Following is the breakdown of yesterday's 67-to-32 vote by which the Senate approved an amendment that would give the District of Columbia full voting representation in Congress:
DEMOCRATS FOR (48)
Abourezk, S.D.; Anderson, Minn.; Bayh, Ind.; Bentsen, Tex; Biden, Del.; Bumpers, Ark.; Byrd, W.Va; Church, Idaho; Clark, Iowa; Cranston, Calif.; Culver, Iowa; DeConcini, Ariz.; Durkin, N.H.; Eagleton, Mo.; Ford, Ky.; Glenn, Ohio; Gravel, Alaska; Hart, Colo.; Haskell, Colo; Hathaway, Maine; Hollings, S.C.; Huddleston, Ky.; Humphrey, Minn.; Inouye, Hawaii; Jackson, Wash.; Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.; Magnuson, Wash.; Matsunaga, Hawail; McGovern, S.D.; Mcintyre, N.H.; Metzenbaum, Ohio; Moynihan, N.Y.; Muskie, Maine; Nelson, Wis.; Nunn, Ga.; Pell, R.I.; Proxmire, Wis.; Randolph, W.Va.; Ribicoff, Conn.; Riegle, Mich.; Sarbances, Md.; Sasser, Tenn.; Sparkman, Ala.; Stevenson, III.; Stone, Fla.; Talmadge, Ga.; and Williams, N.J.
REPUBLICANS FOR (19)
Baker, Tenn.; Brooke, Mass.; Case. N.J.; Chafee, R.I.; Danforth, Mo.; Dole, Kan.; Goldwater, Ariz.; Griffin, Mich.; Hatfield, Ore; Heinz, Pa.; Javits, N.Y.; Lugar. Ind.; Marthias, Md.; Packwood, Ore.; Pearson, Kan.; Percy, III.; Stafford, Vt.; Thurmond, S.C., and Weicker, Conn.
DEMOCRATS AGAINST (12)
Allen, Ala.; Burdick, N.D.; Cannon, Nev.; Chiles, Fla.; Hatfield, Mont.; Hodges, Ark.; Johnston, La.; Long, La.; Melcher, Mont.; Morgan, N.C.; Slennis, Miss., and Zorinsky, Neb.
REPUBLICANS AGAINST (19)
Bartlett, Okla.; Bellmon, Okla.; Curtis, Neb.; Domenici, N.M.; Garn, Utah; Hansen, Wyo.; Hatch, Utah; Hayakawa, Calif.; Helms, N.C.; Laxait, Nev.; McClure, Idaho; Roth, Del.; Schmitt, N.M.; Schweiker, Pa.; Scott, Va.; Stevens, Alaska; Tower, Texas; Wallop. Wyo., and Young, N.D.
INDEPENDENTS AGAINST (1)
ABSENT, NOT VOTING (1)
Shortly before the vote, Martin Luther King. Sr. was talking with Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) in the vice president's Senate office, trying to persuade him to support the amendment, Nunn did so.
Sen. William L. Scott (R-Va.), who led the opposition fight on the floor, said "I'm disappointed, naturally. A switch of two votes would have made a difference. There were several on the fence who were undecided. Had they voted with us, we would have prevailed."
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who is chairman of the D.C. appropriations subcommittee, was "delighted" at the outcome. "Nothing could make me happier than for this to be ratified, and full home rule realized. My committee should be a vestige of the past. It has no relevance today."
"This was a close vote but a fantastic vote for civil rights and human rights that brings our city closer to the mainstream of American life," said Mayor Washington, who added that he was "elated, delighted and pleased" with the Senate's action.
Vice President Mondale, who had helped with the lobbying effort throughout the day from his Senate office said the vote was "an impressive showing that augurs well for chances of ratification.
"We realize there will be a fight across the nation in the state legislature," Mondale added, "but I am confident of ratification."
"There is still a lot of work to be done," said D.C. City Council Chairman Sterling Tucker. He said the state legislatures are "another hurdle."
Clark, president of Self-Determination for D.C., the national coalition organized to fight for the city's voting rights, said he was optimistic about the amendment's final ratification.
The coalition, with members ranging from the League of Women Voters to the United Methodist Church, welcomed "both the challenge and the opportunity of taking our case to the 50 states for ratification," Clark said.
Joseph Rauh, the noted civil rights attorney who was instrumental in helping to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act that enfranchised so many blacks in the South, outlined three factors he said had combined to ensure approval of the D.C. voting rights amendment.
"Lobbying the bill as the civil rights act of 1978 put the other side on the defensive," Rauh said. "They had the monkey on their backs from the start."
But it was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that had the most impact on the District's voting rights struggle, Rauh said.
"It started to bite," said Rauh, who singled out Sen. Strom Thurmond's reelection, efforts in South Carolina as an example of how past foes of civil rights legislation were now actively courting black votes. "He (Thurmond) came over, and that was the vote that really made the difference."
The civil rights attorney also joked that "Lyndon Johnson is looking down from heaven today and saying that he finally made those bastards Strom Thurmond and Joe Rauh bedfellows."
The resolution passed the House on March 2 by a vote of 289 to 127, which was 11 more votes than needed for the required two-thirds majority.
When it was transmitted to the Senate, backers invoked a parliamentary maneuver that permitted it to come to a vote on the floor without going through the normal committee hearing process.
The same bypass maneuver was used during the 1960s to force a vote on the major civil rights legislation of the decade. Its use this year befitted the proposal, which supporters have called the Civil Rights Act of 1978.
One of the more emotional speeches in behalf of the issues was delivered yesterday by Sen. Spark M. Matsunaga (D-Hawaii).
"I stand with the people of the District of Columbia for the same basic reason I stood with the people of Hawaii nearly two decades ago." Matsunaga said. Before statehood was approved 19 years ago, "we suffered the same injustices - virtually no voice - that Washington has," he said, his voice quivering with fervor.
On the other side, Sen. S.I. Hayakawa (R-Calif.) said he opposed the idea because "there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the District of Columbia and the 50 states."
Hayakawa said that conflict stems from the city's "parasitical relationship" with the rest of the country. The city prospers when the rest of the country faces disaster, he said, citing the energy crisis as an example. While most of America tightened its belt, the District got a huge new bureaucracy in the form of the Department of Energy, Hayakawa said.
On the other hand, if Congress decided to slice the size of some federal departments, such as HEW or HUD, Hayakawa said, "that would be disastrous for Washington, but it would be a tremendous blessing to the rest of the country."
Washington, he said, is a city that "produces no wealth" from farms and factories, yet it "wallows in wealth" by exacting "tribute in the form of federal taxes, from "the working people" of the states.
The question of race is "a red herring. Hayakawa said, insisting that he would vote against giving Washington voting representatives in Congress "if its population were 85 percent Japanese-American."
Another opponent, Sen, Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), said in an interview that "without the interjection of race," the proposal "would have been done for because everybody knows it's unconstitutional, but nobody wants to be accused of racism."
In two rambling speeches totaling 40 minutes, Sen. John C. Stennis (D-Miss.) sounded a warning similar to Hayakawa's.
Senators and representatives selected by District residents "would have nothing in common" with their colleagues from the 50 states, Stennis said, "Nine out of 10 won't know one iota of the problems that go with farming and agriculture. The same is true with the problems of industry, small towns or factory towns."
Passage of the resolution, Stennis said, would give city residents "not equal representation, but representation far beyond what they deserve . . . I just believe it would lead to the crumbling of our system."
After all, Stennis said, "no one has to live here."
Stennis said it would be "far better" to grant statehood to the city than to "give it the power (of a state) without the corresponding responsibilities."
As they had no Monday, supporters of the constitutional amendment yesterday beat back several attempts by opponents to weaken or change the House-passed proposal.
Sen. James A. McChure (R-Idaho), who unsuccessfully proposed a series of amendments on Monday, opened yesterday's day-long debate by proposing two "nore weakening amendments - including one that would award two senators to each of 11 cities with a population greater than that of the District's.
"This may be regarded by some as frivolous" McClure acknowledged, but he insisted it was his idea of "basic fairness."
The cities that would have received two senators in addition to those that already represent their respective states, were New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, Houston, Baltimore, Dallas, San Diego, San Antonio and Indianapolis.
The measure was thrashed, however, on a motion to table, by a vote of 79 to 6.
Rejected by a tabling vote of 46 to 36 was a McClure proposal to give the District residents voting representation in the House but require them to vote for senators as if they lived in Maryland.
Sen. William L. Scott (R-Va.), the floor leader of the opposition, argued that the district gets plenty of representation in Congress as the result of its "uniqueness."
"The District isn't unique when it sends its 18-year-old youths off to fight and die in Vietnam," Kennedy thundered. "It's not unique when it comes to paying taxes."
Senate supporters of full representation also rejected three amendments offered by Scott. One that would have limited representation to the House alone was tabled by a vote of 60 to 28. The other two would have in Scott's view, "clarified and removed ambiguities" in the language of the House version.
If opponents had succeeded in amending "a single comma" in the House-passed version, as one supporter put it, the resolution likely would have died in a conference committee because Congress is rushing toward a pre-election adjournment.
Kennedy parried with Scott on the proposed changes in wording, and then exploded, saying "I am tired of hearing from the opponents that the proponents are not granting enough authority to District residents, when time and time again these same people have opposed any proposal" to award any representation to the city.
The technical changes sought by Scott would have spelled out how vacancies in the District's congressional delegation would be filled, and whether passage would change the qualifications for ratification of constitutional amendments by three-fourths (38) of the states.
Those proposals were tabled on votes of 76 to 16 and 69 to 22, respectively.
Kennedy said any details about how the resolution should be implemented "can be worked out by the D.C. government and Congress."
Lobbying in behalf of the proposal was vigorous and public. Supporters moved their command headquarters from a nearby office building to room S-212 in the Capitol, the vice president's office just off the Senate floor, adjoining the ornate Senate reception room.
Throughout the day, key proponents of the voting rights proposal paraded to the office, often taking with them senators whose position was thought to be wavering.
One legislator who surprised the amendment's supporters by falling into the group was Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.). Considered earlier as someone who would back the voting rights proposals. Weicker yesterday afternoon found himself surrounded by city business and political officials as well as civil rights leaders who had learned the Connecticut senator was wavering in his support.
"Well, we're wrestling around with it," Weicker said as Urban League Director Vernon Jordon argued with him in the Senate reception room, saying his vote for the amendment should be "easy."
As the quiet but intense debate continued, Jordon was joined by businessman John Hechinger - who had been watching nervously from the sidelines - and then by Tucker and, later, Fauntroy.
As that point in the lobbying campaign, about 2 p.m., supporters of the amendment had tallied up a supposed firm 66 votes in its favor and were characterized by aides as being very edgy about any defection.
Fauntroy added a few words of encouragement to Weicker, put an arm on his shoulder for added emphasis and then walked away, dispersing the group.
The Mayor, who was at home with the flu when the resolution passed the House, was on the Hill most of the day yesterday.
For a while he sat in the gallery with Judy Rogers, his special assistant for legislation, and Sam Eastman, his press secretary.
Later he joined Fauntroy, his political rival in the Senate cloakroom.
The mayor had been given a special pass by the office of the majority leader that permitted him to go on the floor of the Senate, a privilege automatically granted to Fauntroy as a member of the House.
As the 6 p.m. vote approached supporters began to fill the gallery, much as they did when the House voted on the measure.
Nine of the 13 members of the City Council, including the two members challenging Washington for mayor in next month's democratic primary, Tucker and Marion Barry, were in the seats, along with scores of city bureaucrats.
Some longtime supporters of the idea had trouble getting in the chamber, however, because of a mix-up in the kind of passes they had been given.
Among groups on hand was the League of Women Voters, which was represented by its national president, Ruth Hinerfeld of New York. Passage of the proposal "has been on the league's agenda for 54 years," a spokeswoman said.