Mr. HANSON. Thank you very much, Senator. I deeply appreciate the privilege of appearing before your committee. I am hopeful and I am confident that your committee will undertake a thorough investigation of all of these points, and I am hopeful that at the conclusion of your deliberations, you will leave Reynolds against Sims untouched.

Senator HRUSKA. I can assure you there is at least one Senator on this committee who will still contend, regardless of what the committee or the Congress might do that the best slogan I have heard in this matter is one man, one vote, and the chance to use that vote to overcome Reynolds against Sims.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSON. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator BAYH. Our next witness is Mr. Warren Dorn, County Supervisors Association of California, Committee on Legislative Apportionment. His statement will be presented by Mr. C. D. Ward.

We appreciate your patience here and look forward with interest to your thoughts on this subject.

STATEMENT OF WARREN M. DORN, VICE CHAIRMAN, COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT, PRESENTED BY C. D. WARD

Mr. WARD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your continuing the hearing today.

My name is C. D. Ward. I am counsel for the National Association of Counties. However, I am presenting this statement in behalf of Mr. Warren Dorn, who is the chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, Calif., which is the most populous county in the United States.

Mr. Dorn's testimony is given on behalf of the California Supervisors Association which is the organization representing the county government in California.

The statement is very brief, and I will read it, if I may.

Representing the newly formed Committee on Legislative Apportionment of the County Supervisors Association of California, I wish to state in the beginning that our committee favors a constitutional amendment that will allow the apportionment of one house of the State legislature on the basis of factors other than population, provided such a plan is first submitted to and approved by a vote of the people. As a supervisor of the county of Los Angeles, the most heavily populated county in the United States, I am fully aware that the present apportionment of our California State Senate does deprive the more populous areas of California of adequate representation in the State senate. However, while I believe this situation must be and should be corrected, I do not believe it should be corrected entirely at the expense of the more rural areas of the State. My position in this matter coincides with that expressed in California's senate joint resolution 3, which was adopted by both houses of our State legislature. I would like to quote the third paragraph of that resolution which reads: "Whereas California's present apportionment unduly deprives urban areas of adequate representation in the State senate, nevertheless the Court's decision will enable heavily populated areas to dominate State legislatures and will lead to a virtual loss of representation in all other areas of the State"

Time and again I have stated that I felt that it was necessary for my own county of Los Angeles with a population of nearly 7 million people, to have more than one senator in the State senate if the diverse viewpoints and problems of our great population were to be adequately presented and represented. While I feel that no one senator, and I might add that we have a very capable one, can

adequately represent these diverse viewpoints and problems. I also feel that it would be impossible under the U.S. Supreme Court decision for any one senator in our State to attempt to represent equally diverse problems of 10 to 20 California counties, and this will be the case if the court's mandate of one man, one vote, is to prevail.

You will recall that last Thursday our Governor called your committee's attention to the complexities and magnitude of the problems of the State of California and pointed out that their solution often depends on the various parts of the State working together. Probably the most striking illustration of this is that we in the southern part of the State, must of necessity look to the northern areas of the State for an ample water supply to sustain our present growth and to provide for our expanding future.

I am glad that in urging a constitutional amendment to return the matter of apportionment of State legislatures to the vote of the people of the several States, I am able to join with the very capable senior Senator of our State, Senator Ku hel, and our newly elected junior Senator, Senator Murphy.

In urging the passage of a constitutional amendment on this subject, there are two principal points that I think should be an integral part of any amendment that is passed out of your committee or your body.

1. The amendment must contain the guarantee that the people of each of the 50 States be given the opportunity at the ballot box to express themselves directly upon any plan of apportionment which departs from the one-man, one-vote principle.

2. The amendment should guarantee adequate representation for the metropolitan areas of every State in both houses of the legislature. Adequate representation does not mean domination of both houses of the legislature by heavily populated urban areas. If one house is apportioned on a basis other than population, population should continue to be one of the factors which is considered along with area, geography, and other pertinent elements.

I would further like to associate myself and I further feel that any amendment passed out of your committee should contain that language represented in California State Joint Resolution 3, which on page 2, line 6 through line 15 reads as follows: "Section 1. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States shall prohibt any State that has a bicameral legislature from apportioning the membership of one house of its legislature on factors other than population, provided that the plan of such apportionment be submitted to a vote of all of the people of the State at an election in which the franchise is not denied on the basis of race, creed, or color and resubmitted to a vote of all the people of the State, prior to the implementation of the apportionment plan and at regular intervals, not to exceed 10 years."

In conclusion, I wish to remind you that a three-judge Federal court has ordered that the California Senate be reapportioned by action taken prior to July 1, 1965. If California is to benefit from the action and the people of our State are to be given the opportunity to express themselves on a fair and equitable apportionment plan, it is essential that a constitutional amendment be submitted to the State for ratification at the earliest possible time.

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

Also, thank Mr. Dorn.

Is it Mr. Dorn's thought that this constitutional amendment will make it possible for California not to reapportion both houses. Will it stay the Federal court order to which you referred in your testimony here? In other words, you say that if California is to benefit from the action, and the people of our State are to be given the opportunity to express themselves, and so on, it is essential that the constitutional amendment be submitted to the State for ratification at the earliest possible moment even though you have a Federal court order looming over your head to do something.

Mr. WARD. I think the statement might give that impression but following the colloquy you had this morning with Senator Hruska and Senator Tydings, I think Mr. Dorn would be aware that the situation would be the same and that if the constitutional amendments

were adopted, the State would have to have the initiative and election be held to make it any different than it is now.

Senator BAYH. It would be interesting to get Mr. Dorn's thought on this without having the benefit of the colloquy here. It has been my impression from listening to the statements that it certainly infers that he thinks otherwise. I think there has been a great deal of sentiment contrary to it.

I hope this does not mislead a lot of people as to what the ultimate result would be.

Mr. WARD. I would be very pleased to solicit that question.

Senator BAYH. It is not a matter of great importance, but it would be of interest to the committee.

Mr. WARD. Fine.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much.

Mr. WARD. The National Association of Counties has no official position on this resolution you are considering today. However, we do have a limited policy on the subject of reapportionment which is not directly relevant but would be of assistance. I would request that it might be incorporated in your records. It is very short.

Senator BAYH. We will be glad to do that, incorporate it in the

record.

(The information referred to follows:)

The National Association of Counties recognizes that periodic apportionment of seats in State legislative bodies requires that principles governing such apportionment be clearly stated in State constitutions and that the constitution provide adequate means to insure that the body charged with the duty to apportion complies with its responsibilities.

We therefore recommend that State constitutions, in clear language, provide: (1) For the frequency of reapportionment; (2) for a bipartisan or nonpartisan board or commission or other administrative officer or body to apportion seats in a legislature in the event that the legislature fails to apportion itself in accordance with the law; (3) that where seats in a legislative body are to be apportioned according to population that legislative districts not deviate more than 10 percent from the number obtained by dividing the total population of the State by the number of members in the particular legislative body; (4) that the people have an opportunity to react at the polls to the continuance or change of constitutional apportionment formulas; and (5) that States' courts be provided with appropriate jurisdiction and remedies to insure that State officials comply with their apportionment responsibilities.

We further recommend, in view of the nature of decisions that must be made in apportioning seats in a legislature, that State and Federal courts, except in the most extreme circumstances, confine their role in apportionment to ruling upon the constitutionality of apportionment plans and not decree the actual geographic composition of legislative districts.

Senator BAYH. We will now be in recess subject to the call of the chairman.

We will try to readjust and rearrange our witness list.

(Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the chair.)

REAPPORTIONMENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:20 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.

Present: Senators Bayh and Tydings.

Senator BAYH. The subcommittee will please come to order.

Mr. Tydings, we are glad to have you with us; I know how busy

you are.

It is a personal pleasure for the chairman of the subcommitte to greet our witness this morning, the mayor of one of our large cities, a man who has had a distinguished career in public service, a man who I have personally had the opportunity to meet and become well acquainted with, a man who was accorded the honor of being chosen one of the 10 outstanding young men by the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, and a man whose record shows he won't embarrass this choice by the Junior Chamber.

I am happy to see that he has been able to take time from his busy schedule to give us the benefit of his knowledge and wisdom in the field which we are discussing. Without further ado, I will introduce to the committee-the distinguished mayor of Detroit, Mayor Jerome P. Cavanaugh.

Good to have you with us, Mayor.

STATEMENT OF MAYOR JEROME CAVANAUGH, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, MICH.

Mayor CAVANAUGH. Thank you, Senator.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I think for the purpose of the record, that honor which the Senator mentioned, I share that with him and his humility would not dictate that he put that on the record. But I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear here this morning.

I appear not only on behalf of the people of our city, Detroit, but also as very much of the National League of Cities and chairman of the Advisory Board of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I am here, Mr. Chairman, and Senator, in opposition to the so-called Dirksen amendment, proposed by the senior Senator from Illinois.

Essentially, our position is, on behalf of all these organizations, that the urban areas of America have finally achieved judicial recognition of their plight which resulted from malapportioned legislatures, which refused not only to conform to their own State constitutions, but also frequently to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that the proposals under consideration by this subcommittee really would negate or even dilute these very hard-won rights of the urban sections of our country.

In my State, the State of Michigan, we are considerably more fortunate than many other States. Following years of some very unfair allocation of legislative seats, we have now arrived at court-ordered reapportionment which does recognize people and not stumps or acreages. The Michigan legislature for the first time in its history in both houses is representative of the population and I believe is responsive to the needs of all the people of the State. The biggest losers, I believe, Mr. Chairman, under these so-called amendments would really be the suburban dwellers of America, because in almost all cases they, even more than the residents of the larger cities of this country, have been underrepresented in the State capitols.

Further, I feel that the constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Dirksen and the other proposals would establish a new doctrine of interposition. Under the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the Court has held that under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the people of a State are entitled to be represented on an equal basis and any amendment which derogates from this right dilutes our democracy.

Time after time, the unrepresentative senate, the Michigan senate, blocked significant social legislation and allocated revenues in a manner favoring those who sometimes contributed the least. I could detail many examples of underrepresentation, particularly on the part of the senate of the Legislature of the State of Michigan.

To permit one house to be unrepresentative is really to recognize inequality. I don't believe it is any answer to point to the power of a referendum to approve or disapprove an unrepresentative body, because I think practically speaking, it is generally acknowledged that the framing or the wording or the structuring of a referendum proposal will be required to be approved by the malapportioned legislative body that is seeking to preserve its own unrepresentative nature. And people can be confused and other issues can be and have been drawn into play to contribute to the confusion.

If I might just mention what the situation was in Michigan in prior years. Following the urban expansion which marked the years after World War I, the legislature refused to follow, or really only went through the motions of a State constitutional requirement that reapportionment had to take place every decade. Yes, a referendum was attempted to correct this situation, but it failed. And a counterproposal freezing the 1920 districts was passed and in the years that followed, the senate was successful in firmly establishing its reputation in our State as being the graveyard of legislation.

The Metropolitan Detroit area needed, for example, additional beds for mental health facilities. This was denied by a vote of the senate majority representing the distinct population minority. Other fairly innocuous proposals to provide free polio vaccine and to prepare for the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, to provide for participa