Attorney Notes on Remedial Powers of Congress 1

    gr^rAr"t Vr,er.:,s 't C"Wss

F-re-.r*. %,^ Sena-l< RelovL

pp. lb-t+L7lt+1 - 
EE@ qmendmenr.to

constitutionrl authority. It is not en enoJto ovefi[;"$;l;;

P 
.27 177 zot -s)

ft,hi C,ommffi-El-reves Lhst the aiendment is sogndtthet
It rs nece6rv and eppropriote to ensuro full prctetion-of t'he rour-
L;d;;"d F{tt"""tt'i.'.ndments rights' an{-g[t it will not Prcsert

?.?+fP'zts1
fhe inherent dancer

in exelusive reliance on pryof of motrvation liqs not only in the diffi-
culties of plaintift establiahing a prima facie cose of di-scrimination,
but rlso in the fect that the dJfenients ean attempt to rebut that cir-
cumstsntial evidence by planting e false trail of direet evidence in the
form of ofrciol resolutioirs, sponlsorship statements and other lesisla-
tive history eschewing any raiial motive. and odvrncinc other co-r"rn-
mentel objectives. So-'long as the court must make o sefiarete u'ltimate
tinding of intent, after iccepting the proof of the fietors involved
in the Whitc anelysis, that ilancir renieins and seriously clouds the
prospeets of ersdi&ting the remlining instanees of racial"dirrimina-
tion in American eleeirons.

,*@
tf," a"f-*G of t5e ilou* pr6visiin in lh"!i! ettempts statutorily_top tDt [p zt! r

;i';;;- air" Supremebou'rt's decision in Ci'ty ol Nobile.interpreting
the Fifteenth AmendmenL. ft is altogether as_unconstitutional, rn
ir, tiii. "t tt " uno^.na.a Ifouse leiguage." Under our sydem of
uo""r"rrlri 

-tl" 
dt"gt.* simply coni'ot -overturn a constitutionil

:;.-;; ;-i't5e S,rrrrelne Couri ihrough e mere statute' The Court
hr;-h;i.l if,"[-ilu f ifieentli Amendnreilt requires o demonstrallon of
intentional or rrurposeful discrimination. To ihe extent that the Voting
nili;i;-A.i c.".illlv and seetion 2 specifically ere predicated upon
thii Anrendrn'ent- aid thev are-there is no authonty wlthtn.LoDgrBSs
to reinterpret its requiremints and to tnpqg greLtearestrlcttons uPon

tho State; in the contluct of their own afrairs.tt The^re rs.no. power
*itfri" Consr€ss to act outside the boundaries of the Fifteonth Amend-
;'"rt"';-i;";tpt t"a Uy itt- Court, e! -le-ast 

so.long as the Federal
go;.;^.nt reinains a 

-gouernment of delegzted powelg:-

of the Constitution. ratho



Remed,ial ?ow*s L

Svbuvnmi**ee o+ +1^e bwshjo|'t^r
'A o{ *'tnt

f? ltq - ?ztp3q? -'{51

con$itutiond euchority of the Fiftcenth Amendment, the cubcom-
mitra does not believe thrt Congless is empowered to legialato out-
side the Derr,rteters st by the Court, ind€ed by the Constitution.

Sectioi 2 of the Fiftoeni.h Amendment provides:

Congress shall enforu the pmvisions of this Article by tP'
propriite legislation-

ConqresS. however. is not empowered hero or enywhere else in the
Gt ititutioo to *define" or to'sinterprpt" the pnovisions of the Fif'
teenth Amendment, but simply to ttenlottett those substa.ntive constitu-
tional mrarantces etroaav iri ixistence. To allow Congrus to intcrprct
the suEtsntive limits of lhe Fifteenth Amendnrent in a morc expansive
manner (or indeed in a disparsto manner) then the Court is to sherply
alter the'epportionment ol po*ers under our congtitutional system ot
seoerated Dowers.- it ii Eld to enlergc substontially the outhority of the F€der8l Goy-
ernrnent rt t}e erftnse of the sla'te goveramints since it musc be

ruorrtized thst tho Fifteenth Amendmlnt fundamentelly involves a
;Hfitrp"n the authority of stote governments end a conferrel of
;til"G ti;" thc Federal Governm-ent. To permit Congrees itself
to defindthe noturr of this authority. in controvention of the Suprtme
Co.rrt" ig to invplve Congress in a judicial function totolly outside its
DFoDor ourview.ilt--1h" 

dnactment of a rcrnrlts test in section 2 would be eqrrally im-
o--r"" to the extent thot its proponents purportod to emplov the
Fiu'"t*nit Lnre"dment as its'conititutionil fredicate. As with-the
Fiftoenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has ropeatadly made cleer
that it is neoeseorv to drove soilre discriminelory rirotive 6r purpoe in
order to estsblish e c6nstitutionol violarion under the Equrl Protec'
tion Clruss.t'

While DmDonents of the new msults test argue thot slected-Srr-
prome Court'dcisions exist to justifV t.he erpansive exercise of Con-
iressionol euthority proposed [6p rri this subcommittee rejects these
;;$;-;"G-NrCd.i d&ision opproeches the proposition being ed'
vdated here thet Concress mov strike down on a netionricle ba'sls an

""iirr "tro 
of lrws thit are n6t unconstitutional and that involve so

iii"a"t rl.-tettv ih" Acl,t" of republican sel f -government grrarenteed
to ach str,te inder Afoicle IY, ixtion 4 of the Constitrrtion'

it;il b" 
".pttt"ir"a 

ts"in'thet, whot Congrese is purportingto.do
in section 2 ie viSly differint then whet it did in the originol Yottng
niotts Act in 1965.-In Sou.thC@oliruv.Kotzetfiaah,the Court recog-

"iia "xt"arrdinarv 
rcmdial. powers in Congress un4er seet'ion 2 of

the Fifteenth Ameirdme^t.ra Katzerfiach did not euthorize Congrcss
to revii the notionts elec,tion lews as it saw fit. Rcther, the Corrrt there
rnacl" "t*" tt "t tt. re*eaitt power being employed by Congress in



RQilvilil ?owrn -3

-H8!!: e.a., Ratnbeh v. yotgas, Bt{ U.g. fit?8ttgoe) ; Otctos v. ,rarci.U. {OO U.S.rr2"(107q1 i CLr ot Rorc 1. AtLcd 8,otc., aao U.S. rt680(reEO).E 888 Ir.S. ri 381.
76. 96 S.Ct. m10, 48 L.Dd,zd 597.
77. 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.zd 150.
7t. 86 S.Ct. t?r?, 16 L.Ed.zd 82S.
79. 9l S.Ct. m, n L.Ed.zd n2.
80. 100 S.ct. 1s48. 6{ L.Ed.zd ll9. 

[page l?l]
the original Act wes founded upon the rctual erist€nce of e substrn-
tive constitutionel violation req-niring some rcmedy. lt Kalzatiul4
following e detriled descriptiori of a-hidorv of ocinstitutiona.l viole-
tions in the covered juriedictions, Chief Jirstice 'Wamen concluded
that:

Auhr tlwc citanutdneaa the Fiftoenth Amendment har
clearly been viobted.ts, (emphasis added)

While Kalpnbuh end later Citv of Ronwheld thet the ertraordi-
ntry -powers euployed_ by Congriss'in_ setion I wer.e of e clearly
remedirl char.acter, ond therefore iustifi€d che ertraordinorv orpco-
dures estc.blished in section 5, there-is cb€olut€ly no reord to"sriccst
tlrat, the proposed change in section 2 involve siimilar remedialEler-
cise. Becouse section 2- applies in scope to the entire Naiion. theie
is the necessity of dembistrating tlirt the .,erceptional,' circum-
stancqs found by lhe Katzerfiaih crolurt to exisf in the coverrd
jurisdictions in fact perureated the entire Nation (althouch acain bv its
very definition the cbncept of "exceptionslity,' w;uld seim t6 preclude**#.ttf,ittLr, 

,,o such evidence ofiercd durinc either rhe Hous
or Seneto hearing:. Indeed, the subject of votinc discrimination
outside the eovered jurisdictiona has been virtuallf ignorcd during
hearings in each chamber. Indeed as the strongest-ed-vocateg of the
House measurr themselves argued, a proposed fl6or amendment to er-
tend preclecrance nationolly wos ,tll-idvised', becaus no factual
record eristed to justify thii stringent constitutional r@uirement,'s

During one erchonge, Dr. Fleriming, the Director irf tne U.S.
Civil Rights Commission ecknowledcid thot the 420-pace. 1981
R€po+ of the Commission on votiig rights violeglirr.-:re .orr-
tained no infonnation whstsoever about coniitions outside the cov-
ered.juri-sdictions.rlo In the total s.bsence of such evidence, it is im-
possible for Congress to seriously contend that the pernrc^neit. nation-
wide change proposed in the standard for identifyins civil rights
violations is a "remedial" effort. As a rrsult, therr ein,Ee little do'ubt
that such o ehange is outside the legislative outhority of Congress. fn
short, it is the viiw of this subcomiittee that the pr6posed eh"ane€ in
sec-tion 2 is elearly unconstitutional, aS well os- im-pnrdent puUtic
policy.rtr

Moreover. a retroactive results test of the sort eontemplated in the
House amendments to sec-tion _2 (tne test- worrld apply to existing
electorol structurcs as rrell as chonges in those stnrcturts) has never
been approred by the Court even sith regard to jurisdictions with a

- Id.6S"c:..t:. r.mlrtr of U.E-.--&"Jr-r4!o!rtlr" JlEe! Scnqc_qbnaacr,.t E60?6 I U.E. Bcp,r.r.!tqt_!yg P_lter nodloo._ qt H0076; U.S. R.pr.rc.trttrc Mlctry l*ieuh, et Eob?al Gtn,
bar 5. le8l. CoDSHlloDrl B?cord.
_DThc Votlog Rlabt! Aet: UDfutoll.d co.lt, UDttcd Strt.. ComDlttloo oa CtyU Rt3htr(1081 )

344



Ru/vv^\) ?oweys I

tsrorta B"rrlElt, Fcbrutry 2t, t982. D?. Artbur n.alDt, Ch.lrD.!' Uoltc.l Et.t6
Ctrtl Rlahtt CoEEl.lloo.-';itfi''iubco;miiie routd rlro oblcrve th.t Drlt ol th. rrm. eoDttttutloltl L.ucl
nlred-ia itc coaicrt ol Ecctloo 2 hrc elro bcoa nfucd lD tbc @Etett of l.8r.htloq to
;;;;tu[ tui Sunicrc eouri'i itro]ttor d(ttrloo ln Ro. 1. wodc. L both tottroecr.-coD'
;';-i;;ni;;ii;;ttnioirrrirci--i'co-altttuttourt Drorl.loD ln olt?rleotloD-ol .t!"
ilt";;.Eoirii-ili6uiu i-aoiL itrtuic. Sct. e.r.. teitlooov bt Robcrt Bgtt. Hxdlrt
iiiorc thr B?DrrrlloD-o( Pot?-n SubomDlita" oo 8. l3t' JoD? l. letl; 4dal-ltlonrl-Yl!r
r? iii. i;;ai;-iir-iin-o-.-lirtci. a;;Elrt; priot or iri SubcoEElttcc ou tlr Ecp'rltlo! ot
Porcrl oo $ l6t, e?tb CoESttt . l.t Seoloa.

[page l72l
rrvraivc hidorr of oonstitutiontl riolttions lo Soath Coplhu t.
kotufiuh^thc'prspective naturc of the rction 5 procesa (epplicable
olv to cfuce in vitiu lrrs rnd prooedure) irs cssentirl to the
Corirt's detcrfoinetion of-constitution-rlity.'t' Tliis was closely related
to 6nding;s by Congress thet governntints in certain ereas of the
country icrc erectirig naro bortcrs to minority-participation-q tle
olectoi.l pnoccs evdn festor than they c-ould- be dismrntled by
lhr mrrr+iT1.nr a?rn rith ncrrtl tn r:ovira<l irrrisrlictions. the Court

p. ls't{ [P . s5 ul

Svbcamyl4ilke R

Ovesttons 'r Answerl lnta'* v' Resut+

Arc tlurc otlwr coutitttlional heune irwoh:cd ailh eection 9l

dinrry tst of section 5 to er
raduru- --

t,[f;*l^,Y.;*.i,r*l

ftJd;h'oy.a.(. VifpS o+ Scu.a*ov l)eCD! C,^'rrr o.qd S<*rA,hv LCAh

F,owr S Ub CovrnYn' Iteo, ,A

ffictr-{cE or sECTror- 3 ts.\ cossl'rrurlo-\*Al ExEncrsn
OF COIi GIT}:SSION.TL IOllTR

The Report questions thc constitutionalit.r' of S. 1992 on the grounds
that Congie.ss e'anrrot overturn the Suprerne Court's reading of ilre 14th
end 15th Amendrncnts i:ntlte Nobilev. Boldencax.

'We agree thnt Congress cannot and should not overturn the
SuprrmiCourt's interpretation of the Cortstitution.
I But it is-absolutelv clear.that cougress_ can pasr legislatiorr nt thestatute level to enforce trre rigrrrs piqiligtr Lriil;* .i,i"-,,h'ui",,t. o,,,rthat srrch statutes rna.r' reach [-y"iaiii. iiir.edt prohbi;;;;;i tr," 

"on_

gP Ba -$1

stitutional provisiomi- t4Ljl1.*ti.".;:-Ti;;;'i;;;ri:'io#ffii:il;':';."""::ec+rflv muio-.-l ;-..;'',f.if;^: ^t 
^t:r:;'; 

a.