Mr. HALEY. How many were you going to elect; four? Mr. FARRELLY. I stand corrected, sir; out of seven. Mr. HALEY. Now, let me ask you this: Inasmuch as these senators running at large would represent all the islands, if this particular person was qualified on some other island and happened to be away from that island on election day but was on another island, what provisions do you have in your election laws to allow a qualified person to vote? Here is what the laws of my State are: In a general election if I happen to be away from my county and it is impossible for me to get back to where I should vote, I can go into any election precinct in the State, present my registration card, be given what they call a general ballot, and I can vote for all the offices in my State, even including at the local level, provided I know who they are and can write their names in the proper place. Now, do you have any such laws? Mr. FARRELLY. Mr. Congressman, I am not aware of any such comparable provision in our election code, I am not aware that there is such a provision which allows a voter from St. Croix to vote in St. Thomas, or vice versa. Mr. HALEY. It does seem to me like, Mr. Chairman, while I know nothing about this alleged situation here, it seems to me that we had better take a look at the voting requirements of the Virgin Islands because I think that if a person is eligible to vote in a general election there should be some method where they could go into any precinct on any island and cast a legitimate vote. Mr. WHITE. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. CAREY. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. I just wish to state this: Colorado is supposed to have an election law as good as any in the United States. We make no provision whatsoever for that system of voting. There is a lot of danger in that sort of voting. We have one of the finest absentee ballot procedures that can possibly be found. I think we will get ourselves into a great deal of difficulty if we try to bring a particular area, which has jurisdiction and responsibility over its own voting and elections into conformity with the election procedures of other States. Maybe we need a national election law for States, but I, for one, am not yet ready to bring it to that situation. I believe that States rights still have some place at least in our operation. Mr. WHITE. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALEY. Yes. Mr. WHITE. I understand that New Mexico does not have any absentee balloting whatsoever. Mr. HALEY. I just say that I think there has been a lot of controversy, and so forth, in the last few years around here about oneman, one-vote, and I think if a person is qualified to vote, that under that rule there should be some provision made for the person to vote, providing they are qualified. Mr. WHITE. I quite agree, as far as that goes. I noted that there are States that still do not have that kind of arrangement. Mr. CAREY. The Chair will just note that this is an exceedingly progressive and liberal suggestion from the distinguished gentleman from the State of Florida on election proceedings, it is quite an extension of the concept of the one-man, one-vote. Mr. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman yield? Does the gentleman from Florida know of any other State that has an election law of that type? In my State, and I thought in most States, we have provisions for absentee ballots. The ballot goes back to the voters own precinct, however. I don't see how this would work. Mr. HALEY. I think you will find this situation in several States. I have not checked it, but I think it could very easily be verified, that if you have your registration certificate you go in and ask for a ballot. Mr. CAREY. The chairman will just comment now that we are getting a little far afield from the alleged irregularities of the election of November in the Virgin Islands. If I understand the point being made by the witness, it is not the matter of whether or not this deponent was voting in the appropriate place; rather, it is that there is an indication of a perjurious affidavit here, in that the deponent made an affidavit in English, testifying to a denial of her right to vote in St. Croix when, as a matter of knowledge to her attorney, she was not in St. Croix on that date. Mr. FARRELLY. Yes, sir. Mr. CAREY. So it would appear at least there was a prima facie case of perjury here. Now, I would suppose that these matters could be addressed again to the U.S. attorney for whatever action he might deem fit. Mr. FARRELLY. As a matter of fact, sir, this is one of the affidavits in his possession. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the mere fact that he happened to be seen on one island in one day by one person is no evidence of whether or not he was there and able to vote. I have been in all three islands on the same day and have been seen in all three islands of the Virgin Islands on the same day. This is very possible because planes fly back and forth most every hour between the two main islands and it is a very simple proposition to take a boat from St. Thomas and go over to St. John. The mere fact that somebody saw a witness or somebody who made an affidavit on one island is not much evidence of the fact that he couldn't have been in the place that he wanted to vote. Mr. CAREY. At least, at the very least it would indicate that there is a question of the probity of this affidavit by reason of the fact that the person who gave it is literate in Spanish and the affidavit is in English. Mr. FARRELLY. Yes, sir. Mr. CAREY. And the fact that her attorney based it upon evidently knowledge or information she has given to him. Mr. FARRELLY. Yes, sir. Mr. CAREY. Has stated that she was not in St. Croix, and I suspect that-this is only a surmise on my part-that he is making the statement on the basis of information given him by his client that she was not in St. Croix on the day she was alleged to have been denied the right to vote on that island. Mr. FARRELLY. Yes. And he informed me that he told this subcommittee the same information in St. Croix. Mr. CAREY. I recall the testimony of Mr. Hodge on this point. Mr. FARRELLY. Inclining to the view, sir, that this possibility may have led to others, the Committee on the Judiciary convened hearings and investigations into the whole field of election procedures, practices, and irregularities, on June 16. The office of the U.S. attorney was advised by telephone and then formally in writing. The committee requested Charles Groneveldt, chief investigator, Department of Public Safety, St. Croix, and Commissioner Felix to appear. Early in our hearings it appeared that Mr. Groneveldt, from his sworn testimony, was caught in a jurisdictional problem: whether to risk citation for contempt by our committee or to divulge information which was properly the concern of the prosecuting attorney. That dilemma was formalized when a knock on the hearing door and the admission of a messenger produced a letter from the U.S. attorney directed to both Mr. Felix and Mr. Groneveldt, which is in the appendix, ordering both of them to desist, if they had started; or if they had not started, to refrain from divulging any information disclosed as a result of their investigation with respect to offenses or crimes under the election code. But Mr. Groneveldt did admit, pages 14 and 15 of the transcript, gentlemen, which is an appendix to my statement, that there was, in his opinion, a disparity in many instances between the sworn allegations of fraud and irregularities and the facts disclosed by his investigation to date. In that state of the record, the Committee on the Judiciary decided that formal approval by way of resolution and a money bill should be provided by the legislature and, indeed, it was. The U.S. attorney has advised the committee that he is still pursuing his investigation and more recently to the Home Journal, that this week he will make a determination whether more investigative work is necessary. The whole point that this aspect of my statement is intended to make is that the question of crimes and offenses are in the proper hands. The U.S. attorney responsible only to the U.S. Department of Justice, that is, and if offenses are filed they will be filed before the district court of the Virgin Islands, a court set up by the Congress, headed by a judge appointed by the President of the United States. And we believe that is where it ought to remain and let the chips fall where they may. Much has been said, gentlemen, in recent years about the supervisor of elections and about the control which the legislature supposedly exercises over here. And I guess some of the impressions run from the fact that her term does coincide with the term of each legislature, and thus her reappointment becomes necessary. Although I do not concede for a moment that the legislature attempts or does in fact exercise control over Mrs. Todman, a claim which, by the way, I think does a great disservice to her, it seemed that it was important to deal with the impressions of others. Accordingly, the Governor included in his call for a special second session of the legislature and the legislature adopted a statute setting up the independent office of the supervisor of elections calling for an 8-year term, appointment by the Governor, confirmation by the legislature, and a salary of $12,000 per year, which cannot be reduced during the incumbency of the supervisor. We hope that the enactment of this bill and its approval by the Governor-I think the day before I left St. Thomas-would remove whatever clouds there may be with respect to the allegation of influence over Mrs. Todman and, hopefully, that it will reinforce public confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes. Based on all the foregoing, gentlemen, the legislature and the people of the Virgin Islands respectfully request that H.R. 7330 be reported favorably. Mr. CAREY. Senator Farrelly, there is now pending or now convened a Commission on Reapportionment for the Virgin Islands Legislature; is that correct? Mr. FARRELLY. That is correct, sir. Mr. CAREY. Is one of the purposes and plans of this Commission to eliminate the at-large seats? Mr. FARRELLY. Mr. Chairman, at this point I don't know what the proposal is intended to do, except what was set forth in the enabling bill. The enabling bill provided that we should carry out the mandate given by this Congress in section 5(b), enacted last August, 1966, which, among other things, increased the number of seats from 11 to 15, said that any reapportionment shall be as the legislature shall otherwise provide and that the reapportionment shall comport with the one-man, one-vote. Mr. CAREY. Do I understand, then, that the commission, the reapportionment commission, will submit a plan to the legislature which the legislature can then vote up or down or amend? Mr. FARRELLY. That is correct, sir. It is required by the enabling statute to recommend a plan which the legislature, one, may reject, two, accept, or return to the commission with suggested amendments. Mr. CAREY. It is within the power of the commission, though, to submit any plan they wish? Mr. FARRELLY. That is correct, sir. Mr. CAREY. But is it your estimate that they may eliminate the at-large seats? Mr. FARRELLY. It is not my estimate that they will, sir. Mr. CAREY. One of the problems addressed by witness John Erickson at St. John was, of course, that it was a possibility on the basis of one-man, one-vote, St. John would lose its 400-vote Senator over there. I sympathized with the witness Erickson at the time because this is not a unique problem of the Virgin Islands, it is exactly the same problem that the people of Staten Island, Richmond County, N.Y., have. They just don't have enough people for one congressman so we have to lend them some people from Brooklyn. It is possible, though, under this reapportionment, that St. John may have to share a Senator with St. Thomas or St. Croix. Mr. FARRELLY. It is possible, sir; but it is just as possible that the Commission may recommend that the same plan now in effect be continued. I think both possibilities are, shall I say, equally possible. Mr. CAREY. Senator, you began an investigation of all the election procedures of the Virgin Islands under your Committee on the Judiciarv: is that correct? Mr. FARRELLY. Yes; that is correct, sir. Mr. CAREY. Now that you have produced, so far, one piece of legislation calling for the new appointment of the supervisor of elections, appointment by the Governor and confirmation by the legislature Mr. FARRELLY. And another aspect, sir, which I neglected to mention: The board of elections shall be similarly appointed by the Governor and confirmation by the legislature. Mr. CAREY. All of the members of the board of elections? Mr. FARRELLY. Yes, sir. Mr. CAREY. At this point in the record the Chair will ask unanimous consent to insert a communication from Neville Thomas, chairman of the Board of Elections of St. Thomas, and the Chair will explain that this is in response to a request made by the subcommittee when we were in St. Thomas that the membership of the board of elections be reported to us, giving the political party of each member. I will ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the record at this point and be available for inspection at this time by anybody. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Chairman is doing this so it will save time and we will not have to read the letter into the record. Mr. SAYLOR. I don't want to object, but I certainly want to take a look at the letter before it is entered. Mr. CAREY. The Chair will further state the purpose of introducing the letter at this time was to aid committee members in their questioning so with access to this letter they can raise questions about the employment and political affiliation of the board members. This is within the area of testimony now being given by this committee. Mr. ASPINALL. If the subcommittee meeting in the Virgin Islands asked for this information and this information is in conformity with the request of the subcommittee, there is no question at all about its being printed in the record. Mr. CAREY. That is exactly the tenor of my suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. I would like to ask Mr. Leppert a question. Is this responsive to the request of the subcommittee while it was in the islands? Mr. LEPPERT. The information was requested by the subcommittee in the Virgin Islands. Mr. ASPINALL. This letter is responsive to the request? Mr. CAREY. The letter will be placed in the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) ST. THOMAS BOARD OF ELECTIONS, CRYSTAL GADE No. 3, Hon. HUGH L. CAREY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Affairs, Committee on Inte rior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In accordance with your request I am listing below the occupations of the Members of the St. Thomas Board of Elections during the General Election of 1966: |