« PreviousContinue »
Senator Bayh. Let me ask you as a high official in the State legislative area, what sort of a problem do you see of conflicting State and Federal constitutional provisions?
One of the things that is well known about State governments, in, many of our States, is the difficulty in changing the State constitution. For example, in Indiana it takes a minimum of 6 years.
Do you anticipate any problems in Missouri! Can you give us any advice or counsel? We have conflicting State and Federal constitutional provisions now. For example, a witness from Colorado pointed out the differences there.
Mr. GRAHAM. We would have no difficulty in Missouri, because this could be—if we are required to amend our constitution, we can do it at either a special or the general election. It is up to the Governor.
Senator Bayh. The legislature itself!
Senator Bayn. As has been pointed out, the enactment of S. Res. 2 or a similar measure does not mandate the States to use other than population.
Úr. GRAHAM. That is correct. Perhaps the people of Missouri or any other State may well wish to continue the one-man-one-vote theory. As I understand this resolution, it would not prohibit that. Senator BAYH. You do have a referendum initiative in Missouri. Mr. GRAHAM, Yes. Senator Bayi. Let me ask you one thought.
As a member of the State legislature, do you share the concern of come who feel that there needs to be one house—that considers other factors, if certain basic important economic interests are to be adequately thought out by the so-called big city delegations. As you pointed out-can you give us some examples of Missouri law, Missouri statutes, that might be ignored by big city delegations? I can think of one in Indiana. For example, the redistribution formula for whools takes into consideration transportation. In rural areas this would be a significant problem, whereas in metropolitan areas it would
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, we had a bill up this last week on a minimum wage law. That perhaps might be a good example. We got into a bassle over the agricultural migratory workers.
The representatives from the metropolitan areas were in favor of establishing a dollar minimum wage in Missouri and completely uterlooked the factor of agricultural labor, migratory workers. Had 21 not been for the predominance of rural members, I am sure that the I would have passed as it was written. That perhaps may not be a good example. Senator BAYH. I think it is.
Mr. GRAHAM. But we defeated the minimum wage law, much to The satisfaction of some of the individuals of the State who are enmaged in farm products. I am thinking of cotton.
Senator Bayh. Can you think of any other examples ? Mr. GRATIAM. Right off I cannot. Senator Bayu. How about distribution of gas tax? Mr. GRAHAM. Well, we have a proposal now that the cities feel they 117 being discriminated against by not receiving—not gasoline tax,
but sales tax—a greater proportion of sales tax they feel should go back to the metropolitan areas.
The metropolitan areas with respect to gas tax feel that the highway commission is not building sufficient roads in the metropolitan areas completely overlooking the fact that if we did not have the highways in rural Nissouri to carry the produce to the metropolitan areas, and to carry the people to those areas to buy those products, there would not be any need for highways in the metropolitan communities.
Senator BAYH. Do you feel that the well-being of the State as a whole is affected not by these minority populations but sizable economic interest groups !
Mr. GRAHAM. I think so. I think it has given us a conservative leg. islature in Missouri. It is conservative, not to the extent of being reactionary. We still have progressed greatly in the last 20 years. But because of this diversity of interests
and background and education and callings, we have a tendency not to be swayed by the metropolitan newspapers who come out on a proposal hot and heavy, and sometimes the metropolitan representatives are afraid to go against these newspapers.
We have this balance of power from the rural areas which prohibit a switching from one way to another on the spur of the moment.
Senator HRUSKA. Would the Senator yield?
That balance of power would be destroyed by unadulterated application of the Reynolds and Sims rule, wouldn't it?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
Senator HRUSKA. As it is now, and has been heretofore, neither of the factions, whether metropolitan nor nonmetropolitan, if you want to call them that for want of a better term, can run away with ansthing, can they?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator HRUSKA. Yet under Reynolds v. Sims that balance toward a composite judgment, which all parts of the State can live with, would be eliminated. Isn't that the crux of the problem?
Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct. And as an interesting sidelight on this, the mayor of St. Louis has proposed this one-man-one-vote_has come out in favor of it-because he says the metropolitan area of St. Louis has suffered as a result of this rural domination.
But he forgets, or he fails to remember that had it not been for the rural legislators, when he came to the legislature asking for an earnings tax for the city of St. Louis, he would not have gotten it, because the legislators in St. Louis County, which completely surround the city of St. Louis, were certainly not in favor of it, because that is where the money is located in the St. Louis area,it has moved to the county.
And so what he is asking us to do is compound the problems that he already has.
I have never seen once in the 14 years I have been a member of the legislature that when the city of St. Louis legislative delegation came to Jefferson City united on a course of action, on a course of conduct, or on legislation, that it ever failed to pass legislation. It is only when they disagree among themselves that they fail to pass the legislation which the administration in St. Louis City perhaps deems necessary.
Senator Bays. Could you get us some additional information on this earnings tax? This is the first good example that we have had.
Mr. GRAHAM. You know Senator Bayh. An example of rural legislators helping out metropolitan areas.
Mr. GRAHAM. There is no question about it. It is also interesting to w a little further, Mr. Chairman. If we have the one-man-one-vote, St. Louis County is going to have far more representatives, pick up far more representatives than will the city of St. Louis. So there might be a possibility that the earnings tax could be repealed, and St. Louis cannot live without it.
Senator BAYH. I would like to have some additional information on it. Not that I doubt your statement, but I would like for the record to be more complete in this area.
Let me propose one other question. It is one that has been concerning me a bit since we first started. Perhaps my distinguished colleague from Nebraska would like to include his thoughts in this as well.
We are concerned, many are concerned, about the majority of people, the population in a city taking action that would be detrimental to tasic economic interests in a rural area, large rural areas, which, having great benefit to the State as a whole, and as a result to the majority it-elf-in other words, it is sort of like killing the hen that laid the
Are our State legislators so unreasonable that they don't recognize that if they penalize through legislative enactment these sparsely set"led areas, representing timber, cattle, minerals, mining, these economic interests, that they are really damaging the State as a whole?
What is your thought as a speaker who has seen legislators in action?
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, perhaps we have been more fortunate in Misvuri than some other States. But I believe that the legislators as a whole are reasonable in their actions.
As I said before, because of this diversity of interests and background and area, we are a conservative legislature, and we are not pressured into acting hastily on a proposition. It is very difficult to px ss legislation through the Missouri House. At least it has been up "now. I qualify that by saying up to now. I don't know what is going to happen this session-we are in such a turmoil over this rapportionment.
I don't think there has ever been an occasion when one area has tried '" pass legislation which is purely and simply to penalize another area. haven't found that. Does that answer your question? Senator BAYH. Yes. Mr. GRAHAM. I haven't found that. Senator HRUSKA. Would the Senator yield! Didn't you give us an example where the periphery of St. Louis County proper is going to look to the State of Missouri for any great sufort? If they expect to get back to the next legislative session, they '*ter vote against that earnings tax. Isn't that one classical example, There it is not a matter of intelligence-it is a matter of sheer political gurvival? Some politicians are motivated that way.
Perhaps in Missouri, you folks are not. From what you have said. if Reynolds v. Sims will result in a greater increase in St.
County than in St. Louis proper, they would not hesitate a minute. would they?
Mr. GRAHAM. I think perhaps you are correct.
Senator HRUSKA. We can be idealistic if we want to. I have fallen heir to that situation once in a while. Others can speak for themselves.
Senator Bayh. Let me say I am certain all of us who serve in public life have made mistakes. But basically I would hate for us to get into a position where we admit that legislators from a given area, taking by and large the majority of the time, are not going to have the backbone to stand up and levy taxes that are needed for schools, roads, mental health, and all this. No constitutional amendment is going to avoid this.
If this is true, then we have a weakness in our democratic system that just cannot be corrected by a constitutional amendment. It goes to human nature.
Senator HRUSKA. If the Senator would yield.
The constitutional amendment cannot do that, or the absence of one cannot do it. If those political pressures build up in one part of a State and make it necessary for the majority of the members of a house to vote the way the pressures build up in the press and otherwise, there will be nothing that can stop it, nothing. They will be absolute oligarchs, in both houses. That is the danger of this. That is the problem-no checks and balances. It is a question of King Numbers that is what it is. That is exactly it. You can implore them and say I would hate to think but the fact is that is how it is.
In Cook County, Ill., for example, in the city of Chicago, witness the voting records there, witness the voting records in New York City, or witness it in St. Louis, any of the larger cities. If that is where the control of the legislature is going to be, they are going to run the show. Where those pressures build up, that is going to be it. They are then going to have to face that decision, which is anathema in the life of a politician: Will I vote patriotically, will I rise above principle, or will 1 vote to preserve my political life!
Senator BAYH. Apparently I didn't make myself clear.
I was trying to find specific examples, in the experience of the speaker, of cases where the large metropolitan area has indeed imposed sanctions on a rural area, or vice versa. Where the well-being of a State was involved, are the rural legislators willing to help this well-being if it is in the city, and are the city legislators willing to assist this economic interest if it is in the rural area! And the speaker said this has been his experience—that there had been no punitive legislation.
I do wish that you would give us some more information about this earnings tax, because it would be most helpful, as well as not necessarily a map, but the final result of the Supreme Court one-man. one-vote on area representation. How large an area would be encompassed
Mr. GRAHAM. All right, sir.
Senator Bayu. I happen to be one of these peculiar animals that thought States rights should go one step further and should involve more local rights. Indiana is one of the few States that doesn't have home-rule provisions. I led the charge and was defeated on a couple of occasions to try to give our local communities home rule. It seems inconsistent to me for us to talk about State rights, and then not demand that each municipality accept a maximum amount of responsibility for governing itself. If the people of Indianapolis want or need a large community center, auditorium, or building, and are unwilling to provide means to finance this, then I don't think they should have it. They should be willing to stand up and take the bull by the horns and recognize that responsible government demands that you provide means to finance it, if it is to function.
Perhaps this is not the case in Missouri and other States. But I think our State legislators have to recognize they have a responsibility, just as we have in the Congress.
Senator HRUSKA. It might be. If all the control is in the metropolitan areas, what is to stop the brute majority from saying, “Let's have this community center and charge it all to State taxes?" There would be no one to say nay. That is the very vice where there is a loss of checks and balances.
Mr. GRAHAM. Another interesting aspect of home rule. St. Louis and Kansas City do not have home rule. We spend perhaps 60 peront of our time legislating for St. Louis and Kansas City. We set the police salaries, we set the officeholders in St. Louis and Kansas City, the Governor appoints the police board in St. Louis and Kansas City. We would love to get rid of it. We cannot do it.
Senator Bayh. I see the Speaker and I share some very common feelings.
I questioned you at too great length. Excuse me.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, would you be interested in knowing the 19—having the 19 States that have adopted the resolution calling upon Congress to call a constitutional convention, or in the alternative
Senator Bayh. I would be glad to have that submitted into the rword. I think as of yesterday we were discussing whether it is 21 or 22.
(The information referred to follows:)
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES RESOLUTION ON APPORTION MENT OF STATE
Rezolution passed both Houses in the following States:
15. South Dakota
16. Tennessee 3. Arizona 10. Montana
17. Texas 4. Arkansas 11. Nevada
18. Utah 6. Georgia 12. New Mexico
19. Virginia 6 Idabo 13. Oklahoma
20. Washington 1. Kansas 14. South Carolina
21. Wyoming Senator HRUSKA. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, you conceive of this resolution No. 2 as being an opportunity for the people to fapress themselves on whether or not they want to modify in part the rule of Reynolds v. Sims.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
Senator HRUSKA. Without this resolution or something similar, will the people of any of the States have a chance to do that?