Brief of the Appellees Intervenors
Public Court Documents
August 1, 1985

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. 10 Members of Congress Join In Voting-Rights Case (Washington Post), 1985. 996153de-db92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2e80681c-3aa0-403b-9e69-7ba437d67253/10-members-of-congress-join-in-voting-rights-case-washington-post. Accessed April 06, 2025.
Copied!
. ) I V FI.NAL Detailed index on Page A2 Higher in Areas Approximately 75 Miles From District of Columbia (See Box on A2)1 25~ 10 Lawmakers Join Voting-Rights Case Dole Group Calls Justice Dept. 'Misguided' By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Stall Writer Senate Majority Leader Robert J, Dole (R-Kan.) and nine other mem bers of Congress told the Supreme Court yesterday that the Reagan administration's position in a pend ing voting rights case blatantly mis represents the purpose of a voting rights bill they wrote three years ago. In a friend-of-the-court brief sub mitted in a North Carolina redis tricting case, the law's chief au thors-five Republicans and five Democrats-said the Justice De partment's position in the case "was expressly rejected by Congress" when it amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982. The Republican National Com mittee and Republican Gov. James G. Martin of North Carolina also opposed the administration's posi tion in separate briefs yesterday. A federal appeals court last year struck down North Carolina's sys tem ·Of electing several legislators from a single district, saying this diluted minority voting strength in some areas. The Justice Depart ment contends that Congress never intended the Jaw to apply to such cases, and that the appeals court is attempting to guarantee minorities a certain number of legislative seats based on their percentage of the population. But Dole and his colleagues · said that this case is clearly covered by See VOTING, A4, Col. 4 10 Members of Congress Join in Voting-Rights Case VOTING, From AI the 1982 amendments and that their views were spelled out in a Senate report accom panying the compromise bill. Calling the justice Department's position "misguided," the lawmakers' brief said the high court "should nat cut the 1982 amend ments free from their legislative history and adopt an interpretation of that legislation inconsistent with the view of the congres sional majority." The three briefs released yesterday un derscored the unusual split between the Reagan administration and much of the Re publican Party over the politically sensitive issue. A brief submitted by members of Congress explaining their legislative action to the Supreme Court is extremely unusual. The other senators who joined Dole are Republicans Charles Grassley (Iowa) and Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (Md.) and Dem ocrats Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), How ard M. Metzenbaum (Ohio) and Dennis De Concini (Ariz.). The brief was also signed by two House Republicans, F. James Sensen brenner (Wis.) and Hamilton Fish Jr. (N.Y.), and two House Democrats, Peter W. Ro dino (N.j .) and Don Edwards (Calif.). The case, Thornburg v. Gingles, is the first major Supreme Court test of the 1982 amendments, which said that local election laws ,could be found discriminatory if their result, and not simply their intent, was to penalize black voters. The law instructeq judges to consider the "totality of 'circum stances" in each case. "Anyone who followed the debates in 1982 knows the so-called compromise lan guage was not a model of clarity and the issue would be litigated in court," Justice Department spokesman Terry H. Eastland said yesterday. "It's not surprising there would be people on the Hill who have a par ticular view of what the law meant. We'll see how the court interprets what the in tent of Congress was." The Reagan administration strongly re sisted parts of the 1982 voting rights amendments but later embraced the final product. Dole alluded to this mixed record at a news conferen5=e in Kansas yesterday, "If the administration supported the bill that passed the Congress, then they prob ably shouldn't have intervened," he said. Saying that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which represents the black plaintiffs, encouraged him to enter the case, Dole said: "I think too often we [Republicans] are sort of on the periphery. We're never really in there when black Americans need our help." Ralph G. Neas, director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said the bipar tisan brief highlighted the "extremism" of Attorney General Edwin Meese III and As sistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds. "They are being isolated," Neas said. "Having failed legislatively, they are making an attempt in the Supreme Court to sabo tage the Voting Rights Act." The government's amicus brief-filed · last month by Reynolds and Acting Solicitor General Charles Fried-said a three-judge appeals panel erred when it struck down North Carolina's multimember districts. It noted that several black candidates: have won election in these districts in recent years. The Justice Department said the appeals court ruling, if upheld, would mean that "wherever there has been discrimination in \ the past ·and some measure of racial polar-. ization , .. district courts will be free to strike down virtually any scheme that does not____::or even those that do-deliver elec toral successes proportional to minority voting strength. That is not what Congress intended." The brief continued: "Minority voters have no right to the creation of safe elec toral districts merely because they could feasibly be drawn ... . Nor can it be pre s4med · ... that 'safe' seats for minority of jiceholders would necessarily be in the in terests of minority voters." ' The department cited Senate' opponents of the 1982 amendments and said the Sen ate report should not be given "undue em phasis" because it reflected the views of one faction. But the 10 lawmakers countered that "at ' ( no point in the debates did any senator claim that the majority statement of the -~ Senate report was inaccurate." Their brief said the justice Department's stance "could raise an artificial barrier to legitimate claims of denial of voting rights .... Congress did not intend that limited ' electoral success by a minority would fore close" a voting rights lawsuit. Martin's brief took a similar tack. "There can be little question that multimember dis- : tricts in North Carolina dilute the effect of black voters," it said. , Republicans and blacks in North Carolina : have found it historically difficult to win elections in multimember districts. Repub licans much prefer the state's newly adopt- ' ed single-member districts, which created ' not only majority black districts but also predominantly white suburban districts at tractive to GOP candidates.