a permanent part of the records of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.

ACTION ON AMENDMENT IS IMPERATIVE

There is an urgent and bonafide need for enactment of S.J. Res. 2, by the Congress. The time to act is now before any more harm and chaos arises as a result of the unfortunate Supreme Court apportionment decisions. I, therefore, urge the constitutional amendments subcommittee to report speedily an appropriate resolution so that the Senate might work its will on this matter. With congressional approval, the States will have an opportunity this year to ratify a constitutional amendment relating to apportionment of the membership in State legislatures.

PROPOSED APPLICATION TO THE CONGRESS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON APPORTION MENT, S.J. RES. 3, BY MESSRS. S. J. TAYLOR, WADDINGHAM, AND REES

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 36TH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF UTAH APPLYING TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO CALL A CONVENTION FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE FOR APPORTIONING THE MEMBERSHIP OF ONE HOUSE OF A BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE ON FACTORS OTHER THAN POPULATION

Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Utah:

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that membership in both houses of a bicameral State legislature must be apportioned according to population and has thus asserted Federal judicial authority over the basic structure of government in the various States; and

Whereas this rule denies to the people of the respective States the right to establish their legislatures upon the same pattern of representation deemed advantageous for the Congress of the United States and provided by the Federal Constitution; and

Whereas this action of the Supreme Court goes so far as to restrict the ability of the citizens of the respective States to designate the manner in which they shall be represented in their respective legislatures thereby depriving the people of their right to determine how they shall be governed; and

Whereas the implications of this action by the Supreme Court raise serious doubts as to the legality of the present form of the governing bodies of many subordinate units of government within the States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 36th Legislature of the State of Utah, That this legislature respectfully applies to the Congress of the United States to call a convention for the purpose of proposing the following article as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"Article

"SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit any State which shall have a bicameral legislature from apportioning the membership of one house of such legislature on factors other than population, provided that the plan of such apportionment shall have been submitted to and approved by a vote of the electorate of that State.

"SEC. 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall restrict or limit a State in its determination of how membership of governing bodies of its subordinate units shall be apportioned.

"SEC. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

Be it further resolved, That when and if Congress shall have proposed such an article of amendment this application for a convention shall no longer be of any force or effect.

Be it further resolved, That the proper officer of this State be and he hereby is directed to transmit copies of this application to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, and to the several Members of said bodies representing this State therein; also to transmit copies hereof to the legislatures offer States of the United States.

STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE CARLETON J. KING

Mr. Chairman, my name is Carleton J. King, and it is my privilege to represent the 30th Congressional District of New York State. I wish to join with those in commending the members of this subcommittee for their interest in a most important domestic issue. As one of the 64 House Members who have introduced a constitutional amendment to offset the Supreme Court decision on the reapportionment of State legislatures, I know of no issue which deserves a higher priority than this one of legislative reapportionment.

Mr. Chairman, many able witnesses have already appeared before this subcommittee. By their testimony, they have recited how the Supreme Court issued its decisions in total disregard of the language of the 14th amendment-the amendment upon which the Court bases its decision. The witnesses have also recited how the Court ignored the clear language and intent of the sponsors of the 14th amendment; and how the Court's decisions flew in the face of State apportionment practices which have existed from the founding of our Nation, through the enactment of the amendment, to today's times, practices which certainly demonstrate that no one at no time intended or conceived of the present Court decisions.

Because of this able and accurate testimony, I have no need to recite the facts again. My principal purpose, however, in submitting this brief statement is to urge this subcommittee to consider the inclusion of some proper language which might apply to local governments as well as State legislatures on this question of reapportionment.

If there has been any question about how far this Federal standard set down by the Supreme Court will apply, several Court decisions already rendered certainly indicate that the standard will be imposed on every county and every city which has districts for the election of its governmental body. It is not Inconceivable that this ruling could be applied also to special districts such as water districts, soil conservancy districts, and so forth.

As evidence of the serious concern of the local governments in this matter of reapportionment, I would like to include with my statement, a letter I have received from Milton Alpert, counsel to the Office for Local Government, State of New York, Albany, which refers to the ruling being applied by the Federal Courts to the legislative bodies of local governments.

I believe all local governments should be properly concerned about the Supreme Court's decision on legislative reapportionment. Likewise, I believe every effort must be made to overcome this new rule of law which, by a divided Court, banged basic nationwide law of 173 years of unquestioned constitutionality. If we too long delay, we surely are at the end of a glorious era in our history. Mr. Alpert's letter is attached herewith.

Hon. CARLETON J. KING,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

OFFICE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
Albany, N.Y., March 3, 1965.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN KING: I have just finished a telephone discussion with a member of your staff concerning the status of a possible amendment to the S. Constitution concerning reapportionment. In the course of this discussion, 1 obtained information concerning the committee of which you are a member which is seeking to develop a single proposal upon which all Congressmen in favor of such an amendment can agree.

You undoubtedly know that courts are now beginning to apply the ruling of Reynolds v. Sims to the legislative bodies of local governments-in our State this would be particularly applicable to county boards of supervisors and to the legislative bodies of most of our cities. Court decisions along these lines have already been rendered in Kent County, Mich., in the State of Wisconsin, in the city of Baltimore, and with respect to the board of supervisors of Suffolk County in this State. Additional court decisions are anticipated both in our State and in other States. At the present time, we know of existing court itigation relating to the boards of supervisors of Sullivan County, Monroe County, Onondaga County and Broome County, the common council of the city of Binghamton, and the board of estimate of the city of New York. With respect to the work of your committee, I am writing on behalf of this e to ask that the committee consider including in its agreed upon constitutotal proposal not only the legislatures of the various States but also the legtive bodies of local governments in the various States-otherwise, if you

are successful and if you provide a remedy for State legislatures you will still leave local legislative bodies subject to the Reynolds v. Sims requirements.

We would appreciate your keeping us informed concerning the progress that is made by the above-described committee and also as to steps that are taken to move your agreed upon measure in Congress.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,

MILTON ALPERT.

Senator BAYH. In addition, I would like to note the receipt of statement by Mr. James Mussatti, chairman of the Citizens Committee for Balanced Legislative Representation and that this be include in the appropriate place in the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Mussatti follows at this point :)

STATEMENT BY JAMES MUSSAtti, Chairman, CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR BALANCED LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION

The issue surrounding the reapportionment of State legislatures is the greatest crisis to confront the United States of America since the Civil War. It strikes at the very foundation of our governmental structure.

Our committee is composed of leading citizens from every part of California: south, valley, mountain-liberal, conservative and moderate. It is our urgent request that the Congress propose a constitutional amendment to the various States permitting one house of State legislatures to be constituted on a basis other than population-subject to the one-man, one-vote ratification of the electorate within the various States.

We submit for your consideration what we believe to be compelling arguments from the history of legislative apportionment as it has evolved in our State.

First, however, we wish to make it clear the Citizens Committee is not before you to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court, nor are we before you as a regional group attempting to perpetuate any inequities in legislative representation. Neither are we before you on any racial basis-there are no bars to voter registration in California and we must state the obvious point that the reapportionment issue is not in any sense a registration matter in any State. Under Federal law, bars to registration can be removed-no matter what the composition of any State legislature.

Accepting the fact that the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 14th amendment as it did, our simple petition to you is redress as outlined by our Constitution--the enactment of a constitutional amendment for submission to the States for ratification or rejection which would permit each State. within the limits previously referred to, to constitute its legislature as best befits that State.

In California we created a Federal plan type-or balanced-legislature in 1926. by a one-man-one-vote election of the people of the State.

In 1928, 1948, in 1960, and in 1962 there were attempts to modify and/or sweep aside our Federal plan of representation which-under our initiative and referendum system-were referred to the electorate. In all four instances, the people of the State-by one-man-one-vote-upheld California's system of balanced representation whereby one house is apportioned on a basis other than population. Further, we would point out, that following each Federal Decennial Census, California in accordance with law-by legislative motion-has reapportioned its congressional and legislative districts.

We do not purport to propose to the Congress enactment of a reapportionment constitutional amendment which would require a form of government within a State other than that desired by the people of the State. It is obvious that there are States which consider themselves best served by population apportionment of both houses of the State legislature or by composition of a unicameral legislature. That decision, we believe, is a matter for individual State determination. The question is shall or shall not the people of each State decide how their own State legislatures are to be constituted? The Citizens Committee believes the people should decide. This decision is basically whether the people are or are not to have a choice in the composition of State legislatures or whether a system which has been the result of nearly 250 years experience be suddenly abandoned.

Shall we, as Mr. Justice Stewart said in his dissenting opinion in the reapportionment cases, overlook "many individualized and differentiated characteristics of each State, characteristics stemming from each State's distinct history, distinct geography, distinct distribution of population, and distinct political heritage?"

Our committee thinks not, and suggests the consideration of those factors traditional and inherent to our system of government.

As stated at the outset, our committee considers this issue the greatest crisis to confront the United States of America since the Civil War. Failure to permit the various States to have the right to constitute their legislatures along the Lines suggesed would be clear evidence of abandonment of faith in the democratic processes at the local level and the embracing of a radically revised form of gov ernment assuring a vast all-powerful Federal Government under which State and local governments in a short period could only function as administrators of programs dictated by the Federal Government.

Senator BAYH. Mayor Herman W. Goldner, the mayor of the city of St. Petersburg, had previously been scheduled to appear before this committee last week. Because of an unfortunate illness, he was unable and appears quite unable to appear before this committee. I would like to have unanimous consent to have his statement appear in the record at this time.

(The prepared statement of Mayor Goldner follows at this point:)

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HERMAN W. GOLDNER, MAYOR OF ST. PETERSBURG

I am submitting this statement as a representative of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, as chairman of the Florida Mayors' Conference on Fair Apportionment and as mayor of St. Petersburg, Fla.

My purpose is to attempt to shed some light on the problem of effective government which faces the burgeoning urban areas of this Nation.

The proposed constitutional amendment you are considering would, if approved, deprive a majority of the citizens of this Nation the opportunity of fair representation in the State legislatures. This has been the case during the first 64 years of this century in a majority of States in this country.

Without fair representation in State lawmaking bodies, the needs of urban areas have been shunted aside for pork-barrel programs that exist on urbanearned tax dollars and perpetuate the dynasty of rural-oriented legislators who cannot or will not face up to their responsibilities to the large numbers of people in our cities.

Bringing this matter close to home for me is the situation in Florida right

DOW.

A strong rural power structure, elected by less than half of the qualified voters of the State, has a death grip on the helm of both houses. This power group mprises a majority of the voting body of the senate and an equally potent portion of the house of representatives.

Instead of correcting this situation to give the people the rights guaranteed ader our U.S. Constitution, the people serving in these bodies have offered token plans that merely shift the districts in a manner so that their control is Dever lost.

This situation has become a cancer in our Nation's body politic. It is getting larger instead of smaller. It is a roadblock for urban growth that has caused the cities to take other, more costly and time-consuming means to meet the Troblems inherent with a large population.

To further illustrate, let us take a close look at Florida's history in reapporonment. Since 1925, Florida's State legislature has been confronted with four constitutionally required reapportionment sessions. To date there has been negligible amount of progress. In 1925, the creation of our new counties

Tested four new house seats: the senate, meanwhile, through expansion and addition of counties, added six seats in the period from 1923 to 1925. This baght the totals for the two houses to 38 senators and 95 representatives. These figures were not to change again until 1963.

In the intervening period, apportionment action was severely limited. In 1935, four house seats were reshuffled. In 1945, two house seats and two senate eats were reshuffled.

In 1955, with Florida beginning to swing into the most dynamic growth period any State in this Nation has ever experienced, the legislature made a vain attempt to assure forever minority control of the senate. A move to make each of Florida's 67 counties a senatorial district was soundly defeated by the people at the polls. Two other apportionment bills were vetoed by then Gov. LeRoy Collins because they didn't do the job. In 1957, a special session of the legislature offered a "daisy chain" amendment that was quickly invalidated by another vote of the people.

Our first successful reapportionment was achieved in early 1963. By successful I mean only that at least something was done, although it was by no means enough to even approach fair apportionment. In the previous legislative session, 1961, a majority of the Florida senate was elected from counties having 12.3 percent of the State's population. A majority of the house was elected from counties having 14.7 percent of the population. A plan for realinement was presented by this body for ratification by the people. This failed at the polls and shortly thereafter, a special legislative session was called by Gov. Farris Bryant. The special session of November 1962, failed in its mission to come up with a reapportionment formula which would be more palatable than the one which had been defeated at the polls.

Another special session was called in late January of 1963, approximately 2 months before the regular legislative session was slated to open. This third special session within 18 months came up with a proposal that was immediately implemented by statute and at the same time offered as a constitutional amendment to be considered in the November 1964, general election. The voters defeated this amendment, indicating their refusal to be satisfied with token reapportionment.

Quickly acting on this plan, a new legislature was elected which offered a slightly improved but wholly inadequate representation of the majority of Floridians. The 1963 legislature was so constructed that 27.4 percent of the population elected the house of representatives while 14.5 percent of the people elected a majority of the senate.

Today these figures are a little worse as our urban areas have continued to grow larger.

Malapportionment is not an evil designed by these people who refuse to give the majority a fair voice. It is merely a convenient tool that was created by rapid growth in concentrated areas.

As the growth in our population centers has continued upward, the needs of these areas have increased. There is one major item that is most vital to people living in these populous areas-taxation.

Most people don't object to carrying their fair share of the tax load. And yet the battle cry of our Founding Fathers during the American Revolution has come back to haunt many of us who have the responsibility of leadership in large cities. That is "taxation without representation is tyranny." In our cases, we cannot say we aren't represented. We just aren't fairly represented. An illustration: Today in Florida, a State senator from Dade County (Miami) represents 467,500 people. A State senator from the district made up of Levy, Dixie, and Gilchrist Counties represents 17,700 people. They both have the same lawmaking and voting privileges, but the senator representing Levy, Dixie, and Gilchrist Counties actually has more than 25 times the voting power of the sena tor from Dade County.

There exists, therefore, not only a great deficiency in representation for our cities in State legislatures, but a definite tax imbalance which continues to get more top heavy in favor of the less populous areas.

Those who would point to the U.S. Congress and say that this is the way our forefathers meant the State lawmaking bodies to be made up also are not looking closely enough at their history books.

In 1838, Florida's first constitutional convention proposed a legislature which had a senate and a house with districts divided as nearly equal in population as possible.

This constitution was approved by the people and was the document under which Florida was governed when it entered the Union in 1845. In the years that followed, Florida had four more new constitutions-yet always the prin ciple of fair representation in both houses prevailed in the language of the documents.

There is no magic number which will give us complete fair apportionment. No equal units of population can be designated in order to do this because of the political subdivisions known as counties. We ask that within the bounds of