Mr. HARRIS. You don't have to go as far as Chicago to see that. Mr. ATHERHOLT. Is that so? Maybe you gentlemen are more experienced on that.

Mr. HARRIS. You may proceed.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. Another matter is this, and this provides that school-board members shall be nominated by wards. We couldn't see any reason for that, rather than on a city-wide basis, nor could we see any reason why members of the school board should continue to reside in the same ward.

The fifth resolution we passed is as follows:

(5) Resolved, That section 901 (b) of the Act, providing for permanent registration, should be amended to provide that a registration shall not be effective for more than two years, and preferably that there be separate registration for each election. This recommendation is made because of the shifting character of the population of this area.

Also, if you look at the definition of a qualified elector, you will find that it is a man who has come up and made certain representations as to what he has done in the past and what he intends to do in the future and that he isn't going to do anything to disqualify himself between now and the next election. If we would have a prominent registration I am afraid we would have a great number of voters who had long since ceased to be qualified.

The sixth resolution is:

(6) Resolved, That section 903 (b) of the Act be amended to provide for a three-year term of office on the District Council. We feel that a two-year term, as originally provided in the Act, would militate against the creation of an experienced and smoothly working Council. A four-year term would not be objectionable, but a two-year term would be undersirable.

This may seem particularly harsh language, especially when Memhers of the House of Representatives are listening who are themselves elected for a 2-year term, but we feel that a councilman elected for 3 or 4 years would probably give us a better council if we were to have him for that period of time rather than a gentleman elected for 2 years. Mr. SITTLER. It might give you a better government in Congress

too.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. Yes. Then the seventh resolution was as follows: (7) Resolved, That section 903 (c) of the Act be amended to provide for a 4-year term of office on the Board of Education, this for the same reasons as stated above in regard to the Council.

The bill provides a 2-year term. That 2-year term on the Board of Education we fear would give us a very frequently and widely shifting policy.

The eighth resolution was:

(8) Resolved, That section 904 of the Act be amended to remove the provision that vacancies on the District Council or on the District Delegate shall be filled by appointment by the President of the United States. We recommend that a vacancy in the office of the District Delegate be filled by the Council and that vacancies on the District Council be filled by special election within a period of four months unless there be a regular election within eight months.

The ninth resolution was:

(9) Resolved, That section 911 (b) of the Act be amended to provide that each voter shall be entitled to vote only for such candidates for District Council and Board of Education as have been nominated from, and to represent, the ward in which the individual voter is registered.

As the bill now provides, people are to be nominated from the individual wards and elected from the city as a whole and it appears that the nominees are to be people outside the ward as well as within and then the election shall be by the people of all five wards for every office. The result is that the nominee from my ward could get every vote in that ward and be defeated by the votes of the people in the other four wards. It is intended that the wards shall be divided up to have approximately equal population.

On the other hand, somebody might get no votes whatever in my ward and be elected as my representative by the people of the other four wards.

That is just as though some gentlemen like Mr. Sittler running from the State of Pennsylvania would have to stand for votes against him from the States of Ohio, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey. It is the same problem. That is a matter of utmost importance. If there was one thing that was of real importance that we were all most emphatic about, that was it.

There was one other matter and we discussed it at length but we did not have the time to come to a conclusion on, and that was the matter of nominations. Primarily the percentage of signatures that must be had for a nomination calls for 1 percent of the signatures. It seems a little high to some of us. Others weren't so sure. Nobody in our group admitted to any knowledge as to what was the custom in other States. I have looked up Pennsylvania statutes and I find that in Pennsylvania anyone running for office must get one-half of 1 percent of the registered votes. For county offices, it shall be 1 percent. The members of this committee have much more knowledge and experience on that than we have. We ask your studied attention to that phase of the bill. If we are going to have this, we don't want to get into a government where you cannot get a nomination except through a political machine. That is what we are looking at.

Another matter that came up and was left undecided at that moment was the matter of the referendum. I felt that a requirement of the bill calling for signatures by 20 percent of the registered voters was unduly high. The other members of the group were altogether uninformed on it and did not care to take any action but I looked up Mr. Armand B. Coigne's book on Statute Making, at pages 44, 45, 46, and 47 of his book, cover the matter of the referendum. It shows on those pages the States that had referendum provisions at the time this book was published which was in 1948 and it shows what the percentage of signatures required was as follows:

Arizona required 5 percent of the votes.

Arkansas required 6 percent of the votes cast for Governor. California required 5 percent of the votes cast for Governor. Colorado required 5 percent of the votes cast for secretary of state. Idaho required 10 percent of the votes cast for Governor. Kentucky required 5 percent of the votes cast for the Governor. Michigan required 5 percent of the votes cast for Governor. Missouri required 5 percent of the votes cast for the justice of the supreme court.

Montana required 5 percent of the votes cast for the Governor.
Nebraska required 5 percent of the votes cast for Governor.
Nevada required 10 percent of the votes cast.

New Mexico required 10 percent of the votes cast.

Ohio required 6 percent of the votes cast for Governor.
Oklahoma required 5 percent of the votes cast.

Oregon required 5 percent of the votes cast.

South Dakota required 5 percent of the votes cast for Governor. Utah required 10 percent of the votes cast for Governor.

Washington required 6 percent-no more than 30,000 voters required.

With your permission, gentlemen, I should like to make those pages of Mr. Coigne's book a part of the record.

Mr. HARRIS. It will be inserted in the record.

(Documents referred to are as follows:)

State-wide referendum provisions