Oklahoma Senate, why deny the people a chance to vote on that issue. That is what we are trying to find out-why?

Senator ROGERS. Essentially for the same reason that you would oppose an amendment to abolish the first article because you believe it to be a poor decision for the people to make.

Senator HRUSKA. If there were the same volume of demand for an amendment repealing a part of the Constitution that there is for the position contended for in Oklahoma S. Con. Res. 3, you would find me voting in favor of the submission to a vote of the legislatures and the people.

Senator ROGERS. That is where I would vary with you, Senator. Senator HRUSKA. I would not vary on it, because I believe on a decision of that kind, it should be left in the hands of the people. Popular sovereignty means something to me and I have faith and confidence in the people of this Nation. There are some who do not. They say, we are going to tell them when they can vote on things and when they cannot. And here is one example.

Senator ROGERS. I have faith and confidence in them, too.

Senator HRUSKA. Not to the extent of trusting them to make a basic decision, with all of the safeguards I have enumerated. Thirteen States can say, No, we do not want this amendment. Mind you, 13 States. That is all it takes. Then there will not be an amendment to the Constitution.

Senator TYDINGS. Let me ask the Senator another question.

Have you ever voted against a constitutional amendment proposed by the Oklahoma Legislature? Proposed in the legislature? Senator ROGERS. Yes, I have voted against.

Senator TYDINGS. Did you vote against that constitutional amendment because you did not trust the right of the people to vote or did you vote against it because you were opposed to the constitutional amendment?

Senator ROGERS. The latter is true.

I would not care, Senator Hruska, if 49 States of the United States felt that the people of Oklahoma should not have a right to equal representation in the legislature. I would not agree to them having I would not want them to have the ability to force my State into a different type of government. I think the Constitution is to protect people, minorities in many cases.

Senator HRUSKA. Why not all cases Why do you say many cases? Senator TYDINGS. It might be needed to protect the majority in

some cases.

Senator ROGERS. I do not say the country should be run by minorities. We are run by majorities, but I think we need to

Senator HRUSKA. Are we run by a majority, Senator Rogers? In the matter of amending the Constitution, are we run by a majority, when 13 States out of 50 can say, No, we do not want this amendment? Who is running the business of amending the Constitution?

Senator ROGERS. Well, look at it this way, Senator. When you talk about 13 States

Senator HRUSKA. That is all it takes.

Senator ROGERS. And 37 States, we are talking about legislatures. Senator HRUSKA. I am talking about amendment of the Constitution. Legislatures indeed.

Senator ROGERS. And we are talking about a legislature in Oklahoma that may or may not reflect the popular will of the people.

Senator HRUSKA. Yes.

Senator ROGERS. And under a malapportionment situation, until that is changed, they may never reflect popular will. Yet they have the right to amend the Federal Constitution.

Senator HRUSKA. Senator Rogers, before they can interfere with the Reynolds v. Sims decision, it is the legislature that has to propose something affirmatively saying, "We want representation with other factors than population," and that plan then goes to the people.

Now, you say the legislature may not be representative of the people. Are the people representative of the people? Are not they the ones that should make that decision? That is all this amendment calls for. Senator ROGERS. Under a fair, one-man, one-vote reapportionment, that is correct.

Senator HRUSKA. That is all that is asked for, one man, one vote, and an opportunity to use that vote to determine whether or not they want to approve or disapprove a plan of the State legislature. That is what is involved. Let's go the whole way on this one man, one vote not one man, one vote, but not give the people a chance to vote on this proposition.

Is that not about your situation?

Senator ROGERS. No, not exactly. If this Congress, before this session is over, passes the Dirksen amendment and submits it to the several States, you may very well find malapportioned legislatures that will be amending the Constitution concerning apportionment.

Senator HRUSKA. Not if the Federal court orders are going to be carried out. Most of them are out there. Suppose they are not. What happens then? That malapportioned legislature will submit a plan to the people of the State and if they are not representative of the people of the State, the people will tell them so in a big hurry. Do you feel that they, the people are too dumb or do not understand. Have you lost faith and confidence in the people.

Senator ROGERS. No, not any of that. I do think the people grow weary and some of them go broke fighting this kind of a battle as they have fought it in Oklahoma for decades and as they fought them in other parts of the country.

Senator HRUSKA. That is not the kind of battle it is. Reynolds v. Sims is the law of the land. It will continue to be the law of the land unless the popular vote of the people of a particular State can ay, "No, we are going to modify it in one particular." That is all it is. Your answer to that is, "No, I will not give them their chance to vote on it." Is that it?

Senator ROGERS. My answer is I like the Sims decision better than the Dirksen bill.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, you have been very patient Senator Rogers and, Mr. Chairman, you have, too.

Senator ROGERS. You are very probing, Senator. I appreciate it. Senator TYDINGS. The Senator is a most ardent advocate.

I would like your unanimous consent to submit this statement of Senator Brewster into the record.

Senator HRUSKA. Certainly.

DEAR SENATOR BAYH: Being unable to personally appear before your subcommittee today, I would appreciate it if you would insert my prepared remarks at the appropriate place in the hearing record.

With kindest regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

DANIEL B. BREWSTER,

U.S. Senator.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR DANIEL B. BREWSTER

I am glad to have this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to present my views on S.J. Res. 2. It embraces one of the most fundamental issues before the American society today. It raises questions that go to the heart of our governmental and constitutional system. Because of its importance, it deserves the most careful consideration.

You are to be commended, Mr. Chairman, for holding these thorough and impartial hearings on this issue, for the action the U.S. Senate takes on this question can have a profound influence for good or ill on the effectiveness and perhaps the very survival of the Federal form of government in these United States.

In order to arrive at my own position, I found I had to go back and examine my own basic views of our American governmental way of life-to start with the Constitution and look at the fundamental fabric of government under our de mocracy. I found myself asking questions that seemed simple, but proved otherwise. But by searching those questions, I arrived at what I think is the appropriate answer.

The first question I asked was: Is there a clear and compelling need to alter the Constitution of the United States as the proponents of this amendment declare? I believe, as I am sure you do, Mr. Chairman, that our Federal Constitution is the greatest instrument of government ever drawn by the hand of man. It has proven so effective, so perfect as the plan and charter of our democratic system that my instinct is to question any change in it unless the need for such a change can be clearly shown.

Secondly, I asked myself: Is this constitutional amendment required in order to be fair and just to some citizens who are now treated unfairly? The general principle which the Supreme Court enunciated in Reynolds v. Sims is that the vote of every citizen within a State should be assured approximately the same weight in the governmental process no matter where he lives. The amendment here proposed, as I understand it, would change that rule to say that in voting for one house of a State legislature, some citizens' votes could be given greater weight than others. Thus, apparently the amendment, far from eliminating unfairness and discrimination as between voters under the law of the land as it stands, would open the door to the opposite.

A related question was: Is this proposed amendment needed to achieve or to preserve some fundamental right for citizens in our society? Clearly the right to vote and the right to have one's vote fairly counted is basic to a democracy. That is the way each citizen can influence his lawmakers and protect his political and other interests. Building on the language of the Constitution, the Congress and the courts have over the years established the right of a person to vote and have his vote counted equally despite the color of his skin, his economic status or other possible distinctions.

In the reapportionment cases, the court guaranteed this same right regardless of whether a person lives in a city, a suburban area, or the country. Thus, it would seem to follow that the proposed amendment under consideration here would not strengthen any of the precious rights guaranteed to citizens under our Constitution rather it would move in the opposite direction. It would, in fact. take away a basic right.

A fourth question was: Would the proposed amendment be justified by any sweeping change that has recently taken place in our society? A constitution should be adaptable to the needs of changing times, and a great change in the American way of life has indeed taken place. From a one-time largely rural Nation we have become an intensely urbanized and suburbanized Nation. Within our own generation that change has become evident to all. In my own State, over three-fourths of the people now live in Baltimore City and four suburban counties. But the amendment proposed would not help to adjust Maryland's government or the other State governments to that sweeping tide in American society. It would, in fact, move in just the opposite direction.

A related question is: Would the amendment proposed improve the capacity of State governments to deal with the pressing problems that these new populations bring? Let me stress at this point that I am a confirmed believer in strong and effective State governments as a key element in our Federal system. The more problems that can be well met at the State and local level, the better it will be for our Nation. But I am forced to conclude that the amendment here proposed would not make State governments more responsible to the needs and desires of their people today or in decades to come. The opposite effect is more likely. In my own State, again, the amendment would make it possible for 15 Senators who represent one-seventh of our people to maintain a veto over every piece of legislation needed by the State. That is more likely to be a recipe for frustration and stalemates than for responsible and effective State government. A sixth question is: Will the constitutional amendment here being considered be necessary to protect the interests of rural minorities within States? I believe that question is the main concern of many fine and thoughtful people who sincerely believe this amendment is an imperative necessity. I believe the answer is a twofold one. One answer is that none of us considers it necessary or appropriate to grant other minorities, such as racial or religious groups, the right to have their ballots count 5, 10, or 20 times as much as those of other citizens so that they can protect their minority interests. So why should one certain kind of minority have such a privilege? The second answer is that those who claim they need protection from the tyranny of urban and suburban areas have a misconception of those areas. They are not a monolithic group having identical interests and always voting as a bloc. Rather they are as diverse as the rural areas themselves. Using the example of my own State again, citizens in Montgomery County, exhibit quite different ideas and interests from those in Baltimore City or in Anne Arundel County. Even within my own Baltimore County, there are wide differences in the concerns and outlooks of the voters in the different parts of the county. Thus in reality there is no single overwhelming urban majority. The voters there live closer together than the voters in a rural county, but they are just as diverse and just as likely to have their separate views on questions of public policy as those in less populated

areas.

Another question is: If a majority of the people of a State want to maintain one house of their legislature on a nonpopulation basis, why shouldn't they be allowed to? This is indeed a knotty question in a government by majority. But under the Constitution as it stands, the right to an equally-counted vote is today a basic constitutional right like the right to equal treatment regardless of religion or race. As the Constitution stands, a majority cannot take away that right. I would prefer to maintain the guarantee because the right is so fundamental.

Finally, the question is: Does the fact that one house of the U.S. Congress represents governmental units instead of population mean that State legislatures should be entitled to the same form? A study of the history of our great Constiration shows clearly that there is no constitutional or legal case for such a parallel. I am proud of the role that my own sovereign State of Maryland, one of the celebrated 13 original colonies, played in establishing that more perfeet Union in 1789. The compromise at that time between the large and the <mall States was an act of statesmanship which allowed a great Nation to be born. But none can claim that the recognition given there to sovereign States in a federal union must equally be given to local jurisdictions within a State. The Supreme Court's decision does in fact allow States to deviate from a population basis to give a certain recognition to such subordinate units. That desirable flexibility is a far cry, however, from giving equal voting to counties in one house instead of to people.

So, Mr. Chairman, if there is no constitutional or legal requirement for an amendment, the question is simply whether the change would improve the fairness, the responsiveness, and the effectiveness of State governments in the world of today and tomorrow. Those aspects I have dealt with before. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that many able and dedicated Americans in my own State and elsewhere come to a different conclusion than mine. I respect their views which I know are deeply held. But on the basis of all the evidence I can find and the interests of all the citizens of this great country today and in generations to come, I see no justification for amending the Constitution of the United States as has been proposed. I hope your subcommittee will oppose Senate Joint Resolution 2.

Senator TYDINGS. If there are no more witnesses, the subcommittee stands adjourn subject to the call of the Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)