They assume that rural legislators will ignore the needs of urban areas, and at the same time they seem to assume that urban legislators will be somehow fairer and wiser in treating all the problems of all the people in a State. I do not go along with that assumption. I agree, rather, with John Adams, who said in 1789, "The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries." This we had in Colorado, our own solution worked out by our own people, adopted in free elections and enshrined in our constitution.

Yet, after the voters had adopted this constitutional provision and the legislature had implemented it, an opponent of the Federal plan filed suit in the Federal Court for the District of Colorado, claiming violation of his constitutional rights. The three-judge district court convened to hear the case, held that the Colorado plan of apportionment was not violative of the U.S. Constitution, but when the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the case was reversed and remanded to the district court.

Thereafter, we had the following sequence of events: The district court decreed that reapportionment must be accomplished by July 15, under threat of the court itself accomplishing the reapportionment if the legislature was unable to do so. The Governor called the legislature into a special session, and it proceeded to devise a new plan on the guidelines of the Colorado constitution as it stood before the amendment of 1962. The new plan adopted by the legislature provided for subdistricting of multimember districts, such as the city and county of Denver. This plan was approved by the three-judge Federal court and signed by the Governor. Immediately thereafter suit was filed in the Colorado Supreme Court attacking the new apportionment plan on the basis that provision for subdistricting contravened the old Colorado constitutional provisions. Simultaneously, the backers of the Federal plan of apportionment appealed the district court's decision that amendment No. 7 was not severable.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that the old constitutional provision on apportionment prohibited the division of the counties into districts for the election of senators and representatives and held, therefore, that the whole Apportionment Act, approved by the Federal district court, was invalid. Nevertheless, they permitted elections to be held in the fall of 1964 under the invalid act. Subsequently, on February 1 this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the appeal from the district court, and in a per curiam opinion said:

Insofar as the judgment of the district court decides Federal questions, it is affirmed. Insofar as the judgment decides other questions, it is vacated and the canse is remanded for further consideration in light of the supervening decision of the Colorado Supreme Court.

Four Justices, in a concurring opinion, said:

It is our understanding that the court's disposition of this case leaves it open to the district court to abstain on the question as to the severability of the various provisions of amendment No. 7 pending resolution of that issue with reasonable promptitude in further State court proceedings. We deem it appropriate explicitly to state our view that this is the course which the district court should follow. On this basis we join the court's opinion.

The members of this committee are certainly aware of some of the difficulties involved in determining what is a Federal question. It ems to me that this latest decision of the supreme court in the Colorado situation points up the near impossibility of laying down guide

lines in the apportionment problem. It clearly points up the court's unwillingness to lay down such guidelines. Basically, apportionment is a political question and the more the supreme court is pinned down to have to provide guidelines, let alone draw apportionment plans, the more they are going to discover the truth of this.

Mr. Chairman, my own feelings about the proper method of appor tionment are doubtless quite apparent from my statement thus far. I am opposed to a strict population basis as the sole allowable factor in apportioning both houses of a bicameral legislature. I have no doubt that an intolerant majority can be fully as oppressive as a dictatorship, when there is no restriction placed upon the majority. I have no illusions that all values worth protecting are fully protected in the Constitution, particularly if we permit the Constitution to be changed by judicial fiat, without full and adequate debate. Again, our system of checks and balances affords protection-political protection-to a minority who otherwise might be completely submerged and run over roughshod were there no such checks. The whole principle of bicameralism is to provide another such check within the government and this is as true on the State level as it is on the Federal level. Madison's arguments in the Federalist and John Stuart Mill's arguments in his "Essay on Representative Government" both lay some stress on having the two houses "distinct" and "dissimilar in genius. Madison in No. 63 of the Federalist closes his arguments for a distinctive second chamber saying:

It adds no small weight to all these considerations to recollect that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would close with the same thought with which I opened my statement. Our own personal feelings as to the proper basis of apportionment are not here the main question. The basic question is whether we will give to States and the people the opportunity to decide for themselves what factors are important in apportioning seats in their legislatures. Certainly, S.J. Res. 2 does not require that the States use such other factors, but only permits it if the plan has been submitted to the electorate in accordance with law and with the provisions of our U.S. Constitution.

I believe that if the Senate opens the way, our Constitution will be amended. The American Bar Association House of Delegates recently gave their support to a constitutional amendment in this area, and although I have not seen the exact wording of the resolution adopted, it is reported to parallel S.J. Res. 2. The last time I made a count, 42 Senators had cosponsored or sponsored resolutions on this subject, so there is obviously great sentiment here for a change. I know that the majority of people in Colorado feel they have been unjustly dealt with by the Supreme Court. I have been surprised by the amount of mail I have received, and the number of resolutions passed by various groups in Colorado, asking that I do all in my power to allow the people in each State to decide on their own governmental structure. They understand that the Constitution does not speak of the structure of State government, except to guarantee that it be "republican." And they understand the damage-psychological, at least-done to the Union of States by the Supreme Court decision

Let me, in conclusion, quote once more from Mr. Justice Harlan in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims. He says—

These decisions cut deeply into the fabric of our Federation. What must follow from them may eventually appear to be the product of State legislatures. Nevertheless, no thinking person can fail to recognize that the aftermath of these cases, however desirable it may be thought in itself, will have been achieved at the cost of a radical alteration in relationship between the States and the Federal Government, more particularly the Federal judiciary. Only one who has an overbearing impatient with the Federal system and its political processes will believe that the cost was not too high or was inevitable.

This committee and the Senate itself can at least take the first step to restoring the balance in relationship between the States and the Federal Government by passing S.J. Res. 2. I urge you to report the resolution out of committee, and give the Senate the opportunity to work its will.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAYH. We certainly appreciate the Senator from Colorado's description of the Colorado situation.

May I ask a question, that is similar to that I posed to the Senator from Iowa? I would like to get the thoughts of the Senator from Colorado in the record on this, if I could.

In your statement you pointed out that one of the basic concepts of our system has been the protection of the minority.

The opponents to S.J. Res. 2 oppose it because they think that it does not protect the minority, or the individual. They suggest it is possible, through a State referendum, for the majority of the voters to set up a formula in one house of the State legislative body, which could deprive a small minority of the people from their rights.

How does the Senator view this argument?

Senator ALLOTT. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I can only answer this one way.

I have always had a deep and abiding faith in the intelligence and justice of the American people. The history of this entire situation in Colorado proves conclusively to me that at least as far as my State is concerned and I cannot speak for others that this would not be 5. As a matter of fact, the minority are less protected under the Sims case than I feel confident they would ever be protected under any action of the voters of the State.

You see, in Colorado we not only have the right to initiate constitutional amendments through the regular legislation process, by a twothirds vote in each house, but we also have the power of initiative. And both of the proposed amendments that I spoke of in 1962, No. 7 and No. 8, arrived on the ballot by the initiative method.

So I cannot conceive that minorities would not be protected. In fact, I cannot conceive of any situation which would lead to a worse result than we are now at.

Senator BAYH. The Colorado situation and the confusion it caused certainly does not lend dignity to our democratic process. However, if this amendment were to pass, I am sure there would be some States, one of which would be mine that would be faced with the reverse Constitutional question. This would result because our State constitution says that both houses of the legislature shall be apportioned on The population basis. It has never been done so. We would again have a Federal and a State constitutional provision at loggerheads.

Senator ALLOTT. Well, I might say to the chairman and speaking frankly-that neither was ours apportioned on a strictly population basis. It was done after this manner. There would be one representative-I am using hypothetical figures for the first 300,000, or any portion thereof, and then apportion. I presume a similar measu was used in your State.

One of the significant things-now, the argument has been used that geography does not vote and land does not vote. This is quit true. And yet in our State we have such a diversity of econom interests that you really do not have any representation, adequat representation, of some of these economic interests unless you have an apportionment of one house other than on the one-man-one-vote theory.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much.

The Senator from Maryland?

Senator TYDINGS. I do have one or two questions, Senator. Senator Dirksen's resolution, the second sentence, beginning page 7, reads

Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit the people from apportioning one house of a bicameral legislature upon the basis of factors other than population. What would you deem to be the meaning of "on the basis of facto other than population."

Senator ALLOTT. Well, personally I think chiefly in terms of geographical and economic interests, Senator.

Senator TYDINGS. What do you mean-economic interests?

Senator ALLOTT. Well, for example, in our State, in the eastern part you have a heavy agricultural interest. And yet this agricultur interest is a very divided one, which consists of two completely dif ferent types of agriculture one of which is supplied by irrigation and in the irrigated areas, and another one which is commonly r ferred to as dryland farming, and the two of them are completely different types of agriculture and their interests are completely different.

Then as you move into the western part of the State, a line rough drawn through Denver, the southward to Pueblo and go on sout you hit into a heavy industrial area. Then as you go west, you get not only again into the different kinds of different kinds and types, of which there are two chief types of agriculture interests, but the you get into the very complex questions, for example, of reclamation and irrigation and power. Then you get into the question of mining, the development of coal, the development of oil shale reserves. An these are very, very complex questions indeed.

So that if you do not have the various geographical divisions of the State represented, I do not see how you can do it.

So I think in terms of certainly a large amount of geographybut I think also in terms of economic interests of the people of an

area.

Senator TYDINGS. Do you think there should be any restriction on these factors? For instance, do you think the State legislatures shou be able to reapportion, say, on the basis of whether or not your gran father voted in the State or not?

Senator ALLOTT. As I stated to the chairman, I do not think we have to worry about such things, frankly, because the legislature can

submit such proposal to the people, but I cannot conceive of the people of the country, particularly of my own State, would ever be so foolhardy as to do anything like that.

Senator TYDINGS. Let me ask you one other question.

Do you think there should be judicial review of what the legislatures do?

Senator ALLOTT. As I understand the resolution, Senator, I do not concede it to be an attempt nor do I think there should be an attempt to substract if from judicial review.

Does that answer your question plainly?

Senator TYDINGS. That answers my question.

Senator BAYH. Are there further questions?

Senator ALLOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Senator BAYн. We thank the Senator for his fine contribution to the record.

Our next witness is Congressman George Hansen, from Idaho.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am very happy to be here today.

Rather than take up this committee's valuable time by reading my entire statement into the record, if I may be permitted to do so, I would like to make a few brief remarks, and then file my statement with the committee.

Senator BAYH. Please do so. Let me just say this, Congressman. I am sure you best know how you can present your feelings. The committee would be happy to receive your statement in whatever manner you care to offer it.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, my appearance here today reflects the concern of people of my district and the overwhelming majority of the Legislature of the State of Idaho which recently passed a joint memorial accordingly.

Many observations and interpretations have been advanced on the case of reapportionment, but the point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that it is a most important point, a most elling point, and a point that I have seen expressed nowhere else, is that our Federal Government takes its form from the governments of the States which founded it. That form is of two houses, one based on population and the other on geographical considerations.

That form of government is under attack today. And, Mr. Chairman, if we allow this attack to be successful against our State governments, then how long will it be before our Federal system will also be under seige, and the intent of the great compromise of the U.S. constitutional system completely destroyed?

Mr. Chairman, I support without reservation a constitutional amendment which would state that both houses of a bicameral State legislature need not be apportioned solely on the basis of population, provided that the plan of such apportionment shall have been submitted to and approved by a vote of the electorate of that State.