Evening star., 1960-04-21

SIIOlBly SuppOrJ-OuC OF con-
viction as well as constitutional
obligation-the guarantees of
religious equality provided by
the First Amendment-and 1
ask only that these same guar
anteeS be extended to me.
Secondly: Can we justify
analyZing voters as well as can
didates strictly in terms of
their religion?
1 think the voters of Wiscon-
sin objected to being catego-
rized simply as either Catholics
or ProtestantS in analyzing
their political choices. I think
they objected to being accosted
by reporters outside of political
meetings and asked one ques-
ton only-their religion-not
their occupation or education
or philosophy or income-only
their religion.
And I think they had a right
to object. The flood of post
primary analyses on the So
called Catholic vote" and
Protestant vote" - carefully
shaped to conform with their
authors pre-primary predic-
tions-would never be published
in anv competent statistical
journal.
Only this week. I received a
very careful analysis of the
Wisconsin results. 1t conclu-
sively shows two significant
patterns of bloc voting: I ran
strongest in those areas where
the average temperature in
January was 20 degrees or
higher, and poorest in those
areas where it was IA degrees
or lower-and that I ran well
in the beech tree and bass
wood counties and net so we'll
among the hemlock and pine.
Anyone who thinks these
trends are merely condolences
OF no relevance has never tried
to campaign in Wisconsin in
January. In any event, this
analysis is being rushed TO
West Virginia. where I am as
sured that the winter is less
severe and the Eastwood are
abundant. 1t has been sug-
gcSted, however, that to offset
my apparent political handi-
caps I may have to pick a
running mate from Maine, or
preferably, Alaska.
Stand Up StatiStically
The facts of the matter are
that this analysis stands up
Statistically much better than
all the so-called analyses of
the religious vote. And so do
analyses of each county based
OIL their distance from the
Minnesota border, the length of
their Democratic tradition and
their inclusion in my campaign
itinerary. I carried some areas
with large proportions of voters
who are CatholicS-and I lost
some. I carried some areas
where Protestants predominate
and I lost some.
1t is true that I ran we'll in
citieS-and large numbers of
Catholics live in cities. But so
do union members and older
voters and veterans and chess
fans and Eastwood lovers. To
say my support in the cities is
due only to the religion of the
voters is incapable of proof and
an unfair indictment of their
political maturity.
OF those Catholics who voted
for me, how many did so on
grounds of my religion-how
many because they felt my op-
ponent was too radical-how
many because they resented the
attacks on my record-how
many because they were union
members-how many for some
other reason? do not know
And the facts are that no one
knows.
For voters are more than
Catholics, Protestants or Jews.
They make up their minds for
many diverse reasons, good and
bad. To submit the candidates
to a religious test is unfair
enough - to apply it to the
voters themselves is divisive,
degrading and wholly unwar-
ranted.
Third and finally: Is there
any justification for applying
special religious tests to one Of
flee Only-the presidency?
Little or no attention was