Speech File Material: Reference materials on voting registration programs, Jan 1973 - Feb 1975

6 [three columns]

In 29% of the communites where deputy registrars were allowed, election officials failed to use this method to reach citizens. While only 10 states⁵ expressly forbid evening and Saturday registration, 77% of the communities studied had no Saturday registration, and 75% had no evening registration in non-election months.⁴ Even during the heat of an election period, i.e. the 30 days prior to the closing of registration, 38% of the communites provided no additional hours for registration. The data clearly suggest, then, that local officials have in many cases failed to use the tools allowed but not mandated by law to make registration and voting easier and more accessible for all citizens.

In addition to their influence in areas where the law is stated in broad or permissive terms local officials are able to influence the electoral process in matters where the law is silent. Although the law may neither

[column 2] require, suggest nor forbid it, an election official might provide information to citizens concerning the election, might conduct extensive training programs for all poll workers, and might provide bilingual clerks where needed. While such initiative would remove many obstacles to voting, local officials have seldom noted in these areas: only 11% of the local officials included in this study published a voter information guide: 28% provided no training for poll workers: and in approximately 30% of the registration places where bilingual assistance was needed, local officials failed to proved this service. Election officials clearly have the power to make registration and voting procedures easier for citizens but this study has found that, by and large, they don't use it.

To a large extent, local officials retain their discretionary powers by default. The community study found that the state authority

[third column] charged with responsibilty for administering the state election code most often counted it as one of several other major functions of his or her office. In most states reports from local officials to the state authority are generally required just after elections and contain little else than the total number of people registered and voting in a given jurisdiction and the results of the latest election. Though many states issue guidelines to local election officials, few state administrative mechanisms have been set up to monitor or enforce compliance with the guidelines. In short, state election administrators have little knowledge or control and exert practically no leadership over local election officials and the manner in which they administer the state election code. It is little wonder then that the local election official can, and often does, become the chief policy-maker for all local, state and national elections held within his jurisdiction.

TABLE A. - DISTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH COMMUNITIES ACCORDING TO POPULATION SIZE BY ADDITIONAL TIME AVAILABLE FOR REGISTRATION DURING AN ELECTION MONTH (MONTH PRIOR TO CLOSING OF REGISTRATION)

	Total		Additional hours			Additional			Additional			Additional
	communities		election month			Saturdays1			evenings1			evening hours2
	Number	Percent	Percent	Yes	No	Percent	Yes	No	Percent	Yes	No	Percent	[less] 10 hrs.	[more] 10 hrs.
Population size	N = 200	100	100	62	38	100	70	30	100	83	17	100	52	49
Greatest than 1,000,000	4	2	100	3(1)	(3)	100	(4)	--	100	(2)	(2)	100	(4)	--
500,000 to 1,000,000	13	6	100	62	38	100	63	37	100	89	11	100	57	42
250,000 to 500,000	21	10	100	41	59	100	75	25	100	77	23	100		100
100,000 to 250,000	33	16	100	68	32	100	90	10	100	70	30	100	36	64
50,000 to 100,000	27	13	100	73	27	100	55	45	100	86	14	100	44	57
25,000 to 50,000	42	20	100	65	34	100	75	25	100	90	10	100	56	44
10,000 to 25,000	46	22	100	60	40	100	67	33	100	93	7	100	61	39
Less than 10,000	22	11	100	56	44	100	45	56	100	60	40	100	83	17

¹ Refers only to those places reporting some additional hours of registration during an election ³ Refers to actual number rather than percentages. ³ Refers only to those places reporting some additional evening hours of registration during an election month.

TABLE B - DISTRIBUTION OF POLLING PLACES OBSERVED ACCORDING TO TYPE BY USE OF VOTING MACHINES, FREQUENCY OF MACHINE BREAKDOWNS AND DURATION OF BREAKDOWNS

	Polling places observed		Voting	machines	used	Voting machine break downs, at least one reported	Minutes	out	of	order
Variable	Number	Percent	Percent	Yes	No	(percent)	Percent	Less than 30 minutes	30 minutes to 2 hours	More than 2 hours
Type of polling place	N=484	100	100	74	32	12	100	71	24	5
Ethnic white - Under $5,000	37	8	100	70	31	8	100	67	33	--
Ethnic white - $5,000-$10,000	60	12	100	67	34	5	100	80	--	20
Ethnic white - over $10,000	47	10	100	62	39	6	100	100	--	--
Nonethnic white - Under $5,000	57	12	100	68	33	5	100	83	17	--
Nonethnic white - $5,000 -$10,000	67	14	100	69	30	16	100	85	15	--
Nonethnic white - Over $10,000	70	14	100	71	29	20	100	46	15	8
Spanish speaking - Under $5,000	22	5	100	56	34	18	100	100	--	--
Spanish speaking - $5,000 - $10,000	15	3	100	79	21	13	100	50	50	--
Spanish speaking - Over $10,000	3	1	100	1(3)	--	1(3)	100	1(3)	--	--
Black - under $5,000	51	11	100	82	18	14	100	20	60	20
Black - $5,000-$10,000	43	9	100	87	13	12	100	33	67	--
Black - Over $10,000	13	3	100	50	50	23	100	100	--	--

¹ Refers to actual number rather than percentages.

[first column] PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF LOCAL OFFICIALS AND CITIZENS GROUP REPRESENTATIVE The perceptions and attitudes of officials and community leaders are important to an examination of election systems for several reasons. First, they are frequently reflected in administrative behavior and in evaluations of that behavior. In many cases they also indicate the willingness or unwillingness of community leadership to undertake needed administrative and legislative reform. Where opinions are backed by the power of an office or the resources of an organization, they take on added importance. Finally, such attitudinal data often show how different groups perceive community problems and the ⁵ Includes North Dakota with no statewide registration and New Hampshire and Vermont where a checklist system is used. ⁶ For the purposes of this study "evening hours" pertain to the hours after 5:00 p.m.

[second column] extent to which they are sensitive to citizen needs.

Perdception of registration and voting problems Long lines, short office hours, inaccessible registration and polling places, and registration periods remote from the date of election are common experiences to many Americans.

Interviews with local officials who hold the authority, responsibility and power to alleviate these problems show that they are generally insensitive to then. For instance, less than one-fourth of election officials held that the following were problems in their communities: Residency requirements. Complex registration procedures. Complex absentee voting procedures. Inconvenient registration hours. Distant and inconvenient places of registation.

[third column] Complicated voting procedures, i.e. use of voting machines and paper ballots. Inconvenient hours of polling. Positioning candidate names on the ballot. Insuring the proper functioning of voting machines.

On the other hand, most persons representing voting rights groups viewed all of these as serious problems in their communities.

Attitudes toward legislative and administrative reforms Although the need for legislative action to reform the electoral process has been documented and endorsed by several committees of national prominence (see page 1), the League of Women Voters Education Fund community study shows that local election officials are reluctant to support many legislative changes and to assume the responsibility for administering reforms. For

-7[three coumns] [first column] instance, support by local election officials dipped to less than a majority in regard to the following:

Carrying out door-to-doot registration by government officials.

Updating registration list monthly for public review.

Requiring at least 16 hours of trainig for election officials.

Extending voting hours from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m

[second column] Conducting elections on a non-work day.

Publishing voter education materials at least 30 days prior to an election.

Placing local election official under state merit systems.

In short, election officials seem to view the government as a passive participant in the electoral process with no responsibility for reaching out to citizens. They apparently believe that the initiative lies entirely with the citizen. This would seem to suggest at

[third column] least one reason why 47 million Americans didn't vote in 1968. The issue clearly goes beyond the generally accepted explanation of voter apathy. Viewed from another perspective, the question arises that if the government can find a citizen to tax him or draft him into military service. It is not reasonable to assume that the government can find that same citizen to enroll him as an eligible voter and inclde him in the active electorate?

TABLE C. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVES BY POSITION WHO AGREE THAT SELECTED REGISTRATION PRACTICES ARE BASICALLY GOOD IDEAS [in percent]

[{three columns}]

Election Officials	Voluntary organization	Range

[{9 columns}]

CCoEO	CClEO	LWV	NZACP	LCP	YG	PCC	CAL	MG

Statement	N1=	158	86	220	120	166	62	208	150	61	Low	High
A Door-to-door registration should be carried out by local government [illegible?] in order to get all eligible citizens on the boter [illegible?]	31	23	50	69	58	82	25	47	60	23	52
B Registration stations should not be closed sooner than 30 days before any election	76	73	92	88	89	87	87	83	91	73	92
C Residency requirements for voting in local elections should not suceed 60 days	61	49	74	81	77	84	65	53	73	49	14
D Each county should require at least 16 hours of instruction for election officials	46	47	64	83	72	85	48	70	85	46	85
E. On election day, polling places should open from at least 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.	25	34	77	73	69	92	63	60	94	25	51
F. All elections should be held on a nonwork day	29	20	35	41	33	46	18	18	47	18	47
G. 30 days before each election, officials should send each registered voter a voter information guide	23	24	62	66	46	65	32	44	75	23	75

¹ N refers to the number of respondents for the 1st respondents for the 1st statement. All percents computed on acutal N's but sample sizes not reported on this table. ³ Not all data from the original interviews are included in this table.

Note: Positions are identified as follows: CCoEO - Chief county election offical, CCEO - Chief city election official. LWV - League of Women Voters, NAACP - National Association for Advancement of Colored People, LCP - Labor council president, UG - Youth groups. FCC - Camber of commerce president. CAL - American Legion commander. MG - Nonblack minority groups

TABLE D. - NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES BY POSITION WHO BELIEVE THAT SELECTED REGISTRATION AND ELECTION CONDITIONS EXIST IN THEIR COMMUNITY (in percent) [{three columns}]

Election officials	Voluntary organization	Range

[{nine columns}]

CCoEO	CCiEO	LWV	NAACP	LCP	YG	FCC	CAL	MG

A. Many [acavoters?] would vote if registration procedures were less complex3	11	9	60	57	42	74	22	13	69	8	74
B. Many potential voters become "nonvoters" because absentee voting procedures are too complex	20	16	69	61	41	76	27	16	67	16	76
C. The hours of registration set by the election officials are inconvenient, and many potential voters find it difficult or impossible to register	9	8	59	51	46	64	20	11	64	6	61
D. The polls close so early in the day that many potential voters find it difficult or impossible to get to the polls on time	8	6	39	47	31	54	20	11	64	6	61
E. Places of registration are inconveniently located, and many potential voters had it difficult or impossible to register	9	7	60	53	43	73	22	15	64	7	[?]3
F. Many [illegible?] are simply frightened by the complicated procedures of voting	20	12	67	65	48	68	25	17	75	12	75

¹ K refers to the number of respondents for the 1st statement. All precents computed on actual K's [illegible?] sizes not reported in this table. ³ Not all data from the original interviews are included in this table.

Note: Positions are identified as follows: CCoEO - Chief county election offical, CCEO - Chief city election official. LWV - League of Women Voters, NAACP - National Association for Advancement of Colored People, LCP - Labor council president, UG - Youth groups. FCC - Camber of commerce president. CAL - American Legion commander. MG - Nonblack minority groups

[three columns] [first column] OBSTACLES TO ORGANIZED CITIZEN INITIATIVE Since election officials have so often been unwilling to support outreach effotts, citizen groups have for many years attempted to fill this void through a variety of activities such as: conductin voter registration drives, sponsoring get-out-the vote campaigns, publishing voter education materials, and providing volunteer staff for mobile registration units. These efforts, however, have all to oftern been frustrated by the ineficiencies and restrictive practices of the system as indicated by interviews with 584 citizen group representatives.

Approximately 50% of the organizations using registration lists found the lists to be inaccurate, and in half those cases the inaccuracy was reported to be greater than 10%. Lists were available to the public in 90% of the communities, but there was a financial charge for the list in 55% of the communities and authorization was required to use the list in 38% of the cases.

[second column] Groups were also frustrated when they attempted to have member deputized to register voters. Approximately one-fourth of the organizations seeking in have members deputized were regused the authoriztion they requested. Of those organizations which succeeded, 31% reported a limit to the number of forms a deputy registrar could obtain an effective way of limiting the number of citizens registered.

These examples once again illustrate an attitude on the part of many election officials which tends to obstruct rather than encourage the efforts of citizen groups to expand the electorate. The instances cited strongly suggest the need for administrative refroms which would place more resonsibility for outreach programs with election officials temselves and which would simplify administrative procedures pertaining to outreach by citizens.

{third column| SEEKING TO REGISTER AND VOTE: EXPERIENCES OF THE VOTER Under the system of voter enrollment and paricipation currently used in the United States, the individual citizen must take the initiative in order to qualify himself [as a?] voter. The preceding discussion has indicated that the law does not require local elected officials to take the initiative and that many are unwilling to emply their numerous po[ll?]ers or fully utilize the efforts of citizens volunteers to reach potential voters.

In this context, the experience of the individual citizen as he seeks to register and vote are extremely important. If the cost in terms of time, energy, inconvenience or personal pride is too high, the individual may choose not to vote. Considering the all too frequent ocurrence of complex forms, unhelpful and poorly trained staff, machine breakdowns, and incoveniently located registration and polling places, it is surprising

-8[three columns] [first column] that so many citizens do vote. That the system functions at all is a tribute to the sheer determination of citizens to overcome these inconvenience and obstacles.

Registration is the first step in the voting process and the most crucial. When people register, they usually vote. In the presidential election of 1968. 89% of those persons who were registered actually voted. Observations of registration places and examination of

[second column] formally stated registration practices provide some dramatic examples of the problems citizens encounter in tryin to register.

The first problem that the citizen is likely to encounter will be finding the registration office. He may well have to travel a considerable distance from his home to a central registration office (except perhaps during the last month of registration for a particlar election when he is more likely to find facilities

[third column] in his neighborhood). In 40% of the communities studied, however, no additional registratain places were opened even during these rush rush months. Since 54% of the registration places were not accessible by convenient public transportation, 24% lackd convenient parking, and 52% were not clearly identified as a registration or elections office, the prospective registrant may well be frustrated before he arrive.

TABLE E. DISTRIBUTION OF REGISTRATION STAFF BEHAVIOR ACCORDING TO SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RESISTRANTS [{three column}]

Total samples observed	Registration staff behavior	Registation staff behavior

Number	Present	Present	Helpful	Not helpful	Perfect	Couretous	Discouretous

[illegible?] class 1	N = 209	100	100	48	52	100	62	38
Middle	125	60	100	54	46	100	63	32
Working	53	25	100	42	58	100	53	42
Composite	31	15	100	33	67	100	44	56
Race	N=213	100	100	49	51	100	63	37
White	147	69	100	52	48	100	67	33
Primarily white	46	22	100	52	48	100	61	39
Composite	13	6	100	17	83	100	50	50
Primarily nonwhite	7	3	100	3(1)	(6)	100	12	83

¹ These classifications are based upon the judgement of registration observers. ³ Refers to actual number rather than percentages.

[three columns] [first column]

Once he has located the registration office, the prospective registrant may find that it is not open for registraton. In 28% of the communities registration closes more than 30 days prior to an election. Even if he arrives before the registration deadline, the office may be closed since 77% of the communities studied had no Saturday registration and 75% of the communities had no evening registraton during non-election months. While 62% of the communites did have additional registration hours during election month, 30% of these still had no additional Saturday hours and 17% had no additional evening hours.

The persistent citizen who anticipates and copes with the numerous obstacles already mentioned will next find himself confronted with a registration form. If the form is confusing or questions arise concerning his eligibluty, he may no find the staff very helpful. Fifty-two percent (52%) of the observers at registration places classified staff as not helpful. Further more, in 30% of the places were bilingual staff was needed, it was not found.

There is no way to measure the number of citizens who are discouraged from registering even before they get to the registration office, but observations of 5,750 people attempting to register at approimately 200 registration places showed that 3 out of every 100 qualified people who made the effort and found the registration place still left without being registered.

Casting a ballot at a polling place is the ultimate event in the electoral process for the citizen. Although he has been successfully registered, the potential voter may be frustrated in his attempts to vote. Polling places, though usually located in his precinct, may be poorly marked (as were 33% of the polling places observed) and public transportation and convenient parking may be lacking. Fifty-eight percent (53%) of the places observed lacked convenient public transportation and 11% lacked convenient parking. Since polliing places are not opened in the evenings in many states, the potential voter may need to take time from work or rush to the polling place before or after work. If he goes early he may not be able to vote because many polls open later than the hour prescribed by law as happened in 7% of the 484 polls observed. If he goes to the polls following work, he may find that he is refused the right to vote even though he is standing in line at closing time. Such refusals occurred at 19 of the polls observed.

The prospective voter who gets into the polling place will probably confront a poorly trained staff usually selected on the basis of their partisanship. If there are voting machines

[second column\ at his polling place, he may well be delayed in casting a ballot by a machine breakdown since this occured in one out of every ten places having voting machines. His right to vote may be challenged as were the rights of 410 persons at the observed polls. In the event that he successfully casts a ballot, it must be attributed at least partially to his perseverance.

SUMMARY In a democratic society, no right is more fundamental than the right of every citizen to vote. Indeed, the vote is the very symbol of democracy. It is the basic unit of our representative form of government; the major vehicle through which the consent of the governed is offered or withheld - the prime means by which the American people can express and effect their will. The right to vote, therefore, necessarily carries with it the right of equal access for every eligible citizen to the formal system of regulations and procedures though which the vote is cast.

In studying the way our current election system is administered, the League of Women Voters Education Fund found that the administration of state election codes throughout each state and that the discretion which most state laws five to local election officials is often exercised in a manner which impedes rather than enhances the citizen's rght to vote.

There is an urgent need for administrative reform of our longer be forced to earn the "privilege" but rather must be insured the right to vote. They must demand that the discretion granted to local officials by current state laws be used for the purpose for which it was originally intended; to give election administrators the margin of flexibilty they need to assure the access of all citizens to the vote under the varying social, economic and geographic conditions which exist within states.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELECTION SYSTEMS PROJECT COMMITTEE An advisory Committee consisting of nationally prominent authorities and experienced practitioners in the fields of voting rights, citizen participaton, and elections was convened by the :eague of Women Voters Education Fund and the National Municipal League to assist them in designing the Election Systems Project. Upon completion of the LWVEF survey, the Committee

[third column\ reviewed its findings and developed the following recommendations regarding elections administration as a practical means of removing unneccessary obstacles to voting (See p.3/NML).

Some of the measures recommended may require changes in some state election codes. The purpose of this report, however, has been to identify admistrative obstacles and to document the need for eliminating them. It is now up to local and state officials and citizens throughout each state to decide which reforms their own election system requires and to emply whatever means would most effectively achieve them.

Findings: Chief local election officials

The administrative practices of local election officials were found to be diverse throughout the states. Data on their attitudes toward reforms that would extend the franchise as well as their perceptions of the problems citizens might encounter under the present system reflect a tendency to [illegible?] of the vote as a privilege rather than [illegible?] right. These findings imply serious discrepencies between the citizen's Constitutional right to the vote and the actual practices which govern its implementation.

Therefor, the Election System Project Committee recommends:

That the chief election official of every community comprehensively analyze [illegible?] examaning the registration rates of every precinct in his jurisdiction and by [illegible?] tions interested and various citizens organizations interested and active in issues of registration and voting paricipation.

That the chief election official of every community go the full limit of [illegible] powers in order to aggressively extend the right to vote to every eligible citizen [illegible?] program could include 1) maximum [illegible?] out-of-office registration techniques [illegible?] of mobile and other temporary registration units; 2) maximum authorization of qualified deputy registrats on a paid of [illegible?] basis; 3) the provision of bilinqual [illegible?] where needed; 4) the publication and [illegible?] spread dissemination of voter [illegible?] guides; 5} the expansion of registraton and polling place hours; and [illegible?] of all these techniques on the basis of [illegible?] need as revealed by his precint analusis [illegible?] information obtained through his community contact.

That the chief elections official of every community recruit, appoint, and train registration and polling place staff [illegible?] willing to respond to diverse citizen [illegible?] that he or she further promote the [illegible?] standars of professional conduct by [illegible?]

[two columns] [first column] ing at least the federal minimum hourly wage to all registration and polling place staff and by selecting staff based on qualifications above and beyond tradiditon partisanship.

FindingsL Chief State election Official The LWVEF study found that although the Secretary of State or State Attorney General is usually charged with general responsibility for administering the state election code, in fact, it is one of many duties of is or her office and therefore its implementation is, with few exceptions, decentralized to the local level. Where regular reports are made to a central state authority, moreover, the survey revealed that they generally contain no more than facts and figures regarding registration and voting rates and occasionally information on the kind of voting system used (automatic voting machines, paper ballots, etc.). Furthermore, where the state authority issues guideline to local officials it usually provides no mechanism for monitoring or enforcing them.

The community study also found that, in the event that local officials are confused about how to interpret any part of the state election code, they must take the initiative to seeking state counsel. Except when their intervention is specifically requested, state authorities generally take little action to insure uniform and liberal interpretation of state election laws at the local level. Finally, state authorities generally do not monitor the way local officials use the extensive discretionary powers provided by most state election codes.

Therefore, the election systems project committee recommends:

That each state locate responsibilty for the implementation of state election laws in a single state official or office and that the uniform interpretation and administration of the election code throughout the state be the sole responsibility of that official or office:

That the state election official establish and issue to evey local election official minimum standards and performance guidelines; that the state official also establish a supervisory structure within which he or she can under the guidelines and take corrective notion where the standards are not being met.

That the state authority conduct mandatory training sessions for local officials which cover both the technical aspects of efficiently managing an election system as well as the local officials' legal obligations to aggressively extend the franchise and protect the voting rights of all citizens;

That both the guideline and the training sections be developed within the philosophical context of the vote as a right rather than a privilege;

That the chief state election official through and established supervisory structure and regular training sessions keep local election officials abreast of the most current legal opinions on voting rights and establish reporting procedures with the most recent court decisions.

Finding: Organized citizen initiative in registration and voting Since election officials have so often been unwilling to support outreach efforts, citizen groups have fr many years tried to fill the void by initiating registration and voting service which would meet citizens' needs. The data now show, however, that their efforts and restrictive practices of local election officials. Interviews with their representatives also show that citizen organization recognize problems in the current election system that the officials tend to overlook.

Therefore, the election systems project committee recommends:

That citizen organizations add to their present outreach programs an aggressive effort

[second column] to scruntinize the policies and actions of local election officials during both electon and non-election periods:

That citizen organization demand not only a role in the selection process of the chief local election official in their comminities but also adequate representation of their constituencies on local and state boards of election where they exist. Where they do not exist, an effort should be made to create them.

The role of political parties, mass media and educational institutions

Although the LWVEF study did not specifically examine the current system, based on the overall findings and the experiences of Committee members, the following recommendatons are offered:

Political parties, because of their vital role in a democratic society have a responsibility to see that responsive and responsible election officials are appointed and elected, The must use their considerable influence to insure that election officials use their discretionary power to aggressively recruit voters and to allocate available resources in a manner that expands the electorate. Political parties should further support all efforts to provide adequate funding for local election officials.

Mass media should direct its enormous capabilities toward both informing the public of its voting rights and increasing the visibility and therefore the public's awareness of the system and administrators through which that right must be exerxised. Such efforts might include a regular newspaper column devoted to registration and voting information, r.g., the requirements of the law, location and office hours of local reistration and polling places, announcement of deadlines, etc. Reporters should cover not just the electon but also the operation of local electon systems on election day. Officials should allow reporters access to the polls at any time during the polling process.

High schools and colleges, through their curricular or extracurricular programs, should provide information on the legal and administrative requirements pertaining to the franchise. By this means, not only can the crucial facts be made know, but a new rather than a privilege might be fostered within every American citizen.

[left hand corner is sketch of a tall building with the words E. H. ARMENTTOUT Council Staff Director written underneath]

[top middle/right hand margin above letterhead is text written in pen as follows] Sen. Julian Bond - According to VEP Iowa, Michigan & Texas allow voter registration by mail.

It is also my understanding that South Dakota does not have registration.

[letterhead] CITY OF ATLANTA CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 404/658-6360

[end letterhead][in right hand margin is a round stamped seal of an eagle]

May 17, 1974

Memorandum To: Members of the Judiciary Committee From: Pam Howell^PH Supject: Two Bills Pending In The U. S. Congress Which Would Allow Voter Registration By Mail

At the April 15 meeting of the full Council, Councilman Marvin Arrington introduced a resolution

"Placing the Council of the City of Atlanta on record as supporting the legislation pending in the Congress of the United States which will permit voter registration by mail.{

There are in fact, two such bills presently pending in the U. S. Congress. S. 352, whose principal sponsor is Senator Gale W. McGee (D. - Wyo.). has passed the Senate and is not in the House Adminitrative Committee. S. 472, whose principal sponsor is Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. - Mass.), has been referred to the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

The main feature of S. 352: 1) A Voter Registration Administration would be established within the U. S. Bureau of the Cenus. Subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, the President would be required to appoint an Administrator and two Associate Administrators (of different political parties) for four year terms.

2) Voter Registration postcards would be mailed to postal addresses and residences, and would also be available in post offices and other

[bottom margin is a seal with the text ATLANTA NEW INTERNATIONAL CITY