General - Working Files, Vivian Berger's Vol. 1 of 4

Working File
August 29, 1986 - December 23, 1987

General - Working Files, Vivian Berger's Vol. 1 of 4 preview

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


Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.

Return to top