Mr. CELLER. In almost all the elections of President except one, there is only one President who was elected with less than 40 percent. Every single President, 45 elections, were elected with over 40 percent.

Mr. LATTA. So why do we need the 40 percent? The question was raised across the table here, why not a simple plurality? Following your argument that you were just making, then why have the 40 percent? Why not have a simple plurality? The prospect is there, is it not, when you provide for it?

Mr. CELLER. Yes. But the Judiciary Committee felt that we would have to have some sort of strong mandate from the country. Less than 40 percent would not be a sufficient mandate. You are speaking for the entire Nation here, and I think you must have at least 40 percent so that the man who enters the office of President will have some real backing behind him. If you have less than 40 percent, he is not really and truly endorsed by the entire Nation wholeheartedly. That is the trouble. That was the trouble with John Quincy Adams. He had trouble because he was a minority President and he faced that difficulty all the time.

Mr. LATTA. Let me bring your attention to section 2. I would like to have you explain this to me because I have read this a dozen times and still do not understand it. It says:

The electors of President and Vice President in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature

That says "shall have the qualifications." Then you say:

except that for electors of President and Vice President, the legislature of any State may prescribe less restrictive residence qualifications *

It seems like in the first part you give them the power, and then you take it away.

Mr. CELLER. Only in that one exception, only with reference to residence qualifications.

Mr. LATTA. If that is it, then that leads me to my next question: If you are just leaving it as far as residence you are then providing for carpetbaggers to go from one State to another and become electors. Mr. CELLER. That is up to the States. The States would not permit

that.

Mr. LATTA. They would not? They have permitted one man to go from one State to another and run for Senator. So what is the difference? Running for an elector or running for the U.S. Senate, what is it?

Mr. CELLER. If they allow that for the election of President, Congress will step in and check it immediately, because in the next sentence we give the right to Congress to establish uniform qualifications.

Mr. LATTA. Yes. You say, "Congress may establish uniform residence qualifications." That leads me to wonder whether or not Congress, in view of the thinking in the past several years, whether or not they ought to abolish State lines and let these fellows run as electors in any of the 50 States regardless of residence.

Mr. CELLER. You wouldn't want that, would you?

Mr. LATTA. I certainly wouldn't.

Mr. CELLER. I don't think that is possible here.

Mr. LATTA. I certainly know of individuals that might. We are writing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States not for today, but for tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Mr. CELLER. You mentioned electors. We have no electors here. We have abolished electors.

Mr. LATTA. Beg pardon?

Mr. CELLER. We do not have electors.

Mr. LATTA. We are not talking about the House of Representatives. Mr. CELLER. You said electors can vote in any State. You mean the citizen. You mean the voters.

Mr. LATTA. Right.

Now, one other thing. I know the bells have rung and probably this is nit-picking, but I consider the Constitution of the United States, second to the Bible, the most important document that I read and I do not like this language where you say in section 3 "The pair of persons". You say, "The pair of persons having the greatest number of votes"; that is awful.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Hutchinson is the author of that one.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No, I am not, I am not.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. McCulloch

Mr. LATTA. It seems to me you ought to be able to come up with better language.

Mr. CELLER. Do you want to answer that?

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we are trying to finish with this witness because we are going to have to go downstairs.

Mr. CELLER. I don't see anything wrong with the language. It is a question of semantics, maybe. You may want another word there, but they are a pair.

Mr. LATTA. That is all.

Mr. O'NEILL. It will show that our age is not as picturesque as the age of the 1780's.

Mr. CELLER. What is that?

Mr. O'NEILL. Our age is not as picturesque in language as the language of the 1780's.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished, Mr. O'Neill?

Mr. O'NEILL. I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Celler, if I understand you, you expect to leave town this afternoon. You are going to New York?

Mr. CELLER. I have to vote in New York.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, it is obvious we cannot finish this hearing on this matter today.

I had hoped that we could finish, but we have this quorum call, and we do have to go into executive session. So we will just have to notify you with respect to the next session we will hear you.

The committee will go into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the committee went into executive session.)

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1969

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 11 a.m., in room H-313, the Capitol, the Honorable William M. Colmer, chairman, presiding.

Present: Messrs. Colmer (chairman), Madden, Bolling, Young, Pepper, Matsunaga, Smith of California, Anderson, Martin, Quillen, and Latta.

Staff present: Mr. Laurie C. Battie, counsel; Mr. Robert D. Hynes, Jr., minority counsel.

Mr. COLMER. I understand Mr. Celler was anxious about this resolution.

Mr. McCulloch, in the interest of time the committee will hear from you, but we would appreciate it if you would notify Mr. Celler that we expect to hear from him further.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, of course you will recall that there was a lengthy hearing on the first day at which Mr. Celler, the chairman of the Committee of the Judiciary, testified throughout the period.

I had prepared my statement in view of that lengthy testimony and, therefore, my written statement will be brief.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. McCULLOCH, A U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. McCULLOCH. I would like to begin by saying it is almost impossible at this time to shed new light on the subject of electoral college reform. There are few defenders of the status quo. It is time that the House work its will.

On May 16, 1969, for the first time in history, a congressional committee reported the direct-election proposal as an amendment. The vote of the House Judiciary Committee was overwhelming: 29 to 6. That vote cut across party lines. The six votes against the directelection proposal were cast by three Democrats and three Republicans. The membership on that committee is, as I recall, 15 Republicans and 20 Democrats. So I am pleased this morning to join with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in requesting an open rule providing for 6 hours of debate.

33-036-69-3

I have been of the opinion that it serves a useful purpose in matters of great importance, such as fashioning an amendment to the Constitution, that every knowledgeable person who desires to speak should have an opportunity to speak on the proposal of electoral college reform, a question which is no simple issue. We proceeded in hearing this matter before the committee in accordance with that principle. The committee held 10 days of hearings and 7 days of executive sessions in order to study the problem and report a proposal.

I believe that the House should consider the direct-election proposal because it alone can engender the enthusiasm and the support necessary for ratification. The direct-election proposal for the election of the President is recommended by the American Bar Association, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce. It is favored by 81 percent of the American people, according to a Gallup poll.

Of all the plans-and to me this is so important-of all the plans, only the direct-election plan cures all the defects of the status quo. It alone guarantees that the "winner" wins and the "loser" loses. It alone treats all voters equally. It alone subscribes to the principle of "one man, one vote” in presidential elections. All other plans stop short. All other plans are incomplete.

The direct-election plan is not only the best, it is the most feasible. Electoral college reform has been a topic of much concern in the Congress since 1797. Reform has failed because of the kinds of reforms proposed. We tried the district plan-and failed. We tried the proportional plan-and failed. We tried both those plans together-and failed.

Those attempts had to fail.

I am fearful that if we embraced any of those plans that failed in the past they would again fail in the future. Constitutional amendments do not come easily. Article V places a heavy burden on reform lest one faction disadvantage another. The district plan and the proportional plan are special-interest plans. They do not serve all the people. They frankly render unto the small States more than is their due. But enacting constitutional amendments is not a shell game. The history of these reforms proves that. Sooner or later, the special interest is uncovered-and the reform fails.

Not until May 16, 1969, did a committee report a resolution that eliminated both of the competing inequities in the present system-the unit rule which favors large States and the bonus votes which favor small States. At last, on that day, at least in the committee, factionalism failed and fairness triumphed.

Of course, the direct-election proposal is not favored by everyone. In this representative Republic seldom, if ever is anything favored by everyone, and I guess that is the greatness and strength of our Republic. So it is here. Some liberals find the direct plan second to the automatic plan. Some conservatives find it second to the district plan. But often the merits of a proposal can be seen in the nature of its opposition, and that is true here.

The direct-election plan is neither a liberal plan nor a conservative plan. It is neither a Democrat plan nor a Republican plan, but a plan which serves the common good of our Nation, a plan molded by the