Legislative History on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Resource Material on 1982 Extension and Amendments)

Working File
November 12, 1982 - November 13, 1982

Cite this item

Legislative History on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Resource Material on 1982 Extension and Amendments) preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorney
- Leslie J. Winner
Organization
- LDF
Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 2c17f753-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Legislative History on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Resource Material on 1982 Extension and Amendments), 1982. 2c17f753-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/51b205b3-7d19-442d-9f3f-a73f006ed383/legislative-history-on-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-resource-material-on-1982-extension-and-amendments. Accessed October 08, 2025.

Copied!

Lesa,EDrenseH.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

[as amend,edJ

LEGISI,ATI\TE IIISTORY

Resource Material on 1982 Extension and Amendments

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAI T'UND, INC.

VOTING RIGHTS CONFERENCE

November 12-13, L982

New Orleans, Louisiana

Tbese maEerials were collected for dlstrLbutlon at LDFrg
VoElng Rlghts Cooference to assisE participants in researching
the leglslatlve history of the t982 Amendnents. Thls flrst draft
enphasLzes Sectlon 2; suPplemenEal memoranda on the bail-out
amendment to SecEion 5 and the remedles avallable under Sectton 2

w111 be included in a rnore comprehenslve leglslative hlstory that
w111 be avallab1e after January 1, 1983 upon reguest.

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tar purposes

The NAACP LEGAL 0EFENSE & EDUCATI0NAL FUND is not part ol the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was lounded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, stafl, oifice and budget.

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 o (212) 586-8397

Notiotal Officn's

JULIUS I.. (:HAMBERS
Presidenl

DR. GEORCF] D, CAI'{NON
CONNIE S. LINDAU

Secrclorits

MRS. HENRY AARON
Atlsnta, G8.

MRS, FARITOW R. ALLEN
Riverdale. N. Y.

EI,EANOR S. APII,T]WHAITE
New York, N. Y.

CLAREN(:E AVANT
Ias Angeles, Calif.

JOHN T. BAKER
New York. N. Y.

AI,ICE M- tsEASLEY
San Frsnciw. Cslif.

.IEAN K. BENJAMIN
Kings Point, N. Y.

HEI,EN L. tsUl'TENWIDSER
New York. N. Y.

JAC( G. (:I,ARKN
New York, N. Y.

DR. I. H. CLAYBORN
Dallur, Tex.

WILLIAM K. COBI,I]N]'Z
San l'rancisco, (ldif.

OSSIE DAVIS
New llrehclle. N. Y.

PETUIt J. Del,trCA
Whit l,luin6. N. Y.

ADIiIAN w. DeWIND
Ne* York, N. Y.

ANTHoNY DOWNS
lVuhington. D.C.

ROITERT I" DRINAN. S,J.
Weshinak n, I).c:.

CHARI.I'S T. DUNCAN
WdhinFton. D.C.

MARIAN WRrcHT Dt)EI,M,{N
Washinrton, D.(-.

CHRISTOPHER P. EDI,EY
New York. Ii. Y.

DR. HI'LI'N G, EDMONDS
Durham, N. C.

DAVID E. FI]LLER
Berkeley, Calil.

.TOflN H. FILER
I'Iartford, Conn.

CLAITENCE FINLEY
New York. N. Y.

E,recutiw Utficer*
.IA(:K GREENBERG

Arector-Coutacl

JAMES M. NABRTT, III
Ats<tcrole Cottvl

Boartl of I)ire.ct<ns

NORMAN C. FRANCIS
Ncw Orleans. la.

MARVIN H. I'RANKDL
Ne*' York. N. Y.

DR, JOHN HOPE FRANKI,IN
I)urham. N. C.

J. TH0MAS FRANKT,IN
Ii$ion, Ma$.

CIIARI.TJS V. IIAMILTON
Now York. N. Y.

!]I,IOT I.ILIt]BARD. III
Lincoln, Ma$.

(:ATIIERINE (;, HTIBER
Runrson, N. .l.

ANN M. III]TCHINSON
Nes York, N. Y.

.I0SF]PII F]. .IT]NKINS
Nerr York, n'. Y.

.,I]TTA N,.IONES
Chicaro, Ill.

DR. ANNA J..'I,II,IAN
08k l'ark, Ill.

H^RRY KAHN
No* York. N. Y.

r' I(ll{Ol,AS deB. KATZENBAC tt
Armonk. N. Y.

R0IltiRT McDoLi(iAL. JR.
('hicago, IIl.

(}I]ORGI] E. MARSHALL, JR.
las Angeles. (:alif.

TIIE RI(iIIT RI]V, PAUL \IO()RE, JR-
New York, N. Y.

DR..IAMES M. NANRIT, JR,
Wehinnton. l).C.

MRS. Et.LIOTT M. OGLlEN.,tR.
Nes York, N. Y.

ITARBIN(;TON D. P.{RKER. JR.
New York, N. Y.

R0BERT S, POTTER
Neu'York, N. Y.

(;LENI)()RA PUTNAM
Boston. M&$

HARIIIET RAI]B
Neu' York. N. Y

National Ollicen
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, JR,

('hoirnon o! lhe Board

ROBT)RT H. PREISKEL
Treasnrn

WILEY A. BRANTON
I'ice Preddcil

F . RANDOLPH. JR.
Ne* York. N. Y.

(]HARLDS RENTREW
San I'rrnci*o. Calif.

MRS, SAMUEL I. ROSENMAN
New York, N, Y.

HARVEY c. RUSSI]LL
Yonkers, N. Y.

BAYARD RUSTIN
New York. N. Y.

WILLIAM H. SCHEIDE
Princeton, N. J.

ORVILLA H. ScHELL, JR,
Ne* York, N. Y.

tsTJIiNARD (;. SEGAL
Philadelphia. t'a.

.IA(:OB SIIT]INKMAN
New York. N. Y.

DR. (}EOR(;I' C. SIMXINS, JR,
Grensboro, N. C.

MICHAEL I. SOVERN
New York. N. Y.

CHUCI( STONE
Philrdelphia. Pa.

JAY TOPXIS
New York N. Y.

JAMES VoRf)NIIERG
Canrbridge, Murs.

I:IIATINCOY I,. WADDET,L
New York. N. Y.

J()HN \1, WAI,KT:R
Little R{rk. Ark.

DR. ROBERT C, WT:AVER
Nerv York. N. Y,

RE\" M. MORAI\i WESTON
New York. N. Y.

R(X;I.]R W. WILKINS
Wshington, D.C.

E, THOMAS WILI,IAMS, JR.
New York, N. Y.

KAREII IIASTII] WILLIAMS
Washin6on, D.C.

ANDREW YOUNG
AtlEnta, (;a.

CLAI.IDE'BUDDY" YOLIN(;
Ne* York. N. Y.

"COMMITTEE OF TOO"

Henry Aaron Yvonne Brathwsilt Burke
Morris fl, Abram Helcn L. Buttenwieser
Strvc Allen Muriel M. Buttinger
Arthur R. Arhe Diahann Carrcll
.loan Baez James E. Chek
Rocer N. Baldwin Shirler Chisholm
Birch Bayh RamryClark
Vivian J. Ilcamon Aaron Oopland
llarry Belalonte Bill Cosby
Saul Bellow Maxwcll I)sne
lzrone Bennett. Jr. Osie Davis
John C. Bctrnett Rub-v De
Viole W. Bernord victori8 DeLt
lf,onard Bernstein Ralph Elli*rn
Hans A. Bethe buis !'iukelstein
Eugene Carwn Blake John Hope Franklin
Scrah Gibon Blanding Mrs. A. G. (ir*ton
Julian Bond Kenneth A. Gibwn
Henry T. Bourne Harr:r D. (iidon*
Gorce P. Brtrkway ltoland B. (iithlshtr
Ed*'ird W. Ilmke (,'harles E. Gmdell

Chairman. BISHOP PAUL MOORE. JR.

Charle Merrill
Arthur Mitthcll
Psul Newman
llleanor Holmes Norton
Rich8rd L. OttinSer
Idn E. Psnetts
Gordon A. B. Perks
Sidney Poitier
Joseph L. Rauh, Jr.
Carl T. Rowan
John L. Saltonsbll. Jr.
William H. Scheide
Arthur Schl€inger, Jr.
Llharles E. Silberman
John P. Spiegrl
William Styron
Telford Taylor
R.bert Penn Werren
Robert C. Weever
Tom Wicker
Myrlie Evers Williams

John I{anmond
Richard G- Hakher
Theodore M. Ilcsburgh
Msilyn Horne
Juob Javits
John H. Johnrcn
Mrs. Percy Julian
Horecc M. Xsllen
Ethel l(ennedy
Jemes Lswrence. Jr.
Max lcrner
lV. Arthur Lwis
Sarch larkin [cnirc
John A. Mackay
.4rchibsld Mut:lr'ish
Horace S. Man(es
Henry L. Marsh. lll
tlenj8min E. Irlsys
William .lam* Mc(iill
Linda B. McKean
Kerl Mennincer

The "Committee of 100", a voluntary cooperative group of individuals, headed by Bishop
Psul Moore, Jr., has sponsored the Bppeal of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Inc. since 1943 to enable the F'und to put into op€ration a program designed to make
desegregation a reality throughout the IJnited States.

q@,. €)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Agend.a

Participants

Memorandum on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
:h/

APPENDICES:-/

^.
anr."ological fndex to Congressional Record. on
L982 Extension of Voting Rights Act,

House Debates
. Senate Debates

B. Subject Index to Congressional Record on 19g2
Extension of Voting R5.ghts Act

House Debates
Senate Debates .....

C. Chronological Index to Committge Hearings

Sirbconunittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights
of the House Committee on the Judiciary (May 6,
1981 - July 13, 1981)

Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate
Judiciary (January 2'l , L982 - March L, L9g2) ....

D. Committee Reports

fable of Contents, House Conunittee on the
Judiciary, Report on H.R. 31L2, iI. Rep. No.
277, 97th Cong., lst Sess. (1981)

Table of Contents, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Report on S" L992, S. Rep. No.
4L7, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. (L982) ... .......

E. Statement of Senator Kennedy, L28 Cong. Rec.
S.7095 (June 18, L982) ...

F. The Voting Rights Act, Public Law 97-2Os
(June 29, L982)

:/ We gratefully acknowledge the contribution
Sabel, a law student at N.Y.U., Schoo1 of Law,
prepare these append,ices under the supervision
Counsel Lani Guinier. Special thanks, as welI,
Johnson, Grace Richardson, Gloria Jones, Oscar
Earl Cunningham.

of Janet
who helped
of Assistant
to Jewell

Fambro and

A1
A2

Page

B1
B8

c10

p.m.

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC

VOTING RIGHTS CONFERENCE

FAIRMONT HOTEL
UNIVERSITY PLACE

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
( soa) s29-7111

November L2-L3, L982

AGENDA

Friday, November L2, L982

I:3O p.m.

3:30 p.m.

SECTION 5 PRECLEARANCE

Barbara PhlIlips, Esq. (Moderator) - Overview
Of Section 5, Introduction Of Panelists

Professor Drew Days, fII, Yale Law School;
Assistant. Attorney General Civil Rights
Division, United States Department Of
Justice 1977-1980 Standards For Pre-
clearance And Enforcement Of Section 5

Jose Garza, ESe., Director, Voting Rights Pro-
ject, MALDEF - The Preclearance Process:
A Case Study

Professor Armand Derfner, Arneri-can University
School Of Law - Enforcement Problems; Sec-
tion 5 v. Section 2; Bailout

Registratlon

Explorers Room

Break

Explorers Room

p.m. 3:45 p.m.

p.m. 6:30 p.m.

PROVING A VOTE DILUTION CASE

Lanl Guinj-er, Esg., Asslstant Counsel, LDF - Moderator

Laughlin McDonald, Director, ACLU Southern
Reglonal Office - Legislative History of
1982 Amendment; Standards Of Proof Under
Section 2 v. Constltutlonal Standard

Paul Hancock, Ese., Coordinator, Section 2
Unit, Department Of Justice - Enforcement
Of Section 2, Criteria For Identifying New
Cases And Litigating Pendlng Cases In Light
Of Section 2 Amendment And Rogers v. Lodge

Frank Parker, Esq., Lawyers Committee For CiviI
Rlghts Under Law - How To Bring A Section 2
Case; Trial Preparation And Strategy

David Walbert, Esq. - New Areas For Litigation;
Remedies

Saturday, November 13, L982

9:OO a.m. 9:3O a.m.

9:30 a.m. !2:3O p.m.

Cocktail Reception
GoId Room (Mezzanine

Greetings
Jack Greenberg,
Director-Counsel, LDF

Coffee and Danish

Explorers Room

PROVTNG THE FACTORS TN A SECTION 2 CASE
THE USE OF EXPERTS

Napoleon B. Williams, Assistant Counsel, LDF - Moderator

9:30 11:15 The Experts Speak

Professor Gordon Henderson, Earlham College
Using A Computer To Draw Alternative Plans;
Pre-Programming Information And Data Gather-
i.g; Costs

Professor James Loewen, University Of Vermont
Doing A Racial Bloc Voting Analysis

Professor Morgan Kousser, California Institute
Of Technology - Proving Historical Dis-
crimination

Prdfessor Chandler Davidson, Rice University -
Slating croups, At Large Elections And
Other Barriers To Participation
11:15 11:30 Break

II:30 L2:3O Discussion Of Expert Testimony,
Problems In Preparation And Ex-
amj-natlon Of Expert Witnesses,
How To Find Expert Witnesses

ll- r-

L2245 p.m.

1:45 p.m.

l: 3O p.m.

3215 p.m.

MAPPING LITIGATION STRATEGTES
SMALL GROUP MEETINGS

Box Lunches

Explorers Room

Suggested Topics: Problems Of Private Attorneys Genera1,
Identi-fying Important Issues And
Places For Future Litigatlon, Re-
apportionment, At Large Elections,
Annexation, Rereglstration And Other
Non-Structural Barriers; How To Flnd
And Use Expert hlitnesses; Remedies;
Attorneys Fees; Monitoring Section 5
Submlssions

1t;ll Circuit
5th Circuit
IIth Circuit
Northern E
Border States

Tulane Room

Loyola Room

Chancellorrs Room

Mayor's Chamber

Group Leader

Julius Chambers, Esq.

Victor McTeer, Esq.

' James Blacksher, Esq.

To Be Announced

Group ReportsExplorers Room

PARTICIPANTS

Mr. Roberto R. Aronzo Mr. Robert Brischetto
Nueces County Courthouse 2OI N. St. Mary's Street
Room IO5 Suite 5OI
Corpus Christi, Texas 784OL San Antonio, Texas 79205

Mr. Elliot Andelman Mr. Sam Buchanan
P.O. Box 368 South Eastern Mississippi
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 394OI Legal Servlces

P.O. Drawer LTZB
Mr. Louis Armstrong Hattiesburg, Mississippi 3g4ol
P.O. Box 22887
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. fra A. Burnim

IOO1 South HuIl Street
Mr. Alexis L. Barrett p. O. Box 2Og7
75 Marietta Street, N.W. Montgomery, Alabama 36103-2097
Suite 3OO
Atlanta, Georgia Ms. Kay Butler

School of LawProf.. Jack Bass University of South Carolina
915 Gregg Street Columbia, South Carolina 2g2OB
University of South

Carolina Msr. Llzette Cantres
columbia, south carolina 29208 puerto-Rican Legar Defense

E Educational Fund
Prof. Denlse Carty-Bennia 95 Madison Avenue
Northeastern university New york, New york 10016
School of Law
4OO Huntington Avenue Mr. Robert Castaneda
Boston, Massachusetts 02115 Texas Rural Legal Aid, rnc.

Voting Rights Litigation
Mr. Joel Berger (lOr) project-
IO Columbus Circle 201 North St. Marys
Suite 2O3O Suite 630
New York, New York 1OOI9 San Antonio, Texas 7gZO5

Mr. James Blacksher Mr. Julius L. Chambers
405 Van Antwerp Building 951 South Independence
P.O. Box 1051 B1vd.
Mobile, Alabama 36601 Suite 730

Charlotte, North Carolina ZAZO2Mr. William Boone
Department of Political mr. Edward B. Cloutman, fIIScience Mullinax, Wells Baab, CloutmanAtlanta University g2O4 Elmbrook DriveAtlanta, Georgia 3O3L4 Suite 2OO

P.O. Box 17972
Mn. NeiI Bradley Dallas, Texas 75217
American CiviI Liberties

Union
Southern Regional Offj-ce
52 Fairlie Street; N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 3O3O3

Mr. Christopher Coates
Anerican Civil Liberties

Union
52 Fairlie Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georqii 30303

Mr. George C. Connor, Jr.
26t7 Havana Street
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Ms. Erlinda Cortez (Oimas)
Mexican-American Legal

Defense Fund
No. 517 Petroleum Commerce

Building
2OL North St. Mary
San Antonio, Texas 78205

Mr. Robert Cullen
Georgia Legal Services
I33 Luckie Street
8th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 3O303

Bernadlne St. Cyr
.Office Manager
Survival COaIition
2O2O Jackson Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113

Mr. James P. Dahlberg
New Orleans Legal Assistance

Corporatlon
Suite 601
226 Carondelet Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 7O130

Mr. Roosevelt Daniels
South Eastern Mlssisslppi

Legal Services
P.O. Drawer L728
Hattiesburg, Mj-ssissippi 39401

Mr. Mlchael Darnell
P.O. Box 3885
Lafayette, Louisiana 7O5O2

Prof. Chandler Davidson
Department of Sociologry
Rice University
Houston, Texas 77OOl

Prof. Drew.S. Days, IIf
Box 4O1A Yale Station
New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Prof. Armand Derfner
American University Law School
41OO Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington,D.C. 20016

Prof. Richard Engstrom
Department of Political Science
University of New Orleans
Lakefront
New Orleans, Loulsiana 7OL22

Mr. Cedric Floyd
3045 Huntsville Street
Kenner, Loulsiana 70062

Prof. David J. Garrow
Department of Political Science
University of North Carolina
Chapel HlII, North Caroli-na 27511

Mr. Jose Garza
Mexican-American Legal Defense

Fund, Voting Rights project
No. 517 Petroleum Comrnerce

Building
2OI North St. Mary
San Antonio, Texas 78205

Mr. Fred D. Gray
P.O. Drawer rrG"

Tuskegee Institute
Tuskegee, Alabama 36083

Mr. Jack Greenberg
Director-CounseI
NAACP Legal Defense E Educational

Fund
IO Columbus Circle
Suite 2O3O
New York, New York 10019

Mr. Jesse Griffin
Mendenhall Ministries
Communlty Law Office
P.O. Box 277
Mendenhall, Mlssissippi 39114

Ms. Susan Griggins
Mendenhall Ministries
Communlty Law Office
P.O. Box 277
Mendenhall, Mississippi 39114

Prof. Bernie Grofman
University of California
School of Soci-a1 Science
Irvine, California 927L7

Ms. Lani Guinier
NAACP Legal Defense &

Educational Fund
10 Columbus Clrcle
Suite 2O3O
New York, New York 1OOlg

Mr. Stan Halpin
New Mexico Legal Servj-ces
109 EIm Street
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87LOz

Mr. Paul Hancock
Voting Section
Civil Rights Divislon
United States Department

of Justice
lOth E Constitutlon Ave., N.W.
Washington,. D.C. 20530

Ms. Pat Hanrahan
Lawyers Committee for Civl1

Rights Under Law
733 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 52O
Washlngton, D.C. 2OOO5

Mr. John Harper
l3O2 Harden Street
P.O. Box 843
Columbia, South Carolj,na 29202

Ms. Nancy Hart
5OI Cherokee Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 7OI1g

Prof. Gordon Henderson
Department of Political
Science
Earlham Co11ege.
Richmond, Indiana 17374

Ms. Cynthia HilI
c/o League of Women Voters
l73O M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Ms. Gracia Hlllman
National Coalition on Black

Voter Participation, Inc.
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 4OO
Washington, D.C. 2OOO1

Mr. Jerry Himelstein
1110 Adeline
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401

Ms. Jewell Johnson
NAACP Legal Defense e,

Educational Fund
1O Columbus Circle
Suite 2O3O
New York, New York 10019

Ms. Elizabeth JuIian
Suite 2OO
8204 E1m Brook Drlve
Da11as., Texas 75247

Mr. Gabriel Kaimowitz
Pu'erto-Rican Legal Defense

& Educati-onal Fund
95 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016

Mr. James Kellogg
Quigley E Scheckman
631 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 7OI3O

Mr. George Korbel
Civil Rlghts Commission
4Le South Main
San .Antonj.o, Texas 7BZO4

Prof " Morgan Kous'ser
Divi-sion of Humanities
California'Institute of

Technology
Pasadena, California 91125

Mr. David Lipman
Suite 3O4
5901 S. W. 71t11 Street
Miaml, Florida 33L13

Dr. James Loewen
Department of Sociology
Unlversity of Vermont
31 South Prospect Street
Burlington, Vermont 05405

Prof. Joseph Logsdon
Department of History
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana 70122

v]-1

Prof. Peyton McCrary Mr. James M. Nabrit, flf
Department of History NAACP Legal Defense E
Universj-ty of Southern Educatlonal Fund

Alabama I0 Columbus Clrc1e
28 South Reed Avenue Suite 2O3O
Mobile, Alabama 3660/, New York, New york IOO19

Mr. Laughlin McDonald Mr. Raul Noriega
Director Texas Rural Legal Aid, fnc.
Southern Regional Office Voting Rights Litigation
American Civil Liberties project

Union 2O1 North St. Marys
52 Fairlie Street, N.W. Suite 630
Atlanta, Georgia 3O3O3 San Antonio, Texas 7A2O5

Mr. Alvin McDougald Mr. Frank Parker
P.O. Box 1011 Lawyers Commlttee for Civil
Fort Va11ey, Georgia 31030 Rights Under Law

733 15th Street, N.W.
Ms. Brenda McGhee Sui-te 520
Eastern Carolina Legal Washington, D.C. 2OOO5

Services
P.O. Box 2688 Mr. Wi1lie perkins
Wilson, North Carolina 27893 North Mississippi Rural

Legal Services
Mr. Vlctor McTeer P.O. Box 928
McTeer E Bailey Greenwood, Mlssisslppi 39BSO
P.O. Drawer 1835
218 S. Theobald Street Ms. Barbara phillips
Greenville, Mississippi 38701 1012 Page Street, Apt. 2

San Francisco, California g/*LL7
Ms. Ruby G. Martin
Martin t Rosi, Inc. Mr. Ted euant
406 West Franklin Street Director
Richmond, Virginia 23220 Survival Coalition

2O2O Jackson Avenue
Mr. Larry Menefee New orleans, Loui-siana 7orr3
4O5 Van Antwerp Building
P.O. Box IO51 Mr. Bill euigley
Mobile, Alabama 3660I euigley 6 Scheckman

631 St. Charles Avenue
Ms. Patrice Miles New orleans, Louisiana 70130
NAACP Legal Defense E

Educational Fund Prof. Howard Rabinowitz
lO Columbus Circle Department of History
Suite 2O3O University of New Mexico
New York, New York loorg Arbuguergu€, New Mexico g7131

Mr. Judson Miner Mr. paul D. Rich
Davis, Mi-ner, Barnhill E Nueces County Courthouse

Galland Room IO5
14' west Erle Street corpus christi, Texas 7a1o1
Chicago, Illinois 60610 or

LOz Pueblo
Corpus Christi, Texas 78/,05

v]-11

Mr. David Rlchards Mr. Edward Sti1l
6O0 West 7th Street Reeves e Still
Austln, Texas 787OL Suite 400 Commerce Center

2027 First Avenue, North
Ms. Grace Richardson Birmingham, AIa. 35203
NAACP Legal Defense E

Educational Fund Mr. Steve Suitts
10 Columbus Circle Southern Regional Councll
Suite 2O3A 75 Marietta Street, N.W.
New York, New York IOO19 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Mr. William Robinson Mr. Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux
Director Newman, Thibodeaux & Marshall
Lawyers Committee for Civil 1925 Enterprise Boulevard

Rights Under Law Lake Char1es, Loui.siana 706Ol
733 15th Street, N.W.
Sulte 52O Ms. Maureen Thornton
Washington, D.C. 2OOO5 c/o League of Women Voters

1730 M Street, N.W.
Mr. Rolando Rios Washlngton, D.C. 20036
Southwest Voter Education

Project Ms. Abigail Turner
201 N. St. Marys Street Alabama Lega1 Services
Suite 5OI 7L2 Yan Antwerp Building
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Mobile, Alabama 36602

Mr. John Ruffin Mr. Olger Twyner
11OI Eleventh Street South Eastern Mississippi
P.O. Box 1625 Legal Services
Augusta, GE. 30903 P.O. Drawer 1728

Hattlesburg, Mississippi 39/*01
Ms. Judith Sanders (Castro)
Mexican American Legal Mr. David Walbert

Defense Fund 1210 First Atlanta Tower
No. 517 Petroleum Commerce Atlanta, Georgia 50383

Building
2Ol N. St. Marys Ms. Lynn Walker
San Antonio, Texas 78205 The Ford Foundation

320 East 13rd Street
Mr. Steven Scheckman New York, New York IOO17
Quigley and Scheckman
631 St. Charles Mr. Robert Weisberg
New Orleans, Louisiana 7OI3O Lipman 6 Weisberg

Suite 3O4
Mr. Peter Sherwood 5901 S,W. 71th Street
NAACP Legal Defense E Miami, Florida 33L43

Educational Fund
10 Columbus Circle Mr" Lee T. Wesley
Suite 2O3O Executlve Director
New York, New York 1OO19 Louisiana Leglslature Black Carn:s

P.O. Box 44033
Ms. Alison Steiner Baton Rouge, L€r. 7O8O4
Edelman, Andelman E Steiner
224 Second Avenue
Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401

Ms. Gwendolyn Jones West Prof. William D. Barnard
Georgia Legal Servj-ce Chairman, Department of
954 So. Main Street History
Conyers, Georgia 3O2O7 University of Alabama

. University, Alabama 35486
Dr. Bruce Williams
Rockefeller Foundation Mr. G. K. Butterfield
1133 Avenue of Americas Fitch and Butterfield
New York, New York 10036 615 East Nash Street

!{iIson, North Carolina 27893
Mr. Eddie N. htriIliams
Presldent
The Joint Center for Political

Studies
I3Ol Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 4OO
Washington, D. C. 2OOO1

.Ms. Ivory Williams
Box 22887
Jackson, Mlssi-ssippi 39205

Mr. Napoleon Williams
NAACP Legal Defense E

Educational Fund
IO Columbus Circle
Sui.te 2O3O
New York, New York 1OO19

Dr. AIex Willingham
Director
ACLU Revenue Sharing Project
88 Walton Street
Atlanta, Georgia 3O3O3

Mr. Jerryr Wilson
Georgia Legal Services
Rockdale Regional Office
951 S. Main Street
Conyers, Georgia 3O2O7

tlr. Ronald L. Wj.lson
837 Gravier Street
3IO Richards Building
New Orleans, Louisj-ana 7OtL2

Ms. Leslie Winner
Suite 730
951 So. Independence Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

ALABAIW\

Prof. William D. Barnard
James Blacksher, Esq.
Ira A. Burnim, Ese.
Fred D. Gray, Esg.
Prof. Peyton McCrary
Larry Menefee, Esg.
Edward Sti11, Esq.
Abigail Turner, Esg.

CONNECTICUT

Prof. Drew S. Days, fII

CALIFORNIA

Prof. Bernle Grofman
Prof. Morgan Kousser
Barbara PhiIIips, Esg.

DISTRICT OF COLI,'MBIA

Prof. Armand Derfner
Pau1. Hancock,' Esq.
Pat Hanrahan, Esq.
Cynthia Hil1, Esg.
Gracia Hillman, ESq.
Frank Parker, Ese.
William Robinson, Esq.
Maureen Thornton, Esq.
Mr, Eddle Williams

FLORIDA

David Lipman, Ese.
Robert Weisberg, Esq.

GEORGIA

Alexis L. Barrgtt, Esq.
Willlam Boone, Esg.
Neil Brad1ey, Esq.
Christopher Coates, Esq.
Robert Cu11en, Esq.
Laughlin McDonald, Esq.
Alvin McDougald, Esq.
John Ruffin, Esq.
Steve Suitts, Ese.
David Walbert, Esg.
Gwendolyn Jones West, Esg.
Dr. Al-ex Wiltingham
Jerry Wilson, Ese.

ILLINOTS

Judson Mlner, Esq.

TNDIANA

Prof. Gordon Henderson

LOUISIANA

George C. Connor, Jr., Ese.
Bernadine St. Cyr, Ese"
James P. Dahlberg, Esq.
Michael Darnell, Esq.
Prof. Richard Engstrom
Mr. Cedric Floyd
Ms. Nancy Hart
James KeIlogg, Esq.
Prof. Joseph Logsdon
Mr. Ted Quant
BilI Quigley, Esg.
Steven Scheckman, Esq.
Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Esq.
Lee T. Wesley, Esq.
Ronald L. Wilson, Esg.

MASSACHUSETTS

Prof. Denlse Carty-Bennia

MTSSISSIPPI

Elliot Andelman, Esq.
Mr. Louls Armstrong
Sam Buchanan, Esq.
Roosevelt Danie1s, Esq.
Mr. Jesse Griffin
Susan Griggins, Esq.
Jerry Himelstein, Esq.
Victor McTeer, Ese.
Wi1lie Perkins, Esq.
AIison Steiner, Esq.
Olger Twyner, Esg.
Ivory W1lliams, Esq.

NEW MEXICO

Stan Halpin, Esq.
Prof. Howard Rabinowltz

NEW YORK

JoeI Berger, Esq.
Lizette Cantres, Esg.
Jack Greenberg, Esq.
Lani Guinier, Ese.
Ms. Jewell Johnson
Gabriel Kalmowitz, Esq.
Ms. Patrice Mlles
James M. Nabrlt, IfI, Ese.
Ms. Grace Ri.chardson
Peter Sherwood, Esq.
Lynn Walker, Esq.
Dr. Bruce Williams
Napoleon WiIIiams, Esq.

NORTH CAROLTNA

c. K. Butterfield, Esq.
Julius L. Chambers, Esq.
Prof. Davld J. Garrow
Brenda McGhee, Esq.
Leslie Winner, Esq.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Prof. Jack Bass
Prof. Kay Butler
John Harper, Esq.

TEXAS

Roberto R. Alonzo, Esq.
Robert Brischetto, Esq.
Robert Castaneda, Esq.
Edward B. Cloutman, III, Esq.
Erlinda Cortez (oimas), Esq.
Prof. Chandler Davidson
Jose Garza, Esq.
Elizabeth Julian, Esg.
George Korbel, Ese.
RauI Noriega, Esq
PauI D. Rich, Esq.
David Richards, Esq.
Rolando Rios, Ese.
Judith Sanders (Castro), Esq.

VTRGINTA

Ruby G. Martin, Esq.

VERMONT

Dr. Jarnes Loewen

x11

SECTION 2 of the VOTING RIGI{TS ACT:
An Analysis of the 1982 Anendmcnt*

* This ncnorandusr is intended solcly for thc usc of Ehe NAACP
LcAal Dcfcnse and EducaEion Fund Inc. thc authors retain all
coanon law and statutory copyrights.

CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . 1

The Legislativc History of Amended
SgCtiOn 2* ... o......... o.......................... 2

Thg Constitutionality of Amended
Section 2** ...........i... ......... ..........15

*Prepared

**Prepared
by

Roy A. McKcnzie, Esg.

Ronald A. Krauss, Esg.

INTRODUCTION

9{hen Congress passed the voting Rights Act (the

"Act" ) in 1955(1) to root out the bligh-" of voter dis-
crimination and to affirm Ehe fundamental right of each

citizen to particpate fully in clections, PresidenE Lyndon

Johnson hailed its enacturent as a "triunph for freedom as huge

as any ever Hon on any battlefield""(Z) One of Ehe princigal
r{eapons congress iorged in the Act Eo secure ihat freedom was

in section 2 ot the Act, a right of action for privat,e

citizens or the government to challenge discriminatory voting
practices or procedures.(3) Prior Bo the Suprene Court's

recent decision in MobiIc v. Bolden, (4) proof of scction 2

vioiations reguir"uTlJ" shoring thae the charrenge'd

election procedure operated in a discriminatory fashion.(5)
In Mobile, however, a plurality of the Suprene Court ruled

that plainciffs secking to establish a section 2 vlolation had

to prove the election systen eras intentionally discrininatory,
"conceived or operated as Ia] purposeful devicIe]..." for
discrisrination. (5 )

In response to Mobile, Congress amended seciion Z(7)

"to restore the legal standard that governed voting dis-
crinination casesn orior to Mobile. (8) Congress decided t,hat,

in accord with its ori,ginal intent, plaintif f s seiring io
enforce Eheir rights under t,he Act need not prove a dis-

criminatory purpose in the adoption or maintenance of a chal-

lenged electoral system, but rather a di scr iminat,ory result :-.

that the electoral system, in the context of all the circum-

stances in Ehe relevant jurisdiction, denied minorities egual

access Eo the policitical process. (9)

?his memorandum will explore ehe propriet,y of the

I982 amendments Eo section 2, examining both the legislaeive
history behind it and the constitutional authoriuy which

underpins it.

rHe r,ecrstertvE Htstony or aMENoeo secrtoN z

Section 2 provides for a private right of action
(10) for ninorities who seek to challenge a state practice

or procedure which adversely affects minority vocing power in

the state.(11) Section 2 applies to any voting practice or

procedure which results in discrisrination on the basis of

race, color or nembership in a language minority group.(L2)

Section 2 is not limited nerely t,o the right of a person to

cast a balloti rather it applies Eo all state election prac-

tices or procedures which iIlegaIly dilute ninority voting
po,rer. (13) These practices include not only structural bar-

riers such as at-large elections but also, when appEopriate,

episodic or one-time practices. (14)

Three najor questions of legislative purpose are

raised by amended section 2. First, does section 2 require

proof of purpose or intent to discrininate? Second, rhat is
t,he standard of proof under sect,ion 2? Third, how does sec-

tion 2 compare wich section 5 of the Act?

i. The Steos to Amendinq the Act

The biII first proposing anendments Eo t,he Voting

Rights Act af ter @!i!g, H.R. 3112, originated, in Ehe Subcorn-

nittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of Ehe House

Judiciary Coursrictee. The Subcomsrittee conciuded hearings in

July of 1981 and unanimousiy voted to have the bill reported

to the f ull comsrittee. The Comurit,tce approved Ehe bill with a

singlc substitute - a proviso that proportional represent,aEion

was not mandated by the Act; the tull llouse of Representatives

passed H.R. 3112 6n October 5, 1981.

HoR. 3112 then was placed on the Senate calendar. A

bill indcntical to H.R. 3112, S. L992, was introduced by

Senator lrlathias and Senator Kennedy, and was sponsored by 63

other Senators. The bifl was referrcd to the Senate Judiciary
CoaniEtee, and Ehen Eo the Subcomurittee on Ehe Constitution.
The Subconnittee voted to reject t,he proposeC amendments io
section 2 oE Ehe Act as conEained in S. L992, but, t,o allow a

fuithcr cxtension of section 5. However, the Scnatc Judiciary
Comrittee voted Eo reinst,ate nost of Bhe original Eext of S.

1992. ?he one amcndment to the original language concerning

section 2, the "DoIe Conpromis€', elaborated on the House bitl

disclaisrer on proportional represenEation by incorporating

Ianguage f rom g.Ihite v. Reqester into the statuie. Af ter
several neetings, t,he ComsriEtee voted in f avor of S. L992.

The bill then passed both houses, and was signed by President

Reagan on June 29, 1982.

II. The Structure of Section 2 and Section 5(f5)

A. Section 2

Section 2 provides that no state or political sub-

division shall iarpose or apply a qualification, practice or

procedure nin a nanner rhich results in" denying or abridging

the right to vote. Section 2(b) esiablishes the standard of

proof for f inding proof, of, discriminati,on under section 2(a).

The test in section 2(b) focuses on whether Ehe "political
processes ... are ... egually open to participation" by the

groups protected in section 2(a), Mesrbers of a class

protected by section 2(a) may successfully sue if they show

that they have 'less opportunity than other members of the
' electorate to participate in the political process ....' A

IiEigant under section 2(a), therefore, must show a deniat of

t,hc opportunity to participate in the electoral process on an

egual basis; such a litigant need not show that the

Progenitors of the political process intended to discriminate.

-4-

B. Section 5

Section 5 gives Ehe Attorney General the power Eo

revie., cert,ain staLe voting practices and procedures before

thcy may becosrc effective. lhe section applies only to
proposed changes in voting procedure engendered afier Novenber

I, 1954, and is limited Eo states which after November l, L964

maint,ained a test or device which residents had eo take to
gualify Eo vote, and which had less Ehan 50 percent of its
residents registered to vote. (15)

In crucial part, section 5 reguires thaB practices

or procedures "[er]ill not have the effect of denying or

abridging the right t,o vote on account of race or color."(17)
The comparable language in'section 2 states that a practice or

procedure Bay noE be inposed "[i]n a nanner which results in a

denial or abridgenent of Ehe right of any citizen of thc

United States to vote on account of race or color ....'(18)
Section 5 was extended ior 25 years wit,h a more

liberal bailout provision.

III. Section 2 Does Not Reouire Proof of Puroose
or IntenE t,o Discrininate

n". a litigant need show only

that a practice or procedure is imposed "in a manner which

results inn denying or abridging the right t,o voce. The plain

Ercaning(19) of section 2 is that no proof o! intent or purpose

-3-

to discriminate need be shown.

The legislative history of the Act also establishes

thaE a Iitigant under section 2 need not show discrininaEory
purpose. The Senate Comsrittee report ( 20 ) on the Act st,ates

thaE "the specific inEenE of Ittre section 21 amendment is that

the plaintiffs may choose to establish discriminatory results
wiehout proving any kind of discriminatory purpose".(21)

lhe ieport goes on to state Ehat a court rnay f inC

that a practice or procedure violates secti,on 2'without any

need to dec ide whether those f indi,f,9s, by thennselves, or with

a.dditional circuslstantial evidence, also would warrant an

inference of discrininatory purpose",(221 Later, the reporE

echoes t,his conclusion.

The motivat,ion behind the challenged pracrice
or nethod i.s noE relevant Eo the determination. The
Committee expressly disavows any characterization of
the results tests codified in this staEute as
including an "intent" requirement, whether or not
such a requirement night be met in a particular case
by inferences drawn frosr the same objective factors
offered to establish a discriminatory resulE. Nor
is there any need Eo establish a purposeful design
through inferences frosr the forseeable consequences
of adopting or sraintaining the challenged prac-
tice. ( 23 )

Finally, Rgp. Sensenbrenner, a co-author of H.R.

3112, which also contained Ehe "resulEs inn language in sec-

tion 2, and a slember of the House Comsrittee which reported

Ehe bill, also remarked Ehat a court need not find purpose or

intent to discrisrinate before finding a violat,ion under sec-

-5-

tion 2.(24) "lsection 2) looks only Eo the resulEs of a chal-

lenged law, in t,he totality of Ehe circumstances - with no

requirement cf proving purpose ." (25)

Both the face of Ehe ne'd section 2 and the legisla-
tive history of Ehe bill demonstrate that a court need noE

find discriminatory purpose or intent before finding a

violation under the Act.

Iv. The S.eandard of Proof Under Secti,on 2

Section 2(b), supplemented by the legislative his-

tory of section 2, provides the standard of proof for finding

a section 2 violation. The Scnate Report delineaEes specific

factors which. a court should considcr in resolving 'rhether a

state or state subdivision's politicai process has violated

section 2. The report nakes clear that the factors arc not

necessarily Ehe controlling ones. A tiEigant need not prove

all, or a majority, of the failures to establish a section 2

violation.(25) The factors are not "to be used as a nechani-

caI 'point counting' divice".(27 ) Moreover, 'It]he failure of

plaintif f to cstablish any particular f actor, is not reb-ut-tal

evidence of non-dilution. " ( 28 ) Thc relevant fact,orE- only*

guide thc court to dccide whether, "based on the totality of

circumstances . . the voting strsngth of minority voters is

o c . 'ninisrizcd or canceled out''.(29)
The factors the Senate Report stated arei

1. the extent of any history of oificial
discrinrination in Ehe staEa or pol-itical subdivision
that Eouched the right of the members oE theninority group to register, Eo vote, or oeherwise ioparticipate in the democratic processi

2, the extent Eo rhich voting in the elec-tions of the state or political subdivision isracially polarized;

3. t,he extent to which the State or poliEical
subdivision has used unusually Iarge eiection dis-tricts, majority vote reguirementsr anti-single shotprovisions, or other voting practices or pro-edures
EhaE nay enhance the opportunity for disciimination
against che minori t,y group;

4. if there is a cand,idate slating pio""r.,
whether the nenbers of the srinority grou! Lave been
denied access to that, processi

5. the extent Eo which members -of t,heninority group in t,he state or politicat subdivision
bear the effects oE disciimination in such areas. as
education, employment and healEh, which hj,nder theirability to participate effectively in Ehe potitical
Process;

6. rhether political canpaigns have been
characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals;

7. the extent to which nembers of theninority group have been elected to public ofiice in
the jurisdiction.

Additional factors that in some cases have hadprobative value as part of plaintiffs' evidence to
establish a violation are:

whether there is a significant lack of respon-
siveness on the part of elected officials Lo
the particularized needs of the nenbers of the
minority group.

whether Ehe policy underlying Ehe state orpoli!i9a1 subdivision's use of such votinggualification, prereguisite to voting, oF
standard, practice or procedure is Eenuous.(30)

-a-

As the report indicat,es, the factors are from Zimmer

standard est,abl i shed inv. McKeithen, which articulated lhe

whlte v. Reqester. (31)

The plurality opinion in Mobile concluded that ehe

white t,est invoLves an ultisrate proof of discriarinatory pur-

pose. The Senate Report was careful to indicate EhaE alt,hough

section 2 employed ehe !{hite-Zimncr factors. the section does

not require proof of discrisrinatory purpose.(32)

The Senate Report spoke in dept.h about seveial of

t,he factors. Were a plaint,iff to shor{ disproportionate

income, education, engloyurent and Iiving condiEions, he or she

"nced not prove any further causal nexus between their dis-
parate socio-economic st,atus and the dipressed ievet of
poliEical participationn.(33) The elaction of a few ninority
candidates does not preclude finding dilution of arinority

voting power. (34) "Unresponsiveness is not an essential
element'of plaintiff's case", and Ehe failure to prove

unresponsiveness is not fatal to a plaintiff bringing a sec-

tion 2 action.(35) A 'procedure narkcdly departIing] from

past practiccs or from practices elsewhere in the jurisdic-
tion' is probative; howcver, a consistent practice does not

bar showing dflution by other factors.(36)

Senator Flatch, a co-sponsor of the Bill and Chairman

of Ehe Scnate Subcomsrittee on the ConstiEution, connented that

-9-

'Iu]nder Ehe results test Iof section 27, the absence oi

Proport,ional representati,on glgg the existence of one or nore

'objective factors of discrininaEioo', such as an at-large
system of government, would constitute a section 2

violation."(37) A court probably would not consider E,his a

test for finding a section 2 violation. Senator Hatch, while

Chairnan of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constit,ution, voted

against amending secti,on 2. The Subcomsriitee argued that the

proposed amendnent,s to section 2 which eventually rrere enacted

would result in forced proportional representation by

race. (38) Senator Hatch's cosrments seen aimed solely at

sustaining this Iine of argument rather than establishing a

test for proving Iiability under section 2,

The Oole conpronise, as codified in section 2(b),
gualilies in one inportant respect the extent to which a

Iitigant nay prove a violation of section 2(a):
The extent to which nembers of a protected class
have been elected to of f ice in the St,ate or politi-
cal subdivision is one circunstance which may be
considered; Provided, That nothing in this siction
establishes a right to have nembers of a protected
class elected in nurnbers equal Eo -"heir proportion
in Ehe population. ( 39)

OpponenE. of the bill urged thar even with this
proviso, Ehe bill rould mean nothing nore than reguiring
representatives in the sanc proportions as Ehe protected

classes in t,he population. Senator Helns proposed an anend-

- 10-

menE specifically to allow courts Eo order proportional repre-

sentation as a remedy for a section ? violaEion.(40) Senator

Helns imnediately voted against his orrn amendrnelrt_, -H_9 q_.qgued

that by voting against Ehe amendnent, Congress would indicat,e

to courts construing the Act that the courts c-g_uld not order

proportional representaUion as a remedy.(41) Senator Helms'

proposed amendment lras def eated.(42)

The proposed Helms' amendment's defeat fails to

provide a specific congressional intent to prohibiE propor-

tional reprcsentation. ScnaEor Kennedy stated Ehat the

proposed amendmenE nwas defeated overwhelari,ngly because it rras

irrelevant to the Isection 21 bi11, because judicial rernedies

are govcrned by a Uody of cguitable jurisprudence, and this
bill- is not intended to affect or interfere with Ehat body of

equitable jur'isprudence."(43) furthermore, just prior Eo the

debate on the Helsrs amendment, Senator East proposed another

amendment seeking to prohibit a federal court fron ordering

proportional representation as a remedy.(44) The Senate

rejectcd Ehe East amendment. (45)

Section 2 and Scction 5

section 5 is n.ot urerely an

Che Aetorney General has

issue would arise whether

court from finding that

Conparing scction 2 and

acadernic exercise. In cases where

granted a section 5 clearance Ehe

the scction 5 approval prevented a

the plan violated section 2, In cases where plans do not

reguire section 5 preclearance, the guestion may arise wheEher

proof of identicy beEween a challenged plan and a plan

approved by Ehe Attorney General should be granted any eviden-

t iary weighE.

A reviei, of the purpose and legislative history of

section 5 reveals t,hat Congress intended Eo preserve a dis-
t,inction bettdeen section 2 and section 5. (45)

A. Purpose of Section 5

The sole purpose of the section is to assure that plans

produced after November of 1954 do not dilute voting porer

further than the plin it seeks to anend or replace.
' The purpose of .section 5 has always b""n'to

insure that no.voting procedure changes would
be nade that would lead to a retrogression in
the portion of racial minorities with respect
to their effective exercising of the electoral
franchise. ( 47 )

The standard remains the standard for establishing liability
under section 5. (48)

The legislative purpose under section 2 is broacier,

however. Section 2 applies Eo all existing plans, in a1l Ehe

states of the United SEates. lts aim is to allow a plaintiff
to challenge a 'system or practice' which 'resulls in

ninorities being denied equal access to Ehe political
process". (49)

In keeping with the different purposes, each section

reguires a dif f erent st,ancard of proof . llnder section 5 Ehe

rnrirr question is whether the new gractice or procedure has a

retrogressive effect on t,he voting strengt,h of a class
proposed by.section 5.' (49a) pro6f of liabiliti under section Z,
as discussed above, requires a review of the eotality of the

circumstances surrounding the ehallenged practice or proce-

dure.

B. Leqjslative Historv

?he Senate Report indicatcs thaE the legislatures
sought a different standard by using Ehe word "results' in

section 2 instead of 'ef f ectsn, t,he section 5 language.

By referring to the "results" of a challenged
practice and by explicitly codifying rhe Whire
standard, the amcndnent distinguishes the-
standard for proving a violation under Section
2 from the standard for deterurining whether a
proposed changc has a discrininatory 'effect"
under Section 5 of the Act.(50)

The com$ent goes on to explain in a footnote why the standards

of proof under section 5 and section 2 ate different. "Plain-
tiffs could not establish a section 2 violation rnercly by

showing that a ehallengcd reapportionment or annexation, for
- exaarp!.e, involved a retrogressive effect on the political

strcngth of a srinority group.n (51) As discussed "Uo"..-
\

"retrogressive effectn is Ehe standard of proof for estab-

lishing a section 5 violaEion.

SenaEor De Concini comnanted on the SenaEe floor on

the difference between a nresulE" test and an "effect" test.
Ifne] 'effect" standards have been used, and are

being used t,oday, in civil rights law. Both TiEle vII of
the Civil Right,s Act of 1964 and secrion 5 of the Voting
Rights Act ernploy effects-based standards. lc is Crue
that the proposed " results" st,andards of S. L992 would
not be identical Eo Ehese standards, however, S. L992
enploys language designed to assure that t,he mere nuurbers
of ninorities elected t,o office would no!, by themselves,
provide a basis for alleging a violaeion of iection Z nor
provide a standard for remedies of adiudicated violations
of section 2. In ocher words, the section 2 "results,test would be a more difficult test under which to estab-Iish a violation than either che section 5 or Title VIi
"ef f ects" tests. (52)

Senator De Concini indicated thaE the "results" test
would be a more difficulE Eest to prove than a violation under

section 5. Arguably, Senator De Concini nay have been impfy-

ing that since the section 2 nresults" t+st is more difficult
than a section 5 "effects" test, failure to find a section 5 '
violation precludes finding a violation of section Z. The

argument wourd be difficulE to sustain. Senacor De concini
made the statenent by rray of restating his previous renark--
that t,he language of section 2 assures "that the mere numbers

of ninorities elected to office rould not, by themselves, orovide

a basis for alleging a violation of section 2 .' (53)

This language nerely restates the retrogression standard of

section 5. Senator De Concini's remarks underscore Ehat a

Iitigant under section 2 cannot rely on mere

retrogression, but must prove his or her case

totaliEy of the circumst,ances.

proof of

under the

- 14-

In Ehe House of Representaeives, Rep. Sensenbrenner

spoke on the differences between secEion 2 and section 5.

"[w]here there is a section 5 subnission rhich is not

retrogressive, iE would be objected co only if the new prac-

Eice itsclf violaEed the ConsEitution or amended section

2." (54 ) Rep. Scnsenbrenner concluded E,haE "Ehe reErogression

reguirenent of Beer against United States Isic] does not apply

to section 2 cases alEhough, of course, such a reBrogres-

sion would be relevant evidence in a section 2 case."(55)

Thc purposes of section 2 and sect,ion 5 and the

Icaislative history of the L982 voting Rights Act Asrendsrents

demonstrate Ehat finding no violation of section 5 docs not

preclude finding a section 2 violation.

III. Conclusion

Ton 2 does not require proof of purpose or

intcnt to discrininate. The statute and the senate Reoort

specify thc standard of proof for section 2, which aiif.rs
from the standard of proof for section 5.

rtra coNsttmrTtoNar.rrg og AMENDEo secr:oN z

Critics of aglended scition 2 have challenged Ehe

authority of Congress to permit findings of section 2

violations by proof of discrininatory result a1one. Such

critics havc asserted thaE section 2 is not appropriat,e en-

forcenent legislaeion of the fourteenth and fifteenth anend-

ments, contending, lgEg aria,(55) Ehat section 2 iurproperly

overturns Ehe supreme court's substantive interpretation of

Ehe fourteenth and fifteenth amendment,s in Mobile,(37) and

Ehat section 2 oversteps congressional authority by tranpling
on Ehe rights of each siate to govern its own el_ecgoral

processes.(58) This section of the nemorandum wiIl explore

Ehe merits of these assertions Eo determine whether enactment

of section 2 is a proper exercise of congressional power to

enforce, by appropriate legislat,ion, rights protecEed by the

fourteenth and fifteenth amendments.

I. The Scooe of Congress' Powers To Enforce
ghe Fourceench ano Firreencir AmencimenE,s

?he basic right of each American to participate
f uIIy in the desrocratic prcicess, while central to Ehe vitality
of a democracy, Iacks an explicit constitutional foundation. (59)

Nevertheless, the courts have found language in the Con-

stitution the fourt,eenth and fifteenth amendments which

secures Ehose rights.(50) SinilarIy, in enacting section 2 to
prohibit any voting practice or procedure which resufts in

discriurination, Congress looked to the fourteenth and fii-
teenth amendnents as Ehe basis for its exercise of legislative
power. ( 51 )

The Supreme Court, in an unbroken line of cases over

the past 15 years, has affirmed EhaE seetion 5 of the four-
teenth amendment(62) and section 2 of, Ehe fifteenth aurend-

- 15-

mcnt ( 53 ) invest Congress ,rith broad powers co enEorce the

substantive rights those amendments secure. in South Carolina

V. Katzenbach(64) the Supreme Court conf ronted squarely t,he

constitutionality of najor provisions of the AcE. The Court

reviewed Ehe legislaLive history, not,ing thaE Congress had

adopted the Act because "sterner and more elaborate measures"

rrere necessary Bo combat the "unrenitting and ingenious

defiance of tlie Constitution" by States which perpctuated ihe

"insidious and pervasive evil' of racial discrimination in

voting. ( 55) Thosc 'rsterner' measures of Ehe Act, t,he CourE

held, H€r€ an appropriate vehicle to enforce Congress' respon-

sibility as articulated in the fifteenth aurendment. Section 2

of the fifteenth anendmeni, conferred upori Congress "full
remedial powers to effectuate the constitutional prohibition
against racial discrinination in voting.'(55)

Shortly thereafter, in Katzenbach v. Morqan,(67)

the Court addressed the scope of Congress' power Eo enforce

the fourteenth ancndment. Rejecting a chalLenge to section

a(e) of the Act on the ground that it excceded Congress'

fourteenth anendnent enforcement Fower, the Court held that

such poser parallelled the power conferred upon Congress by

Ehe !iEteenth amendment, as delineated in South Carolina v"

Katzenbach. ( 58 ) thc Court statcd thaE:

Correctly viewed, S 5 is a positive
grant of legislative power authorizing
Congress t,o exercise ius discretion in

determining whether and what legislaEion
is needed Eo secure the guarantees of the
Fourteenth Amendrnent. ( 59 )

Congress' sweeping po,rer Eo enforce Ehe fpurteenth

firmed in City of Rome v. United States.(70). In Citv of Rome

plaintiffs challenged, inter a!!g, the constitutionality of
Congress' po*er Eo enforce t,hd fifteenth amendnent by enacting

the preclearance provisions of the Act. Reiterating its
analysis of congressional potrer in South Carolina v. Katzen-

bach and Katzenbach v. Morqan, the Court upheld the Act based

on."Congress' broad power to enforce the Civil war Amend-

ments."(71)

while Cong'ress' grant of authority to enforce the

fourteenth and fifteenth amenciments is broad, it is not

unlisrited. Both the fourteenth and fifteenth anendments Iimic
Congress' power Eo enforce the substantive provisions of those

amendments to enacting "appropriace Iegislation. " (72) The

reach of Congress' enforcement powers under Ehe Civil tlar

Anendments Eo enact "appropriate.Iegislat,ionn is EhE same, the

Suprene Court has he1d, as in any case involv.ing the clash of

Congress' oower with Ehe reserved powers of the stat,e.(73)

Chief Justice Marshall in McCuIl'och v. Maryland formulated the

classic Aeneral statement of the scope of Ehat power:

- r8-

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of
the const,itution, and aII means which are appropriate,
which are plainly adapted to Ehat end, which are not
prohibited, but consist wich the let,ter and spirit of the
ionstitution, are constiEutional , (7E)

Sixty years laccr, addressing the scope of Congress' cnforce-

ment power under Bhe fourteenth anci fifteenth amendments

specif icalIy, t,he Court echoed Chief Justice Marshall's lan-

9ua9e:

whatever legislation is appropriate, thaE is, adagEed to
carry out the ob jects t,he I f ourteenth and f i f teenthJ
amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce sub-
nission to the prohibitions they contain, and Eo secure
to all persons the enjoyurenE of perfect eguality of civil
rights and Ehe egual protection of Ehe laws against State
denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within
:h" domain of congressional power.(75)

In dctermining whether scction 2 ot the Act is a

proper exercise of t,he broad po,rer of Congress to enlorce Ehe

fourteenth and fifteenth anendrnenEs Ehrough'appropriate

legislauion, " three main guestion's arise. First, does sec-

tion 2 violate federalism concerns by intruding upon the

States' right to govern the exercise of suffrage? Second, is

section 2 rationally related to furthering the aim of the

Iourteenth and fifteenth asrendnents to guarantee the right to
\ful1 participation in the elcctoral process? Third, even if

section 2 is rationally related Eo furthering Ehe ains of the

f ourteenth and f if tcenth amendnents, does it r_eg_ch voting

practices beyond t,he scope of Ehe constitutional provisions ie

-10-

is enforcing? Exanining each of Ehese questions reveals that

section 2 is appropri,ate, and Eherefore constitutional en-

forcement Iegislacion of substantive constitutional rights.

Section 2 and Congress' Poirer Eo Enforce the Fourteenth
and Fi Eteencir Anencimencs

A. Section 2 and Scate So@,

II.

The Report of t,he Senate Comniteee on the Judiciary,
Subcomglittee on the Constituti.on contend,s that anended section

2 enlarges federal authority at the expense of state govern-

ment.(75). Arguably, Congress'enactment of section 2 does

intrude on the sovereignty of the States, which have "broad

po,rers to detersrine the conditions under which ihe right of

suffrage may be exercised." (77 ) Considerations of federalism

t,he clash between Congress' porer and the powers reserved

to the SEates recently led the Supreore Court Eo invaliCate

congressional action pursuant Eo t,he Conmerce Clause (78) when

it inproperly invaded state sovereignty. In National League

of CiEies v. Userv,(79) the Supreure Court held that legis-
lation regulating niniglun wages and hours could not co_n-

stitutionally be extended to employees of state and local
govcrnncnts because the conmerce clause failed to providc

Congress with authority to enact legislation "directly dis-
placIing] ttre SEates' freedon to structure integral operations

in areas of traditional governmental functions.'(80)

-24-

Before Nacional Leaoue of Cities, the Supreme Court

specifically rejected the argunent t,hat in enacting the Act

Congress encroached upon porrers reserved t,o the St,ates. In
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (81), the Court held EhaE Ehe

language and purpose of uhe fifteenth aurendment,, pointed

clearly to Ehe conclusion ihat the Act did not encroach upon

staee po'rers: " Ia ] s against the rcserved po',rers of Ehe

SBates, Congress nay use any rational neans Eo effectuate the

constitutional prohihition of racial discrisrination in

vot ing. ' ( 82 )

National Leaque of Cities is neither inconsistent
wiEh nor signifies a ret,reat from Ehe principles of federalism

articulated in South Carolina. National Leaque of Cities'ras
based solely on an asscssment of congressional powcr under

the Connerce Clause. The Court explicitly reserved the ques-

tion "whether different results uright obEain if Congrcss seeks

to affect integral opcrations of state governments by excrcis-
ing author!,ty granted it under other sec!ions of the Con-

stitution such as....S 5 of the Fourtcenth AmendmenE."(83)

The Supreme Court ansrered that question in Fitzoatrick v.

Bit,zer, (84) which considered whether Congress had polrcr to

includc Ehe SEates as enployers within Title vII of the Civif'
Rights Act of 1964(85) despite the grant of srare sovereignry

enbodied in the Eleventh Aorendment,. In holding EhaE an exten-

sion of Titre vII to the states was proper, the court staced:

[w] e think thaE the Eleventh Amendment , and t,he pr inc ipleof state sovereignty which it embodies, . ari neces-
sarily linited by the enforcement provisions of S 5 of
the Fourteenth Asrendment. In Ehat section Congress is
expressly granted authority Eo enforce 'by appropriateIegislation' Ehe substantive provisions oE the Fourteenth
Amendment , which themselves ernbody s ign i f icant'lisriEations on state authority. when-Congress acis
pursuant to S 5, not only is it exercising legislative
authority that is plenary sithin the Berms of-the con-stitutional grant, it is exercising Ehat authority under
one section of a constitutional Amendment whose olher
sections by theitr o$rn terms eorbody limitations on state
authority. (85)

Most recently, in City of Rone, t,he Court surveyed

this analytical d,evelopment of federalisur doctrine in the

cont,ext of congress' passage of Ehe Act. The court reaffirmed
cirac:

principles of federalisur that night other';ise be an
obstacle to congressional authority are necessarily
overridden by the po,rer to enforce the Civil 9.tar Amend-
ments "by appropriate legislat,ion.n lhose AmendmenEs were
spgcifically designed as an expansion of federal power
and an int,rusion on state sovereignty. (87)

The authors of Ehe Report of the SenaEe Subcomsrittee

on the constitution contend that neither south carolina nor

citv of Rorne suppoEc the consEiEutional propriety of section

2(88). In.both cases, they argue, the Suprene Court tolerated
Congress' exercise of sweeping powers pursuant to the

preclearance provisions of section 5(89) only because t,hose

Powers nere of an extraordinary nat,ure, used !o rernedy what a

detailed legisrative record revealed was a shameful history

of voting discrimination, in particular and clearly idenEifi-
able districts.(90) In addition, in both South Carolina and

Citv of Rome uhe bailout provisions of section 4(9f) nere

arguably essential to a f inding of Ehe constit-ut-io*al!ty- ef -

section 5, because the availability of bailout fron section 5

coverage protected against the 'possibiliEy of over-

breadth."(92)

That the constitutiona! propriety of the legislation
at issue in South Carolina and 9!3re@ was based, in

partr oo its remedial nature in no rray undercuts the

application of Ehe federaLism principles articulated in t,hesr

to section. 2. First, Ehe existcnce of a datailed record of

voting discrinination demonst,rating a compelling neeC for

remedial legislation 'ras significant in @ and

City of Rome because of the extraordinary nature of the

intrusion of uhe preclearance provisions of section 5. Jus-

tice Powell noted that "preclearance involves a broa<i

restraint on all state and local voting practices, regardless

of rhether they have been, or even could be, used'co dis-
criminate.'(93) rhc intrusion of section 2 mcrely changes Ehe

standard of proof neccssary Eo prove a consEit,riionai

violation, and does not, by itself, touch upon any powers

reserved Eo the States: the St,aEes' obligation Eo provide a

constitutional electoral syst,em remains the same.(94) Secause

the intrusion of section 2 upon the sovereignty of Ehe Staees

is mininal in contrast to section 3, the importance of

specific documentation of the necessity for amended section 2

is srinimal as well. (95)

Second, the contenEion Ehac Sout,h Carolina and City
of Rosre pernit Congress.to use its constitutional enforcement

Powers to enact fegislation Eo reach only those jurisdictions
wiEh a proven history of discrimination is plainly at odds

with supreme court case law. rn Katzenbach v. Morcan(9G) the

court rejected a constitutional charrenge to section 4(e) of

the Act, holding that section 4(e)'s prohibition against a New

York state law requiring an abirity to read and wriee engrish

as a condition to vote was "appropriate legislation" to
enforce the fourteenth.amendnent. (97) Significantly, Ehe

court upherd section 4(e) even though there was no legislative
record indicating that any actual discrimination had, or was

likely to occur. (98) Similarly, in Oreqon v. MiEcheLL, (99)

the Court upheld a provision in the Act prohibiting Iiteracy
test,s nationwide, even Ehough the Iegislaeion would reach

a.jurisdictions for which there were no specific findings of a

history of voter discrisrination. (100)

Finally, in Ful1iIove v. Klutznick,(101) the Court

upheld the constitutionality of a provision in the public

-24-

works Act of L977,(102) which required at least ten percenr of

funds allocable under Ehe Public Works AcE Eo be set aside ior
minority business enterprises. The Court ruf ellirqi_lle
set-aside provision iras constitutional although it applied

Eo contractors who wetre "innocent, of any discriminaiory con-

duct."(I03)
with respect to the purported inportance of the

section 4 bailout provision to the holding of con-

stiLutionaliEy in South Carolina and City of Rome, (104) Ciev

of Rome suggests strongly that Congress can legislaEe eo

affect jurisdictions innocenE of constitutional violations
rithout. iurpcrmissible overbreadth. In City of Rosre the Court

held thad the bailout procedure is not available, separat.iy,
to polit,ical subdivisions within a state. Two years earlier,
in United Staees v. Board of Commissioners,(105) the Court

held that any political subunit in a state that falls within
the coverage of section 4 nust abide by the section 5

preclearance requirenents. Read together, City of Rome and

Sheffield reguire 9ov€Fomeneal subunies of a covered SEate eo

preclear election changes merely because they are within that

state, even if there has been no record that thaE politicaL
subunit ever engaged in racial discrimination in voting.(105)

These cases vividly demonstrate that the absence of

a detailed record of nationwide voting discrimination is not

required for enactment of section 2 to enforce the fourteenth'

and fifteenth amendments. Any possible overbreadth resulting
j

fron over-inclusion of innocent jurisdictions is con-

stitutionally permissable in view of the risk of continued

discrinination. ( 107 )

B. Section 2 and the Rational Relation Test

The second question in determining whether section 2

is appropriate enforcenent Iegislation is whet,her voting
practices that resulE in racj,al discrimination wiEhout a

showing of intent create sufficient risks of purposeful dis-
crimination t,hat Congress lnay prohibit, such practices to
enlorce rights guaranteed by the fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments.(108) The Legislative record plainly reve.als tiar
Congress found a rational relation beEween preventing aII
voting practices that result in racial discrinination and

prevent,ing purposeful discrionination.

Having originally enacted section 2 intending a

results standard of proof, Congress responded to Mobile v..-
Bolden and the requirement of an intent test by amending

sect,ion 2 to restore the pre-Mobile legal standard. The

legislative record reveals plainly that Congress rationalLy
concluded that as the exclusive standard of proof for proving

a violation of section 2, the intent lest ir"a .".r"r"
Iimitations which created the risk thaE purposeful dis-

- /.o-

crinination rrould continue unchecked.

Fi rst, many of Ehe lar*s thac are challenge<i as

discriminatory are seventy-five to one hundred years old.(f09)
To deternrine that such a law was passed with discriminatory
inteni is a virtually impossible burdeni the legislaEors are

dead, and the legislat,ive records, if dn! t are sparse. (L10)

In addicion, iE is naive to believe that even as to
recent,ly passcd laws, discorrering Ehe true rnotives riII be an

easy task. The Supreme Court has noted the futility of

inguiry into Ehe restrictions of legislators:
II ]t is dif f icult or iurpossible f or any court to
determine the "sole" or "doninantn motivat,ion behind
lhe choices of a group of f eg.lslators..( 111)

Besides the inhercnt futility of inguiry into legis-
laEors' urotives, Ehere are also signi f icant cost,s. Fron an

economic viewpoint, thc cost of attenpting t,o document inEenE,

by
.combing

t,hrough voluurinous f iles and records, could be

enormous.(112) uore importantly, however, is the socieEal

cost resulting from the inevitably divisive charges of racism

against public officials that are inevieable in-the- ineent
. standard of oroof. ( 113 )

Th. fundasrental defect in the intent standard, which

Congress noted specifically in Ehe legislative record,(11{) is
the possibility of creating a docunentary trail eo offer a

non-racial rationalization for a law rhich, in facE, purpose-

Eutly discrirninaE,es. It, is thaE fundamental fla',, in t,he

intent standard which even the Court's recent glight retreat
from the Mobile intent test in Roqers v. Lodoe(f15) does not

overcome. As long as the Court nrust make an ultiorate f inding

of intent, even based on the circumstantial and inferential
factors of white v. Reqester, the problem of fabrication
remains reaI.

In view of these difficulties with the intent stand-

ard, t,he legislative record provided a concrete basi s f or

Congress t,o have concluded Ehat purposeful discrinination is
di f f iculE and costly t,o prove, and Ehat purposef uI di s-

crisrination wiIl continue unabated as long as the intent
standard of proof remains the law. Therefore, in order to

. enforce effectively the guarantees of the fourteenth and

fifteenth amendnents, Congress rationally concluded that it
was necessary to prohibit voting practices with discrirninaEory

ef f ects. (115)

C. Section 2 and the Scooe of the Fourteenth

Even though Congress nay have a rational basis for
seeking to prohibit voting practices which result, in racial
discrinination without regard for intent, such a prohibition, .

critics of section 2 argue, BBy be outside t,he boundaries of

constieutional protection. To violaEe either the fourteenth

amendment(117) or the iifteenth amendnent,(118) an electoral

-28-

system must be Eo be intentionally discriminaEory.

Because secii,orbeen held to be co-exEensive in effecE

with the fifteendmen!, (119) Congress' amendment of

section 2 Eo pior a result, standard of proof is,

arguably, ouis: Iinits of t,he Constitution, and ef f ec-

tively overturdupreme Court's substanEive inter-

Pretation of tbenEh amendment.(I20) Close scrutinY of

the relevant live history and the governing case law,

however, revealCongress r,ras not seeking to overturn

Mobile's holdierning the scoPe of the fifceenth arnend-

ment, but merehpting to exercise propcrly its broad

powers to guardre enforcement of constitutional rights.

The live history oE secEion 2 explicitly
states that Ehocnt, of section 2 is not an at,tcmpi to

override the S€ouri's decision in Mobile v. Bolden(I21)

by statute: tlte Judiciary Comnit,tee Report acknowl-

edges Congress'of Potrer to overturn the Supreme Court' s

substantive intation of the Constitution.(122) The

effort of Congr enacting section 2 was not Eo redefine

Ehe scope of cctional provisions, but to detach section

2 Eroa its prictensive status t ith thc fifteenth amend-

ment, and inveeith the broad poser Congress enjoys, as

discussed belornforce constitutional rights beyond Ehe

ninisrun safeguae ConsEieution it,self provides. (123)

-29-

In Lassi.ter v. Northanpton County Board of

Elections,{L24) che Supreme Court held thaE Iieeracy tests, if
not employed in a discrininatory nanner, did no. t_.yioI_1t,9_ ch_q

fourteenEh and fifteenth asrendments. But in South Carolina v.

Kat,zenbach(125) and @,(L26) Uhe Court

rejected constitutional challenges to Congress' ban on

literacy tests in Ehe Act, upholding Congress' prohibiti.on of

Iiueracy tests despite Eheir facial constiEutionality. The

Court wESr therefore, permitting Congress Eo enforce con-

stitutional rights by enacting legislati,on which exceeded the

direct requirements of the Constitution. In response tc the

argument advanced by Nen York SEate in Morgan, t,hat the

prohibition of literacy tests could not be "appropriate" Eo

enforce the fourteenth amendrnent until the judiciary ruled

that the statute was prohibiEed by the fourteenth amend-

ment (127) the Court stated:
l{e disagree. Neither the language nor history of
S 5 supports such a construction. As tras said with
regard to S 5 in Ex oarte viroinia, 100 U.S. 339,
345, "f t is the po'rer of Congress which has been
enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the
prohibiEions by appropriate legisLation. Some
legislation is contemplated to make the amendments
tully effective.n A construction of S 5 that would
require a judicial determination t,hat, the enf orce-
ncnt of Ehe staEe law precluded by Congress violated
the Aoendment, as a condition of sustaining_ the
congressional enactment, would depreciate both
congressional resoutrcefulness and congressional
responsibility for inplementing the Arnendnent. IE
would confine the legislative power in this context
Eo Ehe insignificant role of abrogating only Ehose

-30-

state laws that Ehe judicial branch rras prepared to
adjudge unconscitutional. . . . (128 )

To Ehe same effect is Citv of Rome, in which Ehe Court held

that despi te the f i f teent,h anendment ' s prohibi E ion of only

purposeful discrinination, Congress had power to prohibit

electoral changes in a jurisdiction subject Eo sect,ion 5 on

the basis of discriminaEory effect, alone. (129)

Moreover, the Supreme Court has upheld Congress'

power Eo enact enforcing legislation beyond the boundaries oi

constitutional safeguards in areas outside the voting dis-
crinination context. Despite the consititutional reguirement

of proof of purposeful discrimination,(130) the Court has

upheld Congress' po'rer to usg an ef f ects standard in f icles
vI(131) and vII(132) of the Civit Rights Act of 1964, and

under the Emergency School eii rct.(133)
In the cases in rhich the Court held that Congress

could enact enforcing legislation which wenE beyond the

explicit requirements of Ehe fourtcenth and fifteeneh amend-

nents, the Court was careful uo delineate Ehe perrnissible

scope of Congress' enforceoent power. In Katzenbach v.

Uggg."(134) Ehe Court, examined the provision under challenge,

section a(e) of the \rRA, to determine whether section a(e)

fell within the scope of Congress' fourteenth amendment enfor-

cement powcrs. The Court began ies analysis by noting that

"[t]here can be no doubt thae section a(e) nay be regarded as

an enactnent Eo enforce the Equar protecEion clause.(135)
Harking back to the language of chief Justice Marsharl in
Mcculloch v. Maryrand, ( 135 ) t,he court, then stated t,hat sec-

tion a(e)'nay be readily seen as'prainly adapted'to fur-
thering, Ittre] aims of the EquaI prorection Clause. " (I37) The

court discussed the goals of section 4 (e) in relation tc t,he

cons.titutional rights congress sought to.enf orce, and staLed:

It was for Congress . to assess and weigh thevarious conflicting considerations--the risI or
pervasiveness of the discrimination in governmental
services, the effectiveness of elininatlng the staterestriction on the right, lo vot,e as a means of
dealing with the eviI, the adequacy or avaitabilityof alternative'remedies, and t,he niture and sig-nificance of the state interests that rould beaffected....lE is not for us to review the congres-sional resolution of these factors. It is enorioh
EhaE we be,aFIe to perceive a basis u!-on-frAffiffiTEe
Congress mrghE resolve Ehe conflict as it oid.
There plainly rras such a basis to support S a(e)
i,n the application in question in thii case. Any
cont,rary conclusion would require us to be blind-to Ehe realities fasriliar eo the legislators" (l3g)

The "perceive a basis" test articulated by the Morqan court is
quite expansive, and confers on congress wide discretion in
fashioning enforcement of consti,tutional rights, even if the
prohibit,ed practice, E Eg, is not unconstitutional.

The deference the Suprene court accorded congress in
Morsan in its "perceive a basisn test 'ras essentially
reiterated in citv of Rone. (r39) trre city of Rosre court, also
citing
stated:

McCqlloch v. Maryland and Ex Parte Virqinia, ( 140 )

It, is clear, Ehen, Ehat under S Z oE the Fifteenth
Amendment Congress nay prohibiE practi.ces thaE in
and of themselves do not violate S I of the Amenci-
ment, so long as the prohibit,ions attacking racial
discrimination in voting are "appropriaEe'o o . . ( f41 )

?he Court held Ehat the ban on discrininatory electoral chan-

ges was appropriate because Congress could raLionally conclude

Ehat those practices created a "risk of purposeful dis-
criminaEion."(I42) Inasnuch as the rai,ional basis for Con-

gress' enactment of section 2 is manifest,(143) it is evident

Ehat Congress' prohibition of an arguably constitutional
practice in order Eo protect threatened constitutional rights
is proper.

!II. Conclusion
' Section 2 is a perurissable intrusion into the

sovereignty of the SEates in order to enforce rights guaran-

teed in the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. lhe result
standard of proof of section 2 does not overturn the Supreme

Court's decision in Mobile v. Bolden, but is an expression

of Congress' enforcement power to end the perceived risk oE

purposef uI discrisrinaE ion.

-33-

Footnotes

(1) 42 U.S.C. S 1973.

(2\ Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Report on
S.1992, S. Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. 4(1982)(hereinafter nS. Rep. " ) .

(3) Section 2 provided that: "No votingqualificqtion or prereguisiEe to voting, or standard, prac-
ticc, ot procedure shall be inposed or applied by any Staee
or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of anycitizen of lhe United States Eo vote on aicount, of-race or
color. . . .'

(4) 445 U.S. SS (1980)
"

(5) See, €.9.r Toncy v. white, 488 F.2d 310 (Sth
cir. 1973) (en 6Ei'c):--The@-Mobile cases rrere
!{hite v. Regesr-er,
McKeithen,485 F.2d

412 U.S. 755, (1973) and Zimmer v.

6EG?Euo nom.
42+ U.S. 535 (197

!{hite involved a proposed reapportionnent of legis-
Lative disffiTs in Dallas,-Telas. The tourt held rhat tiledistrict court had found evidence of past discriarination, or
factors which, Ehough not in Ehemselves discrininatory,
enhanced t,he opportunity f or racial discrinination. The
Court Ehen quoted the district court when it stated that "t,he
black comnunity has been effectively excluded from par-
ticipation in the Democratic party select,ion processo. white
at 767 " Thc Court, concluded Lhat-t,he districl court's fF
ings rrere sufficient to support its conclusions that the
proposed nultiorenber dlstricts were constitutionally improper
because they rere racially discriminatory. Ig. Zisrurer
articulaled the various factors mentioned by-Ehite ia
applied then to a case where t,he Court clearly was areasuring
racially discriminatory effect,s, raLher than finding any
indication of racially discriminatory purpose. The Senate

Committee on Ehe Judiciary Report on S. L992 applied ihe
Zinmer crieeria Eo the amended section 2 oE the Voting RightsAct. See text acconpanying notes 29-3l., infra.

(5) 446 U.S. at, 66, ogoting, whitcomb v. Chavis,
403 U.S. L24,149 (197f). The pIuEETTry@
Court in ldhite found evidence of racially disciminatory
purpose. @, "t 59. The justices coirprising rheplurality went on to argue that the factors articulaEed in
?immef were in thenselves insufficienr for finding a racially
d:,scriTinatory purpose. MobiIe at 73. However, subseguentto Mobile and to Congress. enacting the new Voting Rightslctl-E'6-Court in Ro6ers v. Lodqe,

-50
U. S.L.w. 50,11 (juf y I,

1982) indicated Ehffiactors would lead Eo a
f inding of racially discrit'jIEory purpose.

42 U.S.C. S 1973, as asrended.

S. Rep. ar pp. 15-16.

See S. Rep. ac 2i.

(10)- See S. Rep. at 30.

(11) Sect,ion 2 ot the Act as revised by Ehe amend-
ment provides:

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisice
to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall
be imposed or applied by any St,ate or potirical
subdivision in a nanner rhich results i.n a denialor abridgemcnt of the right of any citizen of the
United States to vote on account of race or color,or in contravention of the guarantees ser- forth in
section 4(f) (2), as provided in subsection (b).

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is estab-
lished if , based on the totality of circuurstances,
it is shown that the political processes leading to
nomination or elect,ion in Che State or polieicaL
subdivision are not equally open to participaEion
by nenbers gf.a class of citizens protected by
subsection (a) in Ehat its members have less oooor-tunity Ehan other nembers of the elect,orat,e toparticipate in the political process and to elect
representatives of their choice. The extent to
which members of a protected class have been
elected to office in the State or political sub-

(7)

(8)

(s)

division is one circumstance which aray be con-
sidered: Provided, That nothing in Ehis section
establishes a right to have members oi a protecied
class elected !n numbers egual to their proportion
in the populaEion.

(12) Section 2(b) of the Act; I28 Cong. Rec. S6500(daiIy cd. June 9,1982) (remarks of Sen. Slevens, onc of the
co-sponsors of the Bill).

(13) S. Rep. at 27, 29 n.I18.
(14) L28 Cong. Rec. S7095 (daily ed. June I8, I982)

(remarks of Sen. Kennedy).

(15) 42 U.S.Ci S 1973c.

(15) Beer v. UnLled Stales,
( 1975 )

425 U.S" I30, 138

is Ehe language of the staEute itself." Consumer Prodcuts
Safetv comsrisiiol v. GEE Sylvania, s47 U.m)

(20) Although not decisive, the intent of the
legislature as revealed by the comaittee report is highly
persuasive.

-Sgg r !i[ritel lt,aees v. Five Gamblinq Devices, 345
0.s. !4t, 449-'i(T95 es(1951); Aichentaul v. 52!, 532 (1950).

(17) 42 0.S.C. S 1973.

(18) 42U.S.C. S 1973.

(19) "The starting point for interpreting a statute

(21) S. Rep. aE 29"

(zil Id" at 2,8 n.112.

Q3) Id. at 67-58"

(241 'It is the sponsors Iof a billJ ttrae ire look
to-when the ureaning of t,he statutory words is in doubt."

nn Eros. v i st i llers Coro . , 341 U. S . 384 ,
also Natlona odwork Mfrs. Associationv \ --r- t a

v. NLRB, 385
Packers & Warehousenen, Local 7504l lto, r bo-

(25) L28 Cong. Rec. l{3841 (daiIy ed. June 23,
1982 ) .

(26) S. Rep. at 28, 29.

(27) Id. at 29 n.118.

(28) Ig.
(29) rd.
(30) Id. aE 28-29

(31) Id. For a discussion of Whiie and Zimmer,
Ee note 5, supra

( 32 ) Id. at 28 , 28 n.112.

(33) Id. at 29 n.114.

(34) Id. at 29 n.115.

(35) Id. at 29 n.115.

(36) Id. at 29 n.117.

(37) ; at 97. Enphasis in original.
( 38 ) Ig. at L72-7.3 ,

(39) Section 2(b) of the Act"
(40) 128 Cong. Rec. 56959 (daily ed. June L7,
1gg2).

(41) rd.
(42) Ig. at 55970.

(43) Ld. Moreovcr, Ehe Senate was concerned ihat
courts Eake an EEtive role in correcting section 2violations. Senator Kennedy Iater enphisized this point

[f]he committee directs Ehe courts in correct-
ing section 2 violations to exercise their
t,radiBional eguiEable posers Eo inplement relief
that completely remedies the prior violati:onS or
dilution of ninority voting strength. Based upon
established and accepted concepts of equity and
exisEing case law, t,he courts have a duty in sec-
Eion 2 cases to provide egual opportunity for

-4-

minority citizens Eo participate in the electorate
and to select candidates of Eheir choice. They
nust fully and'courpletely elininaEe Ehe prior
dilution of Lhe srinoricy vot,ing strength , L28 Cong.
Rec. S7095 (daily ed. June 18, 1982).

. ( 44 ) Ig. at 56957.

( 45 ) Ig. at S5969.

(45) However, lhere is support for the argumenE
that a section 5 objection should follow iE Ehere is evidence
of a section 2 discriminatory result. See S. Rep. at Lz
n. 31"

(47) Ig. at 141.

(48) City of Rone v. United States, 446 U.S. 155

(49) S. Rep. aE 27.
(49a) See note 46, supra.(s0) $ at 58.

(51) Ig. at 68 n.224

(52) 128 Cong. Rec. 55930 (daily ed. June L7,
1982).

(53) rd.
( 54 ) L28 Cong. Rec . I{3841 ( dai Iy ed. June 23 ,1982). See also note 46, suora.

(55) Id.
(55) An argunent also 'ras advanced thaE in deter-

nining discriminatory result, it would be necessar:' to focus
unduly on considerations of race which would offend the goals
of a color blind society as articu.l,ated by the iourteenth
and fifteenth anendments. See S. Rep. aE 112. !n fact,
however, a results test seEE objeclive criteria by whic.h to
deterurine discriurination. It is-a subjective inteie Ees't,
which by its nature requires an inquiry ineo the mo€ivOs of--legisIaEors, which creates an unfortunate focus on racial

- - corrsiderations
(57) S. Rep. aE 159.

-5-

( 58 ) Id. at 170.

(59) See, e.s., Pooe v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621(1904). ArguabfflarEETe ffiich guarantees a
"republican form of government,', could serve as an explicie
protection of Ehe right eo vote. The Supreme Court ,- howgvsg',
has ref used to so invoke ie. !€, e.q. , Baker y. Carr, 359
U.S. 185 (L96il; Luther v. Borffi, 4ET.S-affioTffl84g).

(50) Section I of the fourteenth amendment
provides, in pertinent part: "nor shall any SEate deprive
any person of. . . the equal protection of the laws." Sec-
tion I of the fifteenth amendement provides: nThe right of
citizens of the United SLates to vote shill not be denied or
abridged by the United St,ates or by any SEaEe on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The lan-
guage of the fifteenth anendment was used prinarily to attack
schemes designed t,o exclude blacks frosr Ehe voting process.
Eg, ag-, Terrv v. Adams, 345 U.S" 451 (1953). The four-
teenth amendment provided a basis for holding that dis-
crigrinatory voting schemes violated constitutionally required
equal access to the electoral systeur. Slg N. .Dorsen, P.
Bender, B. Neuborne, Political and Civil Riehts in the United
States at 1055 .( 1976 )

(61) S. Rep. aE 39-40,40 n.152.

(62) Section 5 of lhe fourteenth amendmentprovides: "The Congress shall have po.wer eo enf orce, by
appropriate Iegislation, the provisions of this art,icle.n

(53) Section 2 of Ehe fifteenth ame.ndment provides:
"The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation. "

(54) 383 U.S. 301 (1956).

( 5s ) i-9.
(55) Id.

ar 309.

at 325.

( 67 ) 3'84 U. S. 541 ( 1956 ) .

( 58 ) Id. at, 651.

( 6e) ;.
(70) 446 U.S. 155 (1980). City of Rome was decided

the same day as Mobile v. Bolden.

-o-

( 71 ) Id. at I75.
(72) See notes 57 anC 58, supra.

(73) South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. aE 326,

(74) 17 U.S. (4 wheat) 316, 421 (1819)
"

(75) Ex Parte Viroinia, I00 U.S. 339, 345-45
(1879).

(75) s. Rep. at 170"

(77) Carrinst,on v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965),
ouotinq Lass!ter v, Northamoeon Electio ,

(78) U.S. Const. art. I., S 8.

(79) 425 U.S. 833 (1975).

( 80 ) lg. at 852.

(81) 383 U.S. 301 (1965).

( 82 ) Ig. at 324.

(83) 425 U.S. at 852 n.17.

(84) 427 u,S, 445 (1975).

(85) 42 A.S.C. S 2003 eE ses.

(85) 427 U.S. at 456.

(87) 445 U.S. at L79.

(88) S. Rep. at 170.

(89) See pp. 4-5 supra f or a discussion of t,he
operae ion of seEfoir' 5.

(90) S. Rep. at 170-71, SLi..Eg South Carolina v.
Katzenbach, 383 U. S.. at 3 34 .

(9I) Section 4 of the Act perurits a jurisdiction
whieh was originally covered by the preclearance provisions
of secEion 5, but which has been discrimination free for ten

years, !o "bail-out" of the section 5 pre-clearance
provi sions

(92) South Carolina v. KaEzenbach, 383 U.S. ar 33L
See Citv of Rom j. , dissenting) .

(93) CiEv of Rome, 146 U.S. at 203 n.13 (powe1l,
i. , dissenting)---

(94) There is no question ihat,
prescribe rules of evidence and standards
federal courts, pursuant to art. I , sec.Constitution. See Va4qe v. terrazas, 444(r980).

( 95 ) Even i f there lrere a neeC f or a legi slat ive
record detailing the need for amended section z, Erre legisla-tive history of the 1982 amendments provides quite enoulh.

(96) 384 u.S. 541 (1965).

(97) Id. at 552-58.

(98) fg. at 658-71 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
( 99 ) 400 u'. s. 1r2 ( 1970 )

(100) See id. at l3I-34.
(101) 448 U.S. 448 (1980).

(102) Pub. L. No. 95-28,'91 Star. 115, amendinq 42u.s. s 5701 (r975).

Congress can
of proof in the

8, cl. 9 of the
u.s. 252, 265-66

181, the Court pointed to no evidence iUat plaineifi CiEy;a
Rone had a recent history of raciar discrimi,nation in voling.
See Id. at L77. In fact, Justice Rehnquist noEed Ehat,
accoEing to the record below, the citi "tris noi-emtroyea any
discriminatory barriers to brack vot,er registraEion- in-thepast L7 years. Nor has the cicy enrproyed any other barriers
Eo black voting or black candidacy. Indeed . . . whiEe
elected officials have encouraged-blacks to run for electiveposts in Rome, and are'responsive to t,he needs and interestsof the black comnuniEy.'n Ig. at Z0A (Rehnquist, J., dis-
senting).

(103) 448 U.S. at 485. Even in Citv of Rome, inrhich the Court did point r,o legislative @need for Ehe section 5 preclearance requirement, *46 ffi-I

-8-

(r04)

(10s)

(105)
on Ehe Constitu
97t,h Cong. 2nd
sen) (hereinaft

(1r3)

(114)

(11s)

(116)

(107) In addiEion, section 2 avoids overinclusion,
in contrast Eo the literacy Eests in gg3gg or Ehe set-asides
in FuIIilove, bccause ie applies only-wEere discrimination
occurs - only jurisdictions in which no findings of dis-
crimination are made 'ri11 be affected. Section 2 aEfects
only Ehe standard of proof Eo make thae deEermination.

(108) See text dccompanying notes'59-73, sutrra.

(109) See Hearings, House Comsrittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights June 24, 1981, C. Vann lloodard, J.
Morgan Kousseri Dorsen testimony at p. 21. See also !{.R.
Rep. No. 97-227, 97th Cong. lst-Sess. 29 (19ETI.-

(110) S. Rep. at 35.

(111) Palmer v. Thomoson, 403 U.S. Z!7, 225 (1971).
Evcn Justice ae@dif f iculty in proving nEhat
an clectoral change or annexation has been undertaken for Ehe
purpose of discriminating against blacks. . . . n !i!L_gl!ome,446 U"S. at 214 (Rehnquist, J., disscnting. ) See-Eorsen
test iurony at 2l-22 .

(112) See South Carolina v. KargES!, 383 U.S.
at 314; Testinoifo ietee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights, June 24, 1981; Dorsen tes-
timony at 23.

435

€aa

EE'
Ses
at

See text acconpanying note 92, suora.

u.s. 110 (1978).

Hearings on S.1992 be!ore ihe SubcosrsriEEeE
n of Ehe Senate Comnittee oi che Judiciary,
s. (f982) (Statenent of Prof. Nornan Dor-
"Dorsen testiurony').

S. Rep. at 35.

S. Rep. at 37.

50 u.s.L.$t. 5041 (r982).

S" Rep. aE 17-39.

(117) Washinqton v. Davis, 425 U.S. 229-\1976).
(118) Mobile v. Bolden, 846 U.S. 55 (1980).

-9-

(r19): 51.

( 120 ) Rep. at 159-70 .

(121),s. s5 (t 980).

(L2?) l, ar 41.

( 123 ) lhe resulEs standard of proof i,n sect ion
2 is also an eo return to Ehe standard of prooE
pre-Mobile, wElects Congress' original intent in
enacEl?f,Eecr:See S. Rei. ar t1-2i,

(124),s. 4s (19s9).

(12s).s. 301 (1955).

(126),s. 641 (1955).

( 127 ) rt 548.

(128) t 548-49. S€q Citv of Rome v. United
Slates, 445 u, (1980) (Coffie it
electoral charjurisdiction on basi.s of discrininaEory
ef f ect alone, E f if teenth anendment requires in-,-ent).

(129) crsen testinony at L2.

(130) cbile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (fif-
teenth "r"ndr@, 426 U.S. ?zg (L976) (four-
teenth amendmr

(131) au v. Nichols , 414 U.S. 553, 567-69(197a); oorserfr6ffiffi. But cf . Reoenrs of rhetlniversitv of rnia v. Bakke, 4m.ffi
Dorsen t,estimcl5-I5.

(132) risss v. Duke Power Co., 40I U.S. q24
(1971); Dorsenr

(133) oard of Education v. Haslis, L(,q U.S. 130(1979); oorse

(134) .s. 541 (1956).

(135) r 552.

(135) S. (* wheat. ) 316, 42t (f812). See rexr
accompanying r0-73.

-10 -

(137) 38{ U.S. at 552.

(138) Id. at 653 (emphasis supplied). See Dorsen
testiurony at U:T4. '

(139) {{6 U.S. 155 (1990).

(140) 100 u.s. 339 (1990).

(1{1) {45 U.S. at 177.

( 1{2 ) Ig.
(1d3) Egg tcxt acconpanying notes 108-15.

APPENDIX A

Chronological Index to Congressional
Record on 1982 Extension of Voting
Rights Act

House Debates
Senate Debates

CHRONOLOGICAI INDEX
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD . HOUSE DEBATES ON EXTENSION OF THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT (19 81- 821 t' 7

(Chief Sponsors of H.R. 3112: Edwards,
Washington, Sensenbrenner, Rodino)

Oct. 2, 1981
P. H5841-6878 Motion

Debate
to
on

consider H.R. 3112 (passed) (H684I)
bill

June 23, 1982p. H3840-45

Ittotion for further consideration of H" R. 3lI2
(passed,, 350 to 4) (86937)
Debate on bill
Vote on H.R. 3112 (passed, 399-24, . (H 7011)

Motion to concur in Senate amendments of H.R.
3112, to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1955
to extend the effect of certain provisions
(passed unanirpusly) (H 3840)

y L27 Cons.
127 Cong.
128 Cong.

H6 84 1-H6 87 8
H6937-H7011
H6 839-H3845

ed," Oct.
ed,. Oct.
ed. Jr:ne

Rec.
Rec.
Rec.

(dai1y
(dai1y
(daiLy

2,1981)
5,1981)
23, 19g2)

Oct" 5, 1981
H5937-7011

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
CONGRESSIONAI RECORD - SENATE DEBATES ON EXTENSION OF TH8

voTrNG RTGHTS ACT (L982):/

(Chief Sponsors of S. L992: Kennedy and Mathias,
with Dole)

pp. 55841-55842
s695 3-56872
s68 88

June 16, 1982

s69L4-56922
s6 929-S5 9 34
s5973-S7003

Hatch (opponent) : Floor }lanager
Filibuster on Motion to Proceed

Eatch (opponent): Floor Manager
Filibuster on Motion to Proceed continued

Hatch (opponent) : Floor t{anager
Filibuster on Motion to Proceed continued

Eatch (opponent): Floor Manager
Cloture vote (passed 86-8) (p. 56783)
Debate on Motion to Proceed

Hatch (opponent): Floor l'lanager (See: p. S6854)
Debate on l,totion to Proceed continued

Ilatch (opponent): Floor Manager (See: p. S6938)
Mathias (sponsor) : Designated Floor lrtanager

(at p. s6941)
Debate on Motion to Proceed continued
Vote on Motion to Proceed (passed 97-0) (p. 56937)
Debate on bill
Mathias (sponsor): Floor Manager
Debate on bill
Vote on bill (passed 95-9) (p. 57139)

y 128 cong. Rec. pp. s6497-s7l42 (daily ed. June 8-June 18, 1982)

June

L982

Jurle 15, L982
pp. s6777-56795

June L?, 1982
pp. 56903-S6904

L982

APPENDIX B

Sr,rbject fndex to Congressional Record on
L982 Extension of Voting Rights Act

House Debates
Senate Debates

SUBJECT INDEX
CoNGRSSSTONAL RECORp - IIOUS9 DEB+TES.9N EXTENSTON OF THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT */
II.R. 3112: cos@tatives Edwards,

Washington, Sensenbrenner, Rodino

I. HISTORY OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT - GENERAL COMIT{ENTS

Cons. Rec. (daily ed.) October 2 19 81

H684 1- 78

H695 L-62
H700 2-70LL

rr3 84 0-4 6

Glickman (H6841); Rodino (H6841-2) i Sensenbrenner
1tr6843) ; Conte (H6843-4) ; Richmond (II5844) ;
Fauntroy (Bi11 protects against vote dilution
via annexations, at-large elections and redis-
tricting - H5847); Bingham (H6847-8) i Frost
(116848) ; Oberstar (H6848-49) ; Washington
(H5849); Gray 1tt6850); Fish (H5850-51); Fenwick
(H6851) ; McClory (minority language provisions,
including data as to cost - H5851-51); Corrada
(H6861-52) ; Lungren (H586L-52) ; Collins (opposi-
tion - H6863-66); Leland (H5856); Rangel (H5866);
Campbell (H5865-67); Ford (6867); 81iley (consent
decree should not bar bailout - H6867-68) i Rudd
(bilingual provisions too burdensome - H6858);
Fow1er (continued need in Georgia - 116868-59);
Frank (H6869); Burton (H6869); Bailey 1tt5870);
Garcia (116870-71); Akaka (H6871); Dixon (H5871-
72) i Markey G6872-73) i Cheney (objects to bailout,
extension of bilingual provisions, and Section 2

"effects" test - H5874-75) i Mitchell (H6875);
Collins (n6875); Crockett 11t6875-76) ; Matsui
1x6875); Williams n5876); Dymally (II5876);
Chisholm (H6877) i Worth (H6877) ; Stark (H6878) ;
Foglietta 1H6878); Won Pat (H6878)

October 5 1981

DeNardis; Peyser
Delugo (H7002-31 i Pursell (II7003-4); Lovrry 1tt7004);
Ila11 1n7004-5); Biaggi (H7005-6); Green (H7006);
Hallenbeck (H7005) ; Eascell (H7006-71 i Collins
(H7007); Mikulski 1n7008); Fithian (H7008-9);
Edgar (87009) , Frenzel (tt7009-10) ; Chisholm (H70I1)

June 23 L982

Edwards (emphasized changes in bill H3840-41);
Sensenbrenner (highlights S 2 standard H384i);
Hyde (H3842 ) ; Fish 1tt3843 ) ; Lungren (H3844-45 ) ;
Butler (H3845-46).

T/- 127 Conq.
127 Cong.
L28 Cong.

Rec. H6841-H6878
Rec. II5937-H7011
Rec. H3839-H3845

ed. Oct. 2, 1981)
ed. Oct. 5, 1981)
ed. June 23, 1982)

(daily
(daily
(dai1y

II" TNTRODUCTTON OF TIIE BrLL AND AMEND! El.Igq

Cons. Rec. (daily ed. )

H584 I

H6937

H5938

H693 9-6 945

116 94 5-4I

H6948-66

116966-7 4

H697 4

H6975-79

October 2, 1981

Motion to consider H.R. 3112 (passed); BolIing
chair. Chief sponsors of H.R. 3112: Edwards,
Washington, Sensenbrenner, Rodino.

October 5 1981

Motion for further consideration of H.R.3112
(passed, 350 to 4) .
Bill read; the substitute committee amendment
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary
rrras printed in the reported bill as an original
bilI for purpose of amendment.
Edwards Amendment: suits filed during pendancy
of bailout litigation will not bar bailout.
Comments: Hyde, Railsback, Lungren (agreed to

voice vote).
Hyde Amendment: consent decrees and final
judgrnent settlements should not bar bailout.
Comments: McClory, Edwards, Sensenbrenner,
Butler, Fish, Lungren, Sam HaIl Jt., 81iley
(Extension of Remarks) (rejected, 92 to 285).
Butler Amendment: change venue so that sect,ion
5 cases will be heard in 3 judge U.S. District
Court where petitioner is located and facts
arose. Comments: Rousselot, Edwards, Rodino,
McClory, Sensenbrenner, RaiLsback, Conyers,
Collins, Hyde, Sam B. Hall, Jr., Fauntroyr Luken,
Washington, tlitcheIl, Kindness, Glickman, Sieberling,
Hertelr Jenkins, F.lippo, tungren, 81i1ey, DeNardis,
Peyser, Lott, Dunn, !4oore, Garcia, Glickman
(rejected, 132-277).
Campbell Amendrhent: state may petition for bailout
if it meets threshold test (2/3rds of state's
subdivisions granted bailout) and has made
reasonaDle ettorts to assure.compLiance. comments:
wasnlngton, Ilyde, Sensenbrenner , Fish, Frank,
chlsholm, Lungren, Conyers (Extensr.on of Remarks),
sm].En, Savage. (rejected, 95-313)
tungren Amendment: make bailout provision effective
lmmecliately. Comments: Edwards, Hyde (rejected
voice vote).
Harnett Amendment: nationwide preclearance.
Comments: Sensenbrenner, Rodino, WoIpe, Weiss,
Leland, Ilyde, Collins (Extension of Remarks),
Garcia (rejected - voice vote).
Butler Amendment: to aI1ow bailout where objection
to voting change has been withdrawn by Attorney
General. Comments: Edwards (rejected - voice vote).

H59 79-80

Conq. Rec. (daily ed- )

116980-81

H6981-82

H6982

H598 2-85

H6985-9 8

H6998-7000

H700 I

H7001

rr7010-11

H7O 1T

rr3839

L28-284) .

Lungren Amendment: limit
govirnment to mandatorilY
issistance fot other than
Edwards, AuCoin, Roemer,

ability of federal
require bilingual
bal1ots. Comments:

Washington (rejected,

Butler Amendment: bail0ut will be barred unless
oujection to voting rights has been abandoned,
wiLnarawn, or effeitively superseded by acceP-
table action on the part of the state or
political subdivision requesting bailout'
Eomments: Edwards, Conyers (rejected, 18-27) "

CoIlins Amendment: p1a-e bailout burden of
pi""i "n federal government instead of on local
]urisdictions. Comnents: Rodino, Ilyde (re-
jected - voice vote).
6ut1er Amendment,: court must find circumstances
which inhibit voting rights or dilute equal

"J"""" in bailout cises. Comments: tlyde,
Edwards (rejected - voice vote).
giii"v Ameniment: delete ,'results" test and keep
S 2 uiamended. Comments: l'linish, Sensenbrenner'
iuir"r, McClory, Col1ins, Edwards, Rodino, Frank'
Conyers (rejected - voice vote) "

t'tcCiory Amendnent: strike provisions that
bilrngual election materials be prlnt'ed for
certain 1anguage minorities. Comments: Schroeder
Sensenbrenner, Fish, Florio, Burgener, Railsback'
iongt"n, GIiclman, Conyersr McClospeYt Roybel,

-rreizelr Kazen, Goldwaler, Garcia, Leland, Ertel'
nawaras, Wirtn, Hyde, Eckart, Wright (rejected,

L24-285) .
Fenwick Amendment: voting assistance is not
permittedinvotingboothunlessvoterisblind
6t physically incapacitated. Comments: Edwards
(agreed voice vote).
eiiggi Amendment: require all federal elections
to 56 held on a Sunday in presidential election
years (wit,hdrawn)..
itotion to recommit bill to Committee (rejected -
voice vote).
Vote on H.R. 3LL2 (passed, 389 to 24).

June 23, 1982

lltotion to concur in Senate Amendments of H'R'
3112, Eo amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to
extend the effect of cerLain provisions (unani-
mously passed, voice vote).

III. SECTION 2 STANDARD OF PROOF

cong. Rec. (clarly ed. ) october 2, 198I

Hbu42 Rodino, with comments from Butler
H6873-74 Butler
H6874-75 Cheney - Objection to ',effects', test
H68 t't Chisholm - "effects" standard

H69uz-u5 tsL1ley Amendment: delete ',resuIts,' test and
keep S 2 unamended. Comments: Minish,
Sensenbrenner, Butler, McClory, Collins,
Edwards, Rodino, Frank, Conyers. (rejected)

June 23, 1982

H3E4u-41 !;dvrards: outrined impact of amendments on
H. R. 3112

H3841 Sensenbrenner: results iest; .totaLit,y of
clrcumstances; section 2 compared to section 5.H3842 Hyde

H3843 McClory
/---\* ( TvK PRoPoRTIoNAL REPRESENTATIoN DISCLAIMER

October 2, 1981

H5842 Rodino, wit,h questions from Sensenbrenner.

October 5, 1981

H5982-85 Bliley Amendment: Delete ',results,' test and
keep g 2 unamended. Comments: Minish,
Sensenbrenner, Butler, McClory, Co11ins, Edwards,
Rodino, Frank, Conyers. (rejected)

June 23, 1982

H3841 Sensenbrenner it, 1s '.beyond the scope of
Section 2 to prescribe any mechanistic or pre-
determined rules for formulating remedies.,'

v. vorLNG BIgETg..+cr AS A CoNSTrrurroNAL EXERCTSE oF
CUNGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

uctober 2, 1981

II686J-b6 collins - vRA is an unconstitutional exercise
of legislative authority and transformation of
Supreme Court authority.

VI" THE BAILOUT PROVISION

uong. Rec. (daily ed. )

rr5844-45

H6845

H6 84 9-5 0

116863-66
H5867-58

H6872
H6873-7 4
H687 4-75_

Hb9Jy-45

H6939-44

H6945-4 8

H5966-697 4

H69't4

H59 79-80

H5980-81

O'Ctober 2 1981

Edwards, Butler - effect of new bailout pro-
cedure.
Hyde trade off between permanent preclearance
and liberal bailouL. Discussion of bailout and
criteria barring bailout (consent decrees,
minority participation, presence of federal
examiners) .
Washington - bailout a11ows separation of
county from state.
Collins - Texas
81i1ey - consent decree should not bar bailout;
dj.scussion of Virginia"
Dixon
ButIer bailout in Virginia
Cheney - objections to bailout,

October 5 1 981

Edwards Amendment,: suit,s filed during pendancy
ot baiLout litigation will not bar bailout"
Comments: Hyde, Railsback, Lungren (agreed)

"Railsback int,roduced testimony from Justice
Department regarding operation of bailout pro-
visions under different legislative alternatives"
Includes list of preclearance objections and
findings.
Ilyde Amendment: consent decrees and final judg-
ment settlements should not bar bailout. Comments:
McClory, Edwards, Sensenbrenner, Butler, Fish,
Lungren, Sam HalI, Jr., B1i1ey (Extension of
Remarks) (rejected).
Canpbell Amendment: state may petition for bailout
if it meets threshold test (2/3rds of staters sub-
divisions granted bailout) and has made reasonable
efforts to assure compliance. Comments: Washington,
Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Fish, Frank, Chisholm, Lungren,
Conyers (Extension of Remarks), Smith, Savage
(rejected) .
rJungren Amendment: make bailout provision effective
lmmediately. Comments: Edwards,. Hyde (rejected) .
Butler Amendment: To al1ow bailout where objection
to voting change has been withdrawn by Attorney
General" Comments: Edwards (rejected) .
Butler Amendment: Bailout will be barred unless
objection to voting rights has been abandoned,
withdrawn, or effectively superseded by acceptable
action on the part of the state or political sub-
division requesting bailout. Comments: Edwards,
Conyers (rejected).
Collins Amendment: Place bailout burden of proof
on federal government instead of on loca1 juris-
dictions. Comments: Rodino, Hyde (rejected).

H6981-82

Cons. Rec. (daily ed.)

VII.

Butler Amendment: Court must find circumstances
which inhibit voting rights or dilut,e equal
access in bailout cases. Commentss Hyde,
Edwards (rejected).

PRECLEARANCE PROCEDURE

October 2 1981

H6982

H6845-46
H6853-56

H6 94 8-6 6

H6975-79

H5384

rr5 84 7
rr5 84 8
n5I63-65
H5868-6 9
H6872

116I51-61

H6851-62
116868

H6872
H687 4-75

Fauntroy
Frost
Collins -
FowIer
Dixon

Ilyde - objects to administrative preclearance.
Collins - burden of proof should shift to
federal government.

October 5 19 81

Butler Amendment: change venue so that section 5
cases will be heard in 3 judge U.S. district court
where petitioner is located and facts arose.
Comments: Rousselot, Edwards, Rodino, McClory,
Sensenbrenner, Railsback, Conyers, Col1ins, Hyde,
Sam B. Ha11, JE., Fauntroy, Luken, Washington,
Mitchel1, Kindness, Glickman, Sieberling, HerteI,
Jenkins, Flippo, Lungren, 81iley, DeNardis, peyser,
Lott, Dunn, Moore, Garcia, Glickman (rejected).
Harnett Amendment: nationwide preclearance.
Comments: Sensenbrenner, Rodino, Wo1pe, Weiss,
Leland, Hyde, Collins (Extension of Remarks),
Garcia (rejected).

June 23, 1982

Edwards, Fowler

VIII. CONTINUED NEED FOR S 5 PRECLEARANCE

October 2 19 81

- Voting Rights Act covers vote dilution.
no more need for the Voting Rights Act.

continued need in Georgia"

IX. MTNORITY LANGUAGE PROVISIONS

October 2 1981

McClory - amendment to eliminate language
assistance provisions; introduces testimony about
the cost,.
Corrada - support for bilingual language provisions.
Rudd - bilingual ballot provisions are unnecessary
burdensome.
Dlxon
Cheney - objections to extension of bilingual
provision.

Cong. Rec" (dai1y ed.)

H6985-98

H5 99 8- 700 0

H7000-7001

McClory Amendment: strike provisions that
bilingual election material be printed for
certain language minorities. Comments:
Schroeder, Sensenbrenner, Fish, Florio,
Burgener, Railsback, Lungren, GIickman,
Conyers, tlcCloskey, Roybel, Frenzel, Kazen,
@ldwater, Garcia, Leland, Erte1, Edwards,
Wirth, Hyder Eckart, Wright (rejected) "

Lungren Amendment: limit ability of federal
government, to mandatorily require bilingual
assistance for other than balloLs. Comments:
Edwards, AuCoin, Roemer, Washington (rejected)
Brown,/Schroeder colloquy identification of
areas where bilingual assistance is required"

October 5, 1981

June 23 t982

H3841-42

X. VOTER

Schroeder

ASSISTANCE

H6965
H7001

H3844

October 5 1 981

Fenwick
I'enwick Amendment: voting assistance is not
permitted in voting booth unLess voter is blind
or physically incapacitated. Comnents: Edwards
( agreed )

June 23 1982

Washington - voter assistance will be available
to disabled, blind or illiterate voters by a
person of their choice"

CONGRESSIONAL
SUBJECT INDEX

RECORD - -sEtrETE:T'EffiMS ON EXTENSION OF THE
VOTING RIGHTS ACf (1982) */

(Prlnc].pl,e sPonsors: Kennedy and Mathias with DoIe)

I. HISTORY OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT - GENERAL OVERVIEW

uong. Rec. (dar.Iy ed.) June 9

56526-6522 Hatch introduced articles and commentary by Walter
Berns, Terry Eastland, Abigail Thernstrom, I{ary
McGrory, Eugene llickock, Jt., John Bunzel, Peter
Brimelow, James Kilpatrick, WaI1 Street Journal,
Alren Brownteld, Stephen chapman, James Biumstein,
Witliam French Smith, Nicholas CaIio, !4. Stant,on
Evans, and Patrick Buchanan.

June 14

s6499
s6503

s6 71 6-8
s5 71 8-20

s6 94 L-44

s7I0't-3't

s 71 23-35

Stevens
IIatch

It{oynihan
L. B. Johnson, "To FuIfiII These Rightsr" introduced
by Moynihan.

June 17

Mathias - history of bi11., legislat,ive history of
Section 2, Constitutional standard and bailout.
Prepared Remarks: Tsongas (57107-09) i Durenberger
(S7109-10) ; t'tetzenba (S7110-11) ; Cranston (S7111-12)
Spector (S7112); Roth (57112-13); Bentsen (S7113);
Pryor (S7113-41 i Quayle (S7114) ; Bumpers (S711a);
Biden (S7115); Mitchell (S7115); Weicker 1S7116) ;
Percy (S7117); Sasser (S7117); Thurmond (S7I18-9);
Glenn ts t L't) i Pell S7120 ) ; Riegle (S7121) ; Hayakawa
(57i22); East 1S7123) ; Packwood (S7123); Warner
1s7136); Byrd (S7137) .
Letters in Support (S7123-35) introduced by Kennedy.

rr. TNTRoDUCTTON OF BrILS/A!4ENDMENTS

June 15

* s5 780-81

s6 783

s6937

s6939

Kennedy - guide to court in interpieting stat,utory
language and legislative history (See also: S.7095)
Cloture Vote (passed 86-8)

June 17

Vote on motion to proceed (passed 97 to 0); Bill
clerk read proposed bill with amendments. Chief
co-sponsors: Kennedy, !,lathias with Dole.
Mathias: Amend 1883 to provide that amendments to
section 5 become effective January 1, 1984 (adopted
by voice vote); Amend 1023 and Amend L024 technical
corrections (adopted by voice vote).

-S7142 (daily ed. June 9 - June 18,
B8

s6 95 5-5 5

s596 7-69

s5 96 9-70

s6977-82

s6 982-3

s6983

s698s-89

s6 989-98

s5998-7000

s70 75-81

s7083-85

s 70 8 7-90

s7092-94

s7098

9qng. Rec. (daily ed. )

East: Amend 1875 to strike Section 3 from thebill (rejected, 15-8I)
East: Amend 1897 to limit jurisdiction of courts Xt9 require proportional representation or quotas inthe election of members of a protected class(rejected, 14-81) .
Helms: Amend 1025 to a1low courts to order pro- yportional representation or quotas (rejected, ga-f) ^Kennedy, Specter response.
East: Amend 1865 to provde that, after August, 6,
1982, iny lega1 action brought under either-Section
4 or 5 of the Voting Rights Act would be brought inthe u.s" district court ordinarily having venue over
such cases (rejected, 31-65).
stevens: Amend !026 to provide further clarificationof bilingual provisions (adopted by voice vote).
Stevens: Amend 1027 - providing that nothing shallprohibit the Attorney General from consenting to anentry of lgdgment if, based upon a showing of objective
and compelling evidence by the plaintiff, and up6ninvestigation, the Attorney General is satisfied thatthe state or poriticar subdivision has complied withthe requirements of section 4 (a) (1); and that any
?ggrieved party may as of right intervene at any stagein such action. (modified and agreed to, SG9g9jEast: Amend 1868 to extend presdnt bailout pro-
visions for 10 years, to provide that jurisdiclions
which eliminated use of tests and devices would auto-matlcally bailout at close of lO-year period for whichAct is extended, and to provide that, during the interim,
such jurisdictions would have opportunity to uait out,if during 5 years preceding bailout, they haa not vio-lated 1aw with _respect to denying or abriaging right tovote because of race, coIor, or being member of
language minority (rejected, 19-79) .
stevens: Amend 1028 to apply resurts test of section X2 to bailout burden of proof (rejected, 3g-59).stevens: Amend L029 to change bailout provision inbill to permit a state to bailout even if some of its
counties have not qualified (rejected, 32-59).

June 18

Ilayakawa: Amend 1879 to repeal certain provisions
rerating to bilingual election requirements(rejected, 32-s4)Cochran: Amend 1898 - nationwide preclearance-with
submission of any changes under preclearance provisions
to the appropriate district court, of the unitad states(rejected, 16-74).
Nunn: Amend 1030 to provide timely decision byAttorney GeneraL under preclearance (rejected, 3B-55)"Denton: Amend 1875 new ba.ir out standard (rejected,
I9-73).
Stevens: Amend 1031 to clarify phrases ,,anywhere
in territory" and 'aIl governmental units within itsterri!ory" under bailout provision (rejected, 2g-64,).(P. s7106 )

o{"ftvt4?

S7139

III.

I1. R.

SECTION 2

warner: Amend 1032 to modify expiration
rovisions of Sec. 4 (rejected, 28-66)

.)
rmend 1033 to exempt 42 counties in North
from Sections 4 and 5 (rejected, I2-81).

7)
\mend 1034 to guarantee right to vote in
Lth abnormally low percentages of black
:ejected , L2-8t) (P. S7107)

Amend 1035 - to aPply bilingual election
lnts only to members of a single language
who do not speak English (adoPted by
; consent).

3112 as amended passed, 85 to I (7 no votes)

STANDARD OF PROOF

s650 2-3
s6505-1 3
s6 5 1 3-15

s6 516 - 21
s653.1-33

s6533-34

s6542
s654 3-44

s5546

s6548-49

s655 t-52

s6560-61

s6 64 6-4 8 Grassley

s6721-22
s6724

s6't78-79

s6 785-6
s6 788
s6 789-90

Specter-Hatch - does "totality of
lead to imposition of ProPortional
Byrd
Denton
East

circumstances" test
representation?

June 9

Hatch
IIatch
Ilatch Impact of sect. 2 factors which might serve
as a basis for court ordered changes
Hatch
WaIter Berns - "Votings Rights and Wrongs" introduced
by Hatch.t6rry Eastland "Affirmative Voting Rights" introduced
by Hatch
"ihe Trouble with Results" introduced by llatch
John Bunzel "Voting Rights and Bloc Power: Proposed
Bill Chips A$ray Notion of Majority Ru1e" introduced by
IIatch
"The Mobile Decision" (Washington Post) introduced by
Hatch
William French Smith "The Voting Rights Act" intro-
duced by Ilatch
James Buchanan "Reagan Relents on Voting Rights
Extension introduced bY llatch
Kennedy - resuLts test is constitutional, does not
create right to Proportional rePresentation and
restores Lfre legal standard that applied for past 15
years.

June 10

June 14

Hatch
Hatch - Case analysis of scoPe of Section 2 (Mobile)

June 15

810

Cong. Rec. (dai1Y ed. )

s7099

s 7101

s710 2-04

s7104

s7139

III.

s650 2-3
s5505-1 3
s5 5 1 3-15

s6 516 - 21
s6531-33

s6s33-34

s6542
s6543-44

s6546

s6548-49

s6551-5 2

s6560-6r

s6646-4 I Grassley

s6721-22
s6724

unanimous consent).
H.R. 3112 as amended Passed, 85

SECTION 2 STANDARD OF PROOF

Thurmond-Warner: Amend 1032 to modify expiration
date of provisions of Sec. 4 (rejected, 28-66)
(p. S7106 )

fi6fms: Amend 1033 to exempt 42 counties in North
Carolina from Sections 4 and 5 (rejected, 12-81) '
(p.s7107)
iEfms: Amend 1034 to guarantee right to vote in
st,ates with abnormally low percentages of black
voters (rejected, 12-81) (P. S7107)
Nickles: Amend 1035 to aPPly bilingual election
requirements only to members of a single language
minority who do not speak English (adopted by

to I (7 no votes)

June 9

IIatch
IIatch
tlatch Impact of sect. 2 factors which might serve
as a basis for court ordered changes
Hat,ch
walter Berns - ,.votings Rights and wrongs" introduced
by Hatch
firry Eastland "Affirmative Voting Rights" introduced
by Hatch
"The Trouble with Results" introduced by Hatch
John Bunzel "Voting Rights and BIoc Power: Proposed
Bill Chips Away Not,ion of Majority Ru1e" introduced by
Hatch
',The !4obi1e Decision" (washington Post) introduced by
Hatch
William French Smith "The Voting Rights Act" intro-
duced by Hatch
James Buchanan - "Reagan Relents on
Extension introduced bY Hatch

Voting Rights

Kennedy - results test is constitutional, does not
create right to proportional rePresentation and
restores Ltre lega1 standard that applied for past 15
years.

Hatch
Hatch - Case analysis of scoPe of

June 10

June 14

Section 2 (lt{obi1e )

June 15

circumstances" test
representation?

s6'tt8-79

s6 785-6
s6 788
s6 789-90

Specter-Hatch does
lead to imposition of
Byrd
Denton
East

"totalitY of
proportional

B10

Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) JUne I I

civil Iaw

rJune 18

as adopted does not require
2 applies to pending casesi
as well as structural

June 9

5b9JU-J1
s6 940-41
s6 944
s6945
s6959
s6963
s6 965

s7091
s 70 94-96

De Concin]. resuLts test
Hatch
Mat,hias
Thurmond
Mathias/Kennedy colloquy
Spector intent in criminal vs.
He tI in

Hatch
Kennedy - the White test
proof of intenEJ-Ection
and to episodic practices
barriers.

S7105 Do1e,/Warner colloquy
S7108-09 Tsongas
S7138 Byrd

IV. SECTION 2 - DOLE COMPROMISE

s6515-7
s5 519
s654 5-46

Hatch
Hatch
James Kil
Rights ?

s6 780-81 Kennedy

s6866

s6920-2t
s6939-40
s6 960-6 3

s6 964-55

s 7118
s7I1 9-Zt

Why the Cheers in Voting
by llatch

June 15

(

June 16

Hol I ings

June L7

Hatch
IIatch
Dole discusses compromise" Q & A with lhurmond and
East
Heflin - commends Pbfe compromise

June 18

Thurmond
DoIe-QandAwithGorton I

811

' v. DISCLAIMER ON PROPORTIONAT REPRESENTATION

cong. Rec. (daily ed.)

505U5
s5 5 1 0-21
s6549

s6551

-.'05(b')

s5646

s6646

s6'tzt-22

sb / /a- t9

s6 785-6

s69J9-4U
s6942-44
s6945
s6 95 6-5 9

s6959
s6 96 0-6 3
s6966-67

s6957-68

s6959-70

s6970
s5991

"Mr. East and
introduced by
John East, "A
introtluced by

Voting Rights"
Helms
Perversion of
Hel.ms

June 9

(Washington Post)

Voting Rights, "

Ilatch history, development of concept
IIatch
M. Stanton Evans, 'Wi11 Voting Rights Cave-In
Bring Elect,ions by Quota?" introduced by Hatch
J. Buchannan, "Reagan Relents on Voting Rights
Extension introduced bY Hatch

June 10

Hatch - discusses NY
f ut,ure imPl ications

Spector-Hatch - does
lead to proportionaL
Byrd

June 14

city, racial gerrymandering,
from opponents' persPective.

June 15

"totality of circumstances"
representation?

June L7
Hatch
Mathr as
Thurmond
Amendment 1875 to strike section 3 from bill
(rejected)
Mathias resPonse to Amendment 1875
DoLe discusses "comPromise"
East: Amendment L897 to limit courts jurisdiction
t,o use proportional rePresentation as a remedy
(re3ected)
Grassly/Dole resPonse to Amendment 1897; Kennedy -
remedy must be commensurate with the right therefore
no prescriptive remedy should be enacted
Helms: Amendment 1025 to a]low courts to order
proportional rePresentation or quotas in the election
of members of a protected class. GoaL hras to get
on record that Senate rejects pro.port,ional. rePresen-
tation as a remedy. (rejected)
Kennedy response; SPector response
Hatch

-Gl^t\

BL2

Cong. Rec. (daiIy ed.) rJ une 1E

s /u95 Kennedy - Sectlon 2 amendment deals only with
standard for substantive violations; remedy
governed by traditionaL equitable principles and
must completely eliminate prior dilution.

VI. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE

rJune 9

)
(

/
I

s650 7
sb51/-18
s6546

s6't20-21
s6 t'2L-'23

s6944

VII"

s650 2

s6724

s6996

Hatch
Hatch
"Voting Wrongs" - WaI1 Street Journal,
introduced by Hatch

June 14

Moynihan, Flatch
Hatch summarizes case Iaw

June L7

Mathias - revised bailout and proposed
amendments to section 2 are constitutional
exercises of congressional po$rer

THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR VOTING RIGHTS

VIII. BAILOUT

s65U5-6
s6550

June 9

IIatch

June.. 14

Hatch case analysis

June L7

Hatch

June 9

Expansion of Section 5
Kennedy - compromise bailout is not designed
to remove the protection of preclearance without
proof that it, is no longer neededr. jurisdiction
must demonstrate that it has taken'positive
steps to expand participation of minorities
in the pol1tical process

813

Cong. Rec. (dai1y ed. )

soo{u
s6 6 4 3-45
s6649-53

llatch, stattstics on
Helms
Ilatch, I4athias, East,
provision "liberal"

!, Une 10

voter registration

Grassley-is bailout

s6 /85-U9
s6 790-91

s6 u6 1-69

s6 91 6-17
s6931-34
s694 3-44

s6946-48
s6977-82

s6983

s5 9 85-8 9

s6 98 9- 98

s6998-7000

s7091-92
s7092-94

June 15

Byrd, He1ms, Denton
East, He1ms, t'letzenbaun - Reported registration
tor states by race.

June 15

HoIllngs refutes East
voting rights in South

testimony concerning
CaroI i na.

June L7

Kennedy
De Concini
Mathias--only jurisdictions with a record of
compLiance and commiLment. to minority partici-
pation in their political processes would be
eligible to bai.lout.
Thurmond
East: Amendment 1865 to change venue of Sec.
4 and 5, Response by Kennedy (56978) ; ltathias .(S5979) ;Stennis; Thurmond (S6980); East. (rejected)
Stevens: Amendment 1027 aIlows Attorney General
to consent to judgment for plaintiff on showing
of objective and compelling evidence that state orpolitical subdivision has satisfied the requirements
of Section 4 (a) (1). (Modified and agreed to, S6989)
East Amendment 1858 new bailout standard. Response
by Oo1e, Kennedy (rejectedi
Stevens: Amendment 1028 to apply results test of
Section .2 to bailout section burden of proof. Comments
by Hatch, Mathias, Kennedy, Dole (rejected)
Hatch lists objective factors of effects test.
Stevens: Amendment L029 to change bailout provision
to permit a state to bail out even if some of its
counties have not qualified. Mathias comments
(re j ected )

June 18

Hatch,/Byrd
Denton: Amendment 1876 - new bailout standard
( rel ec tecl )

ResPonse by Kennedy, tvlathias

B14

Cong. Rec. (daily ed.)

s/u96 Kennedy - burden is on jurisdiction in bailout
suit to prove that minorities have equal
access, etc.

57098 Stevens Amendment 1031 to clarify phrases "anywhere
in territory" and "al1 governmental units within its
territory" under bailout
Mathias, Kennedy comment (rejected)

57099 Thurmond - Warner: Amendment 1032 to modify expiration
date of preclearance provisions. (from 25 years) (rejected)
Kennedy, llathias comment.

S7101 Helms: Amendment 1033 to exenpt 42 counties in
North Carolina from sections 4 and 5 (rejected)

S7108-9 Tsongas
57118 Thurmond
S7137-38 Byrd

IX" PRECLEARANCE - SECTION 5 EXTENSION:CONTINUED NEED

June 9
56501 Helms - N. Carolina statistics
56559-60 Kennedy - hearings demonstrate continuing efforts t,o

deny minorities fair and equal access to the political
process; bailout compromise

June 10

56640-43 Hatch, including statistics on voter registration
56543-45 Helms
56647 "U.S. Again Rejects Alabama Redistricting,"

introduced by Helms

June 14

56723-24 Hatch - summarizes cases on constitutionality of
Section 5 preclearance, jurisdictions covered, changes
covered, municiple annexation.

June 15

S6785-88 Byrd, Helms, Denton
56790-91 Helms, East Mezenbaum - Reported Registration for

Stat,es by Race (corrections made by IIollings,
s6948-49)

June 16

S5853-55 He1ms
S6856-57 Stevens new Section 5 is unconstitutional

B15

Cons. Rec. (daiIy ed.)

55860 Byrd, llelms
56861 Hollings - Ilistory of discrimination in South

Carol ina
55867-69 East, Hollings discuss nationwide apPlication.

(including letters introduced by Hollings from
Daniel McLeod, Attorney General, South Carolina
and Richard Riley)

56869-70 East

June 17

S5917 Kennedy
56930-34 De Concini (Arizona study)
5694L-44 llathias - constitutionalit,y of bailout,
56948-54 Hollings F. Carolina statistics; contradicts

Thurmond testimony (56790-91)
56955-56 Thurmond "SouEh has made great progress"

Hollings responds

June 18

S7083-86 Cochran: Amendment 1898 - nationwide preclearance
with submission of any changes under preclearance
provisions to appropriate district court.
Response: Kennedy, !4athias, Stennis, Nunn (rejected)

S7087-90 Nunn: Amendment 1030 timely action by Attorney
General regarding preclearance. Response: Kennedy,
Mathias, Nunn (rejected)

S7099 Thurmbnd-Warner: Amendment 1032 to modify expiration
date of provisions of section 4. (reject,ed)

57101 Helms: Amendment 1033 to exempt 42 counties in
North Carolina from Section 4 and 5 (rejected)

57108 Tsongas

X. SECTION 2 AND SECTION 5 COMPARED

June 9

56506 Hatch
56507-10 Hatch
S6510 Chambers (NAACP Legal Defense Fund) cited in

Hatch speech.

June 17

56991-92 Kennedy - vot,er does not have to prove a Section 2
case under bailout; burden is on jurisdiction to
prove that minorities participate fu1Iy in
political process.

56993-95 Do1e, Stevens, Hatch

June 18

S7095-96 Kennedy - evrdence of retrogression does not
govern Sect,ion 2 cases, but is relevant; under
Section 5, even where no retrogresdion,'Attorney
General should object if "resu1t" is discriminatory

815

XI. BILINGUAL ELECTION ASSISTANCE

Cong. nec. (dai1y ed. ) June 9

56561 Kennedy - best !'ray to avoid insularity is t'o
bring people into the polit,ical processi
administrative burden and cost of bilingual
assistance is not excessive.

June 15

56791-92 Domenlcl

June 17

S69U2-a3 Stevens Amendment 1026 to provide
clariflcat,ion ot bilingual provisions (adopted)

June 18

S7075-81 Hayakawa: Amendment 1879 to repeal certain
provisions relating to bilingual election require-
ments (rejected) Huddleston, Mathias, Kennedy
Comment

557104 Nickles: Am€ndment 1035 to aPply bilinguai
eLection requirements only to members of single
Language minorities who do not speak EngIish.
(adopted)

57109 Tsongas
S7111-L2 Cranston

817

APPENDIX C

Chronologleal fndex to Comlttee
Hearlngs

Subcomlttee on Civil and
Constitutional trUlghts of
the Eouse Comittee on the
Judiciary (!,tay 6, 1981
July 13, 1981)

Strbcomnittee on the Constitution
of, the Senate JudlcJ.ary (January
27, L982 - !,tarch l, 1982)

CHRONOLOGICAI, INDEX
HOUSE HEARINGS*,/

MAY 6, 1gg1
WASHTNGTON, D. C.

Pages

Topics: Whether to extend ttre Voting Rights Act of 1-84
1965: contj.nuing need for protections
provid,ed for by the Act

Present: Representatives Edwards, l,Iashington, Hyde,
Sensenbrenner, Lungren

Witnesses:
-------Vernon Jordan, President, National Urban League 7-Lg

Lane Kirkland, President, AFL-CIO 19-30
William Velasquez, Executive Director, South- 30-58

west Voter Registration Education Project
Benjamin Hooks, Executive Director, NAACP 58-69

Bills: H.R. 3112, introd,uced by Rodino
H.R. 3198, introduced Ui gyae
H.R. L407, introduced by McCloskey

82-84

H"R. 2942, introduced by Tfromas, ltcCloskey, 79-8I
Badha.m

H.R. 1731, introduced by McClory

MAY 7, 1gg1
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Topics: Continuing need for protections provided for 85-157
by the Act

Present: Representatives Edwards, Kastenmeier,
Washington, Hyde, Sensenbrenner, and Lungren

Witnesses:

70-7L
72-75
76-78

87-L02Rev. Ralph Abernathy, West Hunter Street
Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia

Hon. Polly Baca Barrangan, Colorado State L02-L29
Senator

Pablo SeEillo, Director, Hispanic Affairs, U.S. L29-L62
Catholic Conference of Bishops; David
Saperstein, Union of American Eebrew
Congregations; and George Telford, Vice-
President, National Cor:ncil of Churches

Bi1ls: H.R. 3473, introduced by Hyde

hts Act: Heari.ngs
Before the Subcommittee on Civll and Constituti.onal
Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 97th
Cong., lst Sess. (1981).

L53-L67

MAY 13, 1981
WASEINGTON, D. C.

Pages

Topics: Continuing ne_ed for extension of the special L69-203
provisions of the Voting Rights Act

Present: Edwards, Kastenmeier, Schroeder, Washington
"Hyde, Sensenbrenner

Witnesses:
T'ev.JesseL.Jackson,Presid,entoperationPush170-18I

Archibald Cox, Chairman, Common Cause 181-190
Hon. Roberto Mondragon, Lieutenant Governor 191-197

of State of New Mexi.co
Ruth Hinerfeld, President, League of Women L97-203

Voters of the United States

May 19, 1981
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Topics: Continuing need to extend special provisions of 205-354
the Voting Rights Act

Present: Representatives Edwards, Schroeder, Washington,
Hyde, Sensenbrenner, and Lungren

Witnesses:
Tobert Brinson, city Attorney, Rome, Ga. 205-223

Hon. Julian Bond, State Senator from Georgia, 224-254
accompanied by Barbara Phi1lips, Lawyers
Conunittee for Civil Rights Und,er Law and
James CJ.yburn, Commissioner, South Carolina
Human Affairs Commission

Dr, James Loewen, Professor, Dept. of Sociology, 254-278
University of Ve:mont

Additional material submitted by witnesses 278'354

MAY 20, 1981
WASHTNGTON, D. C.

Iopics: The Voting Rights Act in the State of Virginia 355-415

Present: Representatives Edward,s, Washington, Hyde
Sensenbrenner, and Lungren

Witnesses:

--tton.ThomasJ.B1iIey,JE.,RePreSentatj.vein356-364

Congress from State of Virginia
Hon. Ilenry Marsh, Mayor of Richmond, Va.; 364-401

Michael Brown, Fie1d Director for Branches,
Virginia State Conference, NAACP; and Hon.
Doug Wilder, Virginia State Senator

[May 20 , 1981 Contrd]

Witnesses:

Pages

Rev. Curtis Harris, President, State Southern 401-415
Christian Leadership Conference, Hopewell,
Va., James GaY, Esq., Norfo1k, Va., and
Rev. I. Joseph Williams, National Presid,ent
of the United Christian l'ront for Brotherhood,

- Antioch Baptist Church, Norfolk, Va"

MAY 27, 1981
WASHTNGTON, D" C.

Topics: Lega1 and, historical basis for preclearance 4L7-468
mechanism; conti.nuj.ng need for special
provisions of the Voting Rights Act

Present: Representatives Edwards, Washington,
Sensenbrenner, Evans, McClory

Witnesses:

-1erberto.Reid,Sr.,Professor,Howard418.439

University and, Jack Greenberg, Director-
Cou.nsel, NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc"

A. B. Saye, Professor, University of Georgia; 440-468
Charles Cotrell, Professor, Department of
Political Science, St" Mar1"s University of
San Antonio and Richard Engstrom, Professor
of Political Sciencer University of New
Orleans.

MAY 29, 1gg1
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Topics: Problems and progress in voting rights in
Mississippi

469-572

Present: Representatives Edwards, Hyde and Sensenbrenner

9{itnesses:
Dr. Aaron Henry, President, Mississippi State 469-489

Conference, NAACP, accompanied by Rims
Barber, Mississippi Project Director,
Childrenrs Defense Fund, Jackson, Mississippi.

Frank Parker, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 489-572
Under Law, Washington, D. C., accompanied by
Fred Banks, State Representative, Jackson,
Mississippi, and Bennie Thompson, Supervisor,
Hinds County, Mississippi.

Pages

JtNE 3, 1981
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Topj.cs: Voting rights problems in Georgia, Alabama and, 573-883
South Carolina

Present: Representatives Edwards, Hyde, Sensenbrenner

Witnesses:
Trian sherman, Professor of Sociology,

Oglethorpe University, Atlanta, Georgia;
J. F. Smithr School Board Mernber, Henry
County, @orgia and Herman Lodge, Burke
County, Georgia

Laughlin McDona1d, Director, Southern Regional 590-751
Office, ACLU, Atlanta, Georgia and Ed Brown,
District Coordinator, NAACP, Camilla and,- Mitchell Counties, Georgia

Abigail Turner, Lega1 Services Corp,of Alabama, 751-841
l,lobiIe, Alabama; Theresa Burroughs, Chairman
of the Board,, Hale County Civic Improvement
League and Hon. Eddie Hardaway, District
Judge, Sumter County, Alabama.

IIon. James Buskey, State Representative, It{obile, 841-858
Alabama; Rev. John S. Nettles, State
President, Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, Anniston, Alabama and Fred Gray,
Esq-, Tuskegee, Alabama

Hon. Robert Woods, State Representative, 868-883
Charleston, S. C., accompanied by Armand,
Derfner, Director, Voting Rights Project,
Joint Center for Political Studies,
Washington, D. C. and Thomas McCain, Chairman,
Edgefield County Democratic Party, Edgefield
County, S. C.

JtNE 5, 1981
AUSTIN, TEXAS

Topics: Problems and, progress in voting rights in Texas; 885-1437

Present: Representatives Edwards, Hyde and Sensenbrenner

Witnesses:
TamDal,,son,Legis1ativeRepresentative,United885-1437

Steelworkers of America; John Henderson,
Human Relations Director, AFL-CIO; Isaac
Jackson, United, Steelworkers of America;
Manuel O. Ysaguirre, Human Relations
Director, AE'L-CIO and President, State of Texas
Labor Council for tatin American Advancement;
and A. C. Sutton, State President, NAACP

573-590

[June 5, 1981 Contrdl Pages

Witnesses:

-ilon.

Robert Krueger, former congressman 902-929
Joaquin Avila, Associate Cor:nselr Mexican- 929-LL92

American Legal Defense Fund, San Antonio,
Texas; Hon. Adolpho Alvarea, Sr., Coutty
Cormnissioner, Frio County, Texasi Jesus
Trinidad, Sequin, Texas and Alfredo Arriola,
A1ice, Texas

AI Edwards, Texas State Represent,ative 1192-1198
Douglas Caddy, former Director, Elections 1198-1237

Division, office of the Texas Secretary
of State

Ruben Bonilla, National President, League of L237-L262
United Latin American Citi.zens ILULAC]
accompanied by Roland Rios, counsel, South-
west Voter Registration Education Project

Mark White, Attorney General of the State of L263-L274
Texas

Hon. Bernardo Eureste, member, San Antonio L274-L279
City Council

IIon. PauI Ragsd,ale, Texas State Representative, L279-L347
Dallas

Paul l4oreno, Texas State Representative, L347-1351
- EI Paso

O1ivia Walker, Staff Representative, B1ack 1351-1353
Caucus, Texas State Legislature

George Korbel, Esg", representing Texas' Rural 1353-1361
Legal Assistance

Additional material submitted for the Record 1363-1437
by Ruben Bonilla

JUNE 10, 1981
WASHTNGTON, D. C.

Topics: Testj-mony regarding the administration of 1439-1510
Section 5 from the perspective of state
officials; implementation of L975 minority
language provisions

. Present:
#:3iliffir:i:';;i"l'Iix;il,,Kastenmeier'

WitnesseS:
Hon. Haro1d E. Ford, representative in Congress 1440-1448

from Tennessee
Hon. Robert Abrams, State Attorney General, L449-1462

State of New York
Daniel McLeod, Attorney General, State of L462-147L

South Carolina

lJr:ne 10, 1981 Contrd] paqes

Witnesses:

-ilon.

Paul McCloskey, JE. , representative in L47z-L483
Congress from the State of California

Hon. Robert Garcia, representative in Congress 1483-1490

Burguillo, Jr., and Antonio Hernandez
Arnold Torres, Congressional Liaison, League 1490-1510

of United Latin American Citizens, and
Henry Der, Executive Director, Chinese for
Affirmative Action

JtNE 12, 1981
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

Topics: Voting rights in Alabama and I'fississippi 1511-1750

Present: Representatives Edwards, Washington, Hyde

Witnesses:
TmoryFo1mar'MayorofMontgomery,A1abama1512-1525

Maggie Bozeman, A1icevil1e, Alabama; 1525-159I
Sheriff Prince Arno1d, Camden, Alabama;
W. C. Patton, retired National Director,
NAACP Voter Education Project, and Dr.
Joe Reed, Chairman, Alabama Democratic
Conference

Hon. Don Siegelman, Secretary of State of 1591-1505
Alabama

l"layor Richard. Arrington, Birmingham, Alabama, 1505-1521
State Senator Michael Figuresr Alabama;
Larry Fluker, Evergreen, A1abama.

Anne Find,ley-Shores, President, Alabama League L6ZL-L624
of Women Voters

Haley Barbour, Vice Chair, llississippi State L624-L669
, Republican Party, Yazoo City, Mississippi

and Stone Barefieldr t4ember, l,tississippi
Eouse of Representatj.ves

Betty Paulette, Mac6n, Mississippi; James Figgs IG69-L682
member, euitman County School Board, Marks,
Mississippi, accompanied by Robert Walker,
Field Director, NAACP, Jackson, Mississippi,
and Jasper Nee1y, President Grenada County,
Mississippi Chapter, NAACP

Charles Victor t'lcTeer, Greenville, !4ississippi, 1682-1750
Senator Henry Kirksey, Jackson, Mississippi
and Martha Bergmark, member, Advisory
Conunittee, U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

JUNE 15, 1941
WASHTNGTON, D. C.

Cont,inued need for Voting Rigths Act

Representatives HYde and Edwards

Pages

175 1-1814

17s1-175 3

L754-L760

175 1-1 791

1791-1814

r818-1831

18 32-1855

1856 -186 1

186 3-r923

1 85 4-r8 76

1875-1900

190 0-1913

Witnesses:

-iton.

Lawrence DeNard'is, Representative from
3rd Congressional District of Connecticut'

Father nobert f. Drinan, Vice Presidentr
Americans for Democratic Action

Arthur Flemming, Chairman, U' S' Commission
on Civil nights, accomPanied by Louis
Nunez, Staff Director

Raymond H. Brown, Director, Vot'ing Rights
Research Project, Southern Regional
Cor.rncil

Topics:

Present:

Topics:

Present:

Witnesses:

Bills:

JUNE 17, 1981,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Enforcement exPerience under Voting Rights 'Act 1815-1851

Representatives Edwards and HYde

J. Stanley Pottinger, former Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
U" S. DePartment of Justice

Eddie N. wi1liams, President, Joint Center
for Political Studies

H.R. 3948 introduced by Hyde: Purpose of bill
is to extend Voting Fuights Act with a
liberalized, bail-out Provision

JUNE 18, 198I
WASHTNGTON, D. c.

Topics: The Voting Rights Act in Texas and the South-
west; tne language minority provisions

Present: Representatives Edwards, Kastenmeier,
Washington, Rodino

Witnesses:

-iton.

Barbara Jordan, former Member, u's" House
of RePresentatives

Vilma S. Martinezt President and General
Counsel, t'lexican-American Lega1 Defense
and Educational Frrnd (I4ALDEF)

David Dunbar, Generai Counsel, National
Congress of Amerj-can Indians (NCAI)

lJune L6, 1981 Contrdl Pages

Witnesses:
TrohnTrasvina,Commissioner,Citizens1913-1923

Advisory Commi,ttee on Elections,
San Francisco

JtiNE 23, 1981
WASIIINGTON, D. C.

Topics: Testimony generally on extension of Voting L925-L979
Rights Act

Present: Representatives Edward,s, Schroeder,
Washington, Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Lungren

Witnesses:

-l,tarcStepp,VicePresident,Internationa11925-1935

Union, United Automobile, Aerospece &

Agricultural Implement Workers of
America - UAW

Coretta Scott King, President, King Center, L937-1942
Atlanta, Georgia

Geraldine Thompson, Executive Director, 1942-L957
Voter Education Project, Atlanta, Georgia

Mary Estill Buchanan, Secretary of State, 1957-1955
Colorado

Dr. Foy Valentine, Executive Director, L965-1970
Christian Life Commission, Southern
Baptist Convention

George Sheldon, State Representative, Elorida 1970-1979

JUNE 24, 1981
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Topics: General testimony; historical analysis of 1981-2065
voting rights; Bolden and, Section 2

Present: Representatives Edwards, Schroeder,
Washington, Ilyde, Sensenbrenner

Witnesses:

-iton.Wa1terE'r'arrrrtroy,Delegatetothe1981-1987

Congress of the United States from D.C.,
and Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus

Lloyd McBrid,e, President, U.S. Steel Workers 1987-1999
of America; Thurman Phillips, Director-
elect of Southern District; Sam Dawson,
Union Representative, Texas; Frank Mont,
Director, Civil Rights Department and
Alfredo l,tontoya, LACLA Representative

fJune 24, 1981 Cont'd] Pages

Witnesses:

-or.c.VannWoodward,ProfessorEmeritusLggg-2o28

of History, Yale University and Dr" J.
Morgan Kousser, Professor of llistory,
California Institute of Technology

David Wa1bert, Esg., Assistant Professor 2028-2065
of Law, School of Law, Emory University,
Atlanta, Georgia; James Blacksher, Esq. r
Mobile, Alabar,ra; Armand Derfner, Esq.,
Coordinator, Voting Rights Act Project,
Joint Center for Political Studies

JUNE 25, 1981
WASHTNGTON, D. C.

Topics: Enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights 2067-2L09
Act

Present: Representatives Edwards, Washington,
Schroed,er, Hyde

Witnesses:

-",osephE.Lowery,President,Southern2o68-2o75

Christian Leadership Conference
Professor Howard Ball, Chairman, Department 2075-2098

of Political Science, It{ississippi State
University

WiLbur O. Colom, Esg., Columbus, Mississippi 2098-2109

JULY 13, lggL
WASHTNGTON, D. C.

Topics: Justice Department enforcement of Voting 2111-2151
Rights Act

Present: Representatives Ed,wards, Kastenmeier,
Schroeder, Sensenbrenner, Washington, illde

-
witnesses';rews

s. Days, rrrr Law professor, yare 2115-2151
University

Appendices:
Prepared statements and supplemental material 2153-2813
Correspondence with the Department of Justice 22L4-2375

regarding enforcement Process

CHRONOLOGICAI INDEX TO SENATE COMiUITTEE HEARINGS (1982)

Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Senate Judiciary

January 27, L982 - March 1, L982

Januorv 27. the subcommittee toolc testimonv from William French
S;i[EtEtAttorncy Generul of the United States; Professor Walter
Berns, American Enterprise Instititn; Bcnjamin Hooks, Executive
Dirrcctor, NAACP; Vilmr Mnrtinez, Executive Director, ilIexican
Americon I*gel Defenso nnd Education Fund; Ruth Hinerfeld,
President, L.eague of Women Voters; and U.S. Senator Charles
Mrthios of Marvland.

On Jga1trery--?$, the Subcommittee lreard U.S. Senator Thad
Cochran of Mississippi ; Laughlin McDonald, Director of the Southern
Regional _Qffi"" q! ihle Ameiican Civil Libeities Union; U.S. Repre-
se.ntative He.nry_Hyde of Illinols_; P.rotssor Barry.Gross, City Coliege
9_f _Ney York; Henry ilIarsh III, the Mayor of Richmond, Virginia;p.p. Reprgsentotivo Thomas Bliley of Virginio; &nd Pro"fessoi
Edward tsrler, Nacional }lumanities Center.

On IsbrggDLJ, the subcommictee heard U.S. Representative Cald-
w_ell Butler of Virginia; Professor Susan McMaius, University of
HousLon; Joequin Avila,'Associote Counsel of the Meiicon-Amer-ican
4SyL Qeiense

-and
Education I'und ; Steven S uiits, Execu tivc Director

of the S_outhern Regional Council; and David lValbert, Attorney and
formcr Professor at-Ilmorv Universitv.

On l,'cbrrnrv 2. the srrT:eorrrrnittcc'tooli tcstinrony fronr Profe.ssor
Johrr Bunzel, Iloover fnstitution at Stonford Univeisiuy: Stots Sena-
tor lfenry Ifirksev of }lississippi: Pmfessor lrfichadl'Levin. Citv
Coilgge of Nerv York; Abigaif Turner, Attorney; and Armanl
Derfner, Joint Center foi Political Studies.

On Februorv 4, the subcornrnittco heard U.S. Senator S. I. Ilava-
kawa of California; Governor Williom Clements of Texos; U.S.
_Representotiyo James Sensenbrenner of 'Wisconsin; E. Freeman
I-everett, Attorney; Professor Norman Dorsen, New Y6rk University,
representing tho Arnerican Civil Libcrtics Uni6n; Josoph Rauh, LosA:
olshi p

^Con
ference _on Civil R i ghts ; ar:rd R olando' Rios,'Legal Director

of tho Southwest Voter Resistia,tion Proiect.
On E*$&ry-JJ, the iubcommittee'hcard Robert Brinson, At-

t-orneyl Tl:omas IIcCain, Chairmon, Denrocratic Party of Edgefield
County, South Qarolinaj Arthur Flemming, Chairmin of th; U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights; and Frank Pailier, Dir.ector of the Vot-
iag Rights Project, Low-yers,Committee for Civil Rights under Law.

On &!fC&ry.1! the subcommittee heard Profess6r Henrry Abra-
bam,_U_nivorsity of Virgrnia; Julius Chambers, President, N^q*q.Cp
_f"glt Defelrse Fun{; Piofessor Donald Horowi'tz, Duke University;
Professor James Blumstein, Vonderbilt University; ond Professoi
Drew Davs. Yale Universitv.

On Fe6rirarv 25, the suEcommittee heard frving younger. Attor-
ney ; P^rofessor Ar-chi,bald Cox, Harvard University,-represeitirig Com-
Bon Causel Professor G"g"g" _Coc.\a1, Unive*ity-of ilIissiSsippi;
Nathan Dershowitz, Americai Jewish Consress: Divid Brink. p'r:esl

ident, Ame{gan Ear Association; Arnoldo forre6, Executive Director,
krgo" of United Latin American Citizensl and Charles Colemanj
Attorney.
__On. -U*Lt the subcommittee heard from U.S. Representative
I{lryld-'Washlngton- of flhnois; U.S. Representative John Conyers
of }fichigan; IIS. Representative'lYaltei Fauatroy of the Disdrict
of Columbi?; glq 'W'illiom Bradford Reynolds, A&istant"Attoraey
General of the United States for Civil Riglits.

c10

APPENDIX D

Committee RePortg

Table of Contents, Eouse Comtittee on the
Judiciary, Report on E.R. 3112, H. Rep. No
277,97th Cong., J.st Sess. (1981)

fable of Contents, Senate Conunittee on the
Judiciary, Report on S. L992' S. Rep. No.
4L7, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1982)

REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ON THE VOTING RTGIITS ACT EXTENSION (L98L)*/

Table of Contents
page

Ilntroduction..l
II Purpose and Sunuuary of Amended H.R. 3112 1

III History of BiIl, Subcommittee and Committee
Proceedings....

Iv Background,: Origin and operation of the
Voting Rights Act

V' Progress Under the Voting luights Act

vI Compliance with Section 5 Preclearance

vII Continued Need for Section 5 Preclearance" .

A. Discrimination in Registration and
Voting

B. Discrimination in the Electoral L7
Process . .

VfII Federal Examiners

IX Language Assistance

A. Background.

B. Section 203 of the Act. .

C. Implementation of Section 203

D. Continuing Need For Language

x Amendrents to Section 2 "

XI Amendments to Section 4 (a) -Bai1 Out

XII Alternative Proposals to tunend, the
Rights Act of 1965. .

Assistance 25

Provi-sion 32

Voting

XIII Section-by-section Analysis

XMstimated, Costs

XV Inflationary Impact

XVI Changes in Existing Law . .

XVII Supplemental Views of Representatives
IlydeandLtrngren .. ..

XVIII. Supplemental Views of Representative
McC1ory

XIX Dissenting Views of Representatives Butler.

Page

y House Committee
H.R. No, 227, 97th

Judiciary, Report
lst Sess. (1981).

on the
Cong.,

on H.R. 3112,

REPORT OF BHE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACE EXTENSION (L982)T'/

TABLE OT'CONTENTS

PARA I

Report of the Conmittee

I. IatroductioD------
_ | I. plir"* ;.nq s.u'";i;i ;-an;i,;;i;e nii : : _: :: _: :: : : : : : : : - - _ : : - -[.1. $istory of Bill and Committec I'roceedings-_lv. Sacksroutrcl: Unsin and Operation of the Voting Rights,\cr--__--
_V. Conti-nued lieerl"For Secti<in ; precieaianc.__-__--____
VI. Committee Amcndmenr To Seetion 2 of ili;r;aing Rtglrr.-I;;:::A. Overvies.--

s. orisl n_ii L;;t-iili,. -
t ; j;i;a;;

;
-

;?
- -s;;i

i,o"
-
t

-
i;

- ih;
1965 Act

c. rh J iaiij i; p ii;td;;;",: V;;; -bii;ri;; -C;;-
d"-ro;;

the lJolden Litigntion_--- _- __ -- -_ _ _ __
D. Thr..Operation of-Section 2 as Amencl"a-tt-the C;;;iti;;

Biu-__-_
n. nei p onie_to b-u-.-'tioi J R;;*'A ; b ;;i -iulr- i ;nuirr ti- il-.; ;

of the Committee Amendment-_-
F. Limitations of Th,r Inte;tT;.;;:--:------'----
G. Constiturionality of ttre Cuniiliitoe ,i--en-,.i,ir"rT t-.ilS1*

tion 2- -- /

!_!_!. _Qommiltee balo-w pro"-i.i"ri
_ - _ -i _ _: :: :: :: : - : - _ - _ - : - :: : : :_ - -

Patr
1,
3
4
I

l5
1.5

3t
:10

39
43
62
64
68
lo
79
8l
8l
88
94

188
193
196
200
20r

VIII. Voter Assistance Amendment- _-_:__--__-.Ix. Extension oJ Bilinguat Etectio; p;;;i.i;;; :
- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

X.' Section-by-Section Anaiysis- _ _ - - _ - _ _:: - _ : : _ .XI. Recorded Votes in C"-irilt"" --
_XL Recorded Votes in Comhlttee-::_:::::::. -
XII. Estimated Costs-- - --__-___-_-

---
tIJ.l. Lesu6i;']'

-I
-;;;;--= : - : - : : : : : : _ : : : : - _ :.

- - - -

-\IY.. Chrnges in Uxisring t L*- _ - __ -_ -:-: __:::: _: -: :::::::::: :: :: :_A<lditiontl Viervs of Scnttor Thurnrontl_--__:___.
Additionrrl Vies,s of Stnstor IIrtch_ _ _ _-_---_--__:.
Adrlitionol Viervs of Senstor Laxutt_-__--:_-:-:. -----
Additional Viervs of Scnator Uttc______-__:::::. ------

Additional Views of Senator Denton--:_-_:__- - --

(III)

*/ Senate Conunittee
S. Rep. No. 4L7,

on the Judiciary, RePort on s.L992,
97th Cong. , Znd Sess. (1982)

APPENDIX E

Statement of Senator Kennedy, L28 Cong.
Rec. S.7095 (June 18, 1982)

I
I.-!
I

I-'l
I,I

Eongrsssionel ]R srurf,
pRocEEDrNGs

^rrrD
DE&rTEs or rHB 97d "onor."o

sEcoND sEssroN

vd t28 VASHINGTON, THI,'BSDAY, JUNE 18,1962 t{o,7?

llr. REINNEDY.

Sen:ate

s 7095

EosGvcr, tha Aoot ErrFrltf! dater
Denlt rrc Slven 6ert s€l8ht la lacer.prcttng r bill. Uefilu.LtncL lr14. v.
Ctutzn tO U.SJ. Weck ,1{?l n 16(198:l). I Eot tbrt sbllc thc Scaator
O:oa Utlb rrr th. rrrrn-Bor Of thctpoUoD'to Drocc.4 tJrc renlor Sarstor

- At thls poht" lft Prerldegtr 1pa6 lron lttrr5lhd l, tbc OOor rnrn.gc! Offron ny dllclrsdon of thtr ioeiutc thc blu ltElf.
enendneotIrbbtospeltsmorcSin .-?o-trla oa. lEDor.t nt crrrrrplc ol
erall% 8a tlre Democrauc floor men Cbc dlllcraocce bctscea tbg r-riagut
ager of St 1992 ead onc of ltr orlglnsl of tbc blll. on tJrc one hend. and the
:poD.orq lbgut, my understsiolng ot Senstoi6n Utetr, 6n iie ottrer, theme rntended meanlnS of tJrc blu atrd senator frpm utah hss tried repested-8EIt tts leglslEttvc htstory. ty to lnvlt ttrc-suprene Courf to tn-
. Mr. Fesident" Elthough tberc has tetpttt thc coranlt-tee imendpent asbeen e lot of floor flmCerpcnded on rn-lntant t sE otsdc vertaUon of anthls measure, much of thrt flme tr"ss intcnt or e pureocc requtrement. SC
been spent debattrry the moiloa to pro- has been lnieaious eni- aeterainea.
ceed.- and- in geuoral statenenti ol but he lsstlll-fletty rroni.prlnctple for aad ss8lDst thLr lmpor- Tlre most criudl of ttiise ellorts tgtatrt Eeasurc I e,m tbereforc gotni to th6 senator lrou Utab,s atteEpt totatc scvcnl Eouedtl ta gunmertzc sus8cat tJret tbc comnlttee tnadvcrt.
so.-oc of tbc lnpottant sspcct! of tbc ently adopted tbe wbitc staaa$a ue-
DllJ'_ 8l qrqDrGt of thc btll on thrr eldc caulr thG comntttcc mretntcr?rets
6f tlg rlqlc. tJut csso. ThG Scn3tor has rngtutitncd
- Forturt€ly. I slU not brvc to bC ax" tJrst, properly unaerstoo+ the Srhltihrurtlvc becausc tJrc senat€'Judlciary again* Reg*tcr cese nas lrotrrc re.connittcc trporq prcs€Dted bv sena. qulrement of purpoco wtrlcn premt[is
rcr MAt:uAs. Ees ru excellcnt efpod- rlust esteb[sh llo or.r:ler to chellengc
tlon, of thc tntendcd neenlng and op- succcasfulty e perttsrrtar clectloacrltlon ol the blll. meilrod orbracttce.In tlet reSBrC I should Dot tbtt I I woulct ttrc to nLfe the record veryspprrcirto ihe ellorts of flrg dLsun clear oa thls potaL The report o( thi
culsbed senetor fron utab ln conaec. meJortty vlcqi ol the com.ulttec ex-tlou wlth ure uotton to Drocccd. of ptaiu why we bcuevi ttri wnrtc testqoursc- blt stataEcntt durtrs tbc psst brs ao elemcat of lntent es e rcqutrc.
scveral days hcvc bccn rn erce[eat Eedt to pFore a vlobtton- Tlret ii ii-statcncut of hls vlcrn tn oppatuoa to pls.ined it pese! al *rrough AO enathe- blll-oade sttJr hls

- lr$sl flnc pegcs 6? ani ga of tne report. I needsllu-nonctielesr tJrcy are not eu iu. iroi rcpest tnet ana,tysts uire. gut ttretJrorlt:tlve explenattoa ol thc ut& conmittce sent oL to nota. and r
dncG hc. o( coursa. oppoecd tlc potC quode:
coEDroE !e srrbcdhrta. rblch tr nos th' coorntttco h.! coDcludcd th8t whltr,tlre comnlttee blll bc(ore ua snc stnco roa tlc aocd;ur touounili-uroc no trDd.
bC tus bcctl I Eogt vtgoroui aaa out IDS rDd nqulnd oo prpol rs to thc ootlvr-
gPokan opDoncBt ol tJrc, ndnclnlc d tloa os 9urDo.., bchlDd th. pnctlce or $nrc"
turcs of thc blll. --- tutc tn qucatloo. Rsclsdlcs. of dlrtGillrs l!"el #ilff:lH#H.$#5ffirbccultc tbc courtl r*$lt? thtt-.ttr fiii..--t o( pr!,vtDs dtrcctdarrory pur.thetr zeal to defcat r btll- *o o*o. iiif tn" re.dtta tatat of thh rDGodEGtr!
DCDtr "rrldorstrubbly t Dd to ovlr- L idrr tlCnrlaurti Ery-ah"aa to 6trbctrtc ttt rrerch.: Etrl,f &. Etwt v. Urn <Us|ntrtorf rurltr Utnout pro-vtac
Hof,,lly'el&r, {2! U8. fAt'10{D" 2a layllodof tUqlnlartoryDur?oc.
(:,ct6).

ltat ls rt p88c 28, ![r. Prcddcot
- . As neotloned ln ihc report' tbe sec'

Uitnere-Uc uo questton ttrea. We tlon 2 stendrrd ls uot the grae as tbe
arc-wAi1,,. tnto lcw or' unde6tsDdlnli sectlon t st8nda*L Tbls means not
of

-
tbC 'WUttp tcst AJld otrr trsder.. only thEt s€ctlon I ls govemcd by tbe

Jtsaafng f tnat thls looks only to the tote[ty 91, tJrc clrcunstances fectors'
;mtts;f I clatleaged lrw, ln tbe to. but lt rlso ueana tbst tbc rcCroSres'
i.ttW oi tnJ ctrguE tsaces-sttb no glou requlreacat o! Beer 88sllrst
frrrirencat of ptuvlns purpolc. BJrt lr.Dlted Stst€! doct not 89ply to sec'
iiiufa tne Stglr,lt Coft-tn ibglsnd- tlon 2 cascr-etthough ol @un36. rruch
6r-e matoaly----.--ot tnc Court..crincludc s Fetrogrslglon Pould be relevent evl'
tUere ts-c prirposo clemelrt lD Whlte, dence ln E sectlon 2 @. At tbe sane
i[in tne drnitttec nonethelecr hg5 tlEe, as the rcport pototE out. \rhere
arstt€d-i biU tb8t docs not lncono. tJrerc lr r sectloa C submlsslon whlch
;t€ thts requtreueat, end tbst la thc ls uot retrcglsslve' lt sould bc obJect:
ixttEstc ieriaauvi titcat o! tJrc blU ed to onlv lf the nes practlce ltse[
we-are aaoptlrig heat toDfghL vlolated the Coastltutlon ot rmeaded

Tlre blll' of -coursc. luE rnrny fG& s€ctlon 2.
turer, but I sould lltse to cnphasrzc lvtr. Prestdcnt, e! the rcport Eakes
scveral key Dottrts lor tlre couddera,. absolutely clear, tbe remedy for eoy
tlon ol tbo S€Dst€. - yotlnS rtgbt vlolstloB Eust be coE'

FlrsL addressilag tbc aJEieadmeDt to 6snsulat€ sltb tJre rlght ibst has
sectton 2. whlch lncotDorst€s thc "re- trcdtt vtolated Fol thi! leasot\ the
sultl" test to place ol tlre "rntent" test so6El;t6g dlres6 the coufis la cor'
set out ln tbc pluraltty oplalou ln recttnc sectloD 3 vlolstloB to exerctse
Mob[e 888lr,Et BoldcD. tJrerc ls !8 €x' tbelr tradltlonal equitable powers to
telrslve dlscusslon of bow thls t€Et ts to lmplemelt rcllel tbat completely ren'
be applled ta tJra geDste comnlttee edler tJrc prtor vtolEtloDs or dllutlon ot
repor0. Einortty votlnt stren$h- Based uDon

'nre test to be eppUed eS8lDst tbe to' 6tsbltEhed aad accepted concepts ol
tallty of clrcuustrncec as got out la equlty e5d erbttDg case' lEw, the
Whlte agalnst Regester aod thc calo couts hevc e duty 91 sectlon 2 cases to
lEv under tL Tb"gt test doc3 mt provldc equal opfrtnDlty for Elnor-
deDend upon 8ny flndlns or lnlerencc tty ctttzens to partlc[pate ln tJre elec-
ol lntenL nor doca lt rcqulr+-rs 8oEC tp6f3 end to lelect candtdst€s.of thelr
heve erroneously suggeste&a fftrrhS thotcc. They nust lully end completp.
inai ttrere are tiarrtin to ttre process ly ellmlnrte thc Drlor dilutlon oI the
di reGtnuil nd vottnSi themselves. rnrnorltv voUnS strelrsih'
Thui the problers of dlscrlmlnatory Glven tbo errsttEs bo<ly of cases
steitng and-language dilllcultles tn the clearlf €stabllshlnS tbese equltable re'
Whnt against-Reiester case arc iB. nedl,rl soncepti, snd given tJre fE:t
pottalrt t-actors to

-be
considered along tl1et tJrc e66u'lhent to s€ctlon 2 deals

wtth otfrer lactors suctr as raclal bloc solely wttfr whetlrer or Dot tlrere has
vottng and tbe other typ€3 o( facto6 been A aubstaatlve vlolatlon ol vottng
llsted in the report Et p&es 28-29. but rlsht& lt ls sbolly trnnecesssry to do
they Bre not esseuttA prerequlsit€s, lI morc ln addrcsdng the remcdy lssue
othir relevant lactors can be showu tban to sdrert to tbe a'bovc g€nelal
wblch tn the aggregBte add up to tbe preccpt& It lr unnecessarY end beyond
dtscrlrntnstory resuft" . tba lcqpc 9l tJrc prcposed amendment

Sectlon 2, rurllke the ballout proc€. tor*tlon 2 to prt3crlbe any mec-banls"
Aure-iAaiAbitfrb Otlt wlg tske;ffect tld or pr:deterubcd rulee for fonr.u'
tnrredtately. aud wlll, ol course, spply lruDg remedlcs ln cases which neces-
to pendlng casea ln accordruce wtt& s8rtly dcpcnd upon wldelv varled proof
the sell-establlsbed prtnclples of and loc8l drc E$ances. Tbe fashion'
Bftilct v. CTty of Rfchrttottd. {10 U.S. tns ol renedlca Eust be lelt to ihe tra'
086 (lyr4) znd tlrtlbd stotcs v. Alo'dlCtonal' egultable powen o( the local
bomo. 362 Ull. 602 (1980). Federal courts hrvtug Jurlsdlctlon over

Also, as explatued ln tbe report, tt partlcular controversies to detemine
sfroufd be clelr thst sectlon 2 Eppltes on the tacts of each case e remedy
t1;tprorriste cases to eptoAtc oibne. thgt prgvides E tair opportunity for
Uniiiiciices, aot stnpti to stnrcfirsl mtnorities io partlcipate in ihe politl'
sltusilons.

#r3l*ess.
and fully remedies the vio-

. Mr. Presidenr, there h.p been -elteg: senator fron Alrsta we adopted last
5lyg dl.ssrrqelsn of the beilout and I wiU aig6t"
not try to rep€at all lhat b s8,id tn tbe Moreover, lI the Attorney General
report. but t would potnt out the iJrier- proposB to rgee to a conEeat judg-
relatlonshlp beiween thc pub[catioa Leut, of course, lt ls still tfrc auty of
requirement and the right ol intenretr- tbe jildSe to reyiew tbe proposed Lon-
tton It is intended thsC aDy ag8rieved scat-JudEcnt to nake iuri Unat ttrepsrty shall be entitled to intenene as eourt-ltseu Is set!,sried thet the Judg-o, rigtrt aC eny sA89 ql the proceed. Eent adequately protects the v6dig
lngs, including appeal. That ls wby wc rtghts of itre diabrity voters withrrput into the law the requlrement of thc applicant Jrricdlctibn.publicar.ion ol the c€mtucnoe!trent or as t6 ttrc Uiuouq o( course. the ju-
prcposed settleEent ol the bailout rlsdlcuon seeklng to b&ilout bcers the
luiL U, lor eraaplA thc Attomel burden of e*aUustrtng its casc of com-
General propose! to enter lnto I con pUEDce with tbe eDpropriate Equlre.
se-nt Jud8ment, there would bc notlcG Bents. This applies not only io theol thct tact whicb miCht leed eD jt- sbowtns thst nbLc of the eveirts Ustea
3rleved psrty to intewenc st tbst Lo tJre retcvrot subsectlons or the act
ltaSa Such au i;atenrcntton sould have occurrcd wtthin the past 10
blocts thc eonsent Judgaent beczusc ycee, but abo tbat the posittve ec.
one party-the hteryenor-sould not tlol|l called for In the act heve b€en
be consenting. Ttris in fact took place tal,en Thug for example. ia connec-le clty of Ellchmond agaiDst unttc<l fion with thi rcquiremenu ttrat the Ju-
States. Intenentlon" o, coutso, ls not rlsdlcilon seettn8 bailout-and Juiis-Itmited to sltuatlons where the voter dlctioru tocated wittrin it-have auml-
can prove the Attorney General ls nated any voglng procedures or meih-
taklng a posltloD contrary to th6 ods ol election that, inhibit or duute
voter!' totercsL llat&er, tbo anthorizr, cgual access, tJre Jrrrisdlction bears the
tlon by thB blll for lntencation as ol _burdcn ol showtng thai the particular
rlght sinply recogilzes thst thc Att r- noilns procedure or election irethod at
ney General represents thc lnter€str lssue either B nondilutive or has been
of tJre uuited ststes, whlle the voter ls srmrnrlsst It ls noc necessary for the
entltled to r?pres€nt his or ber ora ln vot€r oppq3tng beilout flrst

-to
show

t€rests for vhEtcver raasotrL For thir that the eleetlon method ls duutive,
reasoD, of course, lt b not acsessary because thls \rould lmproperly shiji
for tbe case to tere e nes turo betorc thc burtea of proot ltr tla -pari

of tb,e
an trotenentton lr allowed. To. the lro. ballout casc to the voter. In other
tenentloa is o( right at any tr'ne, lD. word$ lt ir up to thc Jurgdtctlon qeek.
cludlng postJud8aeut, or on eppeal. lng brllout to show ifrat tts electlon
Nor should loy equlteblc doctrlnel o( mitaods do tn lact provlde access and
tlmeUness be peraitted to cut ott thtr qppo6uDlty, uallke- I s€etion 2 case
cle8,r- st8tutory rlgbL Interrentlon rherc thc-ioter Eust prcve tbat the
Eay b€ made by any arnrlcved party alecuon Eetbod denlel-such access orsblch ls intended to conler sfs,1rilng opportunity.
to lnteryene to tbc farthcat llnit of ar- -It

ls nct
-tJrc

voter's burden to prove
tlclc m llmlts,tlsas on sta,adlnS cer- I sectloE 2 C5re under thc beiloul. bc-talnly tt would lDclud€ any vot€r tn cauae ll thst scre so, the provlslon
thc Jurlsdlctlon would be sur:plrisage. A voter can

Ttre AttoEcy Gencral aey agec to elwayc brlns E
-scctlon

2 case lI he can
enter a coDseat decree, ll the Jurlsdto EccL tbe arrtcurt burden- The pur-
tlon has Eade out its burdet! o( proot Doga of lncludlns this requlreaent asqlth sgectllc facts, and tbe Attorney onc of thosc to * met by-tbe Jurtsdic.General alter lavestlgrtton B satt!- tlon ld to creatc an incinflve-for tbe
fled that there ls ro rlalotr not to coD. Jrrrts<ltctlou to coBc out tron sectlon o
setrt- But o eonselt Judg[cot sbould covcnge bsvlDS dtspensed qrltJr eay
n9t bc entcr.ed siuply on conclusory hlstodc AgAainetllry pre.tlc6: Ii
*llecations by o pteistltf.Jurlsdtctlo otbcr vords, ar tJre eitoiaoy Geacral
tbat lt ncets the rcqulslEcaL u thst tasuftcd. tni uauout ts to senc as en
were so. 8 Jur.tldlctton could shllt thc cncourt8pocot for prospec[ve lrrl.
brrdea of Droot ln thc bruout to tbc provement, Jtncr ilsi tcivfng Utact;
Attomcy Gcqcral 8nd to pot€nutl lt& ihrt ll. ,.irandlathered,- ltr -dlluttvd
tervenors. The Attora€y General electloi nitUoOs.
lFould ouly enter such a Judqent tl wb.t ibo Judsdtstlon Eust prove isthe sppuclat hr.. clCrly Ect ltt thc convcrsi of shst a votcr has to
burden of prool Thrt lr nrdc eveo Drovc lu r secttoo 2 casG-ihst mlnor-
nore clcer la thc rEGadEcBt of tbc ity votcn do hrvc equel acctss, thst

tJrclr votrc rrc not subnerjed" and
tJrst tbe caa end do partJctpatc fully
ln tbc polltJcrl Dnoccls.

-To
the erteut that Jilltg esaiBt a.DDrtaor^!--Eu^aAroREoerorsl lgo2.

legestcr baa relevence, lt ls tn ruppty: votnro rircili ect
lng the tactors to which a court ririulA _Aql 2, pur II. n rp*". tn thc fourthloof ln Ba,EtItg tbc requtrcd deteml. ?-ltrslaph, ttrc sccona

-frnc ,.ptocrdurc re-na-tlonr. But it is tbe reversc of wbltc. !Yl!. tq . . ." should bc "proicoure-*nitrr
Tlrat ls, lt ls tbe Jurtsdtctlou ttrat'uu,ld ttgult In . . .".
strorr

_[aei
ta"

. ToGfriili.:i#;:, -p*.g.
5: unc g,.cxtrnsion rruhour uDsea.

srsnceradd*.h1tt%,A!ffi H..#'*'ffi*i'ffi tumrm;."mluorlty voter& Tbus, ll tUerc la i pqentuorl rrErT.6ra.*'
pauclty ln thc proo( tt ls the jrrrlsdlc- _ Pt3c f0. ilr. nert to lasr ltne: -over ial.
iion tirat todiuri es rEuAw & pctlluco,t'r'99-{qh"overt,ino&ine-nrc.-
proof ln c scctlon 2 riereat-ioiir;loti#iri#,Bffi ":{i,.ii'ffi.E#H#:#tlon 2 challenge. by:.cna iuotrttoa-iaiEia u" coactuatoaUnder sectlon 2, tbe voter ls not re- of thlrcntcncr..rrnaciGtionr-"
quired to prove every factor or even I frc". 15,- lourth p8r8sra,9h. third UnG,Earorlty It tbe totaltty of the circr:ra- "etsewnere,. inoirra-uc-Lereswhcre'. aad
stances lndlcate thst the electlon przc. Ygt9^{!, -"Dp.-.0t-100. inltz- novl;i a" "w.
tlCe denies fuU parttcipatlon In a-bail. 3940. ia/tz.'
out sult. the Jurisdlctlon bears the .. P88! lq. thlrd peragaph. last llnc of rext.
burden of proviLg ttrit ttrl tolafftv oi "Dio-Bo!ge{'should bc "pr+Bolden."

$i3HHEffi x,l;#**i*,?,**ffiiw+*e-ff ,ii,uegual opportunity to nomlnate and ..Thus, rhey ffis.;--'
elect candldates of ihelr cholce. Pagc 2t, tAfO prnrraph. tourth linc from

ThiS tundamental eonCcDt ls essen. thc clrtf, "on rctu.l rcsutt- strouta rcd;;;
tlal to the neanlng of the LaUout pro. s!9 sctud rc!:tilL"
vislon_to llture ttrat wtrirv;G fi; -ryI!-T?.

pert.D fhe ODerarion of Anend.

ISIHH Jffitli"
'Tn "?',Jffi

*i fr ##*ffidffi,];.r"iilx,i' 13
free of any dlscrlgrlnatory election -foi.

ra. iootnotc lo9 (conirnued rrom p.practlces. A rttscrtninetory elecclon t?) ror'ttr'uni iiiJiri ueiiii srttr ihe rouo,r.practlce ls one as to whlch the jurts. Fq.edgtrroa: "add.d.) tiiiurrsalitr;;-h;
dlction could not meet tts dtfftcult boih thc burdea to . . ..,,
burden of showlng eqUal opportunttv .. Prgc 3.0. sccoud p.raSraph. ncxt ro tast
for mlnority pErttcipadon. - -

;*"*ffi:Xiltltil; rue
s ?136 ._- ""ffifi:;XffrT,ffi:1ffi:',;"., *-I IrMtA sIIEEITO lEreoalErta nt'oir ..r detaucd.',.

Mr. ICENNEDY. Mr. Presldeatr ou Pecc {6, thlrd llnc frorn ttrre bottom:behnlf o( seneton MAfi[as. Dorg and "rhccdst€Dcc" rhould uc;urt crisieac!.,.
Eyseu. I would ltke to place tlr the ..Pasc-03. thfd prnsaph. third llnc froo
Rpcono gt thls polnt the erraCs sbeet la! ead "A! rn" slrould be "AD-"

*tH: mrJorui vrewr ro the senctoldi{l,fit"affil,*.#igrij
-ttG-

-street ses Jornuv. prepsred u, f;Juffittr;8fi#5'Hr*, ?.9,ffitthe starts of tbe tJuec 9l ul . iii"uv_p""t of thc secrton-by€ceflon an8l.Thts sdditlo'al
",r8ra-sbee!

suqn_lq. ,,!rr aa.pirt=- r[-tliii-iiit, g56 rarrysia
Petlls thq ouc publlahcd by thc Gpc, o, scsrtoo r ot taJc.iifitE but" rftcr thcItsef as tO thc co;rtnlttec vgt€& T,1g3C tiltll Dsrqrrph oa pgs f.i-
are not substentlvc chongie* I ElSbt
enphaslze. ltrey oerely nrle corec.
tlons of speUlDg and Srunner.

Tlrls sheet, oflleially put lnto tlre
trcono by the !lU's mqnqgers and the
autbors of tJre report. should be help-
tul to luture corrrt aad preciltioner& -

I aslr uneniaous coDtent rhlt lt be
placed la the Brcrono.

Therc betnS ro oblectio-. the ma,te.
rlal war ordcred to bc prlated la tbe
Rpconq sa tolloes:

APPENDIX F

The Voting Rights Act, Pr:blic Law 97-205
(June 29, 1982)

PUBLIC I"AW YI.zO5-.'UNE 29, L982

hrblic Law 9?-205
9lth Congress

AD Act

96 STAT. 181

To ,rod thr voda3 sisbr Ad dcrffi,r# dc,r of c.!tri! ptovidoo* - 'ilfdiiH'
-.+ d! @ by tllr fuio,tq atd Eotue of Reptaentatha of the
Uniled,Stata of Anpricg ry @"Srrle awmblS,ltat thia Act'may
bc_sited as the ,y'oring Rigbts Act A.Eendraeu8 of 1gg?'.
--QfC e (d SubE€cdoa (i) of s€ctiou 4 of thc VoUag nfuOta Acr of
1965 is anenicd by sEikiog out ,,seveaiaea yealt; iaE ptaca iiapp€al: aad inserting iu lieu-Ehsreof "nine0€€a

-yeatJ,. - ---'--
G) Effectivc ou e.d after Algust 5, 1984, subcaction (d of scc*ion 4

of the Voting Rights Aet of 1965 is aiend€d--
0) by insertias "(1I' after "(aI':

. e)W. inseniag."or iq aay potiticat nrbdivisiou of such Stato(aE such suDdivision exist€d oa ths date such deErEinetioDrrerc oadc with resp€st to-such stats), though su-ch detor.i,a-tioas wers not trqlle wifh rcrp€ct til iucii-suUA,risii;1"
"separate uait i.-befop j.or ia ?rny political subdiyi!fi *ith

rtsp€ct to which" each place ii aooiari.
. ($-by striidns o"t;fiE-i"E6ffir-L au.otory jud*uenf,

lpe Erst place it-appeas aad all that follm! thfoirrh-,.coior
pfo.ugb rho ulo c{nrch t€srs or ds,yice! bava occtrred &rrherei! the teritory of srch plaiutifi", aod i!!€rtiD8 in tieu ircrcor"tscuer a declaratory judeEeEt uader this secriol,,:
.. (a) by stri&i'g.oui'in-aa actioa f6tdecl8rat& judmreuc,

ffi ffi iff*:"ffi E*"'l,HH"Us$[lr*";where ia thc territory of nrch plaiutiff.,,, aud inse*iag-in U,i"thercof the folloring:
,]111re1_: 1f,!fpg jidsEer$ qpdcr rhi<

-secrioa. A declaratory
JudgE€Et rrn6[gv ]hic sec"rion sbsll issuG only if qrch corrrt aeter-
31t?-1!t1^{trys lhe teu yean i?cedtniE"-firiis oi-tE'"iioo,
ano ourtag thc petrdencry of such action-

il(A) uo such tcatbr-dsvics hss beeB r:sed withia such Stat€ orpolitical. sg!{visiga fgr-thc pt ry*. * *ith -tt"
"fr#ol-ii."y-lfs g abridgiug thq right to' ! * accorrnc of-racs-;; alloi o,(l! Eao casc ot a- staE€ or subdiyirion seeking a declaratoryjudtpo't uqdgr the secoad seateuce of tui"GitiiiiT"-i"-

trarsntiou of l4c gluraat€€s of subleetiou (fxr}-----" - -
^. u, uo traalJudlEert of auycourt of the Uoited States, other
'f '" sle deDial of declaratorT iudguaeat under thir sectiou" hasd.tor,i,ed thar deEials- or a5.idd.corr or-tu. IilIir-ili"-""
accour! of race or color bavc oc".H ann uJre-iitio e'riltryof,"l* State or po[ticaf subdi"id&-or-(iir th;-;,"o ii-"3i.ii'o,
suDdivution seeH'F a declaratory judgmeat r:nder the secoad
seat€aca qf thir rubcectiod trat ieiiaE or-alaageueua-i'I-u"
Ig*.to vota ia coatreventioa ofifc nrarauteiioTsuUd;donrr^z, ravr oceun€d anyvhue iu thc territorT of ruch Stato orsubdivisiou and no ccai:ut aecrec, scttlineai or asr€sttrfri-hat

Votig Rlrhtr
Act, Anoadr
acotr of 1981
42 USC 1971
aot ,1973 Dotr
42 USC 1y?3b.

Dcclaretor
judgacuc '
procrediagl

tt-tlt0-l:l (2xl

96 S[AT. 132 PT BLIC I"AW 9?-205-.rt NE 29, 1982

' {ausc 19?go.

beeu entered into,reculxlg in aay abandonneut of a votingffi oH::**lffi itrH#"rf,,*ilffiHr;ffi
an action before rh6 Eliug of aa ictlon-,lne;;-i
s€ctim aad a[egingsuch denisl! or abtidgeaeats of tle riift to
vots;

'(O- ug Federal ?:?-'i"er-!-gqdot tbis Act bave beeu assigaed
to urch Stato or political suHivision:

"(D) a:ch State or political subdivisiou aad all goveruraentql
u'its withiD itc rerrriiorT have couplied pith secfro.-s-oi-riE
lg_1$f$ry -qtnpljaarL

with the-requiremeut thai il clais"coyerrd by-sectiou 5-bes beoB eaforeed wirhour prcclearanca
uader sectioa 5,.and .havc repealed_all cbsDges' co"Crea Uiscction 5 to which ths {gtoiue-1 Geaqi[-Es- s".G;,tuijigbj*ted o-r_at tostich the United States-Dilq:ict Coui fd th6
Digqict of CohrDbia has deaid a aecUratoJiuaiiJnr-

---

..-'(D- the Attor:oey Geueral Uas Bot iDte6,ilffi;iUi"ctioo(th8t b"" uot been-overtur'ed 5y a n;i-;-iapiat'oii"oirrtl
a+4 no declaratory judgEoBt Uai UeenaeiriilGaer;€cti;t;
with respect ro ani iubiissiou by oiou b€half;f rh; pt-ii"af oi
aay goearnEeutal unit withis its t€Eitory r:nder sectou E, and
uo rucb rubmissiou or declaratory judgdeat acrions .ra p"ta:
ing; CEd
_':g) q-uSF q!"F or.political subdiyicion and all goveraoental

unirs within its teritor-
J$"lffi;f;#f",ffifl,"ffiffi'tu":1[*S
proce6$

- "6i) havu eogpged in coaskucive dorts to eliaiaate
iutimidation.aa? -bemsEusut of penons *erU"iig ,fghtpro-t€c,td rrader thic dct agd

"Giil haw eagaged ia'gther constnrctive efforts, such aserpaadgd oppo-raraity for conveaieat ;egrsu adoa-
""dv:Eng for *€ry penoB of-votfng ags a.d rht appoinnlest

or Etrr,onty po-nro!!- as eioctiou offieials throi,ihout the
Jurisdiction aad at all st€ge! of the electi,on aad rftsrrauonprooEc.

"(a ro asdst the cotrrt in &terariniag whether to iss,:e a declara-tog irdgr,-eBt rrader thil sukectioE -tha ptai"dh--sr"tt -prEnt
endeEae.of Eilority perticipation, iDcludiDg- evideace of thi levChc E+.onty glgup registrarioa aad voting, ihsDge! ia sudr le\rels
ovea EEc' aad d,ilpsrtEi€! betweeu miuonryafoup anri non-minor-itygrcup partisipaiiou.

."(3) No-d*laiatory-judgnent shell issue utdor thie subsection
wrtE rc.p€st to srrcb -Staa pq political subdivision if s.rch plaiatiff
and. gsyerDEcntal uait4 \riihitr its teiritory harc, duriDg tbi period
fcgiilrins.reu Fers beforc the &te thciu-dsucad is-is.fed.-"ui;6d
i! violagoDs of any povisiou of the Constitution or laws o-f ihe
u.art6d ststs! o-r aay state or poiftical subdivisiou with respect todlgrErIstloE in ydiDg @_8ccou.Et of t?cc or color or (in the-case ofa State or rubdivisiou-see.king. a aecUratory j"dd",irt G-aE-tf"
seccud se-DurDoE of ihlr subcecfrod in coniraveiltiil;igFn;raD-
tces of subccctiou (fX?-rrnle* rhe plaintitrAt bU"ha thaiiy.*t\rrohaolr werc urivial" werrB promptly corected and weie nog
repeated

i({l.f\.S$te or. political subdivision bringrlg such action shallpuDucrzs the iat€Eded coEEeuceEeut and aay p-roposed settleaeat.

PUBTIC I"AW Y7-205-rt NE 29' 1982

of sucb actiou Is th. aedia $ll,viDg cucb Statt or poEtical subdivi-
sioa aad in epprotriaa Unit d Statea pcc offices. Arry aggrieved
p8rqt Eay ar of rigbt incerrcoc ar 8ry stagp i! such action ";

(O in the cccond para*:aph-
(A) by i!$rtins "iSfrbcfore "Aa action"; and
(B) by ctriHla out "fivE" and all that follosr thrcugh

"sctioa 4(O(4."; aad inrertiag in licu thcreof "t€o y€ars
aftar judguos 8Dd shdl ropeu tbe action upon motion of
the Attomsy Gcnstal a aay aSgrisv€d ponou allegiag th"t
conduc bal ocsur€d rhich. bad tbst couduct, occurrd
durilg tbc tea-year p€riodl rsfentd to in thie subsectioo,
wotrld have precludd the issusacs of a declaratory judg-
meat uader lhic subc€ction Ihe cou* upoa sucb reopen
ing, shrll vacat€ the deleratoly judgment issu€d rrnder this
scctioa rf, artsr the issusncs of srrh declaratory jutioent
a finel judgmeat sgaiDst ths Statc or subdivisiou with
rclPet to which such declaratory judgpeut war issu€4 or
sgaiDst aay goyelllrental unit rithin tbat State or suHivi-
siou, det€riner tbat deEid! or abridgBoeats of the right
to vot€ ou accouat of nce or color have eurrcd anywhere
iD tho terriiory of such Stste or political suidivisiou or (in
tle car of a State or gubdivisioi which sought a declara-
toty judgmeat rradsr tbe second reoteacs qf thir subcoctioa)
itat d,eaialr or abridgumeutr of tho right to 'rote in clugra-
veutioa oftbe guaraat €! ofsub.cctio! (fXD haw ocsurrd
anyrvherq in the tdritoty of orch Stste or subdivisiou, or if,
after thc ilrrraacc of strcb declaratory ju{graeut" a coalent
d*:ee, Cettl€Eent" or 88ltcrleut hia be€E cutared into
resultilg in qay rholdoomqnt of a voting prarrice chal-
lengcd on cuch gmuada"; aad

(O by strikirg out "If the Attoraey General" the 6rsr placa it
app€an and all that follm thmush the cnd of such gubsection
and irserting in lieu thereof ths followine:

'(6) If, after two years fmo thc &ta of tha filing of a declaratory
judguent r:ader thiq- subs€ctioE" uo data hqr b€eu sst t'or a heariag
in such aetiou, and that delay hal aot beea the rcsult of an
a'roi&ble delay ou tha part of couosel for any party, the chief judge
of the Uttc{ Statac Diitrist Court for tlo Dis*igt'oi CotuaUid may
requect the Judieisl Couasil for the Cirguit of the Diltrist of Coluru-
bia to provids the neceuatT jrrdicial rraloutqe! to exdire auy acsioa
filed rrader thir secdon. If srrrcb rctourqeo are rragvailable wiihin che
simriE the chief jrrdg! sball filc a csrtificaa of aecesEisy in accord-
ancc rith sction 2940 of title 28 of the Udt€d S-tates Co<ie.

"G) ltc Cougrecr sheil rcconcid.r tbc prsvirions of this section ag
thc end of tha frftecn year period foilwiag the eifecrive date of rhe
6lasnrtasslg made by the Votins Richu Act A.oeadmeatr of l9E2

"(8) IL€ provisionr gf !tri! sccioaih.tt expirB at chc end of thc
tweaty-frvr.year p.riod foUoriug thc efectiie data of the aurend-
Eeuts oade by thc Voting Bighti Ast Ameadueuts of 1982

"(9) Nothing ia thir sectiou shall prohibit thc Attomey Generd
froo conscatiDg to BD eBEy of judq"cnt if belGd upon a dhowiar of
objec'circ aad coapeiliag evideuca by thc plaingif, iud upon isvesci-
gation hc ic ssti!ff€d that the State of political subdivisiou hss
complied ',rith q6 rcquiremeats of s€cdoi 4(aX1). Any ag3deved
psfty Eay as of right iaterrene aE aay srage iD suLA idoa.".

(c) Section (fX{) of thc Votinc RichE Act of 1966 is ameaded bv
inrrting after "un*rittca" in tls pioviso che foilowing: "or in shl

96 STAT. 133

Coagnsional
rOcooridcretion-

Erpiratioa data.

{2 USC rg73b.

96 grAT. 134

42 UsC
1Yt8..Pt .
{2 t sc ry,&

{:a usc lcrsb.

4'l usc
1973.$h
42 t StC
19l3aa-te aota.

PUBLIC I"AW T-M5-.'UNE N, L982

calc of Alas&aa Nativ€! and Ame-ricaa IEdiaD!, if the predoraiaata
la!gua8, ir hirtorically unwritton".

(O Sectioa 208(c) of such Ast ir ameuded by insertins after
't{atiwC' in the prqvilo tbo follorsing: "aad Aiericau Iafians,'.

Src & S*tion 2 of tbs Voting Right! Act of 1966 is amended to
rud ar follm

'Sm. 2. (d No votiDg qualificado! or pr€recdsito to votins or
*8rrdsr4 Prastica, c-procedrrre sbaU be iipos€a or appiied by-any
Stote or political subdiviliou ia a mauaer w-hich rerulii ia a j6niri
or aDridgeuent of tbe rigbt of any citizeu of the Uuitsd Stst€! to
vota @ accouat of raca ot @lor, oi in contraveutioa of the Euara.E-
t€€! EsE forth in soctriou 4<fXD, as provided in subsecdou tb).

'(b) A viol,atiou of sub*stioaia) is establish€d if, b;!€d oa the
totality of circunaances, it is showu that the political proc€xrs€lt
l€sdiDg to nomiuation or elecdoa h tho St8te o; pofitical'Eubdivi-
sio-n 8rc not eqgaU-y opelr to participatioa by oen6ers of a class of
eitlz€Et pro&st€d bV $bsestioa (g iq tl't-i1e EeEhrs have less
opportunity lh-n othsr EoEb€nr d th€ €l€storats to partisipate iu
th. political proc€!! eud to elect represeatotirrcs oftheir choiii. Tte
o1!e!$ !o shich E€Eb€E of a protect€d cloq baw been elected to
offica iE tb Stats or political nildivisi,on is oae cirqlEstanc€ wUcl
pey h crrifdercd: hoaid,lhat uothing i:r rhi. sectioa estabIirhao s right to bsve meubc6 of a pritestea ^to.s el'esgd h
urrmb€N €qusl to their roponioa in ths ioouladon ,'.

Src. 4. Sectiou 208(b)-of the Votins Rishti Ac8 of 1965 is auended
by !triHag out "August 6, 1985"-aad- irs€fiirg iu lieu thereof
"August6, 199?', aat ths exi:€Dsiou -ado by this icti6s sh-tt applyr
only to deteraiuations made by the Dirccior of tha Ceuus uiier
clause-(i) of sectioa 208O) for adruber:rs of a single languagC ninUty
whg.-do aot spea.k-or rrudertand EnSfilh diteqtratity-euough til

iu thc elecroral proc€xrs wbda such a ieer:Ainsdoi can
be nade. by the Direstor of the Celsul based oa the 1980 aad
otcqueut cen$rs data.

Src" 5. Efrective January 1, 1984, title tr of the Votinc Richts Act
of 1965 is amcnded by adding at the ead the fo[o#ng-secrion:

PUBUC I"AW Yl-205-It NE n,1982

5ororc lstAltcr
"SE AB AEy wtc sto rtqrdra allistanc! to rctG by reasu d

blhdal' direbitity, sf inrhiriEr to 1tgad or rrite nay be gitu
areirtanca by a pctm of tbe wtedr choicc, q3!66' thrn the votada
enployu c agelt dthd oployrr c offcer or sgpot of thc votdr
uai@.".

SE 0. hPt a! othsrlrc eroeidd ig thir Act, tho anoadEolts
Erde by +hir Ac{ rhrlt ts}3 effect o tbo dsts of the enastueut of
thi.6ag

Apprwed June 29, 1982.

96 SIAT. 135

42 I,IIC
19&.r4.

Efrcdrr Drtr.
4:l usc 1yr3
!ota.

I.ECIE IATIVE EEI!OBY-E.8. 3T12 (9, I9+A
EOT SE REPOnf,B No. g?-ZI ead Pi 2 (CoED" s6 gt1 Jrrrficirrr).
SENATE REPOBf, No 9I{? rccoapray'in5 S. 19114 (Coon oo-6o Judiciert).
@NGRESIONALBE@RD

VoL ln (1981) Oct 2,5, coddard aad prrrrd Eoq&
VoL 128 (1962! Jrur 9, 10. l{-l?. S. 199,1-coorid.rtd ia Scortr

Juao l& coaridr,rrd aad pecd Soartq anrudr4 ia licu of S.
1994

Jrrao 8. Ifour coocr,r:nd i! So[rt arucodnrat
WEETLY COMPIIATION OF PI{E'IDENTIAL DOCI'IGI{TS..VOL 18. i\O. 26 (1982}

Juar 29. 1982. hrridratld.trt oat.

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Legislative History on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Resource Material on 1982 Extension and Amendments)

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorney

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in