Court decision. Since these witnesses have urged adoption of a constitutional amendment allowing States with bicameral legislatures to apportion seats in one house on some basis other than population, I fear our Colorado citizens may assume this is the official position of the State. I wish to assure the committee that the present administration of the city and county of Denver, the largest city in Colorado and the State capital, is opposed to such a constitutional amendment. I concur wholeheartedly in the statement made to your subcommittee March 9 by Mayor Richard J. Daley, of Chicago, who testified on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. As he said, all of the proposed amendments seek to evade the judgment of the Court and seek to legitimize malapportionment. May I also call the subcommittee's attention to statistics enumerated in President Johnson's message to Congress on housing and cities: "Over 70 percent of our population-135 million Americans-live in urban areas. A half century from now, 320 million of our 400 million Americans will live in such areas. And our largest cities will receive the greatest impact of growth * * *. Between today and the year 2000, more than 80 percent of our population increases will occur in urban areas. During the next 15 years, 30 million people will be added to our cities. Each year, in the coming generation, we will add the equivalent of 15 cities of 200,000 each." The concept of debilitating an individuals' vote simply because he lives in a populous area is diametrically opposed to the concept of equal rights for all citizens, a concept that as a nation are now attempting to implement with additional civil rights legislation. The Governor of our State was quoted in the press as stating to your committee that sparsely populated areas need effective representation "so that the problems of their residents which may not even occur to the average city dweller, may be resolved in a manner contributing to the welfare of the State as a whole." I suggest that in the past problems of urban residents have been ignored by rural-dominated State legislatures. Individuals who live in cities have the right to have their votes counted equally with those of other voters. Apportioning State legislatures on factors other than population destroys this equality. Equal representation is a right which should not be submitted to the electorate. Sincerely yours, TOM CURRIGAN, Mayor. Hon. BIRCH E. BAYH, U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C. TURLOCK, CALIF., February 25, 1965. DEAR SENATOR BAYH: The honorable U.S. Senators Thomas Kuchel, George Murphy, and Everett Dirksen have introduced a joint resolution to save the Federal system from disastrous consequences since the Supreme Court has ordered State senators to be reapportioned on a population basis of each State. This will remove the balance of power which now exists in the States and has been so effective on the State as well as Federal level. We believe the Constitution intended this balance of power to be in the States as well as in the Federal Government. We seriously urge the passing of this resolution permitting the constitutional amendment so that we may retain the balance of power in each State. Your favorable decision on the matter will certainly be greatly appreciated and is of the utmost importance. The order of the Supreme Court would cause all the power to be in concentrated areas, eventually, rather than representative of the whole State. In matter of fact, there would be no need at all of having the two houses as one cound do it as well as two since the same area of people would control the State government. We are confident of your interest in keeping America strong and that you will seriously consider this resolution, for which we are very grateful. Kindest regards, E. S. CHRISTOFFERSEN, 48-124-65 -45 Senator BIRCH BAYH, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. BILLINGS, MONT., March 15, 1965. DEAR SENATOR BAYH: As the mayor of Montana's largest city. I feel it incumbent upon me to write you urging support of the Supreme Court's decision of reapportionment. That this decision was long overdue, goes without saying Too long have we permitted a vacuum to develop in our political system, and if democracy is to survive as our Founding Fathers knew it, then the decision of the Supreme Court must be upheld. Like so many states, Montana State legislature is rurally dominated, and the session just finished once more strongly emphasized the fact that the rurals oriented legislators are completely unaware of the problems that have developed with this century. By State statute, Billings can only pay its city treasurer $416.00 per month. Yet this man handles many millions of dollars and must be versed in the bonding markets, and all the financial ramifications that confront a growing city. This is only one of the many, many, many problems that have developed through the years, and the city's hands are tied toward reaching an economical or reasonable solution. I would point out, too, that there is no foundation for the fear that the one man, one vote, will remove interest in the agricultural problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone in our city is in the final analysis, agr. culturally based. This is true, of our banks, our railroads, our retailers and our wholesalers-and the mayor himself. Our interest in the soil is paramount. but this does not mean that we must blind our eyes to this century, or the need« that this century has brought into being. It is immoral and terribly wrong to attempt to continue a system that is based upon a past that no longer exists Therefore, in great earnestness, I urge that nothing be done that will in a way hinder, or retard, the putting into operation of the mandate as directed by the Supreme Court opinion on reapportionment. Sincerely, WILLARD E. FRASER Senator BAYH. Without objection, the committee will be adjourned. to reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. (Whereupon, the subcommittee adjourned at 10:45 a.m., to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday. Apr. 28, 1965.) REAPPORTIONMENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1965 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:22 a.m., in room 228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman of he subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Bayh and Hruska. Senator BAYH. The subcommittee will please convene. We are honored this morning to have as our first witness one of the listinguished new lights on the legislative scene. A man whom I have ad, what I consider from my standpoint, the good fortune to serve with in our Indiana General Assembly and to campaign with in the recincts of his congressional district. A man who is serving the 11th Congressional District of Indiana with distinction. Coming from one of the larger municipal areas of the central part of our country, I hink we are fortunate that he would take the time from his busy chedule to let us have his thoughts on the matter which we are studyng. So without further ado, Congressman Andrew Jacobs, Jr., from ndiana, 11th District. Andy, it is good to have you with us. TATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW JACOBS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Mr. JACOBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee and the chairman or permitting me to testify this morning. I also want to return the ompliment to the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, for chom I had the pleasure and privilege of voting in the Indiana Genral Assembly in his election as speaker of the house in Indiana. Senator BAYH. I trust your constituents will not hold that against ou after this many years. Mr. JACOBS. After the last campaign, Mr. Chairman, I was compliented at least for that vote in the legislature. I have a very short statement, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to Pad at this time. I wish to state my opposition to proposed amendments to the U.S. onstitution which would permit State legislatures to be apportioned y factors other than population. First and technically, it would appear that the words, "factors other than population" would permit a legislature to give counties with artesian wells twice the representation of counties without artesan wells, regardless of how many people might reside in the various areas. Second, in taking this position, I am expressing my agreement wi the act of faith in democracy made by the founding fathers of ori State of Indiana. Indiana's constitution requires that its legislature be apportioned according to population. George Orwell described the undemocratic society as one where a people are equal, but some people are more equal than others. What possible justification could there be for letting one citizen's vote cou for substantially more than another's? I hear it said that only in this manner can the minority be pr tected. I do not believe that minority protection requires minor political control over every legislative desire of the majority. It is function of the State and National constitutions and courts to r down majority-passed laws which oppress minorities. In the matter of passing laws, the identity of the minority pretty much determined by what law is under consideration. Se times the minority wears bib overalls and tills the soil. Sometimes t minority has dark skin and suffers the scourge of slums. No one has suggested that one house of a State legislature be an portioned in such a geographic way as to give more representat to the Negro minority than the white majority. It would be el enough to do since, even at this late date, most Negroes endure the crimination of being crowded into geographically identifiable ghett That State legislation oppressing Negroes has been passed in the past is well known. This legislation has suffered death and t minority has been protected at the hands of a colorblind Constituti and Supreme Court. Either you have majority rule or you don't. In this free count we decided long ago that, while there might not be a perfect way of settling public issues, majority vote either directly or by represents tion is the best way, so long as there are constitutions and courts to protect the minority. Legislatures do not vote just on farm measures or civil rights, and human being is more than just a farmer or a city dweller or Negro of white. A citizen can belong to several majorities and minorities all at th same time. And in the most reasonable analysis, he is still one citize one American citizen who is entitled to one vote, no less and no more. Senator BAYH. Thank you, very much, Congressman Jacobs Would you give us permission to ask you a question or two, please Mr. JACOBS. I would be very happy to respond in any way that ability will permit, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAYH. Inasmuch as you did serve in the Indiana Gener Assembly, I think it would be helpful to the record if you could give us a brief summary of the apportionment or representative alinement in the Indiana General Assembly and a brief synopsis of how this h developed in the past? Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, the Indiana constitution requires that both houses of the Indiana General Assembly be appor tioned according to population; one house being the senate with 50 mbers, the other house being the house of representatives, with 100 mbers. The constitutional mandate, unfortunately, in our State of liana, was not observed from the early 1920's until the 1965 general embly, which did reapportion the State of Indiana, reapportioned h houses of the general assembly, according to population. I think bably one good example of what occurred was that in my own ne county of Marion, which is at Indianapolis, Ind., essentially, strict population apportionment, my constituents were entitled to proximately seven seats in the Indiana State Senate. Prior to and luding the 1965 general assembly, the Marion County residents re given only six votes in the Indiana State Senate. might say that certain controversial legislation passed the 1963 ate by one vote and that there was considerable opposition-with; identifying the particular legislation-demonstrated within my inty. Yet it was passed by one vote. I would like to give credit where credit is due, Mr. Chairman, and I tice an error in my statement. The fact of the matter is that the 1963 neral assembly did reapportion one, the lower house of the general sembly, leaving the State senate unreapportioned and unconstitunal, in my judgment, until 1965; the reapportionment job actually is completed by apportioning the senate according to population. Senator BAYH. Do you feel that the present legislative apportionent in Indiana is constitutional? Will meet the test as stated by e Supreme Court? Mr. JACOBS. I feel quite confident that it will, Mr. Chairman. Cerinly, the numerical equality has been achieved. Senator BAYH. Can you give me specific examples, or a specific ample of measures in which your metropolitan community has en interested that have been blocked or thwarted because of control one or the other or both houses by a minority of the voters? Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, the legislation to which I referred a oment ago is the Indiana sales tax. I am sure that there are quite a umber of my constituents in Indianapolis who favor a sales tax. I am qually sure that a vast number opposed that method of taxation. ut I can say almost for certain that most of them opposed one proision of the Indiana sales tax which made it inapplicable to retail urchases made by those in farming operations to be used in farming perations. Now, I will give you an example of how that works. If a businessan in Indianapolis buys a pickup truck for, say, his photo supply tore, he will pay a retail sales tax on the purchase of that merchanise. If a farm operator in the State of Indiana, and essentially, there re very few in metropolitan Indianapolis, should buy the same pickup ruck for the operation of his farm, he would not be required to pay ales tax. Now, we do not think in Indianapolis that any farmer in Indiana wants to take undue advantage in taxation, and we do not indict farmers in Indiana for this provision in the law. However, we do point out that this law did pass the State senate by one vote, and one vote was precisely what Marion County was deprived of according to our constitution. So that at least I feel fairly certain that that inequality of taxation and that provision of the sales tax very possibly would not have been included if Indianapolis had its representation in the Indiana State Senate. This is very dangerously close to what I would consider taxation without representation. |