Motion for Leave to File and Brief of Senators and Representatives as Amici Curiae; Brief of Senators and Representatives as Amici Curiae

    No tll96t

Ilr TsE

Fryrrrrre @a:uo;t sf. W eHnilcil Ftc rlr,

OcroaER Trrur, 1985

Lrcv H. Tnorxaunc, et aL,
Appellants,

v.

Rrr,pg GntctEs, et al.,
Appellecs.

ON APPEAL Tn'OM TIIE
TJNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TIIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AI{D BRIET OF

SENATORS DENNIS DeCONCINI, ROBERT J' DOLB
CIIARLES E. GRASSIJY, EI'WARD It[. TENNEDY'

CIIARLES McC MATIIIAS' JR- ANI)
HOWARD IVI. METZENBAUIVI

AI.ID REPRESENTATIVES DON EDWARDS' HAMII]TON

. HS[I, JR., PETER W. RODINO,'JR. AI{D.. 
f,.. JAMES SENSENBRENNER'

AS AMICI CARIAE IN STJPPORT OF ETPBLI,BES

Wrrrr*. J. Rocnrn
(Courcel of Recod)
Menr P. Gncnl
Brnrenr L. AnvBu.

ARI.IoLD & Porrrn
1200 New HamPshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) E724789

Attorncys for Amici Curiae



No. t3.l96t

Ix Tnn

Fryrrtne 6surt of ths U"itd firatr:t

Ocronrn TgRM' 1985

Lrcv H. Tsorxnuno, €l al',
APPcllants,

v.

RerPu GtNGuEs, et al',
APPallccs.

ON APPEAL FN,OM THE
UNITED STATESI DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EAS'I3RN DISTRICT Otr NORTH CAROLINA

MOTION OF SENATORS DENNIS DcCONCINI'- 
NOgTNt J. DOLq CHARLES E. GRASSLEY'

EDWARD M. KENNEOY' CUfnLES McC MATHTAS' JR"

AND HOWARD M. MEf,ZBNBAUM' AND

REPRESENTATIVES DON EDWARDS' HAMILTON

FISH, JR., PETEN' W. RODINO, JR., AND

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER

FOR LEAVE TO TILE AMICAS CARIAE BRIEF ON

BEHALF OF APPELLEES.

Amici Curiae are members of thelUnited States Congress

*to-*"tu principal --rpon*o and: suPPol"T 9!:T::l-"9
Scciion Z oithc voting dights Act 42 q'S'C' ! 1973 (1982)'

pursuant to Supremc- Co-un Rulc 16.3, amici respectfully

reqr"ti il ,t hle the accompanyinliamicus bricf''

. Appcllcer hrvc conrcntcd to emirj'r prlicipetioo in thir c*c' Appcl'

lrnr, hoscver, havc denhd conlcnt' I 
;

t;



As memben of thc United States Senate and Housc of
Representatives and the respecrive Judiciary Committees of the
Senate and House, and as key co.sponrcrs of amcndcd Section
2, amici arc vitally interested in cnsuring rhat rhc Voting Right$
Act is properly intcrpretcd. The position taken by the Solicitor
Gcneral and appcllants in this casc is inconsistent wifi rhc
literal provisions of Section 2. Moreover, it discpunts thc
importancc of the Senate Report, thc kcy sourcc of legislative
history in this casc. We are oonoerned both with prescrving the
integrity of Congressional Committec Reports and ensuring
that Seaion 2 of thc Voring Nghts Act is preserved as an
effectivc mechanism to ensure that people of dl races will be
accordcd an equal opportunity to participate in the political
procesies of this country and to elcct representativcs of their
choicc.

The accompanying bricf undcrtskes a dctailed rcview of
thc languagc and legislative history of amendcd Scaion 2 of rhe
Voting Rights Act, issues that the parties will not address in the
same detail. Thus, amici believc that thc perspccrive they bring
to the issues in thig case will materially aid rhe Court in
reaching its dccision.

Members of the House of Represcntatives and Senatc have
participated as amici ctriae in numerous caser bcfore this Court
involving issucs afecting thc lcgislative branch, both by morion,
c.g., United Statcs v. Hclstoski, 442 U.S. 477 ( t979), and
conscnt, c.g., National Organization for Womcn v. Idaho, 4SS
u.s. et8 ( le82).

For thc foregoing rearcns, amici respectfully requcst leave

to filc the accompanying amicus brief.

Respccrfully sub mitted,

WerrsR J. Rocxr,sR.
(Counscl of Recod)
Menr P. Gncrx
Brnmne L. AnrsLL

Anxolo & Poemn
12fi) New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (2O2) 872-6789

Attonqrs Ior Amict Cuiac

Datcd: August 30, 1985

I

I
t-
i'



No tll96t

i:

i

I

Ix THs

Frryieme 0,surt of the 3H"it l $tdcs
Ocronrn Trma 1985

Lrcv H. Txorxnuno, ct al.,
Appcllants,

Y.

Rerpn GwcLEs, e, aL,
Appcllees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE
T,'NITED STATESI DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE BAS'ITRN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

BRIEF OF SENATORS DENNIS DeCONCINI' ROBERT J.
DOLE CHARLES E" GRASSLEY, EDWARD M. KEN.
NEDY, CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR- /tND HOWARD
M. METZENBAUM, AI{D REPRESENTATIVES DON ED"
WARDS, HAJVTILTON FISH, JR- PETER W. RODINO,
JR. AI{D F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER AS AMICI

CURIAE IN SUPPORT,OF APPEI.T EES



i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF INTEREST
50t"tuenY oF ARcUMENT ........-...

ARGUMENT.......-......."..i-To- a.siur"te corupureNcE wITH sEc-" irbNr-uroN EVIDENcE o-l soME ELEc'
ib-RAL succEss BY MEMBERS oF A MI-
No-nfrv-cRouP vIoI-ATEs rHE LITERAL
iGQuIREMexrs oF THAT PRovISIoN;
iiVDENas br soME ELEcToRAL suc'
eiss MuSi BE vIEwED As PART oF THE
';To(ALrrY oF cmcuMsrANcEs" To BE

CONSIDERED..........
tt. tHii iEctsunvr HsronY oF THE leE2

ii\,tENDMnxrs AND THE PRE'BoLDEN
CASti 

-uw coNcLUsIvELY DEMoN-
Sinere ttmt A vIoLATIoN oF sEcrIoN
z NrAi sn FoUNP ALTHoUGH MEMBERS
oF- A MwonrrY cRouP HAvE Ex-
FimrxcEb [rturrsD ELECToRAL suc'
cEss
A. -ffi tigitt"ti,e Histo4n The tt{ajor.ty

Statemlit in the Scnati Report Specifi-

"aUV 
n""ider that Somc -Minority -G[oop

Eleitoral Succcss Does Not Preclude a

Scction 2 Claim if Othcr Circumstances
Evidence a Lack of Equal Access

B. TfrJ Majority Statement in the Senate Re'
pon ts an eirrrratc Statement of the Intent
6f Congress with Regard to the 1982

Amcndments ..............-
l. The Majority Statement in the Sen-

ate Rcp6rt Piainly Reflects the Intent
and Efrbct of the trgislation

2. As a Matter of Law, the MajoritY
Statement in the Senate RcPort Is
Entitlcd to Great ResPect""'

Til. THE DISTRICT COURT APPROPRIATELY
LOOKED TO THE TOTALITY OF CIR9-U\t
SieNcrs INcLUDING THE EVIDENcE oF
SoMe BLAcK ELECToRAL succEss ro
berenutxe wHETHER BLAcKS HAD
EqUeL oPPoRTUNITY To PARTIcIPATE
IN. THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM; THE
eounT DID Nor REQUIRE PRoPoR'
TIONAL REPRESENTATION...

coNcLUSION ......"....

Prre

I
2
5

l4

t5

20

23
30



ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Crsrs
Bcer v. llnited Staltes, 374 F. SupP -3q3 

(q'P-'q'
--igti\,-rn'd on othei grounds,425 U.s. 130 ( 1976)

Chandlerv. Roudcbush,425 U.S. 840 ( 1976)

Ciry Council of Chicago v. Ketchum, 105.S' Ct 2673
( re85)......

City of Mobile v. Bolden,446 U.S. 55 ( 1980)

Garcia v. Ihnited Slates, 

-U.S..- 
105 S' Ct'

47e ( 1984)

Ginglcs v. Edmistcn, 590 F. Supp. 345 (E'D'N'C'
re84).........

Graves v. Barncs, 343 F. Supp. 704 (W'D' Tcx'
t972)

Gravcs v. Barncs, 378 F. Supp. 641 (W'D' Tcx'
r974).........

Grove City Cotlcgc v. Bcll, --U.S.- 104 S' Ct'
r2l I ( 1984).........

Kirksq v- Board of Supcrtisors,554 F'2d 139 (sth

Mainc v. Thiboutot,44E U.S. I ( 1980), quortng TVA
v. Hill,437 U.S. 153 ( 1978)

McCain v. Lybrand, No. 74'281 (D'S'C' April 17'

re80)
McMiltan v. Escambia County,748 F'2d 1037 ( I lth

Cir. 1984).............-.-.-..

Monterey Coal v. Federal Ming Sa[cty ^* Health
- - 

Reviei Commission,T4SF-2d 589 (7th Cir' 1984) '

National Association of Grecting Card Publishers v'' -iliitia 
St"tes Postal-Senice,462 U.S. 810 ( 1983)"

Narional Organizationlor Women v' Idaho,455 U'S'
918 ( 1982) ..-.-.........'.":""""

North Havcn Bd. of Education v' Bell,456 .U'S' 512

( re82)
Soerlinc v. llnited States, 515 F'2d a65 (3d Cir'
-- 

1975-), cert. denied,462 U.S. 919 ( 1976)

Ihnited Statcs v. Intcrnational Union of Automobilc
Workers,3s2 U.S. 567 ( 1957)

iii
,I

llnited Statcs v. Dallas County'Commh, 739 F.zd
t529 ( I lth cir. 1984) ..................j

United Surcsv.Ilelstoski,442 U.S. 477 (19791

Ilnitcd Statcsv. O'Brlen,39l U.S. 367 ( 1968)

tlnited States v. Marengo County Comm'n,731 F.2d
1546 ( I tth Cir.l, cert. dqnicd, 

-U.S.- 
105

S. Ct. 375 ( 1984).......

Vclosqucz v. City of Abilene,725 F-2d l0l7 ( 5th Cir.
ret4).........

Whitcombv. Chavis,4O3 U.S. 9t4 ( l97l )...................
Wttcv. Regester,4l2 U.S. 755 ( 1973)

Zimmer v. McKeithcn, 4ES F.2d 1297 (5th Cir.
1973), afd sub nom. East Canoll Paish School
Bd. v. Marshall,424 U.S. 636 ( 1976).......

Zuberv. Allen,396 U.S. 168 ( 1969)

Srrrtrrrs
Voting Rights Act Amendmcnts of 1982, Pub. L. No.

9T-205

42 U.S. $ 1973

MrsctLtexrous

hro

l3
20,21

l4
passim

20

passim

t2

t3

22

13,23

20,24,
25,26

2t

7

t2

2t

2

22

Prtr

20,25,26

2

20

passim

7,10,20

u
passim

passim

20

passim

2

passim

ll

Voting Rtghts Act: Hearings Beforc the Subcomm. on
thc-Constitution of the Senate Comm. on the Judi'
ciary,Yol.II, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. ( 1982) 15,16

l'oting Rights Act: Hcarings Before thc Subcomm. on
thc-Coistitution of the Senate Comm. on thc ludi-
ciary,Yol.I, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. ( 1982)......

Report of the Senate Judiciary. Committee on
S. 1992, S. Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess.

Report of thc.House Commirtee on the Judiciary on
H.R. 3112, H.R..Rep. No. 227,97th Cong., lst
Sess. (1981) ...................................:........

128 Cong. Rec. 57139 (daily ed. June 18, 1982)........:
2l

20

9;
14 1r

128 Cong. Rec. 57091-92 (June 18, 1982)... 19 i ,

t28 Cong. Rec. 57095 (daily ed. June 18, 1982)......... l8



lv

Prto

128 Cong. Rec. 57095-96 (June 18, 1982)"' 19

128 Cong. Rec. 56995 (daily ed' June l7' 1982)""""' 19

128 Cong. Rec. 56991, 36993 (daily ed' June l7'
t9E2)......... 19

128 Cong. Rec. 56960-62,56993 (daily ed' June 17'

.1982)...........:....... 19

128 Cong. Rec. 56941'M,56967 (daily ed' June 17'

le82)......... 19

128 Cong. Rec. 6939'40 ( daily ed' June l7' l9t2)""" 19

l2E Cong. Rec. 56930-34 (daily ed' June 17' 1982) "' 19

128 Cong. Rec. S69t9-21 (daily cd' June 17' 1982) "' 19

128 Cong. Rec. 56781 (dailyed' June l5' 1982)""""' l8

l2E Cong. Rec. 56780 (dailyed' June t5' t982)""""' l8

128 Cong. Rcc. 56646-48 (daily ed' June l0' t982) "' 19

128 Cong. Rcc. 56553 (dailv cd' June 9' 1982)"""""' 17't1 
'':-,

128 Cong. Rec. H3841 (daily cd' June 23' l9t2)"""" 19 I

128 Cong. Rec. H3840-41 (daily ed' June 23' 1982) " l7

No. tll968

Ix Tnr

firyrrtna $.surt sf ttp eH"it b Ftut ,
OcronEn Trnn, 1985

Lrcr H. TgonxnunG, ct al.,
ApPcllants,

v.

. Rrrps GtxGLrs' ct al" 
Appeilecs.

ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLTNA

BRIEF OF SENATORS DENNIS DeCONCINI' ROBERT J'
DOLT- CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, EDWARD M. KEN'
NEDY, CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., AI{D HOWARD
M. METZENBAUM, AI{D REPRESENTATIVES DON ED.
WARDS, HAMILTON FISH, JR- PETER W. RODINO'
JR., AI{D F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER AS AMICI

oURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPET.LT.ES

Senaton Dennis DeConcini, Roberr J. Dole, Charles E'

Grassley, Edward M. Kennedy, Charles McC. Mathias, Jr" and

Howard M. Metzenbaum, and Represcntatives Don Edwards,

Hamilton Fish, Jr., Peter W. Rodino, Jr., and F" James

Senscnbrenner hereby appcar as amici crrriac punuant to the

motion filed herewith.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

This casc pres€ns an importgnt issue of interpreting the

Voting Rights Acr Amendments of 1982' Pub. L. No. 97-205' as



2

they pertain to Section 2 of the Voting Righs Act 42 U'S'C'

i- iizi. As members of the united States House of Representa-

tivesandSenate,amiciarevitallyinterestedinthiscase'which

-ria determine whether Section 2 is to be preserved as- an

efective mechanism to enlure that peoplc of all rlccs w.ifl. be

accorded an equal opportunity to participate-in the 
ry111i""t

;;;;*. of this 
"ouolrv 

and in the election ot lf-"111:Y*
of their choicc. Tfris case also raises an important question of

ii" tiigr,, to be gir"" *ngressional committee reports by

which the intent underlying a statute is expresscd'

Members of the House of Represcntatives and Senate have

p""iJpii"J as amici curiae in numerous cases beforc this court

i*"i"iog issues afecting the legislativ-e branch' both by modon'

e.g., (.lntted stalcs-v.'Hclstoiki, 442 U's' 477 (1979)' and

c:onsent, e.g., Natlona/ Organization for Womcn v' Idaho' 455

u.s. elt ( le82).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

As the authors and principal proponents of the 1982

amendments to Section 2, our primary concern in this casc is to

"iiu* 
rhat Secrion 2 is interpreted and applied in a- manner

consisrent wittr coigrcss'intent. The Solicitor Gcneral and the

appcllants -n,.oJ"itt", rhe district @urt's flnding that thc

"tiri""gra 
multimemier legislative districts violatcd section 2

of the voting Rdil Act-..cannot be reconciled" with the

evidencc of some ,i""n, electoral su@ess by black candidates in

those distri"s. gti"i for the United States as Amicus Curiae 24'

28.

The three-judge district @urt' using the "tlalitY of circum-

stances" analysis 
"r"a" relevant by Seaion 2' found blacks

were denieo 
"n 

.quit opportunity to participate in the political

p-** i" the chaffiJdistricts.on the basis of a widc variety

of factors. It considlred rhe evidence of electoral success at

ilr;ii in its opiiion, and found s-uch succcsscs to be "too

^iii."f 
in total numbcrs" and of "too recent" Yintage to

support a ffnding that black candidates werc not disadvantaged

,3

becausc of their race' Gingles v! Edmisten' 590 F' Supp' 345'

iiiG.rl.N.c. 1984). eppettants and the Solicitor.Geaeral' on

ii" otf,"t hand' ascribin!-definitive weight to a single f11or'

"rg* 

- 
,f,", "givcqr the 

-proven elecoral sucless that black

""ioia"i", 
ha=ve had und., the multimember system,". no

violationofsection2canbeestablished..BrieffortheUnited
Statcs as Amicrrs Curiae 28'

Thc solicitor General and appellanB seemingly ask this

@urt to rule that evidcnce of recent' and limited' electoral

sucoess should Ue pJutive of a Section 2 claim' though

evidence of othcr raJton overwhelmingly may compel a finding

,t 
"i 

Ui""f. are dcnicd an equal opportunity to participate in the

ootiO""t Dnoclss. This position is contrary to the expness [Pt
#"i;jn-i,-*rrrj, requires a comprehensive and realistic

,rJi* "r 
voting tigrti c{aims,- and^ ii could raise an artiffcial

barrier to legitimato?"itt of denial of voting rights which in

*i" *"v. -would posc aJ signiffcant-an impediment to the

enforcement of seaion 2 as tf,e specific intent rule of City of

Mobilc v. Bolden, 44e U.S. 55 ( l9b0), rejeacd by Congress in

1982.

To assume that somc electoral suooess by some members of

a minority groupr no matter how limited or incidental such

success may be, conclusively evidences an cqual opportunity for

membcrsofthatgroup'-nfu'.'theoccasionalsuccessofblack
cindidates with the statutory guarantee of an equal opportunity

forblackcitizenstoparticipateinthepoliticalprocessandto
clect candidates of ttreir ctroice. Experience, as documented by

thte pre-Boldcn ca3c law, proves that the systematic denial of

ilrff 
-""a 

equal vgting righl to blacks may be accompanied by

the sporadic su"r"ri oi **" blacks in primary or general

elections. As the cour6 have uniformly recognized, the vicc of

the dehial of equal voting rights to a minority group is not

obviatedbysuchtokenor-incidentalsuccessesofitsmembers.

Most importantty, the posirion advocated by the Solicitor

Generalandappcllantsisinconsistentwiththeliterallanguage
of Section Z, anU was exprcssly rejected by Congress when it

considered the 1982 amindments, s is made clear in the

t,

l;1il
i'r

ri



Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on S' 1992, S' R'ep'

No. 417, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. ( 1982) (hcreinafter the "Senate

Report"). This RJport cannot be treated as the view of "one

faction in the contnoyeBy," as argued in the amicus brief of the

Solicitor General ( Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae

8 n.12), in the face of clear evidence that the Report accurately

""pr"rr", 
the intent of Congress generdly, and importantly of

the authors of the compromise legislation that was reported by

the Scnate Judiciary committee and enacted, essentially un-

changed, into law.

If this court were to discount the importance of the views

expressed in thc Senatc Report, it would have significanoe

bcyond this particular case. A majority of the Judiciary

committee sought to provide, in the senate Report, a detailed

statement of thi purpose and effect of the 1982 aimendments.

That statement was relied upon by members of the senate in

approving the legislation, and by membcrs of the Housc in

""optinfthe 
Senate bill as consistent with the House position.

This court should nor cut the 1982 amendments free from their

legislative history, and adopt an interpretation of that lcgisla-

tion inconsisteni with thc view of the congressionel majority.

To do so would undermine firmly establishcd principles of
intcrpretation of Acts of congress, and sow confusion in the

lowei courts that are so often called upon to determine the

legislative intent of federal statutes'

The Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 were in-

tended to reinstate fair and effective standards for enforcing the

righs of minority citizens so as to provide full and equal

pirricipation in this nation's political and electoral proccsses. In

teaZ, bongress had before it an extensive record showing that

much had been accomplished towards this end since the voting

Rights Act was adopted in 1965, but that much more remained

to be don". In constnring and applying Section 2, the Court

should be mindful of congress' remedial goal to over@me the

various impediments to political participation by blacks and

other minoritY grouPs.

.5 , '

ARGUMENT

I. TO ASSUME COMPUAI\CE WITH SECTION 2

UPiON EVIDENCE OF SOME ELECTORAL SUCCESS

BY MEMBERS OF A MINORITY GROUP VIOL\TES
THE LITERAL REQUNEMENTS OF THAT PROVT-
SION; EVIDENCE OF SOME ELECTORAL SUCCESS
MUST BE VIEWED AS PART OF THE'TOTALITY
OF CIRCT'MSTANCES'' TO BE CONS-IDERED

The evidence of rcme electoral sucoess by blacks in the

challenged districts in North Carolina is not dispositive of a

Seaion 2 claim, ds is evident from the plain language of the

statute. r Section 2 rcquires that claims brought thereunder be

anallzed on the basis of the "totaliry of circumstancts" present

t Wc mekc no efort hereio to state the fects et isrue in thir carc in e

coFplcte mlnoer! thou3h wc do norc thc limiad oarurc of blact electoral

sucocrit ar prcscnted in thc dirria oourt'r fradin3*

Hour Dirrrict No. 36 (Mcctlenburg Couoty) rnd Scnete District No. 22

(Mcc$cnburg end Cebemrc Counticr)-Only tro blecl candidetcs have

ron etcctionr in thir entury. One bleck son e rcet in the ei3ht membcr

Houec dctegation in l9t2 eftcr rhir litigetbn war filcd (runnin3 without shite
opporition ln thc Democ-ratic primary), end one scrvcd in the four-membcr
Scnerc dclcaation froni t9?5-198O. Thir limitcd tucca!! is oillct by frequcnt

elccrorat dcfeau. Ia Horuc Dirria 36, scven blact cendidelel havc tricd and

failcd to win rcrtr fmm 1965-t9t2, and ln Scnrte Disria 22 bhck candidatcr

failcd in bidr for scrtr in !9EO and 19E2. Bleckr omprisc approximately 25

pcrcctrt of thc populrtion ia thcsc Dbtrict!. 590 F. Supp. et 357. 365.

Housc Districr No. 39 ( prrt of Forryth County)-Thc fint black io lcrvc
ar one of the f,vc-mcmbcr dclcaation scrved fmm 1975-197t. Hc resigncd in
1978 end hir eppoiated tuoollsor ran for reelccrion in l97t but ser dcfestcd;
r blect crndidatc su eko dcfeatcd in 1980. In 19t2, rfter this liriSltion wes

f,lcd. tso bleclr ecre eleocd to thc House. Thir prttern of elc'crioo. followed
by deferg, mirron clcctioru for thc Borrd of C.ounty Commirslonerr, in which

thc ooly black elccted wac dcferted in her first reclcction bid in 19E0, rnd for
eleaioru to thc Boerd of Education, io shk:h the firct bleck clclted wrs
defcrrcd in hir bi& for reeleoioo in l97E and 19t0. Blrctr comprir 25'l
pcrccnt of thc County'r populrtbli. 590 F. Supp. et 357. 366.

Hourc Dirria No, 23 (Durhem C-ounty)-Siacc 1973. one blact her
becn clcctcd to the three-membcr delcgttion. He ficcd no white oppocidon

(fataotc continucs)



in the challenged district. The focus is on whether there is equal

access to the proclss. The extent of past black efectoral succcss

is only one relevant circumstance'

The controlling provision is Seaion 2(b)' which states:

"A violation of subsection ( a ) is established if' based

on the totality of circumstances' it is shown that the

political proccsses leading to nomination or eleaion

in the State or political subdivision arc not equally

opcn to participation by memben of r class of
citizens protectcd by subsection (a) of this s€ction in

that ia members have less opportunity than other

members ofl,the electorate to participate in the politi-

cal process and to elect representativcs of their

choice. The extent to which mcmbers of a proteaed

class have been elected to office in' the State or

political subdivision is one circumstance which may

Le considered; providcd, That nothing in this section

establishes a right to have membcrs of a protected

class elected in numbers equal to their'proportion in

the PoPulation."

This express statutory provision clarifies that the"extent to

which -".6"o of a protecrcd class have been elecred to office

in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which

ln"V U" consideLd. .. ." Obviously, other factors which com-

pJr" tt 
" 

..totality of circumstances" surrounding the political

itl"".. must also be considered, as they were by $e district

Lurt in finding a violation of Section 2 here. sea scction IlI,

(footnotc coatlnucd)

in thc primtry in t9t0 or l9t2 eod no rubrrenthl oppodtloo io thc aencnl

elcaion eirher of rhosc yeen. Ble& conrritutc 36.3 percent of thc populetion

ofrhe county. 590 F. Supp. at 
'57,t66,3?0-71'

Housc Disria No. 2l (Wakc County)-Thc frnr dmc in rhir ccntury r

bleck candidare succesrfully rrn for the six'membcr delciation wm in 1980'

That semc caodiderc trrd bcen dcfertcd in l9?t' Btecks compritc 2l'8

p"t*ii.i,ft" populerion of thc county' 590 F' Supp' at 357' 366' 371'

Housc Disrrict No. t (S/ikoo, Ed3ccomb rod Nerh Countier)-No

black war cvcr clccrcd to lcrvc from this four-member disria althou3h it ir

ie.S p"r""o, black in populadon' 590 F' Supp' et 357' 366' 371'

infra. Electoral suocess is a relevant criterion, but not the sole

oi dominant conoertr, as posited by the Solicitor General'2

As wilt be shosn below, the primary reason Congress

adoptedSection2(b),whichoriginallywasofferedasa
if"rirying amendment.by Senator Dole, was to cnsure that the

focus of thc Section 2 "resulB" standard would be on whcther

there was equal opportunity to participate in the electoral

proaess.

Thestatutorylanguageneccssarilycontemplatesthata
Section 2 violation may be proven despite some minority

candidate electoral suc{e$. The focus on the "extent" of
minority group electoral sucoelrs contemplates gradations of
,u.ccsr-from token or incidental victories to electoral domina-

tion-and makes clear that a violation of section 2 may be

pKrven in cascs where some members of the group have been

llectea to office, but the group ncverthcless has been denied

a full-scale equal opporrunity to participate in the political

process.s

Because Section 2 is plain on its f,acc, it should not be

necessary to look further to the legislative history. Maine v.

Thiboutot,448 U.S. l, 6 n.4 ( 1980), quoting TYA v' Hill, 437

r The Soliciror Geocrel iGeml lo tutSelt thrt bleck electorel succcss in

rou3h pmportion to thc bleck propordon of the population rhould be

predusivc of 
" 

S""tion 2 claim. Erief for the United Stotcs ar Amictr Curiee

i+ZS. er morq rhir rrtument rppcrr! relevent only o Housc Districr No. 23

(Durhem county). rnd, in rny cveatr ir pleinly inconrisrent vith congress'

ctearly r6red inrcnt thet Scction 2 deimr rhould not depcnd upon the recc of
elcacd ofrciats. Section 2 scekr to defrert cxccrsive @nccrn with the recial or

cthnic idcnrity of individuel ofrccholdcn rad. inrtcld. to focgs attentioo

rhcrc ir propcrly beloogs on the cxistcncc of rn cqual oppornrnity for

memben of rhc minoriry group !o participrte io rhe polilicel pt.(rcelt end to

elcct rcprereoradvcr of thcir choice.
t Consistclt virh thir c-leer letutory men'datc. and the lcaislerive history

discrlttcd belos, rhe lowcr oounr vhich havc considered rhis icsite ell have

erpresly rcjeqcd rhc poririon espourcd by the soliciror Gencral end eppcl-

leou. llnircd Statcs v. Marcngo Couaty Commh,73l F.2d 1546' t57l'71
(llrh Cir.), cca. dentcd. 

-US.- 

105 S. Cr- r75 (lgt/t) ("It is

cquelly derr rhet thc clecrbo of one or r smetl numbcr of minority elccrcd

omddr rill oor compel e frodin3 of rp dilution.-l; Vclas4tez v' Ctty ol
Abtlcac,725 F.zd l0l7, 1022 (Sth Cir. l9E4).

t n.

1'.:

,d-{*
fi.



8

U.S. 153, t84 n.29 ( 1978)' Nevertheless' we will examine that

history because it conftrrns, in the most unequivocal terms' the

intent of Congres, ,t'"t the extent of minority group electoral

rr*.* U" 
"nityr"A 

as a part of the totality of circumstll*t

from which ,o ,"",ui" 
'h"'op"nn"ss.of 

the challenged political

system to fliinority ttt'p pi"icipa-tion' Further' that history

provides 
"n 

impon"loiiiail"tion'of the manner in which such

analysis should u" uiOitt"ken' and supports the analysis and

conclusions of the cPurt bclow'

U. THE LEGISI-ATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1982

AMENDMENiS INTO TTT.E Pf,iE-BOLI'EN CASE I'AW

CONCLUSTVTiiV-ONMONSTRATE THAT A VIOI'A'

TION OF SECUON 2 MAY BE FOT''ND ALTHOUGH

MEMBERS OT E NNNONITY GROUP HAVE EX'

PERIENCTN UTVTITED ELECTORAL SUCCESS

A- The Legtsletlve Hlstory: The Mefortty Stelemcnt ln

ilre Scnrie n"pott Speclffcelly Provlder thri 
-Somc

Mlnorlty atd Electorrl Success lloes Not Pre-

clude e Scctlon 2 Clelm lf Other Clrcumstrnces

Evidence e I,rcL of Equel Acccss

The legislative history of the 1982 amcndments shows very

clearly that conffi iia oo, intend that limited elecroral

sucoess Uy a minoity **fa foreclose a Section 2 claim' This

intent is most pfaiJv 
""ita 

in the Senate Report' b1t a. similar

intent also is 
"ria"rri 

riom tt o House deliberations, the individ-

ual views of ,".L"rs of the Senate tudiciary Committee

;;;;;"J to the ;;;;i; Report' and thc floor debates in the

Senate.

The 1982 amendments originated in the House' which

initially determinJ;;;;h" Bolinintent teltt was unworkable'

and that it was '"*tt"ty 
to evaluate voting rights claims

9

broughi under Section 2 on the basis of "[aln aggregate of

fi;i;" factors." r Report of the House Committee on the

ffi"id oi H.n" 3l12;H.R. Rep. No. 227, 97th Cong., lst

;;;;. 36 ( l98l) (hereinafter the'iHouse Report")' As would

ii.-S*",u, the House rejected the position that any single

;;;;il;ia Ue adt"rminaiive of a Section 2 claim. The House

i;; noted that '.'Ialll of thesc- [described I factors need-not

;;;;; a" establish a section 2 violation'" Id' at 30' Thus'

;fi; ,h" House bill did not by its rerms require thc consid-

*.,i;, of the "totality of circumstances," that plainly was the

intcnt of the House.

The Senatc refined the House bill' and madc explicit thc

intent that Scction 2 claims be addresscd on thc basis of the

li,or"ti,v of circumstances"' This refinement camc about be'

cause of a comprrmisc authored by Senator Dole and others'

il; inlpo; or wnicn will be addressed in detail below. of
iitiai"," siqniftcance, though, is the fact that thc Senate

i"p"* cxplaining this compromisc expressly dealt with the

tr* or tht signiftcance of minority group electoral success to

Scction 2 claims. Indeed, the intent of the Committee with

;;;J . the handling of this factor was erpresscd more than

once.

The Senate Report includes, as one "typical factor" to

considerindeterminingwhetheraviolationhasbeenestab.
lished under Section 2, "the extent to which members of thc

ri*ti,V group have been elected to public officc in the

jurisaiciion." Senate Report at 29' Additional important

trrn"n,"ry with regard to thfu factor is then provided:

"The fact that no members of a minority group have

bcen elecred to office ovcr en extended period of time

r Rclevant fraorr, drawo from rhc coun'c dccision h whitc v. Rcgcstct,

412U.s.755(1973),rndiuProscoyirrctudcd..ehirtoryofdiscriminedon
rtrectin3 thc right to Yotc, ncirlly polrrity [sicl vori4 rhich impcda thc

clccrioiopponuoitio of minority iroup membcn' discriminrtory clemcntr of

Uc 
"f""to.it 

3yttem ruch rr et-hrle clcctbru, r mejority vote requircment' e

prot iti,i.rn on riajfc.shot vorin!] end numbcred posr which enh-rncc the

;;*;; ii, aiil-ioedo* Ind dirtiminrrory rlrtin3 or rhc failure of

minoritict o ria prrty nomination.'Housc Rcpon 30'



IU

is probative. However, the election of a few minority

"rodid"t"t 
does not'necessarily foreclose the possi-

bility of dilution of the black vote,'in violation of this

section. Zimmer 485 F.2d at 1307. If it did' the

possibility exists that the majority citizcns might

evade the section e.g., by manipulating the election of
a'safe' minority candidate. 'Were we to hold that a

minority candidate's suocess at the polls is conclusive

proof of a minority group's acoe$ to the political
process, we would merely be inviting attempu to

circumvent the Constitution. Instead we shall

ontinue to require an independent consideration of
the record.' lbid.' Senate Report at 29 n.l 15. ( Ref-

erences'are to Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297

(5th Cir. 1973), afd sub nom. East Canoll Parish

School Bd. v. Marshall,424 U.S. 636 ( 1976).)

No clearer statcment of the intent of thc Committee with regard

to this issue seems possible. 
'Scc 

Yelasqucz v. Clty of Abilene,

725 F.2d 1017, 1022 (5th Cir. t984) ("In the Senate Report

. . . it was specifically noted that the mere election of a few

minority candidatcs wat not sufficient to bar a flnding of voting

dilution under the results test.").5

Further, this analysis, and its reliance on Zimmer v'

McKeithen, 485 F.2d at 1307, is consistent with the express

view of the Committee that "Itlhe'results'standard is meant to

restore the pre-Mobrla legal standards which governed cases

I Thc Solicitor Gcnerrl tu386ts that thir strtcmcnt indicrts thet minor-

ity gmup etcctorrl ruoqe3r sill not dcfcat e Scaion 2 cleim onb lf it can bc

sho.n rhar such ruccss rer thc rcsult of thc mejority "en3inecrin3 thc

clccrion of a 'cefc' minority cendidate." Brief for rhe Unitcd Strtcs er Amicls

curiae 21 n.19. Amid, sho were inregrally involved in rridn3 thc scnate

Rcpon. vicw rhis 3rstemcnt as providin! an exampte which illurtntes why

romc suooels should not be dispositive. not e lcaal nrle dcf,nin3 thc only

circrrmstancc wherc it is not. Of course, thcre rrc trumcnou! othcr reasonr why

somc elcctoral succcrs mi3ht not cvidence an equrlity of opportunity to
parriciparc in thc eleAorel proces. For eremplc, 6 in the instrnt casc, rhc

"titity-to 
singlc-shot votc itt mutrimcmbcr disriAr mey producc somc black

officcirolden. but at the clpcn3c of denying blsckt the opponunity lo vote for

e fult slarc of candidetes. .Scc J90 F. Supp. at 369.

lt

challenging election systems or practices as an illegal ditution of
the minority vote. Specifically,.subsection (b) embodies the
test laid down by the Supreme Court in Whitc lv. Rcgester,4l2
U.S. 755 ( 1973) 1." Senate Repoft at27.c This reliancc on pre-
Bolden case law is important, for it was ftrmly established under
that case law that a voting righu violation could be established
even though members of the plaintiff minority group had
experienced some electoral success within the challenged sys-
tem.

The Committee was acutely aware of this preccdent.z
Indeed, in the case set by Congress as the polestar of Section 2
analysis- White v. Rcgestcr-a voting rights denial was found
by this Court despite limited black and Hispanic electoral
success in the challenged districts in Dallas and Bexar Counties
in Texas. Senate Rcport at 22.c

. Therc can bc no doubt thet thic rr rhc vhw of e Congresrionel
mejority er rell. Thur. in his edditiooel vhrr, Scnrtor Elolc rcmertcd rhat
"thc oer lubccctbn I 2( b ) | codifier rhe lcael rrrnderd rrtictlercd ln Whitc v.
Rcgcstcr, e rtrnderd vhir:h ru fint epplied by thc Supremc Coun in
lfhttcombv. Chads, end rhich rer tubrcqrrcnrty epplicd in rcme 23 Federel
Couns of Appcelr dccisblrr." Scnarc Repon er 194. Scneror Gressley, in hit
supplcmcaret vicyr, similerly remrrtcd thet "the ocr len3ur3e of Seoion 2 is
the tcrt udlizcd by rhc Supremc Court in Whire.- Id tt 197.

, The Scnrre Rcpon rnres
"Whrt hrl bccn the judicial track rcord uadcr rhe .resutr tcst?
Thrt rcord reocivcd inteosivc scrudny durin3 thc Commincc
hcrriogr. The Comminec revicscd aot only rhe Supremc Coun
dccicioru tn Whltccomb lsicl end Whitc, bnt alrc somc 23
rcporrcd vote dilurioo carr ln rhich fedcrel ourtr of eppeats,
prior to 197t. folto;cd Whltc."*nate Rcporr u 32.

A li* and anelyrir of rhcrc 23 cascs rppcrrt ln Voilng Rtghts Aa:
Hcarlngs Dclorc thc Sufr;omm. on thc Coastiruioa of rh. Scnatc Conm. {thc
tttdlctary, Vol. I. 9?rh C-on3., 2d Scs$ 12 I G26 ( l9S2 ) ( hercinrfter ..t Senlrc
Heerings") (appeodir to prcprrcd 3uremcnt of Fruk R. perler, dirercror.
Voting Righu Projccr, Lenryen, Commirrce for Civil Ri3hu Under rhc Law).

. Thc Scnrre Rcport circr rhe ponion of rhis Court's opinioo ia Whitc v.
Rcgcstcr whcrein ir wer obccrvcd ther ..[sline Reonstnrction, only two
blrck crndidrtcr fiom Dellu county hrd bccn electcd ro rhe Texer Hourc of
Rcprescntitiver, rnd rhcsc two wcrr rhc only bleckr cver rtarcd by the Dellec
CommittecforRerponribleGovcrnmcnt,whirc{om^rr;L::::;;"::r::,

-\

'{.

*



t2

Thc Committee also expressly rglie! upon the opinion of

the Fifth Circuit cJ;;i-i;;"lt in.Ziimer v' McKcithen'

which it described 
';--..iil;" 

seminal court of appcals

decision. . . subsequ;t'ly *iilJ upon in thc vast majority of

nearly two dozen ,"po*"a dilution cases'" Senatc Report at23'

ln Zimmq,tte CirIJita; found inconclusive the fact that

three black candidates had won seats in the challengcd at-large

district since the itttii"ti-* of the suit' The Court reasoned that

while the appellee ;;;;J that "the attendant suctess of three

black candidates, di;;; " 
Rnoing that the at-large scheme did

not in fact dilute ,rr" [i""r-'"*' '-' ' [wle cann* endorse-the

view that the succes-s oiUf""ft candidarcs at *re polls neccssarily

forecloses tt e possiu'itity"J;ililt; of the black vote'" 485 F'2d

at 1307.

Similarly, the Committee considered with approval a re-

oent case involving Edgefield 99'1tV' 
South Carolina' where

prior to Bolden" 'itl"g"Jgiisviolation 
had been found' despite

limited Utacf ercctorai"i'"*' becausc "Ibllack panicipation

in Edgeffela counil;;;;" merely-torenism and even this

has been on 
" '"'/'t"rr1"'1"';' 

Micaii v' Lybrand' No' 74-

(footnotc conttnucd)

4l2U.s.ltT664T.Thedccirionofrhcdirtriocourtindicrrcrthrtthefintof
thcsc csadidac3 rar i"-fC6;' "ta 

thrt thcy- wcre rclcacd by thc whitc-

dominated Dell* coimil ;;; Rcsponriutc Governmcnt wirhout rhc

perticipadon of drc UleJoimuuity' G"to v' Boracs' 343 F' Supp' 704'

izo tw.D. t.* tcii,'ofii";;-;;; ond rct'd tn Pad sub iom' whitc v'

Rcgista,4l2 U.S' ?55 ( 1973)'

A similer poinr wu medc with rcspcct to Hispanic 3uoomt in Bcxar

County. *hcrc " [o tnl, i'" itrition-Americanr rincc i 8go have scrvcd in the

Tcxar Lcjiste*r" *""[;;;A;d iJ gtt' onlv rro scre rrom thc

berrio aree.' 112 uj:";;.;;re' 1t di$ria courr indhrted that four of

thcsc five.werc tt""tJefler 1960' Gratcsv' Banus' 3213 F' Supp' rt 732'

The ffndin3s in Wfic v' Rcgestcrsccm-uonemtrteble unril it is rcelizcd

that in thc insrenr J th" ;;;Z' t t"n' showint of black clcdoral suoscrs

in elr of rhc disric. h; .;il ("r."p, ttouscbisulct No. 23). is bcing

rclicd upoo . -"i*i'" 
-""ia"n"" 

rhet no vodn3 riShu violeti'on her

occrtrrcd.

l3

281, slip op. at 18 (D'S'C' April 17' 1980)' quoted at Senate

Report 26.e

Thereisabrclutclynoindicationinthelegislativehistory
that amy member of either House of Congress thought that

ffi"n.i of minority group electoral suocess should be prc-

ilt; of a sectioo i "t"i.. 
The solicitor General and

ipp"ri"." recirc at some length numerous statements to the

effect that Section 2 was not meant to require proportional

r"p.*"ii",i"". This point is made on the face of the statute'

and there is no quest'ion that Section 2 does not require that

minority group representation be, at a minimum' equal to thc

group's pcroentage of the population' However' the ffnding of

i- riof"tion of Slction 2 in the facc of some minority group

.f.oor"f sucr:ess does not depend upon a rule. reqqnng

p.oponional rcpresentation' Rathcr, as the rcasoning of the

.ora b"lo* illuitrates, the finding of a violation depends upon

ih. 
"rr.r..ent 

of thc "totality oi 
"itcumttances" 

to determine

whethcr membcrs of the minority group havc been denied. an

;;;i';6;;ity to participate in the political proccss and to

r In eddition. ihcrc rre othet prc'Bolden dcclionr of rimilar import not

rp".ifi;ity;idrcgcd in rhe ScaatsReport or in thc ioor debatcs' So' in onc

ii ,r," zi appcllatc d"ciri"nr studicd by rhe comminec, rhe Fillh circuit

Courq rcjecrio3 r rcrpportionment phn ordcred by rhc dirricr court bccausc

ir lcft rhc chroccr for L6ck 3rrcor:lt unlilely, noted i.' condnuing rdherencc to

thcZlmmctrule:..lerddtheclvertthtttheclecrionofblectcendidater
JL no, tutometicdly meen ihet bleck vorin3 sren3th is not minimizcd or

cencetcd our.- ^Klrtrq v. Burd of Srylrilsclls' 554 F'2d 139' 149 n'21 (5th

Cit.l, ccrr. dcatcd, '134 U.S. 968 ( 1977)'

This rule of ommon 3GnsG wlt respecred by rhe district Tutt - 
Fo'

errmpfc, ia GraYct v. Baracs,3TE F Supp' 641' 659'6t (W'D' Tcr 1974)'

the court condudcd thlt rhc reccnr elecrion of Hispenicr ro thc Tcxas Housc

of R"proootrtiver end lo rhe school boerd did not frustratc I votinS rights

claim.

Similarly,edirrlacourrrefugedinicctv.llnitcdstotcs,3TlF.Supp.
t63 ( D.D.C. I 9711, rcr'd on othcr groundt"l2s U'S' 130 ( 1976)' to dcem thc

city of Ner Orlcm to bc cntitledL preiteerrocc undcr Scction 5 despite a

lhowin!rherfourblectrrecentlyhrilronelecriveofrccinthcmunicipelity.
rurfroult thc llcction 5 retro3resion rrenderd difcn from the Sccrion 2

srander-d, lcar ir rclcvent ro thc carc lr hend in thet rhc court reco3nizcd thar

minority candidate ruoqe$ can be rrtributrbtc to frctors othcr rhrn equel

acoes3 io thc elcctonl proccrs by minority jroup mcmben'

-t

g

Z
-



l4

erect represenratives of their choice. The disproportionaliry of

minority group representation is' at most' one factor in the

analysis.

B. The Maiority Statement ln the Senate Report Is rn

Accurrte Jtit"t"nt of thc Intent of Congress wlth

Regard to the 19t2 Amendments

The Solicitor General app€anr to believe that Congress

intended to adopt in 1982' ltte rute rejected in -Zimmer 
v'

McKeithen, dra*ing iiom certain statemens by amicus Senator

Dole and others that Section 2 was not intended to require

proportionat ."pr",iit"tion, an inference that a Secdon 2 claim

is forecloseo *rr","'"iiili"d electoral success is thgwn' See

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae I l-14't0

In making this argument' the Solicitor General also argues'

as he did in 
"nott "i"'"ttnt 

appcal to this Court regarding a

Section 2 claim, cii ciii'it o1'cnxago v' Kctchum' 105 S' Ct'

2673 (1985), ,1r", tt" Jtt"t" R"pot iJ not determinative of the

intent of Congres'l-ana attachls greatcr significancc to the

individual views ;i ;;iti 
'"n"totJ 

Dole and Grasslev' and

Senator Hatch-rt ;;;ii;; thc United States as Amicus Curiae'

- ,-,"".- r Gencnl rlso citer rhe Rcport of rhc Subommince on thc

Constitution ro ttrc scnirJCilniitt* on thc Judiciary on S' 1992'97th Con3"

2d Scss. ( 1982) t"sui*-'-tiiti"t'i"po't')' Thc Su'bcommiuec Rcport doer

not reflcct, nor doer ffiili- t foqf. the viesr of thc Con3resionrl

majority who frvored "I"i'"Jry 
the Eoldcn intent tegt and reinstetin3 a

resulrs tcsr. Id *20-5i. iiirri,ii" rhe subcommittce Rcport war wriltcn, r

3-2 maiority of rtrc scieie Subcommittee supponcd exisdn3 law' a posidon

rquarely rejcacd uv ti'" i'riitiiirrcc and bv rhc Senerc rc a whole' Thc

Chairman of rhc Suultrnit*"-Stt"t' O"io Hetch-opposcd thc Dolc

compromisc "no 'otJ- 
f* the bill uldmately enectcd only with 3reet

reluclancc' -ntln'inii ti"t"-'"til thc finrl.voie on the bill his vicw "thet

thcsc amendm.no prot]'"'ii 
"tria " 

a"'mrive transformadon io the Voting

Rishu Aa. . . .- 128 cofl;i; itl3e-(deilv cd' Junc lt' le82)' of thc four

orher membco of *t" iu-t-mmirtec: Scnalor Strom Thurm"{-T1:d th"

Dolc compromi,o; s"o"Liit'arlcr Grasslcy supporred thc compromisc' rnd'

as noted u"ro'' "tp'Jii;;; 
to fc-m1oriry 

view of thc scnateBcport:

and Scnrtors DttJ;;;;ii "na 
Parrick Lcahv objdcred to thc con'

clusions of thp Subcommittcc Report
rr As notcd lrr tn"'pt"*iltli*tntt"' whilc Seoetor Hatch did uldmarcly

votc for the bill, hc opposcd rhc Dolc compromise in Committec rnd voiccd

opposition to it on rhe f,oor of thc Scnatc'

l5

13 n.27. These efforts are misguided on both factual and legal

grounds.

t. The Mriorlty Strtement ln the Senrle Report

Plelnly heflects the Intent end Efrect of the

leglslatlon

To understand the significance of the majority view- stated

in the Senate n"p"i, "ia 
or the individual views of amici

Senators Dole and .Giassley' it is neccssary to understand-the

nature and rhe genesis oi ''hat is aptly termed the l)ole

*rpro*ir". ffri p,tp"se of the- compromise was to clarify

,.,tr"i stanaard shouid be used under the results test to ensure

itr"iit " 
amended Scction 2 would not be interpreted by coura

i"- r.qrf i" proportional representation' The bill originally

adoptcd by the House-H'it' f ttZ-"ttempted to accomplish

ifrii'*irtt " dir"l"it"r that "[tlhe fact that members of a

minority group have not bee" elected in numbers equal to the

group'r'pioportion of tnt population shall not' in and of iself'

i"irii*" a violation or this section." In addition, rhe stated

,r*t" of the House bill was to reinstate the standards of pre-
'Boiden 

case law, which was understood by the House 
-o9! 

to

,"quire proportional representation' House Report at 29-30'

The Housc bill attracted immediate support in the S9.1-ate'

Senators Mathias and Kennedy introduced the House bill as

S. 1992, and enlisted the support of approximately two-thirds of

the members of the Senate as c!-sponsom'12 Still' certain

membenofthesenate,and,inparticularsenatorDole'had
lingering doubts as to whether th; language of the House bill

was sufficient to foreclose the interpretation of the voting

Rights Act as requiring proportional representation' To ame-

ra tniriatty s. 1992 had 6l co-sponsoE' and by the time thc scnate

tudktary Commirree pe*lca upon ttri Ootc compromisc' this numbcr had

3rown io 66. Thus, er Scnitor Dole himsclf recognized in Comminec

dclibcrationr, "without 
any 

"han3e 
rhe Housc bill would heve passed"'

Erc.c,tive Scasioo of rne Scnatc fuliciery Commirtcc. May 4. 1982. reported

i Vntog Rights Aa: Hcoings bclorc thi Subcomm' on thc Constltutlon ol thc

srrir"cii;. i lrc trrirtrrv, vol' II.9?rh Cong'' 2d Scsr' 57 (1982)

( hcrcinafter "ll Scnele Hearings")'

:r

+
'),



l6

liorate this concern, Senator Dole-in conjunction with Sena-

tonl Grassley, Kennedy and Mathias' among othen 13-

prcp"rJ,rt",'s""tioi-i1ul u" added to pick uR th3-3tandard

enunciated by this c;; in Whire v' Regester' In addition' the

air"i"ir"t inctuded in the House bill was strengthened to state

".-pr*rlrit "t..no,hiig 
in this secdon cstablishes a right to have

memben of a protec-t-JJ "1"" "tt"t"d 
in numben equal to their

proportion of the PoPulation"'
As Senator Dole himself was careful to emphasizo' 'the

compromise was con'ist"nt with the Section 2 amendments

passed by the frout".ii As Senator Joseph Biden explained in

the Committ"" a"i"ie over the Dole compromise' "What it

does Iist, it clarinei wi"t 
"'"'yon" 

intended to be the situation

from thc outset." Eiecutive iession of the Senate Judiciary

Committee, May 4,1:'gn,reported at II Senate Hearings 68' In

introducing S. 1992 on th" hoor' Scnator Mathias also termed

the commi*"" ""tioi, 
oi s""tion 2 ..clarifyin g am_end m-ent I s l "

which "are consistent wittr the basic thrust of S' 1992 as

introduced 
"nA ".-f'"fpeui 

in clarifying the basic-meaning of

the proposed "-"nd-'i"ot.'' 
128 Con!' Rec' 56942' 56944

(daily ed. June l7' 1982)'13

lc Senator Dolc explained ther hc "etooj with Iemicil S-e1ePrs Moo'
cini. Grasstey, rcnnei'yland Meucnbe:-q:od i"n"rot Methias ' ' ' hed

workcd out a oomPro't on [Sccdon 2l'" Id et 5t'
rr Thus, Scnaror oiit itpt"in"d thc proposcd compromisc as followr:

"[Tthc compromisc rctains the resuls rtanderds of the

Mrthias/Kcn*iy-[iff' However' we rlso fccl that the legislation

should bc *r.n].i"i"o wirh addidonel langua3e delineadn3

what lcgat ,,"ni"ia tftould apply under rhe resulu test and

clarifying tt,er it ir not a mandale for proportionel rcPrcsc-ntedon'

Thus, our -,pttt "dds 
e nev subscaion to scaion 2' which

oodified f"ngu"3"-i-i rhc 1973 Supremc Court decision of

Whitc v. *"tii'' *curivc Scssion of Oe Senate Judiciary

Committce. M";4, 1982, rcported at lI Scnate Hcrrings' 6o'

Scc ako llnited Statcsv' Marcngo County Commh'731F' 2d 1546' 1565 n'30

r ii,r, Eit.l. ,rr,- arnii, -- 
-u'S' : ' los s' cr' 375 ( leE4)'

't A simitar unO"it"naiug of lhe Scnatc bill wes cxprcsscd on thc f,oor

of thc Housc uv n"it"ttii"ri-'c Don Edwards' Cheirman of thc Subcom-

mitce on Civil and'Coi'iit"i"n"l Righrs of the Housc Committce on the

ludiciary: 
(roolnotc contlnucs)

l7

The authors of the compromise-in particular amici sena-

tors Dole and Grassley-did not perceive it as inconsistent with

rhe majority view oi the proposed legislation' lndeed' in

additional comments to the Senate Report, both amici senators

Dole and Grassley clearly stated that they thought the majority

starement to be accurate. Thus, senator Dole prefaced his

additional views with the comment that "[tlhe Committee

Report is an accurate statement of the intent of S' 1992' as

reportea by the Committee." to Senate Report at t93' And

senator Grassley prefaced his views with the cautionary remark

rhat..l express my views not to take issue with thc body of the

Report." S"n"t" Report at 196. So that there could be no doubt

as ro his position, he later added that "I concur with the

interpretation of this action in the Committee Report." Senate

Reportatlgg.Moreover,theindividualviewsexpressedby
both rhese Senaton were in complete accord with the majority

statement. t7

$ootnotc continucd)

"Baricalty. thc amendmens to H.R. !t 12 would ' ' ' clarify the

baric intinr of thi sccrioa 2 amendmcnt adoptcd previously by

thc Housc.

"Thcac mcmbcn I the sponrcn of thc Scnare ompromisc I were

able to mainrrin thc basic inregrity rnd intent of the Housc'

porscd bill sNlc at thc rame dme findiry langueSe which more

ctrcaively iadresscs thc conoern thrt the rcsuls test rrould lcad

to proponionel represcnration in every juridiaion throughout

thc' counrry and which delincatcr , more spcciftcally the lcgal

rrandard ro bc urcd undcr scction 2.* 128 ConS' Rec. H38'lO'

38al (daily ed. June 23, l9E2).
r. Ar Scnetor Dole sracd io hir addirionel views, his primary purpose in

ofcring rhc compromirc was to allay ferrs about proportional tcpresentation

and th-rcby scc.rc rhe ovcrwhclmin3 biprnisrn iupport he thought the bill
dcscrved. For thir rc.son. his commcnB primarily wGrG conccrncd with

srrcssing rhc inrent of thc Commirtcc that thc rerults tcst and rhe rtandard of
llrlhitc v. f,agcrtcr shoutd not bc oonstrucd to requirc proponional rePrcscnta'

rion. Scnerc Rcporr at t93-94. This in no way tugscstt that hc diragreed with

thc vicws expresrcd in the majority report. for that report rlso wcnl to Srcal

painr ro erplain rhal ncirhcr rhe results l6t nor the standrrd of whitc v.

Rcgcsrcr implied a gueranrcc of proportionrl reprcscnrrtion. Senatc Rcport

", 
lo-lt. A disclairper ro the srmc'effeci rppcaE. of courcc, on rhc facc of thc

staturc. i Ir I

r, Scnltor flole objecrcd to cffort3 b| opponcns to redcfine rhe intenr of
rhe t9t2 rmcndmentt on rhe f,oor of thc scnarc. scc l2t Con3. Rcc. 56553

(daily cd. June.9. !9E?).

',
-\
';i:

" 

.1t

:



l8

Both proponents and opponents of S' 1992 recognized in

the floor debates trt. tigriniance of the majority statement in

the committee Reporr is an explanation of the bill's purpose.

i", 
""tfv 

on in the debates Senator Kennedy noted that:

"Those provisions, and the interpretation of those

provisions, "r" 
,p"il"d out as'clearll yd' ' 

t-!tl|"l
well as any committee report that I have seen tn a

long time in this bodY'

"I have spent a good deal of time.personally on this

report, "na 
t think it is a superb commentary on

exactly what this legislation is about'

"In short, what this legislative report poinl o}.it
who won ana "ho 

losr Jn this issue' There should be

no confusion for future generations as to what thc

intention of tne iang'"g" *"t for those who carried

the day." fZg Coni' R-ec' 56553 (daily ed' June 9'

I 982;' te

l! Scoctor Kennedy rccmpharizcd this point e wcek latcr

"If rherc ir any quertion abour thc mcaninS of the lrnSurgc' wc

urge thc judsct ii iia thc rcport for iu mcaning or to listeo ro

thoscwhoweretheprincipalsponsonrofthcproposel,notlo
;;;; 'who roryhi r3einsr rhc proposal rnd who heve eo

cntirely air","nii]'opitr*rt"t a v"ting Righu Aa should bc.''

l2E Cong. Rcc. 56780 (daily ed' lunc 15' 1982)'

An admonition which Scnaror Dole heartily echocd:

"I join rhc Scnator from Ma$echusctts in the 6opc that whcn the

judgcr look * ti" f"riti"ti'" ttittoty' rhcy will look rt :lY 'h"
supportcd "tt"tJi 

end cnrhusiesdcatly the so-cllled com'

Promisc."

l2t Cong. Rec. 56781 (dailv cd' Junc 15' l9t2)'

Scnaror Kenncdy tarer rcmarked to thc samc cfrect:

"For-iunatcly, I will not have to bc exhaustive bccausc thc Senatc

Iudicierv ctt'i;;; icpori' pracntcd by Scnator tfarhiar' wes

an erccllenl ..;'tttt;;thc inrcndca mcrnin3 aod opcrrtion of

thc bill."
l2E Cong. Rec' 3?095 (deily cd' Junc lt' l9t2)'

l9

, Thus, the proponents of the legislation, including-Senators

Dole,re Graspley,zo DeConcini,2t Mathias,22 arnd' Kennedy'23

repeatedly pointed their colleagues to thc majority statement of
thi Senate Report for an explanation of the legislation. Con-

versely, oppohents of the compromise '21 ot proponens of
pardc;lar amendments,2t looked to the majority statement of
ih. S"n"t" Report as a basis for their individual criticisms of the

bill. At no point in the debates did any Senator claim that the

majority statement of the Senate Report was inaccurate! or that

it represented the peculiar views of "one faction in the con-

troversy."

Respect for the majority statement of the Senate Report

carried to the floor of the House during thc abbreviated dcbate

on the Senate bill. Thus, amicus Representative F' James

Sensenbrenner explained to his colleagues:

"First, addressing the amendment to section 2, which

incorporates the 'results' test in place of the 'intent'
test set out in the plurality opinion in Mobile against

Bolden, therp is an extensive discussion of how this

test is to be applied in the Senate committee report."
128 Cong. Rec. H3841 (daily ed. June 23' 1982).

Again, there is no suggestion by any member of the House that

the majority statement in the Senate Report was less than an

accurate statement of the intent of Congress with regard to the

bill.

tt 128 Cont. Rcc. 56960'62, 36993 (daily cd. Junc 17' l9E2).
20 l2t Crn& Rcc. S6646-4E (deily ed. Junc l0' 1982).
.r 128 Cong. Rcc 56930-34 (dcily cd. Junc 17' l9t2).
22 128 Cong. Rcc. 56941-{4, 56967 (daity ed. June 17' l9E2).
tt 128 Cont, Rcc. 56995 (daily cd. June 17. 1982); 57095'96 (Junc lE.

r eE2 ).
2' l2t Con8. Rcc. 55919-21. 56939'40 (daily cd' Junc 17, 1982): 57091-

92 (June 18, 1982).
23 l2t Cont. Rcc. 56991, 36993 (daily ed. June 17' 1982). Thc

amcndment ofcred by Scnrtor Stcvenr is particrrlrrly notewonhy-ir con'

ccrncd thc applicetion of thc landards of Scction 2(b) in pte-clcarance

cascr-bccausc hc largcly rcught to jultify it on the balis of a consirlcnt

statemeni in the Scnerc Rcport.



20

L As r Matter of Law, the Maiority Statement ln

lhc Senaie Report 13 Entltted to Greai Respect

under fundamental tenets of statutory construction, com-

mittee Reports are accorded the greatest weight as the views of
the Committee and of Congress as a whole'

In the preieding term, this Court reaffirmed the long-

established irinciple that committee reports are the author-

itative guide to congressional intent:20

"In surveying legislative history we have repeatedly

stated that the authoritative source for finding the

legislature's intent lies in the Committee reports on

ttri uitl, which'represent t I the considered and

collective understanding of those Congressmen in-

volved in drafting and studying proposed legislation"

Zuberv. Allen,396 U-S. 168, 186 (1969)'"

Garcia v. IJnited States, 

-U.S'- 
105 S' Ct' 479' 483

( l98a); accord Chandler v- Roudebush, 425 U'S' 840' 859 n'36

irgzci; Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 186 ( 1969); United

Srrrrr-r. O'Brien,39l U.S. 367, 385 ( 1968); United S'atcs v'

International IJnion of Automobile Workers,352 U'S' 567' 585

(1957)..TheGarciaCourtalsoreiteratedtheprinciplethat
committee reports provide "more authoritative" evidence of
congressionat purpose than statements by individual leqilt-a1ors'

Gaicia,lO5 S. Ct. at 483; Ilnited Statesv' O'Brien' 391 U'S' at

385;cf.I]nitedStatesv.AutomobileWorkers,352U.S.at5S5.

In light of these well-estabtished principles' the effort to

undermine the value of the committee Report as a guide to

legislative intent by citation to statements made during floor

dJbates is misguidld. Committee reports are "more author-

irative" than statements by individual legislators, regardless of

;*"**" with this longstanding principle. the Senrre Repon hes

bcen thc aufioriradve sourcc of legistativc hirrory relied on by courts

irrt"rp."ting rhe 1982 Voring RiShu Acr Amcndmcntc ' Scc' c'g" McMlllan v'

Escimbia-co"nry, 74t F.2i lo,? ( t trh cir. 1984); llnttcd statcs v. Dallas

Zounry Commh,73g F.2d 1529 ( t lrh Cir' 1984\ llntrcd S'a'cs v' Marcngo

Counry Comm'n,?3| F.2d 1546 ( I lrh Cir'). ccrt' dcnicd' 
- 

U'S' 
- ' lO5 S'

ct. fis ( l98a): Yclasqucz v- Citv of Abilcnc,725 F'2d l0l7 ( 5th cir' 1984)'

2t

rhe fact that the individual legislator is a sponsor or floor
manager of the bill. .Sae National Association of Greeting Card

Publishersv. Ilnited Statcs Postal Semice,452 U.S. tl0' 832-33

n.28 ( 1983); Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. at 859 n.36;

Monterqt Coal v. Fcderal Mine Safety lk Health Review Com-

mission, 743 F.zd 589, 596-98 (7th Cir. 1984); Sperling v-

llnited states,5i5 F,2d 465, 480 (3d cir. 1975), cert. denied,

462 U.S. 9t9 (1976r.2t

The basis for this rule is quite simple, for to give con-

trotling effect to any legislator's remarks in contradiction of a
commitree report "would he to run t<x) great a risk of per-

mitting one member to override the intent of Congress. . . ."
Monterey Coal v. Fed. Mine Safety li. Health Review,743 F.2d
at 598. The rule also reffects the traditions and practices of
both Houses of Congress, in which members customarily rely
on the report of the committee of jurisdiction to provide an

authoritative exptanation of the purpose and intent of legisla'
tion before any floor consideration begins. For example, the

Senate Rules forbid the con'sideration of "any matter or
measure reported by any standing committee . . " unless the
report of that committee upon that matter or measure has been

available to members for at least three calendar days . . . prior
to the consideration . . . ." Rule XVII, para. 5, Standing Rules
of the Senate. In this way, each member has the opportunity to
examine not only the text of proposed legislation, but also the
explanation and justiftcation for it, well in advance of any vote
on the bill. By ontrast, the vast majority of members may be

completely unaware of the aontent of a statement made during

2t ln National Assxlotion ol Grcctlng Cord Publishcrs, the Coun ruled
that a statemcnt by thc fioor manager of e bill. appcndcd to the confercncc
committee rcport, leckcd "the llatus of r confcrence rcpon, or cven a r€pon
of a singlc Housc availablc to both Houscs." 462 U.S. at t32 4.28. Thc Court
in Chandlcr v. Roudcbush held a committcc rcpon to be "morc probativc of
congressional intent" thrn e statement by Scnetor Williams, thc sponsor of
thc lcgislation. ,125 U.S. et E59 n.35. h Montercy Cul, the coun noted that
lhc sponsor's stltcmcnt! "arc the only mention in the legislativc hirtory of the
spccific issuc bcfore us.n Montcrqt Coal v. Fcd. Mtnc Safcty il Hcokh Raicw,
741 F.2d at 596. Nevenhcless, bccausc thc sponsor'r posidon wet nol "ctearly
supponed by the confcrcncc committee rcpon," thc ooun dcclined ro give rhe
sponrcrl rcmarks controlling wcight. 711 F.2d at 598.



22

floor debates. It is impossible to determine from the official

record of congressional proceedings whether a given member,

or a majority or any particular number of members' was

present when a ccrtain statement was made. It is even

customary for statements to be delivered orally only in part,

with the balance printed in the Congrcssional Record "as if
read." Given these facts, well known to amici from their
decades of experience in both Houses, there is little basis for
concluding that any given statement made in floor debate

accurately states the intent of any member other than the one

who made it.zo

Funhermore, the "@mpromise character" of the 1982

amendmens does not detract from the validity of the majority
views. Here the proponents of the compromise wording

expressly agreed with the majority views and viewed the

2r The cascs cicd by the Solicitor Gcncrel in rupporr of the cfort to
amplify the s6temen6 of individual scn.tonr rnd dispera3c thc rignificence of
thc Scnete Repoq are inaPPoritc.

ln Nonh llown Bd. ol Hucarton v' Bcll,'156 U.S. 5 12 ( l9t2 )' thc Court

nored thar "thc sutcmcnB of one legistator mldc durin3 debate mey not be

conrrolling," but indicaAd thrt staremcnrs medc by Scnaror Bryh' e sponnor

of thc lcgi{ation, werc "thc only aurhorirative indicetions of congrcssional

inrenr regarding the scope of l! $l and 902" of Tittc IX, becausc ll 9Ol and

902 originercd rt e f,oor amendmcnt and oo committee rcpon dlsctsscd

them. 456 U.S. rt 52G27.

Thc other case citcd by the Solicitor Gcncrel, Grovc City Collcgc v. Bcll,

- 
U.S. 

- 
lO4 S. Cu l2l I ( lgE,l), alrc involved an interprctarion of Title

lX. Thc Court in Grovc Clty again recognizcd that "statcmcnu by individual

tegislaron shoutd not bc givcn controllin3 cfrccl,- but cited Nqth llovcn to

suppori i6 position that ,.Scn. Bayh's rcmarkl arc 'an euthoritetive guidc to

the sratute't onstnrction.' ' tO4 S. Cl ar 12 t9. Thc Court indicated thet Scn.

Bayh! remrrls ycrc eurhorirative only to thc errcnt thet thcy scrc consistcnt

with the langurgc of the sretute and thc lcgisladve hbtory. Id
Thus, /Vorri Havca and GroYe Clry conccru lhc signiffcancc of a sponsor's

erpresscd vicws in lhe abscncc of a rclcvanl stttcmcnt in a committec rcport.

Here, in mrrled oontrtsl, thc Solicitor Genenl drewl an unwarnotcd

inference thet elccroret tucccttlt might prectude r Scction 2 c-leim from Scnator

Dote's cxpresscd desire to avoid a requiremcnt of proportionel represcntetion.

and thcn asscns that inference es supcrior to 8n cf,prcss ststcmcnt to ihc

contrary in thc Senatc Rcport.

23

compromisc wording as merely a clarification of the intent of
Congress.2e In these circumstanccs, there is no reason to

conclude that the Committee Repon, prepared after adoption
of the compromis€, and accepted by all as an accurate ex-
planation of it, loses is status as the most authoritative guide to
legislative intent.

III. THE DISTRICT COURT APPROPRIATELY LOOKED
TO THE TOTALTTY OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN.
CLUDTNG THE EVIDENCE OF SOME BLACK ELEC.
TORAL SUCCESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER
B[-ACKS HAD EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICI-
PATE IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM; THE COURT
DID NOT REQUIRE PROPORTIONAL REPRE.
SENTATION

At bottom, the argument of the Solicitor General and
appcllants, that limited electoral suctess by members of a

minority group should be conclusive evidencc that the group
enjoys an equal opportunity to participate, rests on the claim
that such a rule is implicit in the disclaimer that Section 2 does
not pmvidc a minority group the right to prrportional repre-
sentation. All parties agree that Section 2 was not intended by
Congress to provide a right to proportional representation-but
that point has no significance to the immediate issue.

As the pre-Bolden case law discussed previously illustrates,
the trier of fact may find a denial of equal voting opportunity
where, despite evidencc of some minority group electoral
successr evidence of other historical, social and political factors
indicates such a denial. Sec, e.g., White v. Regester,4l2 U.S.
755 ( 19731; Kirksqv. Boardof Supervisors,554 F.2d 139 (5th
Cir.l, cert. denied,434 U.S. 968 ( 1977); Zimmer v. McKeithen,
485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973), af'd sub nom. East Canoll
Parish School Bd.v. Marshall,424 U,S.636. Such a finding in
no way implies or necessitates that Section 2 be applied as a
guarantee of proportional rcpresentation. The "dispropor-
tionality" of minority group representatioq is not the gravamen

.r S.e tcrt and notes accompanying aa.l+.l7, supra.

:t.
,,\.

'r:.'

t*
. ]i"



24

of the Section 2 claim in such a case' though it may be a factoc

rather, it is the *nflu"nt" of factors which indicates that an

equal opportunity tt'p""i"ip"1" in 
tl"^-p"litical process and to

elect repres""t"t''"J Jitn"ii choicc has been denied members

of the group'so .olation of Section 2 has-' 
it-otaer to det"rmine whethel 

" -'u
occurred' @urts "* 

;;;-";ia"' *tt"tr'er' gi'en the "totality of

circumstanc"'," '"tbers 
of a protected class have been gtven

an equal or*t"[I" p*itri"il]i,:* electoral process and

to elect represent;ues'of trriir -cnoicc' 
In its opinion' the

district court appe"il;;rrde ake- just the sort of "totality of

circumstanc".,, "n"iili.l. 
ih" chaui-nged state legisladve dis-

tricts as i, req,itiU ;;; i^ ll ract' the district court'

quoting the senatJRlp"i "t ?s'z2,stt 
iotit the nine so-called

,, Zi mm er,,factors *iiJi .", ue reterani in detcrminin g w heth-

er a Section 2 ti";;i;;;il;""stabiished' and proceeded to

anallzc those factli' sqo F' Supp' at 354'

The court "iJ 
ii"' i' found. a high degree of'ra'ciallv

polarized or bloc ffi";;; tn"t in 
"it 

iittti* a 
'majoritv 

of

the white voters n"'"i''ot"d nor -anv 
black candidate' The

existencc or ,""i"u] p"r"ir"a "otin_g 
is a significant factor in

il,"iii.i"e*t'"ii'1"'"'*9trY'i"i-':;T;E$tTy,illii,',ff"
;;;, i;;;";ultimember districts are t

loAr thc Solicitor Gcncral himsclf points our' "[rtmcndcd Scaion

2 . . . rocuscr *' ";;'';;"int 
a""'r* ";ii:;I'"Ti:11 lJ;:Hl#l

.;";;; rhe risht to cqual'opporturutv . iirl*"cJJ". r+ iong*t
;;;':'--' " lriei ror rhc unitcd :1T:-:#i"ilu,'i, elecrion rcsults

lria not heve bcen more ctcar in crprcsstng

alonc should *t * i"i"ttl'itive oi a Scction 2 claim'

3, wc do ,", .:Hfl'[ii",':*:;ilffT:I',rJ:ri.':";:: r:
minoritY cendidatcr

rhc candidarc or r'i''o'-iJ""hoicc' lf' how"'"i"" '"iitity 
of white v-6166 wlll

nor votc ror a utecJla"ili"t"-i" "nv 
a*it""ii' "nd 

large multimember

disrricts,iilrmaioritlJ;il;''d*-f.1"-::"X*ili*:#H;"J::
i:l'l*:t#$:11:',Lill".,:ff 1[TT;,ti;"""iia"ointherace
Li1"*-r"i"tt" futii" oppotiti"n' - !- --r. ^.iid,t.r

Bcceurc or iaioovn"r"'i* thar '* o:Iil;:::';:iffflL|J;tffi:I
,f,. -ti rhould look at more than 

'one 
elt

asscss the ,"*"-^ii '"i"ir' '"i""re-d 
voting' of coursc' for thir rctlon'

black success in a singlc cleaion' o'"n *iitt itc whitc aupgort' cannot bc

dcrcrminative'

'LJ

v. Escambia county, T4g F.2d 1037.(5th cir. 1984); Ilnited

States v. Dallas cou''iLo^ii'sio^'^tl9 F'2d 1529 ( I lth Cir'

1984); United Stot"'"'-iirengo C?yl* Comm'n' 731 F'2d'

1546 (ttth Cir.), '"""'a"'"i' 
I U'S'- 105 S' Cl 375

( 1984). This brief does not contcnd that all at-large'

multimember districts should be suspect or subject to challenge

under Section 2' n"ti"t' ttt" district court acknowledged that

"a multime.u"' ai'i'i"i Jo"t oot alone establish that vote

dilution has resulted::'h f' Supp' at 355' but found that large

multimember districts along with severe racial polarization in

voring and other r*;;;;tbined here to create such dilu-

tion.s2

Thc district court stated further that it found a history of

official discriminatt;; ;;;tt Clacks..in voting matters-in-

cluding the'use tr al"i""I t;;i "t " 
p"l! tax' a literacy tesL and

an anti-single-shot ;;;i;; ri*-*t'i"Ll"d continuing effect to

depress blacr voter"t"ii*"ti"" :T F' Supp' at 359-61'

Although the district'"i'i ""rnowJe{s-e-! 
tl"t .'!"::-devices

were no longer.d;r"o ;; trc gatty li7os' it also recognized

that their .*irt"n"t 
-for 

over half a c€ntury has had a lasting

impact. Id- at *ri' 
' ir'" lasting impact of historical dis-

crimination on tnJ"p'""*-a"v "6in'y 
to participate 

-in- 
the

' ;il;;;i fr*"" has also been recognized in other recent cases'

cf. ttnitedsta,es ;''i;;";;; counfi comm'n'73r F'2d at 1567

("[Plast afcrimin"tion """n 
seveiely impair the present-day

ability of minoriti"' to p"'titipate on an equal footing in the

political ,ro*rr.")-,- i'iittonv' Escambia County' ?48 F'2d at

1043-44.

r).

t;

Thedistrictcourtdecisionrests,inpart,onthefactthatthis
history of official ai."Jiin"tion is still reladvely closc in terms

of time. The court ";il;;i;"good 
faith" effort ii now being

reThcSolicitorGencralmischaraaerizerthedinrictcourt'rpositionin
suggesting tt 

"t 
ir irnp,oii-y i"i""i t*ltlly po-lerized votinS ro exist shcrc

more rhan 5O percent oriiil. .iiur""kl vore for a different candidatc. The : I

district court's findins ;';;;tly poraril{ votin3 insread w-m'lascd'on 
'

extcndve expert rcsdmo;; ;i;il"ti"ofishcd. that a meiority of whitc votc.

sill not vole for any minorily candidales' ff i""'it'e ""tt "'on 
when blacls i

,* i". "mi" 
unoPPosed' 

;

i

i

I

I

!',
t.



26

made by the responsible state agency to remedy the effects of

ffiil;finatiln' The court observed:

"' . . . If continued on a sustained !*b 1Y-i
sufficient p"'ioA' tttt effort might succeed in removtng

the disparity io-ttgit""tion *ii"h.t"rvives as a legacy

of the tong p"'io-ioiJit"" denial and chilling by the

state of 
'"gi"'liio"n 

iv-Lr""t citizens' But at the

present ti*t tftJg"p # tt"t beenclosed:':Tltl:i:lt
of course no gu"i"ntee that the effort will be contln-

ued past the' end of the present state adminis-

,*ion."'590 F' SuPP' at 361'

The court below also recognized as significant the majority

vote require,nunt itlpl"I'i' i-"ttrt cltiin" in primaries' cI'

Zimmer,485 F'2d ;i 1305' Because-of the historical domina-

tion of the Democ*i" O"*1i toc.al races' this majority vote

requirement in pti*;J;;6stantially impeded minority voters

trom electinu ""niii"i"t "r 
tn"it ctroice' 59o F' Supp' at 363'

Recent cases *hich-i"t"-*"tiaer-e! 3mended 
Section 2 have

reached similar;dil; ' ii' u:Mlltanv' Escambia countv'

supra,748 F.2d "J';il 
('tei maflitv vote is required durine

the primarv in "" "1i";i;;; 
tn" o#o"ratic Parry is'domi-

nant. This factor';:;;t;in-i"'ot of a finding of dilution"');

Irnited states ,. oo,tirl irunty commission, supra,739 F'2d at

ts36 ("[Tln" r.i#"J";"t-# i-l':lo in the primarv plus the

significancc of tnl Democratic p'im"w combined to 'weighl I

in favor or " ni'i;; ;t dilution ' ' '"'); llnitcd states v'

Marengo countv'2f,^7ii'"i' ttr F'2d at it]9 11.'.,T:T:i
vote dilution is "enhanced" by a majority vote requiremcnt ln

the PrimarY)'

The district court found that "[flrom'the' Reconstructton

era ro th" pr"s"nitim", .pp"ots to racial prejudice againsr black

citizens t "'. ut"n "ilil;' 
used by persons' either-candidates

or theiruur*t"t]:;;';;; or inhuencins voters in North

Carolina poriti""iliip"ignt.''590 F' Supp' at 364'

Moreover, the racial appe-als "have tended to be most

overt anrl ur""nt-in-t-io'"-'pt'ioa' when blacks were openly

asserting potiticai 
'"nJ- ti'if righs'" rd' The district court

27

concluded that the effect of racial appeals "is. pt":":tY:,Ht"t"
i"'r"i" a.gree the opportunity of black citizens to partlopate

effectivety in the pJI[;i ;;;ttt13t and to elect candidates of

their choice." rd. R;;;i eltctoral appeals are a relevant factor'

i"r"" n"p" n at 29' While not present in this caser one must

be sensitive to the p"rriuiliiv oi racial electoral appeals by

minoritY candidates as well'

And. the district court found that North Carolina had

offered no legitimate policy justification 
'f* ii" fottn of the 1

challenged districts' 
-5f i: 5u'o' at 373-74' As the court in

Marengo County".rno*ttagea' 
ittre ttnio"nt's of the justifi-

carion for a state ,"fi ;d indicate that thc poricy is unfair-"

iir f.za at l57l (citation omitted)'

The fioregoing hndings contained in the district court's

opinion illustrate th"; i; d-eciding this case the court appropri-

ately considered tne i""too that Congress found rclevant in

assessing the "totality of circumstances"' Amici also note that

the disrrict .ou* 
"o"iyr"d 

black electoral success at lenEh' as ' -

the statute 
"or,"rnplJt"i' "t "one circumstanoe to be consid- :

ered." However, ,h;'a;;" i"und that in light of the totality of

circumstancesthisevidenceofelectoralsuccesswasinadequate'.i
toestablishtharblacks-i"o"nequalopportunitytoparticipate
in the political pt;;, ii"""" ii was due to the presence of a

variety of factors o,tt"t ttt"n those which indicated that blacks

had b6en giu"n 
"i- 

tqt'at opportu4ity to participate in the

political Process.

ln the 1982 election in House District 36 (Mecklenburg

County), ror.r"tpii, black candidate Berry was elected' 590

F.il;.at369.i".t'".elecdon,however'il1g16wereonly7
white candia"t., fo, A positions so that I black candidate had

to be elected. Id. Evtn under these circumstances' only 42 :

percent of the white voters voted for Berry' the black candidate' 
,

in the general 
"t."tion, "na 

Berry was the first black representa- :

tive elected nom House DistrictllO in this century' 5m F' SPP'

at 365, 369. S.r";;,h"r black candidates ran unsuocessfully 
"for office between igii 

"nO 
l98l' and there was another black t,:

candidate in the lgSZ election who lost' Id' 
't

I

t..

,;



28

In Senate District 22' whi-ch also- includes Mecklenburg

county, only one uil*'t""Jiqat1 t'as 
-b""n 

"t""ted' 
and he

Iii#*il'+litt-aeffi {{[1e;""114e
i:::""1:I?Jii"i''Jl:tl "nr*:it';fi 

i supp a'l 36e'

while ?8-91 p"'"tni ;; bl-"^c|.'ott'J voted for the black

candidates' Id' g*"'frr'it'e 1982 g"n"'"t "le"don' 
w-here 94

Dercent of the or""i.='#^ i:t:.9 rti y ir"ck candidate' the

Ltact candidate rt"' 
'iJ' -this 

illustrateJ th" t*"ttt difficulty

blacks have in "n"*'i'"I""taia"* 
o't'"t" there is racially

polarized voting in-" i"'g"' predominaitly white muldmember

otttnitu.n 
in House District 23 (D,rham county)' which' on

thesurface,hasalll,ir"ir-ru"""rrrurlteor.inbrirvelectoral
success *tp""d'Iitt';;; "r 

tt't "t["i 
challenged districs'

factors other than;;i access to tn" p"ritical process have

contributed ,o,ni',;"";;' or^ol"{# been ilected to the

House """t, 
,"r,,."'iil"T;j' l* .o 

J'; at 366' In the 1978

seneral election ill*d;'iggo p'it1t' '""a general elections'

Ito*.,"" tt'" uri"t candidate '"n 'u'i*rrittt-"4' 
Id' at t1o'

Furthermor", in",il igii-;ap.y ,t"." *.re only two.white

candidates ro' tt"tl seats ; tn"t on"-iiack neccssarily had to

win. rd' N"'"tiiJrl;;;ii tt'an t'ati Jiit'" *t'itt' vof rs tailed

to vote for the ii"tit- ""taidates' "'* "tt"n 
they had no other

"t 
oi""' Id' at 370-71'33

ln light of these frndings' the district court found a denial

o f vo ti n g ti et'o"'It i"'' i"' 
;:q"r t',frl-tig:::$; ;:tili:

:i H .1 
1i 

j''*'J;" 
;i""'{!i ^ 

rlr' ;";;;;; 
;' *: -'tilY

po I a rize d 
"r ""'o"'""i"' 

t h i' 
" 

I 

""'o'1' 
"il:fis; 

.:1T; "t' 
i ptili;

iili rt:"":lffi'":l ;U:i-y:F'u'i " 
rv'xte nsive rv o n

singre-shot"'i":':l'#;'o;;'il':"i;:i;;ml't"; ':l$i
right to vote for a full slate o

13 Stt footnote I at 9' 5' suPro' lor

clccroral succlssc3 at issue hcre'

,2,

Furthermore, the court stressed that even this success was a

recent phenomenot::;'il;far as'the 1982 elections were

concerned, *'", "toJ'il"on"i'to; "td."b"rrational 
in terms of

;;il;;qi.:,::.i*1"i:];i.n:::lJ'",lltl"hii:n
event, still too mu

ultimate inference" of equality of opportunity'- ia' at 367 n'27 '

The Solicitor General and appellans'position would nar-

row the scope or"J;;""';; iltil-1""tion 2 does not permit'

It would require tt'J iout to ignore' the totality of circum-

stances evidencing'l l"'i"t'"iiq'a potiticat and electoral

opportunity in ra'Jr 
-oi--io"uting- 

11, 

-only 
the most'recent

election returns' tf thot" returns evidenced any noticcable

success by minoriry ""JiJ"t"" 
that would be dispositive'

The Solicitor General and appellans try to justify this

approach by arguing that the 
"ongr""ioi"l 

reiiction of a test of

,","*",:"i""*i**i:*.$':ll'-t1!{f"':',i:i+i:n
success is dispostttve 

:,t :r:X;r;;r,; neither i gnored elec-

*ilr,n:I;;",x,flIll]"ffi"il'"ff this one raclor 
-1o 

b"

concrusive. Th.,.i;;;'r.gg"i,igr in the opinion of the district

court that it misintffit"ijh". int111r Congress and found a

denial of voting 'igi'" 
ii'p! *"*:: blacks had attained less

than propo*ion"i"u""""" n"tr'"r' the district court expressly

acknowledgta tn"t tt'" lack of proportional representatlon ls

insufficient tt ""io'oti " 
i*titrr z viotation' 590 F' Supp' at

355.

I

i

I,:



,i:

30

CONCLUSION

For the lctunns set forth 8bove, amici rcspectfully lEqucst

that this c;ourt effirm the.decision bclow, end rccoSnizc thc

o".c.tity of measuring a viotetion of Scction 2 on the basis of
thc..totality of circumstane3," with partiorlar emphasic on thc

factors sct forth in Zimmcr and the Scnatc Rcport'

Respectfully su bmitted,

Wrrmr J. Rocrrsr'
(Courucl ol Raoil)
Merr P. Grronr
Benrenr L. Anrru

Arrroto & Portn'
l20O Nes HemPrhirc Avc.' N'W'
Washington, D.C. 20036
(2O2t tT2-67t9

Auornqs lor Amlcl Curlac

Dated: August 30, 1985

t;
ti

l

I