[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 8. Elections and Election Campaigns]
[B. Time, Place, and Regulation of Elections]
[§ 6. Elector Qualifications; Registration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 865-876]
CHAPTER 8
Elections and Election Campaigns
B. TIME, PLACE, AND REGULATION OF ELECTIONS
Sec. 6. Elector Qualifications; Registration
The original Constitution and Bill of Rights left the determination
of qualifications required of electors to vote for Members of the House
entirely up to the states.(10) At the time of the adoption
of the Constitution, qualifications based on status, such as property
ownership, were a widespread prerequisite to the exercise of voting
rights. Since that time, the power of the states to prescribe the
qualifications of electors for Representatives and for Senators
(11) has been severely proscribed by constitutional
amendments extending the franchise to U.S. citizens without regard to
such matters as race, color, or sex,(12) and by federal
legislation protecting the integrity of the congressional electoral
process.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, clause 1. See also House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 6, 7 (1973).
11. The 17th amendment altered the Constitution in directing the
election of Senators by the people of the state, rather than by
the state legislatures.
12. See the 15th amendment (race, color, previous condition of
servitude); the 19th amendment (sex); the 24th amendment (poll
tax); the 26th amendment (age).
13. For a summary of such legislation, see Constitution of the United
States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. No. 92-
82, 108-111, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (comments to U.S. Const. art.
I, Sec. 4, clause 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 866]]
The first step in the voting process for electors is voting
registration. Although registration is primarily regulated by the
states, congressional authority to preempt state regulation extends to
the registration process.(14) Civil rights legislation
enacted by Congress has provided for federal registrars and other
procedures to insure that citizens qualified under the Constitution are
not denied voting participation by rejection of registration
applications on an arbitrary or discriminatory basis.(15) In
judging election contests, the House or Senate may have occasion to
construe state laws regulating registration and the effect of
violations thereof.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See United States v Louisiana, 225 F Supp 353 (D. La. 1963), aff'd,
380 U.S. 145; Katzenbach v Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan,
250 F Supp 330 (D. La. 1965).
15. See, for example, 42 USC Sec. 1971 (a) (2), (e). See also South
Carolina v Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), construing
registration provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For
early federal court approval of federal registrars, see In re
Sundry Citizens, 23 F Cas. 13 (Ohio 1878).
16. See Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The states may prescribe reasonable qualifications for voting in
congressional elections as long as the requirements do not contravene
constitutional provisions or conflict with preemptive federal
legislation enacted pursuant to law.(17) Residency
requirements, absence of a previous criminal record, and an objective
requirement of good citizenship are examples of allowable voter
qualifications.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Harman v Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965); Davis v Schnell, 81 F
Supp 872 (D. Ala. 1949), aff'd, 336 U.S. 933.
Although the Constitution itself does not confer federal
voting rights on any person or class of persons, Kuffman v
Osser, 321 F Supp 327 (D. Pa. 1971), the electors do not owe
their right to vote to a state law prescribing qualifications
for the most numerous branch of their own legislature in any
sense which makes the exercise of the right depend exclusively
on the state law. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 663 (1884);
United States v Mosley, 238 U.S. 883 (1915).
18. Lassiter v Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45
(1959).
In relation to Presidential elections, Congress abolished
state durational residency requirements and provided for
absentee balloting. See United States v Arizona, 400 U.S. 112
(1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first voter qualification which was prohibited from
consideration by the states was race,
[[Page 867]]
color, or previous condition of servitude; the 15th amendment provided
not only that the right of citizens to vote should not be denied on
those grounds but also granted Congress the power to enforce the
amendment by appropriate legislation. Race as a substantive
qualification in elections and primaries,(19) as well as
procedural requirements which effectively handicap the exercise of the
franchise on account of race, were barred.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The same test to determine discrimination or abridgement of right
to vote as applied in a general election should be applied to a
primary election, and a resolution of a political party
limiting membership to white citizens where membership in a
political party was an essential qualification was an
unconstitutional provision. Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649
(1944), rehearing denied, 322 U.S. 769. For Congress' authority
over primaries, see Sec. 7, infra.
20. See Wayne v Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the 15th amendment, Congress may legislate to protect the
suffrage in all elections, both state and federal, against state
interference based on race, color, or previous condition of
servitude,(1) and under the 14th amendment Congress may act
to prevent state interference with any citizen's voting
rights.(2) Under article I, section 4, clause 1 of the
Constitution, Congress can legislate against private as well as state
interference but only in relation to federal elections.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See James v Bowman, 190 U.S. 127 (1903); United States v Reese, 92
U.S. 214 (1876); Larche v Hannah, 177 F Supp 816 (D. La. 1959),
reversed on other grounds, 263 U.S. 420, rehearing denied, 364
U.S. 855; South Carolina v Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1939).
2. Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966); Oregon v Mitchell, 400
U.S. 112 (1970).
3. See Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110
U.S. 651 (1884); United States v Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has enacted a number of statutes, dating from 1870 to the
present, providing a variety of remedies against interference with
voting rights.(4) Some of those statutes have provided for
federal officials to actively supervise congressional elections in the
[[Page 868]]
states and directed suspension of otherwise permissible voting tests,
such as literacy requirements,(5) which are designed and
administered so as to deny voting rights in a discriminatory
way.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For early legislation, see Carr, Federal Protection of Civil
Rights: Quest for a Sword (Ithaca, 1947). Later acts were the
Civil Rights Act of 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-315, 71 Stat. 634;
Voting Rights Act of 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-449, 74 Stat. 86;
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241;
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437;
Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 73;
Civil Rights Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-285, 84 Stat. 314.
5. For permissible literacy requirements, see Lassiter v Northampton
County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959); Trudeau v
Barnes, 65 F2d 563 (5th Cir. 1933), cert. denied, 290 U.S. 659.
6. For construction of federal legislation suspending literacy tests,
see Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966); South Carolina v
Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966); Gaston County v United States,
395 U.S. 285 (1969). See also Davis v Schnell, 81 F Supp 872
(D. Ala. 1949), aff'd, 336 U.S. 933; Louisiana v United States,
380 U.S. 145 (1965).
A ``grandfather clause'' exemption from an educational
qualification prescribed by a state constitution is
unconstitutional. Guinn v United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915);
Myers v Anderson, 238 U.S. 368 (1915).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasion, titles to seats in the House have been challenged for
reason of denial of voting rights, either through a systematic state
pattern (7) or through private action by either the
candidate or party officials.(8) On many such occasions,
challenges and contests have been dismissed or denied due to the
difficulty in obtaining substantial evidence of actual abridgment of
voting rights or of a connection between the challenged Member and the
alleged abridgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7, supra.
8. See Sec. Sec. 6.3, 6.5. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other state-ordered voter qualifications have been removed by way
of amendment of the federal Constitution. The right to vote regardless
of sex was established in 1919 with the adoption of the 19th amendment.
The right of all citizens to vote without paying a poll tax was
affirmed through the adoption of the 24th amendment, following the
passage by the House but not by the Senate of a bill in the 80th
Congress to make unlawful a poll tax in any federal
election.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 6.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right of citizens to vote has been set by the 26th amendment of
the Constitution at 18 years of age or older. Prior to the adoption of
this amendment, Congress had amended the Voting Rights Act in 1970 to
authorize 18-year-olds to vote in all elections, both state and
federal.(10) The Supreme Court held that although Congress
did have authority under the Constitution to fix the age of voters in
federal elections,(11) Con
[[Page 869]]
gress had no power to fix an age requirement for voting in state
elections.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Pub. L. No. 91-285, 84 Stat. 314.
11. One Justice was of the opinion that power was conferred on Congress
by U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 4, clause 1, and four Justices were
of the opinion that power was conferred on Congress by the
enforcement clause of the 14th amendment, Sec. 5. United States
v Arizona, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), rehearing denied, 401 U.S. 903.
12. The Court held that the 10th amendment to the Constitution reserved
to the states the power to establish voter age qualifications
in state and local elections. Oregon v Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112
(1970). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voter Registration
Sec. 6.1 Violations of a state's registration and election laws
prohibiting transportation of voters to places of registration,
providing qualifications for registrars, confining registration to
certain hours, and requiring detailed registration lists were held
not to affect the results of an election, and therefore did not
nullify the election.
On June 19, 1948, the House adopted without debate House Resolution
692, dismissing an election contest:
Resolved, That the election contest of David J. Wilson,
contestant, against Walter K. Granger, contestee, First
Congressional District of Utah, be dismissed and that the said
Walter K. Granger is entitled to his seat as a Representative of
said district and State.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 9184, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution was adopted pursuant to a report of the Committee on
House Administration recommending the contest be dismissed; the
committee had determined that violations of Utah's registration laws
applicable to congressional elections did not affect the election
results and did not require the voiding of the election.(14)
The registration laws in issue prohibited transportation of voters to
places of registration, required qualifications of registrars, confined
registration to particular hours, and mandated detailed registration
lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Rept. No. 2418, submitted June 17, 1948, 94 Cong. Rec. 8964,
80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.2 To provide a basis for the rejection of votes allegedly given
by illegal registrants, challenge must have been made at the time
of registration.
On Mar. 19, 1952, the House adopted without debate House Resolution
580, affirming the right of a Member-elect to his seat:
Resolved, That Ernest Greenwood was duly elected as
Representative
[[Page 870]]
from the First Congressional District of New York to the Eighty-
second Congress and is entitled to his seat.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 2517, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
The resolution was adopted pursuant to a report of the Committee on
House Administration submitted on the same day. The committee had ruled
that votes claimed to have been given by illegal and fictitious
registrants in congressional elections must have been challenged at the
time of registration. Where the contestant files petitions to annul the
votes of such registrants, he must show that he took testimony from
those registrants and that they voted for his opponent.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Rept. No. 1599, 98 Cong. Rec. 2545, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenges to Seats for Denial of Voting Rights
Sec. 6.3 Where the House by resolution has authorized the Committee on
House Administration to investigate the question of the final right
of a Member to his seat, the committee will not consider charges
against party officials that they conspired to nullify the will of
the voters, where there is no evidence to connect the Member to
such conspiracy.
On Sept. 8, 1959, the Committee on House Administration submitted a
report of an investigation of the final right of a Member to his
seat.(17) The report stated in part that the committee had
refused to consider charges against Arkansas party officials that they
had conspired to nullify the will of the voters, where no evidence was
tendered to connect the challenged Member, Mr. Dale Alford, with any
such conspiracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Rept. No. 1172, 105 Cong. Rec. 18610, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. The
House adopted H. Res. 380, affirming the right to a seat of Mr.
Alford (Ark.), id. at p. 18611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.4 Where the right of an entire state delegation to take the oath
was challenged by reason of systematic denial of voting rights, the
challenge was treated as a contested election case and later
dismissed by the House.
On Jan. 4, 1965, the convening day of the 89th Congress, a
challenge was made to the administration of the oath to all the
Members-elect from Mississippi. Those Members-elect stepped aside as
the oath was administered to the other Members.(18) The
House then authorized the Members-elect from Mississippi to be sworn in
after Mr. Carl Albert, of Okla
[[Page 871]]
homa, stated that ``Any question involving the validity of the
regularity of the election of the Members in question is one which
should be dealt with under the laws governing contested elections.''
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 18, 19, 89th Cong.
19. Id. at pp. 19, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election contest proceedings were then instituted,(20)
and the House later dismissed the contest.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 111 Cong. Rec. 24263-92, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1965;
111 Cong. Rec. 22364, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 31, 1965; and
111 Cong. Rec. 18691, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 1965.
1. One of the sitting Members whose seat was being contested voted on
the resolution dismissing the contest and then withdrew his
vote and was recorded as present. He stated that he felt he had
the privilege of voting on the resolution since in hearings
before the elections committee it was agreed that the election
contest was an attack upon the seats of the State of
Mississippi rather than against the individual Members-elect.
111 Cong. Rec. 24292, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.5 Exclusion proceedings were sought in the 80th Congress against
a Senator-elect charged with conspiracy to prevent voters from
participating in sensational elections.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 7.8, infra, for Senate expulsion proceedings in relation
to a candidate's illegal control of election machinery and
destruction of opposing ballots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 4, 1947, at the convening of the 80th Congress, the right
of Senator-elect Theodore G. Bilbo, of Mississippi, to be sworn in and
to take a seat in the Senate was challenged by the presentation of
Senate Resolution 1, which read:
Whereas the Special Committee To Investigate Senatorial
Campaign Expenditures, 1946, has conducted an investigation into
the senatorial election in Mississippi in 1946, which investigation
indicates that Theodore G. Bilbo may be guilty of violating the
Constitution of the United States, the statutes of the United
States, and his oath of office as a Senator of the United States in
that he is alleged to have conspired to prevent citizens of the
United States from exercising their constitutional rights to
participate in the said election; and that he is alleged to have
committed violations of Public Law 252, Seventy-sixth Congress,
commonly known as the Hatch Act; and
Whereas the Special Committee To Investigate the National
Defense Program has completed an inquiry into certain transactions
between Theodore G. Bilbo and various war contractors and has found
officially that the said Bilbo, ``in return for the aid he had
given certain war contractors and others before Federal
departments, solicited and received political contributions,
accepted personal compensation, gifts, and services, and solicited
and accepted substantial amounts of money
[[Page 872]]
for a personal charity administered solely by him'' . . . and
``that by these transactions Senator Bilbo misused his high office
and violated certain Federal statutes''; and
Whereas the evidence adduced before the said committees
indicates that the credentials for a seat in the Senate presented
by the said Theodore G. Bilbo are tainted with fraud and
corruption; and that the seating of the said Bilbo would be
contrary to sound public policy, harmful to the dignity and honor
of the Senate, dangerous to the perpetuation of free Government and
the preservation of our constitutional liberties; Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the claim of the said Theodore G. Bilbo to a
seat in the United States Senate is hereby referred to the
Committee on Rules and Administration with instructions to grant
such further hearing to the said Theodore G. Bilbo on the matters
adduced before the Special Committee To Investigate Senatorial
Campaign Expenditures, 1946, and the Special Committee To
Investigate the National Defense Program and to take such further
evidence as shall be proper in the premises, and to report to the
Senate at the earliest possible date; that until the coming in of
the report of said committee, and until the final action of the
Senate thereon, the said Theodore G. Bilbo be, and he is hereby,
denied a seat in the United States Senate.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 93 Cong. Rec. 7, 8, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After debate, the Senate laid on the table the resolution and the
question as to whether the Senator-elect was to be sworn in, without
prejudice to his rights, since he had recently undergone an operation
and required further medical care. Senator-elect Bilbo later died in
the first session of the 80th Congress, before any further
consideration of his right to be sworn in.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 93 Cong. Rec. 109, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1947. For the
announcement of Nov. 17, 1947, concerning Theodore G. Bilbo's
death, see 93 Cong. Rec. 10569, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poll Tax Requirements
Sec. 6.6 Members of the House were advised that an individual who
threatened to contest the elections of Members from states having
poll taxes had no legal standing to contest such elections.
On Feb. 14, 1945, Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, Chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, addressed the House in relation to the
claim of a private citizen that he could contest the elections of 71
Members of the House of Representatives: Mr. Sumners inserted in the
Record a letter he had written to one such Member, advising him that
the citizen referred to had no standing to bring such election contests
Mr. Sumners advised Members to ignore the claim of the
citizen.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 91 Cong. Rec. 1083, 1084, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
For election contests initiated by petition of citizens,
see Ch. 9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 873]]
Sec. 6.7 The House under suspension of the rules passed a bill making
unlawful a requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a
prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election for national
officers, despite objections to its constitutionality.
On July 21, 1947, the House passed H.R. 29, rendering unlawful a
state poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary or other
election for national officers.(6) The bill was passed by
the House under suspension of the rules despite a point of order that
the bill violated the U.S. Constitution, especially article I, section
2, which authorizes the states, not Congress, to set the qualifications
of electors for Representatives. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, of
Massachusetts, overruled the point of order on the grounds that the
Chair does not pass on the constitutionality of proposed legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 93 Cong. Rec. 9552, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. For debate on the bill,
see pp. 9522-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate rejected the bill, but a constitutional amendment with
the same purpose was later ratified (see Sec. 6.8, infra).
Sec. 6.8 While the Committee on House Administration has jurisdiction
over legislation relating to poll tax requirements for federal
elections, the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over
proposals to amend the Constitution relative to federal election
requirements.
On July 26, 1949,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
submitted to the House the question as to the engrossment and third
reading of H.R. 3199, the anti-poll tax bill. Mr. Robert Hale, of
Maine, arose to offer a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
House Administration with directions that it report the legislation
back to the House in the form of a joint resolution amending the
Constitution to make payment of poll taxes--as a qualification for
voting--illegal. The Speaker ruled that the language carried in the
motion to recommit was not germane to the bill since a constitutional
amendment would lie within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Judiciary and not the Committee on House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 95 Cong. Rec. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.9 In the 87th Congress, a Senate joint resolution proposing a
national monument was amended in the Senate
[[Page 874]]
by striking all after the resolving clause and inserting provisions
of a constitutional amendment abolishing the poll
tax.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Anti-Poll Tax Amendment was ratified by 38 states and became
effective Jan. 23, 1964. 110 Cong. Rec. 1077, 88th Cong. 2d
Sess. (see U.S. Const., 24th amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 27, 1962, the Senate was considering Senate Joint
Resolution 29, providing for the establishment of a national monument.
An amendment was offered to strike out all after the resolving clause
of the resolution and to insert the provisions of a constitutional
amendment abolishing the poll tax in the states. The Vice President
ruled that the joint resolution could be so amended; he also ruled that
only a majority vote was required for the adoption of a substitute,
although a two-thirds vote was required on the adoption of the
resolution as amended.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 108 Cong. Rec. 5086, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (Vice President Johnson
[Tex.]). The Senate proceeded to pass the amended resolution by
a two-thirds vote.
For the entire Senate debate on the amendment and the
method by which it was being offered, see pp. 5072-105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House passed the measure under a motion to suspend the rules on
Aug. 27, 1962.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 17670, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residency Requirements
Sec. 6.10 An elections committee invalidated votes cast by workers who
were only temporarily in an election district, but found that those
votes, though disregarded, would not affect the outcome of the
election.
On Mar. 11, 1940, Elections Committee No. 3 submitted Report No.
1722 in an elections case, recommending that the seated Member, Mr.
Harrington, be declared entitled to his seat:
Resolved, That Albert F. Swanson is not entitled to a seat in
the House of Representatives in the Seventy-sixth Congress from the
Ninth Congressional District of Iowa.
Resolved, That Vincent F. Harrington is entitled to a seat in
the House of Representatives in the Seventy-sixth Congress from the
Ninth Congressional District of Iowa.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 2662, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. (H. Res. 419).
The resolution was agreed to, the committee having determined that,
although certain votes cast by workers temporarily present in the
election district were invalid, the rejection of those votes would not
change the result of the election.
Sec. 6.11 A contestant who alleges that certain voters in an
[[Page 875]]
election did not reside in the precincts where registered must
present evidence of the claimed irregularities sufficient to
overcome the presumption that the election officials properly
performed their duties.
On Mar. 19, 1952, the House adopted without debate House Resolution
580, affirming the right of a Member-elect to a seat:
Resolved, That Ernest Greenwood was duly elected as
Representative from the First Congressional District of New York to
the Eighty-second Congress and is entitled to his
seat.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 2517, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution was adopted pursuant to a report of the Committee on
House Administration submitted on the same day. The committee found
that votes claimed to have been given by illegal registrants, not
residing in the precincts where registered, must have been challenged
at the time they registered or voted. The committee also invoked the
general rule that the contestant must produce evidence in such cases,
through testimony and documents, proving the fact of nonresidence in
the county for the statutory period of time, to overcome the
presumption that election officials properly perform their
duties.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Rept. No. 1599 (98 Cong. Rec. 2545, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.). The
committee had also found that a local court opinion was
controlling as to when residence commenced to run, in the
absence of challenge to a registrant at the time of
registration or voting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Protection of Voting Rights
Sec. 6.12 In the 89th Congress, the President delivered a special
message on voting rights to a joint session and submitted to
Congress proposed legislation which was enacted into law as the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
On Mar. 15, 1965, the House and Senate met in joint session,
pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 117, to hear an address by the
President of the United States.(14) The President's message
was directed to denial of voting rights on racial grounds and urged the
passage of federal civil rights legislation to protect those
rights.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 5058, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Id. at pp. 5058-63. The President submitted a legislative proposal
for voting rights legislation which became H.R. 6400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislation suggested by the President led to the passage by
Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the bill being signed by the
President at the Capitol on
[[Page 876]]
Aug. 6, 1965.(16) In 1966, the act was upheld as
constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. On Aug. 6, 1965, the Senate stood in recess in order to receive the
President of the United States. When the Senate reassembled,
there was ordered to be printed in the Congressional Record the
proceedings conducted at noon on the same day, when the
President had delivered a message in the Rotunda of the Capitol
and then retired to the President's Room in the Capitol in
order to sign into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 111 Cong.
Rec. 19649, 19650, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. For the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, see Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437. For
codification see 42 USC Sec. Sec. 1971 et seq.
17. In upholding the validity of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in
Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Supreme Court
cited congressional materials in finding a rational basis for
the act. See 111 Cong. Rec. 10676, 10680 (May 20, 1965), 15671
(July 9, 1965), 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------