Of the cases prosecuted during the fiscal year, 18 convictions resulted, an increase of 8 over the previous 12-month period. In the absence of a report from the Attorney General bearing on the proposed legislation, there is appended to this report, other portions of the comments relating to the activities of the Department of Justice concerning investigation and enforcement of civil rights. The subcommittee after consideration of the magnitude of the task facing the civil rights section in its enforcement and preventive work believes that the action proposed in this legislation should be approved. Elevation of the civil rights section to full divisional status in the Department of Justice under the supervision of an Assistant Attorney General would give the Federal civil rights enforcement program additional prestige, power, and efficiency which it now lacks. Moreover, if other measures approved by the subcommittee receive the approval of the Congress, the change proposed in this legislation would take on added meaning and necessity. That part of the proposal which provides for additional funds and personnel for research and preventive work would remove the civil rights section from its current status as primarily a prosecutive agency. The work of this group should be expanded to the prevention of violations before they arise and if personnel were available, the activities of organizations and individuals fomenting racial tensions could be kept under constant security. In addition, the creation of investigators within the FBI skilled in the civil rights field would enable the FBI to render more effective service in that field than is presently possible. In view of the desirable effect which it is contemplated adoption of this legislation would have on the observance of and respect for the civil rights of all, the subcommittee recommends favorable consideration of this legislation. Appended to this report are further pertinent statements appearing in the report of the Attorney General to the Vice President for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1954. CIVIL RIGHTS SECTION THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr. In addition to discharging its primary responsibility of supervising and directing prosecutions of violations of the civil rights statutes, the section answered much of the correspondence directed to the Department concerning the Supreme Court's decision in the segregation cases as well as correspondence directed to the White House in this and other related fields involving discrimination and segregation. As in the past, it was necessary to conduct numerous interviews and conferences with individuals who complained about real or imaginary violations of their civil rights. To further expedite the handling of civil rights complaints and to eliminate the many frivolous or misguided complaints made to the FBI offices throughout the country, a direct liaison was established with the FBI whereby the more important or urgent matters as well as doubtful complaints are quickly disposed of by means of teletype communications from the field to the FBI, which in turn confers personally with the civil rights section thus eliminating much of the usual delay and expense involved in the preparation of formal correspondence. Another innovation which has served to assist the United States attorneys and thus bring about a more effective and careful application of the civil rights statutes, was the preparation by staff members of a 42-page pamphlet describing the work of the civil rights section, its functions and its statutes. This document is a concise and thorough description of the functions of the civil rights section, the policies followed by the Department in enforcing the statutes, and a discussion of all the leading cases in the field of civil rights as well as the election laws and labor statutes. Each new United States attorney was thus given the benefit of the research and study done in this field. (Pp. 188-189, Attorney General's Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 1954.) CIVIL RIGHTS Instructions issued by the Attorney General make the FBI responsible for investigating allegations that individuals have been deprived of rights or privileges guaranteed them under the Constitution and laws of the United States. In cases of this nature, the FBI is charged with conducting a preliminary investigation immediately upon the receipt of information alleging a civil rights violation. The information gathered in the preliminary investigation is thoroughly and impartially reported to the Department of Justice for its review, prosecutive opinion, and instructions as to further investigation. Full investigations of civil rights allegations are not conducted by the FBI unless the Department or a United States attorney so directs. In its investigations of civil rights complaints against law-enforcement officers or personnel of other public agencies, the FBI scrupulously avoids interfering with the orderly operation of the agency concerned. At the outset of any such investigation, the FBI contacts the head of the agency-and the governor if a State institution is involved and apprises him of the allegations against the employee. So that there may be no misunderstanding of the purpose of the investigation or the FBI's responsibility, a clear explanation of the Attorney General's instructions also is provided. Between July 1, 1953, and June 30, 1954, the FBI instituted 1,458 preliminary investigations in civil rights cases. Of the cases which were prosecuted during the fiscal year, 18 convictions resulted, an increase of 8 over the previous 12month period. Through the cooperative services which the FBI makes available without charge to other law-enforcement agencies, a strong impetus is given to the full protection of civil rights. At police training schools, special-agent instructors emphasize the officer's obligations to the public, and they promote high standards of professional conduct at all levels of law enforcement. Additionally, examinations of evidence by the FBI Laboratory and Identification Division provide irrefutable facts which even the most hostile witnesses and suspects cannot deny under oath without openly perjuring themselves. (P. 377, Attorney General's Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 1954.) [S. 903, 84th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To protect the right to political participation Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That title 18, United States Code, section 594, is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 594. Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the Office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing such candidate, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." SEC. 2. Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes [(8 U. S. C. 31)] (42 U. S. C. 1971) is amended to read as follows: "All citizens of the United States who are otherwise eligible by law shall be entitled to and allowed the same and equal opportunity to qualify to vote and to vote at any general, special, or primary election by the people conducted in or by any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other Territorial subdivision, without distinction, direct or indirect, based on race, color, religion, or national origin; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding. The right to qualify to vote and to vote, as set forth herein, shall be deemed a right within the meaning of, and protected by, the provisions of title 18, United States Code, section 242, as amended, section 1979 of the Revised Statutes [(8 U. S. C. 43)] (42 U. S. C. 1983), and other applicable provisions of law." SEC. 3. In addition to the criminal penalties provided, any person or persons violating the provisions of the first section of this Act shall be subject to suit by the party injured, or by his estate, in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for damages or preventive or declaratory or other relief. The provisions of this Act shall also be enforceable by the Attorney General in suits in the district, courts for preventive or declaratory or other relief. The district courts, concurrently with State and Territorial courts, shall have jurisdiction of all other proceedings under this section without regard to the sum or value of the matter in controversy. The term "district courts" includes any district court of the United States as constituted by chapter 5 of title 28, United States Code (28 U. S. C. 81 et seq.), and the United States court of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. SEC. 4. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby. [Senate subcommittee print] PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 903), to protect the right to political participation, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with amendments and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. AMENDMENTS 1. On page 2, beginning on line 7, strike the citation "8 U. S. C. 31" and insert in lieu thereof the citation "42 U. S. C. 1971". 2. On page 2, line 23, strike the citation "8 U. S. C. 43" and insert in lieu thereof the citation "42 U. S. C. 1983". PURPOSE OF AMENDMENTS Tthe purpose of the proposed amendments is to correct the citations to reflect the transfer in the United States Code of the sections referred to. PURPOSE The purpose of this bill, as amended, is to protect the right to political participation. STATEMENT Section 1 of the pending bill is an amendment to section 1 of the Hatch Act (18 U. S. C. 594). This section of the Hatch Act presently makes punishable intimination and coercion of any person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such person to vote as he may choose in an election for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate or House of Representatives or Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and Possessions. The only change which this legislation makes in this section of the Hatch Act as now written is that it modifies the words "election" by the words "general, special, or primary." It does not change the requirements of the statute that such elections be for the purpose of naming persons to a Federal office. The right to vote in State primaries has heretofore been held to be a right protected by the 14th and 15th articles of amendment to the Constitution (Smith v. Allwright, 32 U. S. 649 (1944) ; Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 (1927); Elmore v. Rice, 72 F. Supp. 516 (1947), affirmed 165 F. 2d 387, certiorari denied, 333 U. S. 875; Brown v. Basking, 78 F. Supp. 933 (1948), affirmed 174 F. 2d 391). This has been held to be true whether the primary is conducted under State law (Smith v. Allwright, cited supra) or whether it is conducted by party machinery (Brown v. Baskin and Elmore v. Rice, cited supra) as long as the primary is an integral process of the election machinery. Thus, when in sections 1 and 2, the general term "election" is replaced by the words "any general, special, or primary election," the change only reflects case law. The reasoning of the courts as to primaries would obviously apply to special elections, such as runoff elections. These decisions deal primarily with the protection afforded individuals against a denial of the right to vote due to the action of any State or by any body acting for a State. The failure of Congress to make the provisions of the Hatch Act specifically applicable to primaries was attributable to constitutional doubts created by the courts decision in Newberry v. U. S. (256 U. S. 232), which doubts were resolved in the Classic and Smith cases (see 313 U. S. 299, 324, footnote 8). Since no such doubts are now present the instant legislation makes this section of the Hatch Act specifically applicable to primaries. In addition, article I, section 4 of the Constitution provides: "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators." This provision of the Constitution has been cited as a source of the Federal power to protect the right to vote (Report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights, p. 107 (1947)). It was also cited in the case of Ex parte Yarbrough (110 U. S. 651, 660–662 (1884)), in which the Supreme Court of the United States observed: "Now the day fixed for electing Members of Congress has been established by Congress without regard to the time set for election of State officers in each State, and but for the fact that the State legislatures have, for their own accommodation, required State elections to be held at the same time, these elections would be held for Congressmen alone at the time fixed by the act of Congress. "Will it be denied that it is in the power of that body to provide laws for the proper conduct of those elections? To provide, if necessary, the officers who shall conduct them and make return of the result? And especially to provide, in an election held under its own authority, for security of life and limb to the voter while in the exercise of this function? Can it be doubted that Congress can by law protect the act of voting, the place where it is done, and the man who votes, from personal violence or intimidation and the election itself from corruption and fraud? "If this be so, and it is not doubted, are such powers annulled because an election for the State officers is held at the same time and place? Is it any less important that the election of Members of Congress should be the free choice of all the electors because State officers are to be elected at the same time? Ex parte Siebold (100 U. S. 371). "These questions answer themselves; and it is only because the Congress of the United States, through long habit and long years of forbearance, has, in deference and respect to the States, refrained from the exercise of these powers, that they are now doubted. "But when, in the pursuance of a new demand for action, that body as it did in the cases just enumerated, finds it necessary to make additional laws for the free, the pure, and the safe exercise of this right of voting, they stand upon the same ground and are to be upheld for the same reasons. "It is said that the parties assaulted in these cases are not officers of the United States, and their protection in exercising the right to vote by Congress does not stand on the same ground. "But the distinction is not well taken. The power in either case arises out of the circumstance that the function in which the party is engaged or the right which he is about to exercise is dependent on the laws of the United States. "In both cases it is the duty of that Government to see that he may exercise this right freely, and to protect him from violence while so doing, or on account of so doing. This duty does not arise solely from the interest of the party concerned, but from the necessity of the Government itself, that its service shall be free from the adverse influence of force and fraud practiced on its agents, and that the votes by which its Members of Congress and its President are elected shall be the free votes of the electors, and the officers thus chosen the free and uncorrupted choice of those who have the right to take part in that choice." The argument presented by the court is equally applicable to the amendment here proposed, particularly in the light of the several cases previously cited concerning the ability of the Congress to legislate with respect to primaries. Section 2 of the proposed legislation proposes several amendments to section 2004 of the Revised Statutes which protects the rights of citizens to vote in elections by the people of any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality or other territorial subdivision without discrimination due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. These amendments are consistent with the evident purpose of section 2004, which is to prevent denial of the franchise to any qualified person despite any subterfuge adopted to effect such a denial. This section has been on the statute books since 1870. Its constitutionality has long been settled as an exercise of the enforcement power conferred upon Congress by the 15th article of amendment to the Constitution. The applicability of the section to primaries was tested and confirmed in Brown v. Baskin, cited supra. Consequently, one of the amendments to this section incorporates the effect of case law into the statutory law by making the section specifically applicable to general, special, and primary elections. Since the decisions apply whether the election is conducted by the State or by some body or group as agent for the State, the language of the statute has been broadened to include elections conducted in a State as well as by a State. The section also seeks to protect the right to qualify to vote from interference based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The last two distinctions are new to the statute and replace distinction based on previous condition of servitude. The section also makes it clear that the right to vote and to qualify to vote are rights protected by section 242 of title 18, United States Code and section 1979 of the Revised Statutes. Section 242 provides for infliction of punishment by fine up to $1,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both, on persons who, under color of law, deprive any inhabitant of a State of the privileges and immunities protected by the Constitution on account of the race, color, or alienage of the inhabitant. Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes creates a right of civil action against a violator of the privileges and immunities of persons within the United States secured by the Constitution and laws. Thus the amendment gives a remedy for a right long recognized. Section 3 of the bill establishes a civil remedy against their tormentors for persons whose right to vote in Federal elections has been infringed by intimidation or coercion. Similar remedies have long existed in other instances where the right of franchise has been interfered with (Nixon v. Herndon, cited supra). Section 4 embodies the customary severability clause. The right which this legislation seeks to protect is among the most sacred rights available to our citizenry. Indeed, the free and unfettered exercise of the franchise is a fundamental tenet of our system. To permit deprivation of such rights by omission or inaction, when action is possible, is to corrode the basic premise on which this Nation rests, namely, government by consent of the governed. The high principles which this Nation has exemplified since its inception cannot pervade a skeptical world if we permit infringement of the franchise for any pretext. Nor can we permit ourselves the luxury of supposing that the right to vote is protected adequately at a time when some of our citizenry are denied the privilege for such inexcusable reasons as race, color, religion or national origin. The action here proposed is no startling innovation. By and large, it simply codifies case law. It constitutes a moderate and reasonable approach to a problem, the existence of which is evident in the cases cited, but which need not vex us longer in our relationships among one another. The legislation is sound and the subcommittee there recommends its favorable consideration. Attached to this report are the reports of the Departments of Labor and Justice submitted in connection with this bill. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr. JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY. DECEMBER 5, 1955. Hon. H. M. KILGORE, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR KILGORE: This is in further response to your request for a report on S. 903, a bill to protect the right to political participation. The bill would amend several existing provisions of law relating to the right to vote in elections by, among other things, extending their applicability to primary elections and providing additional judicial remedies against infringements of this right. The objectives of S. 903 are praiseworthy and I am in full accord with them. I am not in a position, however, to provide any information that will assist the committee in its consideration of the specific provisions of the bill or the need for its enactment at this time. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, ARTHUR LARSON, Acting Secretary of Labor. |