cation. We will appreciate your incorporating this position of the council in the records of the hearings. Respectfully, J. BANKS YOUNG, Washington Representative. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES I am Richard T. O'Connell, secretary of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. The national council is a nationwide business organization of marketing and purchasing cooperatives consisting of 92 direct members affiliated with 5,700 local farmer cooperatives serving about 3 million farmer memberships. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on Senate Joint Resolution 2, a measure to permit the people of each State the power to determine whether they want one house in a bicameral legislature elected on a basis other than population. The policy of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives on this subject is as follows: REAPPORTION MENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES "The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives urges the Congress to submit for adoption a constitutional amendment to provide that any State which has a bicameral legislature may utilize factors other than population in apportioning representation in one house of its legislature." We believe there is adequate and historical precedent, both preceding and following the establishment of the Constitution of 1787, to permit States to select the manner in which the "upper house" of their State-elected body be based on methods other than population. Preceding the draft of the Constitution, actions by the States indicated that fair and adequate representation was available in a bicameral legislature when one body was elected on the basis of population and the other was elected on a geographical or similar criteria. In numerous instances, the States which were a part of the original framers of the Constitution, indicated the necessity of having two houses of government, elected by different criteria, with "one to be a check on the other." The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had a history of one house in the State legislature, but later established two houses, again mentioning "one to be a check against the other." In 1776, when the foundation was established for representative government, the essence of which was nearly 200 years of experience under colonialism, a fundamental approach was taken establishing an upper house, a senate, representing geographical districts within the States, and another house elected on the population, again "to provide a check against each other." The establishment and precedence of the two houses of the legislative precedes the Constitution by more than 100 years, when the Carolina constitution provided for two houses. Following the precedence established by the colonies between the time 1607 and 1776, the State constitutions beginning with New Hampshire on January 5, 1776, provided for two houses in the State legislatures. In New Hampshire, the upper house was to consist of one person from each of 12 counties. There was a senate based on area apportionment. South Carolina followed on March 26, 1776, with two houses. On June 29, 1776, Virginia completed her constitution with two houses; one a senate which represented districts larger than counties. New York was next on July 3, 1776, with two houses. Pennsylvania followed on September 28. 1776, again, as stated earlier, Pennsylvania had a house in the State legislature at one time, but in providing their new constitution in 1776, they set up two houses, "one to be a check on the other." Maryland was next on November 11, 1776, with senators chosen by counties. Georgia and North Carolina followed in that same year. Between 1777 and 1786, other State constitutions were established, including South Carolina, Massachusetts, and second constitutions for New Hampshire and Vermont. Historically, it must be noted that most of these States in the original colonies established their constitutions prior to the writing of the Federal Constitution in 1787. In fact, the Federal Constitution was generally a compilation of the most significant provisions of the State constitutions. There is nothing in the history, either preceding or following the establishment of the Constitution, which prohibits the people of a State from determining the manner in which the may elect the upper house. We are not aware of any situation in colona. revolutionary times which the upper house of any given State was elected ** proportional representation in districts on relatively equal population. We'> lieve it is the right and privilege of people within a State to select one bre bicameral legislature with regard to criteria other than population. It is feasible for those in a minority position, with representation based sorr on population to have, in effect, no representation whatsoever. We believe the right of each citizen to have his vote carry weight in a body which is sele. on the basis of population alone to provide equal and fair representation. Fasz to do this is, in our judgment, denying those individuals a voice in their go ment. Conversely, we believe that those with minority voice and whose centage of the population may not represent the majority must also have a v in government. Denying them an adequate voice in government is equally de ́* mental to the time-tested system of "checks and balances" in government as is failure to provide representation by those who represent a majority of the p* ¡ lation, either by area or by population. Our further concern is that failure to give the people of the States an orgen tunity to express their views on this matter may be a step in denying the State the right to determine the legislative function of their represenative boc-s We believe it is incumbent on the Congress to submit to the people an opp* tunity to express their position on this matter. We see no grave dangers : submitting a proposition of this nature to the States. On the contrary, we resper the good judgment of the people of a State, as was indicated by the people: Colorado voting nearly two to one on a popular vote, and a unanimous vote their counties, to apportion representation in one house of their legislature o basis other than population. We believe failure to provide for a constitution. amendment poses a grave danger to our system of government and an express of lack of confidence that the people are not capable of making a just equitable decision on this matter. We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on Senate Joint Res tion 2, and respectfully request the Senate to pass this measure. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY DELEGATES IN CONVENTION OF NATIONAL FARMEES UNION, MARCH 15-18, 1965 The Farmers Union is vitally concerned with the manner in which legislat.re apportionment in the several States affects the welfare of family farmers, We must not ignore the fact that farmers are or may be disadvantaged in the form of taxation used to provide revenue for the support of State and governments, in allocation of State funds for farm-to-market roads, in Stat educational programs, and other matters. Therefore, we support a constitutional amendment permitting the States to apportion the State legislatures following the same pattern prescribed in U.S. Constitution for apportioning representation in the Federal Congress. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LIVESTOCK FEEDERS ASSOCIATION (By Don F. Magdanz, executive secretary-treasurer, and B. H. Jones, associ=" secretary-treasurer) The National Livestock Feeders Association is a voluntary, nonprofit, re political trade organization of persons engaged in the business of feeding ""! finishing livestock for the slaughter market. Membership exists in 23 StaTMTM with major concentration in the North-Central States. There are nearly State and local livestock feeders associations affiliated with the national Li stock Feeders Association. STATEMENT OF POSITION OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LIVESTOCK FEEDERS ASSOCIATION States should have the sa legislatures and to determ Any attempt to violate th The association is firm in its position that the right and power to apportion or reapportion their the composition of other State governing bodies. right and power constitutes a serious encroachment upon States rights. To be truly representative, legislative districts must provide for the protection of minorities, as well as for registering the voice of the majority. Protecting the rights of minorities was a foremost consideration by the Founding Fathers of this Nation and has continued to be one of the basic criterion in the structural development of governing bodies throughout the land. This Since colonial days, States and the Federal Government have set a pattern of legislative representative on both an area and a population basis. This has been one of the vital parts of our check-and-balance system of government. pattern assures a republic which is truly representative, with consideration and protection for minority and area interests, and guards against imposing the "tyranny of the majority." Legislators can represent their electors only by speaking for their interests-economic, social, and political-many of which reflect the place where the electors live. Compulsory apportionment on the basis of population alone will create a serious imbalance in many States. It will exclude citizens living in other than dominant metropolitan areas from having a voice in legislative decisions. This includes people living in smaller cities and villages as well as in rural areas. Apportioning legislative districts on factors other than population has constitutional sanction in article I of the U.S. Constitution, which sets up the structure of the U.S. Congress. There is no reference in the original Constitution or any of the amendments thereto that legislative representation should be strictly on the basis of population numbers. History shows clearly that the States in ratifying the 14th amendment to the Constitution after the Civil War did not intend to upset their State legislatures. At the time of ratification, two-thirds of these States had constitutions permitting one house to be apportioned on a basis other than population. The argument has been made that in actual practice neither the electeed representatives nor the electorate itself in a State is capable or competent to carry out the functions of apportionment for its own governing bodies. This, in effect, is the same as saying that the people are not capable or competent to govern themselves. It is the same electorate whose competence is being questioned that elects its representatives to serve in both Houses of the U.S. Congress and elects the President and the Vice President of the Nation. If the people are incapable of apportionment, it can likewise be concluded that they are incapable of electing their own representatives to the Congress. The National Livestock Feeders Association respectfully requests the subcom. mittee to act favorably on S.J. Res. 2 and thereby recommend to the U.S. Senate, and the Congress as a whole, action to reconfirm and guarantee the right and power to every State to determine the composition of its governing body. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, Hon. BIRCH BAYH. DEAR SENATOR BAYH: The question of apportionment of State legislatures presently being considered by your subcommittee is indeed one of the most vital issues with which the American people have ever been faced. The recent Supreme Court decision, which mandates that both houses of a State legislature must be chosen upon a population basis, threatens to deprive many sections of our Nation of legislative representation. Matters of vital importance to area or minority interests would be engulfed by the power of the majority. Formerly, at least one branch of a State legislature could be apportioned in part, at least, by reference to geography, county, and State lines, economic and social conditions, property rights, and other factors besides population. This historical pattern is in line with the traditional checks and balances of American government. It underlies the tradition and background of the bicameral system of government which recognizes that the sovereignty of the States must be considered. The authority of government, in any form, should flow from the people. It is the right of the people to determine the factors to be considered in establishing their own State legislatures. It is unfortunate that this issue has been tagged as a fight between rural and urban areas because this is not true. The issue is solely one of whether the citizens of a State are to be given the right to decide whether or not one house of their legislature may be constituted on the basis of factors other tha population. We urge, Senator Bayh, that your subcommittee support and report a resolvin proposing a constitutional amendment to this end. We also ask that you make this communication a part of the record of hearings by your subcommittee on this subject. Sincerely, E. M. NORTON, Secretary STATEMENT OF NEW YORK COMMITTEE FOR DEMOCRATIC VOTERS, SUBMITTED I RICHARD A. BROWN MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE APPORTION MENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES We oppose the joint resolutions under consideration (S.J. Res. 2, by Serabr Dirksen and others; S.J. Res. 38, by Senator Church; S.J. Res. 44, by Setate Javits) and urge that the subcommittee reject all proposals which would in 215 way limit the scope of the Supreme Court's historic decisions of June 15, 194 We oppose primarily because the principle of one man, one vote is the ker stone of our democratic faith. Every citizen must be assured an equal voice t his Government through his right to vote, the right which long ago the Supre Court called "a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights" Yick Wo V. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). We oppose also because, as outlined in this memorandum, the proposals before the subcommittee, if adopted, would kill the opportunity presented by the So preme Court's historic one-man, one-vote decisions to create effective State governments responsive to the needs of the majority. In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, the Court overturned the legislative appe tionment of Alabama and held that the equal protection clause requires that State legislative districts must be substantially equal in population, and that this requirement applies to both houses of a State legislature. In a compared case, WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633, the Court struck down the New York scheme of legislative apportionment, contained in the State constitution. The New York constitutional scheme had enabled the views of a minority ɗ the people of our State to dominate the State legislature, both senate and 24 sembly, regardless of the outcome of the statewide election for Governor. It had also enabled the Republican Party to retain control of both houses of the legislature during most of the present century. We oppose any attempt to perpetuate the undemocratic advantage which the minority has for too long enjoyed in New York State and in almost every other State government. We firmly believe in our Federal system of government. A strong national interest exists in encouraging vigorous and responsible Sta** and local governments. See, e.g., House Committee on Government Operations Federal-State Local Relations: Federal Grants-in-Aid, H.R. 2533, 85th Cong. 2d sess. 47 (1958). The decline of State governments through their failure to solve the problems arising out of the rapid urbanization of the country, and the relationship of this failure to malapportionment of State legislatures, was gererally recognized, before the Supreme Court acted. See, e.g., U.S. Commissi on Intergovernmental Relations. Report to the President 38-40 (1955). The Supreme Court's decision has shaken up the tottering structures of ver State governments. It has offered the people of every State an unparalleled opportunity to reclaim for the States their historic place in the Federal system as it was first conceived. Freed of the shackles of minority domination. State governments can now become effective instrumentes for carrying out polies and programs responsive to the exploding needs of our modern urban societ State governments can now become effective partners of the National GoverTement, and thereby reduce the present dependence of urban areas upon dire action by the National Government, bypassing the State level. Until Reynolds v. Sims the political party system on which the government the States is largely based has been unable to function in a responsible way a State where one branch of government, the legislature, was in effect assigned to one political party. As Professor Key has pointed out, when the majority if it votes for a party's candidate for Governor is unable to give the same party i working majority in the legislature. "the legislative process must become process of negotiation, or collusion, between parties rather than one of straight forward execution of a party program." Key, politics, parties, and pressure groups 238 (3d ed. 1952). We do not believe that Congress should intervene to foster the continuance of negotiation and collusion as necessary procedure for enactment of State legislation. The urgency of the problems we face do not permit delay and dilution of long overdue programs. To authorize the minority to continue to control one branch of a State legislature is to impose an unnecessary handicap on State governments, which to be effective must carry out the will of the majority. To leave the minority with half a loaf is unsound. In fact, the proposals before the subcommittee would leave more than half a loaf, for the machinery of compliance with the Supreme Court's one-man-one-vote rule has been left by the Court largely in the hands of the State legislatures, now under minority control. This minority can be expected to surrender power only to the extent it is compelled to, and it is not clear today to what extent the Supreme Court will permit the minority to preserve some of its present advantages in legislative apportionment. In New York State a direct consequence of malapportionment has been almostperpetual control of both houses of the legislature by the Republican Party. Since 1919 when Gov. Alfred E. Smith first took office, a Republican Governor has held office for 19 years, and a Democrat or Democrat-Liberal, for 26 years. During these 45 years, however, the Republican Party lost control of both houses of the legislature for only 1 year (1935), when Herbert H. Lehman was Governor. This was a result of the midterm Democratic landslide following President Roosevelt's first election in 1932 which was sufficient to overcome even the builtin discrimination in apportionment favoring the upstate rural and predominantly Republican areas. Governor Lehman's claim was that "because of the authority vested in the party and in accordance with its pledges, there was enacted during the year 1935 what I believe is now generally recognized as one of the greatest programs of humane and sound social economic legislation in the history of any State in the union." State of New York, Public Papers of Gov. Herbert H. Lehman 869 (1936). Governor Lehman's legislative program enacted in 1935 included a State-administered system of unemployment insurance; eradication of medical abuses, such as fee-splitting and solicitation of the injured which had arisen in the administration of the workmen's compensation law enacted in 1913 by the last Democratic legislature; the extension of the workmen's compensation law to embrace all occupational diseases as well as accidents; shortening of the maximum hours of work per week for women in factories and mercantile establishments; raising the age at which children may leave school to enter industry from 14 to 16 years; reduction of hours of labor for boys between the ages of 16 and 18 years from 54 to 48 hours per week; the extension of State regulation to all industrial homework; the outlawing of the "yellow dog" contract; the protection of workingmen in labor disputes by insuring to them the right of a trial by jury in cases of an alleged violation of an injunction; a law governing the conditions and terms under which labor injunctions may be issued by State courts; a permanent law prescribing a maximum 5-day week and an 8-hour day in local and State public works contracts; a permanent law applying the prevailing rates of wage provisions to the construction, maintenance, and repair of highways and waterworks outside the limits of cities and villages; a statutory declaration of policy that the labor of human beings is not a commodity or article of commerce; and the creation of a commission for interstate commerce compacts to establish uniform standards and laws affecting the welfare of labor and conditions of employment. See id. at 869–70. No less urgent are the problems faced by the majority of the people of New York State today in such areas as public education, housing, economic opportunity, water and air pollution, and urban mass transit. We submit that it would be unthinkable for this Congress to place preservation of the status quo in State legislatures above the national interest in developing effective State governments responsive to the needs and aspirations of the majority of their citizens. |