Senator HRUSKA. I am glad you said protection of the minority. But go ahead.

Mr. HANSON. There are many ways to protect the minority, and many ways, I think, to see that they are sufficiently protected. The courts provide one of the ways of protecting minorities as to their basic constitutional rights.

As to the protection of their interests as distinguished from constitutional rights, but it may also involve an interest in a constitutional right, we establish a number of procedural rules, such as the rule. for example, that it takes two-thirds to suspend the rules in a legislative body, and such as the rule that requires a two-thirds majority for the passage of constitutional amendments, which were generally considered of such importance that a bare majority should not inflict its judgment upon what might be just a transient minority.

Senator HRUSKA. If that rule is ever to be changed, it would have to be changed in the case of constitutional amendments by amending the Constitution, would it not?

Mr. HANSON. Of course.

Senator HRUSKA. Would you want to deny the right to amend the Constitution in that regard?

Mr. HANSON. No; but I certainly would contest the wisdom of changing those rules, just as I am contesting the wisdom of changing the present one.

Senator HRUSKA. So in the case of the Senate, where the proponen's would have to have twice as many votes as the opponents to carry the day, you do not see any violation of the one-man, one-vote rule! Mr. HANSON. No.

Senator HRUSKA. In the case of the ratification by the legislatures. it would require three times as many legislatures to approve the amendment of the Constitution as those who oppose it. You see nothing in violation of the one-State, one-vote rule there, do you?

Mr. HANSON. No.

Senator HRUSKA. Are you in favor of changing the representation in the U.S. Senate to more than two Senators?

Mr. HANSON. No; we have a Federal system and I am content with the idea that in a compound republic, as Madison called it, it is apppriate to represent the components of that republican State as well as the corollary components of people.

Senator HRUSKA. So you think it is all right to have the vast der lands of New Mexico, with their limited population, represented by two Senators, and its neighboring State of California with its million people, represented by two Senators? That is all right?

Mr. HANSON. I do not know that it is all right, but I am content with it. I am content with it on the same basis that Madison was.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, Madison is a good authority to quote a that.

Mr. HANSON. Madison, however, was for popular representation the States, and I agree with him there, too.

Senator HRUSKA. He was for what?

Mr. HANSON. Popular representation in the States.

Senator HRUSKA. Maybe he was. I do not recall that.

Mr. HANSON. In fact, he was for it at the Federal Convention, bet reluctantly agreed to the compromise that produced the Senate.

Senator HRUSKA. Do you know of any rotten borough in England that remained a rotten borough system with a vote, that is with the consent of the people voting there?

Mr. HANSON. Not after the Reform Act of 1832. But Old Sarum, I think, had no people in it at all before that time.

Senator HRUSKA. The people were not consulted about that, were they?

Mr. HANSON. There was no referendum on it.

Senator HRUSKA. Had there been, do you think they would have approved it?

Mr. HANSON. I have not the faintest idea.

Senator HRUSKA. What is your best guess?

Mr. HANSON. I would assume I think it would depend on those who were admitted to suffrage in England at that time. I think there was a chance they might have approved it.

Senator HRUSKA. If they did, what would be wrong with that?

Mr. HANSON. The thing that would be wrong with it, it would probably have precluded the development of English government in the progressive fashion which it pursued after the enactment of the Reform Act.

In fact, the Reform Act was brought about because in part of the atrophy of democratic government in England, resulting in part from the rotten borough system.

Senator HRUSKA. Of course, you have pointed to the malapportionment of our American Legislatures. You have been fighting them for years. They have been malapportioned, according to your theory, and very harmully so. For a country composed of 50 States with those kinds of legislatures, we have done pretty well, have we not? Mr. HANSON. I would say amazingly well, in spite of it.

Senator HRUSKA. There are those who would say because of it. Mr. HANSON. There are some who would. I would disagree with them.

Senator HRUSKA. You would not want that to be put to a referendum, because you do not think that is the type of questionMr. HANSON. I am sorry?

Senator HRUSKA. You would not want to put that proposition to a referendum, because you might disagree with the result of the refendum, is that it?

Mr. HANSON. There are many questions I am quite willing to put to a referendum, even though I might disagree with the result. But there are some questions which I think by their nature should not be put to a referendum.

Senator HRUSKA. But not this one?

Mr. HANSON. Not this one, nor free speech, nor segregated education.

Senator HRUSKA. You would deny the right to amend the Constitution in certain things?

Mr. HANSON. I do not deny the right. I just suggest that it is extremely unwise to amend it in certain things.

Senator HRUSKA. Professor Hanson, you have made a great contribution to this committee by stating your position and the position of many who feel as you do. We are grateful to you for the time you have taken and the vast amount of effort that you have put into the testimony that you have prepared.

Mr. HANSON. Thank you very much, Senator. I deeply appreciate the privilege of appearing before your committee. I am hopeful and I am confident that your committee will undertake a thorough investigation of all of these points, and I am hopeful that at the cor clusion of your deliberations, you will leave Reynolds against S untouched.

Senator HRUSKA. I can assure you there is at least one Senator on this committee who will still contend, regardless of what the committee or the Congress might do that the best slogan I have heard in this matter is one man, one vote, and the chance to use that vote to overcome Reynolds against Sims.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSON. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator BAYH. Our next witness is Mr. Warren Dorn, County Supervisors Association of California, Committee on Legislative Ap portionment. His statement will be presented by Mr. C. D. Ward. We appreciate your patience here and look forward with intere to your thoughts on this subject.

STATEMENT OF WARREN M. DORN, VICE CHAIRMAN, COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT, PRESENTED BY C. D. WARD Mr. WARD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your cotinuing the hearing today.

My name is C. D. Ward. I am counsel for the National Association of Counties. However, I am presenting this statement in behalf of Mr. Warren Dorn, who is the chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, Calif., which is the most populous county in the United States.

Mr. Dorn's testimony is given on behalf of the California Supervisors Association which is the organization representing the county government in California.

The statement is very brief, and I will read it, if I may.

Representing the newly formed Committee on Legislative Apportionment of the County Supervisors Association of California, I wish to state in the begi ning that our committee favors a constitutional amendment that will allow the apportionment of one house of the State legislature on the basis of factors other than population, provided such a plan is first submitted to and approved by a vote of the people. As a supervisor of the county of Los Angeles, the m heavily populated county in the United States, I am fully aware that the preser apportionment of our California State Senate does deprive the more populoas areas of California of adequate representation in the State senate. However while I believe this situation must be and should be corrected, I do not believe it should be corrected entirely at the expense of the more rural areas of the State My position in this matter coincides with that expressed in California's senate joint resolution 3, which was adopted by both houses of our State legislature I would like to quote the third paragraph of that resolution which reads "Whereas California's present apportionment unduly deprives urban areas of adequate representation in the State senate, nevertheless the Court's decision will enable heavily populated areas to dominate State legislatures and will lesd to a virtual loss of representation in all other areas of the State"

Time and again I have stated that I felt that it was necessary for my o county of Los Angeles with a population of nearly 7 million people, to have more than one senator in the State senate if the diverse viewpoints and problems of our great population were to be adequately presented and represented. While I feel that no one senator, and I might add that we have a very capable one, can

adequately represent these diverse viewpoints and problems. I also feel that it would be impossible under the U.S. Supreme Court decision for any one senator in our State to attempt to represent equally diverse problems of 10 to 20 California counties, and this will be the case if the court's mandate of one man, one vote, is to prevail.

You will recall that last Thursday our Governor called your committee's attention to the complexities and magnitude of the problems of the State of California and pointed out that their solution often depends on the various parts of the State working together. Probably the most striking illustration of this is that we in the southern part of the State, must of necessity look to the northern areas of the State for an ample water supply to sustain our present growth and to provide for our expanding future.

I am glad that in urging a constitutional amendment to return the matter of apportionment of State legislatures to the vote of the people of the several States, I am able to join with the very capable senior Senator of our State, Senator Kuchel, and our newly elected junior Senator, Senator Murphy.

In urging the passage of a constitutional amendment on this subject, there are two principal points that I think should be an integral part of any amendment that is passed out of your committee or your body.

1. The amendment must contain the guarantee that the people of each of the 50 States be given the opportunity at the ballot box to express themselves directly upon any plan of apportionment which departs from the one-man, one-vote principle.

2. The amendment should guarantee adequate representation for the metropolitan areas of every State in both houses of the legislature. Adequate representation does not mean domination of both houses of the legislature by heavily populated urban areas. If one house is apportioned on a basis other than population, population should continue to be one of the factors which is considered along with area, geography, and other pertinent elements.

I would further like to associate myself and I further feel that any amendment passed out of your committee should contain that language represented in California State Joint Resolution 3, which on page 2, line 6 through line 15 reads as follows: "Section 1. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States shall prohibt any State that has a bicameral legislature from apportioning the membership of one house of its legislature on factors other than population, provided that the plan of such apportionment be submitted to a vote of all of the people of the State at an election in which the franchise is not denied on the basis of race, creed, or color and resubmitted to a vote of all the people of the State, prior to the implementation of the apportionment plan and at regular intervals, not to exceed 10 years."

In conclusion, I wish to remind you that a three-judge Federal court has ordered that the California Senate be reapportioned by action taken prior to July 1, 1965. If California is to benefit from the action and the people of our State are to be given the opportunity to express themselves on a fair and equitable apportionment plan, it is essential that a constitutional amendment be submitted to the State for ratification at the earliest possible time.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Mr. Ward.

Also, thank Mr. Dorn.

Is it Mr. Dorn's thought that this constitutional amendment will make it possible for California not to reapportion both houses. Will it stay the Federal court order to which you referred in your testimony here? In other words, you say that if California is to benefit from the action, and the people of our State are to be given the opportunity to express themselves, and so on, it is essential that the constitutional amendment be submitted to the State for ratification at the earliest possible moment even though you have a Federal court order looming over your head to do something.

Mr. WARD. I think the statement might give that impression but following the colloquy you had this morning with Senator Hruska and Senator Tydings, I think Mr. Dorn would be aware that the situation would be the same and that if the constitutional amendments

were adopted, the State would have to have the initiative and election be held to make it any different than it is now.

Senator BAYH. It would be interesting to get Mr. Dorn's though: on this without having the benefit of the colloquy here. It has been my impression from listening to the statements that it certainly infers that he thinks otherwise. I think there has been a great deal of sentiment contrary to it.

I hope this does not mislead a lot of people as to what the ultimate result would be.

Mr. WARD. I would be very pleased to solicit that question.

Senator BAYH. It is not a matter of great importance, but it would be of interest to the committee.

Mr. WARD. Fine.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much.

Mr. WARD. The National Association of Counties has no official position on this resolution you are considering today. However, we do have a limited policy on the subject of reapportionment which is not directly relevant but would be of assistance. I would request that it might be incorporated in your records. It is very short.

Senator BATH. We will be glad to do that, incorporate it in the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

The National Association of Counties recognizes that periodic apportionment of seats in State legislative bodies requires that principles governing such apprtionment be clearly stated in State constitutions and that the constitution pro vide adequate means to insure that the body charged with the duty to apport.or complies with its responsibilities.

We therefore recommend that State constitutions, in clear language, provide: (1) For the frequency of reapportionment; (2) for a bipartisan or nonpartisan board or commission or other administrative officer or body to apportion seats in a legislature in the event that the legislature fails to apportion itself in accordance with the law; (3) that where seats in a legislative body are to be apportioned according to population that legislative districts not deviate more than 10 percent from the number obtained by dividing the total population of the State by the number of members in the particular legislative body; (4) that the people have an opportunity to react at the polls to the continuance or change of constitutional apportionment formulas; and (5) that States' courts be provided with appropriate jurisdiction and remedies to insure that State officials comply with their apportionment responsibilities.

We further recommend, in view of the nature of decisions that must be made in apportioning seats in a legislature, that State and Federal courts, except in the most extreme circumstances, confine their role in apportionment to ruling upon the constitutionality of apportionment plans and not decree the actual geographic composition of legislative districts.

Senator BAYH. We will now be in recess subject to the call of the chairman.

We will try to readjust and rearrange our witness list.

(Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the chair.)