Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1534659",
    "label": "1975/07/10 - President, Vice President, and Jim Lynn",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534659"
}

{
    "id": "1534659",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534659",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1975/07/10 - President, Vice President, and Jim Lynn",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534659",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Meetings Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Suffrage",
        "Transportation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534659.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534659.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534659.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1534659",
    "naId": 1534659,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-07-31",
        "month": 7,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-05-01",
        "month": 5,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1534659.pdf",
    "mediaId": "0f2983074ab5ff0b",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 48, folder \"1975/07/10 - President, Vice\nPresident, and Jim Lynn\" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nMEETING WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT,\nJIM LYNN, JIM CANNON\nTHURSDAY, JULY 10, 1975\n5:30 p.m.\nThe Oval Office\nDictate\nDigitized from Box 48 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nB\n[1975]\nSEBRARY\nExecutive Director, Domestic Council\nand Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs\n(3 positions)\nDeputy Director\nDeputy Director\nOperations\nPolicy and Review Groups\n(2 positions)\n(2 positions)\nIntergovern-\nStaff\nReview\nProgram\nmental Relations\nSecretary\nGroups\nFormulation\n(6 positions)\n(1 position)\n(12 positions)\n(4 positions)\nHealth,\nJustice,\nHousing &\nEnviron-\nAgricul-\nLabor,\nEnergy &\nGeneral\nSocial Secu-\nCivil\nCommunity\nment\nture,\nEducation\nTranspor-\nGovern\nrity and\nRights,\nAffairs\nEconomic\n& Veterans\ntation\nment,\nWelfare\nCommuni-\nDevelop-\nConsumer /\ncations &\nment &\nScience\nDrugs\nCommerce\n&\nCulture\n(4 positions)\n(5 positions)\n(3 positions\n(3 posi\n(3 posi-\n(3 posi-\n(5 posi-\n(3 posi-\ntions)\ntions)\ntions)\ntions)\ntions)\nProj\nI\nSee\nPotal\n1965 CQ Almanac -- p. 541\nMcCulloch Bill. Rep. William McCulloch (R. Ohio), ranking\nminority member of the House Judiciary Committee, April 5\nintroduced a voting rights bill (HR 7112) backed by House\nMinority Leader Gerald R. Ford (R. Mich.), who had called\nfor improvement of the Administration bill drafted in\ncooperation with Senate Minority Leader Dirksen.\nThe\nFORD\nMcCalloch\nbill:\nAuthorized appointment of a federal voting examiner\nwithin a district whenever the Attorney General received\nand considered meritorious 25 or more complaints from\ndistrict residents alleging discrimination against race or\ncolor in registering or voting. If the examiner found that\n25 or more had been denied the right to register or vote,\nhe would register them.\nAuthorized examiners to consider a sixth-grade edu-\ncation evidence of literacy, and in other cases to admini-\nster state literacy tests, provided the tests were fair and\nnon-discriminatory.\nPermitted actions of a federal examiner to be chal-\nlenged within ten days before a federal hearing officer ap-\npointed by the Civil Service Commission. The hearing officer\nwould have ten days to render a decision.\nWhen a hearing officer had determined that 25 or\nmore persons in a voting district had been denied the right\nto vote because of race or color, a pattern or practice of\ndiscrimination would be established. The Civil Service\nCommission could then appoint as many additional examiners\nand hearing officers as necessary to register all other persons\nwithin the county who might be subject to discrimination. The\ndecision of a hearing officer could be appealed in the local\nFederal court of appeals, but the motion would have to be filed\nwithin 15 days of the hearing officer's decision.\nAuthorized registrants in a voting district in which a\npattern of discrimination had been established to bypass\nlocal registrars if they had reason to believe they would\nbe subject to coercion and intimidation. Officials acting\nunder color of law to coerce and intimidate qualified voters\nwould be subject to fines up to $5,000, imprisonment up to\nfive years, or both.\nGERALD FORD LIBRAGE\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 7, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT\nFROM :\nJIM CANNON Jun\nSome weeks ago we discussed the possibility of\nCongressional leaders establishing review groups\nwhich would parallel the Domestic Council review\ngroups. As an example, I suggested that Transportation\nmight offer such an opportunity.\nThis is a problem. For Transportation alone, eleven\nCommittees of the House and eleven Committees in the\nSenate have some responsibility.\nAs a first step toward finding a way by which Congress\ncould take a comprehensive and balanced approach to\nbroad policy questions, I suggest that I talk informally\nwith a couple of foresighted Members to see if I can\ncome up with an idea.\nA memorandum outlining Transportation jurisdiction\nis attached.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 22, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nTHROUGH:\nJIM FALK\n7\nFROM:\nPAT DELANEY\nPD\nSUBJECT:\nTRANSPORTATION JURISDICTION\nIN CONGRESS\nIn a previous memo from you to the Vice President, dated March 31st, it\nwas suggested that consideration be given to a broader policy concerning\ntransportation and the following recommendation was made:\nRECOMMENDATION: That you discuss informally\nwith leaders of Congress the importance of estab-\nlishing Congressional groups which will parallel\nthe Administration's review groups.\nFollowing that memo you asked which committees in the House and Senate\nare involved in long-range transportation legislation. This memo seeks\nto answer that question and give you a view of the various jurisdictional\nproblems concerning transportation.\nThe Committee Reform Amendments (H. Res. 988), adopted October 8, 1974,\nsought to rationalize committee jurisdictions, but there are still overlaps\nthat occur in many fields, and transportation is one. Several standing\ncommittees have some jurisdiction in that policy area. However, the\nrevamped Public Works and Transportation Committee, established by\nH. Res. 988, has the primary responsibility. Senate consideration of trans-\nportation is also split among several standing committees. These split\njurisdictions make difficult the development of a comprehensive and balanced\napproach to that field as a whole.\n-2-\nHouse and Senate committees with jurisdiction over transportation matters\nhave both short-term and long-range responsibilities. Long-range analysis,\nfor example, is now a specific responsibility of House Committees under\nRes. 988. To be specific, all standing committees (except Appropriations\nand Budget) \"shall on a continuing basis undertake future research and\nforecasting on matters within the jurisdiction of that committee.\"\nThe following summarizes House and Senate committee jurisdiction over\nmajor aspects of transportation. Also included are committee chairmen.\nHOUSE\nCommittee\nResponsibility\nAppropriations\nFunding Federal-aid\nGeorge H. Mahon of Texas\ntransportation modes\nArmed Services\nAuthorizing development of\nMelvin Price of Illinois\nnew military transportation,\ne.g., new types of aircraft\nBudget\nRecommending budget\nBrock Adams of Washington\nauthority for transportation\nDistrict of Columbia\nMETRO\nCharles C. Diggs of Michigan\nGovernment Operations\nCreation of Federal trans-\nJack Brooks of Texas\nportation agencies\nGeneral oversight of all\nFederal transportation pro-\ngrams and activities\nInterstate and Foreign Commerce\nRailroads\nHarley O. Staggers of West Virginia\nMotor vehicle safety\nEnergy allocation (FPC, REA)\nTravel and tourism\nMerchant Marine and Fisheries\nMerchant Marine\nLeonor Sullivan of Missouri\nBarge traffic not subject\nto ICC\nOffshore ports\n-3-\nCommittee\nResponsibility\nMerchant Marine and Fisheries\nMerchant Marine\nLeonor Sullivan of Missouri\nBarge traffic not subject\nto ICC\nOffshore ports\nPublic Works and Transportation\nCivil Aviation\nRobert E. Jones of Alabama\nHighways\nMass Transit\nBarge traffic subject to ICC\nPorts and harbors\nScience and Technology\nAstronautical R&D\nOlin E. Teague of Texas\nCivil Aviation R&D\nSpace Programs\nSpecial oversight of all\nnonmilitary R&D\nWays and Means\nTax expenditures affecting\nAl Ullman of Oregon\ntransportation, e.g., tax\nsubsidies for ship building\nTrust Funds (Airport, for\nexample)\nSENATE\nAeronautical and Space Sciences\nSpace programs\nFrank E. Moss of Utah\nArmed Services\nAuthorizing development\nJohn C. Stennis of Mississippi\nof military transportation,\ne.g., new military air-\ncraft\nAppropriations\nFunding of Federal-aid\nJohn . McClellan of Arkansas\ntransportation modes\nBanking, Housing and Urban Affairs\nMass Transit\nWilliam Proxmire of Wisconsin\n-4-\nCommittee\nResponsibility\nBudget\nRecommending budget\nEdmund S. Muskie of Maine\nauthority for transportation\nCommerce\nMerchant Marine\nWarren G. Magnuson of Washington\nCivil aviation\nICC\nTourism\nMotor vehicle safety\nRailroads\nEnergy regulations\nDistrict of Columbia\nMETRO\nThomas F. Eagleton of Missouri\nFinance\nTax expenditures affecting\nRussell B. Long of Louisiana\ntransportation, e.g., tax\nsubsidies for ship building\nTrust funds\nGovernment Operations\nCreation of Federal trans-\nAbraham A. Ribicoff of Connecticut\nportation agencies\nGeneral oversight of all\nFederal transportation\nprograms and activities\nLabor and Public Welfare\nRailway labor\nHarrison A. Williams of New Jersey\nPublic Works\nHighways, Roads and\nJennings Randolph of West Virginia\nStreets\nRivers, Harbors and Ports\nBikeways\nHighway safety\nNOTE:\n1.\nThere have been various jurisdictional disputes between\nCongressional Committees that have produced delays in the enact-\nment of legislation, e.g., Mass Transit in 1974 (between House\nPublic Works and House Banking and Currency).\n-5-\n2. Current methods of handling jurisdictional conflicts:\nA.\nSpeaker may refer measures simultaneously for\nconcurrent consideration or for consideration in\nsequence (H.Res. 988) .\nB.\nThe House Rules Committee can arbitrate any\njurisdictional battle.\nC.\nThe Speaker, subject to House approval, can\ncreate Ad Hoc Committees.\n3. H.Res. 988 also authorized the House Committee on Government\nOperations to prepare an oversight report (H. Rept. 94-61) on the\noversight plans of all standing committees and to \"assist in coordin-\nating all the oversight activities of the House during such Congress. II\nti\n( ]\n89TH CON\n1ST Ses\nMr. GERA\nTo gui\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11\n80TH CONGRESS\n1ST SESSION\nH. R. 7896\nA BILL\nTo guarantee the right to vote under the fif-\nteenth amendment to the Constitution of the\nUnited States.\nBy Mr. McCULLOCH + Ford\nMAY 5, 1965\nReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary\n&\nGERALD LIBRANY 4. FORD\nSL SL-08-9\nfrom: Carole Wanner\n89TH CONGRESS\n1ST SESSION\nH. R. 7896\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nAND MR FOOD MAY 5. 1965\nMr. McCuLLoch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-\nmittee on the Judiciary\n1ST SESSION\n80TH CONGRESS\nA\nBILL\nTo guarantee the right to vote under the fifteenth amendment to\nA BILL\nthe Constitution of the United States.\nH. R.\n1\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-\n2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n7895\n3 That this Act shall be known as the \"Voting Rights Act\n4 of 1965\".\n5\nDEFINITIONS\n6\nSEC. 2. (a) The phrase \"literacy test\" shall mean any\n7 requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or\n8 registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read,\n9 write, understand, or interpret any matter, or (2) demon-\n10 strate an educational achievement or knowledge of any par-\n11 ticular subject.\nI-0\nLIBRAR GERALD GERALDR. FORD\nJ.35-001AA-1\n2\n1\n(b) A person is \"denied or deprived of the right to\n1 tl\n2 register or to vote\" if he is (1) not provided by persons act-\n2\nC\n3 ing under color of law with an opportunity to register to vote\n3\n4 or to qualify to vote within two weekdays after making &\n4\n5 good-faith attempt to do so, (2) found not qualified to vote\n5\n6 by any person acting under color of law, or (3) not notified\n6\n7 by any person acting under color of law of the results of his\n7\n8 application within seven days after making application\n8\n9 therefor.\n9\n10\n(c) The term \"election\" shall mean any general, spe-\n10\n11 cial, or primary election held in any voting district solely\n11\n12 or in part for the purpose of electing or selecting any candi-\n12\n13 date to public office or of deciding a proposition or issue of\n13\n14 public law.\n14\n15\n(d) The term \"voting district\" shall mean any county\n15\n16 or parish, except that where registration for voting is not\n16\n17 conducted under the supervision of a county or parish, the\n17\n18 term shall include any other subdivision of a State which\n18\n19 conducts registration for voting.\n19\n20\n(e) The term \"vote\" shall have the same meaning\n20\n21 as in section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C.\n21\n22 1971 (e) )\n22\n23\nFINDINGS\nFORD\n23\n24\nSEC. 3. (a) Congress hereby finds that large numbers\nLIBRARY\n2\n25 of United States citizens have been and are being denied\n3\nt to\n1 the right to register or to vote in various States on account\nact-\n2 of race or color in violation of the fifteenth amendment.\nvote\n3\n(b) Congress further finds that literacy tests have been\ngn a\n4 and are being used in various States and political subdi-\note\n5 visions as a means of discrimination on account of race or\nied\n6 color. Congress further finds that persons with a sixth-grade\nhis\n7 education possess reasonable literacy, comprehension, and\non\n8 intelligence and that, in fact, persons possessing such edu-\n9 cational achievement have been and are being denied or\nd\n10 deprived of the right to register or to vote for failure to\nly\n11 satisfy literacy test requirements solely or primarily because\ni-\n12 of discrimination on account of race or color.\nof\n13\n(c) Congress further finds that the prerequisites for vot-\n14 ing or registration for voting (1) that a person possess good\ny\n15 moral character unrelated to the commission of a felony, or\n16 (2) that a person prove qualifications by the voucher of\n17 registered voters or members of any other-class, have been\n18 and are being used as a means of discrimination on account\n19 of race or color.\n20\n(d) Congress further finds that in any voting district\n21 where twenty-five or more persons have been denied or de-\n22 prived of the right to register or to vote on account of race\n23 or color and who are qualified to register and vote, there\n24 exists in such district a pattern or practice of denial of the\nJ.35-001AA 2\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n4\n1 right to register or to vote on account of race or color in\n1 re{\n2 violation of the fifteenth amendment.\n2 er\n3 APPOINTMENT OF EXAMINERS; PRESUMPTION OF PATTERN\n3 sh\n4\nOR PRACTICE\n4 be\n5\nSEC. 4. (a) Whenever the Attorney General certifies\n5\ng\n6 to the Civil Service Commission (1) that he has received\n6 a\n7 complaints in writing from twenty-five or more residents\n7 b\n8 of a voting district each alleging that (i) the complainant\n8\nq\n9 can satisfy the voting qualifications of the voting district, and\n9\nr\n10 (ii) the complainant has been denied or deprived of the\n10\nu\n11 right to register or to vote on account of race or color within\n11\nC\n12 ninety days prior to the filing of his complaint, and (2) that\n12\n13 the Attorney General believes such complaints to be merito-\n13\nt\n14 rious, the Civil Service Commission shall promptly appoint\n14\n15 an examiner for such voting district who shall be responsible\n15\n16 to the Commission.\n16\n17\n(b) A certification by the Attorney General shall be\n17\n18 final and effective upon publication in the Federal Register.\n18\n19\n(c) The examiner shall examine each person who has\n19\n20 filed a complaint certified by the Attorney General to deter-\n20\n21 mine whether he was denied or deprived of the right to\n21\n22 register or to vote within ninety days prior to the filing of\n22\n23 such complaint, and whether he is qualified to vote under\n23\nFORD\n24 State law. A person's statement under oath shall be prima\n24\n25 facie evidence as to his age, residence, and prior efforts to\nLIBRARY\n1 register or otherwise qualify to vote. In determining wheth-\n2 er a person is qualified to vote under State law, the examiner\n3 shall disregard (1) any literacy test if such person has not\n4 been adjudged an incompetent and has completed the sixth\n5 grade of education in a public school in, or a private school\n6 accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Colum-\n7 bia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or (2) any re-\n8 quirement that such person, as a prerequisite for voting or\n9 registration for voting (i) possess good moral character\n10 unrelated to the commission of a felony, or (ii) prove his\n11 qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members\n12 of any other class. If applicable State law requires a literacy\n13 test, those persons possessing less than a sixth-grade educa-\n14 tion shall be administered such test only in writing and the\n15 answers to such test shall be included in the examiner's\n16 report.\n17\n(d) If the examiner finds that twenty-five or more of\n18 those persons within the voting district, who have filed -com-\n19 plaints certified by the Attorney General have been denied\n20 the right to register or to vote and are qualified to vote under\n21 State law, he shall promptly place them on a list of eligible\n22 voters, and shall certify and serve such list upon the offices\n23 of the appropriate election officials, the Attorney General,\n24 and the attorney general of the State, together with a report\nFORD LIBRARY\n6\n1 of his findings as to those persons whom he has found quali-\n1\n2 fied to vote. Service shall be as prescribed by rule 5 (b)\n2\n3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The provisions of\n3\n4 section 8 (d) and 8 (e) shall then apply to persons placed\n5 on a list of eligible voters.\n5\n6\n(e) A finding by the examiner under subsection (d)\n6\n7 shall create a presumption of a pattern or practice of denial\n7\n8 of the right to register or to vote on account of race or color.\n8\n9\n9\nCHALLENGES\n10\nSEC. 5. (a) A challenge to the factual findings of the\n10\n11 examiner, contained in the examiner's report, may be made\n11\n12 by the attorney general of the State or by any other person\n12\n13 upon whom has been served a certified list and report of\n13\n14 persons found qualified to vote, as provided in section 4 (d) 1\n14\n15 Such challenge shall be made by service upon the attorney\n15\n16 general and upon the Civil Service Commission as prescribed\n16\n17 by rule 5 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such\n17\n18 challenge shall be entertained only (1) if made within ten\n18\n19 days after service of the list of eligible voters as provided\n19\n20 in section 4 (d), and (2) if supported by the affidavit of at\n20\n21 least two persons having personal knowledge of the facts\n21\n22 constituting grounds for the challenge.\n22\n23\n(b) Upon service of a challenge the Civil Service Com-\nFORD\n23\n24 mission shall promptly appoint a hearing officer who shall\nLIBRARY\n24\n25 be responsible to the Commission, or promptly designate a\n25\n7\n1 hearing officer already appointed, to hear and determine\nunli-\n2 such challenge. A challenge shall be determined within\ni (b)\n3 seven days after it has been made. A person's fulfillment\nns of\nlaced\n4 of literacy test requirements, if not disregarded by the ex-\n5 aminer as provided for in section 4 (c), shall be reviewed\n1 (d)\n6 solely on the basis of the written answers included in the\ndenial\n7 examiner's report required by sections 4 (c) and 4 (d).\ncolor.\n8\nESTABLISHMENT OF A PATTERN OR PRACTICE\n9\nSEC. 6. A pattern or practice of denial of the right to\nof the\n10 register or to vote on account of race or color is established\n, made\n11 (a) if a challenge to a finding under section 4 (d) has not\nperson\n12 been made within ten days after service of the list of eligible\n13\nport of\nvoters on the appropriate State election officials and the\n4 (d)\n14 attorney general of the State, or (b) upon a determination\nttorney\n15 by a hearing officer that twenty-five or more of those persons\nescribed\n16 within the voting district, who have been placed on the list\nSuch\n17 of eligible voters by the examiners, have been denied or de-\nthin ten\n18 prived of the right to register or to vote and are qualified to\nrovided\n19 register and to vote. The listing of additional persons pre-\nvit of at\n20 scribed in section 8 shall not be stayed pending judicial re-\nhe facts\n21 view of the decision of a hearing officer.\n22\nJUDICIAL REVIEW\nce Com-\n23\nSEC. 7. A petition for review of the decision of a hear-\nho shall\n24 ing officer may be filed in the United States court of appeals\nsignate a\n25 for the circuit in which the person challenged resides within\nGERALD livealt so FORD\n8\n1 fifteen days after service of such decision by mail on the per-\n1\nmac\n2 son petitioning for review, but no decision of a hearing\n2 pro\n3 officer shall be overturned unless clearly erroneous.\n3\n4\nLISTING OF PERSONS FOUND ELIGIBLE\n4 ma\n5\nSEC. 8. (a) Upon establishment of a pattern or practice,\n5\ndis\n6 as provided in section 6, the Civil Service Commission shall\n6 lei\n7 appoint such additional examiners for the voting district as\n7\n8 may be necessary who shall determine whether persons\n8\nel\n9 within the voting district are qualified to register and to\n9\nel\n10 vote. In determining whether such persons are SO qualified\n10\na\n11 the examiners shall apply the same procedures and be subject\n11\nS\n12 to the same conditions imposed upon the initial examiner\n12\n13 under section 4 (c), except that a person appearing before\n13\n1\n14 such examiner need not have first attempted to apply to a\n14\n15 State or local registration official if he states, under oath;\n15\n16 that in his belief to have done SO would have been futile or\n16\n17 would have jeopardized the personal safety, employment,\n17\n18 or economic standing of himself, his family, or his property.\n18\n19 Such examiner shall in the same manner as provided in sec-\n19\n20 tion 4 (d), certify and serve lists of eligible voters and any\n20\n21 supplements as appropriate at the end of each month, upon\n21\n22 the appropriate election officials, the Attorney General, and\n22\n23 the attorney general of the State, together with reports of his\n23\n24 findings as to those persons listed.\nGRALD BRD LIBRARY\n2\n25\n(b) Challenges to the findings of the examiners shall be\n9\n1 made in the manner and under the same conditions as are\n2 provided in section 5.\n3\n(c) The Civil Service Commission shall appoint and\n4 make available additional hearing officers within the voting\n5 district as may be necessary to hear and determine the chal-\n6 lenges under this section.\n7\n(d) Any person who has been placed on a list of\n8 eligible voters shall be entitled and allowed to vote in any\n9 election held within the voting district unless and until the\n10 appropriate election officials shall have been notified that\n11\nsuch person has been removed from such list in accordance\n12\nwith section 10. If challenged, such person shall be en-\n13 titled and allowed to vote provisionally with appropriate\n14 provision being made for the impounding of their ballots,\n15 pending final determination of their status by the hearing\n16 officer and by the court.\n17\n(e) Examiners shall issue to each person placed on a\n18 list of eligible voters a certificate evidencing his eligibility\n19 to vote.\n20\n(f) No person shall be entitled to vote in any election\n21 by virtue of the provisions of this Act unless his name shall\n22 have been certified and transmitted on such list to the offices\n23 of the appropriate election officials at least forty-five days\n24 prior to such election.\nFORD LIBRADA\n10\n1\nAPPLICATION AND PROCEDURE\n1\n2\nSEC. 9. (a) Consistent with State law and the pro-\n2\n3 visions of this Act, persons appearing before an examiner\n3\n4 shall make application in such form as the Civil Service\n4\n5 Commission may require. Also consistent with State law\n5\n6 and the provisions of this Act, the times, places, and pro-\n6\n7\ncedures for application and listing pursuant to this Act and\n8 removals from eligibility lists shall be prescribed by regula-\n9 tions promulgated by the Civil Service Commission. The\n10 Commission shall, after consultation with the Attorney Gen-\n1\n11 eral, instruct examiners concerning the qualifications re-\n1\n12 quired for listing.\n1\n13\n(b) Notwithstanding time limitations as may be estab-\n14 lished under State or local law, examiners shall make them-\n15 selves available every weekday in order to determine\n16 whether persons are qualified to vote.\n17\n(c) Times, places, and procedures for hearing and de-\n18 termination of challenges under sections 5 and 8 (b) shall\n19 be prescribed by regulation promulgated by the Civil Service\n20 Commission, provided that hearing officers shall hear chal-\n21 lenges in the voting district of the listed persons challenged.\n22\nREMOVAL FROM VOTER LISTS\nPRO\n23\nSEC. 10. Any person whose name appears on a list, as\n24 provided in this Act, shall be entitled and allowed to vote in\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n25 the election district of his residence unless and until the\n11\n1 appropriate election officials shall have been notified that\n2 such person has been removed from such list. A person\n3 whose name appears on such a list shall be removed there-\n4 from by an examiner if (1) he has been successfully chal-\n5 lenged in accordance with the procedure prescribed in sec-\n6 tions 5 and 7, or (2) he has been determined by an ex-\n7 aminer (a) not to have voted or attempted to vote at least\n8 once during four consecutive years while listed or during\n9 such longer period as is allowed by State law without requir-\n10 ing reregistration, or (b) to have otherwise lost his eligi-\n11 bility to vote: Provided, however, That in a State which\n12 requires reregistration within a period of time shorter than\n13 four years, the person shall be required to reregister with\n14 an examiner who shall apply reregistration methods and\n15 procedures of State law not inconsistent with the provisions\n16 of this Act.\n17 QUALIFICATIONS OF EXAMINERS AND HEARING OFFICERS\n18\nSEC. 11. Examiners and hearing officers appointed by\n19 the Civil Service Commission shall be existing Federal\n20 officers and employees who are residents of the State in which\n21 the Attorney General has issued his certification. Examiners\n22 and hearing officers shall subscribe to the oath of office re-\n23 quired by section 16 of title 5, United States Code. Exam-\n24 iners and hearing officers shall serve without compensation\n25 in addition to that received for such other service, but while\nGERALD FORD\n12\n1 engaged in the work as examiners and hearing officers shall\n1 und\n2 be paid actual travel expenses, and per diem in lieu of\n2\nsucl\n3 subsistence expenses when away from their usual place of\n3 app\n4 residence, in accordance with the provisions of sections 835\n4\n5 to 842 of title 5, United States Code. Examiners and hear-\n5\n6 ing officers shall have the power to administer oaths.\n6\n7\nTERMINATION OF LISTING\n7\n8\nSEC 12. The listing provisions of this Act shall be\n8\n9 applied in a voting district until, within any twelve-month.\n9\n10 period, less than twenty-five persons within the voting dis-\n10\n11 trict have been placed on lists of eligible voters by examiners.\n11\n12\nENFORCEMENT\n12\n13\nSEC. 13. (a) Whenever a person alleges to an examiner\n13\n14 within twenty-four hours after the closing of the polls that\n14\n15 notwithstanding his listing under the provisions of this Act\n15\n16 he has not been permitted to vote or that his vote was not\n16\n17 properly counted or not counted subject to the impounding\n17\n18 provision, as provided in section 8 (d), the examiner shall\n18\n19 notify the United States attorney for the judicial district if\n19\n20 such allegation, in his opinion, appears to be well founded.\n20\n21 Upon receipt of such notification, the United States attorney\n21\n22 may forthwith apply to the district court for a temporary or\n22\n23 permanent injunction, restraining order, or other order, and\n23\n24 including orders directed to the State and State or local\nLIBRARY SERALD ORD\n24\n25 election officials to require them (1) to permit persons listed\n2\n13\n1 under this Act to vote, (2) to count such votes, or (3) for\n2 such other orders as the court may deem necessary and\n3 appropriate.\n35\n4\n(b) No person, acting under color of law, shall-\n5\n(1) fail or refuse to permit to vote any person who\n6\nis entitled to vote under any provision of this Act; or\n7\n(2) willfully fail or refuse to count, tabulate, and\n8\nreport accurately such person's vote; or\n9\n(3) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to\n10\nintimidate, threaten, or coerce, any such person entitled\n11\nto vote under any provision of this Act for voting or\n12\nattempting to vote; or\n13\n(4) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to\n14\nintimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for urging or\n15\naiding voting or attempted voting by persons entitled to\n16\nvote under any provision of this Act.\n17\n(c) No person, acting under color of law or otherwise,\n18 shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimi-\nif\n19 date, threaten, or coerce, any person for exercising any\n20 powers or duties under section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 of this\ny\n21 Act.\nr\n22\n(d) No person shall in any matter within the jurisdic-\n23 tion of an examiner or a hearing officer, knowingly and\n24 willfully falsify or conceal a material fact, or make any\n25 false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, or\nGERALD FORD\n14\n1 make or use any false writing or document knowing; the\n1\npur\n2 same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement\n2\nter\n3 or entry.\n3\n4\n(e) Any person violating any of the provisions of sub-\n4\nin\n5 section (b), (c), or (d) shall be fined not more than\n5\np\n6 $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.\n6\n4\n7\n(f) All cases of civil and criminal contempt arising\n7\n(\n8 under the provisions of this Act shall be governed by sec-\n8 tion,\n9 tion 151 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1995).\n9 mark\n10\n(g) The district courts of the United States shall have\n10 any\n11 jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this sec-\n11\nchin\n12 tion and shall exercise the same without regard to whether\n12\n13 an applicant for listing under this Act shall have exhausted\n13\ninfo\n14 any administrative or other remedies that may be provided\n14 in\n15 by law.\n15\nbil\n16\nINTERFERENCE WITH ELECTIONS\n16\nfor\n17\nSEC. 14. (a) No person shall, for any reason-\n17 or\n18\n(1) fail or refuse to permit to vote in any State\n18\nei\n19\nany person who is qualified to vote under the provisions\n19\n20\nof the law of such State which are not inconsistent with\n20 S\n21\nthe provisions of Federal law; or\n21\n$\n22\n(2) willfully fail or refuse to count, tabulate, and\n22\n23\nreport accurately such person's vote; or\n23\nFORD\n24\n(3) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to\nLIBRARY\n24\n25\nintimidate, threaten, or coerce, any such person for the\n25\n15\n1\npurpose of preventing such person from voting or at-\n2\ntempting to vote; or\n3\n(4) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to\n4\nintimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for the pur-\n5\npose of preventing such person from urging or aiding\n6\nvoting or attempted voting.\n7\n(b) No person shall, within a year following an elec-\n8 tion, (1) destroy, deface, mutilate, or otherwise alter the\n9 marking of a paper ballot cast in such election, or (2) alter\n10 any record of voting in such election made by a voting ma-\n11 chine or otherwise.\n12\n(c) No person shall knowingly or willfully give false\n13 information as to his name, address, or period of residence\n14 in a voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligi-\n15 bility to register or vote, or conspire with another individual\n16 for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote\n17 or illegal voting, or pay or offer to pay or accept payment\n18 either for registration to vote or for voting.\n19\n(d) Any person violating any of the provisions of sub-\n20 section (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined not more than\n21 $10,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.\n22\n(e) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be\n23 applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held\n24 solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing presi-\n25 dential electors, Members of the United States Senate,\nBERALD R. FORD\n16\n1 Members of the United States House of Representatives, or\n1\n2 Delegates or Commissioners from the territories or posses-\n2\nsh\n3 sions.\n3\n1:\n4\nRELIEF FROM ENFORCEMENT OF POLL TAX\n4\n5\nSEC. 15. (a) Congress hereby finds that the constitutional\n5\n6 right to vote of large numbers of citizens of the United States\n6\ns\n7 is denied or abridged on account of race or color in some\n7\n1\n8 States by the requirement of the payment of a poll tax as\n8\n9 a prerequisite to voting in State or local elections. To assure\n9\n10 that the right to vote is not thus denied or abridged, the\n10\n11 Attorney General shall forthwith institute in the name of\n11\n12 the United States actions for declaratory judgment or injuno-\n12\n13 tive relief against the enforcement of any poll tax, or other\n13\n14 tax or payment, which, as a condition precedent to voting\n15 in State or local elections, has the purpose or effect of\n16 denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race\n17 or color.\n18\n(b) The district courts of the United States shall have\n19 jurisdiction of such actions which shall be heard and deter-\n20 mined by a court of three judges in accordance with the\n21 provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States\n22 Code. It shall be the duty of the judges designated to hear\nFORD\n23 the case to assign the case for hearing at the earliest prac-\n24 ticable date, to participate in the hearing and determination\nLIBRARY\n25 thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.\n17\nes, or\n1\n(c) Appeal from judgments rendered under this section\nosses-\n2 shall be to the Supreme Court in accordance with section\n3 1253, title 28, United States Code.\n4\nAPPROPRIATIONS\ntional\n5\nSEC. 16. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated\nitates\n6 such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this\nsome\n7 Act.\nX as\n8\nSEPARABILITY\nssure\n9\nSEC. 16. If any provision of this Act or the application\nthe\n10 thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the\ne of\n11 remainder of the Act and the application of the provision to\nunc-\n12 other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances\nther\n13 shall not be affected thereby.\nting\nof\nace\nave\ner-\nthe\ntes\near\nac-\non\nFORD is LIBRARY\nL\nINMENT ? DOMINA JUSTITIA OF\nOffice of the Attorney General\nWashington, B.C. 20530\nJuly 1, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nEHC\nSUBJECT: EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT\nSoon after its return from the July 4th recess,\nthe Senate will take up the bill extending the Voting Rights\nAct of 1965. The Act expires on August 1, 1975. A bill\nextending and expanding the Act passed the House on June 4\nby a vote of 341 to 70. The House-passed bill is being\nheld at the desk in the Senate and a similar bill is pending\nbefore the Senate Judiciary Committee.\nThis memorandum summarizes the major provisions of\nthe pending legislation and poses the options for action by\nthe President. One caveat is in order: the recommendations\nare based on my view of the purposes and need for the proposals,\nnot on any perceptions as to the sentiment of a majority in\nCongress. The provisions are as follows:\n(1) ten-year extension of the special remedies of\nthe Act;\n(2) permanent nationwide prohibition of literacy\ntests;\n-2-\n(3) extension of the special remedies of the Act\nto \"language minority\" citizens;\n(4) requirement of bilingual elections; and\n(5) exemption from the Act's special remedies.\n1. Ten-year extension of the special remedies of the\nAct. The Administration previously proposed a five-year ex-\ntension of the special remedies of the Act. These remedies\ninclude the automatic suspension of literacy tests or other\ntests or devices as prerequisites to voting or registration\nwithin the covered States and political subdivisions * / and\ngranting of authority to the Attorney General to dispatch\nexaminers to register voters and to send observers to monitor\nelection day activities in the covered jurisdictions. In\naddition, all covered States and political subdivisions must\nsubmit all new election laws to either the Attorney General\nor the Federal district court in the District of Columbia for\napproval prior to their effective date. Both bills would extend\nthese special provisions for ten years. This means that those\n/ The special remedies of the Act apply to all States or\npolitical subdivisions which maintained any test or device as\na prerequisite for registration or voting on November 1, 1964\nor November 1, 1968 and which had less than 50 percent voter\nparticipation or registration in the Presidential election\nin 1964 or 1968, respectively. The phrase \"test or device\"\nis defined in Section 4 (c) as including, inter alia, \"any\nrequirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or\nregistration for voting\ndemonstrate the ability to read,\nwrite, understand or interpret any matter\n\"\n-3-\nStates and political subdivisions covered by the Act and pres-\nently eligible for automatic release in August 1975 would not\nbe so eligible until 1985. Similarly, those jurisdictions\neligible for release in 1980 would not be eligible until 1990.\nThe reasons favoring a ten-year extension are three-\nfold. First, after the 1980 census many election districts will\nrequire redistricting. The preclearance procedures of the Act\nwill be especially important during this period, it is argued,\nsince they will provide an effective safeguard against attempts\nto gerrymander districts in a racially discriminatory manner.\nThis argument is, to some degree, documented by the fact that\napproximately one-third of the Department's objections have\nbeen to redistricting at the State, county, and city level.\nSecond, evidence adduced at Congressional hearings indicates\nthat extension of the Act for more than five years hence would\nbe more difficult from a political standpoint.\nProponents of a simple five-year extension argue that\nsignificant gains have taken place in the South in ensuring\nnondiscriminatory exercise of the franchise; that another five\nyears may be sufficient to accomplish the goals of the Act; and\nthat in 1980 a reexamination can be undertaken to determine\nwhether the panoply of remedies is still necessary.\n2. Permanent nationwide prohibitim of literacy tests.\nIn the 1970 amendments to the Act, Congress for the first time\n-4-\nextended the prohibition on the use of literacy tests to cover\nthe entire nation for a period of five years. The new bill,\nwhich would extend the Act generally for a 10-year period,\nwould also impose permanent nationwide prohibition on literacy\ntests.\nSupporters of the permanent nationwide ban argue that\nliteracy tests are inherently discriminatory because minority\ncitizens have received inferior educational opportunities, and\nthat in any event, literacy has not been shown to have any\nnecessary relation to the ability to be informed about current\naffairs and vote intelligently. It is asserted that the broad-\ncast media allow citizens to be well informed despite illiter-\nacy, and that the unessential nature of a literacy test is\ndemonstrated by the fact that only 14 States still retain such\na test in their statute books.\nOpponents of the permanent ban, including the Depart-\nment of Justice, have argued that the proposal raises consti-\ntutional problems, since Congressional authority to impose such\na ban under the Fifteenth Amendment becomes increasingly doubt-\nful as the effects of past discrimination recede. Congressional\nauthority to impose the ban under the Fourteenth Amendment is\nalso unsettled. The Department believes, however, that the\nprohibition would be upheld for the present, although at some\ntime in the future its legality may be open to serious question.\n-5-\nWe have therefore stated that it is our judgment that a five-\nor ten-year extension would be more appropriate than a permanent\nban.\n3. Extension of the special remedies of the Act to\n\"language minority\" citizens. The bill would also expand the\nspecial provisions of the Act to cover States or political\nsubdivisions which in 1972 (a) had greater than five percent\nof \"language minority\" citizens of voting age, (b) had less\nthan 50 percent voter participation, and (c) provided\nelection materials only in the English language. The bill\ndefines \"language minority\" citizens to include American\nIndians, Asian Americans, Alaskan natives, and persons of\nSpanish heritage. All States and political subdivisions\nmeeting the above criteria would be subject to the special\nremedies of the Act, including the preclearance procedures\nrequiring that all new election laws be submitted to the\nAttorney General or the Federal district court for prior\napproval. In addition, English-only elections would be banned\nfor ten years within the covered areas and bilingual elections\nwould be required. It appears that the effect of the provision\nwould be to extend the coverage of the Act to include the States\nof Texas and Alaska and about 40 counties scattered throughout\nthe nation.\nProponents of the provision argue that it is necessary\nto remedy the systematic pattern of voting discrimination against\n-6-\nlanguage minorities and that such discrimination was documented\nduring the Congressional hearings. Although many forms of\ndiscrimination are alleged, the most serious example is the\nfailure of States and local jurisdictions to provide adequate\nbilingual registration and election materials to non-English-\nspeaking citizens. It is urged that, as a result, the regis-\ntration and voting statistics of language minorities are\nsignificantly below those of the Anglo-American majority.\nMoreover, the need for the provision is evidenced by the fact\nthat it received substantial support from Congressmen repre-\nsenting jurisdictions that would be covered by the special\nprovisions. Fourteen representatives from the State of Texas\nsupported the bill, for example, while only six opposed it.\nThose opposing the bill argue that the application of\nall the Act's special remedies to the covered jurisdictions is\nnot supported by the evidence and that a prohibition on English-\nonly elections would suffice. In particular, it is asserted\nthat the preclearance requirement would constitute an unjusti-\nfied intrusion on the jurisdictions involved, since the alleged\ndiscrimination results mainly from English-only elections, and\nnot from other kinds of practices that would be covered by the\npreclearance procedure. Further, it can be argued that the\nspecial remedies do not constitute the sole means for combatting\ndiscrimination since under the present Act individual acts of\ndiscrimination can be enjoined and those committing the acts\nprosecuted.\n-7-\n4. Requirement of bilingual elections. The bill would\nalso ban English-only elections in States or political subdiv-\nisions in which greater than five percent of the voting age\ncitizens are members of any single \"language minority\" (Asian\nAmericans, American Indians, and Alaskan natives and persons of\nSpanish heritage) and in which the illiteracy rate of that\nminority is greater than the national illiteracy rate. The\nbilingual election provision would therefore cover those areas\nwhere a concentration of a language minority exists, principally\nTexas, Arixona, Alaska, approximately 40 counties in California\nand political subdivisions in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,\nHawaii, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South\nDakota, Utah and Virginia. The more stringent remedies discussed\nabove would cover those areas that also have low voting parti-\ncipation -- a factor that supposedly indicates discrimination.\nA chief criticism of this provision is that there is\nno apparent reason why States should not have the option of\nproviding sample ballots and other assistance in the minority\nlanguage while still retaining English as the only language for\nuse on official State documents such as the ballots themselves.\nFor example, rather than requiring bilingual official ballots,\nthe States could assist language minorities in understanding\nthe voting system by posting sample ballots in different lang-\nuages outside the polling booth. It would obviously be less\nintrusive on State prerogatives to allow the States the choice\nbetween this option andbilingual ballots. Moreover, there is\n-8-\nsome question whether it is wise to start down the road of re-\nquired bilingualism in the publication of official State materials\nwith its implication for a Quebec-type movement here in the United\nStates.\n5. Exemption from the Act's special remedies. The\nAct presently provides that a covered jurisdiction may exempt\nitself or \"bail out\" from the Act's special coverage if it can\novercome a rebuttable presumption that it employed a discrimin-\natory test or device as a prerequisite to registration or voting\nwithin the last 10 years. A recent case involving the State\nof Virginia illustrates the difficulty of using this formula\nsince the literacy tests employed in many of the southern States\n10 years ago are presumed to have discriminated against minorities.\nNeither bill attempts to change the bail-out formula.\nAn amendment by Congressman Butler to modify the formula to\nlessen the requirements of proof failed by a vote of 279 to\n134. This amendment would have permitted a presently covered\nState to exempt itself from the special provisions if (1) the\nminority vote was over 60 percent; (2) the State remained un-\ntainted by discrimination complaints for five years; and (3)\nthe State intitiated an \"affirmative action\" plan to increase\nminority voter participation. In a letter to the Subcommittee\nconsidering this amendment, the Assistant Attorney General in\n-9-\ncharge of the Civil Rights Division expressed the view that\nwhile the present bail-out provision is adequate and no amend-\nment is necessary, a provision along the lines of the Butler\nAmendment is consistent with the goals of the Act.\nA modification of the bail-out formula -- allowing the\ncovered political subdivisions a reasonable opportunity to obtain\nan exemption from the Act's special remedies -- would give these\nsubdivisions an incentive to take those measures necessary to\nassure equal access to the ballot box. The Butler Amendment\nseems deficient because of its reliance on an affirmative\naction plan with the vagaries inherent in such a proposal.\nA better formulation, for example, would provide an exemption\nfor those political subdivisions that prove that (1) the minor-\nity vote is over 60 percent and (2) there is not more than a\nfive percent difference between the voting turnout of blacks\nas compared to that of whites. / Both factors evidence an\nabsence of discriminatory voting practices. If they were not\npresent in succeeding elections during the 10-year period, the\nremedies could be reimposed.\n* / The percentages given are for the purposes of explaining\nthe concept. The optional percentages to be used in the\nformula will require further computation.\n****\n-10-\nISSUES\n1. Extension of the special remedies of the Act.\nOptions:\nA. Continue to support a five-year extension.\nB. Acquiesce in a Congressional judgment that a\nten-year extension is more appropriate.\nRecommendation:\nOption B. This option, taken in tandem with an amend-\nment modifying the exemption from the Act's special\nremedies (Option 5(b)), would impose the special\nremedies on those States where there still appear to\nexist some vestiges of discriminatory practices. The\nspecial remedies, including preclearance of voting\nlaw changes, would apply during that period of time\nmost susceptible to discriminatory practices, namely\nthe several years following the 1980 census. If, how-\never, these special remedies are to apply for 10 years,\nit would seem only reasonable to permit the political\nsubdivisions to bail out when the evidence of discrim-\nination no longer exists.\nDecision:\nOption A\nOption B\n2. Permanent nationwide prohibition of literacy tests.\nOptions:\nA. Support the permanent ban.\nB. Recommend five- or ten-year extension of\npresent ban (the number of years to be the\nsame for special remedies).\nRecommendation:\nOption B, for the reasons stated.\nDecision:\nOption A\nOption B\n-11-\n3. Extension of the special remedies of the Act to \"language\nminority\" citizens.\nOptions:\nA. Oppose any special coverage for language\nminority citizens.\nB. Remedy discriminatory effects by (1) requiring\nbilingual-type elections and (2) maintaining a\nvigilant enforcement policy to eliminate acts\nof discrimination.\nC. Support application of all the special remedies\nfor language minority citizens.\nRecommendation:\nOption B, for the reasons earlier stated.\nDecision:\nOption A\nOption B\nOption C\n4. Requirement of bilingual elections.\nOptions:\nA. Support the requirement of official bilingual\nballots in minority language areas.\nB. Oppose the requirement.\nC. Grant the States the option to provide either\nofficial bilingual ballots or other assistance\nequally helpful in understanding the ballot such\nas providing sample ballots.\nRecommendation:\nOption C, for reasons stated previously.\nDecision:\nOption A\nOption B\nOption C\n-12-\n5. Exemption from the Act's special remedies:\nOptions:\nA. Oppose any change in the bail-out formula.\nB. Support a modified bail-out formula.\nRecommendation:\nOption B, for the reasons stated in the recommenda-\ntion with respect to the extension of the special\nremedies of the Act (Option 1 (b) )\nDecision:\nOption A\nOption B\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\ntwo COM\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 2, 1975\nWEEKLY DOMESTIC REPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT\n1. Uranium Enrichment\nERDA has established two boards to negotiate with\nprivate groups. One will deal with the diffusion\nprocess and will have its first meeting next week\nwith uranium enrichment associates.\nThe other board will deal with the centrifuge\nprocess and will start meeting with private\ngroups within a few weeks.\nOur priority now is getting your legislation\nenacted. For lead-off administration witnesses,\nI suggest:\n-- Kissinger--International aspects and\nnuclear safeguards.\n-- Zarb--Overall energy outlook and the role\nthat nuclear power will play in the future.\n-- Seamans and Fri--The overall ERDA approach\nand the specifics of your legislative\nproposal.\n-- Lynn -- How this benefits the taxpayer.\n-- Dunlop What this means to jobs.\n-- Morton -- How this affects the growth of the\ncountry.\nTo propose these administration witnesses, Marsh,\nFriedersdorf, and I might visit with Senator Pastore\nand other members of the Joint Atomic Energy\nwhat\nCommittee.\nBACK wed- 14TH\nBent\nwat\non\nwhich\nRomha\nz\ndait\nATTAK\nPart\nmm\n1um\nWeekly Domestic Report\nJuly 2, 1975\nPage 2\n2.\nCincinnati Environmental Meeting\nAfter the dedication of the E.P.A. research facility\ntomorrow, you will meet with 20 environmentalists.\nThe group has been put together by Henry Diamond\nand John Quarles. Russ Train, Russ Peterson, and\nFrank Zarb will also attend.\nAs you know, the environmental community feels that\nyou have come down on the opposite side of every\nmajor issue that they' ve been interested in. They\nbut\nwill probably differ with your position on strip\nmining and auto emissions. It's our understanding,\nhowever, that they view this as their first opportunity\nallowing chirs n 3\nto begin a dialogue with you on environmental issues,\nand we expect it to be a responsible meeting.\nI will have a briefing paper for you late this\nafternoon.\nMARSH\nVoting Rights\nmat\n4\nCoyotes\n3\nWe have finally identified the central problems and\nissues on coyotes, and will staff a decision paper\ntoday, for delivery to you tomorrow.\n5.\nNew York City Financial Situation\nRecent disclosures from both the State and City\nControllers' office indicate that both the short\nand long term financial problems of New York City\nare greater than originally thought two months ago.\nThe State solution, the \"Big Mac\" corporation, is\nhelpful, but will unlikely solve the financial problem,\neven for this year.\nWeekly Domestic Report\nJuly 2, 1975\n% of Crops EX pup\nPage 3\nA fundamental and long-range solution of New York\nCity's basic problems is beyond the fiscal capacity\nof the State and the City. In addition, the\ndisruption of services which is now occurring\ncould become very dangerous this summer.\nIt is likely that the Federal government will be\nasked to get involved in the problem.\n6. Highway Message\nYour Highway Message will be ready to go to Congress\nnext Monday, July 7, 1975. We have invited seven\nGovernors to come in to discuss your program with\nyou on Monday and then to be present for the Signing\nCeremony. Those Governors invited are:\nBennett\nKansas\nConstry\nAskew\nFlorida\nRampton\nUtah\nEvans\nWashington\nNoel\nRhode Island\n79\nwere\nBond\nMissouri\nRay\nIowa\nTwo ss\nUS 7.1\nTON\nCouparsh\ncleat in\nchat\nfor\nway\nagest\nEPA\nDRAFT\nJuly 10, 1975\nDear Roman:\nThis is in response to your letter of\n,\nin which you request my position on the Voting\nRights Act of 1965.\nI strongly believe that the right to vote is\nthe foundation of freedom, and that this right must\nbe protected.\nThat is why when this issue was first being\nconsidered in 1965, I co-sponsored with Representative\nWilliam McCulloch of Ohio a voting rights bill which\nwould have effectively guaranteed the Constitutional\nright to vote to all eligible citizens in the United\nStates.\nAfter it became clear that the McCulloch-Ford\nBill would not pass, I voted for the most practical\nalternative, the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and in\n1970 I supported extending the Act.\nLast January, when this issue first came before\nme as President, I proposed that Congress again extend\nfor five years the temporary provisions of the Voting\nRights Act of 1965.\n-2-\nSince I transmitted my proposal, however, the\nHouse of Representatives has passed a bill (H.R. 6219)\nwhich differs substantially from that which I\nrecommended. The most significant of these differences\nare: (1) The House bill would extend the temporary\nprovisions of the Act for ten years, instead of five;\nand (2) the House bill would extend the temporary\nprovisions of the Act so as to include discrimination\nagainst language minorities, thereby extending\napplication of the Act from the present seven States\nto eight additional States, in whole or in part.\nIn light of the House extension of the Voting\nRights Act for ten years and to eight more States,\nI believe that the time has come to extend the Voting\nRights Act nationwide.\nThis is one nation, and what is right for\nfifteen States is right for fifty States.\nNumerous civil rights leaders have pointed out\nthat substantial numbers of Black citizens have been\ndenied the right to vote in many of our large cities\nin areas other than the seven Southern states where\nthe present temporary provisions apply. We cannot\npermit discrimination in voting in any part of this\nnation.\n-3-\nAs I said back in 1965, when I introduced\nlegislation on this subject, a responsible,\ncomprehensive voting rights bill should \"correct\nvoting discrimination wherever it occurs throughout\nthe length and breadth of this great land.\"\nNow, ten years later, it is even more clear to\nme that a Voting Rights Act should apply in the same\nway to all voting jurisdictions and safeguard the\nvoting rights of every citizen in every State.\nI recognize that extension of the temporary\nprovisions of the Act to all States will necessitate\nmodifications of the law. These should be accomplished\npromptly, since the voting Rights Act expires\nAugust 6, 1975; and it is imperative that the Act\nbe extended.\nI shall be grateful if you will convey to the\nmembers of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary my\nviews on this important matter.\nSincerely,\n# we G, [7/10/75]\nQuality - townow\nwhy we new A\nThe people\nwrat we cooked\ndo t with 17\nwhat the num\na\nmoney\nSalay Were /\nspuble level\nBERRLO FL FORD LIBRARY\nLarloili]\nwute montorn\n+ sexend Alm\npww\navou\nCUPY\nkovw\nBelion '/V wt NA now y ab\nRolaver heari for w\nhw melos\nelimya\nQERVLD FORD LERRAY\n7/10\nUni on Bood\nBefore you Ded it &\ncan in Block\nTell Them\nwally\nyour\npontroin -\nIf story arguests\nwax tour can can an - The\nTactizal\n\\\n(form , key Their 4\nNothing be dame\nis\nBERJALO FORD LIBRARY\npeoportyn MR ALI\npufect -\nW of at who of\nwhen any\nDevelopm\ndedicate &\nPrui\nFORD LIBRARY\nI\n14ml in letter / would, Present\nas under pretitions\nfood\nan\nq\nwhy Thousen't\nFORD LIBRARY 07V839\nthe Copy\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 10, 1975\nWEEKLY DOMESTIC REPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFit\nVoting Rights\nMarsh and Hartmann have reviewed the draft letter.\nIf you agree, I would like to discuss it personally\nwith Ed Levi, Senator Hruska, and Senator Griffin.\nHugh swam\n2.\nCoyotes\nYou have our paper on coyotes. I understand we\nwill be meeting at 9:15 a.m. tomorrow morning.\nmike.\n3.\nHighway Legislation\nwho\nYour Monday Message to the Congress got a good\nwhile testify\nreception from the press and the Governors, but\nthere is strong opposition in Congress. The Senate\nwill begin hearings on July 17 and the House on July 23.\nweiven\n4.\nUranium Enrichment\nI met on Wednesday with Senator Pastore about\nAdministration witnesses. He agrees with our list,\nand indicated he may want to call others in the\nAdministration. He said he will call his committee\ntogether next week and determine a date for hearings\nto begin.\n5.\nTitle IX\nWe have reviewed the section of the regulations that\nwas of such concern to Coaches Glenn E. Schembechler,\n?\nDarrell Royal, and Barry Switzer. Cap Weinberger,\nMeet Rep\nUsi\nJustice, and Dick Parsons believe the section as\nsent to Congress does follow the law that Congress\npassed. Any change will require an Amendment to the\nlegislation, such as prepared by Representative James\nWedeship\nO'Hara.\ncap\nAl Our\nCongress\nHERL James on win\nBis Batht\n-2-\n6.\nRegulatory Reform\nWith Rod Hills and Paul MacAvoy, we will put\ntogether the next steps in this major effort,\nand a timetable.\n7.\nMurphy Commission\nBrent Scowcroft and I will follow up with the\ntimetable as you discussed with Rumsfeld: That is,\ncomments from the Department heads into the White\nHouse by July 20; broader questions on which they\nhave comments by July 25; and a memorandum to you\non the subject no later than July 27.\n8.\nGun Control Legislation\nThe legislation implementing your Crime Message\nhas not yet been sent to the Congress because we\nhave been unable to agree upon a definition of the\nterm \"Saturday Night Special.'\nThe Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol,\nTobacco and Firearms, and the Domestic Council\nbelieve that your bill should utilize the same basic\ndefinitional approach that is used in current\nlaw--which is based on both the quality and the\nconcealability of a weapon. Concern was expressed\nby Counsel's office on behalf of Senator Hruska,\nhowever, that unless your bill also refers to retail\nprice, it would not be acceptable to conservatives.\nIt now appears that, regardless of the definition\nof \"Saturday Night Special,\" Senator Hruska may not\nwant to introduce the bill.\nI recommend we introduce the legislation in its\ncurrent form and respond to Congressional objections\nwhen made.\n-3-\n9.\nInformation Books\nWe do have ready for distribution to your senior\nstaff the information books now being provided to\nyou and the Vice President, and will start dis-\ntributing them this week.\nGov for peen They original exp\n10.\nPost Office\nJim Lynn was inadvertently omitted from the meeting\nwith Postmaster General Ben Bailar and Bill Usery\non Wednesday. Subsequently, he told me that OMB\nhas already been working with Bailar on their budget\nand labor situation.\non to shuft\nto ours\n-3-\n[7/10/75]\n9.\nInformation Books\nWe do have ready for distribution to your senior\nstaff the information books now being provided to\nyou and the Vice President, and will start dis-\ntributing them this week.\n10.\nPost Office\nJim Lynn was inadvertently omitted from the meeting\nwith Postmaster General Ben Bailar and Bill Usery\non Wednesday. Subsequently, he told me that OMB\nhas already been working with Bailar on their budget\nand labor situation."
}