Page images
PDF
EPUB

Since there is a time limit on the Court's designation for preparation for arranging State affairs to comply with its ruling, the need for concentrated action to bring about a constitutional amendment is all the more pressing. It is exrtainly the “sense” of the States that defense of their fundamental rights is to be accomplished at all costs, and the citizens of the States should make their wish clear to the Congress and to the legislatures that this amendment, giving positive assurance to the States of their right to apportion their legislature as they wish, a right that had been assumed for more than a century and a half until the Court's recent decision.

Rapid and sustained action is necessary and the California Senate is to be commended upon its initiative.

(From the Sacramento Bee, Feb. 8. 1965)

APPORTIOXMEXT DECISION CALLS FOR AMENDMENT It is noteworthy that United States Senator Thomas H. Kuchel of California, a staunch supporter of the U.S. Supreme Court and close friend of Chief Justice Earl Warren, has given his backing to a proposed constitutional amendment which would give States the right to apportion one legislative house on a basis other than population.

If this amendment is adopted and the voters then give their approval to a plan for election of State senators representing geographical areas, California could have the legislative system which existed prior to the Court's ruling and which served the State so well.

There is no sound basis for criticizing the Supreme Court for its decision tha" the constitution requires the membership of both houses of State legislature be based on population. The Court was aeting in accordance with its responsi bility to interpret the Constitution.

Immediately after the decision was rendered there was a proposal for a congressional act which would have stripped Federal courts of any authority to pass on State apportionment. Such an act would be an improper and dangerous attack on the sanctity of the judiciary.

However, the proposal to amend the Constitution is no more an attack on the Court than was the 16th amendment which made it possible to collect the income tar. Prior to the adoption of the 16th amendment the Supreme Court was obligated by the Constitution to rule that no income tax could be imposed by Congress This, of course, was changed by adoption of the amendment which permits impusition of the tax.

This is essentially what the proposed apportionment amendment would accomplish. It would change the Constitution specifically to permit States to have one legislative house not based strictly on population. The Supreme Court to longer would be concerned with the matter.

The wishes of the people would be protected fully because the proposal would require that any plan based strictly on population would have to be approved by the voters.

The amendment deserves support because it would permit those States wishin: to retain geographical representation in one house to do so, but would not require it. The choi«e would be left to the people in each State. No approach could be more fair.

(From the San Pedro News-Pilot, Aug. 7, 1964) REAPPORTIONMENT ISSUE: PEOPLE CAN OVERRULE Court; Now Is THE TIME

FOR ACTION A historic June 15 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could reshape this cuirtry's basic philosophy of government, unless the public moves vigorously to block the proposed change.

The Court on that date decreed the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment requires the States to compose both houses of their legislatura, solely on the basis of population. In its unusual interpretation, the Court ignored the fact that the 14th amendment was not intended to prevent a State from setting up the legislative structure it believes best suited to its needs When the amendment was debated years ago in the House, it was stated the measure "takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.”

California, with its exceptional divergence of economy and geography, could be unusually hard hit by the decision. This State has a concentration of population along its coastline with vast geographical areas inland that are vitally important to the overall economy but thinly populated.

Similar conditions exist in some foreign countries where government representation is based on population alone. What has happened? Political power is concentrated along the coastlines. Tremendous inland resources go undeveloped. Highway and school programs and all major developments are concentrated in the population centers while other areas are ignored. The full potential of such a nation will never be realized until geographic considerations are recognized in government.

Representative William McCulloch, Republican, of Ohio, has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to amend the Constitution to further guarantee the right of any State to apportion one house of its legislature on "factors other than population."

It reads: "Nothing in the Constitution of the United States shall prohibit a State, having a bicameral legislature, from apportioning the membership of one house of its legislature on factors other than population, if the citizens of the State shall have the opportunity to vote upon the apportionment."

Such an amendment would eliminate any legal quibbling about a State's sovereign authority to maintain its legislative framework on an equitable basis.

Representative McCulloch's resolution, however, appears doomed unless there is aggressive leadership and support throughout the Nation. In California, the people have repeatedly expressed their desire to maintain the present legislative structure. This is the logical State from which such leadership should emanate.

These leaders should include legislators, political figures, business and civic kroups, and other organizations which are acutely aware of the benefits of the check and balance system. Once organized in California, they should carry their campaign throughout the Nation.

Otherwise, California and other States will be confronted with a real disfranchised “minority”—the people who have not migrated to metropolitan

This development could prove disastrous to this country's entire concept of free and equitable government to its full economic development.

California, the most populous State in the Union, must move now to assume its responsibilities of leadership.

centers.

[From the Culver City Star News, Feb. 16) A REPUBLIC OR A DEMOCRACY? NEW RULE THWARTS CONSTITUTION The magnitude of the political change that is to come over California is reflected in the tentative plan for reapportionment of the State senate.

Four counties—Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Imperial-would have among them 20 senators. With the help of one additional county, this power group would dominate the affairs of California and its 18 million people.

Reapportionment was a fiat of the U.S. Supreme Court, brought about in a ruling on a Tennessee case which enunciated the one-man-one-vote theory.

Subsequently, a panel of Federal judges in Los Angeles set July 1 as a deadline for compliance. Californians themselves were not consulted.

We have read with a great deal of interest the recent remarks of Senator Jargaret Chase Smith, Republican, of Maine.

She insists the United States is a republic and a truly representative government, as it “provides representation for the minority as well as the maCority."

The C.S. Senate, she says, is striking proof that our Government is not a democrary but a republic. "New York, with a population of several million people has no more representation in the Senate than my State of Maine, which has a population of less iban a million people," she says.

"Both States have two Senators each. This is check against unlimited majority rule for the protection of minority population States.".

The Constitution itself says, "The United States shall guarantee to every Niate in this Union a republican form of government."

The Supreme Court in 164 got around the situation with neatness. I: was arred :Lat the Gates entered the trion as soverein States and senator sere delegeres of the Sales and not the people to the Congress.

Courtjes. it was contended. are bot surere za bat political creatures of them Sate: Iberettore any legislative body a portioned by area and not prie tire is meestational, unfair, and not consistent with the 1364 views of Join Warren A large para cortion of California voters !! in fact be disenfranchised om

ETTI be resting of voting power of the sedate in the representation dater Cies. It will be in een "one ..an-Do vote."

{From the Ostsed Trade, Jan. 24. 1993;

RETRISS PowTO CALIPESIA'S CITIZEXS mecent bassi pariały on gengraphie factors heirs provide balas$ 521 RAT in government. Serigally, it presents urtan areas from arqa", is so restbering eratmol of lexislatures that rural problems are innt.

ore Tez, in areas of ra; id growth, wbere towar's rural area is tarkorn* * 15. gacaphic apportionnent beigs provide the dinining areas with a tough sei urvan interests.

per cities are ies stabie ani trangzil than rural areas Legislatum praca za gire greater reprexnason to be innt stable elements in s01** we assets in the process of Orvieris reiori api progre

mostrineni is not that cows and stulpis should get a Fote. but rather tot cance appwortionnent provides valuable checks and restraints on urte:

me bare never lived in a society of alsolute majority rule. Any system . Tie majorities bare un imited dominion over minorities is inherentis totai. of wise just as any system that gives a minority unlimited dumnion over a la irrisirherently totalitarian.

The problem, then, is to protect the rital intrests of minorities, including rer qenities. Toward that vital goal, we urge the California Legislature to mento

congress to call a constitutional conrention to deal with the approche enken.

[ocr errors]

[From the San Jose News, Aug. 7, 1964)

A RATIONAL PROPOSAL ON REAPPORTIOSUENT controversial and far-reachirg decision by the U.S. Supreme Court miltreis is followed by a rash of counter measures usually in the form of 3 cational amendments, which mercifully are allowed to suffocate in congressit e vuittee pigeon holes.

in the heat of controversy, proposals sometimes are made that, if ena: *id weaken the very institution the proponents seek to protect, the is **itution.

fore Colztess now, however, is a ratiotal plan for countering pwrbu Det bei ali. of the Court's latest stand on legislative apportionment.

riwuthorized by Representative Charles S. Gubser, a Republican, of Gilroy,t! **tutional amendment would not affect the Court's insistence that cities to to reprezenteri in Siate legislatures. That principle is a sound one,

What the Gubser amendment would do is enable a State to follow the Frebom shivernment's example of having one house apportioned strictly on a pupunta Bus and the other apportioned along lines dictated by geography and other

or The C.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are orzanize' 1' thxuriance with such a formula. So is the California Legislature.

this is not a demote the Supreme Court or impeach Earl Warren amente.' He is a promosal to retain a ssstem that has worked well at the Federal i fied in those States which have used it.

Senator BAYH. I would like to put in the record at this time a stojan Hint for the American National Cattlemen's Association which sa

'n us personally by Dudley T. Campbell. I would like :: note for the record that Mr. Campbell patiently waited. The discussion has been rather lengthy and he had to go to another meeting, so he left his statement. We will include it in the record at this time. (The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows at this point:)

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION My name is Dudley T. Campbell and I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before this committee as secretary of the American National Cattlemen's Association. Our association represents 39 States, over 100 breed, local and county affiliated associations, and thousands of individual members engaged in the breeding, growing, and feeding of beef cattle.

Our association considers the question of equitable reapportionment as one of the greatest problems confronting the cattle industry as well as all Americans. As evidence of this, the association's leading resolution, adopted at a recent meeting in Portland, deals with this subject as follows:

RESOLUTION NO. 1-REAPPORTIONMENT

10 States)

Whereas the Congress of the United States and most State legislatures were originally and deliberately apportioned one house by population and one house by area; and

Whereas this legislative structure has been the basis of the strength of our republic and the hope of the free world; and

Whereas a recent Supreme Court decision, if permitted to stand, would destroy this American concept of fair representation; and

Whereas the members of the American National Cattlemen's Association believe that this decision was based on considerations other than constitutional laws: Therefore, be it

Resolved by the American National Cattlemen's Association in convention in urtland, Oreg., January 28, 1965, That Congress, State legislatures, and the otizenry of the United States be alerted to the dangers inherent in this decision 2.0d be urgently petitioned to adopt a constitutional amendment that will preserve our present legislative structure.

The resolution, it will be noted, expressed the belief that the Supreme Court's decision was "based on consideration other than constitutional law.” This stateDent is borne out in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, joined by Mr. Justice Clark, in these words: (The decision which makes unconstitutional the legislatures of most of the

* * "finds no support in the words of the Constitution, in any prior decision of this Court, or in the 175-year political history of our Federal Union.” The dissent further states : “What the Court has done is to convert a particular political philosophy into a constitutional rule, binding upon each of the 50 States * * * (without regard to the different characteristics of each State, their history, geography, distribution of population, and political heritage) *'* * (the decision) is at odds with long-established principles of constitutional adjudication under the equal protation clause, and it stifles values of local individuality and initiative vital to he character of the Federal Union which it was the genius of our Constitution in create * * * (it) forever freezes one theory of political thought into our Cystitution."

While the election of Members to the Congress of the United States is governed by article I of the Constitution, and is not directly involved in the reapbiptionment decision, to the layman it seems strange indeed that the Supreme Court should deny to the States what the Constitution provides for the Nation. And the Federal plan as well as the various State plans, it may be said, have Furked well for the Nation and States. It is not established, as the Court stated, in view of the makeup of State iezislatures generally or the Congress, that the principle of representative govFuent in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of

The dissent points out that it is not the system under the Constitution ; it was is the system when the 14th amendment was adopted ; not predominantly pracvel in the States, and it is not the system under colonial times.

We agree with the contention that our various governments arose from practical experience, not theory. The apportionments of State legislatures have

[ocr errors]

The Supreme Court in 1964 got around the situation with neatness. It was argued that the States entered the Union as sovereign States and senators were delegates of the States and not the people to the Congress.

Counties, it was contended, are not sovereign but political creatures of the State; therefore any legislative body apportioned by area and not population is unconstitutional, unfair, and not consistent with the 1964 views of Justice Warren.

A large proportion of California voters will in fact be disenfranchised litically, with the vesting of voting power of the senate in the representatives of a few large counties. It will be in effect, "one-man-no vote."

[From the Oakland Tribune, Jan. 24, 1965)

RETURNING POWER TO CALIFORNIA'S CITIZENS Apportionment based partially on geographic factors helps provide balaire and flexibility in government. Specifically, it prevents urban areas from acqniring such overwhelming control of legislatures that rural problems are ignorel

Moreover, in areas of rapid growth, where today's rural area is tomorrow's city, geographic apportionment helps provide the upcoming areas with a pole against vested urban interests.

Moreover, cities are less stable and tranquil than rural areas. Legislatures weighted to give greater representation to the most stable elements in society are valuable assets in the process of orderly reform and progress.

The argument is not that cows and stumps should get a vote, but rather that geographic apportionment provides valuable checks and restraints on urban majorities.

We have never lived in a society of absolute majority rule. Any system in which majorities have unlimited dominion over minorities is inherently totalitarian, just as any system that gives a minority unlimited domnion over a majority is inherently totalitarian.

The problem, then, is to protect the vital intrests of minorities, including rural minorities. Toward that vital goal, we urge the California Legislature to memorialize Congress to call a constitutional convention to deal with the apportionment problem.

[From the San Jose News, Aug. 7, 1964)

A RATIONAL PROPOSAL ON REAPPORTION MENT A controversial and far-reaching decision by the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes is followed by a rash of counter measures, usually in the form of constitutional amendments, which mercifully are allowed to suffocate in congressional committee pigeon holes.

In the beat of controversy, proposals sometimes are made that, if enacted. would weaken the very institution the proponents seek to protect, the U.S. Constitution.

Before Congress now, however, is a rational plan for countering portions, but not all, of the Court's latest stand on legislative apportionment.

Coauthorized by Representative Charles S. Gubser, a Republican, of Gilroy, this constitutional amendment would not affect the Court's insistence that cities be fairly represented in State legislatures. That principle is a sound one.

What the Gubser amendment would do is enable a State to follow the Federal Government's example of having one house apportioned strictly on a population basis and the other apportioned along lines dictated by geography and other factors

The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are organized in accordance with such a formula. So is the California Legislature.

This is not a demote the Supreme Court or impeach Earl Warren amendment. It is a proposal to retain a srstem that has worked well at the Federal level and in those states which have used it.

Senator Bay. I would like to put in the record at this time a statement from the American National Cattlemen's Association which was to be given to us personally by Dudley T. Campbell. I would like to

« PreviousContinue »