Vulcan Society of Westchester County, Inc. v. Fire Dept. of the City of White Plains Plaintiffs Joint Memo of Law in Support of Approval

    To*ttt Civcumsfz"nces

f .15 LP.tq4

f.tb tP 'rqsl

P. lb C7 tlt)

Excerrts €,-uq Slana*P- ReP'*

'-The pr amendrnent Co Section 2 of the Voti
thst

y,?- Ce't+l

rd
bo

per se wou
would onlv

(Pert D)
The "rcsrrlts" tpst to be codified in Section 2 is a rrell defined

dandard, ffrct enunciated bv the Supreme Crrurt and follosed
iD^ErmpudaEr federrl eourc deeisions

w ,lied in voting discrimination claims prior to
it llobih v. Bold,en^, The amendment sb ad&

r nclr subeeetion to Section 2 which delineatc the lecsl stsndsrds
under the rwnlta td by codifying the Ieading pti-Botdtn vwaunoor [ne nEaurr8 t€g Dy o(xllIymg tne ]eadtng prc-Uotdan vqt4
dilution a;o,'White v. Eegceter.'

Thie new subs*tion provides that thfissUe to be deided under
thc rcsults tst is whethlr the

In prc-Bold,cn cises pleintifrs could prevail by showing that o chal-
lenlrd elgc-tio1 loy 9i prueedure. in the gonteit.of j.h.c to,tal circup;

pr@essr

Electoral deviees. including at-lorge
not be srbiect to etteck under .Sec'tion
mlnerable if, in the tolali



?.Lt Cyp lle-!

p. zz (p.z"o1

?,23 Lp.zoo)

??.zz-zq [P.?Dl

Tota,ti! oF Ct''t'' a

-ln WMte v. Rcaeeter, the Supreme Court upheld a District Couff
decision invrlidatinc multi-member districts in Dallas and Bexor
Counties, Telas, beciuse they (operated to dilute the voting strcngth
of mcial end ethnic minorities" and sthe impect of the multi-member
diEtrict on [Mexicen-Americans] constitut€d invidious discrimina-
tion."'t Tlhe Whitc decision did not rnalvie the motivation of the
legistators There wes no discussion of thJ purpce behind the chely'

:rmt*i;:lffi .n$triJ.qf iiffi"ffi {q!{!-ft ."itli".ii:tj#*#L hil H Jffir8$ 
t:l#[ f]ft iff I' lt "i !_!:[

ilil;p-p".ti."d .[p1"*ntrtion; Pirintifis'burden wes to prove a

denul of equel oPport'uluEY: --

--The Court t-t-rt.torn1;" 1

gps+Sl-l^l'-'i"qt,"
polltrctl proeqises . . .'

fft norur, the court ertieulated the frc{ors that the Supreme Court
hrd used inWhite to eppraise the impoct of the multi-member distrids
The eourt concluded-that the facf of dilution is estahlished upon
proof of the eristenc€ of an aggregetc of these factors. The Supreme
Court's pronounoeme nt in W hili v. R c A etter, atplu, demonstretes. how'
cver, thit not every one of these factors neods iro be pmved in order to
obtein relief.rr

ffins followed the pronounce ment tn Whitcin holding mutti'membe; eHri;t"-;; iiinw, ra uneonstitutioner.Anplvinglhe rrcsults t st, tt 
" 

cou"6 *iltiiilf t."l"e; ;ili'"';-il*

tlw dirtrih
in
toard,

elections rers not ntlnenble to attack un



Tota['\ of G"t'' 3

?.zb(7' zozJ

?.l+Cf'zo{)

?.L7 lp.z*7

a discrim

fru*rj*, 4o,;,JJ-g - d'li- cae -.-';!e: - 1te- v.euttbut

rr.the courta ordtnrrllt Lrrc not riiefTEaa fiFton. aot d(rr th" comnlttF lnt?nd
tb"m to ba opd. rr a m?chrnleal "polnt rcuntlDs" d"rl(. TILfrUur. of nlllnllt lo

rlrlon raqulta ibe murt'! orerrll Jud8n"!t. baatd oo tD" tolrllty of clretrmrlrnG !nd
ntdad bt thor" Rl""rDt taetofr ln tb? prrllculrr cre, of rh"ihc? tbe rotlDc ri?"ottb
of DlDorltt nt?rl l!. lE tb" hatxllat ol Ftl.or aDd 8tru, "DtDlEll.d or oncrlcd.gg!]

?."oLV.Zosf
question

Drooesses ere tteoucllY oDent' depends upon
[val uocion of th.'-pls!:id-tre@EE

and workable totality
rn oolng so If, r8lJe(l u
rl courts in the future.

?.1LLP'eto;



TaFal,! o? 6l'e' 1

-fffiorqrsEmmeL-ourtrnWLitco?nb under the same test used to sirike therir ao*n-in tte
conteSt of a lt{gl.'lhtaliifpI_circurrylances-in_W hile.

p."3 Cp.al

p. 3'l TV.zrzJ Durtrg the heerings, Assistut Attorney Genersl Willilm Bradfod
Revnold3 omvided Ini Committce with r ligt of citiea whicho in his

""-iri"n .'ould be vulncrrble to cttack uader tle results stlnd8rd of
i[" *"iha"a Section 2. Similerly, the Subcommifio R€Port provided r
li* of citic wherq according ui the reportr.q "@urt ordercd rsetnrc-
toriod' of electonil systemslould be tho dlikely" outcome under tlc
resulE t€sLr,t The Crirnmitrm [15 exomined theso !&rtiooE rnd lr|!
tound that the facts upon which ttrsy are basd, without more, would
cleerlv bo insufficient-to support j fiading of violatiou uader thc

"m"nia 
Section 2. Specificaity, the CommiEee finds.that the rnalysis

used bv the Assistsni Attornrly Grenenl and the Subcommitteo wers
ioconsistent with how ths resuits tost in frct opentes, rnd rgugrqd the
treck record of casee decidod under the results test discussod rbove.

grienv, the primary besis for tle Assistant Attorney Crenerel's
Iistitrg ,it' Atis was simply the hck of propottionel .rcprcoentrtion,
olus the eristcncc of an et largo or multr-member (uaBnct ele'cuon
i"stom- Similerlv. tho Subcommlttee's list waa brsed primrrily ou thc
sime two critcrii, plus the eddition of one other 'faclorr'-usuqlll th"
lfi.tencq of. previbisly d, iurc segregatcd ryhmla As hts alrerdr beon,

discussed, th-rs simply rrsnot thi rfprorch used by the courts under
thsWhite/Zbmurr$

If the mcrc eristence ry oFilttrt
schools had beon sufrcient under 'Whitc.then plaintifrs would hrvc wm
in cverv hwsuit brcught ia tle Fifth Circuil shich rrs cletrlv not ttre
casc. Mor@ver, the 6urts did not uso r mechrnicel "factor e6untinC
apprcoch, as did thc Assistrnt Attoraey Genenl end the Subcommit-
tc. Rether the frctors were considered.s put of thc totel cireum-
strnce and in lig{rt of the ultimate issue to be decidcd, i.e., rhether thc
political processes lrenc e<lua][gpaa

??.xq 
i5 (p7zrz-ti)

?'bx LP'zqd



ffqZ-, L?P'tl"S'U)

?latr! o{ Ctrc. 5

Elarw& rf.-such stote or political suMivision and all
aowrnmental units within its territorl'-: (i) heve elimina,ted voting proceduias ond methods of elec-
tion vhich inhibit or dilute equel eecess to the eletoral
pro6;- (ii) heve engr.gd in constructive efiods to eliminstc in'
timidrtion rnd-hr^rassnmt of pennns erer.cising rights pro-
tctod under this Act: and

(iii) heve enclrcd in other constmctivo efroltc sueh as er-
panacil opportilnity for convenient rcgistntion and voting
for every psr$n of voting ege end thC eppointment of mi-
nority porsns as eleetion o'ficials thnoughout thc jurisdiction
rnd at rll st^rges of the election and registretion pr(rce6s.

Tbs critcrie of this *rction would nquirc a iuridiction se€kinc boil-
out to provc thet it rnd dl of its politi6rl subdivisions hsve eliminrt€d
me.ho& rhich (diluts equel aocis" to tlrs electonal prccess, have en-
gtgod in (cond,rtctive cfrorts'to end ir*imidetion end harrssnrent ol
pctu)ns *erercidng rights protecfed" under the Act, and have engagod
in tdher oonstnrctive cfiorts" in recistrd,ion rnd voting for "evelrtt
votlng rgo pemn end in eppointiri! minorities to eleclion pods. it
ir totdly uncleor whet r seonstnrctivb efiort" rould be in gny of these

*ffiff:r,,l".r,..r' JEUrrr 2?, lera A$o.nGt c'!'rrl or tb. ulltca ttrto
rtr rprr Dt te& 

tpagc $rl
rtrrrds altlouc.h it is diftcult for thi.E arbcomsritroe to believe t}"et
t}is term is indnded to be employed ls urything other thrn r vehicle
to prmoto "efirmscive rction" principlcs of c,ivil rights of the voting
prmesr- 

As Asgiirnt Ailornev General Rcvnolds noted. tfiis elcment. "would
intrpduce a whole new leaturc th* Iird nd been in tlre.tct at the time
ttro iurisdictioru wcrc coverod rnd rcquire en eddicionol element
of proof dher then simply requiring e l0-yerr p€riod of compliance
with tho Act.n r This mction, inded, reises new questions regerding
bril-out criteria not only rs to the substantire rrquimments but alo as
to omf.

the Assistsnt Attornoy Creneral indicarpd his coneern when he sug-
gestod tlrot "whrt onc mee.ns by inhibit or diluto . . . would be subject
to r gra.t, derl of litigrtion."'5 He furthcr erprcssod his apprehension
s to the constnrctive efiorts rcquirpments:

This is r rcquirement rhich do"r go well beyond eristing
lew. It is rho well to remember in temrs of the bail-out that
the Houso bill crlls for counties to shor not only thet- tlwy
crn m€st thm requircments but ll* all political sub-units
within the countiesand thercfore y<xr rns trlking, for bril-out
purpces, rbout mammoth litigetion thrt will demondrrte
that'"constructive efforts" h.ve been mrde by all of these
political zuMivisions within the county as well rs the county
rod that they have done whetever is neceesary to insurs therc
is uo hhibition or dilution of minoriCy votai.

The subcommitte believes that the introduction of these new ele-
ments will not aid in overcoming ped discrimination even if they can
bo interprtted. Tho nrbeommittpe does believe thet, they will gen-erat4
considenble litimtion of an uncertein outeomer



TolaV\ t{ A",c' {

AAfu'h.ov,a) V;*rt o{ Sg"**" O'il +la-+zh

p 9r,+fp a|il
' - '40-

("-'a )

-th@rs to violetions [ing cteblished

*iil#;';r_l$l.t"t"tG;i"ireumd^enees".IT,'&l"TJ$[f ,r',[
m-#;llgt-l:3Tf tr;ltH'l#sifi ,rdriir'ttr;"tot"r:
ffi;i ;ffi;fi;". il;,iifr;;"-i":tiil'lH ff*fffi;,iHL-ili;tr,"-t"ailt cendrtd, t-!ct-e- tg-s

Hp,s:#,trffiffiIffiffi
Iil5'H*:T't*f;'H:;:

-itnciotcrved during eubcommtttse hanngs

H*:*,YHi'"ffi Jls#il'511.ffi i#*!'*Yt
H",If, #,;"':i'ti**ItrIi?slm;r"'*"4?:ii:b

Thcns is no eore vdue rcults test other-thrn clcction

rs rell. The Court strted'

rrc Btlrttd!. v.!6cd'li Ultttr'

penner, e:cludc the claims of urv discrete politi* ffiHfrH
ffi;::;':lg'uffi li#,:'ffi Siil'*;n*'-m"
rre bound to prove illusory if the erprees puafum TIggrIg
tnlii"i'iiiittlo" *"ota b6, as the-diisent assuma to mdrts
S3flfiiiliili'l'1ii'"'r;l' "r 

poriticel influence-"'

FiH$i,HH!
Hff:

Hffi *.Htil,,:tr,TX,Hlfr ffi ^air-""i*a."o,rhcrpstolcriteri
fi Ti'i"i"ffi' 

"v.ruJrg." 
yls *ug:f,"1ffi -



To{atr'}y o( C'n<. +

r Jfu LowsLb-l.bn

There is abeolutely no Court decision that rosults proponents can
point to that holds that proof of discriminetorv puroose or intent is
irot roquired either in estib[sning a Fifteenth'.tiren'ament violation
oreectioa2 violetion

Ir thir rgatd, pmponente rely almct erdruivcly on r 19?3 Su-
preme Court decisioo, Wluitc v. Begeilcr.u In that case, the Court up-
held a chdlence to an'at-larm votiic svst€m for msmbeis of the Terh
Houso of Repftsentatives inbveral Teias counties.

Whice is a mfter tmuous foundation for the far-reaching changes
prcsently being pmposed in section 2 for e nunber of rcasons: First,
Whib was neitier g Fifteenth Anendment, nor a section 2 case; it was
r Fourteenth Arnendment case. It is strange thet pmponents should
rely upon it to suggest tlat the trlobih interprctetion of the Fifteenth
Amendment wrs mi.strken. Second, if that is not enough to discr€dit
the euthority of Whitc with respe6t tn t&re Mobih issu-e, it should be
noted tlat nowhers in Wldtc did the Court even nce the teru "rrsults".If that is the ca,*, it is difrcult to under:tand how the term "results"
in sction 2 ir expected to tricser the epplication of tle P/ute casc.
Third, even rs i Fourteent}-Lmendmiit decision, the White u*,
involved a rcouircment of intentional or nuroceful discrimination-

As the Couit in Mobila obsened ebouithc'ir3urnent thrrt Whitc
rcprcsented r difierent tnst for discrimination :

fl:n WMtef, the Court relied upon evidenes in the rrcord
thet included a long hi*ory of official discriminaf,ion against
minorities as well as indifrercnc'e to bheir needs and intdrests
onthe part of whiteeleetion ofrcials . . . Wllitav. Eegeileris
thus consistent with the basic eoual protcction orincinle that
the invidious quelity of a law 

"taim&l 
to be raciolly di"cd--

inatory must ultimatoly be traced to a r.acially discriminatory
purpoee.s

Finallv. rnd oerheps oven mors eomnellinc. is thst Jusice Tfhite
vho dirintod ii AohiA end who wrota the lfliite opinion agreed that
it wrs consistent with the intent or DurDtxie ruuiremenL Justice Whit€
disegreed with the Court's opinion be&use hd beliered that the plain-
tiffslred satisfied the intent oi purpose standard in Mobihrnot b6cause
he disegreed with the standard itsitt. tte obsenred in dissnt:

The Courtts drcigion crnnot be undercood to f,ow from
our rtcotnition tn lVoilittgtan v. Dait thst tho Equal Pro.
tction Clouse forbids only purposeful dissrimination . . .

??.t;o-3t 
(PP'3oza

Even though Mobile's liegro- co-mmunity may regisor and
wn a wit.hniri- hindrmne- tf,a svsinm of et-le.rot election of
Even though Moblle's NegTo
vote withouC hindrance, thevote witho[c hindrance. tf,e svstom of at-llreg e-lection of
City Commissioners mdy violita-the FourteJnth a^nd Fif'

frcm the

Acain. it is important to emphasize that even in dissent, Justice
Wlrit", the cuth6r of the Wh;tL opinion, 8gr€ed with the Court that
the ero *"s ronsistonf. with tb. intl-r nr ourDose lBquiremenL - .



?p.sroqCtr 
tet-a! TETiD6ffision introduced by the rtsults test is illustrated so;tfhrr

bv the nerr-total disastemend ss far as one of the most basic questions
iivolved in the analvlis: Does the "rcsults" test proposed in seetion 2

mern the eame thint as the (efrectsD test in seitio-n 5 ? Despite thc
fundementel importince of this matter, there has been disagrcement
srnong witness ifter witnes on this. Representative Sensenbrenner,
one of the architects of the results test in the House, testified befort
this subcommittee and stated:

I think that we are splitting hsirs in attempting to see a
significant difrerence in a nsults t€st or an efrects test.to

Mn Chambers, representing the NAACP Legel Defense Fund, on
the other hand, totelly dieclaimed this meaning:

Question: 
'What is the relationship between the rpsults test

in section 2 and the efiects teat in secfion 5 l
Chembers: They are not the same test. . .
Question: fn other words, tlte experienee of the coufts with

eection 5 would not be relevant in iieterminiug how section 2
is likely to be interpretedl .

Chambers: That is coutct rro

Totat,'*3 o( C)'v<- I

UarU!... Dt?cutlTG Dl!.ctor, ldcdcrn

lf,s. Martinez, representing the Merican-American Legal Defense
nd Education Fund, however, steted:

Tbe continuinc vit*litv of section 2 depends upon an
rsrendment oasse? bv the House thrt would'permit iudicial
findings of Section 2 violatious upon proof 6f the discrim-
inatory efrects or regults of voting practices.rrr

Professor Cox found himself in disegreement on this point when
he obcrred:

If you mean the efrecta tast r.i intepreted by the eourts with
rugard to s*tion 5, I think that is considerably different
fr6m the results tpst in $ction 2.rt'

Durinc the corrse of both the House and Senate hearinss on
the Votiig Rights Act, apprcrimately hrlf of the rritness wh"o dis-
eussod this issue claimed that the results tost in section 2 was similor
or identiccl to the efrects test in section 5, and hence thst the judicial

FctErr, a. 1082. Ir.8. n.prctcEtrUr. J.Err teorcDbr"rrc".
fct?nrry 12. f082. Jullu: I- Cb.Eb.rr Pr.dd.Dt. NAACP lrall

eor. Protc.ror, Er?r.?d lrDlrltltqt

history of interpretetion under scction 5 wes relevanC; thc other half
arguetr that it rirernt something substantially or totoliy dissimilar.ur
Given the inherent uncertainty ebout the resulLs tast in Che first plqce,
it is highly instnrctive to the-subcommittee thrt so much continuing
confusion could exist on a question as basicos the reletionship be0ween
the sction 2

lpate t39l



m+ai.i\ o€ o;ve

TAr"g +o Ea,1'1 a* Provri,'rr.l
Elcrrwnr 6.-Such Strte or political subdivision and all

qovcramcntal unils within its territory-- (i) hrve eliminated votins prwedures ond methods of elec-
tioh'which inhibit or dihiiri equal accoss co the electoral
Pru€e-;

iil)*fL"" engsgod in constnctive efiorts-to climinate in-(ii) heve ensamd in constructive efforts to climinate in-
tididation and-hirussneart of percons exerrcising rights pro-

Assisbnt Attomev Gcneral Reynolds noted. thiselement, "would.
iluce a whole new featum thlt hed not been in the Act ot the time
iurisdictions wem covercd end rcquire an edditional element
pf 4nq then simply req-uiring a lb-year period.of eompliance

the Act'D ftis dciion, ind*d, reisda new questions regtrding
mt criterie not only es to the subd.antive rtquircmc.nts but also as

Assidrnt Attorney General indicrtBd his eoncern when he sug-
thet 3'vhat one meens by inhibit or dilute . . . would be
to r grcet deel of litigetio-n.D 'to lfe lufther erpressed his ap-
ion rs to the constmctive efiorts rcquirements:

1

?( tbq-h5 Qp 33U-{

(iii) hws srceced in other constmctive efrortg such as olr-
peiddd opportinl'ty for convenient registration and voting
ior cverv'icrson ol votinc asc and th6 appointment of millor cverv-percon ol votinc acc and the appointment of mi-
nority dqins es cl€ction &cials througho-ui thc jurisdictionn6ity r;rins es cl€ction ffcials througho-ul thc jurisdiction
rnd Ct ill sages of ths election and rcgisttuion pnocess

Ths critorie of this s@tion would requirs a iurisdiaion seking boil'
rt to prcvc that it end dl of its politiad subdivisions hare eliminated

tected underr this Act; and
rn

ls *hich "dilute equd rcces" to the electoral proces' have en-
in "coa.stnrctive efrorts" to end intimidation and horassment of

untlerr rhat e "eongtructive effort'would be in anv of thee
ds-elthouetr it is dificult for this subcommittee to believe that
tcrm is indndcd to be employed es anyihing other tha^n a vehicle

prunoto sefimetive Etiont' p-rinciple 6f civil rights to the voting

&ons ttcrercisinq richts protcted" under the Aet. end hsve enga,ged

"othcr onstnrdive-efioits" in registrrtion and voting for teiefo"
,rng rgo porsotr rnd in appointing minoritie !! election pcts. It

This is o rpquircment wtrich doee go well beyond eristing
lrw. It is slso well to nemember in terms of the bail-out that,
the House bill calls for countic to show not only thot tlwy
con meet these requir"ementa but a,lso all politicol sub-units
within the countiesand therefore you enc talking for bail-out
Dunx)so& about mammoth liticltion thlt will demonstrate
&at "cori*mctive efiorts" hevi been made by all of Oreee
politicel subdivisions within the county rs well os the eounty
and tha,t they hove done whstever is necessary to insum t}tene
is no inhibition or dilution of minority voto.'rr

The sub@mmittee belicvx that the intmduction of these new ele.
ments will not aid in overcoming past discriminstion even if t}tey can
b6 interyrotsd. The zubcornmittee does believe that they will generate
considerable litication of an uncertrin outcoms. A reasonoble beil-out
is ttre goal of the-subcommittee, and when this element is reighed rrith
that 6Gl. thc srbcommittee must rpsolve that such reasonibleness ie
lcr ft sgrees with AssishJrt Attorney General Beynolds'comrnenc on
the obvious regults of such an enactment:

It qoes bevond determininc a violation of the Act or tho
Constftution'and would ro<1u-ine in each bail-out suit full-
blown litication es to rvhether or not the conduct of the
methods oIelection had either o purposo or effect of . . . dis-
couraging minority participation. That is a very complex
kind of litigation to go through in a bail-ouL'r'

The procees of beil-out may become lergely irrelevant if the pro-
poeed chan*e in section 2 is adoptpd. Jurisdictions that moy be suc-
6essfut in seeking bail-out would be srrbjoct to suits under rccion 2
bv local plsintiffE dissatisfied with'bail-out and would be rcquirtd to
nititigstd the issue under the similar standard incorporateil in the
I{ouse version of cection 2.



Tolalr\ o[ UW lo

c)rme.r* A +o Svba^rniset RegovL

6urrhln. * /rrr.^ ' ln+*l '' P"t'H

Eatn't tlu Suorcna Court utiliacd a reailb teat prior to tluNdih daci.iotr'
. t-{.rlt e Sup.ryT" Court has never utilized a results (or en ,,effects.'

W) to1 rdentifying lith Amendment violations. while prooon""t
often refer to the deeision of the court in wluite v. Rcqeair liz 0.s.
7551o argue the contrery, this is simply-not ti" u*.-frUlr'*'" nii"
socsron z e"8o snd it was not a lSth .lmendment eus+it was e l4ttr
Amcndmcnt crse. tr'urther,'whitc ."qrl*a iiiri"l*in"ii"o-o;;;
cven under the lith Amendment. it * Wt Un *iild ;;rI;y.A::itgltdby,the Court inl/oDr?e and, indeed, it *G-*iie,[id1."
., uscree whrte in diesent in Mobile. Justice whit€ was the euthor of th'eWhlc v. lcry7tcr opinion.'The term ,srtt" 

"pp*"." 
norf,"re'i; l;hiic

::-ycguu".'I'h6rre rs n9 ollgr court deeision either utilizing o results
test under setion 2 or the Fifteenth Amendment

-T1r" dandrrd for determining whether this invidious qudificetion
hes ben usod to edrblish r vdtinc pr:rctice. and therpf6rc rhether
the orectice is unlewfirl. must boiowinc the wotdg of Pmer, $e
rn eiternel end obiective one, rether theritdepend on] the individuel
iudcment. cood or'bod. of the particular ectoi." Whit is eshblished
by lhis renilion of *ction z is i stndrrd ol obiccti'oc. {eeig4 9r Pu.T:

p. l1? tp . : qql

p tee [e3sil

frJd,'|,'ona,( Vieox of Se*u*ov Tnul Laxalt

crid to be r

flPrqvlz(fi4

p6se, moening thot r court cogfroltod-with a voting-riCrhtsiliim willDOsO. melntng cniE t courl conrronleq w-lEn I voung ngrlf,E Grllrrr wur
io9 lggk_to tf,e pr,rticular -nrbjective inten.t of -theAcisionmater in'
volved. lether, -. ggu"t will subject the "totrlity of cirrcumstences'
rumounding e thdlenged voting prectice 1o the. more uniform end

ofe

Ttfiilif hove hil an'invidiouslv discriminatorT design in esteblishing
e nerticuler votinq ouelifiertid,n. the ectuel defendait could not inter-e pertieuler voting qudificrtirin, the rctual defendr
pd4 r defense thetl$e rhgle scheme wrs accidentel.' Yet becruse invidious discrimination, under the terms of the Voting
Richts Act, et its corc is br^sd on some sense of purpose or design-
to ?iscriminate rcsinst certrin eitizens on account of their race or
membership in ceitein language minorities-the objective standard
to be empldyed cennot look mertly to the impact of r prrticular voting
quelificdioi. Even if oue uses 15! cror;6rt'terzrinol,oga employed iir
t}c bodv of this Rcport. *ction 2 of the Voting Rights Act concerns
itsclf orilv with lss'ultsi-unequrl aecess to thi brilot bor-impomd
m citizcris by &ttu o/ their re'ce or membership in certain langrege

i tlesaontDle mon



-C{zt'b o( A"t' ll

[pqge l92]

f rlHL:llxeiJ"*#S:Ifi?':'":lil'1fi"ffi '#lHi"Tfr *:t\i:
h"#;";i;l*;. ,IS".ii"i e ;-t".tr rtre ftgtrf or minoritl' voters to be

f"6 trom clection practices'-procedures or methods'.rhrch deny tnem

*:"w',:rtr*t['g,i:JlTi.j3i.Til":};.0"?iI,',ill,|Jr.tr"'ffi :
Iiir["; ""rii'Jiit" r*;;;';';it t [ii-*.t i * 2 

-st 
Bnd a ri ca n n ot a voi d t ne

aiii"" 
"i",,."ni "t 

the rooi oiitri. Janaard: section 2 remedies voting
ffi;?ilJs"oi 

"i 
liin.itl"r. ali*-rir"i""ting emong citizens becarrse of

iheir rac" or riembership in eertein language grouPs. no' votlng Prte'
tices or ourlifieations diicriminating between citizens because they are

il;;'Jt" ;'R;;blG;q o" 
"te 

rirban dwellers or srtburbtnites, or
ffir*;;? *v 

":ti"" 
.tr""icii"i"ti", whether thct other eharecteristic

i;i";fri":rr; rii. tt"-r'"1i"g Rilhts Aet-includitl* this new lan'

-rr.; io.-se"tion 2-atlcks [tE infiaiou. use of the cliaraeteristics of
il;';d';iiiii.ttrti" .;gins. end these characteristics alone, to dis'
."i-i""L Lt*e"n voters ir'l their access to the ballot box'"'i'riiiahiti"-". citi"c to*. -1" to design in these matters is-the only

-;;;-J"-iriit ti-tr" crDneas intentions of the drafters of the sec-

362

Ad4ilronau\ V..erps o€ se.aalor Poh,tr!,}tr-

p I qq [p.euqJ

acctss to
Ep
the