Attorney Notes Pages 1640-1641, 1645-1646

    U(c* H+{,C,*eret
a I) The results standard uj'lr not l6'd to a finding of a

section 2 violation because of Lack of "proPortional representatlon"

and one other "gcintilla of evidence"'

2) the results standard wilt not tead to court-ordered

'proportional rePresentation" i under the results standard propor-

tltntl rePro.antation or raci ''

Cro

a To those opponents of
Congress does not have the

thl. rDendE€nt rho will respond that
authority to landate ,'racial quotas in

1641

elections" or "proportional representation" I can only r€fer you

again to the findings of the expertsr there is no basis in fact,

and in the 15 year history of vote dilution cases decided

prior to 1980, to support thi. all€gatlona

O ln the place of a settled rule of discrimination, one that. ultrnro*
ll,loof.s 6 tfr" p".po"e of an action, we are_ now pro_posing to sub
iiit"iua t"sf that ii predicated upon the idea rhat You know dis'

"a*i"Ji", 
*t"., you see it. It G a test ultimateil'.that depends

upon little more tfian which side of the bed the judge. got up on-

ifiui *o."i.rg. tt is a test that substitutes for the historical ruie of
nondiscrimiriation a ne\ , and I beiieve, dangerous rule of propor'
tional racial balance.

Tfr" results test is antithetical to ever.vthing that ':' important in
our Constitution-equal rreatmeni of ali citizens, coiorbiind public
poli.i"r, the rule of iaw, local self-government, and the_notion thal
iepr".urrtrtion in this Nation is predicated upon the indiviciuai, not
special bloc interests.-'Hor*"rr". 

such opponenLs of the "results" test att€mpt to^denf it'
there is no other idgcal stopping point to the test short of propor-
tional representation.

As the supreme court correctly observed in the Mobile case,
"fir" [ir"o.y -o] tt " dissent . . . afpears to be that eyery. political
group or ai least every such srgdp that is in the minority has a
Fedeial constitutional 

-rigtrt 
to"eleci candidates in proportion to its

!

numbers."

1646

It is this dissent which is at issue in the present Voting Rights
Act debate, however much proponents of the "results" tesl unter-
standably would like to obscure it. The resolution of this issue will
sqepk a great deal about what direction our Nation chooses to go
with respect to domestic social policy-in the direction that tf,e
equal protection clause of the 14th amendment has traditionally
been pointed, towards colorblind public policies, or in the direction
of policies that establish quotar and entiilements in every sphere of
sogigty on the basis of calculetlons of-raoe and ethnicity.O_ 

-o*inrr_