President. I don't think there is anything inconsistent in doing that, which would cause them to lose their apportionment under civil

service.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand the District has already 2,000 over its quota, so some might lose their positions if Civil Service insisted on the apportionment credit. I do not know that the Civil Service would insist on it but I am just asking you.

Senator KEFAUVER. The wording of the Civil Service Act and the ruling of the Civil Service is that it is a matter of domiciliary residence that counts under apportionment; and, even in the case of people who voted for Senator back home or for President or for Representative, I don't think that any of them would lose their right to be considered from that State merely because they voted for city councilman and school board in the District.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you know of any States that have any similar provision that permit such dual voting?

Senator KEFAUVER. In the Auchincloss hearings-I don't have them before me, but they included the opinions from attorney generals and governors from 33 or 34 States, no, from about 40-I think 33 or 34 said there was nothing inconsistent in their laws or constitutions which would prevent citizens from voting for national officers back home and the city council here.

Mr. O'HARA. My question was, Senator, do you know of any State that permits the dual type of voting that is suggested in your bill and Mr. Auchincloss's bill?

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes; I am advised the State of Maryland does; but there are a good many instances where people may vote at summer resorts and places of that sort, where they may vote for local officers, for school board or city council, and yet vote back in some other place for Congress, Senate, and President.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, of course, you are aware of the opinion of the courts in reference to matters of taxation, on personal property taxes, inheritance taxes, and the matter of citizenship-I am speaking of State citizenship-that are affected by persons voting in other than the States which they claim is the domicile, and the weight which the courts have given as to the fact of voting in some other jurisdiction. Senator, of course the books are full of those decisions and the States vary in their interpretation. Isn't that true?

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, they do; that is right.

Mr. O'HARA. And, I recall, under the Auchincloss hearings there were some nine States which held or concerning which the committee was advised, or the staff was advised by letters, that their State laws would not permit such dual voting rights. Is that true? Senator KEFAUVER. I do not know how many.

There were some.

I had the impression there were seven. I may be mistaken. Mr. O'HARA. My recollection is nine, and my recollection may be as good as yours, but even if seven States, that would affect it seriously in their property rights and taxing rights and citizenship rights

Senator KEFAUVER. Those opinions went into the matter of whether voting for councilmen would affect the voting rights back in the States from which they came; and, as I remember, there were a few Western States where there were expressions that it either would or might preclude them from voting back in their native States. Of course, that would be a matter for the individual person to determine, as to

95148-49- -12

whether he could vote both places; and, if he could not, if they were under civil service by virtue of having come from another State, then I suppose they would continue.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, of course, fundamentally, Senator, legal domicile is one of the things which is left solely to the choice and intention of the individual. Isn't that true?

Senator KEFAUVER. The intention of the individual is one of the primary considerations, certainly.

Mr. O'HARA. Then the courts determine the question whether they vote some other place or whether they live there.

Senator KEFAUVER. Whether they have property, what their ties are, where they keep their bank account

Mr. O'HARA. Whether they belong to a club or lodge.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, whether they belong to a club or lodge, where they keep their church membership, and all that.

Mr. O'HARA. Now do you feel that it is important that they have a dual voting right, of being able to vote for councilman and the various municipal offices here?

Senator KEFAUVER. I think it is, Mr. O'Hara. I think it broadens the base of the electorate. It brings in a larger number of intelligent people, good Americans, who would be able to have a good influence and interest in the District, as far as their houses and schools and conditions here are concerned, where they live.

Yesterday Mr. Bryan was sitting back with me. He is very much interested in home rule for the District. He comes from Nashville, Tenn. He still votes by absentee ballot at Nashville, Tenn. He owns his home here. His children have grown up in the District of Columbia. He is very much interested in local affairs, and there are tens of thousands of people in his same position.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, of course, there are also tens of thousands of people born and raised here, who lived here all their lives, who don't care so much about home rule. Isn't that true?

Senator KEFAUVER. There are some that way, but I think originally if you put your arm in a sling and keep it there for a sufficiently long period of time, you forget how to use it; and that is one reason why I think it is so important that we give the people here some right of suffrage and home rule. They may go without it so long they may lose interest in it.

Mr.O'HARA. Well if they don't have that much interest in it, it is their judgment, isn't it, Senator?

Senator KEFAUVER. I would say on the average there is as much interest here in voting and suffrage, probably more, than any place I know of, in spite of the fact that they haven't had the right in seventyodd years. At least that is my opinion.

Mr. O'HARA. What is the length of residence required in the State of Tennessee for voting?

Senator KEFAUVER. One year.

Mr. O'HARA. One year?

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes.

Mr. O'HARA. Now, Senator, I notice that in your bill you make no provision, as I get from a hasty reading, for a primary. Is that true?

Senator KEFAUVER. That is correct.

Mr. O'HARA. Just how would that work out in the matter of the elections? You would have everybody who wanted to run for office file and no elimination except in the final determination of the fall elections?

Senator KEFAUVER. That is right; they would run at large, and the ones getting the highest number of votes would be elected.

Mr. O'HARA. Is that consistent with the election laws of many States that you know of?

Senator KEFAUVER. I think it is consistent with the election laws of the States.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you mean with most primary provisions?

Senator KEFAUVER. Of course, it is consistent with the election law for every general election. Any number of people can run for Congress or for the Senate, and you don't have to receive a majority. The President does not receive a majority in most cases. In most of the primary laws of the various States a plurality wins. In some of the places, they have a run-off; but in most places they do not.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you mean every State in the Union having a primary election?

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes; I think most of them do, but most municipalities don't have primary elections. This follows the general pattern recommended by the National Municipal League and by the great majority of the municipal charters.

Cincinnati has proportionate representation, as we call it. Some of the cities have running for a numbered spot; some cities have a run-off; but this is the usual and I think the best type, although I want to say this, Joe, that I think the important thing is that the people have suffrage and home rule and I am not going to quibble with anybody greatly about the details in that experience. Trial and error will indicate whether those provisions should be changed or modified or improved. For instance, the matter of referendum on various issues has been gone into. I personally think that a referendum except on a bond matter is sort of a delegation of authority by the council that enables the council to pass the buck on to the people too frequently, instead of letting them decide the issues themselves, and that causes a lot of delay and confusion; but, if the members of this committee and the House pass a bill with the general referendum provision based on a petition by an adequate number of people so as to show public interest, I would certainly recommend that the Senate committee go along with it.

Mr. O'HARA. The Auchincloss bill last year provided, as I recall it, for the proportionate system of elections. Isn't that true?

Senator KEFAUVER. It provided for running for numbered places on the Council.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, that conforms to the usual practice of most municipalities, of the wards; isn't that true?

Senator KEFAUVER. No, sir; the running for numbered places is a rather unusual provision in city charters. The difficulty about it is that you may get your three very best men running for one spot, where only one of them can get elected and where it would have been in the interest of the public to have all three of them elected.

Mr. O'HARA. That is true of Members of Congress, too, isn't it?

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes; I have heard of two or three good men running for the same place.

Mr. O'HARA. And it is even true in respect to Senators.

Senator KEFAUVER. In the final analysis we are elected on a plurality basis; we don't have a majority. Since I have been elected Senator, I am not going to make a recommendation for changing the election laws in regard to Senators, as far as that is concerned.

Mr. O'HARA. Senator, for what reason should two members of the Council be appointed by the President?

Senator KEFAUVER. That was the recommendation by one of the leaders of the Republican Party, Senator Taft-the idea being that there would always be someone on the Council who would at least bring to the attention of the Council any Federal viewpoint concerning any congressional legislation.

Mr. O'HARA. You usually follow Senator Taft quite closely?

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, in this matter I want to say Senator Taft is very much interested. I think that Congress does not have the time, nor is it the proper body to cover strictly local matters; and Senator Taft's suggestions, I think, greatly improved the bill that we had; also he felt and the committee felt that we should have an election here with all of the members of the Council, if they should be of one party or not, which I think is unlikely. It is always well in city elections that there be somebody who got on the Council by virtue of a different authority, to balance off.

Mr. O'HARA. My point is, Senator, if you are going to have even some form of synthetic home rule, that the people should really elect the Council. That is one of the complaints here, that the three Commissioners are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and people don't have anything to say about it.

I think if you are going to have a Council and have the President appoint two Councilmen who are representing the Government, why I think that is the job up here in the reviewing authority which we have, representing the Government.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, I suppose you are talking more about the executive side of the Government. As it is now, the executive side of the Government has a great deal to do with the operation of the District, of course; well, anyway, that is a detail that I am not very much concerned about; and, if you feel all members should be elected, you will have no difficulty in getting us to go along with you. Mr. O'HARA. What about the appointment of the Board of Elections by the President? Why is that necessary?

Senator KEFAUVER. That is not provided for by a bill, that I know of. What I thought you meant was the Board of Education. Mr. O'HARA. The Board of Elections.

Senator KEFAUVER. Our contention about it in the original bill-, and I think the Auchincloss bill provides that the Council shall appoint the Board of Elections-, is that the people that are going to be elected should not be the ones to appoint the people who should hold the elections.

Mr. O'HARA. Why shouldn't the Board of Elections be elected the same as the other persons? They would wield considerable authority in the matter of the conduct of the elections.

We have to have

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, we are starting out. some Election Commissioners to begin with to hold the referendum.

We have to have Election Commissioners to hold the first election of the Council; and the only thing anybody wants is an honest Election Commission. We figured that, by having them appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, we would be certain to get people who would hold an honest election; and, if later on, after the act had worked a while, we wanted to have elections for the naming of the Election Commissioners who have only that function to perform, we could do that.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, Senator, my point was, and the only reason why I bring it up about the matter of these appointments-upon the theory, first, that they should be responsible to the electors of the District; and, second, that the concern which certain people have as to the control of the various executives of the party and the influence which the executive might wield in the city of Washington and its effect upon the National Capital. I very seriously make the point that the executive, whoever he may be, whatever party he may be from, should have very little to say about that part of the election of the members of the Council. If it is truly to be representative of the people, then let us make it that. Do you agree or disagree?

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, of course, the first thing is that the executive, whichever party he might be from, under the present situation, has a great deal more influence over the running of the District than he would have under the Senate bill. As far as I am concerned, whatever extent you want to go to, if it will satisfy you and get you to support the bill, Congressman O'Hara, by giving the local people the right to vote in connection with this matter, will suit me fine. We really thought that, by having a little more gradual transition, leaving a few more of these matters in the hands of the executive, the bill might be a little more acceptable to some Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Mr. O'HARA. Of course, during the last couple of years I have been getting letters from back home which I know have been precipitated by the little organization down here, that it was too bad my time was taken up by these matters of the District of Columbia. I know of a couple of organizations which pretty thoroughly circulated my district with that sort of propaganda; but, Senator, I haven't been impressed that this will take any of the burden, which I am very happy to assume, as far as I am able to give the city of Washington the best possible government. I think it is the best governed city in the United States-maybe you don't agree with that statement, but I think they have one of the finest types of government, one of the finest police departments, one of the finest recreation departments; and certainly it is as clean and healthy a city of its size any place I know. Senator KEFAUVER. Well, Congressman O'Hara, I think that matter is debatable, one way or another. I think there are other cities where the people have the say-so that are better governed than the city of Washington; but that does not meet the issue. I suppose that a lot of historians say that, theoretically, a benevolent dictatorship in which the people have no control is the best sort of government; but here in the United States we are committed to another system of government and some exercise of power by the people, and I think that is the important matter.

Mr. O'HARA. What brings about this revolution, this sudden feeling that the city of Washington is greatly discriminated against in