DIRECT POPULAR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1979 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 1:38 p.m. in room 2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Senators present: Senators Bayh, Hatch, Thurmond, and Simp son. Staff present: Nels Ackerson, chief counsel and executive director; Mary K. Jolly, staff director; Linda Rogers-Kingsbury, chief clerk; Marcia Atcheson, counsel; Kevin Faley, general counsel, Louise Milone, legislative assistant; Fred Williams, legislative assistant to Senator Bayh; Steve Holley, staff aide; Tom Parry, minority chief counsel; Števe Markman, minority counsel; Jim Lockemy, counsel to Senator Thurmond; Charles Wood, counsel to Senator Simpson. Senator BAYH. We will reconvene our hearings here this after noon. Our first witness is Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. He has many titles. For the work he has done in the Urban League, of more recent vintage, he is renowned and well-known throughout the country, and he comes today, I think, as the president of the Black Leadership Forum. Mr. Jordan, please join us here. Mr. Carl Holman and Mr. Eddie Williams are also present. TESTIMONY OF VERNON E. JORDAN, JR., CHAIRMAN, BLACK LEADERSHIP FORUM, ACCOMPANIED BY CARL HOLMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COALITION; AND EDDIE N. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, JOINT CENTER ON POLITICAL STUDIES Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here as chairman of the Black Leadership Forum and I am happy to be accompanied by my colleague, Mr. M. Carl Holman, president of the National Coalition, and Mr. Eddie Williams, president of the Joint Center on Political Studies. Mr. Chairman, before getting into my prepared testimony, I would like to comment on being in the rather unusual and awkward stance of opposing the position of my friend, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Birch Bayh. (163) Senator Bayh is an old and dear personal friend, but more than that, he has long distinguished himself as a fighter for the rights of black people. There are few national leaders so esteemed in the black community, so respected for their integrity, their wisdom and their sincere commitment, as is Senator Bayh. So while my colleagues and I part company with the Senator on this issue, I wish it to be clearly understood that this is a temporary parting confined to a single issue. The Senator's sincere commitment to the democratic process as reflected in the direct election issue is, a worthy one, but, in our view, misplaced, for direct election would result in serious setbacks for minorities. Senator BAYH. Thank you for all those nice words, Mr. Jordan. Now we will have our next witness. [Laughter.] Mr. JORDAN. So while we disagree on this issue, disagree sharply, it must be evident that the Senator still retains a special place in the affections of black people. In my testimony, I shall attempt to convince this committee, and my good friend, Birch Bayh, why the electoral college should not be replaced. On behalf of the Black Leadership Forum, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for agreeing to hold further hearings on this important subject. The Black Leadership Forum was formed in 1977 to represent the collective interests of a broad spectrum of the black community. It is composed of the heads of 16 national civil rights and political organizations. Today I am speaking not for all those 16, I'm speaking specifically with the authorization for the following members of the Black Leadership Forum: Julius L. Chambers, president of NAACP Legal Defense Fund; Dorothy Height, president of National Coalition of Negro Women; Carol Holman, president of National Urban Coalition; Benjamin Hooks, executive director of NAACP; Joseph Lowery, president of Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Bayard Rustin, president of the A. Phillip Randolph Institute; Eddie N. Williams, president of Joint Center for Political Studies; Richard Hatcher, the Mayor of Gary, Ind.; Jesse Jackson, president of the People United to Save Humanity; and Vernon Jordan, president of the National Urban League. I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to introduce a letter from Congresswoman Cardiss Collins of Chicago to the chairman, dated March 29, 1979, which on an individual basis endorses this testimony. We wish to commend the efforts by the members of the subcommittee to assure the broadest possible citizen participation in the Presidential selection process. We are also aware of the consideration given during the deliberations of this subcommittee to the fate of black voters in this process. After careful examination of Senate Joint Resolution 28. after much soul searching and weighing of available evidence, including our own knowledge and experience, we must voice the strongest opposition to the proposal to abolish the electoral college. Our reasons are as follows: One. The proposed reform could be far more injurious to the political process of this country than are the problems it seeks to solve. Two. There is no constitutional crisis which necessitates emergency legislation in the face of foreboding uncertainties about the effects of direct elections. Three. The precious, though limited, political influence of black Americans would be curtailed under direct elections. Four. The major flaw in the presidential selection process, namely the possibility of a faithless elector, can be corrected by simply doing away with the electors while maintaining the electoral college. Five. The electoral college represents an essential balancing mechanism in our political system. It prevents the dilution of political representation for minorities and for residents of more populous States. Congress is weighted disproportionately in favor of small States. North Dakota and New York each have two Senators. In the House, some small States have Representatives with far fewer constituents than those representing large urban areas. The electoral college system thus helps balance the national political process. It has served well over 200 years and there is no need to change it now, especially if that change works against the interests of the cities and minority groups. Six. Retention of the electoral college is essential for the maintenance of the two-party system that has helped insure the stability of the American political process. Do away with the indirect election of the President through the electoral college mechanism, and the door to the end of the twoparty system is opened. It could also lead to election of a President by a minority of voters unless a run-off election takes place, and a run-off would be in itself an incitement for minor parties which could bargain away their endorsements to the highest bidder. Certainly the George Wallace-type campaign would flourish without the restraining influence of the winner-take-all electoral college system. In our view, a persuasive case has already been made in support of these propositions, and there is no need for me to repeat the arguments here. They are well known to this body. However, I would like to comment specifically on what we believe would be the disastrous impact of direct elections on black people. Over the years much persuasive testimony and evidence have been submitted to this subcommittee to show that by virtue of their residential and voting patterns racial and ethnic minorities. derive some political advantage under the electoral college system, thereby offsetting some of the historical economic, social, and political deprivations imposed on these minorities. As the subcommittee knows, the late Professor Alexander M. Bickel of Yale Law School was a major proponent of this view. The 1970 Brookings Institution study on "The Electoral College and the American Political System" also makes this point. The American Jewish Congress, the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the Joint Center for Political Studies, among others, share this view. In the landmark Brookings study, Sayre and Parris oppose direct elections, in part, on the following grounds: Just as the direct-vote plan would reduce the voting power of the most populous States, it would also end the ability of their metropolitan areas to swing an entire bloc of votes from one column to another. With this change, the metropolis would lose its most important point of leverage in the total political system. Smaller cities, towns, and rural areas would gain relative to metropolitan areas. On the whole, the proponents of direct popular elections agree with this analysis. However, there is a marked difference of opinion on the question of whether blacks would gain or lose under direct elections as compared to the electoral college system. Proponents of direct elections, including Longley and Yunker, say that racial and ethnic minorities, especially blacks, are disadvantaged by the electoral college but would be advantaged by direct elections which favor smaller States and rural areas where, they claim, incorrectly, blacks tend to reside. In fact, the bulk of the black population is disproportionately concentrated in nine States: California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1976, almost 52 percent of the total black voting age population resided in these nine States which have a total of 245 electors-just 25 short of the number needed to elect a President. The Census Bureau also reported that in 1976, 75 percent of the black voting age population lived in metropolitan areas and that 75.5 percent of registered black voters lived in metropolitan areas. It seems to us, therefore, to be obvious that the black population, especially the black electorate, tends to be more concentrated in the metropolitan areas of the nine largest States which are favored by the present electoral college system. These Census Bureau figures gain additional significance from the fact that in the last two decades, no Presidential candidate has been elected without winning at least five of these nine States. In 1960, 1968, and 1976, the winning margin in most of these States was less than 1 percent of the total vote. Therefore, the black vote, given its characteristics, took on even greater significance as a swing vote. The black vote has played a similar role in a number of small and medium-sized States and is enhanced there, as well, by the system of weighting provided by the electoral college. In addition to the evidence provided by these data, there is yet another reason why blacks prefer to see the Presidential election system tilt in favor of the most populous States. It is what I call the empathy factor. In the final analysis, blacks' success in Presidential politics is dependent upon their ability to leverage their minority votes and views into the will of the majority. Thus, the real issue is not only one of how many black voters are located in which States, but where blacks can reasonably expect to build coalitions with other minorities and whites to achieve true justice and equality. History and experience tell us that these expectations are more likely to be realized in the large States, especially the industrial States of the North and West. It is in these States that more white voters can be expected to empathize with issues of major concern to blacks and where black-white coalitions have influenced the outcome of many Presidential elections since 1936. Why, then, one might ask, would not these coalitions exist under direct elections? They would not exist because direct elections would change many of the political parameters which make such coalition-building possible. They would not exist because the twoparty system would undergo radical transformation. They would not exist because a proliferation of splinter parties and single issue candidates-black and white-would polarize voters. They would not exist because a long, drawn out election process would discourage low-income voters. Direct elections also would dilute the influence of major white groups and organizations which have historically helped to protect black interests. It is this combination of factors which is the greatest bulwark against a modern-day Hayes-Tilden compromise in Presidential politics. It is this combination of factors, and not the black vote alone, which is critically important to the welfare of black Americans and which we believe would be lost if the electoral college were abolished. Yet, another crucial factor relates to the necessity of Presidential candidates to win the electoral votes of at least five of the most populous States. Not only does this enhance the importance of the minority votes in those States, but it forces candidates to address themselves to issues of importance to minorities. It is highly probable that under a system of direct election, candidates could ignore matters of deep concern to urban populations and to minorities, confident that they need not win a plurality of big-State votes. A respectable showing in the big States, even on the order of only 40 percent of the votes, would be sufficient, given large majorities in smaller and rural States. The result would be not only the effective disenfranchisement of minorities, urban dwellers, and the poor, but the lack of incentive to address issues of concern to them. The electoral system thus forces candidates to deal with a broad variety of issues and thus requires a degree of responsibility that direct elections would weaken. The direct election plan would work against blacks in still another way. It would magnify the political weakness blacks already suffer in terms of their relatively low registration and turnout rates, especially in the South. As Sayre and Parris point out: Groups lower in socio-economic status, who are less likely to vote them are the more affluent, would stand to lose under the direct-vote plan. This is because voting would be the basis for representation in the nationwide tally; under the existing system, population is the basis of the size of a State's representation in electoral votes. Mr. Chairman, this prompts me to correct another myth about the black electorate. The myth is that since passage of the Voting Rights Act, blacks have made it in the political system. This simply is not so. Black registration and turnout rates continue to be 10 to 15 percentage points below that of whites. Black registration has declined from 66 percent in 1968 to 58.5 percent in 1976. There is apathy because there is economic deprivation and disillusionment. Where, then, are the black votes to make blacks competitive in direct elections? I submit they do not exist. That is why we tend to agree with those scholars who argue that "abolition of the electoral college would create the appearance of direct mass election and the reality of indirect elite manipulation." |