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-REAPPORTION MENT

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 Portland, Oreg., January 28, 1965, That Congress, State legislatures, and the citizenry of the United States be alerted to the dangers inherent in this decision and 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 statenient 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 0 States) *** "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 protection clause, and it stifles values of local individuality and initiative vital to The character of the Federal Union which it was the genius of our Constitution *** (it) forever freezes one theory of political thought into our

create

Constitution."

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 reaportionment 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 worked well for the Nation and States.

It is not established, as the Court stated, in view of the makeup of State egislatures generally or the Congress, that the principle of representative gov ment in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people.

The dissent points out that it is not the system under the Constitution; it was the system when the 14th amendment was adopted; not predominantly pracred 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

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 politically, 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 balance and flexibility in government. Specifically, it prevents urban areas from acqniring such overwhelming control of legislatures that rural problems are ignored. Moreover, in areas of rapid growth, where today's rural area is tomorrow's city, geographic apportionment helps provide the upcoming areas with a voice 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 heat 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 system that has worked well at the Federal lever and in those States which have used it.

Senator BAYI. 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

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-REAPPORTION MENT

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 Portland, Oreg., January 28, 1965, That Congress, State legislatures, and the citizenry of the United States be alerted to the dangers inherent in this decision and 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 statement 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 50 States) *** "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 pro*ection clause, and it stifles values of local individuality and initiative vital to the character of the Federal Union which it was the genius of our Constitution to create *** (it) forever freezes one theory of political thought into our Constitution."

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 reapportionment 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 worked well for the Nation and States.

It is not established, as the Court stated, in view of the makeup of State legislatures generally or the Congress, that the principle of representative goverument in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people.

The dissent points out that it is not the system under the Constitution; it was not the system when the 14th amendment was adopted; not predominantly pracjeed 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

reflected the tradition that the public interest is composed of many diverse interests, and that these can better be expressed by a medley of component voices than by the majority's monolithic command.

Resources and property, as well as people, are the cornerstones of a success ful society. It is proper and necessary that all of these elements have repre sentation in our governments. The two Houses of Congress and of the typical State legislature, which have long functioned on this principle, act as checks and balances in the legislative processes that have been the foundation of the strength of our Nation. Without proper checks and balances in the legislative processes, future development of various resource uses will certainly be stifled. If this happens, new wealth created by development of these resources will not occur thus having a deleterious effect on the total national economy.

There is obviously the danger in numerical equality voting that less populated areas would be neglected, or that, in a conflict between areas of a State, the more populated area would elect an entire legislature and the minority would never be heard.

But a point to be emphasized is that the areas with concentrated population already have the practical opportunity of exerting their political weight at the polls, and this is not available to the same extent to the thinly populated areas. While the great majority of the stockmen we represent reside in remote and sparsely settled areas, we believe a legislative plan to reflect the particular characteristics and needs of various sections of a State is as necessary in a State with great concentrations of population as in States with fewer metropolitan centers. All legislators who truly would represent their districts and States would not favor a legislative situation in which only one or two numerically large groups were represented.

The fact that States and the Nation have historically accepted special representation from diverse sections strengthens this statement.

We, therefore respectfully urge your congressional body to act to correct the wrong that will stem from the Supreme Court's decision on reapportionment. We are heartily in favor of passage of S.J. Res. 2 which calls for an amendment to that effect to the Constitution.

Senator BAYH. I would also like to include in the record the statement by the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Lister Hill, to have it included in the record as if read.

(At this point, the prepared statement of Senator Lister Hil follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISTER HILL

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to be here to testify in support of S.J. Res. 2 of which I am a cosponsor.

This resolution would submit to the States for ratification within period of 7 years a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States which would give back to the States the right to appor tion one branch of a bicameral State legislature on a basis other than population if the people of that State elected to do so by a referendum vote. The amendment would also allow the people of a State to give reasonable weight to factors other than population in apportioning unicameral legislatures.

The amendment proposed in S.J. Res. 2 is wholly in keeping with our traditions and the need for sound and efficient government. Fo some 177 years, from the days this Nation was founded, the States had exercised this prerogative and had considered it their right to do under the Constitution and the laws of the land.

I was shocked, as were many Constitutional lawyers, when in March of 1962 the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Baker v. €ter, 369 U.S. 186, opened the flood gates to the entire field of legis lative apportionment within the States themselves and established the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to issue decrees, injunctions, and

other orders aimed at State legislative bodies and the peoples of the individual States in regard to State reapportionment.

As one who has always believed in the Constitution and in the rights of the States as reserved to them thereunder, I think it is fundamentally wrong for the Supreme Court or any Federal court to tell the legislature of a State how to apportion itself. But the Court did not stop here. It went a step further, a gigantic step further, in the case of Reynolds v. Sims (377 U.S. 533 (June 15, 1964), and held that both houses of a bicameral State legislature must be apportioned on the basis of population.

In many State legislatures a bicameral legislature is patterned after that of the national legislature, the Congress of the United States. On the basis of the Supreme Court's theory as enunciated in Reynolds V. Sims, the upper house of our bicameral national legislature is out of proportion. If it were not for the fact that the Constitution of the United States so established the U.S. Senate by express language therein. I dare say that from this rush in recent years toward government by bare majority rule the U.S. Senate would be in danger of "reapportionment" by the Supreme Court. Recent figures reveal that States can be so aligned to show that 25 percent of our U.S. Senators represent 58 percent of the population and by the same figures that 75 percent of the Senate represents only 42 percent of the population. While this may be attacked on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, history will show that it is exactly what our forefathers intended. In the upper house of the bicameral national legislature, our Founding Fathers were not striving to seek balance based on population. Rather there were to be two votes from each State to speak in behalf of the interests of the people of the State they represented, regardless of its population in proportion to the other States. This principle was debated at length by those who put our blueprint for democracy together and was insisted on in the ratifying conventions in order to bring this Nation into being. Again, history will show that had not this principle been accepted, this principle of two voices from each State in the upper House of a bicameral legislature regardless of population apportionment, this Nation would have never come into being.

The Supreme Court tells us by its 1964 decision in Reynolds v. Sims that we must abandon this principle in our individual State legislatures. With one fell swoop, a principle which was fought for by our forefathers and bequeathed to us as part of our heritage is destroyed in regard to our State legislatures.

Mr. Justice Brennan labored long and hard in his lengthy opinion in the case of Baker v. Carr to justify the new and difficult position of the Supreme Court in entering the political field in the apportionment of the State legislatures. The essence of what Justice Brennan said may be found on page 209 of the opinion of that case: "Of course, the mere fact that the suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean that it presents a political question." He then distinguishes all of the cases wherein the Court refused to pass on political questions. Frankly, I know of very few matters that are more political than the apportionment of State legislatures, whose members are elected by the people of a State, who in so doing make their selection on the basis of