I do not believe it is right to take a State which has expressed itself in a free and open election in favor of one particular party and which has indicated in the public enrollment where it stands partywise and allow a few politicians operating in the backroom to sit down and redraw that State so that the will of the people is thwarted and so that as in the case of New York State, a State which is 50-50 Democrat and Republican turns out to be 5-to-3 Republican, and not as the result of any free and open and fair election with the people expressing their will, but simply, as a result of politicians drawing lines on a map in a backroom. Now I say this all advisedly, Mr. Chairman, because since the first of the year I have been extremely vocal in New York State in insisting that the Governor, who is after all the leader of the Republican Party in my State and therefore responsible for what is done and also has the responsibility for signing any bill that is passed into law, to try to get him to insist that this matter of redistricting be at least the subject of open public hearings so that the people who are affected can be heard, and so that communities which are going to be cut in the middle, communities which are going to be tacked as the tail to some other district, can come forward and have a chance to be heard. And so that we can have some assurance that the basis on which this redistricting action is taken is not just partisan politics but is really predicated on some intelligent understandable principles which are directly designed not to thwart the will of the people but to give expression to it. Mr. Chairman, I have had no assurance of this. The Governor has refused any attempt to open the matter up to public hearings. The legislative leaders have said there is nothing the public could tell them anyway they are at all interested in knowing, that they know it all, already. I think this is a truly disgraceful situation, particularly in view of the fact that here in Congress we have open public hearings on almost every piece of legislation, just as a matter of course, even on bills many of us are not in favor of. So I think, Mr. Chairman, this is the problem to which Congress must ultimately address itself. I am not certain what the answer is. I do agree with the gentleman from Montana and with yourself, Mr. Chairman, that it doesn't seem to make sense to propose that two or three people in the Census Bureau or in Washington should decide what the lines should be in Montana, Mississippi, New York, or anywhere else. But it does seem to me that at least there ought to be certain standards that would actually protect the people and I do not think that we have them now. I do not think we fully have them even in the Celler bill although I think that would be a very great step in the right direction and I support the bill. But even if the districts are compact and if they have equal population, it is still possible apparently in New York State to come up with a scheme that can thwart the will of the people. I have used the word "Rockymander" to refer to this kind of device in contrast to "gerrymander" because it is apparently a means of avoiding representing the real political division of the State without resorting to unnatural shapes, as Governor Gerry of Massachusetts did. I think some day, Mr. Chairman, we will have to do for the House of Representatives what we did for the Senate. That is, take the selection of Members out of the hands of politicians in the backrooms and to give it to the people generally. Because see what can happen. in this redistricting. In New York State for example there is going to be a net switch of 12 votes from the Democrats to the Republicans in the House of Representatives. That could be the controlling majority in the House. Now maybe the people would want that to happen in 1962, but I don't think it ought to be made to happen automatically just by having people drawing lines on a map in a backroom. I apologize for the length of my statement, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not being able to address myself to a specific piece of legislation. I have been trying to work out a bill of my own that would perhaps solve this problem I have mentioned and protect us without having congressional lines drawn in Washington. But I haven't so far come up with a device that exactly meets the situation as I see it. However, I do feel that the Corbett bill is perhaps one approach, the Celler bill another, and I do feel that beyond this we face a further problem which the House must consider in the very near future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WILLIS. I have an idea that my colleague to my right would want to ask a couple questions. Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate our colleague from New York coming before this committee to discuss this subject. We had public hearings before another subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee some time ago on the Celler bill which would require that all congressional districts be compact and contiguous and they not vary in population more than a certain norm. I think it was either 15 or 20 percent. This is a very good bill which I supported and I do not think the gentleman came before the committee to testify for that bill, as I recall. Mr. STRATTON. I might say that I wasn't aware the hearings were held, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LINDSAY. They were widely advertised. Mr. STRATTON. I am fully in support of the Celler bill. Mr. LINDSAY. They were in the newspapers. This was 2 years ago. The gentleman from New York could have helped the subcommittee by showing up then and expressing some interest in this subject. I expect it only came to the gentleman's attention after the possibility arose that his own congressional seat might be lost. But the gentleman is quite right when he says this subject should be approached on a point of view of political science, what is best for the country, what is best for the U.S. Congress as a whole and how it can possibly be the most efficient and effective in this modern day and age. Incidentally, I might add that the State of New York is one of the few States that would not be affected at all by the Celler bill, in terms of population varying more than 15 percent. All congressional districts are pretty much the same in size of population. In terms of compact and contiguous, there are some areas where there could definitely be improvements, though there are complexities there. In New York City, for example, what do you do with Staten Island? It cannot be a congressional district all by itself. One of the problems that is raised is, should it be with Brooklyn or should it be attached to some other part of New York. So I think the gentleman's statement that somehow New York State has violated sound public policy in drawing up congressional districts bears reexamination from this point and as a matter of fact the point I am now making was all brought out in the hearings which the gentleman did not attend. Secondly, there is no evidence that the figures that you state as to the switch between Republicans and Democrats are facts. I cannot see why you get these figures myself. And in any event the State legislature has not met. I myself cannot get the figures as to what is going to happen on redistricting of New York. So I think that the gentleman is jumping the gun a little bit and being unduly sensitive on this subject and I think the fact is borne out by the fact that not a single one of your colleagues on the Democratic side from New York have supported you in this regard. In fact, quite to the contrary. Until they can make any determination that there is any unfair process taking place in the legislature-which as I say hasn't even met yet-they are not going to fly off halfcocked and make charges which they know they cannot back up. Thirdly, I do not think that it comes in good taste for our friend from New York to make a partisan attack upon the Governor of New York before this subcommittee which is considering a matter which has to do with the general welfare of this country as a whole, and has nothing to do with the gentleman's particular regard for the Governor of his own State. Mr. WILLIS. I will give the gentleman one-half minute in rebuttal and then we will have to move to other witnesses. Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, may I say I am making no political attack on the Governor of the State. Mr. LINDSAY. What do you call "Rockymandering" and backroom politics and all that, when nothing has taken place except the rumor that Mr. Leo O'Brien is going to absorb his district? Mr. STRATTON. I hope the gentleman's remarks will not be taken out of my 1 minute, Mr. Chairman. I am making no political attack on the Governor of our State. I am simply trying to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that we have a situation in the one State with which I am most familiar which I think points up the seriousness of this whole redistricting problem. May I just say that the reason I do not think that the Celler bill meets the situation is that it is possible apparently on the basis of the projected division of New York State to thwart the will of the public without drawing any extreme or unusually weird shapes, although the present district represented by my colleague, Mr. Carey, does look like the Monday morning wash on the line and that is therefore a pretty good example of a noncompact district. May I just make these two other points, Mr. Chairman: With respect to the breakdown I have mentioned, the Republican national chairman himself has given that as his own estimate of what the net result will be, and with respect to the action of the legislature it is my information that they are going to be called to meet in special session on November 9 and then they are scheduled to fly to Europe on November 11, so I cannot see how there can be any very serious or heartfelt consideration of this question in just 2 days. Mr. WILLIS. Let me say that the politics of New York are probably no better or worse than the politics in Louisiana. We are glad to hear from both of you. Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Chairman? I would like to ask a question. Mr. STRATTON. There was a redistricting done in 1950, yes. Mr. BATTIN. Who had control of the State legislature in New York then? Mr. STRATTON. The State legislature was under the control of the Republicans. In fact, that great New Yorker, Al Smith once suggested that the legislature is "constitutionally" Republican in New York State. Mr. BATTIN. You testified that the breakdown of the Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, gave a majority to the Democrats and that was done with a Republican State legislature? Mr. STRATTON. No. We Democrats did not get this majority by redistricting. We had to fight for it, an uphill fight. Mr. BATTIN. The question then is, if the Republican legislature in 1950 created the redistricting, that is what you are running into today. Mr. STRATTON. The districts in 1950 were something in the nature of 17 Republican to 26 Democrat, if I remember correctly. That was still the situation in 1958 when I first ran for Congress and it has taken two elections to reverse that balance. I think this is clear evidence of the way in which the people of New York are thinking and this is why I feel very strongly that what the people have expressed as a trend should not be reversed merely by drawing lines on a map in the back room. Mr. BATTIN. Your State legislature, I presume, like most States, is represented on a county basis? Mr. STRATTON. That is right, yes. Mr. BATTIN. The composition of this is Republican or you would be objecting to it at the moment? Mr. STRATTON. As I say, this is not a partisan matter, because I do not support what has been done in some States that are controlled by the Democratic legislatures. I think this is a problem that should be taken out of the hands of people who say, "We will get it in our State," or "You will get your chance if you get the legislature," and instead put on an intelligent and rational basis. That is all I am saying. Mr. LINDSAY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BATTIN. Yes. Mr. LINDSAY. Does the gentleman have any reason to suspect the Governor of New York would not support a bill, assuming that it is constitutional, a bill which is a little bit of a problem? I suppose the gentleman has not examined that question to see if it requires that the State legislature see if the districts are compact and contiguous. I suspect the Governor of New York would support that. Mr. STRATTON. I have not gotten any indication from the Governor that he is interested in anything except a purely partisan division such as was reported in the press. Mr. BATTIN. He sent me a wire that is very partisan, incidentally. Mr. STRATTON. He switched his position very rapidly on this subject. I cannot tell exactly where he might stand on this other one. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I want to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. I compliment the gentleman from New York for broadening the scope of this hearing. It does point up to the need to view this from a representational standpoint as far as redistricting and redistricting standards are concerned. I think this adds to the hearing. Mr. STRATTON. I appreciate that. May I just add, Mr. Chairman, since there seems to be a suggestion that I am injecting politics into my testimony, may I point out that the distinguished former Vice President of the United States, Mr. Nixon, took a very dim view of the redistricting action of the California Legislature which was roughly parallel to the action now being contemplated by the New York State Legislature. Since the Governor of New York has associated himself with Mr. Nixon in other matters recently, I might hope that he would take the same Mr. LINDSAY. I think it is unfortunate that our friend from New York has not been able to get a single ally among the Democrats from New York in Congress and this is quite significant. Mr. STRATTON. I am sure that they are all behind my view. Mr. WILLIS. I notice the presence of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. O'Brien. You have already expressed yourself, is that right? Mr. O'BRIEN. Yes, sir. Mr. WILLIS. I have the idea that you favor the legislation? Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Fountain? STATEMENT OF HON. L. H. FOUNTAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. FOUNTAIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity. My presence here today was prompted by my having been here at your previous hearing when the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Chelf, and others testified in connection with the legislation you are now considering. It dawned on me, however, during the course of testimony at your previous hearing that there might well be some statistical information that would be helpful to this committee and which would bear upon the subject of your inquiry here today. I called upon the Library of Congress to provide that information but it has not yet been made available to me. When I get it I would like the consent of the committee to put it in the record. Generally, some of the items I requested have already been covered, but I think the information I have requested will reveal very clearly and specifically the extent to which our Government has grown since the membership of Congress was increased to 435. It will reveal, for example, the size of our national budget, at that time as compared with it today, the extent of our military operations, the size of our Government, and the extent of our responsibilities all over the world, all of which naturally have increased the responsibilities of the Members of Congress. 74691-61-8 |