er this habit. But just because some poll officer in some State newhere should refuse to register one of these people, that would an that everyone running in that election would not be certifiedGovernor could not be. Where this would be most critical would in the case of holding special elections to fill a vacancy in public e. That means that that office could continue to go unfilled except the interim appointee, who would not be the choice of the public, ald continue to serve. We think that provision is productive of fusion and we do not think that any good that could ever be ught by that subsection (e) could ever outdistance the evils that d result therefrom. So we suggest that subsection (e) should be minated.

enator DIRKSEN. Mr. Rodgers, would you be inclined to a modificaof that section to the effect that where the result of an election was loubt, it was that close, and discrimination had been actually estabed and that the votes denied would make a difference, that it would imited exactly to those where that situation might apply? Ir. RODGERS. I think that would greatly improve subsection (e). t about all the States-I know Georgia does have a contest proure. So if it were that close, you could throw the whole thing in a est and that could be eliminated by the State machinery provided refor. Any State court would recognize that if there were a sufnt number excluded by these registrars to place an election in bt, the election would have to be declared void. We would still fer to see the subsection eliminated-subsection (e) eliminated rely. But if that is not feasible, I think your suggestion would atly improve the bill.

believe that about concludes my comments on this. Some of these gestions we feel would fully perfect the bill even in the eyes of the ponents of the bill. I would be happy to answer any questions body may have.

enator DIRKSEN. Well, Mr. Rodgers, I just want to say that I k your testimony was quite objective and you approached this in ery fairminded way. I think you are to be complimented for the entation you made here today.

r. RODGERS. Thank you, sir.

enator HART (presiding). Senator Kennedy?

enator KENNEDY. No.

enator HART. Mr. Rodgers, the committee does appreciate the entation. It was thoughtful and I think quite objective and very tively done.

r. RODGERS. Thank you.

enator HART. If there are no further questions, the committee will s until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, when Senator Sparkman a delegation from the States of Mississippi and Virginia will be

-d.

Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at m., Thursday, April 1, 1965.)

VOTING RIGHTS

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2228, New nate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland (chairman) esiding.

Present: Senators Eastland, Ervin, Hart, Kennedy of Massachuts, Tydings, Dirksen, Fong, and Javits.

Also present: Palmer Lipscomb, Robert B. Young, Thomas B. Cols, professional staff members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Senator Sparkman, proceed.

ATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the vilege of appearing before you on the important question of voting hts and more particularly on the details of the bill, S. 1565.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you have a heavy schedule before you s morning. I would like, with your permission, to submit my statent in full and have it printed in full, even though I may not read of it.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be submitted as requested.

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me state at the outset that I have never posed the right to vote. I believe it is an important American ritage. I believe in the full exercise of the right of franchise by all lified citizens.

I want there to be no doubt, however, that I am opposed to this 1. It is a harsh bill, designed to punish the South. It is born out emotionalism, and is hastened by the heat of passion, which history arly shows is typical of the circumstances that usually surround ty, stringent, and ill-advised legislation. This type of legislation ally carried with it more fundamental harm to our form of governnt than the little good that might be accomplished in the long run by enforcement.

The bill would punish the States that (1) maintain a literacy or other (2) in the November 1964 Presidential election failed to have 50 cent or more of the adult population go to the polls; or (3) do not re at least 50 percent of the adult population registered. I am told t this restricts the bill to Southern States, thereby making it re

VOTING RIGHTS

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2228, New nate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland (chairman) esiding.

Present: Senators Eastland, Ervin, Hart, Kennedy of Massachuts, Tydings, Dirksen, Fong, and Javits.

Also present: Palmer Lipscomb, Robert B. Young, Thomas B. Cols, professional staff members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Senator Sparkman, proceed.

ATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the vilege of appearing before you on the important question of voting hts and more particularly on the details of the bill, S. 1565.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you have a heavy schedule before you s morning. I would like, with your permission, to submit my statent in full and have it printed in full, even though I may not read

of it.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be submitted as requested.

Senator SPARK MAN. Let me state at the outset that I have never posed the right to vote. I believe it is an important American itage. I believe in the full exercise of the right of franchise by all lified citizens.

I want there to be no doubt, however, that I am opposed to this 1. It is a harsh bill, designed to punish the South. It is born out emotionalism, and is hastened by the heat of passion, which history arly shows is typical of the circumstances that usually surround ty, stringent, and ill-advised legislation. This type of legislation ally carried with it more fundamental harm to our form of governnt than the little good that might be accomplished in the long run by enforcement.

The bill would punish the States that (1) maintain a literacy or other (2) in the November 1964 Presidential election failed to have 50 cent or more of the adult population go to the polls; or (3) do not re at least 50 percent of the adult population registered. I am told this restricts the bill to Southern States, thereby making it re