Doubters with Points

The word from the White House to Capitol Hill was perfectly plain: Don't mess around with the Administration's new voting-rights bill, just pass it fast. Sentiment in Congress was for doing just that. But there were some doubters --and they had some points.

Among them was North Carolina Democrat Sam Ervin, a former member of his state's Supreme Court, now a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the outset of hearings before the committee, Ervin took on Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach for a full seven hours.

The Far-Flung Net. Ervin noted that the bill provides for federal voting registrars to be sent into states and counties where there are literacy tests and where 50% of the citizens of eligible age and residence either were not registered as of Nov. 1, 1964, or did not vote in the 1964 elections. This farflung net would catch a good many states and counties where hardly anyone pretends that discrimination exists: a county in Maine, for instance, and the entire state of Alaska.

But Ervin also wanted to know: Why did only 44% of those old enough to vote in 1964 go to the polls in Lyndon Johnson's own Texas? Snapped Katzenbach: "Poll tax." Why did barely more than 50% vote in New York City, where a "literacy test is not administered by sinful Southerners?" Said Katzenbach: "It's an English language test," and it keeps thousands of Puerto Ricans from registering.

Ervin obviously was smarting because the formula would include 34 counties in North Carolina, a relatively forward Southern state on civil rights. He got Katzenbach to admit that the Justice Department had evidence of discrimination in only one of those 34 counties.

"Boom!" Said Ervin: "I think this constitutes a bill of attainder because it deprives states and counties of certain powers vested in them without a judicial trial." No, said Katzenbach. Even though a state or political subdivision falls under the 50% formula, if it alleges that it has not discriminated and the Federal Government can present no evidence of discrimination, then, "Boom! Summary judgment for the state. That's all there is to it."

Ah, said Ervin, but the state or county "has to hitchhike a thousand miles to get here." What he meant was that the bill provides that a three-judge court in the District of Columbia is the only one allowed to adjudicate such matters; the provision was written into the bill to keep voting issues out of the hands of segregationist Southern judges. Said Ervin: "This seals shut the door of every courthouse except that in the District of Columbia." He also pointed out that the rules of the D.C. district court allow witnesses to be subpoenaed only from within the District and a radius of 100 miles around it. To Ervin's general contention, Katzenbach replied that the record shows that Southern states "don't hesitate to come here to the Supreme Court" to argue their appeals in integration cases.

"Good Faith." Finally, Ervin protested that the bill provides that a state or county, once it has been adjudged guilty of discrimination, cannot get rid of its federal registrars until it shows that it has not violated the 15th Amendment for ten years. Cried Ervin: "As a poor sinner, I'm glad that the Lord allows more room for repentance than this bill does." Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen, one of the original drafters of the bill, didn't entirely disagree, said: "I will propose an amendment that they be able to get out from under a good deal sooner. One election period--that would be enough to show good faith."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.