"The House of Representatives is expected to vote soon on S.1411 as amended, which would re-extend the federal loyalty-security program to cover all government employees - whether in non-sensitive or sensitive positions.
"This legislation, clearly in conflict with the League position on loyalty-security, offers League members the first opportunity for effective action since that position was determined."
"The League of Women Voters of the United States today (Friday, January 17, 1958) went on record as believing that the federal loyalty-security programs should be modified so as to provide the greatest possible protection for the individual.
"In the interest of strengthening national security and maintaining our traditional concepts of freedom, the League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the federal loyalty-security programs should be modified so as to:
- limit the coverage to sensitive positions and provide for more realistic classification of information;
- institute more uniform procedures in the administration of the programs;
- apply a 'common sense' standard in judging the individual; and
- develop procedures which will provide the greatest possible protection for the individual."
The Washington Post in an article Sunday, February 16, 1958 says this:
"It is worth remembering that the security program, with its reliance on unknown accusers, was instituted a decade ago as an emergency device to meet charges that the Civil Service had been infiltrated by untrustworthy persons. The program violated basic American concepts of fairness. It put employees at the mercy of irresponsible or malicious persons who might make charges against them anonymously. Is this a program which the people want to institutionalize as a permanent part of American Life? Is it a program which Americans want to impose on civil servants whether their jobs affect security or not? Re-extension of the program would be, this newspaper believes, a dangerous and unnecessary step backward. The way forward lies in bringing the program into conformity with traditional standards of justice."
Since we do not have a vote in the National Legislature, we cannot ask for a no vote. We can, however, ask our Representative, Mr. Burns, to speak against it.