county as a unit for political activity.

3. Basing both houses on population would be extremely detrimental to the State as a whole.

The press has reported that many Missourians, including legisla tors and residents of cities as well as rural areas, think that domination of the house by urban legislators would be detrimental to the best interests of not only the State, generally, but of the cities them selves. This belief is said to be based on the contention that over the years the performance of the St. Louis and Kansas City house delega tions have been undistinguished. I am sure you gentlemen are awar of many other States where a similar situation prevails.

4. The present system is one of proper "checks and balances." The different basis of representation in the house and senate pro vides a check and balance while the Governor and other statewide officers are elected by the people as a whole and many of the court and commissions are appointive.

5. Basing both houses on population would leave little justification for a bicameral legislature.

This was pointed out by the majority opinion in the Illinois cas where a U.S. district court dismissed a suit demanding that bot houses of the Illinois Legislature be based on population.

I am confident that many other witnesses who are appearing befor this committee will make many of the other points which I migh make. So to conserve your time I will stop here.

But again I should like to ask, what to me, is the all-importan question:

With so large a proportion of the population convinced that w would have fairer representation and probably much sounder gov ernment at the State level if one house of the legislature were estab lished giving reasonable weight to factors other than population should not citizens be offered an opportunity to vote on this question It seems to me the answer is a loud and unqualified "Yes."

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much for your statement. I ca tell you have given that a great deal of thought.

Could I ask a question or two, please?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator BAYH. This is an interesting plan of reapportionment yo are presently operating under in Missouri. The way I understan it, the secretary of state reports to the house, and this commis sion appointed by the Governor reports to the senate.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, it is under the direction of the secretary o

state. It is done in the large

tion commissioners, or some

ropolitan areas by the board of ele dunde he direction of the secr