DEPOSITED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONTENTS Hon. Richard H. Poff, Member of Congress from the State of Virginia_ Hon. William M. Tuck, Member of Congress from the State of Vir- Hon. E. L. Forrester, Member of Congress from the State of Georgia__ Hon. Robert T. Ashmore, Member of Congress from the State of South Hon. E. C. Gathings, Member of Congress from the State of Arkansas. Hon. E. Y. Berry, Member of Congress from the State of South Da- Hon. G. Elliott Hagan, Member of Congress from the State of Georgia Hon. John Dowdy, Member of Congress from the State of Texas. Hon. Armistead I. Selden, Jr., Member of Congress from the State of Hon. George Grant, Member of Congress from the State of Alabama. Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts, Member of Congress from the State of Hon. Robert G. Stephens, Jr., Member of Congress from the State of Hon. Albert Rains, Member of Congress from the State of Alabama Hon. Robert L. F. Sikes, Member of Congress from the State of Hon. L. Mendel Rivers, Member of Congress from the State of South Hon. Gillis W. Long, Member of Congress from the State of Louisiana. Hon. Arthur Winstead, Member of Congress from the State of Mis- Hon. Jamie L. Whitten, Member of Congress from the State of Mis- Hon. J. Russell Tuten, Member of Congress from the State of Georgia. Hon. Neil Staebler, Member of Congress from the State of Michigan. Hon. L. H. Fountain, Member of Congress from the State of North Hon. Seymour Halpern, Member of Congress from the State of New CIVIL RIGHTS TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10:30 a.m., in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. Howard W. Smith (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We will resume hearings on H.R. 7152. Mr. Rogers, we will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Please permit me to express my appreciation to you for this opportunity of explaining H.R. 7152. It is my hope that when I have finished, my explanation will be so simple that one who has a sixth-grade education can understand the same. First of all, I would like to direct your attention to page 33 of the committee report and reason with you from there as to what title I means and how we try to protect the voting rights of individuals in the United States. On page 33, which is according to the Ramseyer rule, you see in large print that section 2004, Revised Statutes, 42 U.S.C. 971, as amended by section 31 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 Stat. 637, and as further amended by section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, 74 Stat. 90. Now in section 2004, according to the Ramseyer rule, section (a) below thereof says this: All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, any constitutional law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding. For the information of the committee, this statute was passed in May of 1870 and has been on the statute books since that date, which means that any individual has a right to go into Federal court and institute an action against any person who may try to deprive him of the right to vote in any form of election. The approach of Congress to this problem has not been neglected or at least it has not been neglected since 1957. In order to properly bring forth the next point, I am going to ask that a copy of the Constitution be distributed to the members of the committee and, with your permission, I will have them distributed now. First of all, I want to direct your attention to page 2 of the pamphlet and the red section marked on section 4 which reads: The time, place, and the 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 by law make or alter such regulation except as to the place of choosing Senators. I read that to you for the simple reason that since the decision in Ex parte Siebold, which was decided in 1879 (100 U.S. 371, 388), the Supreme Court of the United States at that date said: It is the duty of the States to elect Representatives to Congress. The due and fair election of these Representatives is of vital importance to the United States. The Government of the United States is no less concerned in a transaction than the State government is. It certainly is not bound to stand by as a passive spectator when duties are violated and outrageous frauds are committed. It is directly interested in the faithful performance by the officers of election of their respective duties. These duties are owed as well to the United States as to the State. That is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which says that we have some authority under the section as thus outlined. I want to take this one step further. Mr. MADDEN. When was that decision? Mr. ROGERS. That decision was in 1880. The next step that I would like to show you Mr. COLMER. Before leaving that, may I interrupt the orderly procedure here? Did I understand the gentleman was reading from a decision of the Supreme Court? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir. Mr. COLMER. Woud the gentleman give us the citation? Mr. ROGERS. I thought I gave it. Mr. COLMER. Maybe the gentleman did. Mr. ROGERS. Ex parte Siebold (100 U.S. 371). What I read to you occurred on page 388. This was a decision in the October term of 1879. Mr. COLMER. At what page? Mr. ROGERS. 371, but what I read to you appeared on page 388. Mr. ROGERS. We, exercising the authority given to Congress under the section and under the interpretation of this case, did in 1957—I think in order to properly present this matter to you I should at this time have passed to each of you a copy of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which is known as Public Law 85-315. Unfortunately, this Public Law 85-315 is in short supply. It became necessary for me to have a photostat made of the pertinent portion. Let me show you how in 1957 we went about exercising the authority that is given to us in the Constitution. On page 4, for those of you who have received this pamphlet, if not, the photostat being part IV thereof, we said this: No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the rights of such other persons 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 this is important— for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential electors, Members of the Senate or Members of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate. The reason I emphasize "solely or in part," I heard a great deal about wanting to know what that meant. "Solely or in part," as it is outlined here, refers to President, Vice President, Senator, and Representative. "Solely" is the election as it relates to all four names, when they appear on the ballot. If there is only one name, then it is partial or part. There should not be any further misunderstanding in this law as to what we mean when we say "solely or in part.' The CHAIRMAN. Would you mind an interruption there? The CHAIRMAN. To take that further, solely or in part, if it was an election for a Member of the House and at the same time in that State there was a State election for the Governor and all other State officers, would it apply to that election? Mr. ROGERS. It would apply, as I have indicated and as the law thus provides, if there happened to be a Member of Congress running, then it has its application. The CHAIRMAN. To all the State election? Mr. ROGERS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to know. That is what that "in part" means; in part for a Member of Congress to cover the waterfront. Is it or is it not? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, because The CHAIRMAN. That is all I wanted to know. So you do claim the right, then, in this to govern State elections if they happen to fall at the same time as other elections. Mr. ROGERS. We claim the right that under the section of the Constitution thus outlined, which is section 4 of article 1 that I read to you, that the Congress has the right, duty, and responsibility to see that elections of Members of the House of Representatives and Senators in Congress are conducted honestly and without fraud. We have the right under this provision, as I would like to develop at this time, that the Attorney General of the United States was then authorized under section (c) to institute an action whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured by subsections (a) and (b). The Attorney General may institute for the United States or in the name of the United States a civil action or other proper proceedings for preventive relief. Pursuant to the authorization thus granted, the Attorney General of the United States, the Honorable William Rogers, did in 1958 institute an action in the State of Alabama and the district court threw it out. Then they brought it to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of the United States v. Raines the Supreme Court held that the Attorney General had the right to go in, since he was given authorization by Congress to institute these actions. They upheld Congress action in 1957. That is the case that was decided on Feb |