« PreviousContinue »
The avalanche of new students in our elementary and secondary schools, the doubling enrollments in our colleges and universities and the enormous demands upon our welfare programs all reflect the sharp increase in our population-and particularly those segments of our population in the service-using age brackets under 21 and over 65. Since State problems are basically population problems, our State governments will fully understand and meet these problems only if they are representative of the people who have those problems.
America is now an urban society with more than 10 percent of its people living in urban areas. It is our urban communities which face the massive problanis of a growing population. State governments cannot meet their obligations to the urban majority if State legislative bodies are forever to have a veto power vested in the hands of rural minorities.
Rural legislators have historically been reluctant to provide the rope of public services essential to an urban community. To a large extent this reluctance has been based upon a failure to understand urban problems. In addition, however, there has been rural opposition to spending the amounts of money necessary to provide the high level of public services which urban centers require. The failure of State legislatures to meet public needs is directly related to the unrepresentative and unresponsive nature of these bodies.
The states cannot survive as viable units of government if they do not provide the public services which are essential to their citizens, and State governments will not provide these services as long as their legislatures are unresponsive to public needs because of apportionment which deprive the people of a full voice in the operation of government.
During the last 30 years, there has been a substantial growth in the domestic public services provided by the Federal Government. Many of these functions have become Federal responsibilties as a result of our nationally interdependent economy. Others of them, however, hould properly have fallen to State governments. The failure of the States to do their job caused our people to turn to the Federal level to meet public needs. It is my belief that the most important reason for the failure of State governments to assume their responsibilities has been the unrepresentative and unresponsive nature of their legislative borlies.
As a State official, I believe that State governments should be strong, active agencies in meeting the problems of a modern society, but I do not believe that State governments can fulfill their role full
partners in our Federal system as long as they do not reflect the public policy riews of the people.
Finally, I want to point out that legislative bodies based on popularion do not pose a threat to the rural minority. Wisconsin has been a leader in the field of a population apportionment. In the early 1950's and again in the early 1960's we reapportioned both houses of our legislature on a population basis. There is no evidence that either of these apportionments worked to the disadvantage of our rural citizens. In fact, the programs of greatest importance to rural Wiscon-in have been strengthened in recent years. The programs of the State Department of Agriculture and the University of Wisconsin Agricultural Extension Division have been expanded since Wisconsin achieved population reapportionment.
Our State's program of school aids to local communities tends to favor rural areas and small towns because the aid formula is based partly on the local tax base. Not only has the reapportioned State leg islature maintained the formula which favors our rural minority, but they have increased the percentage of local school costs which are borne by the State treasury.
I do not know of a single instance in which the rural minority in Wisconsin was denied the benefit of State government help to names their problems because of population reapportionment. The impact of population apportionment has not been to diminish the concern of State government for our rural citizens, but rather to mobilize State government to also meet the problems of our urban majority,
Mr. Chairman, I believe that on both fundamental democratie pr:ciples and practical considerations of the future of State government. Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 would be detrimental to the public wel fare. I respectfully urge the committee to recommend the defeat this measure.
Senator Bayu. Thank you very much, Governor Lucey. It is » privilege to have you testify before this committee.
I note with a great deal of interest the picture that you paint (us cerning the great need to have a legislative body responsive to te wishes of the public which represents or purports to represent the public. Indeed, as I pointed out at the beginning of this sulu mittee's hearings, if there were not such a need we would not be boki ing these hearings. At least the Supreme Court would not have. tervened if all of our legislative bodies had been properly apportiones in the first place.
I notice on page 2 of your statement you expressed concern about these other factors involved. Since we are shortly going to get dow to a close examination of the four proposals that are before us, I woux: like to have your thinking. Do we need to be concerned about 1:* possibility of the inclusion of factors such as race, color, nationa origin, religion, or perhaps even income? We still have the 14th an 15th amendments to the Constitution. I would imagine the Court would interpret it that way, would they not, even though the 14th al 15th amendments have been applied to apportionment.
Mr. LUCEY. I would hope that the courts would interpret it tha: way. But the word “factor," it seems to me, is a rather broad won and could mean almost anything. We have also been debating this issue at the State level, because, as you know, some 21 or 22 States have now memorialized Congress to hold a National Constitution Conver
: tion to make a change similar to what is proposed in this amendment. In the resolution that appeared before the State legislature the rers vague word “factor” was used. And it seemed to me there that fartur could be most anything. And I would certainly hope the courts, if it ever comes to pass that this becomes part of our Constitution, wouh! not permit these other things to be regarded as coming under this won! "factor."
I just think that it would be a terrible thing for apportionment to be on any basis other than population. It seems to me that when we point to our system of government and call it a democracy, it implier, if it is to be a pure democracy, that every citizen should be repre sented equally, not only have equal protection under the law, but le equally represented in the legislative bodies. And it seems to me that to the extent that we depart from that we are not a democracy but an oligarchy, because then you have a small group, something less than a majority, which has legislative control.
Senator BAYH. There have been several arguments presented supporting the need to include other factors or factor. What is
your response to the argument that when we talk about equal representation we talk about a relationship between a constituent and the man who represents him, and vice versa. That unless one takes into consideration geographically and communication factors, which in some areas of the country presents a sizeable burden on the constituent, that the constituent is not getting equal representation ?
Mr. LUCEY. We have taken that into account in our legislative pay scale. We allow an extra travel expense for those legislators who represent a large geographic area. And I think this is about as much of a consideration as you can offer. I still think that
Senator Bayh. How would this work out?
Mr. LUCEY. I think that each assemblyman is allowed an extra $25 per month per county, something like that, some additional travel money if he feels he has to travel around his district to contact his constituents. I think that is about as far as you can go. Because I think if you try to give him a smaller number of constituents to compensate for land area, then the net effect is that you are creating a situation where a minority of citizens can determine a majority of the membership of one house of legislature. And I think this is very bad.
And I think, too, the argument that some of the proponents make that, “Well, you ought to make this concession in one house”—well, ií you make it in one house-after all, every bill has to pass both houses. So you are creating a roadblock for all legislation by making the conression in one house of the legislature.
Senator Bays. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your coming before the committee and the testimony which you have given us.
I notice that one of our distinguished colleagues from Illinois has come into the hearing room.
But please join us, Senator Douglas.
Senator DOUGLAS. I want to present two distinguished citizens of Illinois whom I am glad to see you have given the privilege of testifying. Mr. Pat Greathouse, vice president of the United Automobile Workers, and Mr. Kleiman, who is a distinguished attorney who has presented some of these cases in courts.
Senator Bayh. You have already testified before, Senator Douglas, and we would be glad to have you again.
Senator Douglas. No, I just wanted to introduce these gentlemen. Senator BAYł. Why don't we take Mr. Greathouse first.
I notice Mr. Wallick and Mr. Mauer are in the hearing room, too, and I would like the record to show their presence.
Mr. Greathouse, it is nice to have you here, particularly when you come with such a flurry of introduction from my distinguished colleague, which although appreciated, is not necessary to acquaint us with the great reputation you have in UAW. It is an honor to have vou here. We have had communications with another great labor leader, Mr. Reuther, who is interested in this question and we shall he anxious to hear the views of the UAW.
Will you proceed?
STATEMENT OF PAT GREATHOUSE, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITEI
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
My name is Pat Greathouse. I am a vice president of the Interns tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Imple ment Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
We wholeheartedly support the principle of fair representation for all citizens. On behalf of our organization and our president, Walter P. Reuther, I wish to express our appreciation to the subcommitted for permitting us to be heard on this vital question.
As vice president of the UAW, it is my responsibility to coordinate our union's bargaining with the agricultural implement industry. I addition to this, I work closely with farm organizations and others in terested in the resource development of the Nation.
I grew up on a farm and I have worked in farm communite throughout much of my lifetime. The UAW has many members who came from the farms to work in the cities. Many of us still have sent:mental ties to the soil. I am proud to say that the UAW has con sistently supported a strong legislative program to encourage the family farm. And we have steadfastly worked for a program of rural electrification to bring low-cost electricity to the farm homes of America. The American labor movement through the AFL-CIO has worked vigorously for farm programs to raise family incomes and to enrich the lives of farm communities.
I say all this to preface my remarks about Senate Joint Resolution 2, because it is argued that the farm people of our Nation will have little voice in the affairs of government unless the Supreme Court's de cision on “one-man, one-vote" is diluted as proposed by this resolution
Farm people have nothing to fear if political power is shifted to where the population of our country has increasingly migrated, to the cities and the suburbs.
We firmly believe it is possible to rise above narrow, selfish interests, that city people can understand farm problems, and that farm people will respond to city problems. There is no need for people who live on farms to have more votes than their city cousins nor vice versajust to make sure their own interests are protected. It does great damage to our democratic government to tinker with a man's vote because of his geographical location or any other factor.
We believe that every citizen's vote should exert an equal weight on the democratic process. Because of our firm belief in this principle. we oppose any attempt to nullify or blunt the Supreme Court decision of last June 15 in the case of Reynolds v. Sims. In our opinion, the proposed constitutional amendments before this committee would do great damage to the principle of fair representation.
At the outset, I think it would be well to quote from the decision in the case of Reynolds v. Sims. Chief Justice Warren, speaking for the Court, eloquently stated the principle we are upholding here."Legis lators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. said the Chief Justice. "To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen."
We in the UAW live in big cities and in small towns across the country. Some of us live in areas that are underrepresented in State legislatures; some in overrepresented areas. But we do not believe that the accident of our place of residence should determine the value of our vote in the polling place. This belief has been very well put by one of our members who lives in a small town in Michigan. Writing to her Senators in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 2, she said that:
I live in a sparsely populated area compared with Detroit, but I do not think I should be overrepresented because I can see more fields under cultivation, or drive a shorter distance to the city limits.
Senate Joint Resolution 2, and similar legislation which has been introduced to both Houses of Congress, provides that apportionment of one house of a State legislature may be based on "factors other than population.” This is a vague criteria, and would open the gates for the most reprehensible kind of malapportionment. The danger in this approach as been noted by_the Committee on Federal Legislation of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in opposing Senate Joint Resolution 2. Said the committee:
The amendment might * * invite attempts at districting based on racial criteria or arbitrary criteria having a racial or other discriminatory overtones.
While we would certainly not impute such motives to the authors of the proposed amendments, it seems clear that such vague guidelines are susceptible to such misuse.
It would be ironic and tragic were the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to pass and then to see its impact negated by malapportioned legislatures designed to dilute the newly enfranchised citizens of some of our States. Not only is the right to vote a basic principle of democracy, but the right to an equal vote should be just as firm a bedrock of democracy.
Another point which we think should be stressed before this committee is that of approval by popular referendum, called for in Senate Joint Resolution 2. This has an attractive and equalitarian facade to it, but it has disturbing implications. No temporary majority of citizens should have the power to deprive any of their fellow citizens of basic rights of political equality. It is tempting to say that, just as majorities can decide to levy taxes and regulate hours of work and make other legislative decisions, so a majority can manipulate apportionment. But no majority should ever remove from any citizen or group of citizens a right as basic as equal representation.
A large factor in the surface appeal of the proposed amendments is the so-called “Federal analogy," which alleges that since States of unequal population are equally represented in the U.S. Senate, so should the States be permitted to follow the same course in the apportionment of their legislatures. This is, however, a false analogy. Courts in both Michigan and Wisconsin have ruled that subordinate units of government such as cities and counties have no sovereign powers and are in no sense analogous to the States which participated in the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. We feel that the words of the Supreme Court on this subject go to the heart of the matter. Said the Court:
Attempted reliance on the Federal analogy appears often to be little more than an after-the-fact rationalization offered in defense of maladjusted State apportionment arrangements.