While I recognize the tactical reasons inducing the proponents of the measure to present it now, I feel that the interjection of the constitutional amendment issue at this time when the States are, or should be, attempting to heed the mandate of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, is regrettable. It diverts the attention and energies of the people from reapportionment, and only serves to becloud the issue of reapportionment and tends to delay reapportion ment and perpetuate malapportionment. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held that the law of the land is that State legislatures must be apportioned substantially on a population basis, I believe that we should abide by the law and give a fair trial to government by reapportioned legislatures. If legislatures apportioned on the basis of equality of population prove to be undesirable or unworkable after a reasonable period of trial, there will then le time enough to consider a constitutional amendment. Personally, I am confideat that reapportionment will inject new vigor into State government and make it more responsive to the will of the people. Warmest personal regards. May the Almighty be with you and yours always. Sincerely, JOHN A. BURNS. EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Hon. BIRCH BAYH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BAYH: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the hear ings to be held by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments relating to the reapportionment of State legislaures. I am pleased to inform you that redistricting and reapportionment have been accomplished in this State. Sincerely, JOHN DEMPSEY, Governor. EXECUTIVE OFFICE, STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Hon. BIRCH BAYH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, DEAR SENATOR BAYH: Thank you for alerting me to the hearings before your Committee on Constitutional Amendments relating to the question of reappor tionment of State legislatures. I am sure that North Dakota will have some testimony, probably in written form, for your committee. I look forward to knowing you better. My grandparents originated from Etna Green, Ind., and Matt Welsh is a good friend of mine. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM L. GUY, Governor. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Jackson, March 2, 1965. Hon. BIRCH BAYH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BAYH: Thank you very much for your letter of February 17 1965, and for your invitation to appear before the subcommittee March 9. Unfortunately, because of pressing State business in Jackson on that date. I will be unable to be present. Kindest regards. Sincerely yours, PAUL B. JOHNSON, Governor. nator BIRCH BAYH, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, hairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for your letter of February 17 and the invita on to appear before the subcommittee for the purpose of testifying. At present the General Assembly of Georgia is in session, and it would not be teasible for me to leave the capitol during the dates which you mentioned. In dition we have been ordered by the courts to reapportion our house of representatives, and it is my judgment that we should proceed under the order and, therefore, I do not believe it would be necessary for me to either appear or submit a written testimony to the subcommittee at this time. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, Senator BIRCH BAYH, CARL E. SANDERS. NEW MEXICO STATE SENATE, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, DEAR SENATOR BAYH: The undersigned are Senators of long tenure in the New Mexico Legislature. The Supreme Court decision on reapportionment has caused great consternation in this State, as well as other States, insofar as the decision applies to the various State senates. We are firmly convinced that population should not be the only basis wherein representation in at least one house should be considered. It is particularly important in a State such as New Mexico where we have developed one large city but other towns are attempting to progress quite rapidly in the economic field. If the large city should completely dominate both houses of the legislature, then legislation advantageous to the smaller cities which are attempting to progress, but in this progress possibly compete with the large city, would be irretrievably and permanently stifled. In the case of the State of New Mexico, the city of Albuquerque has slightly more than 25 percent of the total population and the disproportionate representation in both houses would weigh so heavily in Albuquerque as opposed to smaller towns in this State that it would be virtually impossible for legislative programs to be accomplished to aid the economic progress of the smaller towns. Additionally, our position as the fifth largest State in the area but one of the smaller States in population leaves us in a position where the advantage of the Concentration of population give one small geographical area almost total control of the lives of people who are more than 300 miles distant from that center. The agricultural economy of this State has and remains a bulwark in our stability and development. However, in the arid region where we live, it requires a great many acres to make a living. Hence, the agricultural population is spread quite widely and is relatively sparce per square mile. Concentration of legislative power in the large population center can accomplish absolutely nothing in this State except the destruction of a progressive attitude in the rural areas and the smaller ities. We have no idea what the situation is in the older or more settled areas of the United States, but certainly insofar as the rapidly expanding and growing Condition we have here experienced, any factor that would impede progress in the smaller communities could be only detrimental to the economy of the whole State. We are convinced, as is the overwhelming majority of the New Mexico State Senate, that the Supreme Court decision which would concentrate the legislative power in Albuquerque would hamper the development of this State immeasurably. It will be impossible for any representative of New Mexico Legislature to appear before your committee at the time set for hearing by reason of the fact that our legislature is now in session and the period set for the hearings is very critical in our own legislature. However, we would very much appreciate Delaware, as you probably know, reapportioned both houses of its general assembly on a population basis by means of legislative statute enacted last year. The general assembly which we elected in November and which took office in January has representation based on population in both of its houses. The general feeling of Delawareans, is that this reposes too much power in the populons areas of the State. DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for your letter of February 17, informing me of hearings to be held before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments on proposed amendments relating to the question of the reapportionment of State legislatures. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before youI subcommittee. However, at the present time I have no plans to appear before the subcommittee on this matter. My opinion in brief is that the reapportionment of State lege latures should be left to the States themselves. Thank you again for the opportunity of appearing before the subcommittee. DAN MOORE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. Hon. BIRCH BAYH, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR BAYH: I appreciate your invitation to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments to testify regarding reapportion ment of State legislatures. West Virginia has already reapportioned her legislature in keeping with the constitution of the State of West Virgina. These requirements are consistent with the guidelines established by the Federal court. Because of the aforeme tioned, I feel I can add nothing of material value to your hearing. With best regards, I am, Sincerely, Hon. BIRCH BAYH, HULETT C. SMITH, Governor, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, DEAR SENATOR BAYH: This will acknowledge your letter of February 17 with reference to your hearings on the proposed constitutional amendments relating to the question of the reapportionment of State legislatures. Unfortunately, I find that my schedule is already crowded for that week. However, please accept my best wishes for a successful hearing concerning this very important matter. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely, JOHN J. MCKEITHEN, Governor, State of LouiTER. Senator BIRCH BAYH, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for your letter of February 17 and the invitation to appear before the subcommittee for the purpose of testifying. At present the General Assembly of Georgia is in session, and it would not be feasible for me to leave the capitol during the dates which you mentioned. In addition we have been ordered by the courts to reapportion our house of representatives, and it is my judgment that we should proceed under the order and, therefore, I do not believe it would be necessary for me to either appear or submit a written testimony to the subcommittee at this time. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, Senator BIRCH BAYH, CARL E. SANDERS. NEW MEXICO STATE SENATE, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, DEAR SENATOR BAYH: The undersigned are Senators of long tenure in the New Mexico Legislature. The Supreme Court decision on reapportionment has caused great consternation in this State, as well as other States, insofar as the decision applies to the various State senates. We are firmly convinced that population should not be the only basis wherein representation in at least one house should be considered. It is particularly important in a State such as New Mexico where we have developed one large city but other towns are attempting to progress quite rapidly in the economic field. If the large city should completely dominate both houses of the legislature, then legislation advantageous to the smaller cities which are attempting to progress, but in this progress possibly compete with the large city, would be irretrievably and permanently stifled. In the case of the State of New Mexico, the city of Albuquerque has slightly more than 25 percent of the total population and the disproportionate representation in both houses would weigh so heavily in Albuquerque as opposed to smaller towns in this State that it would be virtually impossible for legislative programs to be accomplished to aid the economic progress of the smaller towns. Additionally, our position as the fifth largest State in the area but one of the smaller States in population leaves us in a position where the advantage of the concentration of population give one small geographical area almost total control of the lives of people who are more than 300 miles distant from that center. The agricultural economy of this State has and remains a bulwark in our stability and development. However, in the arid region where we live, it requires a great many acres to make a living. Hence, the agricultural population is spread quite widely and is relatively sparce per square mile. Concentration of legislative power in the large population center can accomplish absolutely nothing in this State except the destruction of a progressive attitude in the rural areas and the smaller cities. We have no idea what the situation is in the older or more settled areas of the United States, but certainly insofar as the rapidly expanding and growing Condition we have here experienced, any factor that would impede progress in the smaller communities could be only detrimental to the economy of the whole State. We are convinced, as is the overwhelming majority of the New Mexico State Senate, that the Supreme Court decision which would concentrate the legislative power in Albuquerque would hamper the development of this State immeasurably. It will be impossible for any representative of New Mexico Legislature to appear before your committee at the time set for hearing by reason of the fact that our legislature is now in session and the period set for the hearings is very critical in our own legislature. However, we would very much appreciate your calling this letter to the attention of the members of the committee and making it a part of the record of the hearings. Sincerely, GORDON E. MELODY, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee. President pro tempore. Chairman, Senate Public Affairs Committee. We, the undersigned members of the South Carolina State Senate, pursuant to a resolution, would like respectfully to submit our views on S.J. Res. 2, "a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to preserve to the people of each State power to determine the composition of its legislature and the apportionment of the membership thereof in accordance with law and the provisions of the Constitution of the United States." The South Carolina Senate is composed of 46 members, 1 from each of the 46 counties making up our State. The official view of our State legislature on the joint resolution under consideration is expressed in a concurrent resolution. H. 1241, which has been adopted without dissenting vote by both our house of representatives and our senate. In addition to this official expression, we are here today under instructions from the presiding officer of the senate, Hon. Robert E. McNair, to elaborate on our strong support for and endorsement of the resolu tion which you have under consideration. South Carolina, one of the Original Thirteen States, has a long and proud tradition of sound conservative local government. We have been able to maintain this tradition of good government largely because of the composition of our geteral assembly. It appears, because of the precedent-shattering decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, that a tradition of nearly 200 years of sound local government is placed in serious jeopardy. Implementation of the Supreme Court decision will require a complete rewriting of our State constitution. It will involve drastie changes in the makeup of our judicial system and will be particularly destructive of the various administrative agencies which form an integral part of our State government. At present local government in all of our 46 counties is influenced to a considerable degree by the county delegations and each individual senator usually has both a deep understanding of county government as well as a strong obligation to maintain it on a high level. We, as individuals, represent a good cross section of the South Carolina Senate insofar as county population is concerned. We include the senator from one of the larger counties, two senators from medium-sized counties, and one from a relatively sparsely populated county. We speak with a deep sense of conviction when we tell you, Mr. Chairman and the members of your committee, that the continuation of good government in South Carolina as we have known it for so long is dependent upon the adoption of the amendment as proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 2. May we urge you to take favorable action in order that the uncertainty which has already placed a cloud over our governmental operations may be dispelled without further delay. The concurrent resolution passed by the South Carolina General Assembly adequately expresses our views that we ask that it be made a part of our remarks REMBERT C. DENNIS. T. ALLEN LEGARE, Jr. JOHN C. WEST. J. M. MORRIS. A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Memorializing Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States Be it resolved, by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, Tha this legislature respectfully petitions the Congress of the United States to call a convention for the purpose of proposing the following article as an amendment t the Constitution of the United States. |