The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory, we were hoping we could dispose of this matter this afternoon, and I understood you to say you would only speak about 4 minutes. You are not limited to that, but you may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MCCLORY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. MCCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the committee for having this hearing and giving consideration to an open rule for at least 5 or 6 hours in order that we can consider on the floor of the House, in open debate, this most important legislative measure. If the committee will direct its attention to page 19 of the report they will see that I expressed some additional views. These additional views are in support of the resolution as reported, but also with the suggestion that it could be improved by some amendments. I am fearful of the 40-percent requirement for the election of a President. I am fearful of the contingency of a runoff election. I think nothing caused greater fear on the part of the committee than what to do in the case of a runoff election. Should we have another general election? When should we have it? How long will it take to resolve such an election? The substitutes for the general runoff election were really inconsistent with the idea of a popular election of a President. So this caused grave concern. It is my recommendation we reduce the requirement to 35 percent. I am told by those who have studied this problem that such an amendment would reduce the posibility of a runoff election from one in 100 to one in 1,000. The second amendment I will propose is that the constitutional amendment be ratified by State conventions. I know it has been suggested that the practicalities are such that we should propose a district plan or some other plan because the State legislatures will not approve the popular plan. I think that is a genuine fear. But I know that at least 80 percent of the people want the right to elect the President of the United States. Therefore, I am suggesting we leave the ratification up to State conventions. The people will see that the conventions are held promptly, and in my opinion this would be the most expeditious manner of securing ratification of the amendment by threefourths of the States. There was only one other amendment for which we used this mode. That was the amendment to repeal prohibition, and I imagine the same consideration entered the minds of the Congress at that time. The people wanted it repealed and we had about the speediest ratification of a constitutional amendment in our entire history. Therefore, I am extremely anxious that we have an open rule for the purpose of considering these amendments. I think that the popular election of the President should be favorably voted for by the Congress and expeditiously ratified by State conventions. Thank you very much. I have used 4 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. You might take an additional minute if you wish. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. I assume you offered your amendments in committee? Mr. McCLORY. Yes; and the amendment to reduce 40 percent to 35 percent lost on a tie vote. The other amendment on State conventions lost on a vote that was not as close, but it had wide support in the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the statement of Congressman Pollock will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN HOWARD W. POLLOCK BEFORE THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE, JULY 22, 1969 Mr. Chairman and members of the House Rules Committee: There can exist no doubt that a change in the electoral system for selection of the President and Vice President must occur. You have before you today for consideration a proposal which would eliminate the electoral system of today and substitute a method whereby the President and Vice President would be chosen by a direct popular election. I do not agree that the direct popular vote is the best and fairest method of selection of President and Vice President. If we go to the direct popular vote, a candidate need carry only the population centers of the country to become President, without regard to regional differences or State preferences. Gentlemen, I represent a State with fewer than 300,000 citizens. Nonetheless we are jealous of our rights as citizens to cast a meaningful ballot for our President and Vice President, and we want our collective decision recorded and individually considered. Many of our interests are not those of the Nation's urban centers; however, our interests deserve separate consideration. They could also be the interests of nearly three-fourths of the other States and yet be disregarded in a direct popular vote procedure. For example, under the direct popular vote system a President could actually carry only 13 States and win the election regardless of the vote or the choice of the other 37 States. Ten years ago Alaska joined the Union of sovereign States with all the rights and privileges enjoyed by the older States. When the Union was formed, those States with smaller populations were guaranteed certain protections to safeguard their sovereign integrity, such as equal representation in the United States Senate in contradistinction to the population representation in the United States House of Representatives. This was carried one step further when the lesser populated States were also given a number of electoral votes for President of the United States equal to the number of their Senators and Representatives. The direct popular vote would violate these guarantees and abolish the right of State decisions in the national composite of determining the President. As was stated during the Senate debate on this same subject in March 1956 by the then Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy-and I quote "On theoretical grounds it seems to me it (the direct popular vote) would be a breach of the agreement made with the States when they came into the Union. At that time it was understood that they would have the same number of electoral votes as they had Senators and Representatives." The concept that guided the drafters of the United States Constitution was that each State was to be a separate and fully independent element in the Union as a whole. The direct popular vote would deprive the lesser populated states of this separate and independent element of identity. I am absolutely convinced, should this proposal pass the House, that it would never be ratified by the required three-fourths of the states. The legislatures of the less populated states could not in good conscience vote for this measure-for a vote so cast would effec tively disfranchise the constituents of that state from the selection of the President and Vice President. Accordingly, I have filed H.J. Res. 405, which I feel will protect the original guarantees to the sovereign states in the national complex, while at the same time resolving the obvious basic shortcomings of the present electoral system. It would establish a so-called district electoral system. My resolution retains the concept of the electoral vote but does away for the electoral college. Each state would have a total number of electoral votes equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives to which the state is entitled in Congress. The resolution provides that the winner of a plurality of votes at the district level would receive the one electoral vote for the congressional/electoral district, instead of the present "winner-take-all" system at the state level, while at the same time providing two additional electoral votes to the candidate with the greatest statewide vote. In electing the President and the Vice President, the voter would cast a single vote for both the candidates as the "presidential candidacy." The electoral votes for each district and state would be automatic according to the votes cast. The popular vote and electoral vote would then be transmitted to the President of the Senate as at present, but would be reported by both district count and by state totals. I am hopeful that you will grant a rule, allowing a change in the electoral system to reach the floor of the House. But I hope that this rule proposes the district plan, rather than that of the direct vote. If your collective decision is to pass the direct vote proposal to the floor, I would attempt to introduce an amendment in the Committee of the Whole House in the nature of a substitute to replace everything after the enacting clause with the provisions of my district plan contained in H.J. Res. 405 accordingly. I ask for a ruling by the committee finding that H.J. Res. 405 is germane as an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the committee adjourned.) LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1970 HEARING BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION OCTOBER 23, 30; NOVEMBER 6, 13, 20; AND DECEMBER 3, Printed for the use of the Special Subcommittee on Legislative UNITED STATES OF |