This is what we are talking about. The stranglehold they mentioned the stranglehold theory which formed the basis for the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr in 1962-certainly is a considerable factor and one which, as Mr. Johnson stated to you, did not concern him. Frankly, it did not concern me. Because at that time I was assistant attorney general, I had been for 4 years involved in reapportionment litigation. The State of Florida had been so concerned with this that the Attorney General made a special recommendation to both the 1959 and 1961 legislatures in which we pointed out that we quoted the opinion in full in the McGraw v. Donovan case which was a Minnesota decision which reversed Colegrove v. Green. It was obvious then to any lawyer who reviewed the matter as a legal problem that the U.S. Supreme Court did not follow the Colegrove v. Green decision. In Alabama and Tennessee-we had two States that for 50 years had totally ignored the mandate of the State constitution and the mandate of the people speaking through their State constitution to reapportionment. Quite obviously this gives a legal situation which cried out for some type of relief. That relief came in the decision of Baker v. Carr. But now, just as Mr. Johnson was concerned, are we concerned that a State like Colorado or a State like Florida or a State like California is now tarred with the same brush when we have been apportioning every 10 years and had been in the business of reapportionment actively, both legally as a practical mat

ter since that time.

The State of Florida was the first State that adopted a plan of reapportionment that was approved by the Federal district court as being totally rational and totally reasonable and without invidious discrimination. This plan of reapportionment approved by the legis lature and signed by the Governor and approved by the Federal threejudge court was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court, without hearing testimony or without taking any argument in the case, merely reversed it on the theory of the Reynolds v. Sims, that population is and can be the only factor in both houses which can be the basis for apportionment of State legislatures. Therefore, at this time we do not have a legal problem unless this constitutional amendment or some constitutional amendment similar to it is adopted. The Constitutional amendment similar to it is adopted. The Constitution as it has been construed by the Supreme Court of the United States demands both houses to be apportioned on the basis of population and that alone. In Florida we are under a mandate from the Federal three-judge court and they have no choice. under the Reynolds v. Sims case, but to require apportionment of both houses solely on the basis of population.

Now, I was quite interested in the claims we have. I believe the chairman had a question for the witness that preceded me concerning the evidences of differences of views from the rural and the urban representatives and what clashes or conflicts there were. In the Federal three-judge district court in which they upheld the Florida plan of apportionment, the court very clearly stated that if a stranglehold developed, that is, if a small group or if a group representing other than the population of the State of Florida ever toook control, got a stranglehold on the legislature, then the court could, should, and would act to dissolve that stranglehold.

Senator BAYH. Is there any talk now that the upstate Florida areas are, I suppose you would say, at least according to the Supreme Court decisions, overrepresented in lour legislature? That this group representing your people has not been responsive to the needs of Miami, the southern area, or the central area where your population

Mr. JACOBS. There is evidence to the contrary, Mr. Chairman. In fact Congressman Fuqua in our discussion just a moment ago was giving me some evidence of that and with your permission I would like for him to answer that question with some of the comments which he made to me just at the door, if that is permissible.

Senator BAYH. Please.

Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Chairman, as I think Mr. Jacobs said, there is every evidence to the contrary. We have built in Florida, and while I was a member of the legislature, a new university, South Florida, at Tampa, the University of Florida down at Boca Raton, West Palm Beach area. Several years ago the people of Miami, Metropolitan Dade County came to the legislature and asked permission to have home rule for their county. This was granted by the legislature by three-fifths vote in the legislature, ratified by the people of Florida which would make it part of the constitution, granting them this local government.

We had in our interstate highway system the first part of interstate money spent in the Dade County area where it was needed, where the people were. We have since constructed the interstate system through Orlando, the city of Jacksonville has been alleviated. The city of Tampa has been connecting Tampa into the eastern coast of Florida running through the central part of Florida. The Pensacola area in northwest Florida has been alleviated by building of our interstate system and these metropolitan areas where it was needed. So I thinkand also in our junior college program we have had extensive programs in junior or community college programs where they have either gone where the people are, or--I don't think it can be said the Florida Legislature has not been responsive to the needs of the metropolitan and urban areas of our State.

Senator BAYH. How about the legislators from Miami, Dade County, and other metropolitan areas? Have they been willing to cooperate with the citrus, other agricultural, and timber interests?

Mr. FUQUA. I think there has been a general feeling of cooperation. I have never felt that the people in the area that I represented, which was a small county, has ever been denied anything that they justly deserved. Sometimes we haven't gotten everything we like which happens in the Congress as the Senator well knows. But I do not think the needs of Florida--the needs of my people have ever been denied by the Florida Legislature, neither, do I think the people in the urban areas feel their needs have been denied. Certainly we had differences of opinion sometimes as to how these matters would be resolved. But I do not think that they can say there has been a complete lack of feeling and sympathy for these people and the problems they have confronting them, neither do they have in the less populated

areas.

Mr. JACOBS. I can answer that a violent "yes." There has been a complete cooperation from the metropolitan areas in the problems of rural Florida, particularly in the last session of the legislature when

the Congressman was no longer with us and we had 14 members of the legislature from Dade County and there were many prophets of doom who said that many members of the State legislature from Dade County would be totally inoperative and they would not be able to provide the needs of their community. The exact opposite has been true. We have found a cooperative attitude on the part of the metropolitan representatives and the representatives representing rural areas. There has been, as always, there is a difference of opinion as there should be. There are differences of opinion within delegations from the larger areas. But at the same time there has been an awareness of the problems and I think practically everybody knowledgeable and on the scene has admitted that it has been quite helpful and quite cooperative.

On the stranglehold theory, I think it should be pointed out, and I am not sure it has been done so quite as actively as it should have, but the system of checks and balances which has been worn out in its support of bicameralism should be extended the one step further, that in Florida, for instance, the Governor, the entire heads plural, of the executive branch of government are elected by the people throughout the State. The Governor, the secretary of state, attorney general, commissioner of agriculture, the superintendent of public construction, the comptroller, the State treasurer are all elected by the people at large throughout the State. The seven members of the Supreme Court of Florida are elected throughout the State of Florida at public elections, each person voting one time-one man, one vote, if you will.

Mr. FUQUA. We do not have a literacy test in Florida and this has not been a problem.

Mr. JACOBS. No, sir; we have not had that type of problem, although we have had practically every other type.

We also have under the proposed constitutional amendment we are talking about then one-half of one-third of the government of the State being selected on the basis other than population so long as the population had previously approved of that plan.

Now, this is certainly rational, logical, and reasonable.

We have another point in the point which the Federal three-judge Court took much confidence in and in support of determining the rationality of Florida's plan of reapportionment, and that is, our local law, local bill situation.

Each county operates its business in Florida on the basis of local bills. Now, this is admittedly not the best system. Many people think it is not a good system. But it is the system by which we presently operate. If population is the sole and only criteria in both houses, then in both houses there must be lumping of from three to seven counties within a district to be represented by one man. We have three counties in Florida with populations of less than 3,000 people. In those counties they have a sheriff, they have a tax collector, tax assessor, county judge, who operates the affairs of the County and they do so on the basis of local bills which are prepared by their legislators and approved by their legislators. This plan cannot operate effectively if one man represented seven counties in the senate and one man represented four or five counties in the house of representatives and this was one of the bases by which the Supreme Court, the Federal three-judge District Court upheld the plan of

apportionment which granted to each house one senator-we have 67 counties in Florida. Each county was given one representative and then the rest of the 112 members on the equal apportionment formula.

Mr. Fuqua. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one other thing that occurred to me.

I think one of the distinguished Senators testified, and there was some reservation about this bill or might have been in opposition. he mentioned, what are you going to classify as other factors in population and he suggested maybe the air, space, water, and pine trees and cattle and some of the other things to be considered as other factors.

I think this is well covered by the so-called referendum or approval of the people point. If some State should try to overrepresent other factors, not take and present an equitable plan, I am sure this is not going to be ratified by the people in that State. I have that much faith in the people. I feel that they feel it is a fair plan, I think all fair-minded citizens will recognize and so approve. So I do not think there is a real argument in this.

I had the pleasure of testifying the other day before Mr. Celler's committee and the chairman of this committee-his bill regarding presidential succession which I am in support of. I remember that some people raised some questions there, vague generalities that could occur in some of these instances and I think that they are well covered in that bill as they are in this bill. It goes back to the people for their ratification or disapproval, for that matter, that there are adequate protections for people so that they will protect those in the areas and will not be underrepresented. They can choose for themselves and this is democracy in action when we permit this.

Senator BAYH. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I do not think there is any need for me to prolong your appearance before the committee. You hit two or three things that I thought were very important. I am referring to this local bill operation of each county.

Mr. JACOBS. This is quite a problem, Mr. Chairman. If I may elaborate on that just a moment.

The Supreme Court-the Federal three-judge district court in approving this plan of apportionment which gave each county, regardless of population one house member stated and it is reported in 208 Federal Supplement at page 316, I would like to quote just very briefly from that:

It is our considered view that the rationality of a legislative apportionment may include a number of factors in addition to population. Certainly it cannot be said that the proposed apportionment of the Florida Legislature reaches approximate equality on a strict basis of population. In Florida, from the inception of its statehood, every county has had at least one member of the house of representatives **

Most of the cities and towns in Florida have been created by special acts of the legislature. Except for Dade County, which has a home rule charter, much of the law relating to the county governments is in the form of special acts of the legislature. The State of Florida has not, as has been done in some States, provided for uniform legislation regulating and providing for the government of counties and the municipalities within them, and prohibiting special legislaton for cities, towns, and counties. In the 1961 session of the Florida Legislature 1,266 special acts were passed relating to counties and municipalities. One or more of these special acts applied to each of 64 of Florida's 67 counties, and to over 100 municipalities. The enactment of the special acts is procured by the

legislative delegations from the affected areas with the heavier burden resting upon the member or members of the house of representatives from those counties which are joined with another or others in senatorial districts. The measures included in these special acts are of vast importance to the people of the respective counties or municipalities to which they apply. We are not convinced that this phase of the exercise of State sovereignty could be adequately carried out if a substantial number of the less populous counties of the State of Florida were deprived of the benefit of representation in the legislature. The way of the State of Florida in providing for the government of its counties and municipalities may not be the best possible methods, but we are not willing and doubt that we are able to require that it be changed. We do not think it would be reasonable to render unworkable the system by which a very large part of the State's legislative function is exercised. Such would be the result of a requirement that counties should be combined into districts for the apportionment of the members of the house of representatives.

This was the basis by which the Federal three-judge court upheld the plan of apportionment which the Federal three-judge court readily admitted would not meet a strict population basis if that were the altimate plan.

Senator BAYH. Then the net result of Florida's adhering to the one man, one vote edict would get the effect of the ruling into an area that does not have anything to do with representation-some people may not call that system efficient; but, nevertheless, the administration of local counties in the way they govern themselves.

Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir, and municipalities.

Mr. Fuqua. For instance, salaries of all the constitutional officers, heriffs, judge, and so forth, the salaries are set by the legislatures through the special acts. Sometimes the corporate limits of the municipalities are increased. We have not had a chance to decrease them. Sometimes key cities want to adopt a new charter provision or put through a new referendum. Certain mosquito control districts or drainage area districts or local districts-I am sure the distinguished Senator is familiar with having served in the State Legislature of Indiana.

Senator BAYH. I appreciate your bringing these to our attention. Thank you very much.

Our next witness this morning has been very patient in permitting. Congressman Fuqua to finish so he can return to his duties.

While you gentlemen representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, particularly Mr. William Brown, prepare to let us have the benefit of your thoughts on this I would like to take a 3- or 4-minute recess while our counsel verifies our authority to sit since the Senate has been in session.

(Short recess taken.)

Senator BAYH. Mr. Brown, we appreciate your being with us.

I see that you have a very thorough document prepared here representing the views of the chamber.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. BROWN FOR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to imply summarize the document we have and ask that the complete document be filed for the record. The length of the appendix is explained by our desire that you have a complete record, but I will try to keep my oral comments brief. In fact, our oral comments to some

48-124-65-34