Legal Research on Statement of Peter Rodino

     

The Mobile plurality claims that White reguired proof of

intentional discrimination and, thus, is not inconsiste with

   
    
  

erized as a
or an effects/results test, the fact is that, in
/,

lower courts era ed the types of objective

    
   
   
 

t to a constitutional claim in

"<V
determining whether th lity of the circumstances" yielded

a violation. Th obile pluralit mined each of the White -

   

 

     

factors but the: than apply the ”totality

   

he circumstances'I

      
 

test, ' said that each factor, by itself, was ins“
ove a constitutional violation.

.The section 2 amendment adopted by the House would return the
focus of the courts' review to the White standards.

The amendment also incorporates the White holding, which has
been reiterated consistently by the lower courts and the U.S. Supreme
Court, that

it is not enough that the racial group allegedly
discriminated against has not had legislative seats

in proportion to its voting potential. the plaintiffs'

burden is to produce evidence that the political process

leading to nomination and election were not equally open

to participation by the group in question - that its

members had less opportunity, than did other residents

in the district to participate in the political processes

and to elect legislators of their choice.15

Thus, the argument that the enactment of the section 2 amendment
of H.R.3112 and 5.1992 will lead to proportional representation is
simply wrong. The language of the amendment is absolutely clear
that the lack of proportional representation by itself does not
constitute a constitutional violation. Again, this is consistent

with White and numerous other court cases, including Mobile, which

state that the lack of representation factor is only one of many

 

15 White v. Regester, supra, citing Whitcomb v. ChaVis, 403 0.8. 124,
149-150.

286

factors to be examined in making a determination.

Further, the section 2 amendment, does not mandate proportional
representation as a remedy once a violation has been established.
The case law, the legislative history in the House, and the
testimony before your Subcommittee from experts in this field make
this fact absolutely clear Egg, especially statement of Frank
Parker, 53253. Claims to the contrary are simply speculation not
based on reality. -

Lastly, it needs to be reiterated that the Whig; results test
incorporated into section 2 refers not, as some have erroneously
argued, to the results or outcome of a particular election but to
the effect or result which a challenged election practice or procedure
has in providing -— or denying —- equal access to the political
process for those minorities who are protected by the Voting Rights
Act. It bears repeating once again, that such result is determined by
examining the numerous factors set forth in White to see if the
“totality of the circumstances" in a particular case yields a
violation under section 24!

It is interesting to note that witnesses who have raised
these claims before your Subcommittee have no expertise in voting
rights 1itigation,and, thus, their claims lack credibility since they

are no more than conjecture.