Attorney Notes Pages 1431-1432, 1440, 1703

    lv )-L -
c congress does have Power. on the other hand' to correct

misinterpretations of prior legislation' such as present Section

2 of the voting Rights Act. And congress does have power to

enact a statutory rule forbidcling conduct' acts or practices

permitted by the Constitution that congress fincls to enilanger

an established constitutional right' So' in the present in-

stance, congress does have the Power to outlaw atl State and

loca1 voting arrangements that minimize or cancel out voting

porrer on account of race, in order to ensure that the delays'

expenseanddifficultiesoftheproofofsubjectivepurpose
will not resul-t in minority citizens being deprivecl of their

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Arnendments rights to be free from pur-

poseful discrimination. The povJer to enact such "necessary ancl

proper" laws is conferred upon Congress by Section 5 of the

Fourteenth and Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendments' South

carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.s. 301 (1966); Katzenbach v'

Morgan, 384 U.S. 541 (1965)i oregon v' Mitchell' 400 u'S' 112

(lg7o'l: Citv of Rome v. United States, 446 U'S' 155,175-77

(1980).

These precedents squarely uphold the constitutionality of

Section 2 of S. 1992. In Lassiter v. NorthamPton Electlon

Board, 350 U.S. 45 (1959), the supreme Court haC held that a

literacy teBt is not unconstitutional unless it is racially

discriminatory on its face or it is applie'l in a manner that

is racially discriminatory. In South Carolina v' Katzenbach

the court assumed the Lassiter rule but held that Congress

had power to outlav, all literacy telta in certain parts of the

1132

couniry as a means of preventing thefr use as eng::es of uncon-

sti.tutronal di,scrimination, everr though not all literaclJ tests

were unconstitutional and even though there was nc proof tha'. they

we::e being adminis+-ered in an unconstitu+-ional fashion an the

parr-icuIa:- case. Sin',ilariy, Congr:ess l-.as power to auilaw al-1

voting ar:angenen:s r-hat result rr: de::ial or ab:-]dgenen: of the

rrgh'! to vote even +-hou.ah no+- al-f such arranoenen|,s are unccr,-

stitutioral, beca:se this is a i€3ns a: l'r.i:r:inz -.he'-: use as

engines of purp,csile and ti-.ereicre urroonstttutional :'acia1 Cls-

crimir,a'. ion .

city of Rcme v. UniteC Sta-:es, 14€, Ll .S. 156 (1980) j.s an

even nore exact preceden'. for u5rhoiding the ccnstitutjonalitl'

of Sec'.ion 2. Section 5 of the present Voti.g Rights Act

which prc,hibit-s a change iL voting Laws uniess '-he change

' dc'es :'ro'- have the purpcse and wil i not hav€ the ef f ect of

oer;ying or abridgirrg the r:ght tc vote on accoun+, of race or

colc::. '' The Cit]' of Rome .hailengec the cons+-ltuticnal j.t.y of

"ne 
" ef f ects" par+- of the -!est- on the ground tha+, the f j f teenth

Arrend.ne:t prohibj-ts on11"'pu:'pose:ur cli scr-j-mina.-i on " as Cef ined

:r :hE 11:::la c3se. :i€ :aJr'- s:::a:e:; xE.c +-i.a: ei'er' --icurl

',ile Constitution bars cniy' purposeful- iiscrj-nj-natron, Congress

In3\'e:r3a: a statu+-Orlr "efiecr-s" teS'- in orcer to prevent Iio:a-

'-:or-s o: the Ccns'.j.'.utior, that night othe::"'ise be conceaiei.

'' . Even if El. c: t-he IFrf teen:h.] AmenCinen'. prohrbi.ts cnly

F::aas€i:: discrir.ina-.to:;, t.he p'rior cects.ions cf t-hls Ccurt

icreallse an]' aloument ta,:-. Congress na! n3'., lursuant rc Sl,

cr:^au \.1',inc p:cceour:es tha: are cis:::rrr:a-.c:r' tr, eifec:."* O

ffm$ffim
\
GJcr.
\

?

1
i

iIfrr$I ;r ,

*;qff ;ra88!r
fi 

q€;

t# EE;E E,::

t*:!g'3 g lE
-I r.='E€5' E>E
E in H.s€ FjE
H:I8*..* flEl

$=gfu- 
eis

r iffjjgt;ir
\;-rl3tr;lfi

$EErt:r&
'Jl
a