It is important, Senator, to have the record show that there is a very, very substantial number of people, probably between, certainly more than, a quarter of a million and possibly a third of the million U.S. citizens here in the District who are qualified to vote in the District and have no right to vote anywhere else.

Senator BAYH. May I interrupt briefly? The League of Women Voters yesterday said that according to their experience there had been a little over more than 500,000 who were qualified to vote of the 800,000, but that 100,000 to 150,000 of those who voted elsewhere. Is that in the ball park, as far as you know?

Mr. WARNER. It is a dangerous thing to disagree with the League of Women Voters, but the total adult population 21 and over in the 1960 census was 508,000. I have some projections and, as a matter of fact, the Census Bureau has furnished the House with projections indicating that it is about the same population at this time.

Senator BAYH. That is what they said.

Mr. WARNER. They did?

Senator BAYH. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Well now, of the 500,000, 21 and over, we know as a very firm matter that about a quarter of a million, not quite a quarter of a million, registered to vote here in 1964, that is they registered to vote under the 23d amendment and under the enabling legislation.

Now, when you register to vote in the District, Senator, you sign an affidavit in which you swear that you claim no right to vote anywhere else. We have 219,000, almost 220,000 people registered. That was just for the first presidential election, and we know from experience, I have been working with the Board of Elections since it was set up, that there are a great many more people who want to register and vote, will register and vote as the electorate is built up. So I would say a ball park figure would be between a quarter of a million qualified electors and a third of a million based on our experience from 1956 to date.

Senator BAYH. That is not too far removed from the estimate of the league. In fact

Mr. WARNER. I am relieved, sir.

Senator BAYH. It is close.

Excuse me, I don't want to ask questions if it will interfere with your statement.

Mr. WARNER. The second point is we all recognize what we are asking for is an evolutionary development in the Constitution. You don't amend the Constitution unless you have a need to do so. It is very clear that it is necessary to amend the Constitution to provide us with voting representation in the Congress just as it was in the 23d amendment necessary to amend the Constitution so we could vote for President, and the basic reason, of course, is that the District of Columbia is not a State, and that is the be-all and end-all of the whole problem. As I say, we recognize we are asking to become a delegation to each House of Congress, and this raises the problem which we should face right away and has always been faced when a new State is under consideration, that is dilution of the Senate, dilution of the House. We recognize that, and we recognize also that we are asking for something that the Congress has not yet arranged; that is, the admission of a

nonstate, not as a State, but as a Federal enclave that needs representation. Those are the bald facts, and we recognize that we are a new kind of an animal. I think we can do a good job, gentlemen, in the Halls of Congress. I think we have an extremely competent group of people here in the District of Columbia who, when they are dry behind the ears will furnish you good Senators and good Congressmen. They bring a real love of the representative process and a real knowledge about it which probably is unsurpassed by any one group in the United States.

Those are the two main points I wish to make.

If there are any technical points on qualification or the equal sufferage problems and other problems which have been under consideration by this committee, I shall be glad to try to answer them.

Senator BAYH. You touched on one of the problems, Mr. Warner, that has been raised from the practical standpoint. We have received estimates of the number of citizens residing in the District who are registered elsewhere. In fact they are really not counted in those States as we understand it because of the way the Census Bureau determines residence. I think from our conversation with the Attorney General yesterday this is not an insurmountable question, it just changes the situation a little bit. You don't see any problem in ascertaining who is eligible to vote in the District of Columbia?

Mr. WARNER. Well, from the point of view of deciding whether a particlar person can register and vote, there is no problem.

Excuse me just a moment. I have a document I wish to submit to you, sir. I would like to put into the record a copy of the 1964 regisiration affidavit.

Senator BAYH. We will be glad to have it in the record. (Document referred to follows:)

Mr. WARNER. It is very clear this has to be signed by anybody who wants to register to vote and he has to state he is a U.S. citizen, 21 years of age and certain residence requirements and competency requirements, and that he does not claim the right to vote elsewhere. It is just as clear as could be. Up at the top of the affidavit it says criminal penalties if you make a false statement. So there it is. That is how you do it, and 220,000 people did it in 1964, and that is done as a result of statutes which have been passed by the Congress.

Senator BAYH. You see no problem in this?

Mr. WARNER. On that point. On the census point, of course, there is a difference between the total number of people who are 21 years of age in the District and those who are eligible to vote. We have aliens, we have people from the embassies, of course, they are not dual citizens. There are people who are in St. Elizabeth's Hospital; they are the ones who have been committed there and have been declared insane; they are not qualified to vote. This is true, Senator, all over the United States, and there is in other words all over the United States there is a slight distortion between the number of people who are counted for census purposes and those who are counted for voting. This happens all over the United States and it is somewhat greater here.

You will find, Senator, there is a useful exchange of correspondence between the Director of the Census and the House Judiciary Committee in the hearings before the House Judiciary Committee on this whole subject.

Let me suggest to you that there are absentee voter bureaus all over the United States. So this problem is all over.

Senator BAYH. Both parties, as I understand, have large absentee ballot operations in the District of Columbia. Do you have any idea how many absentee ballots are sent out to citizens who wish to use them?

Mr. WARNER. Well, the brief answer is "No." I have seen figures between 100,000 and 150,000. We have to remember that a lot of people don't have to go to an absentee voter bureau. They can handle it by themselves. A lot of people just receive their ballots in the mail or apply to their own secretary of state so that never goes through an absentee voter bureau.

But if you say that there are 150,000, I think that is a ball park figure probably, we must remember there are a lot of people who work here, and probably a number of people in this room work here, and come up here every day, but they live in the suburbs and, of course, they are not part of our electorate.

It seems to me that as a ball park figure a maximum number of the adults who would be qualified, adult residents of the District who would be qualified, to vote in these District of Columbia elections are probably two out of three, maybe 60 percent, somewhere.

Senator BAYH. Well, yes; thank you.

Mr. Powell, may I ask you a couple of questions? You suggested you would prefer the House-passed measure which would give the District, immediately upon ratification, the representation it would be entitled to if it were a State. There are a couple of things in there that I would like to draw to your attention. As a distinguished member of the bar, do you feel it is necessary to particularly specify, as

it does here in House Joint Resolution 396, the qualifications of a Senator or Representative? Do you feel that is necessary or that, from the standpoint of draftsmanship, this could be excluded under the normal inference that any Senator or Representative, whether he is from the District of Columbia or Indiana, would be treated with the same rights and privileges and obligations and would be required to meet the same standards required for service?

Mr. POWELL. I am aware of the fact that one of the dissenting Congressmen in the House pointed out that if these people ought to be, in fact, Senators and Representatives this clause is unnecessary.

But it is my opinion that because of the fact that the District has begun life not as a State and is not yet a State and will not be made a State by virtue of this legislation or constitutional amendment that this particular sentence in section 1 of House Joint Resolution 396 is desirable. In other words, I would rather have the question laid to rest than have any question remain, and I think this does lay it to

rest.

Senator BAYH. All right.

Gentlemen, I appreciate very much your taking the time to let us have your thoughts. I will see that both of your statements are incorporated, in toto, in the record, as well as your extemporaneous remarks. We appreciate your continued interest in this and I hope you will be successful.

Mr. POWELL. Senator, we are happy to have had the privilege to appear.

(Statement of Mr. Warner follows:)

STATEMENT OF STURGIS WARNER

My name is Sturgis Warner. I am a resident of and an attorney in private practice in the District of Columbia. First, in my capacity as Chairman of the District of Columbia Bar Association's Committee on Pending Legislation, I wish to associate myself strongly in support of President Powell's statement. Next, and in my individual capacity as a private lawyer, based on my work on voting matters here over the last twenty years, I would like to make two points. The first point is that the size of the actual District of Columbia electorate which would be affected by this amendment is very substantial-clearly over one quarter of a million votes and probably about a third of a million. In the 1964 Presidential election about 220,000 of us registered here to vote and each of us took an oath that we were U.S. citizens, living in the District of Columbia who did not claim the right to vote anywhere else. This is hard evidence as to the potential size of our electorate. We know that there are many more District residents who are potential registrants and who will register and vote regularly when this pending Constitutional proposal is ratified. This Constitutional amendment is much wanted by District citizens.

The second point is that the basic purposes of the Article I exclusive jurisdiction clause of the Constitution with respect to the District of Columbia will continue to be served by this amendment, and will I think be served substantially more effectively after its ratification. The whole purpose of Article I. Section 8, Clause 17 was to give Congress power to run its own capital. This it will continue to do when the amendment is ratified, but with the addition of a small number of elected colleagues from the District of Columbia.

Every time that Congress has considered whether to add a new state, the question of dilution of Congressional membership is a natural and proper subject of concern. We all recognize that the issue comes up now in connection with this proposed Constitutional amendment, and possibly especially so because the District is not a state, we are not destined to become a state, and, in effect, we are a new kind of animal.

But if you look back over the years you will see how, despite the prior fear of dilution, Congress has repeatedly absorbed each new state and has gained strength from each new addition. Every new jurisdiction brings something of value to these halls.