Attorney Notes Pages 1612-1614, 1632

    ,/'-\
/ _.-/

U, -lr!, 7*^ - Ltr /- kc / 
1- 6 I 2

OContrary to thelcontention of the administration a.,nd aiandful
of Membert "i'At;;;;--tit 

l""qlage' under-,-o circumstances'

would creat€, nor intend there to-berproportional representation

by race o" ,uciui qt'ot'"' qt'""9 to"t""ii'o"t have be'en refuted quite

thoroughlv t"fi"liJffi";iv til;Gil';;;;*" and legal analvsis of

vote dilution litigation
During ttte;"hl"'ings, you. have heard tegtimo;rv presented

which ro**uiir", fu;;% dit"tio".*es decided by Federal courts

prior to 1g?8.^i;; i"riii"""ii"ai"uGd- thut, after-an examination

"t3n?t"ri3iXgur .t raard for virtually alr vote-dilution decisions

orior to 1g?g was focused or, ""r.rilJoi 
the challenged voting law'

"'ffiolorra""" ;# ;ildrrd, proportional representation was never

;;i;ad;d was rejected wh-en raised'

"Hi$*I*ilxir*r,iffi HL ?l*il1"J1?tions 
were not

1613

Four, the reeult standard di! no! automatically ensure'minority
voters, satisfactory ffi;;;,"i;t"f ** i5 

"ases-analyzed, 
defend-

ants prevailed in more than half'-f""d,"ffi;ih" 
"-"J',iitti'T#t'ippti"a 

by. the courts did not merelv

e*amine a narrow ;;neJilIr "o"'1it'tio?*'g*olltlil$ Xffi

ffi;i:H'ff H*nt-;;x$iH,1,[1;;;;;;"si'i'tulionar
To deviate *-"r*Tult T;;iir" 

-*rilteii 
text, we have found the

discussion tqd.y ""; i"i;;tii"l Ut""1'se there appeara to be a

mt*l#xn:l.,rrlr*:r.m*rv,nr?#i:^l:i,&:"'::ffi
hive not read any proportional ""p.*"t 

t tion into the proposed

qmend-ents to section 2'
Furthermore, we ;;"td not be in qrnpo4 of- a proportional repre

sentation type of Jffi;eciir[;-; t'Ai inat it doeJ aeainst-t[-:1-

H#lg'tfl'r'i;iri,e* ".":: l"':1 :*: 
Ac'i as ni":

,,LblV
O Senator KsxNBOy. In your review of the ca-qes, hat'e you touno

"r,y """L. 
-o'trlcf, 

require -proportional representation under the
Whtte v. Regester standard?

M.. tonn]rs. Re'iewing the surnmary of the cases that w'ere sut'
*itt"a in prerious testiiron;- here, a-' u'e indicate in point ?' Pt*
p";i6;1"i iepresentation *,a." never required and rpas _re.iected. Spe'

[in""ijl]. it *-. repudiated when the issue o,as raised to seek prg.

portional represeniatg" II was struck dowrr b1'the court O

a Qurstrous Fnou Srxrtor Dtxxrs DrCoxcrNr ro Anlroroo Tonnns

*,?ff l?i';"Ii,'f "1Yk1'J"ffxili't'.H:":t11l,t?"+::',Hi:fl tlti!*i;tmru
ilfiifldp;;-Liiriitiiii',,iti"'ri'|L{iirJ '",ir' 

proporrional iepresentation under

Section ?*6}".i;. 
we would re.iterate the comments we presented during our oral presen-

t it"ii'fii'ri,b....i-is, rd!i[f;; ;;;;:Srb"o-',iitt"e that that I.eague would not

;;ix':"m.ki'h':ri;1iiii"*:xr:ffi xi*l"l':l':Jif, tiLJi!!!r1il!:
:;;ih;i# ;;;ffir;;;iii;rie-i"irt'"iio". has no basis for it ig not our intent or

liffirii:rii;C#':r*':[#,r;*:p'n3itr+:1q"nm:*rhH
"iiroi"-*.-"t"-to 

i*u." the full participation- of :
iiilTllr,**li?r,; Sdi"";;;";;Ai; S-iee2 would result in proportional repre

ili:,***.*+l#*i-m*#l,l;"ff ":,fi'F;Jiffi3*:*'l'*#'$

m$*-$,:r*+*t"mta*unt*ir"q,u**w;*ffi
voting material-.

182_