Legal Research on Statement of Peter Rodino
Unannotated Secondary Research
January 1, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Legal Research on Statement of Peter Rodino, 1982. 875f5908-e192-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/43abc6fc-c854-41b1-85e3-e8a65c7b4e2c/legal-research-on-statement-of-peter-rodino. Accessed April 22, 2025.
Copied!
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.