Senator KENNEDY. You outlined in quite good detail in your testimony this afternoon the kinds of standards which they would meet, not only deputy examiners but the Federal examiners as well, on page 3 of your testimony. I am wondering if you could give us a GS rating for that?

Mr. MACY. I have not finally determined that.

Senator KENNEDY. I know it has been suggested by a member of this committee that a GS rating be used as a guideline or a standard of the degree of competency that these individuals would have. It would appear to me in looking at the kinds of criteria which you have outlined in your testimony, you could pretty well establish an outline or at least establish a criterion that is somewhat more specific, for examiners, as they would be Federal employees. What would be their rating as a Federal employee, or would you prefer to have a degree of discretion on that?

Mr. MACY. I think discretion is desirable on this. Generally, the level we have been discussing has been the GS-11 or 12 level for the examiners. I notice that in the Douglas bill, it specifies they should be at GS-12 level. We are generally in accord with that as a standard.

Senator KENNEDY. But you prefer not to see

Mr. MACY. I prefer not to see it specified, because I believe there will be a great deal we shall need to learn about the nature of the operation, how it should be organized, how it should be staffed, and flexibility would therefore be desirable.

Senator KENNEDY. I do not see written into this bill any provision for the protection of examiners in their normal function of fulfilling the duties which you will charge them with or which the Civil Service Commission will charge them with. Do you feel there should be any safeguards provided for the examiners?

Mr. MACY. Yes, I think that would be a worthwhile addition. There is no language at the present time that would provide that. I think a person serving as an examiner under the terms of this bill should have the protection of Federal law.

Senator KENNEDY. This would be against intimidation or violence Mr. MACY. Personal attack. There are presently pending some billthat would provide for this for postal employees. I think we could develop language from that which would be applicable to this.

Senator KENNEDY. Can you foresee the possibility where State registrars would be used as Federal registrars?

Mr. MACY. No, I would not see that. The employment would b from within the ranks of the Federal Government or outsiders wh are private citizens.

Senator KENNEDY. Now, I would like to direct your attention to section 6(a) of the bill, which provides that any challenge to a listing on an eligibility list should be heard and determined by a hearing offi cer appointed by and responsible to the Civil Service Commission and under such rules as the Commission shall by regulation prescribe. Could you indicate the standards by which such an examiner woul be selected? Are these standards which are similar to the ones yo have outlined?

Mr. MACY. They would be similar to those we have developed for the examiner, plus some judicial experience or some experience in the ad

Senator KENNEDY. Could you expand on that somewhat? Mr. MACY. Yes, I would feel that some experience along the lines that required for hearing examiners under the Administrative Produres Act would be called for here, some knowledge of the law, some perience in handling evidence and handling documentation with reect to incidents that are presented to them. This would be a necesrv addition.

I would also see that these hearing officers would be separate and stinct from the examiners, because they would be passing in some inances on the judgment of the examiner in an individual case.

Senator KENNEDY. And you would add those qualifications on top the other qualifications which you have indicated for an examiner? Mr. MACY. That is correct.

Senator KENNDY. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Did I understand you to say you would appoint puty examiners?

Mr. MACY. Yes, there would be, possibly, deputy examiners in cerin areas in order to expedite the operation. There might be some pport or clerical personnel in order to do the same thing.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the difference between a deputy examiner d an examiner?

Mr. MACY. This would be an individual working under the supervion of the examiner, presumably at a slightly lower compensation. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MACY. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Paul Rodgers, assistant attorney general of the ate of Georgia.

STATEMENT OF PAUL RODGERS, JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

The CHAIRMAN. I understand you have no manuscript but you want estify from notes?

Mr. RODGERS. Yes, sir; that is correct. Because of the swiftness th which this matter is moving, we found yesterday we had a firm pointment for today so we were caught somewhat quickly in trying be prepared. We did not have an opportunity to make a manuipt, but I think we have notes which will adequately cover it. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to apar before you and I appreciate very much your taking your valuable me to listen to our views concerning the voting rights bill. The State of Georgia opposes this legislation on several grounds, the nificant part of which is we believe that the bill is unconstitutional -hat it should be so declared.

Now, our basis on the constitutional argument is the fact that up il the present time, including the present time, the law has been _t the States have the sole responsibility for prescribing voter qualitions and we think that intent was clear from the amendments, in ticularly the 17th amendment and the 10th amendment. Now, the position that is taken by the Federal Attorney General t the second section of amendment 15 overrides these other proions, that in effect, it repeals them. We do not think that is a sound position of law. It is textbook law and a basic canon of constitu

tional construction that an effort should be made to reconcile amendments to the Constitution with the basic document and that repeals by implication are not favored and that amendments should be harmonized, if possible, with the original provisions. So consequently, what section 2 of article 15 says is that Congress has the power to enforce the guarantees of the first section by appropriate legislation. That means legislation of a nature which has been passed thus far which prohibits any type of discrimination in voting procedures and practices and maybe even the appointment of Federal registrars. But I do not think it was the intent, nor do I think that it is constitutional, for the Congress to enact legislation which in effect prescribes voter qualifications.

However, of course, we recognize that there is a very strong effort behind this bill and no doubt this bill or something similar will become law. While we do not retreat from our original opposition to the bill, we want at this time to turn o consideraion of several amendments which we believe will make the bill fairer.

The bill was rather hazily drawn and I think it is obvious, because there are certain technical defects in the bill which we think are unsound and we think will be revealed even to the strongest supporters of the bill.

We think first that the elimination of the literacy test goes too far. It goes too far unnecessarily. Actually, we think that just the appointment of Federal registrars would be sufficient to accomplish the purposes of the bill. Now, as you probably know, the Federal Attorney General testified before the House committee on this matter. He did not attack literacy tests. He did not say literacy tests were unsound. He did not criticize them. What he criticized was the application of the literacy test. He said that in certain areas of the South, application of tests were being discriminatorily applied. Of course, the State of Georgia is against that. We have made every effort to eliminate any such discrimination in Georgia. However, we think that Federal registrars in counties where it is necessary to correct these affairs could just as easily apply the State literacy test and, of course, they could be depended upon to apply the State literacy test fairly and indiscriminately.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean that Federal employees could apply the State literacy test, is that what you say?

Mr. RODGERS. Yes. Of course, we feel this would not impair the objective of the bill, but yet it would leave the present subscription of your qualifications for voting within State hands, where we think they belong constitutionally. That is why we suggest that the literacy test not be tampered with, that they be left as they are and let the Federal registrars apply them.

Second, we would like to comment upon this shotgun effect of the bill in applying the bill to an entire State. I am not familiar with the circumstances in Alabama, but I am familiar with them in Georgia. Now, in Georgia, we have attempted to eradicate all forms of discrimination, but we have some counties in Georgia that I think would compare favorably to counties in the Nation. The one I would like to select as an example is Fulton County, which contains metropolitan Atlanta. Atlanta has a reputation throughout the Nation as being a

made in Atlanta. I think this bill would limit its scope to political Eubdivisions, which in Georgia would mean the county, and Atlanta and other areas that have fought against discriminatory practices, where the local citizenry has stood up to see that abuses like this do not Occur, those counties should be excluded. It is unfair and unjust to apply this bill to a county which has accepted the responsibility of he matter and is not guilty of these abuses. Just because a few counies in a State have indulged in misconduct, the entire State should not be punished and this bill here is a stigma. This bill here is a yoke of disgrace and this stigma should not be placed upon counties that re not guilty of the faults which this bill attempts to correct. That s just basic justice and we think that provision of the bill is very njust.

There is no reason why this 50-percent criterion cannot be applied to political subdivisions.

In cases, possibly in other States, where you have a strong influence From a State level may be to discriminate, that means that a great many subdivisions are going to be affected. But in Georgia where he effort is in the reverse, I think only a few counties would be ffected.

The second thing that I would next like to comment upon, I think is a great mistake to focus this bill toward the conditions which xisted in this country as of November 1964. It appears to me that hat is a very shortsighted approach. It appears to me to focus on hat with the accompanying 10-year provision, but you cannot come ut for 10 years; it destroys any incentive or improvement. There is eally no incentive in this bill to improve. What this bill does is finger ut several States permanently and say, "You are stuck."

Now, I think that with the migrations that are going on in this ountry today, the great movement of Negroes from one part of the ountry to the other, the great number of Mexicans we have in the outhwest, Puerto Ricans moving into New York, Chinese in Calirnia, very quickly you could see that other abuses could arise in other tates outside of these that have been fingered by the bill. I think e legislation should be national in scope, not limited. I think that his 50-50 criterion should not apply to any one election. I think it ould apply to the preceding congressional election. So that any tates that have been fingered by this thing, if they say, "Well, we re going to accept this responsibility and we are going to go out and ncrease voter registration, both Negro and white," they have an inentive to go out and do this and correct this on their own. So conquently, I think the 50-percent criteria should be applied at the last ongressional election.

For instance, in Georgia, we can go out and we can make a great fort to increase the voter registration and to increase the voter turnit and that way, we can get out from under the bill. We think that just basic justice.

We think, also, the bill should be national in scope because abuses n arise elsewhere and under this bill, the way it is drawn, if abuses arise elsewhere, you are going to have to amend the bill. This bill it is drawn is really just temporary legislation. But to change e bill and to put the bill on that basis would make it permanent

45-755 0-65-pt. 1- -40

legislation, would make it a better bill, and would make the bill more specific in only applying to those that are only guilty of wrongdoing. Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Rodgers, if you will bear with me on that point, I quite agree with you, there should be some incentive for a State or a political subdivision to clean up a discriminatory situation if it exists and when it manifests good faith, it ought not to take too long. It is the old State carrot-and-stick principle. You use a little stick, but you also hold up a little carrot and make that the incentive.

I might say to you that while it was reported in that fashion, I did reserve on that point because I was not satisfied with the provision as it came out. I am confident that that general picture will be modified before we get through.

Mr. RODGERS. I certainly hope so, thank you.

Next, turning to specific provisions of the bill, on page 3, you have this provision of course, these are in addition to the other situations about this 10-year period. In other words, if there has been a court decision anywhere in the State in which it has been determined that voter discrimination was practiced, the State cannot get out from under for 10 years. We hope this will be aimed just at political subdivisions, not the State as a whole, but we think that 10 years is a very long time. That also applies to the incentive. We think that ought to be reduced to 5 years or less. At any rate, we certainly think it ought to be reduced to 5 years. The effect that would have is it would give the political subdivisions of Georgia or give Georgia if the bill is not modified, a fighting chance to get out. Georgia would have to carry a burden of proof before a three-judge district court here in the District that discrimination does not exist in Georgia today. but to say to Georgia, with all the efforts we have made, with the adoption of new election codes and so forth, with the rapid increase in voter registration in Georgia recently, you are going to have to wait another 5 years before you stand a chance of getting out-we think that is quite severe. We think that period of time should be reduced. Senator HART. Could I interrupt for a question of Mr. Rodgers? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator HART. What was the date of the judgment of the court with respect to voter discrimination?

Mr. RODGERS. It was about 5 years ago. So if that were reduced to 5 years, that would give Georgia the right to come before a district court here in the District and try to prove that things like that do not exist. It was approximately 5 years ago.

On page 5, in the paragraph that ends at the top of the page, we think that proviso there is very unfair because it says, the first part of the paragraph says that a person cannot appear before the Federa registrars until after he has tried to register before the State registrars. We think that that is a bad approach by the bill, because we think that even in these affected counties, the State or the county registrars should have the primary burden and responsibility for registering people to vote and that the Federal registrars, when they come into a county, should only exist for the purpose of correcting abuse by the county registrars, not to register people in the first instance. One thing that I think will strengthen the bill and probably give the wider scope is to say, where the bill says he has been denied under color