Speech #890051418

Mr. President. a vote against the pending amendment will constitute an admission that this bill is not limited to enforcing the guarantee of the 15th amendment. It will be an admission that. notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal provisions of the Constitution and the interpretations thereof by the Supreme Court. the States affected by section 4 of the bill will be denied their admitted right to establish nondiscriminatory literacy tests as a prerequisite to registering or voting. In short. the result of the vote on this amendment will be the acid test of this bodys devotion to the Constitution. I make these statements advisedly. Mr. President. and with deference to the proponents of this bill. but with every confidence that in so doing I am fulfilling my responsibility as a Member of this body. I make these statements because this amendment so clearly presents to the Senate the choice of following. or ignoring. the unquestioned constitutional principle that the States may require all voters to pass a literacy test and that the 15th amendment does not prohibit such a test which applies equally to citizens of all races. This is the law of the land. Mr. President. and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. As now written. however. S. 1564 violates these principles because it would deny to certain States the right of prescribing any type of literacy test. both fair on its face and fairly administered. Just what does the Ervin amendment provide? First. it merely states that nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit a State from prescribing a literacy test which applies equally to citizens of all races. The inclusion of this language in the bill certainly could not limit its effectiveness in enforcing the guarantee of the 15th amendment. Indeed. the only meaning of this language is to limit the coverage of section 4 to prohibiting that action declared unlawful by the 15th amendment. namely. a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. This is the only meaning of the 15th amendment. and the Supreme Court clearly held in United States v. Reese. 92 U.S. 214 (1875). that any enforcing statute is void if it goes beyond this limit. Section 4 of S. 1564 goes beyond prohibiting denials on account of race or color because. in the affected States. it would prohibit the application of a literacy test to anyone. regardless of whether there was any question of racial discrimination. The Ervin amendment would cure this fatal defect by assuring that section 4 will apply only to cases where a State attempts to apply different registration or voting prerequisites to citizens of different races. The second provision of the pending amendment would permit the use of literacy tests. applied equally to all races. if such test merely requires the voter to be able to read azd write in the English language. Certainly it cannot be contended that this is an unreasonable requirement. to the contrary. the requirement that all voters be able to read and write is simply an effort to improve the standards of the electorate. In a modern and complex society such as we enjoy in this Nation.