Attorney Notes Pages 1406-1409

    7ve b
- foaalv, the washington Pget etys.tha! t!9,rgllE^tt:l.3"Yll?:
iI*tx',qfi $fr ffit""T:H##ft'ffid';;.tf;.*?1,*"-u"ro'u
rhp Suoreme Court ffiffiioi.'il-friit"1.-notari"." In 1980, in lessZ wOlUo surrPry rErrEw v'e e*se--,.-BOldin.', 

In 1g80, in IeSg[rrJ-sio*-" -(6urt 
decisio-n 4 Mobi.Q 't

politicdly charged times, the Poet t"'o:. - . _ ,^--, *:-+ ^r uiau*;;;;:;* 
;; tt"t .r,"t the Jusrjc€s did was. from a legal point of view,

*";# ;;;;; rh"T th"ilailffi"Ji;;"t"d ;'e"ioue'setback to civil ri8ht8'

Today, thq Washinston Poet g1s.!h11t^j|: tr;r:"Tttr1t;"*3.ff

,.gtrrte

riffitlfl*r"L:f.eiffi,::3'*tr:ffi i[h?{[l'fl ffi ffi
aUsent from the preeent debate when rt
sion in Mobilc:

;{:*":}tlmmrg:rP*ffilf "H,:*H"xi#r:$:ltivd'iH
Now, the Post was right then' That i8 the issue' That- is one of

ri#"it#q"ui*'*t*rtq&:"*l;'ilxi:'H:,ll;YilEi
#,#Jl#,'.ffi"mi:mlfh8*"*'*H,mi"i*"6*
They agreed a i l"ii;TiJ tGt-""".yu.av was arguing for a

"tt'f ,ffl?fJwtru.Fui,
would simPlY re81

;'ri-i";tid.'Io 1980, -the- 
P.get acklor

"io" 
*oUa effect legal challenges to.

i.;l';irai"nges ag{nst- existing svst
m6mber legislative diBtricts'

Todav the Wasl;;i;;*ioet derides thoee who argue that the

o,r';i6*i"di;iffi 3;"r6i*ttsp"-p"'ti"l*":"$:f*XltTH
;"?.-ifi;t i" ao i-Portaot issue' Ttu
concerned. lt i", iltfiifo"?a'trr;;;t-Gpoitairt issues in the

t istotY of the Constitution'

1407

In 1980, the Post said of the Mobilz decision that:
It aleo avoided the logicsl terminal point of theae Iegal challengea that election

line districts tre drawn to give proportional repreeentation to minoritiee.

That, I would emphasize, was not merely the Court's view of the
effects test; it w_as the view of the Washingto-n Post as well.;

lv:cr \f A**1 fur,,- /..---w' /
./( '

t First, in my vlew, the t'efi6cts" t6t will have an inevitable tend-
ency to lead-to racial quotas. lbat iE so, I think, because human
bei"gs are remarkably riuick to find the shorteot Way to avoid trou-
ble irith the authoriiies. In this instance, the human beings in
question would be local ofricials and the authoritiee, agents of the
Federal Gwernment.

Local officials, under the propoeed section 2, will note that an
elected bodv with a racial compoeition unproportionate to that of
the votins iopulation may well be taken by the authorities as proof
of discriminalion. By contrast, an elected body with a ragiql compo"
sition proportionats to that of the voting population will be taken
by the aufhorities as proof of no discrimination.-Since trouble withihe authorities is the last thing any sensible
per€on wants, the proper course will spring instantly to-mind: Con-
irive matters so a^$to-assure an elected body with a racial composi-
tion proportionate to that of the voting- pop-ulation. However ex-
plainLd, -however 

disguised, however rationalized, -t{rat- is 3- quotq
System,-with fixed numbers of places in the elected body allocated
t6 members of one race or another..

-lLlct- oeoe
I Mv second reason ls that tlre purport€d saving sentence- of pro-
;;;e ;;iio" z i" ru.t savee nofhing. The sent'ence provides that
qh;];;;h"i--"-ultt of a minorit! group have nof b-een elected
iri'ri"-Ul"";q";i to the group's profiortion qt.tt'" populatioa shall
iiit]iii ""a 

of itsetf, conslitut-e a-violation of this section." That is
simply incoherent.-- 

1''"-""iotr[e the section, a State or a subdivision of the State must
uopir'" *ii"g p""ctice so as to dqny tle_rieht to vote on account of
ii|.i]fi," i'i"'i"i-;;6"p or u" 

"i"6t"d 
bodv cannot,-bv dFfinition,

i;; ;;iution-ot the s6ction. The questiori is whether the racial
ir-u[""p of an elected body may be taken as some evidence of a ra-
;l;til il"idiouJ applicatioi of d voting practice; that is, as some evi-
denc-e of a violation.--i-iin" a".itsme1 of proposed section 2 wished to see to it ttrat the

";ili;;ffit;ifi-.[ct"d 
body would. not be taken as evidence of

;-;ili;ffi;if,ev [a"e i"iled tolev.tg in-their ryoving seltence' If
."""t"a. 15ut s;vine sentence will 

-either 
be rewritten by the courts

;-ffi;;;[. -in 
eiifier event debasing Congress responsibility to

writ6 the Nation's laws.o