STATEMENT OF PAT GREATHOUSE, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO

Mr. GREATHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Pat Greathouse. I am a vice president of the Internstional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO.

We wholeheartedly support the principle of fair representation for all citizens. On behalf of our organization and our president, Walter P. Reuther, I wish to express our appreciation to the subcommittee for permitting us to be heard on this vital question.

As vice president of the UAW, it is my responsibility to coordinate our union's bargaining with the agricultural implement industry. It addition to this, I work closely with farm organizations and others interested in the resource development of the Nation.

I grew up on a farm and I have worked in farm communit throughout much of my lifetime. The UAW has many members who came from the farms to work in the cities. Many of us still have sent:mental ties to the soil. I am proud to say that the UAW has con sistently supported a strong legislative program to encourage the family farm. And we have steadfastly worked for a program of rura electrification to bring low-cost electricity to the farm homes of America. The American labor movement through the AFL-CIO has worked vigorously for farm programs to raise family incomes and t enrich the lives of farm communities.

I say all this to preface my remarks about Senate Joint Resolutio 2, because it is argued that the farm people of our Nation will have little voice in the affairs of government unless the Supreme Court's de cision on "one-man, one-vote" is diluted as proposed by this resolution. Farm people have nothing to fear if political power is shifted to where the population of our country has increasingly migrated, to the cities and the suburbs.

We firmly believe it is possible to rise above narrow, selfish interests. that city people can understand farm problems, and that farm people will respond to city problems. There is no need for people who live on farms to have more votes than their city cousins nor vice versajust to make sure their own interests are protected. It does great damage to our democratic government to tinker with a man's vote because of his geographical location or any other factor.

We believe that every citizen's vote should exert an equal weight on the democratic process. Because of our firm belief in this principle. we oppose any attempt to nullify or blunt the Supreme Court decision of last June 15 in the case of Reynolds v. Sims. In our opinion, the proposed constitutional amendments before this committee would do great damage to the principle of fair representation.

At the outset, I think it would be well to quote from the decision in the case of Reynolds v. Sims. Chief Justice Warren, speaking for the Court, eloquently stated the principle we are upholding here. "Leg's lators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." said the Chief Justice. "To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen."

We in the UAW live in big cities and in small towns across the country. Some of us live in areas that are underrepresented in State legislatures; some in overrepresented areas. But we do not believe that the accident of our place of residence should determine the value of our vote in the polling place. This belief has been very well put by one of our members who lives in a small town in Michigan. Writing to her Senators in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 2, she said that: I live in a sparsely populated area compared with Detroit, but I do not think I should be overrepresented because I can see more fields under cultivation, or drive a shorter distance to the city limits.

Senate Joint Resolution 2, and similar legislation which has been introduced to both Houses of Congress, provides that apportionment of one house of a State legislature may be based on "factors other than population." This is a vague criteria, and would open the gates for the most reprehensible kind of malapportionment. The danger in this approach as been noted by the Committee on Federal Legislation of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in opposing Senate Joint Resolution 2. Said the committee:

The amendment might *** invite attempts at districting based on racial criteria or arbitrary criteria having a racial or other discriminatory overtones. While we would certainly not impute such motives to the authors of the proposed amendments, it seems clear that such vague guidelines are susceptible to such misuse.

It would be ironic and tragic were the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to pass and then to see its impact negated by malapportioned legislatures designed to dilute the newly enfranchised citizens of some of our States. Not only is the right to vote a basic principle of democracy, but the right to an equal vote should be just as firm a bedrock of democracy.

Another point which we think should be stressed before this committee is that of approval by popular referendum, called for in Senate Joint Resolution 2. This has an attractive and equalitarian facade to it, but it has disturbing implications. No temporary majority of citizens should have the power to deprive any of their fellow citizens of basic rights of political equality. It is tempting to say that, just as majorities can decide to levy taxes and regulate hours of work and make other legislative decisions, so a majority can manipulate apportionment. But no majority should ever remove from any citizen or group of citizens a right as basic as equal representation.

A large factor in the surface appeal of the proposed amendments is the so-called "Federal analogy," which alleges that since States of unequal population are equally represented in the U.S. Senate, so should the States be permitted to follow the same course in the apportionment of their legislatures. This is, however, a false analogy. Courts in both Michigan and Wisconsin have ruled that subordinate units of government such as cities and counties have no sovereign powers and are in no sense analogous to the States which participated in the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. We feel that the words of the Supreme Court on this subject go to the heart of the matter. Said the Court:

Attempted reliance on the Federal analogy appears often to be little more than an after-the-fact rationalization offered in defense of maladjusted State apportionment arrangements.

48-124-65-59

A subordinate unit of government such as a county has no powers not delegated to it and capable of being exercised by the State, in contrast to the express delegation of powers to the States in the Federal Constitution.

We shall not attempt to overwhelm you here with statistics about the evils of malapportionment. It has been made abundantly clear by many others that all too many State legislatures have neglected the needs of significant groups and areas of their States because of minority self-interest. Examples of needed legislation voted down by legislators representing a minority of the population are manifold. Many conservative State legislators vent their wrath upon the Congress for allegedly invading the legislative provinces of the States But in many cases, they have only themselves to blame. Malapportionment and minority control have so frustrated these citizens in urban areas whose needs for social legislation in the fields of housing. social welfare, education, and health, to name just a few areas, that they have had no recourse but to turn to the Federal Government for aid. It may well be that a renaissance of the States will be achieved when the full impact of the Supreme Court decision is felt. However, if the urban residents of the States are denied the equal representation provided for by the Reynolds v. Sims decision, then once again, they will have no effective recourse but the Congress. Minority rule of the States is the surest way to atrophy the remnants of strong State government that still remains.

Let us be frank; we are not just discussing an abstract principle. although this whole field is based on most profound principles. are also discussing the clash of interests. Seventy years ago, two thirds of the citizens of this country lived in rural areas. They controlled the legislatures, which were responsive to the needs of rural residents. Today, however, that proportion is reversed. But the coesequences of the massive internal migration over the last seven decades has been a clinging to power of those who now represent only a minority of the population. By ignoring State constitutional mandates or by rewriting State constitutions, they have perpetuated malapportionment and legislated minority control. But the Supreme Court has spoken. Said the Court:

A nation once primarily rural in character becomes predominantly uras Representation schemes once fair and equitable become archaic and outdated But the basic principle of representative government remains, and must rema12. unchanged the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend upon where

he lives.

Certainly, in an era of such swift social change and unprecedented migration, we cannot be expected to make every transaction swift and easy. But to attempt to return to the comfortable rustic past by ershrining malapportionment in the Constitution seems totally wrong We in the UAW urge this committee, and all Members of Congr to oppose Senate Joint Resolution 2 and all other similar propsals We should not attempt to make the Constitution a vehicle for the r capturing of the past by minority elements. The basic democrat · standard that one man's vote should count no more nor less thar. a other's is a principle that should be left untouched.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Your statement certainly paints a vivid picture of the circumstances which brought about the Court's decision.

Also, you hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned with the Federal analogy argument, which is a false argument.

We appreciate you taking your time to express your views and those of the United Automobile Workers.

Thank you.

Before we greet our next witness, I would like to include in the record the statement of our colleague, Senator John Sherman Cooper, and the statement of Congressman Robert Sweeney.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN SHERMAN COOPER

The Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments has for its consideration four resolutions to amend the Constitution with respect to State legislative apportionment, viz, Senate Joint Resolution 2, introduced by Senator Dirksen; Senate Joint Resolution 37 and 38, introduced by Senator Church; and Senate Joint Resolution 44, introduced by Senator Javits. As a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 2, I appreciate this opportunity to place my views on record. In discussing and analyzing the constitutional problem that these resolutions are designed to solve, I think it would be helpful to review the legal circumstances that have created a need for such an amendment.

In 1962, the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr held that Federal district courts ad jurisdiction of claims that State legislative apportionments are in violation of the 14th amendment, that resident voters have standing as plaintiffs to exert such a claim, and that such claims (which hithertofore had been regarded as 'political" questions) were "justiciable." It is interesting to note that the Court emanded the case without giving the district court any guidelines as to the orm of judicial relief or judicial standards in applying the equal protection dause to the apportionment plan of the Tennessee Legislature. Speaking for he Court, Justice Brennan states:

"Beyond noting that we have no cause at this stage to doubt the district court will be able to fashion relief if violations of constitutional rights are found, it s improper now to consider what remedy would be most appropriate if appelants prevail at the trial."

Furthermore, the opinion does not provide a standard by which the district ourt could gage the constitutionality of a State reapportionment in terms of he 14th amendment. Justice Brennan speaks only in general terms of "arbi

rary" and "capricious" action:

"Nor need the appellants, in order to succeed in this action, ask the Court to nter upon policy determination for which judicially manageable standards are acking. Judicial standards under the equal protection clause are well-develped and familiar, and it has been open to courts since the enactment of the 14th mendment to determine, if on the particular facts they must, that a discriminaion reflects no policy, but simply arbitrary and capricious action."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Douglas observes that it would not be contitutionally necessary for the Court to fashion a remedy or develop a specific tandard. Justice Douglas implies that once a court has found a reapportionnent plan unconstitutional, such a determination would spur a State legislature nto reapportioning so as to avoid an at-large election. In his view, the Court could not have to concern itself with any other remedy, nor would it be required o develop a specific standard. In a second concurring opinion, Justice Clark Titicizes the majority view in its refusal to come to grips with the problems of ndicial relief and constitutional standards:

How

"The Court holds that the appellants have alleged a cause of action. Ter, it refuses to award relief here-although the facts are undisputed-and ails to give the district court any guidance whatsoever."

The constitutional standard that he proposes is that of "invidious discriminaion," which discrimination is constitutionally impermissible when two factors re shown: (1) That a "classification” pattern exists, and (2) that the "classiiration" pattern is based on no rational or reasonable scheme or plan. He then

A subordinate unit of government such as a county has no powers not delegated to it and capable of being exercised by the State, in contrast to the express delegation of powers to the States in the Federal Constitution.

We shall not attempt to overwhelm you here with statistics abou the evils of malapportionment. It has been made abundantly clear by many others that all too many State legislatures have neglected the needs of significant groups and areas of their States because of minority self-interest. Examples of needed legislation voted down by legislators representing a minority of the population are manifold. Many conservative State legislators vent their wrath upon the Congress for allegedly invading the legislative provinces of the States. But in many cases, they have only themselves to blame. Malapportionment and minority control have so frustrated these citizens in urban areas whose needs for social legislation in the fields of housing. social welfare, education, and health, to name just a few areas, that they have had no recourse but to turn to the Federal Government for aid. It may well be that a renaissance of the States will be achieved when the full impact of the Supreme Court decision is felt. However, if the urban residents of the States are denied the equal representation provided for by the Reynolds v. Sims decision, then once again, they will have no effective recourse but the Congress. Minority rule of the States is the surest way to atrophy the remnants of strong State government that still remains.

Let us be frank; we are not just discussing an abstract princip although this whole field is based on most profound principles. We are also discussing the clash of interests. Seventy years ago, twothirds of the citizens of this country lived in rural areas. They controlled the legislatures, which were responsive to the needs of rural residents. Today, however, that proportion is reversed. But the consequences of the massive internal migration over the last seven decades has been a clinging to power of those who now represent only a minority of the population. By ignoring State constitutional mandates or by rewriting State constitutions, they have perpetuated malapportionment and legislated minority control. But the Supreme Court has spoken. Said the Court:

A nation once primarily rural in character becomes predominantly urban Representation schemes once fair and equitable become archaic and outdated But the basic principle of representative government remains, and must reach. unchanged the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend upon where he lives.

Certainly, in an era of such swift social change and unprecedented migration, we cannot be expected to make every transaction swift ari easy. But to attempt to return to the comfortable rustic past by er shrining malapportionment in the Constitution seems totally wrong. We in the UAW urge this committee, and all Members of Congres to oppose Senate Joint Resolution 2 and all other similar proposa's. We should not attempt to make the Constitution a vehicle for the re capturing of the past by minority elements. The basic democrat standard that one man's vote should count no more nor less than an other's is a principle that should be left untouched.