Mr. JONES. If my colleague will yield for 1 minute, in Oklahoma, as I say, we have had this process since 1907 when we became a State. The initiative process in Oklahoma will allow both regular statutes and constitutional amendments to be initiated by the public. For a constitutional amendment it requires 15 percent of the registered voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. For a statute it requires 8 percent of the registered voters. Many people believe these figures are too high to promote effective use of the initiative process. In any case-during that period of time 43 constitutional amendments have been recommended; 10 have passed. Twenty-six statutes have been put on the ballot; six have passed.

Mr. FAUNTROY. We are in for a very illuminating hearing. Thank you so much.

I like the other aspects of section 2 of the joint resolution-the 18-month time limit for gathering signatures and the 120-day requirement before matters can be placed on the ballot following certification.

In section 3 of the resolution I would prefer that the 2-year delay before Congress can repeal a voter-initiated law be removed. Twothirds of the Congress is a stiff requirement. I believe the balance between the Congress and the people is provided through the election process.

Voter-initiated laws are a growing trend in our country. It is time for the Federal lawmaking process to get on board with this trend.

I am optimistic that we will have a Federal voter initiative process in the near future. I am willing to work to produce such results.

Obviously I would be willing to work harder and probably with more influence when another resolution, which hopefully will come. before this committee, receives favorable consideration. That would treat the three-quarters of a million residents of our Federal District in the same fashion as the residents of the Federal districts of some 14 of 17 nations of the world that have Federal districts such as ours. That is, they allow them voting representation in their national legislatures.

The United States remains one of only three that deny citizens such as myself, who was born in the District of Columbia and who has lived here as I have all of my life the opportunity to vote for anyone who could represent me in the House and in the Senate.

I am sure that with favorable consideration of that we will be in a better position to support good legislation like this.

I am certainly hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that as this measure comes before you also we will get on board with the 14 nations of the world and disassociate ourselves from the other two, which happen to be dictatorships, that continue to deny their residents of their Federal districts voting representation in the legislative branch of Government. I couldn't resist mentioning that, Mr. Bayh.

Thank you.

Senator BAYH. If the Senator would yield, I could see that coming out of every pore. Your point is well taken. [Laughter.]

Understandably and as my distinguished friend from the District knows, I am equally committed to pursuit of this proposition. If

there is any place in the world where people should have the full right of citizenship, it ought to be in the capital of the world's foremost democracy.

We are going to have hearings next year as we pursue the continuing effort of the District of Columbia representation. We will watch, of course, with a great deal of interest the coordinated effort that you have undertaken, along with others, in the House.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you.

Senator ABOUREZK. For whatever it is worth, I support that as well, Walter.

Mr. FAUNTROY. That is great. That is two.

Senator ABOUREZK. I have one question. We did not in the Senate version at least-and I don't think you did in the House version, Jim-include a referendum procedure. My idea was that it would be biting off too big a chunk all at one time.

I think a referendum is complementary to the initiative procedure and ideally ought to be included, but practically we thought perhaps it is too much to do at one time.

What are you views? I will ask both of you to respond. What are your views on including the referendum in this particular amendment? I am not talking about a recall. I would leave out the recall. Politically that would make it impossible to pass, but I think a referendum might be politically possible.

Mr. JONES. I had about the same feeling that you did. The referendum may be more than we can politically take on at this time. I have thought about that since then. I would hope that these hearings could develop whether or not it is politically possible to do that. I do think they go hand in hand. If we could do both of them, I would like to see us proceed with both of them.

I do not have any disagreements or fears about the referendum process being added to the initiative-only if we cannot pass anything.

Senator ABOUREZK. What we might do as these hearings progress is elicit that view from all of the witnesses to see what they think about it.

Walter, do you have a comment?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Senator, both your comments summed up what I would have said. Initially I felt that it was probably politically impossible, but I would recommend that during the course of the hearings the same question you have raised with us be raised with every witness. It may give us a feel as to whether or not we ought to move ahead with it.

Senator ABOUREZK. You favor a referendum obviously.
Mr. FAUNTROY. That is right.

Senator ABOUREZK. Walter, I want to address one question to you. There has been some resistance by various national black groups to the initiative procedure and the referendum. They are fearful of an anticivil rights backlash through the use of this initiative process. I personally do not have that fear. I just wonder if you have thought about it.

Do you think, for example, that if there were a civil rights measure put on a national initiative ballot that the educational process of a

national debate and campaign might even improve the prospects for civil rights for minorities or do you think it would hamper that progress?

Mr. FAUNTROY. I have great faith in the American people and in the first amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances, which gave rise to the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960's, in which it was my privilege to have a hand.

I believe that, had the initiative process been in place at the time of the civil rights bill of 1964, the result would have been the same, perhaps even stronger, in terms of the civil rights measure.

I think the same would be true of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 pursuant to the magnificent way in which Martin Luther King, Jr., and those who worked with him dramatized the basic unfairness of the denial of voting rights to blacks in the South. It was so convincing that I am confident that the Congress was merely following the leadership of the people in passing that measure.

I have no fears about that.

Senator ABOUREZK. I think you are right. I think it is highly illogical that Congress is going to move on anything in a major way unless they have the support of their constituents. That is probably very true.

Congressman Jones, I have a question about the initiative process as it applies to special interest groups and the present system of representative form of government with legislation being considered every day with pressure groups, special interest groups, zeroing in on the proper committees, coming in to pass or block legislation. What effect would an initiative have in that kind of an operation?

Mr. JONES. I think you have to look at it from two standpoints. I personally believe the more people feel they have direct access to Government, the less influence the special interest groups operating in a small confine or in a small arena will have.

The other concern that I had before this was that special interest groups, well organized either through direct mail or the electronic. media, could pass special interest legislation and dupe the public, so to speak. Thus, that would give certain special interest groups greater control. I do not really think this fear is founded, however.

I think it may come to the fact that certain special interests may get something on the ballot, but I think in the process of debating the issue and voting on it the good sense of the American people will make the right decision.

I see this as a way to actually reduce the power, the potential power, of special interests and their activities in a body such as Congress.

Senator ABOUREZK. The theory is that a special interest group is going to get legislation pushed through one way or the other. If we do it in a public initiative process, then they are going to have to withstand the test of public debate, whereas now they do not really do that. They just do it by applying pressure wherever it might be applied.

Mr. JONES. The more I think about adding referendum to the initiative process, that may be a good escape valve for the people also and further reduce the potential power of special interest.

Senator ABOUREZK. Senator Hatch?

Senator HATCH. What do you think might occur as a result of this legislation as far as clogging the courts or increasing the burden of the courts? Within that question is, of course, implicit that there may be a lot of initiatives which are not properly written, which are legally unsound or unconstitutional; there are a myriad of problems that could create litigation and a multiplicity of litigation in the courts. Have you given any consideration to this?

Mr. FAUNTROY. I would yield to Mr. Jones. Again, we have not had experience here. I am not a student of it.

Senator HATCH. I have been reading the State experience of Professor Berg. It indicates that in California they have had some difficulties, but by and large their system has worked quite well. At least that is what I inferred.

Mr. JONES. I can only state the experience of Oklahoma. We have not had a clogging of the courts or running to the courts on these various petitions. There has been some litigation as to whether or not there were valid signatures and things of that nature.

My hope would be that most of that kind of issue could be resolved at the State level within the State election boards. I do not really perceive that as a great problem.

Senator HATCH. Is there anything in any of these bills—your bill or Senator Abourezk's bill-and I do not see them now but maybe you can point them out to me-is there anything which would allow a correction of a defective initiative petition? I am talking about after the fact, after you get the signatures. The way I read it, you cannot correct it if there is some simple defect or otherwise.

Mr. JONES. It is not a part of the legislation as introduced by me. Senator HATCH. Do you think it would be worthwhile to consider? It would be a shame to go to 10 States and get, in your case and in Senator Abourezk's case, 3 percent of the voters in the prior election, as stated in your particular resolutions, and then have the thing aborted because technically there might be something wrong with it.

Mr. JONES. I think there ought to be some sort of mechanism to allow technical corrections such as that, perhaps through the Congress.

Senator HATCH. Of course, then you get into the question of whether it is a technical change. That might be difficult language to write, but it might be something to consider here and to spend some time on. I can see this becoming very sophisticated in time, but I can also see it an overwhelming thing at the outset with all kinds of people who really may not know how to write an initiative getting involved. We could have a lot of disarray before we reach that degree of sophistication.

Senator ABOUREZK. I wonder if you would yield.

Senator HATCH. Yes, I would like to have my distinguished colleague, the sponsor of the legislation over here, feel free to interrupt. any time on these questions.

Senator ABOUREZK. South Dakota has had the initiative and referendum since 1898. We were the first State to adopt it.

I personally have been involved in referendum procedures out in South Dakota a number of years back.

Senator HATCH. I know what Senator Abourezk has in mind. The minute that this is passed he is going to be all over the country, because he doesn't like being a Senator that well, and he is going to cause a lot of disruption with petitions all over the country. [Laughter.]

He may do us all a good service. You never know.

Senator ABOUREZK. In my experience-and I am sure this has been the experience of other States and we will hear from them as they come up to testify about this the laws or the language of the statute or the repeal, whatever it is, that is placed on a ballot are so carefully drawn up each time because I think the drafters have the same concern that you have, that something might be wrong with it or that it might be badly drafted. Traditionally a great many people, such as lawyers and legislative draftsmen, are consulted before it is ever put out for petition.

It has never happened in South Dakota to my knowledge, and I have never heard of another State where they have had trouble with defective language or technical errors.

Senator HATCH. Senator Abourezk, we are talking about a national initiative that literally could have every special interest group in the country sponsoring some sort of national legislation. Now it is difficult to go to all 50 States and do it. All they have to do is get 10 States, 3 percent of 10 States, and it becomes a major ballot initiative.

I happen to think that it is going to be a lot more than just the State experience that you have seen.

Let me ask another question that I think may be a valid question. I have a lot of questions on this.

I kind of like the concept, to be honest with you, that the people ought to be able to overrule Congress. They really ought to be able to do that because we make so many, it seems to me, rotten decisions for the country as a whole. We make some good ones, too. However, when we make a rotten one, the people ought to be able to overrule us.

On the other hand, our Founding Fathers set up the Constitution so that we would have a republic. It is not a pure democracy. It was never intended to be a pure democracy. I think it was very good foresight on their part. We have a system of government that has worked very well, so I am naturally concerned about changing that system of government even though I sympathize and I have some real good feelings about these concepts.

I am on the Human Resources Committee. Labor is concerned because they have dropped from about 35 percent membership across the country down to about 25 percent. Some say it is as low as 19 percent. There is a lot of antipathy toward big labor in this country. I think there is good justification for some of that antipathy as well as some that is not justified.

What if all of a sudden the people in this nation start to enact antibig labor legislation or antibig corporation legislation? How is labor going to take that? Could we not have more problems than we may have solved?