June 12, 1964
PAGE 13654
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
A FAR-REACHING BILL
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, it cannot be repeated too often that this is the most far reaching bill that has ever been considered by Congress. It is, therefore, important that we consider it carefully by sections, and weigh each provision of the bill.
Bear in mind that the bill has 11 separate titles, and each one of those titles constitutes a separate proposed law. Each and every one of the titles will have a great impact on every aspect of American life if the bill is enacted. It will have a far-reaching effect on local self-government in this country. That has been the genesis of our strength. It deals with the most intimate rights of our people -- the right to choose their associates and the right to dominion over their property. It affects the mores and habits of living and manner of thinking of our people in every section of the country.
Mr. President, if each of these 11 titles had been introduced separately, as is generally the case, they could have been discussed separately, and the story of what the bill contains could therefore have been gotten across to all the American people, and all of them would have had the opportunity to understand it. But here we have tied 11 titles together. We have attached an attractive but misleading title of "Civil Rights" to the bill, and the issue has become so confused with emotionalism and so clouded by political jockeying that very few of our citizens, and only the most studious citizens interested in government, really know just what the bill accomplishes.
Mr. President, until recent years, several titles of the bill that we are being asked to enact into law would have been offered in the form of amendments to our basic charter, the Constitution of the United States.
Let me illustrate. When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Brown case, we were told that the only way the decision could be effected by Congress would be by the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution and its submission to the several States. However the bill deals, in title 11, with the so-called public accommodations sections, a decision of the Supreme Court hallowed with age since 1883. That was a decision which stated that the Congress has no authority whatever to legislate in the field which title II of the bill now undertakes to invade. Supporters of the bill are now resorting to the flimsy pretense of invoking the commerce clause to cover such facilities as a swimming pool, in order to avoid submitting a constitutional amendment to the several States, as is required by the Constitution.
I have heard the pleas for haste in the passage of this measure for fear that there will be rioting in the streets. I understand full well why the proponents of the bill prefer to rush it through as a statute, rather than undertaking to amend the Constitution, as we were told would be necessary in the case of the Brown decision.
Of course, the proponents know full well that it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to persuade two-thirds of the Congress to submit the amendment, and that in no event would three-fourths of the States vote themselves into the oblivion into which the bill would consign them by ratifying any such amendment to the Constitution.
NATIONAL REFERENDUM PROPOSED
Therefore, I am appealing to the sense of fair play of the Senate to submit the provisions of the bill to a referendum in which all of the American citizens are entitled to participate.
That is all that this amendment undertakes to do. It provides that this violent change that is proposed in our system of government, and in the way of life of one-quarter of the Nation, shall not be imposed until a majority of the American people have had an opportunity to speak, to say whether they approve of the new form of government and the entirely different social order that the bill would create.
I know, Mr. President, that in this day, no minority group in the country gets shorter shrift at the hands of Congress than do the white people of the Southern States. Their pleas are treated with callous disdain and disregard. There could be no better evidence of it than this bill, and the fact that we are seeking to apply statutes in cases where heretofore it has been demanded that amendments to the Constitution be submitted.
We are even told, "Do not worry about the decision or its constitutionality. This new breed -- the liberal court -- we have over here will reverse any line of cases anywhere, and approve any bill that Congress sends them that bears the title of civil rights."
As an old-fashioned constitutionalist, I would much prefer that these drastic changes be submitted to the country in the form of amendments to the Constitution, but I am well aware that it is impossible to accomplish that at this late hour. I am also aware that the Constitution of the United States does not contain any clause that specifically provides for a referendum on any subject such as is here involved.
But, Mr. President, there is no expressed prohibition on any such referendum. We are told, in this new day, that what the Constitution does not specifically forbid the Congress may accomplish.
I appeal to Senators who call themselves liberals to let the people have an opportunity to pass on this question.
This amendment is not carelessly drafted. I ask Senators to read it. If Senators have any suggestions as to how it can be improved, I shall be glad to entertain them and to undertake to have them embodied in the amendment.
I assert to those of the liberal bent that no stream can rise higher than its source. No man can be greater than the people who send him here.
PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE
There is no reason why this proposal should not be submitted to the people. It would not cause any great delay to have this bill passed upon by the people.
Mr. President, everyone who knows the political facts of life is thoroughly conscious of the fact that our Government is greatly influenced by pressure groups. A relatively small percentage of our total population -- vocal, well organized even belligerent -- exercise influence all out of proportion to their actual number.
They exercise their influence in our Political conventions and over the president of the United States. All those who serve in this body know all too well the influence of the organized pressure groups upon the Congress.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. MUNDT. Will the Senator from Georgia explain how the vote would be taken?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Georgia has expired.
Mr. RUSSELL. I yield myself 8 additional minutes.
Mr. MUNDT. Will the Senator explain how the vote would be taken? Would it be a vote in which the popular majority would determine the issue? Would it be a vote in which the majority of the States would determine the issue?
Mr. RUSSELL. It would be a vote in which the majority of those participating in the referendum would determine the issue. I apprehend that it would encounter bitter resistance if it were referred to the electoral college or to the States.
Mr. MUNDT. The electoral college system, with its loaded voting, would not be used. Is that correct?
Mr. RUSSELL. This would be an outright referendum in which the majority of the people of the country would be permitted to speak.
Mr. MUNDT. Should the referendum prevail by majority vote and be defeated in certain States, I take it it would still become a national law, applicable to all States. Is that correct?
Mr. RUSSELL. If it carried in 49 States, but a majority in the 50th State was sufficient to overcome the margin by which the 49 States voted unfavorably, it would still go into effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute, if I may, of my unused 60 minutes, in order to ask a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield?
Mr. RUSSELL. I am perfectly willing to yield to the Senator, if the time comes out of his time.
Mr. MUNDT. I wished to establish for the RECORD, firmly, this point. As I understand, if the referendum should prevail in the popular vote, even though a majority of the States voting were against it, the law would still become operative because a majority of the people of America would have spoken in the affirmative. Is that correct?
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUNDT. I thank the Senator.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, the veriest tyros in American politics today know the power of the organized bloc. They know that the masses of the people are prone to forget, whereas the members of the highly and tightly organized pressure groups are certain to be reminded to visit retribution at the polls on those who do not accede to their commands.
VOTERS REJECT CONTROLS
I point out that every time any phase of this issue has been submitted to the people of the United States in a referendum, whether it was in the North, East, South, or West, with the single exception of Kansas City, where the margin was exceedingly slim, the people have voted against the type of government intrusion into their lives that is proposed in this bill. They have opposed government control of their living, of their privacy, and of their business.
We are told that a great majority of the American people favor this bill. If that be true, let them have an opportunity to speak at the polls.
Unfortunately, in recent years the difference between the platforms of the two major political parties in this country has been just about as great as the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. The American people have voted more on personalities than on issues.
I can think of nothing that would do more to revive the interest of our supposed self-governing people in their government than the opportunity to express themselves on an issue, instead of having to wade through tons of campaign literature and two almost identical party platforms in arriving at a conclusion as to how to vote in national elections.
The submission of this question to the people of the country not only would revive interest in our Government, but would provide a true report as to how the people feel about this proposed legislation.
We are told that the laboring people of this country favor the bill; the labor leaders, Mr. Meany and Mr. Reuther, have indeed endorsed it, and they speak for it on every occasion. But in every election that has been held, every ward, every precinct, and every congressional district, where a majority of the working people reside, they have voted against the position of their leaders on this issue.
We are told that all of the church people of the country favor the bill. Spokesmen for the National Council of Churches come and say, "We represent 50 million church people who are advocating this measure."
All of us, Mr. President, know that there are thousands of God-fearing, tithing Christians, in this country who want no part of this bill and who are opposed to it in every way.
It is unnecessary to run through all of the elections that have been held. In Kansas City, to which I have referred, the bill was approved by about 1,700 votes out of a total of 90,000 votes cast.
It was rejected in 15 of the city's 24 wards, and would have lost by 20,000 had it not received a practically unanimous vote in the Negro wards.
Mr. President, I received a letter from one of the most knowledgeable men in politics in Kansas City. I wish to read two paragraphs on what he had to say about this election. He says:
Excluding four Negro wards, the ordinance would have been beaten by 20,000.
The remarkable point is that there was no organized opposition. The Kansas City Star, our only daily newspaper, practically quit printing news, and devoted its front page to editorials and news favorable to the ordinance. Every clergyman in town, with very few exceptions, endeavored to make it a "question of conscience.”
As Mr. Justice Whittaker said in substance In a speech delivered the day after this vote, "the clergy having failed miserably in an effort to promote tolerance by good will now seek to enforce their views by coercive ordinance."
The letter continues:
The vote here has had a remarkable effect and if the election were to be held again, the ordinance would be badly beaten.
Thousands of people refrained from voting because they had gained the impression from the news media and the pulpits that a negative vote would be wasted. On the same day the Wisconsin election was held, and I trust that both of these votes will have some impact.
I point out that the two white wards that voted in favor of this ordinance in Kansas City were the so-called country club wards.
It is a remarkable fact that those in this country who have vast accumulations of wealth, those who never see a Negro except on their own initiative, are the ones who principally promote this legislation.
The great political leaders of the country-the Harrimans, the Rockefellers, and the Kennedys -- are people of vast wealth, who are never thrown with a Negro except on their own initiative, support the proposed legislation vigorously; but when we get down into the wards, where the people have no club to go to but the corner tavern, we find a different story.
They want their privacy protected.
DEFEATED IN TACOMA, SEATTLE
I point out that a similar issue, a so called open housing ordinance, was presented in Tacoma, Wash., through a plebiscite, and it lost by a vote of about 3 to 1.
In Seattle there was a vote on a similar issue and it was turned down by a vote of 2 to 1.
An Associated Press dispatch of April 10, from Providence, R.I., refers to the 2-to-1 defeat in the Rhode Island House of a proposal to ban discrimination in housing in that State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. RUSSELL. I yield myself 2 more minutes.
I ask to have printed in the RECORD the votes that were polled by Governor Wallace, of Alabama, in Wisconsin, in Indiana, and in Maryland, States where he had no political ties, as evidence that there are in this country vast numbers of people who do not wish to see this kind of change effected in our form of government.
[Table Omitted]
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, the people should have an opportunity to be heard. Millions of people have become indifferent; millions do not even go to vote. Senators talk about the fact that we do not have a 100-percent vote in this country. It is really because there is very little issue involved in most of our national elections. The choice resolves itself into personalities.
If we will present this question to the people it will give them something to study; it will bring them back to the feeling that they are participating in their government.
It would be fair to those who would be most vitally affected by the bill. Unless the people of the South have the knowledge that this bill was put upon them by a majority of their fellow citizens and not by a group of political leaders under the lash, there will be resentment against the bill, and it will be a long time before it is actually implemented.
If we let this issue go to the people and a majority of the people vote for it, it will be accepted everywhere, even if it is not received with enthusiasm.
I appeal to the sense of justice and fairness of the Senate to adopt this amendment. It would cause no great delay, but would let the voice of the American people be heard on an issue. It would be the first time in many years that this has been the case. The people have had no opportunity to do so through political platforms.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as is necessary.
I am sure it is not necessary for me to remind the Senate that our system of government is a republic, not a pure democracy. It might be well to remind ourselves of that by referring to the Preamble of the Constitution and the first section of the first article of the Constitution. The Preamble reads, in part:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, * * * do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The very first thing the people did in ordaining and establishing the Constitution is contained in the next three lines of the Constitution:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
So the first act of the people of the United States in ordaining the Constitution was to impose the legislative responsibility upon Congress. I cannot conceive of a piece of legislation requiring the exercise of legislative responsibility by Congress to a greater extent than this piece of proposed legislation.
As I recall, we are in the 76th day of discussion of the civil rights bill. We have been told that this prolonged debate is necessary for at least two reasons: First, in order that the Members of the Senate might fully understand the 74 pages and the thousands of words that are contained in the bill; second, in order that we might properly focus the attention of the country upon the bill, the issues that are involved, and the details of the proposed legislation. We have taken that time -- 76 days of it. The opponents of the bill have been among the first to urge that we take the time, so that the Senate might thoroughly understand what it was doing.
We have taken the time. We have considered the 74 pages. We have considered the thousands of words. We have before us between 400 and 500 amendments, many of which we have considered and disposed of one way or another in the past few days.
Judging by the bills the Senate has considered since I became a Member of the Senate, this kind of legislative chore is least amenable to the referendum process. It would be impossible for the electors in the individual States to give the kind of attention to the bill which the opponents of the bill have urged that the Senate itself should give.
This kind of amendment, if adopted by the Senate, would throw the country into chaos. Under the proposal of the Senator from Georgia, the referendum election would be held and conducted by each State "consenting to do so at the general election to be held in such State in 1964." I take it that that means this coming November.
The amendment further provides, on page 7, lines 16 through 20, that the people shall be called to vote not upon the bill as a whole, but upon each of the 11 titles.
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from Maine misstates the amendment entirely.
Mr. MUSKIE. If I am in error --
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is in error.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read the language. I will yield from my time to permit the Senator from Georgia to clarify my understanding, if I am in error.
The language of his amendment reads:
This law provides that the first 11 titles shall take effect only if approved by the qualified voters of the several States in this referendum. Indicate by making a cross (X) in the proper square (or by pulling the proper lever) whether you approve or disapprove of these titles.
At this point I should like say that I had my first opportunity really to read the amendment for the first time a few moments ago. Perhaps I did not understand the language as I read it. I would appreciate it if the Senator from Georgia would correct me. As I read it, it would require of the voter that he indicate his approval or disapproval of each of the 11 titles.
Am I in error?
Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is certainly in error. In drafting the amendment, the language was discussed at some length to determine whether the vote should be by titles. We finally decided that the people should vote the bill up or down. The amendment provides:
This law provides that the first 11 titles shall take effect only if approved by the qualified voters of the several States in this referendum. Indicate by making a cross (X) in the proper square (or by pulling the proper lever) whether you approve or disapprove of these titles.
That is the one question that is submitted. All the titles are submitted as a group.
Mr. MUSKIE. I stand corrected. I am happy that the RECORD indicates what the amendment provides.
Another purpose of the 76 days of debate has been to focus public opinion on this issue. If the mail of every Senator is any indication -- and I am sure my own mail is representative in that respect the people of the States are alert to this issue.
They have been alert to it not only for days, but for weeks and months. They have been given ample opportunity to consider the bill and its implications. They have been exposed to the points of view of the opponents and the proponents. There have been innumerable polls indicating what public reaction has been; and I am sure the mail of each Senator has indicated, to him the reaction of his constituents to this bill. So I believe the people of the United States have spoken in innumerable ways to indicate how they react to this proposed legislation.
It is the responsibility of Senators to act on the bill itself and to hammer out its details. I suggest that no legislative chore with which the Senate has grappled since I became a Member of the Senate has more effectively justified the republican nature of this body -- namely, a body to fulfill the responsibilities imposed on the legislative branch by the people of the United States, in the first nine lines of the Constitution.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON in the chair). The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, the Senator has correctly read that all legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress. Among them is the power to submit constitutional amendments to the people.
We do not in all instances pass on proposed legislation, either up or down; and in this instance we realized the impossibility of getting the two-thirds vote from the Members, under the Constitution.
So I sought to have this issue go to all the people of the United States.
I am not surprised that the proponents of the bill dare not have the bill submitted to all the people of the United States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD certain newspaper articles relating to votes on referendums. One of them deals with the vote taken in the university city of Berkeley, Calif., on a similar issue -- the FEPC plebiscite in California, which was defeated by more than one million votes, in 1946; also newspaper articles relating to other referendums, to which I have referred in the course of my remarks.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From Associated Press, Apr. 10, 1964]
RHODE ISLAND HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES DEFEATS HOUSING ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL 2 To 1
PROVIDENCE, R.I., April 10. -- Civil rights leaders pledged to continue their fight and a legislator's house is under police guard today following a 2-to-1 defeat in the Rhode Island House of a proposal to ban discrimination in housing.
Leaders of both political parties joined the heads of groups which had lobbied for passage of the bill in expressions of disappointment at the 61 to 32 rollcall vote which killed the watered-down measure.
One of the bill's leading opponents, Representative Frank A. Martin, Jr., Democrat, of Pawtucket, told police several threatening phone calls were made to his home last night.
Police set up a watch outside the house.
Earlier, Martin said, he was accosted by an unidentified man and threatened as he was leaving the house chamber after the long and bitter debate.
Party lines, usually maintained rigidly in the Rhode Island Legislature, were shattered on the controversial issue.
Forty-two members of the Democratic majority rejected their leaders' appeals to pass the measure and redeem a pledge made in the party's 1962 campaign platform.
Nineteen Republicans joined in killing the bill, which had been backed by Republican Gov. John H. Chafee and had also been promised in the GOP platform of two years ago.
The favorable votes came from 25 Democrats and seven Republicans. Representative John J. Wren, Democrat, of Providence, floor manager for the measure said he didn't expect further action on this issue this year in view of the decisive margin of the house vote.
However, he said, renewed effort will be made to pass a similar bill next year.
The question of a ban on housing discrimination has been before the legislature for seven years, but yesterday was the first time the issue has been formally debated in the house.
Previous measures were killed in committee or in the Democratic majority caucus.
The senate has passed similar bills twice.
Chafee pledged to use his executive power wherever possible to combat discrimination and enhance opportunities for the State's 22,000 Negroes.
Martin and other opponents of the measure called the vote a victory for the little man whose property rights and freedoms they said would have been infringed upon if the bill became law.
[From the Washington Star, Apr. 8, 1964]
RIGHTS PLAN BARELY WINS IN KANSAS CITY KANSAS CITY, Mo., April 8. -- In an amazing surge of votes, but by slightly less than 1 percent, Kansas City voters affirmed yesterday an expansion of the city's ordinance forbidding racial discrimination in establishments which trade with the public.
The unofficial count was 45,476 to 43,733 -- a margin of 1,743 in a total vote of 89,209. This represented 42 percent of the registered voters.
Only once before, in 1950 on a school bond issue, have so many turned out in a special election.
Only 68,196 voted last December after a strident campaign which led to adoption of a municipal tax on earnings.
Robert P. Lyons, cochairman of the People for Public Accommodations, said, "I think it is significant that our citizens voted in greater numbers on a matter of human rights than on something that affected their pocketbooks."
The new ordinance provisions prohibit racial discrimination in taverns, amusement places, recreational facilities, meeting halls, stores, transportation facilities, hospitals, and other businesses open to the public.
Excluded were barbershops, beauty parlors, other places offering personal services, rooming and boarding houses and rented apartments.
Kansas City has had a public accommodations ordinance covering hotels, motels, and restaurants since April 1962.
The city council expanded it in September 1963, but it was forced to an election in a petition campaign sparked by the Tavern Owners Association and the Association for Freedom of Choice.
Negroes number about 80,000 of Kansas City's 475,000 population and 30,0OO of its 209,000 registered voters.
The wards where they live gave the new rules heavy margins. It was 4,527 to 199 in the 2d ward, 4,948 to 129 in the 14th, and 5,205 to 770 In the 17th.
The ordinance lost in 15 of the 24 wards, by 2 to 1 or more in the new suburbs Kansas City has annexed to the south, east, and north.
The eighth ward, a "silk stocking" district along ritzy Ward Parkway, voted 2,386 to 1,877 for public accommodations.
The sixth, around Country Club Plaza, approved 1,456 to 1,391.
[From the Seattle (Wash.) Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 11, 19641
VOTERS TURN DOWN OPEN HOUSING By OVER 2 To 1
The open housing ordinance which would have outlawed discrimination in the sale, lease, or rental of residential property in Seattle was rejected by voters yesterday by an overwhelming majority.
On the basis of early returns, the controversial measure was going down to defeat at a ratio of better than 2 to 1.
The measure, which was placed on the ballot by the city council, would have made it a misdemeanor to use race, religion, color, or national origin as the basis for refusing to consummate a real estate transaction.
Though only actively opposed by two organizations, the measure apparently was defeated by the "silent" voters who never expressed their opinions on the ordinance but decided to vote against it.
The defeat came on the heels on Monday's signing into law by two county commissioners of a similar open housing ordinance covering unincorporated areas of King county.
The county law, however, still is under a legal cloud since the commissioners modified it after holding the required public hearing.
County Commissioner Ed Munro when asked if the adverse vote would have any effect on the commissioners when considering further the county ordinance, said:
"No, what connection is there? It's two different areas. We don't pass county ordinances on the basis of what the city does."
Yesterday's decision by the voters was the culmination of nearly 2 years of activity toward open housing in Seattle.
In July of 1962, the city council, at the urging of Mayor Gordon S. Clinton, created a 15-member advisory committee on minority group housing with Alfred J. Westberg as chairman.
From this committee, which agreed that indeed a problem did exist in Seattle, emerged the human rights commission, also headed by Westberg.
The commission was created last July by a city council that had been prodded by mass demonstrations and a series of sit-ins at city hall. The commission was directed to prepare an open housing ordinance and submit it to the council within 30 days.
After a long-and sometimes stormy hearing last October, the council adopted the ordinance. Despite Mayor Clinton's urging that it be passed with an emergency clause to place it in effect immediately, the council voted 7 to 2 to refer the ordinance to the voters.
Since early November proponents -- spearheaded by the citizens committee for open housing and the opponents -- led by the Seattle Real Estate Board and the Seattle Apartment House Operators Association have waged a long and vigorous verbal battle for and against the ordinance.
Over 75 organizations, including most church groups In the Seattle area, gave open housing their endorsement.
Proponents argued that a vote for the ordinance was a Christian vote, that equality is long overdue in Seattle and that it is guaranteed under our Constitution. They further contended that Negroes wouldn't cause any mass migration if they move in and that property values wouldn't decrease.
Those against the ordinance on the other hand, claim it is coercive and takes away the free choice of property owners of whom to sell or rent to.
Finally, the opponents said, the ordinance isn’t needed anyway since much integration already has taken place and that Seattle already leads the Nation in theater, hotel, restaurant, and other forms of Integration.
Yesterday the voters decided which side had the most convincing argument.
[From the Tacoma (Wash.) News-Tribune, Feb. 12, 19641
TACOMANS CRUSH OPEN HOUSING -- WATERFRONT MEASURE ALSO LOSES -- TOLLEFSON, CVITANICH, BOTT, MURTLAND, JOHNSON, MATSON LEADING IN RESPECTIVE RACES (By Jack Ryan)
Tacoma voters yesterday crushed the open housing ordinance, defeated an amendment to the city charter that would permit the council to dispose of city waterfront property and gave Mayor Harold M. Tollefson a smashing vote of confidence.
In a city election that turned out a surprisingly high number of voters, totaling 34,484, about 4,000 more than had been predicted, the people of Tacoma selected eight council candidates who will run again In the final election.
Here are the results:
Proposition No. 1: Anti-discrimination open-housing ordinances -- No, 23,026; yes, 7,470.
Proposition No. 2: Sale, lease, disposal of city waterfront property-No, 15,567; yes, 11,778.
In the open housing ordinance vote, virtually every precinct in the city voted against the measure. Jack Tanner, northwest president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the outcome was what he expected.
"First of all, that title [open housing] scared people out. It sounds like somebody could walk right into your house and take it over. Actually, placing this ordinance on the ballot was unconstitutional. The 14th amendment granted equal rights for all citizens of the United States. When you are dealing with rights granted by our Constitution, there is no such thing as 'the majority rules.' The Constitution grants rights to minorities, and the majority should not be able to vote down these rights.
"HE DIDN'T VOTE
"I did not vote in this election. I advised all members of the Negro race in Tacoma not to vote. I am certain that many of them stayed home and did not cast a ballot. If only one vote had been required to pass this ordinance, I would have refused to cast this vote.
I am certain that the American people today, if given opportunity, would vote down their own Constitution, and destroy all the things that have made this Nation great, just because right-wing alarmists and political opportunities have told them that their small property rights might be endangered."
However, C. Gordon Fora, immediate past president of the Tacoma Board of Realtors, took a different view on the outcome of the election. Fora led the campaign to defeat the ordinance.
POSITION CORRECT
"The joint housing council's position has been that the voters wanted to have a voice in the matter of the open housing ordinance. The vote has indicated that our position was correct. We pledged ourselves to the democratic principle of equal housing rights for all our citizens and we will continue to devote our energies to this end," he said.
The results of the Tacoma open housing vote went all over the Nation, since the national news services had been requested by scores of newspapers to rush the results as quickly as possible. In cities all over America the results were awaited to see how Tacoma would go on the civil rights ordinance.
In spite of the brisk vote, County Auditor Jack Sonntag's office had the final results tabulated in full by 9:55 p.m.
[From the San Francisco (Calif.) Chronicle, Apr. 3, 1963 ]
HOUSING LAW LOSES IN RECORD BERKELEY VOTE -- JOHNSON ELECTED MAYOR
Berkeley's controversial fair housing ordinance was defeated last night by a record turnout of voters in the municipal election.
The ordinance received 22,720 "no" votes to 20,323 "yes."
It was the second time in 4 years that Berkeley voters have turned down a law prohibiting discrimination in housing. A similar initiative measure was defeated in 1959.
Wallace Johnson, 50-year-old president of a scaffold company, was elected the city's new mayor. Johnson, who had opposed the housing ordinance, defeated Dr. Fred Stripp, who had supported it, 22,415 votes to 20,473.
Johnson replaces Claude B. Hutchison, retiring from office at the end of his current term. Hutchison had been mayor since 1955.
COUNCIL
The voters also reelected three incumbent city councilmen. But all three were led in the voting by Joseph P. Bort, an attorney and insurance counselor, who polled 22,832 votes.
Incumbents John K. DeBonis, with 22,400 votes; Arthur Harris, with 21,061, and Bernice nice Hubbard May, with 21,028, were restored to office.
Trailing these four were Daniel Dewey, with 19,587 votes; Edith J. Linford, 19,002; Tom Lem-Mon, 9,952; Frank Clarke, 8,332; Fred E. Huntley, 6,452, and Geoffrey White, 2,888. White and Rose Jersawitz, who had 531 votes for mayor, ran on the Socialist ticket.
In the race for city auditor, Fred A. Bird, with 25.028 votes, defeated Irving H. Golder, with 14,062. Sherman Maisel, running unopposed for. reelection to the school board, had 32,142 votes.
PRAISE
The defeat of the housing ordinance was hailed last night by Robert D. Weinmann, northern California executive director of the Citizens League for Individual Freedom, who helped direct the league's Berkeley chapter in its fight against the measure.
"A bad law was defeated," Weinmann said. "This shows that unfair housing ordinances with threats of fines and jail sentences against private property owners is not the solution to grave social inequalities which exist among our population."
Weinmann called upon Gov. Edmund G. Brown to hold a conference of "responsible officials" to "explore" the discrimination problem.
PROBLEM
Frank Quinn, executive director of San Francisco's Council for Civic Unity and a Berkeley resident who took 3 weeks off from his job to campaign for the ordinance, bemoaned the defeat.
"While we have voted out the ordinance," he said, "we have not voted out the problem of discrimination. I think it's essential now that both the people who were for and against this particular ordinance come together soon to work on that problem."
The housing ordinance actually was passed by the city council last January, but a referendum petition with 10,555 signatures (almost 7,000 more than necessary) put it on yesterday's ballot.
TURNOUT
The result was the biggest turnout of voters for a municipal election in Berkeley history. With 265 precincts accounted for 82 percent of Berkeley's 52,936 registered voters had cast their ballots. The vote included 982 absentee ballots.
The previous high for a municipal election according to City Clerk Naomi Hess, was the 64.5 percent who voted in the 1959 election and turned down the previous housing discrimination measure. A normal vote, she said, is 55 to 60 percent.
"I've never seen anything like it," the city Clerk said. "One man appeared at his precinct at 7:07 am. (7 minutes after the polls opened) and he was the seventh to vote."
DEBATE
The ordinance-which became in the past few weeks, one of the Nation's hottest civil rights issues -- would have banned discrimination in the rental or sale of housing based on "race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry."
It would have set up a board of intergroup relations responsible for administering the ordinance and engaging in mediation and conciliation with accused violators.
Willful disobedience of a final order by the board might have been punished by a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail and a $500 fine if upheld in court action.
The ordinance became the subject of a bitter debate among Berkeley's 3 mayoral and 10 city council candidates -- and yet it was bigger than any, or all, of them.
The candidates, many of whom attempted to skirt the issue by campaigning for yacht harbor improvements or industrial development, were forced by an aroused citizenry to take stands -- guarded or forthright -- on the housing ordinance.
CAMPUS
"Aroused" was hardly the word to describe the reaction of Berkeley citizens to the campaign. No issue in recent years awakened this frequently lethargic college town as did ordinance No. 3915-NS.
Unlike many local issues, the housing ordinance extended its emotional range to the University of California campus, where students and faculty members campaigned for and against it with equal fervor.
The university itself is forbidden by its own charter to take a position on political issues, but the Daily Californian, the campus newspaper, editorialized in favor of the ordinance and the student senate backed it.
Vigorous campaigning was conducted on campus by such groups as the students' committee for the fair housing ordinance and by the campus young Republicans and the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, Inc., both of which opposed the ordinance.
Both Governor Brown and Assembly Speaker Jesse M. Unruh, neither of whom is a Berkeley resident, had urged Berkeleyans to support the measure.
CALIFORNIA VOTE IN 1946 ON FEPC PROPOSAL This is in response to your request for information about the vote in California in 1946 on a proposed State FEPC law. The proposal was placed on the ballot in November 1946 as a result of an initiative. We could not find a copy of the proposal and so cannot give you a detailed summary, but newspaper accounts indicate that it would have made discrimination in employment unlawful and would have established a fair employment practices commission to enforce its provisions. It was defeated by approximately 1,682,000 votes to 675,000 (93 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 677). (American Law Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia has likened his proposal to a constitutional amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD, article V of the Constitution, the amending article.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
ARTICLE V
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mod. of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, That no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, nothing in article V of the Constitution calls for submitting a constitutional amendment to the people of the United States. The constitutional-amendment process is invoked whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary; and if they do deem it necessary and if they so indicate, the proposed amendment then is submitted to the legislatures of the respective States; it is not submitted to the people of the United States.
So there is no valid comparison between the procedure suggested by the Senator from Georgia and the amendment Process of the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I believe the amendment of the Senator from Georgia would result in a true petition from the people of the United States.
In speaking of petitions, I believe all Senators will agree that the first amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In other words, if we submit this proposal to the people and if a direct vote of the people is obtained, we shall find that then they will have truly petitioned the Government; and I truly believe that if this issue were submitted to them and if they were given the right to vote on it, many Senators -- those who at present are advocating the proposed legislation -- would be surprised.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, it seems to me that we have here a very interesting and significant amendment which provides an opportunity for our respective constituents to express themselves on a piece of proposed legislation which probably affects them directly, individually, morally, and spiritually, as much as, if not more than, any other bill we have had before us in a quarter of a century.
When I first heard of the Russell amendment, I was inclined to oppose it, on either one of two grounds:
First, I thought it would be a dilatory device which, after the Senate had worked its will on the bill and had approved it, as I am confident we shall do, would delay appreciably the application of the legislation. But such is not the case, because the amendment calls for a vote next November, and calls for the bill to become operative as soon as the votes are counted, as provided in the text of the amendment, if a majority of the people vote in favor of the bill.
Next, I thought perhaps the amendment was a device whereby States reluctant to go along with the civil rights program might develop some kind of cyclone cellar for themselves by voting in the negative. But from reading the amendment and from the statement of the eminent Senator from Georgia, it is clear that even though a majority of the people of certain States were to vote in the negative, if a majority of the people of America as a whole, were to vote in the affirmative, the bill would become operative for all the States.
Mr. President, before the end of next week each of us in the Senate will express our convictions and register our judgment on this civil rights measure in a rollcall vote. That is as it should be but what is wrong with giving the people of the United States a chance also to express themselves at the polling places, in a secret ballot, on an issue of this magnitude?
I speak as one who voted for cloture, despite the fact that I come from a small State where the whole concept of cloture is repugnant, and where cloture is recognized as something to be used only as a last resort, in order to get the machinery of Government in the legislative branch moving. I speak as one who voted for cloture also because I believe there does come a time when even the most controversial of issues must be submitted for determination by majority vote. I do not believe in rule by minority objections or by minority decision.
I believe in government through self-determination by majority rule; and I should like also to know how the majority of the American citizens actually feel about this proposed legislation, after it is passed; and I speak as one who intends to vote for the bill, on the question of its final passage.
Referendums are not new in our American society. In my State, the referendum process is well established, and is frequently used. Usually the decisions of the legislative body are supported in the referendums; but sometimes they are upset; and our State's legislature is not immune to the results expressed by means of such referendums. Neither is the legislative body in Washington, D.C., in my opinion immune to the wishes of the people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from South Dakota has expired.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized for 3 more minutes.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I point out that over and over again Congress has enacted farm legislation to be submitted to the people in a referendum before it becomes effective. So there is nothing new about such a proposal. In fact, sometimes Congress has passed farm legislation and, in that connection, has established the degree or extent of the support it must receive by the people affected before it will go into effect. Frequently the degree of support required is substantially more than a simple majority. In such cases we trust the people on the farms who are most directly affected either to validate or to invalidate the decisions which Congress has made. I hold that we can also trust the people of America to do what is right in a national referendum.
The pending bill deeply affects every family and every individual in the country. Its effectiveness and success will in the final analysis depend upon the cooperation and the attitudes of the American people. Our people are badly divided in their views in regard to the bill. In my State there are approximately 700,000 citizens; but I have received, in toto, less than 1,500 letters from the people of South Dakota, and they are divided -- some on one side, some on the other. I am curious to know the feelings of the people who have not written to me, because they, too, are Americans, and all of them will be affected by this proposed legislation.
Since no delay is involved, except for a matter of 2 or 3 months; since the pending bill is of vital importance to all Americans; since the final result would be determined by popular vote of all the citizens; and since the result would be effective upon all our States, 1: submit that this amendment is a salutary and constructive one; and unless we are afraid that the people we represent will disagree with our decision and that we have misjudged their attitudes I see nothing wrong in giving all the people an opportunity to approve or to nullify our decision, as they desire, in the November election. After all, we in this country are dedicated to the concept of government by, of, and for the people.
So, Mr. President, I shall support the amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I appeal to all Democratic Senators to vote for this amendment, if they really believe that Thomas Jefferson was correct when he stated that the just powers of the Government "are derived from the consent of the governed."
Mr. LAUSCHE. On my own time, will the Senator from Georgia yield for some questions?
Mr. RUSSELL. Gladly.
Mr. LAUSCHE. In determining whether approval has been given to the program, would the votes cast in the individual States on the basis of majority be treated as State votes, or would the decision be made on the basis of the aggregate number of votes cast in the country?
Mr. RUSSELL. The decision would be made on the aggregate of the total number of votes cast in the country, as appears in subsection (b) on page 10, where there is described the method of determining the election by the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint session, as is done in the case of other elections, but not under those rules.
Subsection (b) reads as follows:
(b) If a majority of the votes cast in the referendum approve of the first 11 titles of this act, such titles shall become effective, except with respect to title VII -- which is by terms extended to section 718 -- on the date on which the declaration of the President of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives is made.