General - Working Files, Vivian Berger's Vol. 1 of 4
Working File
August 29, 1986 - December 23, 1987

175 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Excerpts from Senate Hearings RE: Prepared Statement of Wilma Martinez, 1982. 583fd934-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3de1c8ed-23a4-49b6-9017-c3c31ea723a5/excerpts-from-senate-hearings-re-prepared-statement-of-wilma-martinez. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
9w“ g Remand/l Powers oi Confirms Emel’S W W HWI S halite/(MM 0(1 WmaMJLt/‘HVIC-t I (Sum-um the constitutional authority—and the obl' ation—te clarify its origi- ; nal aim in enacting Section 2 by amending the statute as 1 Senators have proposed ‘ in S. 1992. ‘I'lus' body is well Within Eurower to amend the statute ursuant to its authority to enforce the Fourteenth Fifleenth Amendments. It the power to enact lewslation which goes beyond the specific prohibitions of the Fourteenth and F‘ifleenth Amendments themselves so long as the legislation is appropriate to fulfill the purposes of those constitutional rovxsions.“ The Supreme Court was con- fusingly splintered in Mobile. Only four ustices held that discriminatory motiva- tion was uired to prove a Fifteenth Amendment or Section 2 violation and that the lain ' had not met that burden; one Justice held that the laintifl‘s had met the urden of proving intentional discrimination. One Justice h d that the stand- ard of proving a violation should be based on objective rather than subjective, moti- vational factors. Three Justices dissented and agreed that the plaintiffs had met the burden of proving intentional discrimination. One Justice reasoned that roof of dis- criminatory effect is sufficient to prove a violation of this fundamen right. The confusion brought about by these conflicting or, at feet. bewildering opinions results, in words of Justice White, in leaving “the courts below sdrifi on uncharted seas with respect to how to proceed on remand". 446 US. at 103 (White. J., dissenting). It is up to the Senate now to set the course straight and to adopt the results] sfl’ects standards for Section 2. as contained in S. 1992.“ l