Legal Research on Congressional Record S6525, S6778

      

<7 ,. ° x/
7755/; /Z% J/

6
I

Passageofthis bill will..in the tirst
place.“have enormom. impact-on elec-.
tion~ politics. in the United States.
Whether Senators would like to admit

it’or not. it is coins. tointroduce the

sum WP? 'WPW‘PPF‘ES' '

. ; 7

  

“'1";
' i

/

HEW“!
. V ‘_- j. s

l

(7/2542 :

mntheunioimdediesroi'm'
quotas" being invoked by some in op- '

s’oo

Mayahadthistosay.iil

might quote briefly about this legislaa

tion. It says:

The new ‘bi‘llwouldgiurther embroil the
courts in local elections across the country
and would give citizens less 0! a voice in de-
ciding on the type of government that they
want to run their local attain.

And it continues:

.. flzhts solves

WWW“ what“

taxman-em lof‘mi'schie! in‘the
mlwmbf'coznromiseisltthat

position to the propond amendment
to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Arguments couched in terms of "logi-

cal consequences” and arithmetic car

are S‘é 3-35” June 15, 1.982
bers almost purély and simply have
prevailed. In the context of charges of
racial discrimination. numbers have
always assimied and will likely contin-
ue to assume a less prominent role as
one part of the fabric of the claim.

Neither I nor any of the other «>-
sponsors of the perfecting language to
section 2 have spoken in favor of
“racial quotas". Indeed, the bill passed
by the House. the Senate bill 65 of us

have wsponsored. and the compromise ~ - v

language awepted by the Committee
on the Judiciary each expressly dis-
avows the intention and result with
which opponents seek to color the
debate. - ‘

The House bill and the original lan-
guage of 3. 1992 proclaim:

The fact that members at a minority
group have not been elected in numbers.
equal to the group’s proportion of the popu-
lation shall not. in and of itself. constitute a
violation oi thh section.

And the report of the House Com-
mittee on the Judiciary explained:

The proposed amendment does not create
' a right 01 proportional representation.
Thuathefaetthatmembersoiarscialor
language minority group have not been
electedln numbers equal to the group's pro-
portion oi the population does not. in itsell.
constitute a violation of the section al-
though such proof. along with other objec-
tive factors would highly relevant. Nei-
ther does it meets right to proportional
representation,” a remedy.

If that language left any doubt in
others’ minds. the bill reported by the
committee leaves no room for misun-
derstanding when it says:

Theextent to which members'oiapm-
tectedcluhavebeenelectedtoomcein
the State or political subdivision is one."cu~

vided that nothing in this section estab-
uahuaflghtbhfivemembersolaprotecu

, Could there be a more direct denial
oianyintenttoenactracialquotas?
. Goudthem be any more precise dis-
avowal 0! that which incites the their
oricotraeerletusnotshrinkiromin-
during the. fundamental rights of ~

"1.; wifem fixb'iigxui. :9

‘4.an

.
4mm ..’f enticemw:

s. s. tug-tree 1-“: him“ ‘ amt—wt. am: can

wilt» i :

‘i-r.

 

tremes are entitled tO'little‘Weight in
the light of experience. clear legisla-

raoial and lancuage minorities in the
tive history. eithe‘ amendment to see- '

iaceoimcbanargument. ‘

V . i 0 ~- test come i ,
dment‘i w" withcasesinwhichthetestledtopro-
section: of the act d not introduce." 90mm mutation- Surely in-
pmoz of mum. of doom .2; the yearalt- governed lower court inde-

radicaliwayz‘ such'a method~ofprooge= manta. if 3M!!! most mnhically b!"
has always existed. Nor does mgf'rtbo‘reversabin Jones amt-W-d-
berg wim_my new made: Statistical-"- M-M'Wd have been a ho
.evidcmc will remain what it-— has“ his or- some poi-tent of the. racial

WtMfif't momma; snot" menacimetotsmvfi-dr
which a court: might conclude that W~ test censure hulk.”
racial dmcrimination in the denial or thanpomtoaq‘nhen‘mple °§.°"°°“ or

nt 0: vo ts macaw maflns ey aven because.
abridgme ' ting, r1811 *1“ ‘ ' simply stated. they cannot. The courts

”tics-s and provenmoord‘ci mm WW afiponentlgtmmfim '- .
itrsin ‘ x i. .. - -circum¢ances

‘e- V i. ' S
Min-President; the

In reapportionment cases notinvolfii- have been most careful and~restralned
ingclaimsoi on'no plain‘ in thisregardand declare at every

tii! is required to prove the unlawful MWWWF“ “9 not the m
'"purposc"- of the IOWIWEJQSTW’M**”"3““ ‘ Pi ’