Third, we believe that interest groups will accommodate themselves to the new alinements and that the relative strength of the competing groups will not be greatly altered. Lastly, we cannot, in our understanding of the tenets that have grown from the great Democratic revolution, justify a house in a bicameral legislature that is not fully responsive to the people. Senator BAYH. Thank you, Senator Rogers and Representative Brighton. Representative Brighton? Representative BRIGHTON. This is a joint statement on behalf of both of us and at this point any information that we can supply to you we are certainly willing. Senator BAYH. May I pose some joint questions, please? If you have individual opinions we are glad to have them. As I understand it now, as of 1965, March, both houses have the one-man, one-vote basis? Mr. ROGERS. That is true, sir. Senator BAYH. What leeway do you have? Mr. ROGERS. There are two peculiarities about Indiana and the way we did it. We assumed we had 15 percent in our districts, and we can deviate from the norm. Senator BAYH. Is that 15 percent deviation? Mr. ROGERS. Fifteen percent up and 15 percent down. Senator BAYH. Thirty percent deviation, then? Mr. ROGERS. Fifteen percent from the norm, either way. Secondly, in Indiana, by long custom and actually by constitutional requirement in the senate Senator BAYH. Excuse me, before you proceed. How close to this 15 percent are most of them? Mr. ROGERS. I think there are only three that deviate either way, between 12 and 15 percent. It was a pretty good curve. One problem in Indiana, by requiring our senate and by long custom in the house, we have not broken down counties into single member constituencies. Therefore, from our large counties, large population, we elect a slate of as many as 15 of our 100 legislators from Marion County, Ind. This I believe is the choice of the State and is well within-it is not forbidden by the 14th amendment. It has caused some alarm in the way in which we even off these large member districts by including smaller counties surrounding the joint districts. Senator BAYH. I did not mean to interrupt your train of thought. Mr. ROGERS. Those are the two peculiarities. Senator BAYH. This is not of course specifically of importance in the measure we are discussing. Senator Kennedy alluded to it this morning. Other witnesses have, too. You apparently feel we are getting adequate representation from those multimember districts. Mr. ROGERS. I think all of us who have served in legislative bodies know that our constituency and what we understand to be the interests of our constituency is that one of the factors that influences us is our legislative tasks. We also are concerned with interests that are stated as being statewide and are nationwide and I am of the opinion that the issues that are of great concern to the people will-and their solution in such a State as Indiana-will not be greatly altered by following the apportionment that we should have gotten earlier. 48-124-65-52 There is one area. It is obvious-dealing out the money for roads between the rural areas and the metropolitan areas will probably be a material cause of reapportionment. But the issues of good schoors support for the universities, for the mental hospitals will not be altere dramatically by the reapportionment of the general assembly at all Senator BAYH. Additional things for municipal government, perhaps? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, some may. But not of a tremendous variety. Senator BAYH. You mentioned the great issues. Mr. ROGERS. For our States. Senator BAYH. Now that we have had this one-man, one-vote decision and Indiana has really been one of the leaders in responding. what can you say about the future State responsibility and the abil of States to resume the prerogatives that they once had in the field of welfare, education, public works? Do you feel this will provide more incentive? Mr. ROGERS. This provides the ability and willingness of the State to alter their taxing structure. The States must depend and have had to depend on the property tax and on consumer taxes, partly because the nature of our interstate economy is such that it is awkward-s production tax or income tax on our great corporations. I do not envisage any easing off of the taxing problems of the State, of having them accepted by the people and being able to tax the intersta concerns. Therefore, I think that reapportionment or no, we are going to continue to have pressures on the Federal Government for funds for expansion in the field of education and mental health and so on. Senator BAYH. From a procedural standpoint, in this reapportioning process, did you find that you could come within the norm without cutting across additional county lines, or do you have to carve up parts of counties? Mr. ROGERS. No, we didn't. We followed the patterns that have been followed in the past completely informing the districts. Senator BAYH. Indiana has multicounty districts allotted to oze senator and one representative. Mr. ROGERS. Yes, yes, and frankly, it has been my experience in talking to people but one county or three counties, the problem of representation for the short term sessions differ very little. If you want to make it easier for those who cover large counties give them extra mileage or something of that sort. Senator BAYI. One of the concerns expressed, as I recall, by one of the Chief Justices in the Supreme Court pertained to the local custom in Florida, whereby a considerable amount of county admini-tration and county authority must be received from the State legis lature. This of course strikes a chord,-one that this subcommitte has been interested in for some time, that deals with the problem of local rule. I see certain members of the League of Women Voters in our room here in the hearings. I know very well the fundamental part they play in the State of Indiana-in trying to change this system we have never been able to change it despite the tremendous effort that they and others have made. The Justice was concerned that if each county did not have a specific member to represent it in one house of the legislature, the duties or the provisions which were necessary for the State legislature to provide for the local community would not receive the type of personal attention that was needed to get the job done. Indiana, I think it is fair to say, unfortunately, has not taken advantage of home rule. Counties still have to come and cities still have to come for many things from our State legislature. Yet in Indiana we have multicounty districts. Have you noticed any depreciation of the services that a multicounty district gets? Mr. ROGERS. We accept this as a matter of course. I sponsor legislation to that was special for communities in any one of the three counties that I represent-I sponsor more special education for the more populous counties that I happen to live in. I handle specific problems for each county at many times and in Indiana where we are used to multicounty districts in both houses of the general assembly it would never occur to us that a county can have a voice only by having its own particular representative. So I think we are used to it. I think it is a thing that perhaps those who have not experienced it fear, but fear is unwarranted. Senator BAYH. Do you care to speak to any specific abuse that either one of you have observed where problems have not been solved? You mentioned roads as one. Mr. ROGERS. We haven't solved the problems of roads either in rural or urban areas. I daresay, and I don't think redistricting will help it. Senator BAYH. One of the main reasons for the one man, one vote is that it is alleged that rural representatives, and their control have denied metropolitan areas services which they need. Do you have any specific examples of that in Indiana? Mr. ROGERS. Without knowing where we need money we distribute the money from our motor vehicle fund, the gasoline tax, and truck and passenger car registrations to local units for their street and road costs. While retaining 53 percent for the State we have distributed the remaining 32 percent to counties for rural roads and 15 percent to the cities for the building, maintenance, and repair of their roads. I believe as a result-partly as a result of reapportionment, we will restudy this and possibly change it and we waste a great deal of money probably in the maintenance of our differing county highway departments and we may find a reshuffling of road needs that may be indeed quicker because of reapportionment. Mr. BRIGHTON. Mr. Chairman, to add something to that, I might cite a specific answer. There was a drive on from the urban areas in this last session to readjust the formula by which we redistributed this money. The formula was to be changed in the manner that the urban areas would receive more money at the expense of the rural areas. Now, I am in a rather unique situation. I am a joint representative, of which we have been talking, multicounty. One of my counties is a rural county and the other is an urban county and this puts an individual who represents these two types of areas in quite a dilemma. However, the effort was the formula was not changed and I might say that only two extremely urban areas of extremely high populations were the only ones that really tried to force this issue and I think that under the circumstances this would indicate that perhaps the urban-the rural areas will maintain their own under the circumstances. Senator BAYH. You are referring to the makeup of your legislatie districts? Have you not had unique experiences as a member of the house of representatives that has represented multicounty distries and also a district in which there are multicounty legislators! Mr. BRIGHTON. Yes. Senator BAYH. Have you noticed that in the 1963 session, since steps were made which did improve the apportionment setup in Idiana? Mr. ROGERS. The house of representatives was reapportioned very well. There was some wild divergences in individual cases but coming very actively in our standard procedure-these were the w ones. The senate, however, was apportioned on the basis—a formul that said that each county-it doesn't make much sense in retrospectis entitled to one-third of a senator and the rest of that senator w be divided up according to population. Senator BAYH. May I ask you, Senator, which of your counties g the top third. Mr. ROGERS. Naturally, the populous. But this-there was passed by the 1963 general assembly-they confirmed what they have done by statute. Senator BAYH. Have you noticed any more cooperation between the two houses or have you been able to have any more cooperation! Mr. ROGERS. The house speakers in Indiana are always difficu people to get along with. [Laughter.] Senator BAYH. Have you noticed any differences in the ability to get some of the more city-oriented things? Mr. ROGERS. The budgets were more adequately funded this pas session and I think more than had been done before. This was partly because we had the-in the 1963 session we enacted an ambitious program that combined with unprecedented prosperity which filled our coffers to overflowing. Senator BAYH. I do not know whether we should close the recor? on that bit of lobbying or not. Do you have any further comments, Representative Brighton? Mr. BRIGHTON. No, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAYH. Gentlemen, we appreciate your taking the time here and giving us this valuable addition to our record. We tentatively have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow. We cannot announce at this time who all the witnesses will be because we are still waiting to hear from two or three of my colleagues who have particular men and women they feel we should hear. We will now adjourn. (Whereupon at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10 o'clock, Friday, May 7, 1965.) REAPPORTIONMENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1965 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1318, New Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Bayh. Senator BAYH. We are fortunate this morning in having Mr. Clarence Mitchell, director of the NAACP, Washington Bureau, a man who, perhaps as much if not more than any other, symbolizes the great effort that we are making as a nation to try to put aside prejudice and bigotry and second-class citizenship, a man who, although impassioned and determined in his effort to accomplish this goal, nevertheless has been as passionate as one can be under the circumstances that confront us. As a citizenry, it is difficult for any of us to be patient in the light of certain circumstances that exist. Thus, we are particularly glad to have you with us, Mr. Mitchell. We are looking forward to having your testimony. STATEMENT OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NAACP Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much, Senator Bayh. I think it is significant of the constructive changes that are taking place in this country that you serve as chairman of this hearing. You have come far and fast on the basis of ability. It is my opinion that our country has a very, very bright future if we can continue the kind of election process that will put people like you in office. Senator BAYH. Thank you very much. I am going to be listening intently to the criteria that you propose. Mr. MITCHELL. I mean that very sincerely. I have a stake in this, 100. The same processes that have brought you to the distinguished place that you occupy have also brought my oldest son to a lesser, but greatly cherished place as a member of the Maryland legislature where this year he had the good fortune to be the sponsor of the first fair employment practice law to be passed in a State below the MasonDixon line. Only this week it was signed by the Governor of the State, and I believe it is symbolic of the times changing for the better. That is why I think it is so important that the proposed amendment be de |