Excerpts from Senate Hearings RE: Prepared Statement of Wilma Martinez

Unannotated Secondary Research
April 28, 1982

Cite this item

Excerpts from Senate Hearings RE: Prepared Statement of Wilma Martinez preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 583fd934-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Excerpts from Senate Hearings RE: Prepared Statement of Wilma Martinez, 1982. 583fd934-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3de1c8ed-23a4-49b6-9017-c3c31ea723a5/excerpts-from-senate-hearings-re-prepared-statement-of-wilma-martinez. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!

    9w“ g

Remand/l Powers oi Conﬁrms
Emel’S W W HWI S

halite/(MM 0(1 WmaMJLt/‘HVIC-t

I (Sum-um the constitutional authority—and the obl' ation—te clarify its origi-
; nal aim in enacting Section 2 by amending the statute as 1 Senators have proposed
‘ in S. 1992. ‘I'lus' body is well Within Eurower to amend the statute ursuant to its
authority to enforce the Fourteenth Fiﬂeenth Amendments. It the power
to enact lewslation which goes beyond the speciﬁc prohibitions of the Fourteenth
and F‘iﬂeenth Amendments themselves so long as the legislation is appropriate to
fulfill the purposes of those constitutional rovxsions.“ The Supreme Court was con-
fusingly splintered in Mobile. Only four ustices held that discriminatory motiva-
tion was uired to prove a Fifteenth Amendment or Section 2 violation and that
the lain ' had not met that burden; one Justice held that the laintiﬂ‘s had met
the urden of proving intentional discrimination. One Justice h d that the stand-
ard of proving a violation should be based on objective rather than subjective, moti-
vational factors. Three Justices dissented and agreed that the plaintiffs had met the
burden of proving intentional discrimination. One Justice reasoned that roof of dis-
criminatory effect is sufﬁcient to prove a violation of this fundamen right. The
confusion brought about by these conﬂicting or, at feet. bewildering opinions results,
in words of Justice White, in leaving “the courts below sdriﬁ on uncharted seas
with respect to how to proceed on remand". 446 US. at 103 (White. J., dissenting).
It is up to the Senate now to set the course straight and to adopt the results]
sﬂ’ects standards for Section 2. as contained in S. 1992.“

l

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Excerpts from Senate Hearings RE: Prepared Statement of Wilma Martinez

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in