Legal Research on Resolutions - 1981, Resolution 65-67, 80

    /a{>* Mbeflry
t First, some witnesseg-inctdaini-ihe- Attorney $eneral of the
United'states-and some Senators are laboring under the mrscon-
;";ii;; Ti,ui .e"tio"-i ;f S. 1992 somehow mandalgs p.roportional
i"irl"""t"tion o" .aci"l quotas. Ap was said by.the President of the
A-;;il;; B.i A"rociuiioii 

".ra 
other promineht legal sch-olars such

;-A;;hii;"td Oi-appeaifu before tiis subcommittee, this simplv
is not true.'- 

iiv-tii" itain language of the concluding sentence in. this.section,
tfrl'Uous5-"iirEJ.ii a-ii.uo*" the concefit of proportionality. The
sentence states:--iiTli;};.t lhat members of a minority group have not been elect-
ea i"-"u-L"ii "q""i-to 

ttt" group's p-ro-portion^9f.tt" qgnu]3tion
shall not, in and oT itself, constitute a.violation ot'thrs sectron.--T,oiett ,ho note iir"t'nepiesentative Hyde signgd.9ff.o1 the re-

""it" E##;;G;A;;;;;Afwas inserted-partlv at his behest and
presumablv it mollified him at that time'
"'il;;;;;i,'i[i;i;;;'"p""t"atv lraq bee-n addressed pv both the
Co"ili* ;d }h" Co""t". tte lefrslation does not mandate propor-

1648

tional representation and there is no court which we feel would
hold that it does.

_ The_lrres-s h_a-s correctll' characterized the situation b1' noting
that "The drafters of the 

-House 
bill w'ent to some trouble-to avoid

this- misapprehension. [New York Times. January 29, 1982.] In view
of the statute's-plain words, raising the specter of proportiirnal rep
resentation and racial quota-c amounts to nothing more than "oL
fuscation and dithering." a quote from the Wasf,ing:ton Post, De-
cember 20, 1981.

. Our point is not to question the sincerity of people who keep rais-
4rB this issue. Our point is that both the wordlng and the intent of
S. 1992 are abundantly clear. The direction of the courLc is clear. In
short, the law on th!! subject is clear. Why, therefore. does propor-
tionalit.v recur as a diversionary issue?o

/ ( [o - G/*d G-.=*lA
?-*uiff 'tii1n,ff lH';ffiff l"ri:1t"il'f#i1+1"*f,:f:"r.'A
;;i"t-i'.u"tic"-';",fi;t-;;""it"-it " denial- 6r abridgement" of
ffiilE "i;il;;; th;'i;d;a;;"? 8"".,'" of the amb-iguitv of the
;ffi:[. A;];;;;6tfi;iI b" te* to the courts' we are $eeplv
ffiffi#.ii#;i"hi; t."Aug;-*iti b" cbnstrued, as occurred with
;itL; iti;fT[; eftf RiE[G-ect or-igo4, to require governmental
iilit" t" present 

"ohi""tii"g 
justifrcation for any voting..syetem

ifri"f, Joe!- "ot-i"fi-T;-p;;;.itional 
representation, notwithstand'

ins the lack of discriminatory intent."'i:f r'a&"firr!';;#i;t-i.;A-t,Jt[-*rti"r,measuresthestatutoTvY.alid-
ity 6f . 

"tli"-g 
pi".iiii-6" p"o""ar"" against election "resultg," the

House amendment i,ioita pi."" i" ao"Ui the-validity of any election
il;;;;a;;-;[[il' ;;aiiat"" r"cred bv the minoritv commqni-tv
l,i;;;;:i;de'il'";;ffi-;a"J t" ili6 eroup's profortion or the
t-t"i 

"J""-fuUil 
ffi;;a-A.ofi"" 2 wouldl aciordingto the House

;;.t"ffi;iii;6-ffi;*""dini election sysrems incorporating at-

iaige 'etections "impoied or- apnlied in a manner whrch accom-

olishes a discriminatory result."
"'ffi;;fi";;i;;;tt;6 attack would be redist-ricting. and reappor-

tioffifr? ririiii,.'iv"i.fi ;;ta;"aea section 2 require manipula-
;ffi 

-;T aHilt ti""t-6 -i"*Lt"'"ci"t and languase h inorities from
;i;t";J d"i;;i-t-li iilI;;pio"p"ct, p"a e "9."v 

real one at that'
ii-tii"'t tn$-il";&;; "oiitd*"ti 

ledrd us to til) use of quotas in
the electoral process.-.'i{;6ona's""t 

"c" 
of the, proposed amendment i8 freq-uel*I

"itii-ti-i6ii"t";;il;;pditiol" 
tt"t- the- change to q "'

,iila"ra ,iJ"rd ."e.L'"iiitt in racial. andlaqguagg minorities to

ffiittd;i;;";t;;;t"i';;p""t"ttt tiott' ThaI sent€nce provides:

-AL*4-



1661

"The fact that members of a minority group have not beer,r elected
in numbers equal to the group's profortion- oJ-the population shall
not, in and of itself, consti-tute a violation of this section."__ 

fne terms of thii proviso suggest that amended section 2 would
tolerate only those iacially disproportionate election results that
occ"i i" spiie of the challeiged 

-election-procedure or mettrod. Such
a caae would be presented where the election system at issue was
.torJt" tailored to'insure a racial or langpage minority gyoup a full
ana fiir opportunity to achieve proportlonal electoral success,-but
ioirea"o"i^unrelat6d to discriminatlon, the minority group collec-
tivelv did not avail itself of that opportunity-- foi eia-ple, regardless of whaf electordl-system is employed, a

"aciat 
or lariguagdminority group will not be as.represented on a

e;";rn-e"tai bo?v in proiortion-to its numbers in-the -populationii no candidate bickea Uv ttrat minority group undertakes to run
6; ;ff*"- Although such- a result might well run afoul of the ef-
i;t" trgsl, the sec"ond sentence of amended section 2 makes clear
It "t aopioportional governmental representation in such circum-
ri*i""r'ao,is not reqlire invalidation of the challenged election
method.-- 

Like*ise, even in governmental -syste-ms- -employing. single

-JmU"" districts, it certlinly is not unheard of for a candidate not
il;;kA b; the minoritv com-munitv to win election in a district in
*t iit u iriirl or lanfrrage minority holds a solid majority of the
voting age population.'-'iv"?" 

?is'p"bportional governmental representation alone suffi-
.i""i to JrtiUiiit a viohfion of amended section 2, invalidation of
;;i, ;-.il;i; member district form of government migbt well be

i"iiii*a. tiius, in essence, the first sent:ence of amended section 2
c""-.t"rl"-...iil ana langirage minorities a right to elect minority
&;k;J i,u"aia"t"t in nuirbe"rs equal to the group's proportion of
fi;'l;i"i;;ill.tion, and the secoid sentence provides that an elec-
tion svstern- tailored to protect that right to proportional govern-
i"L"titl"pi"rert.tio" u,ill not violate the Voting Rights Act solely
because tliat right has not been exercised.--B"ti" lh" f,rchetypal case-where minority backed candidates
orrs,rccei"frtly seek 6ffrce under electoral systems, such as atJarge
il6il. th"it au" not been neatly designeii to produce plgportion-
;i;;;;";;htion-disproportionale elCtoral results would lead to
il";l'id;lio" of tn" systerri under section 2, and in turn, to-a Feder-
;i ;"rt order restrircturing the challenged governmental sy'-tem.
$.h-;**ucturing would -by no meanJ be-limited to Southern
cities.o