Evening star., 1960-06-09
SUFFRAGE
Continued From First Page

adopted by the House, the rule
would demand a vote either
for or against the suffrage
resolution exactly as it was
reported by the Judiciary and
Rules Committees.
A fresh amendment will stand
a better chance of winning the
two-thirds vote necessary for
passage than would the origi-
nal which carried the Senate
number for identification, stra-
tegists decided.
Their tactic was aimed not
only at passage. 1t also was
intended to bar any attempts
to expand suffrage, now limited
in the amendment to local bal
loting in presidential elections
Mr.. Celler's new resolution is
identical to one reported two
weeks ago by his Judiciary
Committee except for one tech
nicality. 1t carries a House
number. The first committee
amendment carried a Senate
number.
Refresher Course
To understand the strategy
shaped by the Rules Commit
tee, one needs a refresher
course on the legislative history
of the amendment.
The Senate passed last Feb
ruary 2 an amendment to do
three things: Cd Grant Wash
ington residents the right to
vote for President and Vice
President and to elect dele
gates to the House; (2) abolish
poll taxes, and (3) permit
State Governors to fill House
vacancies.
This Senate resolution was
carried over to the House. The
Speaker referred it to Mr.. Gel
ler's Judiciary Committee.
There, Mr.. Celler held hear
ings before a subcommittee on
only the first part of the Sen
ate amendment-that is, on
District suffrage.
His committee struck the
District representation section
and reported a resolution lin
tied to the presidential vote.
To expedite congressional,
clearance, the House commit
tee reported the resolution with
the Senate number. but substi-
tuted the committees own Ian
guage.
Common Technique
This is a technique often
used. 1t simply allows the Sen
ate to accept on the floor with
out referral to committee. any
House substitute for a Senate
passed bill.
But judiciary committeeman
failed to reckon with the think
ing of members of the Rules
Committee. At a Rules Com
mittee hearing yesterday, THESE
members decided they wanted
District residents to vote for
President and Vice President,
That's all the suffrage they
wanted, but they wanted that
much assured of passage.
Had they recommended de-
bate on the Senate-numbered
resolution, Mr.. Celler would
have had to move on the floor
to substitute District suffrage
for the three-pronged Senate
amendment.
Defeat Was Seen
Rules committeeman believed
this Celler motion could have
been defeated by House mem
bers who support the poll tax
bar. In other words, anti-poll
tax members could have refused
to limit debate only to District
suffrage.
Thus, if the Celler motion
were voted down. the debate
could have exploded into a
wrangle over all three stricken
Senate proposals-District rep
resentation. the poll tax bar
and the House vacancy pro-
| position.
Such wrangle could we'll
kill even the presidential vote,
rules committeeman reasoned.
This fight could develop, how
ever, only if the Senate number
were on the resolution. The
Senate numbered measure
blankets all three Senate-ap-
proved amendments.
To avert the fight, they sug-
gested that Mr.. Celler intro
duce a new Dill with a House
number.
Suffrage Only Issue
The House-numbered resolu-
tion deals only with District
suffrage.
The Rules Committee wanted
to block any chance Of expand
ing that suffrage and passed
the presidential and vice pres
idential vote. Attachment of a
poll tax bar could scuttle it.
Adding District representation
was diStasteful in itself to
committeeman.
So. they directed Chairman
Smith TO recommend a closed
rule for House debate. Under
this rule, the House must vote
the resolution up or down in
its entirety.
| There is one small chance for