Soldier vote is headed for new battles
States’ rights bloc wins in compromise
Washington (UP) –
Prospects of a renewed Senate fight and a possible presidential veto threatened today to prolong the soldier vote controversy.
House and Senate conferees reached final agreement yesterday after 25 days of struggle between states’ rights and federal ballot proponents. The states’ rights forces emerged largely triumphant.
The conference report, accepted by an 8–2 vote, permits restricted use of a federal ballot for troops overseas. However, servicemen within the United States whose home states do not provide for absentee voting – at present Kentucky and New Mexico – will also be eligible for a federal ballot.
Federal ballot restricted
Use of the federal ballot for overseas troops is restricted to men who apply for a state ballot by Sept. 1 and certify that they have not received it by Oct. 1. In addition, in order to be counted the federal ballots must be legalized by state governors on the authorization of their legislatures by July 15.
The House conferees accepted the report unanimously, and Rep. John E. Rankin (D-MS), leader of the states’ rights faction, hailed it as a victory.
Senate fight certain
He said:
The House is going to take it because we’ve got what we wanted.
But a sharp contest on the conference report in the Senate is certain. Four Senators, two of them the conferees who voted against the compromise, have already announced that they will oppose it on the floor.
If the compromise does pass both House and Senate, there is a possibility of a veto that would reopen the whole issue and delay final solution.
Soldier vote session cost cited by Governor Martin
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (UP) –
Governor Edward Martin said today the state would save about $360,000 if ways can be found to simplify the Pennsylvania soldier voting law without convening a special session of the Legislature.
Governor Martin said he believed all of the Commonwealth’s servicemen, even those stationed in remote sections of the globe, would be guaranteed their right of franchise “if we could just lift the time element and party registration requirements from the present law.”