Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525847
label
Republican Mayors Conference, St. Louis, MO, May 31, 1965
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525847
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Republican Mayors Conference, St. Louis, MO, May 31, 1965
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Apportionment
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525847
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1965-05-31
month
5
year
1965
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-05-01
month
5
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
e11d9c5e2c0c1257
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D18, folder "Republican Mayors Conference,
St. Louis, MO, May 31, 1965" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D18 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
from
William the desk of B. Prendergast guill
This is a suggestion.
The proposal on Congressional
redistricting may seem startling.
I'd libr to discuss it with you,
It would make news.
WBP
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
May 26, 1965
DRAFT OF SPEECH - HONORABLE GERALD R. FORD
AT REPUBLICAN MAYORS CONFERENCE IN ST. LOUIS
May 31, 1965
There are two distinct purposes behind the trip that other House Republican
leaders and I have made to be with you here in St. Louis.
One reason is our need and desire for an exchange of views with you on
urban area problems. Since we in the Congress are legislating for a nation
that is overwhelmingly urban, we need the first-hand information that you can
provide on the difficult problems which you have to deal with as Mayors of our
large cities. We are turning to you for expert guidance so that we may do our
job better as Members of the Congress.
In his address to the Conference this morning, my colleague, Clark MacGregor,
offered some observations on handling urban area problems as seen from the vantage
point of the Congress. He made some suggestions for improvements in the practices
of the national government in its efforts to assist you in meeting these problems.
I heartily concur in the observations and the suggestions that Mr. MacGregor has
made.
In your session this afternoon my colleagues listened with profit to what
is on your minds. Out of this meeting has come the kind of information which
will enable us to play a more helpful role in dealing with urban problems in the
future.
The second reason for this gathering is, frankly, political. This afternoon
and this evening we Republicans of the House of Representatives have been meeting
with Republican Mayors. At such meetings the strengthening of the Republican Party -
that is to say, making the Republican Party a more effective agency for the service
of the general welfare - is a major objective.
- 2 -
The results of the 1964 election have left the future of the two Parties in
the United States in grave doubt depth. I believe that one Party monopoly is bad -
not only for the Minority Party, but bad for all citizens. Effective competition
by two strong Barties in politics, like competition in business, means more
efficient government, greater heed to the needs and desires of the citizens,
and progress in overcoming problems. Two Darty competition at the national
level can exist only if two strong Darties exist throughout the nation at the
local level. You and I have a common interest that transcends our interest
in getting re-elected in working to reinvigorate the Republican Party and to
expand its ranks.
Rebublicon
The area of chronic weakness has been our cities. In 1960 the Republican
candidate for the Presidency was defeated in the nation because he was overwhelmed
in a few big cities. In 1964 the Republican Presidential ticket was overwhelmed
almost everywhere - but again its greatest weakness was in the big cities.
The pattern of the decline of the Republican Party shown in the election
returns of our major cities in the last three Presidential elections is distressing.
But if this Republican Party is ever to make a come-back it must face the bitter
fact of its desperate situation in the cities and it must act to change things.
Let me cite three figures for you which illustrate my point. In 36 cities
(the largest cities in the 1950 census), President Eisenhower got 7 million votes
in 1956. Mr. Nixon got 5½ million in 1960 and Barry Goldwater got 4,200,000
votes in 1964. In these cities collectively, Eisenhower received 51% of the
vote in 1956; Goldwater got 31% in the most recent Presidential election.
GERALD LIBRARY R. YORD
- 3 -
Yet there is another side of the picture which is somewhat more encouraging.
In 1964 Republican candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives
and for State and local offices generally ran well ahead of the Presidential
ticket. This was true particularly in the cities. In the House of Representatives
Republicans were elected from Districts located wholly or in part in such cities
as New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Omaha, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Pittaburgle, Seattle,
San Diego, Phoenix, Birmingham, and others.
Your presence here is further evidence that the cities of the nation are
not inhospitable territory for all Republicans. The fact that you have been
elected as the chief executive of your city gives you an important part to play
in the process of rebuilding our Party. Anyone who knows how to win in a city
deserves a place of special honor in Republican the ranks of Republican leaders.
I need not tell this audience whatineeds to be done. A plan of action,
which incidentally was never adequately implemented, was offered by Ray Bliss
in 1961, known popularly as the "Big City Report." I think it is time to take
this Report off the shelves, dust it off, and begin following its advice. And
I shall urge Mr. Bliss, now that he is in a better position to translate his
advice into action, to begin to do so. Any effort of this kind will need the
full support of Republican Mayors if it is to be successful.
Representative government in the United States is undergoing a change of
great significance because of the Supreme Court's enunciation of the one man,
one vote principle. The change is one which I welcome for the national House of
Representatives. A principle is involved here so important as to override all
others under considerationS, The national House of Representatives should be
composed of members representing districts relatively equal in population.
GERALD
- 4 -
State legislative bodies in all parts of the nation have too long engaged
in the practice of drawing Congressional district boundaries as though the
or of
fortunes of a political Party are for an individual office holder or would-be
were the dominant
office holder pewer of consideration. The process of determining such
boundaries must be done henceforth with the recognition that the interests of
citizens must be overriding. The gerrymander is an infringement on the citizens'
right to vote. Unfair Congressional districting deprives some citizens of their
right to choose their representatives just as effectively as do the poll tax,
unreasonable literacy and residence requirements, ballot stealing, or any of
violate
the
other
devices
that
the most basic civil right.
shele
It seems to me almost necessary that the process of Congressional districting
Transferred
be from State legislative bodies to impartial tribunals if
justice is to be achieved. Redistricting by State legislatures almost inevitably
involves the placing of Party advantage or individual advantage before the
interest of the citizens in equitable representation.
As I have said, I believe that this is a matter on which principle must
govern. I do not believe, however, that Republicans have anything to fear from
the changes which the application of the one man, one vote principle will bring
in the House of Representatives. Republicans have been getting the short end
of the stick under Congressional districting arrangements in the recent past.
How badly the Republican Party has fared is apparent when you sensider the
is
scompared
the share of the vote which Republican candidates have received with the share of
the House seats which Republicans have won.
To take the two most recent examples, in 1962 Republican candidates for
the House of Representatives received 48 per cent of the vote cast for the House
GERALD ASSURAT
- 5 -
but won only 40 percent of the seats. In 1964 Republican House candidates
32
received 43 percent of the vote, but the Republicans occupy only s percent
of the seats of the House of Representatives.
The
The reason for this disparity is very clear. Embrising Congressional
of1962 and 1964 were
districts, have been established principally by State legislative bodies under
were
Democratic control and they havember so drawn as to provide maximum benefit
for the Democrat Party.
GERALD
Profecel alfrech #1 (yonhave areginal)
May 26, 1965
DRAFT OF SPEECH - HONORABLE GERALD R. FORD
AT REPUBLICAN MAYORS CONFERENCE IN ST. LOUIS
May 31, 1965
There are two distinct purposes behind the trip that other House Republican
leaders and I have made to be with you here in St. Louis.
One reason is our need and desire for an exchange of views with you on
urban area problems. Since we in the Congress are legislating for a nation
that is overwhelmingly urban, we need the first-hand information that you can
provide on the difficult problems which you have to deal with as Mayors of our
large cities. We are turning to you for expert guidance so that we may do our
job better as Members of the Congress.
In his address to the Conference this morning, my colleague, Clark MacGregor,
offered some observations on handling urban area problems as seen from the vantage
point of the Congress. He made some suggestions for improvements in the practices
of the national government in its efforts to assist you in meeting these problems.
I heartily concur in the observations and the suggestions that Mr. MacGregor has
made.
In your session this afternoon my colleagues listened with profit to what
is on your minds. Out of this masting has come the kind of information which
will enable us to play a more helpful role in dealing with urban problems in the
future.
The second reason for this gathering is, frankly, political. This afternoon
and this evening we Republicans of the House of Representatives have been meeting
with Republican Mayors. At such meetings the strengthening of the Republican Party -
that is to say, making the Republican Party a more effective agency for the service
of the general welfare - is a major objective.
GERALD
- 2 -
The results of the 1964 election have left the future of the two Parties in
doubt
the United States in grave depth. I believe that one Party monopoly is bad -
not only for the Minority Party, but bad for all citizens. Effective competition
by two strong Parties in politics, like competition in business, means more
efficienty government, greater head go the needs and desires of the citizens,
and progress in overcoming problems. Two party competition at the national
level can exist only if two strong Parties exist throughout the nation at the
local level. You and I have a common interest that transcends our interest
in getting re-elected in working to reinvigorate the Republican Party and to
expand its ranks.
Republican
The area of has been our cities. In 1960 the Republican
candidate for the Presidency was defeated in the nation because he was overwhelmed
in a few big cities. In 1964 the Republican Presidential ticket was overwhelmed
almost everywhere but again its greatest weakness was in the big cities.
The pattern of the decline of the Republican Party shown in the election
returns of our major cities in the last three Presidential elections is distressing
but if this Republican Party is ever to make a come-back it must face the bitter
fact of its desperate situation in the cities and it must act to change things.
Let me cite three figures for you which illustrate my point. In 36 cities
(the largest cities in the 1950 census), President Eisenhower got 7 million votes
in 1956. Mr. Nixon got 5½ million in 1960 and Barry Goldwater got 4,200,000
votes in 1964. In these cities collectively, Eisenhower received 51% of the
vote in 1956; Goldwater got 31% in the most recent Presidential election.
- 3 -
Yet there is another side of the picture which is somewhat more encouraging.
In 1964 Republican candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives
and for State and local offices, generally ran well ahead of the Presidential
ticket. This was true particularly in the cities. In the House of Representatives
Republicans were elected from Districts located wholly or in part in such cities
as New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Omaha, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Pittsburgh, Seattle,
San Diego, Phoenix, Birmingham, and others.
Your presence here is further evidence that the cities of the nation are
not inhospitable territory for all Republicans. The fact that you have been
elected as the chief executive of your city gives you an important part to play
in the process of rebuilding our Party. Anyone who knows how to win in a city
deserves a place of special honor in the ranks of Republicans.
I need not tell this audience whateneeds to be done. A plan of action,
which incidentally was never adequately implemented, was offered by Ray Bliss
in 1961, known popularly as the "Big City Report." I think it is time to take
thiskReport off the shelves, dust it off, and begin following its advice. And
I shall urge Mr. Bliss, now that he is in a better position to translate his
advice into action, to begin to do so, Any effort of this kind will need the
full support of Republican Mayors if it is to be successful.
Representative government in the United States is undergoing a change of
great significance because of the Supreme Court's enunciation of the one man,
principle from a practical political matter
one vote plan. The change is one which I walcome for the national House of
Representatives. A principle is involved here so important as to override all
others under consideration.S. The national House of Representatives should be
composed of members representing districts relatively equal in population.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 4 -
State legislative bodies in all parts of the nation have too long engaged
in the practice of drawing Congressional district boundaries as though the
or of
fortunes of a political Party an individual office holder's or would-be
were the dominent
office holder's - consideration. The process of determining such
boundaries must be done henceforth with the recognition that the interests of
such
citizens must be overriding. the gerrymander to an infringement on the citizens'
right to vote. Unfair Congressional districting deprives some citizens of their
right to choose their representatives just as effectively as do the poll tax,
unreasonable literacy and residence requirements, ballot stealing, or any of
the other devices that are Violate condemned as violations of the most basic civil rights.
Banfon it seems to me almost necessary that the process of Congressional districting
the
record
a carelan be made
Gensferred
be sehen from State legislative bodies and delegated to impartial tribunals if
the
justice equity is to be achieved. VRedistricting by State legislatures almost inevitably
Tor often the problems of ignitable gets smoked
department
involves the placing of Party advantage or individual advantage before the
interest of the citizens in equitable representation. The net result logist delay, a squary. lach
8
As I have said, I believe that this is a matter on which principle must
govern. I do not believe, however, that Republicans have anything to fear from
the changes which the application of the one man, one vote principle will bring
in the House of Representatives. Republicans have been getting the short end
of the stick under Congressional districting arrangements in the recent past.
How badly the Republican Party has fared is apparent when you consider the
is compared
the share of the vote which Republican candidates have received/with the share of
the House seats which Republicans have won.
To take the two most recent examples, in 1962 Republican candidates for
the House of Representatives received 48 per cent of the vote cast for the House
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
- 5 -
but won only 40 percent of the seats. In 1964 Republican House candidates
32
received 43 percent of the vote, but the Republicans occupyed only 33 percent
of the seats of the House of Representatives.
the
The reason for this disparity is very clear. Existing Congressional
0f1962 and 1964 were
established principally by State legislative bodies under
Democratic control and they have=been were so drawn as to provide manimum benefit
for the Democrat Farty.
k
FORD & GERALD BRAR,
alternative to Professed fact #/
Mayor's Conference
St. Louis
May 31
There are several reasons behind the trip that other House Republican
leaders andI have made to be with you here in Louis.
One reason is our need and desire for an exchange of views with you
on urban areaproblems. Since we in the Congress are legislating for a Nat ion
that is overwhelmingly urban, we need first-handinformation that you can
provide on the difficult problems which you have to deal with as mayors of
our larger cities. We are turning to you for expert guidance so that we may
do our job better as Congressmen.
My colleggue Clark MacGregor this morning in an address to the Conference
offered some observations on handling urban area problems as seen from the
vantage point of Congress. He made some suggestions for improvements in the
practices of national government in its efforts to assest you in meeting
these problems. I heartily concur in the observations and the suggestions that
Clark has made.
In your session this afternoon my colleagues listened with profit
to what is on your minds. Out of this meeting came the kind of information
which will enable us to play a more helpful role in dealing with urban problems
in the future.
-more-
DERALD FORD LIBRARY
Mayor's conference
St. Louis
&
Another reason for this gathering is--frankly--political. This
afternoon and this evening we Republicans of the House have been meeting
with Republican mayors. The major objective of these get-togethers is
to strengthen the Republican Party as a more effective agency for the
service of the general welfare.
The area of chronic Republican weakness has been our cities. The
pattern of our Party's decline in the past three Presidential elections
is distressing. In making a combback, the
Republican Party must reverse the situation in the cities by earning the
respect of the electorate.
Your presence here is evidence that the cities are not inhospitable
And
(long pause)
territory for all Republicans. you have won election. I might add,
that anyone who knows how to win deserves a place of special honor
in the ranks of the Republican Party.
Extending my remarks beyond the scene of this meeting to Washington,
I remind you of the speedy growth of federal power that is building
king-sized government.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
checked
Centralism will be - only when national leaders refuse to encourage
-more-
Mayor's conference St, Louis
-3-
the "easy way" of federal assistance, and state and local leaders assume the
responsibility and privilege of local action and control. The answer is not
a call to easy living, but rather an opportunity for strength through struggle.
You-with all local officials throughout the country have the answer.
When in concert, local leaders proclaim loudly and clearly "we will do the job"
the first step toward checking federal centralism will be taken.
Those who disagree with this theory, who the insist on either running
to Washington for federal financial aid or who push for legislation that
of
allocates handouts to cities and states, must be aware the end
result...... federal money means federal control.
Leaders of local governments who earnestly want to maintain responsible
direction of guidance of their cities should keep in mind the danger of losing
those responsibilities. For you see it is quite obvious that
the more extensive the federal aid the more likely and the more serious
the federal dictation.
Another reason for speaking with you this evening is to discuss two
major goals which must be achieved if the American Democracy is to continue
to exist and to be strengthened throughout subsequent generations.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
of
- more-
Two major goals must be achieved if the American Democracy is to continue to
exist and to be strengthened throughout subsequent generations,
First, we must maintain a balance in the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches of government as established by our Constitution.
The parallel task is to preserve the two-party system. the genius of our
Democracy.
Enlarging upon the first goal, that of keeping the three branches of government
in balance, I believe that if any one of them becomes too strong or too weak, the
foundations of our government will crack and our freedom will be threatened.
There are disturbing signs of slow erosion in the power of the Legislative
branch, a build-up of awesome strength in the executive arm, and a change from the
intended direction in the Federal Judiciary.
Congress, the legislative branch, has been criticized as being too slow to
react in an age of speed. Critics have described the House and Senate as being too
cumbersome and too old-fashioned.
Those critics perhaps are unaware that in Congress a system of checks and
balances is provided by the Constitution.
When speed is essential, Congress has proved many times that it can react with
dispatch to meet a crisis in war or in peacetime, in days of economic depression or
in times of glowing prosperity.
It has been said that Congress frequently makes haste slowly. However, the act
of deliberate slowness is a safeguard against racing to the brink of decision. It
prevents a dangerous plunge. Congress should reach its major decisions only after
adequate research, thought, and exhaustive discussion.
When the balance of power in Congress is steeply tilted by an overwhelming
majority in one political party, the system of checks and balances is endangered.
This becomes even more serious when the executive branch is dominated by the same
party.
Although the President is the chief executive and head of state for all of us,
he does represent especially the views of the people who voted for him. Members of
Congress, and particularly those in the House of Representatives, are closer to the
Nation's citizens because they are chosen by smaller segments of the Nation.
Members of the House are elected every two years, a fact which in itself places
Representatives closer to the people. Every two years a Representative must go to his
constituents for a mandate to continue in office. His record is placed on the line
and he must be endorsed by a majority of the voters in his district.
more
As in the Senate, the House is represented by nearly every major profession,
national origin, and religion. Congress is a cross-section of the American people,
This is your strength. It should not be lessened by an over-balance of power in the
executive and judicial branches of government.
The responsibilities of Congress are clearly defined in the Constitution, and
include the making of all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying out the
duties and powers of government.
Under the Constitution, every statute requiring concurrence of Congress must
be presented to the President before taking effect. If the chief executive rejects a
proposed act, he can be over-ruled by a two-third majority vote of the Senate and
the House,
It is quickly obvious that a crushing over-balance of political power in both
houses of Congress and in the executive branch weakens the sefeguards of the
Constitution.
Reflecting on the duties and obligations of the third branch of government, it
can be said that the Federal Judiciary's function is to interpret the Constitution
and the laws,
There is evidence that the Judicial Branch is arbitrarily elbowing its way to
new positions of authority, disregerding the wise suggestions of judicial restraint
made by the late Justice Frankfurter and others.
When the Supreme Court ordered states to reapportion on the "one-man, one vote"
concept, Justice Frankfurter in a dissenting opinion was critical of an assumption
by the Court of "destructively novel judicial power."
"In this situation, as in others of like nature, appeal for relief does not
belong here," Justice Frankfurter said. "Appeal must be made to an informed,
civically militant electorate. In a democratic society like ours, relief must come
through an aroused public conscience that sears the conscience of the people's
representatives."
Justice Frankfurter emphasized that the Supreme "Court's authority--possessed
neither of the purse nor the sword--ultimately rests on sustained public confidence
in its moral sanction."
I have stressed the need to preserve the two-party system as among the major
areas of concern in maintaining our structure of government.
Without any indulgence in partisanship, I am sure we can agree that a strong
two-party system is bedrock assurance that our Democracy will survive, prosper, grow,
and help others in the world to accept their role in the society of free nations.
-more-
A crushing over-balance of strength in either party for too long a
time makes a mockery of our traditions in government, weakens and softens
the voice of the people, and places control in the hands of a comparatively
small majority.
These it seems to me are currently the major goals in the area of
government: a sensitive balance in the legislative, executive and
judicial branches, and a strong two-party system.
I urge that you help accomplish these goals not only in the national
benefit
interest but for the - of each city, town, village and community
in America.
If we fail, we fail the citizens of the United States.
Winning means contributing in great measure to the strength,
the welfare, the health, the growth, the prosperity, the well-being of
every citizen in the Republic and in the society of free world nations.
# # #
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Mi, Mac Gregor is taking a quantity of there to
it. Sonis,
FOR RELEASE - TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1965
REMARKS OF HONORABLE GERALD R. FORD
AT DINNER WITH REPUBLICAN MAYORS
CHASE-PARK PLAZA HOTEL, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
MAY 31, 1965
There are two distinct purposes behind the trip that other House Republican
leaders and I have made to be with you here in St. Louis.
One reason is our need and desire for an exchange of views with you on
urban area problems. Since we in the Congress are legislating for a nation that
is overwhelmingly urban, we need the first-hand information that you can provide
on the difficult problems which you have to deal with as Mayors of our large
cities. We are turning to you for expert guidance so that we may do our job
better as Members of the Congress.
In his address to the Conference this morning, my colleague, Clark MacGregor,
offered some observations on handling urban area problems as seen from the vantage
point of the Congress. He made some suggestions for improvements in the practices
of the national government in its efforts to assist you in meeting these problems.
I heartily concur in the observations and the suggestions that Mr. MacGregor has
made.
In your session this afternoon my colleagues listened with profit to your
expressions of what is on your minds. Out of this meeting has come the kind of
information which will enable us to play a more helpful role in dealing with
urban problems in the future.
The second reason for this gathering is frankly political. This afternoon
and this evening we Republicans of the House of Representatives have been meeting
with Republican Mayors. At such meetings the strengthening of the Republican
Party - that is to say, making the Republican Party a more effective agency for
the service of the general welfare - is a major objective.
system
The results of the 1964 election have left the future of the two Parties in
the United States in grave doubt. I believe that one-party monopoly is bad not
only for the minority party, but bad for all citizens. Effective competition by
two strong parties in politics, like competition in business, means more
efficiency, greater heed to the needs and desires of the citizens, and progress
in overcoming problems. Two-party competition at the national level can exist
only if two strong parties exist throughout the nation at the local level. You
and I have a common interest that transcends our interest in getting re-elected
in working to reinvigorate the Republican Party and to expand its ranks.
LIBRARY
I know that some in this audience come from communities with a strong
tradition of non-partisenship in local affairs. Where this tradition does not bar
Including my own of G.R. Michyn
- 2 -
extra-curricular partisan activity, I hope you will join in activities looking
toward Republican victories in state and national contests.
The area of chronic Republican weakness has been our cities. In 1960 the
Republican candidate for the Presidency was defeated in the nation because he was
overwhelmed in a few big cities. In 1964 the Republican Presidential ticket was
overwhelmed almost everywhere but again its greatest weakness was in the big
cities.
The pattern of the decline of the Republican Party shown in the election
returns of our major cities in the last three Presidential elections is distressing.
But if this Republican Party is ever to make a come-back it must face the bitter
fact of its desperate situation in the cities and it must act to change things.
Let me cite three figures for you which illustrate my point. In 36 cities
(the largest cities in the 1950 census), President Eisenhower got 7 million votes
in 1956. Mr. Nixon got 51/2 million in 1960 and Barry Goldwater got 4,200,000 votes
in 1964. In these cities collectively, Eisenhower received 51 bercent of the vote
in 1956; Goldwater got 31 percent in the most recent Presidential election.
Yet there is another side of the picture which is somewhat more encouraging.
In 1964 Republican candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives and
for State and local offices, generally ran well ahead of the Presidential ticket.
This was true particularly in the cities. In the House of Representatives
Republicans were elected from Districts located wholly or partly in such cities
as New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Omaha, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
San Diego, Phoenix, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, Seattle, and others.
Your presence here is further evidence that the cities of the nation are not
inhospitable territory for all Republicans. The fact that you have been elected
as the chief executive of your city gives you an important part to play in the
process of rebuilding our Party. Anyone who knows how to win in a city deserves
a place of special honor in the ranks of Republican leaders.
I need not tell this audience what needs to be done. A plan of action, was
offered by Ray Bliss in 1961, known popularly as the Big City Report." I think
it is time to take this Report off the shelves, dust it off, and begin following
its advice. And I shall urge Mr. Bliss, now that he is in a better position to
translate his advice into action, to begin to do so. Any effort of this kind
will need the full support of Republican Mayors if it is to be successful.
Representative government in the United States is undergoing a change of
great significance because of the Supreme Court's enunciation of the one man
one vote principle. The national House of Representatives should be composed of
members representing districts relatively equal in population. That is what the
-3-
Constitution intended from the beginning.
In all parts of the nation it has too 1cng been the practice to draw
Congressional district boundaries as though the fortunes of a political party
or of an individual office holder - or would-be office holder - were the dominant
consideration.
It seems to me that a case can be made for transferring the process of
Congressional districting from State legislative bodies to impartial tribunals if
equity is to be achieved. Too often the problem of equitable Congressional
districting gets involved in the complexities of State legislative reapportionment.
Furthermore, redistricting by State legislatures toc often involves the placing
of party advantage or individual advantage before the interest of the citizens in
equitable representation. The net result -- delay and a lack of logic and equity.
I do not believe that Republicans have anything to fear from the changes
which the establishment of districts of equal population will bring in the House
of Representatives. Republicans have been getting the short end of the stick
under Congressional districting arrangements in the recent past. How badly the
Republican Party has fared is apparent when one compares the share of the vote
which Republican candidates have received with the share of the House seats which
Republicans have won.
To take the two most recent examples -- in 1962 Republican candidates for
the House of Representatives received 48 percent of the vote cast for the House
but won only 40 percent of the seats. In 1964 Republican House candidates
receive 43 ercent of the vote, but the Republicans occupy only 32 Percent of
the seats of the House of Representatives.
If the percentage of Republican-held seats in the last Congress had matched
the Republican percentage of the vote, there would have been 208 Republicans in
the House of Representatives - 30 more than were actually elected. On this basis,
in the present Congress there would be 187 Republicans in the House - 47 more
than are actually here.
One big reason for this disparity is very clear. The Congressional districts
of 1962 and 1964 were established principally by State legislative bodies under
Democratic control and they were so drawn as to provide maximum benefit for the
Democratic Party.
(over)
BERALD FORD VIBRARY
hope
- 4 -
2
The present Congress will pass legislation requiring that Congressional
districts in each state be compact and contiguous and setting the outer limits
of permissible population disparity among Congressional districts. This
TO
legislation will not prohibit gerrymandering. It stops only the grossest forms
of the gerrymander.
The process of determining Congressional boundaries must be done henceforth
with the recognition that the interests of citizens must be overriding. The
gerrymander is an infringement on the citizens' right to vote. Unfair
Congressional districting deprives some citizens of their right to choose their
representatives just as effectively as does the poil tax, unreasonable literacy
to
and residence requirements, ballot stealing, or any of the other devices that
violate the most basic civil right. valab --- JINEST 390 edf sidectupe
assesdo 9113 moti 03 galdiyns avad ensolIduqeR Jaris everled Jon ob I
=/==/====================
seucH grit at gaird Htw notislugoq Isupe 10 adoludaib to insmialidates edo dolder
Holds oris to brie storis orig need eved ansolidução 10
arty vibed woll ,Jasq Insuet srit ni Isbau
920y 9113 to orig sno netw designed at bezel and VIZET neckIduqeR
to one dolder
.now svsd ensolIduqeR
201 saes nt -- sequire Insect 380m out 973 stated aT
savoll 9113 20% JESO 930V orig 10 10 savoll sitt
astabiboso savoH necklduceR 4821 nI .83898 edd to CA (Ino now dud
10 SE (Ino occable add Jud 1930V odd 30 Insured CA
to 9800H orig to BJB98 sdit
Dericesm bad easigned Jasi sits at 83698 to odd 31
at ansolIduqeR BOS need evad bloow stady ,930V edi to add
,sland airld nO vilsutos 939V neds 970m 08 to 981/0H ents
этот 515 9800H odd nt VOI 9d bloow credit ods nl
.939d 936 neds
VISV at 109 003697 gid en0
Isbno askbod svidafalge! 83838 vilaqioning 919W ADRI bna sees 30
and Tod diseased abivorq of 8.8 musib 08 ST9W years bns Common allaysomed
(nrs)
fin
FOR RELEASE - TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1965
capy
REMARKS OF HONORABLE GERALD R. FORD
AT DINNER WITH REPUBLICAN MAYORS
CHASE-PARK PLAZA HOTEL, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
MAY 31, 1965
There are two distinct purposes behind the trip that other House Republican
leaders and I have made to be with you here in St. Louis.
One reason is our need and desire for an exchange of views with you on
urban area problems. Since we in the Congress are legislating for a nation that
is overwhelmingly urban, we need the first-hand information that you can provide
on the difficult problems which you have to deal with as Mayors of our large
cities. We are turning to you for expert guidance so that we may do our job
better as Members of the Congress.
In his address to the Conference this morning, my colleague, Clark MacGregor,
offered some observations on handling urban area problems as seen from the vantage
point of the Congress. He made some suggestions for improvements in the practices
of the national government in its efforts to assist you in meeting these problems.
I heartily concur in the observations and the suggestions that Mr. MacGregor has
made.
In your session this afternoon my colleagues listened with profit to your
expressions of what is on your minds. Out of this meeting has come the kind of
information which will enable us to play a more helpful role in dealing with
urban problems in the future.
The second reason for this gathering is frankly political. This afternoon
and this evening we Republicans of the House of Representatives have been meeting
with Republican Mayors. At such meetings the strengthening of the Republican
Party - that is to say, making the Republican Party a more effective agency for
the service of the general welfare - is a major objective.
The results of the 1964 election have left the future of the two Parties in
the United States in grave doubt. I believe that one-party monopoly is bad not
only for the minority party, but bad for all citizens. Effective competition by
two strong parties in politics, like competition in business, means more
efficiency, greater heed to the needs and desires of the citizens, and progress
in overcoming problems. Two-party competition at the national level can exist
only if two strong parties exist throughout the nation at the local level. You
and I have a common interest that transcends our interest in getting re-elected
in working to reinvigorate the Republican Party and to expand its ranks.
I know that some in this audience come from communities with a strong
tradition of non-partisanship in local affairs. Where this tradition does not bar
LIBRARI
- 2 -
extra-curricular partisan activity, I hope you will join in activities looking
toward Republican victories in state and national contests.
The area of chronic Republican weakness has been our cities. In 1960 the
Republican candidate for the Presidency was defeated in the nation because he was
overwhelmed in a few big cities. In 1964 the Republican Presidential ticket was
overwhelmed almost everywhere but again its greatest weakness was in the big
cities.
The pattern of the decline of the Republican Party shown in the election
returns of our major cities in the last three Presidential elections is distressing.
But if this Republican Party is ever to make a come-back it must face the bitter
fact of its desperate situation in the cities and it must act to change things.
Let me cite three figures for you which illustrate my point. In 36 cities
(the largest cities in the 1950 census), President Eisenhower got 7 million votes
in 1956. Mr. Nixon got 5½1/2 million in 1960 and Barry Goldwater got 4,200,000 votes
in 1964. In these cities collectively, Eisenhower received 51 percent of the vote
in 1956; Goldwater got 31 percent in the most recent Presidential election.
Yet there is another side of the picture which is somewhat more encouraging.
In 1964 Republican candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives and
for State and local offices, generally ran well ahead of the Presidential ticket.
This was true particularly in the cities. In the House of Representatives
Republicans were elected from Districts located wholly or partly in such cities
as New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Omaha, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
San Diego, Phoenix, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, Seattle, and others.
Your presence here is further evidence that the cities of the nation are not
inhospitable territory for all Republicans. The fact that you have been elected
as the chief executive of your city gives you an important part to play in the
process of rebuilding our Party. Anyone who knows how to win in a city deserves
a place of special honor in the ranks of Republican leaders.
I need not tell this audience what needs to be done. A plan of action, was
offered by Ray Bliss in 1961, known popularly as the Big City Report." I think
it is time to take this Report off the shelves, dust it off, and begin following
its advice. And I shall urge Mr. Bliss, now that he is in a better position to
translate his advice into action, to begin to do SO. Any effort of this kind
will need the full support of Republican Mayors if it is to be successful.
Representative government in the United States is undergoing a change of
great significance because of the Supreme Court's enunciation of the one man -
one vote principle. The national House of Representatives should be composed of
members representing districts relatively equal in population. That is what the
GERALD
-3-
Constitution intended from the beginning.
In all parts of the nation it has too 1cng been the practice to draw
Congressional district boundaries as though the fortunes of a political party
or of an individual office holder - or would-be office holder - were the dominant
consideration.
It seems to me that a case can be made for transferring the process of
Congressional districting from State legislative bodies to impartial tribunals if
equity is to be achieved. Too often the problem of equitable Congressional
districting gets involved in the complexities of State legislative reapportionment.
Furthermore, redistricting by State legislatures toc often involves the placing
of party advantage or individual advantage before the interest of the citizens in
equitable representation. The net result -- delay and a lack of logic and equity.
I do not believe that Republicans have anything to fear from the changes
which the establishment of districts of equal population will bring in the House
of Representatives. Republicans have been getting the short end of the stick
under Congressional districting arrangements in the recent past. How badly the
Republican Party has fared is apparent when one compares the share of the vote
which Republican candidates have received with the share of the House seats which
Republicans have won.
To take the two most recent examples -- in 1962 Republican candidates for
the House of Representatives received 48 percent of the vote cast for the House
but von only 40 percent of the seats. In 1964 Republican House candidates
received 43 percent of the vote, but the Republicans occupy only 32 percent of
the seats of the House of Representatives.
If the percentage of Republican-held seats in the last Congress had matched
the Republican percentage of the vote, there would have been 208 Republicans in
the House of Representatives - 30 more than were actually elected. On this basis,
in the present Congress there would be 187 Republicans in the House - 47 more
than are actually here.
One big reason for this disparity is very clear. The Congressional districts
of 1962 and 1964 were established principally by State legislative bodies under
Democratic control and they were so drawn as to provide maximum benefit for the
Democratic Party.