"The two Iowa Senators do not represent trees or acres or pastures. Indeed not. They represent the great State of Iowa. They represent a State with a unique contribution to the Nation. A glorious State with its own economic, historical, and social history, strength, needs, problems, aspirations, honor, and people. It is a complex that the six men in Washington, D.C., have ceased to understand. I for one would not abide the charge that Iowa's two Senators represent trees and acres. And if I were one of Iowa's two Senators, I would be working day and night-as I trust they are to see that the people had an opportunity to set the six men straight about that.

"In summary we can say that the decision of the majority six:

"1. Has no historical basis.

"2. Has no basis in the Constitution, as constructed.

"3. Is illogical.

"4. Is a violation of the amending powers of the Constitution.

"5. Is an invasion of States rights.

"6. Is an overextension of historic, expressed powers of the Court.

"7. Thwarts the checks and balances and caution built into our Government.

"8. Is an impulsive creation of our overanxious Court.

"9. Denies fundamental protection to the minority.

"10. Propels an appointive Court into political matters.

"11. Is government theory of six men, untested in the public processes. "12. Creates a central governmental monster.

"13. Ignores the full content of the 14th amendment on which the decision is based.

"For some unexplained reason, the majority of six, in groping for something on which to base a case last June 15, clutched the straw that is in the first section of the 14th amendment. This Reconstruction amendment was an outgrowth of the Civil War, and all reconstructed States were required to ratify it to gain admittance back into the Union. The first section says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States*** are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." And no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The reason for this, in view of the times, is obvious. It meant simply that whatever the law-it would apply to everyone, regardless of color.

"But there is a second, and longer section, to the 14th amendment. It recognizes that States have exclusive power over who can vote and in what mannerso the second section provides that if the vote of any male citizen over 21 is denied or abridged in any way-in National or State elections—then the State population for purposes of governmental representation will be reduced by the proportion that the denied voters bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 or over in the State.

"Justice Harlan, in his dissent, gives a clear history of the congressional debate that preceded offering the 14th amendment for State ratification. He shows that the Congressmen who constructed the 14th amendment at no time believed that it would render inoperative the several State constitutions of either loyal or reconstructed States.

"Congressman Bingham, the author of the first section, said on the floor of Congress at the time that "the exercise of the elective franchise, though it be one of the privileges of a citizen of the Republic, is exclusively under the control of the States." Other speakers stated this repeatedly. This point was well understood in the Congress.

"Furthermore, 15 of the 23 loyal States that ratified the amendment before 1870 had constitutions which provide for apportioning one of their houses on other than population considerations. "Can it be seriously contended that the legislatures of these States, almost two-thirds of those concerned, would have ratified an amendment which might render their own States' constitutions unconstitutional?" asks Justice Harlan. And the constitutions of 6 of the 10 reconstructed Southern States provided for State legislature apportionment on bases other than population. Would these legislatures intentionally put themselves and their constitutions out of business without mentioning it?

"For some reason, the majority six are silent about this part of the 14th amendment.

“I am unable to understand the Court's utter disregard of the second section which expressly recognizes the States' power to deny "or in any way" abridge the right of their inhabitants to vote for the members of the (State) legisature,' says

Justice Harlan. This section, he says, 'precludes the suggestion that the first section was intended to have the result reached by the Court today.'

"Not everyone takes this view of the decision.

"Organized labor was quick to sense the crippling blow to rural areas of the June 15 decision. The committee of political education of the AFL-CIO, in its COPE publication of June 29, said with obvious enthusiasm: 'Curtains for ruraldominated horse-and-buggy State governments unresponsive to the needs of an increasingly urban nation.'

"COPE told its labor-union readers that the effect of the June 15 decision would be a 'surge of responsible, progressive action within the States aimed at advancing the social and economic welfare of their citizens.'

"COPE applauded: The Court pitched a third strike against lopsided representation which has given the rural voter a powerful advantage over his city and suburban counterpart. And, as in baseball, three strikes means you're out.' "Senator George Aiken, of Vermont, says, 'Once both houses of the State legislatures are apportioned in accordance with the rule, control of fully half the States will pass to an urban majority, leaving the rural areas of a State as a minority or possibly without representation at all.'

"What does this hold for rural areas? Probably it would mean less road aid; it could mean higher school taxes and less local school aid; it could mean greater consolidation of schools; it could seriously impair vocational agriculture and home economics programs; sales taxes might be imposed on farm production items; it could lead to an oppressive value added tax; water rights would change, with industrial areas of concentrated population taking over control of water; hunting and fishing laws probably would be altered; public domain land in rural areas for open spaces and recreation probably would be greatly expanded; it could well mean that control of county governments would pass to cities; it could launch a move to do away with township governments and consolidate them into counties; it could easily lead to consolidating county functions and redrawing county lines; it would certainly mean reapportioning Congressional districts to the disadvantage of rural areas after the 1970 census; it would automatically mean a change in the control of local and State political parties, and this would certainly lead to a change in the kind of political candidates and political programs from local government on up the line.

"It is with good reason that this is called the most sweeping overnight change in Government contemplated since the Civil War.

"If this Supreme Court decision is permitted to stand, the State of Kansas will be completely dominated from this day forward by urban areas. Rural areas will be virtually powerless,' says Congressman Bob Dole, of Kansas.

"It would mean that 'the State of Illinois will be completely ruled from this day forward by Chicago,' says Congressman Paul Findley, of Illinois. 'Downstate will be powerless to keep a legislature dominated by Chicago machine politics from funneling the lion's share of State revenue into Chicago projects and programs.'

"The Wapakoneta (Ohio) Daily News commented: 'Bigness is not a virtue, nor is smallness a fault. Centralization of authority, whether in Federal or State governments, can lead to despotism.'

"'We are now confronted with political minions surging forth from the controlling city machine to levy, collect and bring back the revenues to be used to perpetuate and further the granduer and power of that machine,' says Senator Everett Dirksen, of Illinois.

"We might ask: If it is bad that a large geographic area with less than a majority of the State's population can control the State through one house of the State legislature, then is it automatically good that a small geographic area with a majority of the State's population can control the entire State? Which is better for the State of Illinois and the people in it? Weighing the prospect of the two possibilities should leave little question in the minds of thinking people as to which is more desirable. I know, because I lived in Illinois for many years. "Could the majority six really believe that the city of Chicago should rule all of the State of Illinois? Or that three or four counties should rule all of California, a diverse State 900 miles long?

"While trees and acres and pastures and districts don't vote, it is a matter of practical politics that political machines do vote or deliver the vote-and that these machines are most often found in cities where the history, economic interests, communications, citizens, and numbers are such that political machines can and do deliver large blocs of votes. I know; I work in such a city. The doctrine

of the political equality of equal numbers when viewed in this setting does not paint a glowing picture of equal voters in equal numbers between districts meeting on equal ground to cast their equal-numbered votes.

"To be specific,' says Senator Aiken, 'we are engaged in a struggle between the powerful machines of the great cities and the people of the United States. Make no mistake about it,' he says, 'this is a battle for the political control of the Nation and with the control goes the power to tax, the power to spend, and the power to enact programs that will affect the lives and welfare of every living person for generations to come.'

"To better see what this might mean to rural areas, I requested three State Farm Bureau organizations to make studies of the voting of their big-city Congressman-in Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia-to add to a study that New York had already made of the vote in New York City.

"The results may both surprse you and astound you:

"In the State of New York, the Farm Bureau compiled the voting record of their Representatives in the National Congress on 10 representative issues, farm and nonfarm (feed grain program, foreign aid, tax cut, area redevelopment, Mexican farm labor, Cooley cotton bill, credit to Communist countries, food stamp, wheat-cotton bill, and antipoverty bill). There are 19 Congressmen from the city of New York; and voting on 10 issues gave them a possible 190 votes on these 10 issues. They actually voted 188 times. These New York City Congressmen voted for the Farm Bureau position 15 times-8 percent of the time and voted against the Farm Bureau position 173 times-92 percent of the time.

"Yet these same Congressmen in the 88th Congress voted for COPE's labor position 96 percent of the time and 98 percent of the time for the position of the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), an ultraliberal group.

"The other 22 Congressmen from the State of New York-outside the city of New York-voted with the Farm Bureau position 72 percent of the time (157 votes) and opposed the Farm Bureau 28 percent of the time (61 votes).

"In the State of Illinois on the same 10 issues, 9 Congressinen from Chicago voted 84 times and 83 of those 84 votes opposed the Farm Bureau. Only one vote agreed with the Farm Bureau position. Yet in the 88th Congress they voted 97 percent of the time for the ADA position; and 98 percent of the time for COPE's position.

"Congressmen in the rest of the State of Illinois-outside of Chicago-favored the Farm Bureau position 80 percent of the time.

"In Pennsylvania, on the same 10 issues, 5 Philadelphia Congressmen voted 46 times, and cast every single vote against the Farm Bureau position. Yet in the 88th Congress they voted 98 percent in favor of COPE's labor position; and 97 percent of the time for the position of the ADA.

"In the State of Michigan the Farm Bureau compiled the votes on eight representative issues. There, 7 Representatives whose districts are primarily in the city of Detroit voted 48 times on these 8 issues, and cast 47 of the 48 votes against the Farm Bureau position. Yet in the 88th Congress they voted 93 percent of the time for the position of the ADA and 99 percent of the time for COPE's labor position.

"The other Congressmen in Michigan-outside of Detroit-cast 88 percent of their votes in favor of the Farm Bureau position.

"A summary of the vote in the 4 States shows that in 366 votes cast by Congressmen from the 4 big cities, these city Congressmen voted with the Farm Bureau position just 17 times (15 of those from New York City) and against the Farm Bureau 349 times-5 percent for and 95 percent against.

"The conclusion is rather obvious. These big-city political machines are not only almost unanimously opposed to the Farm Bureau position, they are also out of step with the Representatives from the rest of their own States. What this means to all people in light of the June 15 majority six decisions is rather plain. And I count you

"Can the people do something about this? You bet they can. on the side of those who want to see it done.

"There are these things that you can do:

"1. First, see that everyone recognizes that this June 15 decision is a fundamental question of constitution and government.

"It is a question of whether the power in our Government will really flow from the people, as it has since the Revolutionary War, or whether this will suddenly be changed.

"It is a question of whether we, the people, will permit an appointed agency of our Government to rise up and devour us.

"It is a problem of the centralization of Federal power.

"It is a matter of whether we in this Nation shall succumb to dictation by the Court.

"It is a matter of whether we shall settle our important political questions through open, thorough public discussion and vote, or whether it shall be done hastily, in a court, or anywhere else, with six people making the decision.

"This is a test of whether there is one Government in Washington, D.C., or whether there are also 50 State governments; it is a test of whether the form of government belongs to the people, or to the Supreme Court; it is, indeed, a test of whether the government belongs to the people and is a government with the consent of the governed, or whether it is a government of centralized power without the consent of the people.

2. Second, see that everyone recognizes that if this is to be a battle, it will be a struggle between big-city machines and the rest of the country.

"It is not a farm-city fight. If this is a fight between citizens, it is a battle between counties and big cities; between the people and machine politics and ward leaders and then, only if the big-city machine leaders chose to make it so by endorsing this action of the majority six.

"Yours is a positive action to preserve the local functions of government where you can govern best-and to keep these functions as we the people want them. 3. Third, get your State, and all States, to call for a constitutional convention.

"One way to amend the Constitution is to start with a constitutional convention, which can be called if two-thirds of the States (34) ask for it. This is a direct action that you can take and you can see that it gets done in your State by talking with your State representative right at home.

"4. Fourth, get Congress to pass a resolution putting a constitutional amendment before the States in a referendum. This is another way to amend the Constitution if three-fourths of the States (38) ratify the amendment.

"A simple resolution has been proposed by Representative McCulloch, of Ohio, and the general assembly of States. It says: 'Nothing in the Constitution of the United States shall prohibit a State, having a bicameral legislature, from apportioning the membership of one house of its legislature on factors other than population, if the citizens of the State shall have the opportunity to vote upon the apportionment. And any State may determine how governing bodies of it subordinate units shall be apportioned.'

"This puts the question before the people twice:

"First will be a vote on the constitutional amendment. This permits States to vote on the question of whether they want to reserve for themselves the power to apportion their own legislature.

"Second will come an opportunity for the people to vote on any apportionment plans that might come up in the State.

"Let that 'one-man-one-vote' be on State apportionment-that is what we are asking for: That each man be allowed to vote whether apportionment of State legislatures shall be done by his State in its own political wisdom, or whether it shall be done by the Court, satisfying only the theories of six men.

"Fundamentally, we ask that the people have the opportunity to make the decision on this question. Surely, this is what democracy and representative government is all about. And who can be opposed to the people exercising this right to vote on the issue? If anyone is opposed, now is the time to find out who it is.

5. Fifth, get Congress to pass a staying action on the majority six Court decision until the people have an opportunity to express themselves through a constitutional convention or through a constitutional referendum on a congressional resolution.

“The courts are running full tilt to get apportionment wrapped up under their edict before the people have time to act. Others will help them. You are fighting a race against time.

"Last August the House of Representatives in Washington passed the Tuck bill by an overwhelming majority. That bill would have denied all Federal courts jurisdiction over matters dealing with State legislative apportionment.

"This was killed in the Senate as a rider on the foreign aid bill. Then a Dirksen-Mansfield rider was proposed to buy time.' This proposal would have provided a partial stay on the Court action so that there would be time to permit States to vote on a constitutional amendment. This bill was lost, primarily through a filibuster of four Senators.

"Senator Aiken commented: 'It is significant that virtually all of the Senators taking part in the filibuster were from States with cities of 1 million and over: cities that are overwhelmingly in debt and are constantly seeking new sources of revenue either from taxes or public grants.'

"Two of the leaders of the filibuster were Senator Douglas, from Chicago, and Senator Clark, from Philadelphia. They didn't want the people in the States to have an opportunity to express themselves in a constitutional amendment referendum. It is interesting that these Senators, who plead that the majority should rule, resorted to a filibuster to keep the majority of the Senate from voting on the issue of whether to 'buy time' so that the States could vote by a three-fourths majority rule on whether to keep apportionment as a State matter.

"6. Last, you can launch a personal and group educational program to see that people-not just farmers, but others as well-understand what is involved in this Court action. Read it; study it; write about it; talk about it; make speeches about it. Do this, not just through your State office or the national office; but right where you live. You can make it your personal No. 1 project for 1965; nothing is more important to you and to all the people in your community, your county, and your State.

"You can call on and meet with your State representatives; your county officials; your local township and political officials. There shouldn't be a single township in the State of Iowa that doesn't have a full-scale half-day or full-day meeting on this in the next few weeks.

"And what is done in Iowa should be done in every State in the Union. "If you will do this, there will be no question about the outcome.

"Anything less than this is losing faith with the people who, through extreme sacrifice, courage, God-given wisdom, and loss of life built this privileged Nation for us through colonial oppression, frontier travail, and the agony of great wars which harvested our young men-the price that others have paid for our liberty and freedom. Anything that we can do, will not be enough to pay for the priceless privilege that is ours."

APPENDIX E

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GUARANTEE OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS STATE "LITTLE FEDERAL" SYSTEMS

The records of the Federal Constitutional Convention and The Federalist Papers clearly indicate that the delegates felt that they were formulating a “republican" form of government and that they considered the then existing States to have a republican form of government. Also the records show that the concept of a two house legislature, at both Federal and State level, with one of the houses based on population was closely related in the delegates' minds to the concept of a republican form of government.

The compiler of the basic standard reference, The Records of the Federal Convention. Max Farrand states in his The Framing of the Constitution of the United States (Yale University Press, 1913, p. 74) that:

"It having been agreed to proceed upon lines of somewhat radical reform, the questions with regard to the nature and extent of the reorganization became important. As involving fundamental principles, the subject of the composition of the legislature quite naturally provoked the most discussion. That the legislature should consist of two houses was readily and unanimously accepted. Mason voiced the general opinion very well when he said a few days later that 'the mind of the people of America *** was unsettled as to some points: but * * *. In two points he was sure it was well settled. 1. In an attachment to Republican Government. 2. In an attachment to more than one branch in the Legislature.' There is a tradition that Thomas Jefferson some 2 years later, upon his return from France, was protesting to Washington against the establishment of two houses in the legislature. The incident occurred at the breakfast table, and Washington asked: 'Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?' "To cool it,' replied Jefferson. 'Even so,' said Washington, 'we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'"

Jonathan Elliott in his Debates on the Federal Constitution at p. 216 of vol. II (Lippincott 1936) reports on George Mason's belief referred to by Farrand above as follows:

"He believed the mind of the American people, as elsewhere, was unsettled as to some points, but settled as to others. In two points he was sure it was well