Congressional Record S6714-S6726

    rt
S.
or
he

he
lu-
ris
to

;he
)ns
rlic
not

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS
P.L.9?-205

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1982

\Y.t sz-zos, see Page 96 Stot 
'31\

House Repbrt (Judiciarv Committee)l{o' 97 -227'

Sept. 15, l98l [To accompany H'R' 3ll2l

Senate Report (Judiciary Committee)f'{o' 97-41?'
--- rrt", i5, 23,1982 [To accompan]' S' 19921

Cong' Record Vol' 127 (1981)

Cong' Record Vol' 128 (1982)

DATES OF CONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE

House Oetober 5' l98l; June 23' 1982

Senate June l8' 1982

House bill was passed in lieu of the Senate bill after amending

its language to contain the text of the Senate bill'
The Senate Report is set out'

SENATE REPORT NO. 97-417

Ipage III]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ate
der
hat
the
rof
sifi-

dto
sor
the

fica-

The

t.
Il.

III.
I\'.
\'.

\.l.

PANT I

Reporl o! the Conm'illee

tjii'J.".: ilq -$,"-,1";r: 
o1 l.:o-'l:i^3'll; ;:' - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - .'H;iI*y Jie lil ;'r Cinr m rt t ee .Pro':,"91o.*i;,-,;; [i.-br.- A.i - - - - - -
H l'.'-"ii 

" 
: i il'b i?"* lTl" ii; ;;i'i:i 

"ll "i"lS 
ot i n g R i gbr-s 

-'] I I - - : - - .Background: UrlS)D 8Do vu(IBLr,u ('r r"i r v-'-r

6;;l;';;"-;\".0 i n' sectron.5 l'-il:"Ill+;;-i;.;,;; rii"hr=-i;i - -.conirnueo ^\eeu r'" --"i.:, 
-ai.iio. z or Tbe \oting Righrs Acr---

COmnrit,let Amt,nOn,r'nt I (! :ecrruu ! ur r !! i \'!

Prtt
I
D

3
4
I

I5
l5

l7

l9

B. Origrnal Lesi:iarive t';d;t'i;;:i;;i- of Section 2 in tbe

. r#"i"'l'\;- r;;;;;;;i;;i 
-i ;i;-ii.'iti-"'- 

-cii" ri'r''"
tht Boldcr, Lirigstion----

D. Tb';bil;;iil" tfS""i"o-i a-'-l-"oaecl bl the Committee

Biu-- -.:---------'
E. Resot,n.t Tn Que'ttt'nt-R;lt;d 'i'i'nui-tu" "Resu)ts Te't"
-' --;Tih. 

Committet '{mendnrent- -'----''
F. Limitgtiont-oifUtlnreu:Test- -----;--
G Constitutr"o"a.}ii::tiJul-Conrnritte"'{mendment 

to sec-

tion 2 -
Yll. Comniitrer' Bailc'ut Provision=---
rjrir r-^i"r -{s.i-larrct .{nrendnleol - - r- - - : -.- -' - -

' iI. ;;i;;:;Jo' uf Bil'rgu'l Eiectii'u Prt'r'isions -
' i. S;,i;;-br -:ection Anal'r'si'-
lii. n"cuta' i.\ tt"' in Conrniitrt'

xiii. n"sttrl"n IILlti(i

.iaili,.lil'rt,'' * . .'f 't'"Ls t r r Thurn'c'r^c - -

i;;ii;;;;i vteq. c'f Serialc'i Hatch-

177

27

3t
36

39
43
62
64
68
75
79
8r
8l
88
94

ate



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L. 97-205

cThe CoErDlt'e€ alro cDtlclpaies the eolhterat beDent tb!t Dast noD-eo[opllrDec rblch
lB stlll outstandinF and unremdled rlll b" uneotered 8nd correctd. Tbus. f)rerr Days,
former AsslstaDt Atrornel Gener8l. Cirll ntAht6 Di!l8loD. lnfornred tbe Commlttee thst
the DepartmeDt of Jurtlce aom€tl[?s l€arDs of DoD.submllted chrrncea sereral Jea16 alter
the5 s-ere in fact t[D[,lemeDted. Profes8or f)a.r'E staled lbat "(e)rlentioD of lhe Aet shoulat
locrease the llkellhfr,d tbal erlstlDc non-eomDllsncc sith the larv qlll be uDcorered !Dd
reBedied for tbe bettermeDl of mlDorltr roters." Professor Dat'e ctted the erample of
tbe CttI ol Creenrllle. Pltt CountJ..\orlh Crrolina. shete tbe l)€psrtm€nt oaly learned
of prior change6 xhpn tbp Jurlsdictlon souEht precl€srrnce of subsequ€Dt cbaDges reveral
]ears later. SrxteDeDt of Dret DaJs, Septemb€r 12,1982 at 6-?.

[page 15]

First, the suggp.stion that we should consider "nationwide'proclar-
snco is misleadrng. The existing prec.leorance provision was based on
a formula toilored to meet. problems of voting dirrirnination wherever
they occur. The prouision is not lilnited to any particular region of
the'country. To the contrarJ. it now applies to-literalll'the fd,ur cor-
ners of America: from counties in Hawaii and Alask&. to Dart-s of New
England and Florida. In fact. more people are protecledin thrce cov-
ered counties in New York than in most of the Southern states. The
recent objections to proposed changes in New York Citl', Arizona and
South Dakota undemort the fart that the preclearance provision does
not set a double standard for different regions of the Nation.

Second, the Toting Rights Act already"contains a number of provi-
sions that appll' litiralli in every jurisdiction throughout the^land.
I\fost important. Section 2-the Act's grneral prohibition against vot-
ing discrimination---applies to even' statf, and countr'. The revised
version of Sertion 2 contained in t.his bill could be used effective)y to
challenge voting dirrimination anywhere that it might be proved to
occur. fhe Act also contains a provision allowing a court to order pre-
clesranee in a state or political subdivision noipresentlv covered by
the triggrring formula."

In addition, enaclment of lfationrside prec)earance would be an ad-
ministrative night.mare for the Department. of Justice. It. would over-
load the s1'stem. As Re.presentative H1'de vividly put the problenr
during the House hearings. "Ii]t (\arionwide piec'learanee) would
strenp(hen tire Act to death.'''5 f t is alread-r difficult for the Depart-
ment.io enforcp the existing preclearanct p'rorisions with limitei re-
sources. The Departnrent's t,urden would be increased dramatically if
it were required to rerieq- proposrd ciranges from even' single stata
and political subdirision not now covered under Section 5.'0

Finall-'r'. in the Committee's r-ien. there is a serious question of
rhether'or not nationu-ide prec)earance rrould be constitutional. As
noted elesrrhere." the .Supreme Court upheld the Aet's triggering
formula in large parr because of the estensive Congresional findings
of voting discrimination in the colered jurivlictions. It is doutitful
that the Supreme C.ourt would sustairr the extension of this "Llncom-
mon exercise of Congressional porer" in the absehee of a similarl.y de-
tailed reeord of voting discrimination nationwide.r6

}:T. A}TE\D}IE}:T TO SECTIO\- 2 OF THE VOTII{G
RIGHTS ACT

A. Orznvnw: Pnorosrp Arcxourr*T m Sncnox 2

The propxrsed amendrnent to Sertion 2 of the \-otine Rights Act
is.designed to rrstorc the legal^standard--t.hat.governed voting_dis-
criminatiorr cases prior to the Supreme ('our1's decision in Bolden.

192



hlch
ars,
th at
fter
ould
aDd
.of
rn?d
,?ral

VOTING RIGHTS ACTOAMENDMENTS

BAr-
Ion
)Yer
rof
cor-
ferr
coY-
The
and
does

'ori-
and.
vot-
rised
lr* to
:d to
DII.
duv

n ad-
oYer-
,blem
;ould
pa.rt-
rd re-
Ily if
sta.te

rn pre-Bo*,enff.=. 
[page 16] 

ril bv shoT i"c'll:"'a chal- ('

'-ffi#-iftH."'ffiHtl},f,ffi$ililffi unu 
*

li["}#i,r:ffitffi.UH,**3e cour'l !"qr' r'il,.t:Tt: s c+ r*t
and e_ul:,11n:,:Jr;t*l':i*"n*riif'Hli'ltlHl,irypi,trr frcrimina,tronf:TJ{Sii,p.lir,,ti:;lfllli;;,ai;l;i injurr rrom th. n o, r'
gl#T,""ffJiA';;'
I#a"iq,.*,,..'rJiliil:'li##';I"if"ffi'y-'**'i"'t'eerectorar 

Y 
t)

pryp*:11?^:'iriii"?T,T::il?li?iiiffffii*il}'..-H#n,Xn:

;"$'# i;1*l,:Trfi,;'ul"i,,?"?1 "*;i'l;t i on z't'' R"'-i *': ; 
l,

f; ff; il,i,,i,. .:, a 
", 

l"l1' ll.l' .i:yf 
" *i, fJi;,:Hi-'T i i, ; ;",., 

" 
*

."'i 
ffi ,':,-.1,T:;.':t", i;llat 

e rn t ne 

.P';
,n" oyf ';;;;,; -'ilf , I :11, d,*=" ll :, lli,, "nn''' 

t t e<' h a'q. ma <r t' se ve ra l

x eij' nn a i n ps t*l " :T 
u"' t,:* il,'i:rilff ii $Hi i *:,X iitl:

hrqu i rin r P'iffi il, J1 ;; l;i ;;' an rl srthseque nt I etn s I

rith the ortgt

'q*#$lr5***;:.-x r(on of
rl. As

f,le(:rur ar u\ ' -- - 
tgCli_Ugd+pnot be subie-d t9, aI--^.:.,,...^f .,;rilil*f,i$ il$:,*}!il 

1(
rring
dings
rbnfirl
ncom-
ly de'

G

r,**q[*t Pc

rii+o.l-,r- 
"r*1.'q,g Ti:Hrilx'iitbtlt*"fliil$:il ( k r rc

standard, first enunc

ffits Act
rg dis-
lolden. 193

I



_t
q(,\ u"^

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L.97-205

tional representation. and the disclaimer in Seetion 2 eodifies this
judicial disavowal. (Part E)

The intent test focuses on the wrong question and plaees an un-
accepta_ble burden rrpon plaintiffs in i'oting discrimihation cases,
(Part F)

The proposed amendment to Section 2 is rell within Con.pess'
constitutionel authority. It is not an effort to overrule a Suprenle

[page 17]

Court interpretation of the Constitution, rather it provides a
gtatutory prohibition which the Congress finds is neccs-sary to en-
force the substantivp provisions of the 14th and lsth Amendmenrs.
(Part G)

B. TrB Omorxal Lrorslernr Ixrrxr es m Sncrrox 2

The Committee amen4ment rejecting a requirement that discrimina-
tory purpose be proved tn establish a violation of Seetion 2 is fullv
consistent with the original legislative understanding of Section 2
when the Act was passed in 1965.

Advocates of an intent requirement for Section 2 cite statements rn
the legislative history of the 1965 Act to the efrect thst section 2 was
designed to track the Fifteenth Amendment. whose wordins it fol-
lows. The.y suggest that the Fifteenth Amendment has alwivs been
rrnderstood to require proof of diseriminator-r purpose. Thei craim
that. inasmuch as cong,ress chose to track the tsiiteentl Amendment.
congrer" also must hav-e s,rught to impose an intent J""a"ralr'i:iiiir*
2. This they ar6rue that thJcommitiee amendment is not consistent
wit^h the original understanding of Section 2.

whether the Fifteenth or Fourteenth Amendment sere understood
Iy 9otgr_*s in 1965__to errbody an intent requirement is ultimatell. of
lilnited reler'ance.'e H^osever, ihe committee'has examined the Iegisla-
tive histor.v of -the 1965 enactment, relevant legislative historv?rom
thc 1970 extension of the Act. and the general Inderstandins in 1965
2f nhat wa,. required to establish a Fi'fteenth Amendment iiolation.
Tl'e find no persuasire eridenee-to support the argument outrined above
that congress ma.de prool of discrilminatorr purpos€ an essential re-
quirement of section 2 when it was first enactird. '
^ During_the hearings on the Yoting Right.. Act of 196i. Attorner
Gene'nl Kat"pnhaeh testified that sec.tion 2 wourd ban ''anr kind oi
praetice . . . if its^ptr?ose of efi-ec_t vas to denr or abridge tne rilti to
vote on account of rece or color.tt &

This stotement is not a str_ay.remark in the extensire procecdings
that led tothe Aet's passsg€. r[ isthe most dirgct eridenee'of hos tire
congrels understood the provision, sirce concr*.. relied upon the At-
F*"-v General to explain t^he meaaing and o'peration of fhis Erecu-
tive Branch iaitiative.tr

- Wblle tbe CoEEltt?€ iDds^ that Cootr?ar dld Dot acrt to tDclude aD tDtcDt t6t tD tb.gliEl.qd p_r-o'lsioo. ot r-ectroD.2, r. pluraitt-r ot tour Juitreee ti citi oI t;L:i; ri'sold.".
l-r1 L s,itr, bu-{ir (r0to, rbougbi rbrt ri dld. The-courr ts tue ittiiDlr?-inierlrcrer or1116 oD(y CDtct?d. But ln eD) eycDt, tb€?e la no gucstlon tbat Con3reee oe_r noi declde
!!il^a". lDt€DtrequrremeDt lr lnlpproprtarr ror reciton z,1oa i."odiiiiuGio-iaLe tbeipotDt clearlr. C:oDgrca' hls th€ eo.rtrtutloDrl Dorcr !o do ro. gee gecilon Vt, C. iijro iiDD. 96-98.
- r "senltor Fong. .Ur. Atto-rD?t GeD€rrl, turElDB to !"ctloD 2 of tbe bill ther€lr Do de0DtttoD o! tbe lord "proceduri" berr. I iu a ttttrcirriio tbatJtiii i'ii'u. eeruropractlc€8 tbrr vou DlJ Dot be eble ro lDclude lD ihe roro':piocioirie-;'-F6-r-irl'apic.-ir

194



rs t-his

ln un-
cases.

r fJress'
prenre

'ide.s a
to en-

menis.

,.

'imina-
s fully
:tion 2

rents ln
r2was
it fol-

ys been
i claim
rdment.
section
rsistent

erstood
rtelv of
legi'sla-
'v from
in 1965
olat ion.
d abore
rtial re'

ttorne)'
kind of
right to

eedings
how the
the At-
Erecu-

lcat lD tbe
r. BoWa.
frpretcr o,
ror declde
DatP tbat
;. tirro rt
. tber€
t* c?rtatD,raoLle lf

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS
P.L.9?-205

ibere rbould be r c,trtllD -rtttute lD r Etate tbit 
"t'.tbe 

resletratloD o6c ;bell br oP?D

onry I dev t! 3, or ,on,-.o.i'ili''p--lif'X*'*Iifl*tj":g 3i:"*it*Ii'*f'?In'?"-'"",!ou
i:ii+-,+#lii'Li1t-{'i'{ifi iil',{,if"rf#i-+.sr}t=,"*llq':,:i:+'+l.';t*bad tboulht of tbe sord "Pr(

grraore ot alecl taa-lo oea!'

'Ci,l,i:*ltl,iirdtl{+i$i3lg-tTffi+,ll"i,trrfr:r,{Ttri'f ,'l';i,-isli"q$r
i:iLtliin'q$i$,l;i;rl,,.F*,':".ffi ;i;',Ff#-l';,:.q'5ikBH::"J:,'.,H

tbe rlght I
on tbe Jud

B S'hllci*:i,"it'""'"i;..;i"i*ir"'"tgt"J.::6i:e!:_it{,,i!'f}rrJ

tsu:l*;$n;ik*ih[*',ii'[ ifxfr
rnd rbouJd be
u.8.379.301"

i*"ii[t'.$f.h$::*lE'rf']:f-jf 
ietri',i,ntl'l{:l*f, lttili':i"HFiA:'i+:

iccorded "rrQat d?fcJcDet'
ii971). IDaleed, tbG BuDr?.D.

toi 6t tle
(1969).

8. 9l S.Cr 4sr.2i LEd.zd 416. 
[page lg]

It is tnre that Seetion 2 origin-allr hntl no referenee to a t'esults or

"fi;t ;;;;;;e; ;hii; s"Jtio"? ao"'' B-u.t as senator 'specter noted at

iil;h;"rilL;;ttlt ",gr.-"JIro,". 
nottin_g, inasmuch.as section 2 is

also sitent as to any ird;';d;aq.a. 1n{ S-ection 5 refers to proof of

t"tf, Ii Jii.inatorj' Purpose and discri mi n at orv e frect'52
"' iir;;;;i;il tri."r,'"i.I"gi ;;a l;; debates' there we_re statements

s)*ll,t:**;'ililtit{1ii::**ll3'.Lxl,g:il',iffi il,:lll:
*i:'X","'Jii"$i::J*1":,:q',:',f *Y;f H:;5rgp;*li;iJll:
crinrinat ion.s'"tir;i;;l.iative histon of the 19?0 extension of the Act confir,rs that

Concress had not -""1i ti'fi-iitt. origi-nal Section 2 to situations in

;fifi ait"ii-i"ttory intent was proved' -
In 1 971), tr,en A'tt ofrei"Ot"*ii't"r"r }litchell l19 ll:-Ti^51*l i"g

d;;; f. Lo"'ir[i" ;;;h",u; "1' 
t"'g'"g= explieitlv-authorizing the

ili;;;;.'C".*r"T t" Uii"[E iianr',*h-ere-rn t]ie countr\ t. cha]tenge

any practice
which has the ?ur?ose m-ef ect of denying or abridging the

rilfrii" vote on accbunt of race or color' ' ' 'rs

The Senate Judiciarl' Committee .rejected -his 
proposal 'on 

the

sr:;'ra-in'i';t iiira',*tnit4 to thc Aci' T5e J'ic*" stated that

The Attorner Genera-l a)rea'dy ho't tht authority tobrir'? rurl'
azits Iunder aection 2]. s

In 19i3 the Fifth circuit. in an e,i D.anr opinion hv then 'Iudg'e
C.ifi" f"fi. ruled that proof of discriminatorv purpose was not re-

"rio".l under section 2 of ihe Yoting Rig)rts Aet'3'''"i; ih" i;i "iiilSo. 
U"sed on a re\li.t: of.the same legislatire \i.Jofr.

t#'Aii;;;i-b;;;;i "i*i""r the position thar section 2 did not

reouire nroof of intent.st"fl;;;ffil"ii.'c.r*itutionat eontext in whic\ section 2 *'as first

"";"i;i.'li;t"*.iii""-finds 
that it was different from the situation

if,"t ifr. Cons...= r;; i;";i iirer llotrtrrr. It.is inrportant to a'oid
tffii;ii;;;ir*-i,rlino iti. t*o situatio-n-. are the san're. It is trrre that

in lislrt of the fieo Eoldtn deeision. the Congress aarr.mtl:t,deeide
;ir;iT;;; t; h;r:" 'iect ion 2 cont inue to tre coextensive with the Fifteenth

""d-i-r.t"enth 
Amendments. or whether to maintain Section 2 as a

;;;rLi;;-"i."it"t,i. in situations where discriminatorv intent is not

;;;;;. r;qt. Congt"ts faees that choice. but it did not in 1965'

,r s*** -rt botb !lt?rD!tlve ataDdrrdE t.D re.tioq 5 Brkes rense because of tbe uDusual

burdeD ot prool placfd ,rroi-ii"-.-ul]iit-tiog tuitsoictlon to sati6t.v each of tbem l! order lo
ubblD Preclearance. 

1gs



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L. 97-20s

"diE"'!"?[lT:n'.L*],f"f rT,tr.'i"i]-*i$Ell::.firg#)tbe co.o'tttce oD tbe Judt'
rrbe Eubcommltte? Report ql-ted the 6nt leDteDce oi ibe ehove quotattoD frou Mr.Katrenbrch, bur be wa: o'brlouit.y'.i.iru'btni tidm'ru" eonrerr of seniioi-idor's renarrtbat purpore would be ctelr, rnd be weot-bn io siire tte letuit-rlauoiri-i'f,ite clearrlterDe tlve.

..t"t'rder.our rlroposrl be- [tbe Attorn?t o?n?rar] could lnFtrture a rssrutt any praec tntho eorrnt-ry bard oD a broader rtltutory nrotectlon itf e atscrlminai'o;t';e;;;;'r;;; iliii,iiA J.rttc,'Iar votrnc rls or !.et o..rortn-g tass. Thii ;;.'ir-;;i; ii ii;ar-i"-iu" io.,rtr trrttt lr unDrc?r! rr to nrov. tbrt tbe tDt;nt of tb. loeii or starp-oilclatC r-asicfiUl.-motiltrt{ril." leTO Sebate Rerrtnge. rpra. f arlirb -leil,itii"t. iaa.Al-- ---

ii::2;;l'{irli.l:&[{T$_?1,'Ja,i:l';;;l;i*u':i""r i'p'a (EmphaLI add?d.| /?-.-Aileue brlel of the UDlted Stater .Loarc t Bt,tioa,6Xq ,F 2at .tBrA (tth etr. lgBl).?/ol. lrri.. notci, Nb aoa. Rog.ere v. Lotoe. -- 1'.9 ----. 1g! S Ct.-ne irriliti.'interert.ln3tr. tbe.fhpartrDeD-t.ot-Juriice paintalo"a 151.-r; ,,ron ti'Liaoe. noirttbrienotor tbccaDt?ary vler rdopted bJ tour Jultle?i tn Bolden mo'ntbr earller.

lpaSe I9l

In 1965 there simply w&s no noed for Congress to choose between
thoeo two &spects of Section 2. It was possible in 1965 to regard Sec-
tion 2 hoth as s rcst&tement, of the Frfteenth Anrendmentland aleo
&s rca.ching discrimination wlrether or not iutent could be established
The reason is that there was no genersl understanding in 1965 &mong
scholars, prectioners, or the lor.er courts that the 

'Fourteenth 
and

[''ifteenth Amendments, themselves, alwa]'s required proof of dis-
criminatory intent to establish a violation.sg

Dep-e_nding on thg circumstances and the er-idence of the particular
case al-le.ging a violation of those Amendments, the Suprerne Court
focused its analysis sometimes on a discriminatory purp;s€s; e some-
trmes on a drscriminatory resultsl.t and sometimes on both..,
C. Trr Lew Pnron ro rEE Mogrr,r Drcrsrox - t t -*

An examination of the vote dilution eases beforp Bolden reveals that {Lt t'^t
Bolden was in fact a marked departure from prior law.
. The-principle thatthe riglrt'to vote is de'nied or abridged bv dilu-

tion of voting slrgngth derii;es from the one-person, one-r-6te resppor-
tionment case of Reynolds r.,-Sims. The Supreme Court based its *t*g
on the fundamental view that "an-v alleged-infringement of the right oi
citizens to vote must be carefully and miticulousll:' scrutinized'' be-cause
"tho right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is
prgservative of other basic civil and political rights." d.

In defining the basic dilution prinCiple, the Srlpreme Court observed :

There is more tg !h. right to vote than the right to merk a
piece of.paper andjrop i[ in a box or the right 6 pull a ]ever
in a.voting booth. The iight to vote includei tne right to have
the ballot counted. . . . It also includes the right io have the
vote counted at full value without dilution or-discoult.
That federallv protected riglrt suffers sutrstantial dilution
.- . . _{ryhere a] favored group has full votjng strength . .

Iand] [t]he groups not in favbr hare their voGs disco"unted.6.

_:^"_lrsilp:,rs !}l-sEgs of tb? a.el, tbe EupreE? court bad lDaueared tblr ! lDdlDE oDuneon;tltutloDal rore dUutto_o qguld rs?! up6n pmof or cittir- purpmi oi dtJejnroaloryrc.ults Forrrd r. Dor.?v..J?$ u.B. {3Bslti}65.,.:tDd tuar nositrbi'*ii riidi-mi,i rue rdr,lorlog y_ear..Brn-a r. Richaratoa, sii-tt.-8. -?-j:',rle-og, rsL-arr"u.iro-r'JTuii'ru€ lr
Dp. _10-17 irrra.) Io Potser v. Thospeoa, roli u.5. zic-rrs;ri. tui bi,uri-uili-itat proorol dlscrlnlDrtorr tnt.nt r.a8- Dor Oerirotriatiie oi rIetU"i t[eie--eJ i-i,ioilit";;i 6c;;iPrltectlon rnd lbrt the r_elereoi r&[i-iir't[], 'i-niire" r-i*t.il]-r.pi"i.'i[e porra..
opt-DloD rl.o crtcd tb? I960 trlfrerD.tb tmendnent iaie, oonutiii'i.-La;;fi;|. s6{'t.s-'6is.t
+Dd otber ?rrtt"? d.etrtons rDd rcr*red t_ue eonienlio'o tbii i;;i';;;;';i["oio?to. reo.
.!IqJ.J^lr_t^.^ol !.:l !p ^tbe 

coDrrrtuirqn trr)riiocie-G tuose cria rii bn'iii'ee-.tuar crector rne eDrctm"Dt!. Dot uf,on tbe mo:lr!floD rblcb led tbe gtrtes to behare eiitei-ara ,, rogu.8. rt 225. rn tbls rar6e pcrrod. ibe c;u;r uiiirGu"iri;.jn;i,1b";r?",iili Lr rot""tta_eomparrblc ebetl?Dser fo ooclai ieuoi-unaeiru; ii;.i'i;;D;;;oi.'?lirc^i brotu ,.O'Brka, Eel U.8. 30719( 1966 t.

;

Li
t
::
4

I

'196



I tDc Judl.

froE Mr.
t'8 rcEttl

tb. clcrr
!y phc" lD
," ctect' ol
\o.rt. thrt
lrlly Dotl-

rild.d. )

lr. leFIl.
l. f nt"r?tt-
lDdlD, th?

between
'ard Sec-
and aleo
.ablished
,5 emong
)nth and
I of dis-

articular
oe Court
; o some-
a2

reals that

lby dilu'
nesppor-
its ruling
,e right of
l" because
manner is

observed:

ark a
lever

, have
;e the

utlon
I...
rted.c'

e lodlng oo
lrerlrDlDltolt
roed tbe lol-
b6e el!6 lt
ld tbrr Prool
ttnu ot Eoutl
Tbe Polt"r..
3G{ t'.s. 33r'

l?Dt tor r"ad'
,re!ual 

"t<tbcy dld " t03
.Dcr of lDteDt
itcd 8aotc. s.

fr #flf"tlfr ?li,$ilinlf,'slTt"::::*]f:::fi::::
-11fl,.;ii"i..,fri,',#,"at'#Fst:ii'$lilillJ;ifiilri,"iFill
$$f#fliilil,$lt=,h''ffi ;*;l[ill,.fffi i]l,,i-#';'B#"i,'J,i,

rlrched "dllaltcr Pro'
Probl.E ol UDcoDsfltu-
h. l.i rrr rcllcetcd la

tclt r..rp.DrloD dd^lte llt_.arr'i?r oF-r.r"r, 
"i diitioil ircclia.otce . act'],; iai S ; 

- 
jp-!.,-,1. -"*:lilr"i,l'" S:"i,lt li:ti*tllor ;u ra v onr y b r v. r d tlcrr Et r

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDME\TS
P.L 97-20s

f.Hfi "; ii iil 
^" 

+ ;;; "P'i t!-Tl'^'- r.'igl, niv onlv'bevr r dhcrlEtDrto?Y

."i*,i",.Ll3fXoi'.'"di[rT."':P.J"-i"i!li'..l.**i'g'* .\",'.'.9,i.i"t.-;",*'iil.l1'Ri'""":
fff i$,fl T*pii;',$iljln$iif#,U#;Ib';,""iii'iitiioarnioodtotcut'"qorl+
DGnt for lbc.8?? U.8

,ii-r&'tfr nitr;rb- aDt-DdD?Dl lD I
. 8?? u.8. 638. 662 i'(l9cr ).rId. rt 666, r.2e.

ffi*ffifit'flffif*titrt+ir,llti

9. 85 S.Ct 49F. 13 L Ed 2d 401

10. 86 S Ct l2h(i, 16 L Ed 2d 3?6

ll. 81 S Cr 12i, 5 L.Ed 2d ll0'
12. 8t S ('t 16?3. 20 L Ed 2d 672'

13. til S Ct 603' 1l L Ed'zd 512

14. tr,J S Ct 1362. 12 L Ed 2d 506

lPage 201

Beurwldsinvolr.eddilutionofvotesasaresultofpopulationdisparities
;;1ffiffi=i;;i,:; diJ;i;;. i,,ii _.i' n,ontr,s latei irre Supreme ('ourt

recognizedthatpopulationdiflerences\\.erenottheon]r.war.inrvlrich
;'f ";;iil ;;;;;,i 

el.i ;;;i;;s pl;;,i; i ght uncon.r ir ut i ona l l v rjn de r'a r tte

ir,. i.*.d;i;;;; 
"na'oru..iiue 

the iotes of others. ln Fo.rtsmtt. Dor-

#.i;;b;;;;;;; a";; r,"ra irlaLtt'e u.se of multi-member districts rvas

;X';;;;;titutional ?('r E(.but *arned :

It migirt well be that. desigrwlla ot otherri"qt ' a multi-

member constttuenel' apportlonn)enl .scheme' yndqr,!lt1-cir-

"ra-"i"i,"n. 
of a t,ariicrriat c:t-<'. troultl ol" t.dlt /(/ mInlJItlz{'or

eaneel out the titl"g iitt"Eh of racial'or Jolitica) elettrents

of the roting PoPulation'ts
The next vear in IJrtrn'st" Rkhordsaa' 3E4 f 'S' ?3 (1966) the Court

-#."iil'.i-;';1;;;.;ir,ti piti't'ff c.oul! prer-ai).br P.ro'r'ing an "in'i-
e io* ;; Ji.i, e. it h" d'i; "f ;;;; ;;.the coirrt indicited t hat 

-a 
J,port ion -

ment schemes rrhich i;;ii,,l; *iiiii-nio*tpr ciistricts cotrstitute inr-id-

ior.. ai..ti*ination if it can be shos'n tirat :

d,esiontdlv or othe ruise. a multi-member constituencr- sppor-

;i,""Y,;;,;i'*i,.n,.- rn.t.t tlte cit'cunrstan<r's of a panicuIar 
''a^*e'

cnould oocralc tr';i;l;ri;; oicancel out t5e r.oting strengtl) of

;":;;l oi'potiti."t elenrents of rotirtg ;tolrulation'66

The Court tlren explained that tirr'stanrlnrd rras rriiether tllt'e\.itlene0

.i,"i.j ;i t,rt' ri . t*..iii',nilt,,i*t a'=t riet in g t 

^ox 
l c * i ct r'r d t n.l' :':l or h n rl

ttre invidious effect ;;;;;;;l io 
" iragn.,J"t of the uneonstitrrtionalitv

of the districting''.6'"'T;; C"i,rt'air|tlv considere<l a-racial dilution ehallenge in IIlil-
,r;i' r: ci';,.;r.' r.i".t ir,rg, .t"1- thar a stare lesislat i.e rta p,rrt ion -

iri-r* pfirr"rp.r"ii,a ,.ro mininrize or cancel out- minoritl'.voting
srren'rh."s Rlack 'oiersif inJir."polis. Indiana. challenged tlre plan

i;';-;i]l;rd.i".i;"ii'"f eisht state senalors nnd la' as"etttlrlv p'e11]lr'rs

f;;;' ;;i,nii.*ia. ,nritirn.-ter legislative distriet. The f)istriet

197



LEGISLATIVE IIISTORY

Court sustained the plaintifr's contention that their voting strength
rsas unconstitutionallv diluted. on the basis of proof ihat black
ghetto residents with'district legislative interests had been consist-
entlv underrepresented in the legislature in conrparison with their
proportion of the population.

The Supreme Court rcr'ersed. holding that the meJrtret-that
ghetto residents were not proportionatelv represent d:does ndtprove
a constitutional violation unless thel' were deniedfqual access to.,{he
political process ( _-./

Iior does the fact that the number of ghetto resideil-ts *ho
were legislators ras not in proportion to ghetto population
satisfactoril-y prove inridious discriminati on. absenl eridcruce
a.nd fir,d.ings lltol qhrtto retidenls had lca.s olypmtunitu thon
did other residents to partiri.Tnte in the political ?rocesEeE
and to elcet legislatm.s ol tfuir choire.Ge

a-/

A
V4,

.378 f.S. at ,l3Q tPmpharh rddedi.r 36! U.S 73:r 8F lIe661 {emphaF,s Bddedt
---A.!eqlslat"re'F DrofxlFed r rirpdr for ma)arlnortloDed Di6trlet^ <nutd onlr be r.Jftt?dll lt "ras destened to or sould operatp to Elnlmlze or caDcel out the rottng stringtbof raelsl or polil-ieAl clpDenlF of tbe votlog poI'u)alloD" (ld. at 89) (mbaFlr eddea r. '-4O3 D.S 1211r' trgirl. I.r. at 1{0 (eDDbasls added).

t5.
16.

86 S.CL. 12b6. l0 L.Ed.2d 3?b
91 s.Ct. 185E, 29 L Ed.zd 363

lpage 2ll
The evidenee showed that the ghetto area voted Denroeratic. that the
Republicans Eon four of the five elections from 1960 to 1966, and
that in 1964, when the Demcrrat.s won. ghetto srea senators and rep-
resentatives were elected. Nine blacks had in fact been elected to the
Iegislature from the at-large districts between 1968 and 1968. Thus, the
ma jority concluded :

The failure of the ghetto to have legislative seats in pro-
portion to its population emcrges more as a function of losing
eleetions than of built-in bias against poor Neg:roes. The
voting poser of ghetto residents mar have been "cancelled
out." &-s the Distriet Court held. but this seems I mere euphe-
mism for political defeat at the polls.'o

ln Th,iteornD. plaintiffs coneeded that there s&s no eridenee of dis-
eriminat.ory intent.?r If intent had been required to pro'r'e a violation
the opinion s'ould have ended after it aeknonledged plaintifrs' con-
cession. But the Court proceeded to engage in a lengthv analvsis of
whether the challenged svstem resulted in on unconstitutional dilu-
tion of minoritl votins strensth. Similarlv. Abate ,;. Mundt. decided
the same da1'. indicatid th"t-multi-member districting plans would
be struck doin if ther' "o1,erate to impair the voting stleirgth of par-
tieular racia) or political elements. . . ."'2

ln Il'luite t. Re getter. the Supreme Court upheld a District Court
decision invalidating multi-member districts in Dallas and Bexar
Counties. Texas. because thel' "operated to dilute the voting strength
of rarial and ethnic minorities" and "the impact of the multi-member
distriet on [lfexican-Americans] eonstituted invidious discrimina-
tion.'' ?3 The ll-fulc decision did not analvze the motivation of the
legislators. There ss-s no discussion of the purpose behind the chal-

198



rho
ion
nte
\an
9Eet

rength
black

:onsist'
h their

ct that
( nrove
s do the

)e rcJmted
E rtreDflb
ddcd r.

. that the
1968, and
and reP-

.ed to the
Thus. the

p.ro-
oslng

The
relled
uphe-

nce of dis-
r violation
rtiffs' con-
rnalvsis of
ionai dilu-
It. decided
ans rould
gth of Par'

trict Court
and Bexar
rg strength
Iti-member
cliscrimina-
tion of the
d the chal'

v orING RI GHTSL A9'I0AMENDMENTS

Itrilii$$,Fi"tiiHff:1:UtHs.,'l?li';"llli[*$l';,
rieht to proportional representation: plarntiffs' burden was to prove &

he-nial oi equal oPPoftunitY:"' "#!:;,,i*!riffij

i"i 
*riirSti"i 

lcoding to nominat iort

:i##*' ;;m: : nif X ii{;,:x;ru fr ffi::,; ;;Y^
thr diAt"id to piiiAehte in tfre-polititat^proeeeeea and to

ifrrlt"iit"ton'i7 t't'*i' choic'' rd' at 765-66'?5

TheCourtheldthatp}aintifi.shari'establishedvotingrighusdenia]s
on thelT',frS,:lii'i"?:lit*?I"[i..,i,.,i,ation in Te{as' which' at \a "

times. touched 'rlil;firi4o;t#;;-i"- r"girt". and vote and to

iiiiii ii, ti;- in tn* a" *-o" rat ic processes' "
iId. rt 163.

*l*t'J.J.tiar. 18{,17 o' 2 (1e?t)'
n a12 D.8. rt 767.

: Il. ?5Jl'o (GDpb..h .dit.d).

17. 9) s ct 19{{. 29 L Ed.2d 399

lPage 22)

A majority vote requirement for partv Primaries and &-"plare"

or post *qu,o.tt'iffiit*;';1"aiti"r*-i t'o-a spetifi"6 "place" on

the-batIot. whieh ;:#';;;i:i;'tji*,,,*l':.. -p,t p.5 nor inridious'

(but rhich ) enhanced- the opportun'tf iot-ttitiai discriminat ion'"
' I{o suMistrict residency requlrement for candidates' meantng

that "all candidates mar be selected trom outide the \eg'ro rest-

utl;"J "til""rr*"tion' onlv. two black candid-ates from^Dallas

County had ue"n"ei"""t"ir tt'ir't Tt"t" House of Representatlves'

andtheset*o*ttiif;;iibiackstttttt"i"dbvtheDa)lasCom-
mittee ro. n"'po""Jiul;'^G;t:;;;ent' white-donrinated slattng

oiXf; 
D a I I a s c ou n t r .1 

" ! is ql:.I t-1' l# h,t*,l I i: ;[l I ?L:l
the black communitl' to Eln electtons,

faith conce* ror'it"';.;e; "n6 
s-'pirations of the blacl; com-

munitY. t----r ... 'es" in
The slatrng group had emp)oved 

*raciaPcampaigrr tactt'

white preci.,.,. tl'A'tiii ""'iaiti"tt= 
;;it;i tfie over*helming

.;;;;t:t of tt,* black communit't"
fr*'iit"t"'n-"*'C*ttt the Court'found that-

The }fexica' 'it;tit"' "ini"'-tt-oi-S'n 
Antonio had long

,,suffered f.*n. "nT.1;.;;,,;;';;.';;n.i 
f t"-' tt e resrtlts and efferts

of invidious di*;'-^;;il;n-anrl tre'atmt'i l" rhc fieltl: of eduea-

tion. emplor'.*'i] tt"rr"rnitt' t't"fth.'nolitics and othen "

Iuexiean-Am.t\;;;:' t;ff;*ti ;t t'ti'ral and languag'' l)arrrer

th;i';;k;-fiii;itf-iitiicipation in the communirr prtx'€S:es €r-

tremely difrcult .. '"
199

Atuo+a

No et'

*

elrh

y. J''

d,r,

6,^""lm

a



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L 9?-205

A historv of a discriminator.v ;xrll tax and restrictile voter
registrarioi rrrocedures whieh cbniinued lo have a residual inr-
dct reflected in disproportionatelv lorr loter registration levels.' Onlr five }lexicair-Ameriea" hnd sprved on the Texas I*Cn.-
)ature. and onlt' two wert fronr the barrio area.

The Bexar Countv lecislative delegation in the House 6'rras in-
sufficientlv rtsnonsii'e t-o trIesican-Aherican interests."

The Court thus found on the basis of "the totalitl' of the cireum'
st"n.es tt"t.;' It."i""r-t*ericans rere "eflectivell' rimoved from the
oolitical Drocessrs . . .tt "' Thus. it is clear that. prior to Bolden. plaintifls in dilution eases

could prevail by shosing either discriminaton'.resrlt-s.or intent;
snecific;llv. in n'either the IfAikomD nor the B'ir-1r decision did the
Srn.... Court undertake a faetual examination of the intent moti-
t"ting those who designed the eleetoral districts at issue. In fac-t. W hitc
does not contain a single rrord regarding the motives of the Statc
frelrislature Redistri6iig Roard tliat adopted the challenged p)an-c.

Astircuir .Iudgc .Iohn ]Iinor \\-isdonr. a 25-1'ear veteran of the Fed-
eral appellate binch. eorrectlv noted:

In Thite t. Rcqeater and lf hitcmnb v. Charia. the leading
case-s involving riiulti-member distriets. the Srrpreme. Court
did not requiri.proof of n legislative intent to dirriminate.?'

i Id. et 760-80.r fdoitt v. 8ad?, 3?l F2d 2O9. 232 (5tb Ctr. 1gi8) (coDcurrlDg).

Ipage 23]

Moreover. Wh.iteomb e;nd'White both recogni?"d !-hrt' in order to-Pre:
vail. plaintiffs had to projlllrore than thai minority Pe-mbers had not
electi I egi sl at ors i n ;ffi-ort i on\ the i r pergeltrge o.f th e pop ul at i on.

In nppioximatr)r4wo'dozen pdorted decision-iprior to the Boldzn
litisatfo^n federal'to\nmffifc'ilarly the Fifth Circuit Court of
Ap[eals, hare adheia tnTn;* al,cl Vhitcornb in deciding voti'8
dilution ceses.

First. prior to 19?8. the lower eourts applied a rtsult-' tcst and did
not requlrc a showing of discriminatory'- intent in voting dilution
cases.?r The seminal iourt of appeals decision was ZiT'i'! s. ile-
Keitfun-n In Zimmer. the Fifth- Circrrit, en ba.ruc m-ade clear that
dilution cases could be maintained on either an intent or a results basis.
The plaintiff's burden was to show:

either, first a racially motivated gerr.vmander or a plan drawn
elong racial line-s. ar eeeond, that ". . . designedlv or otherrise
a(n)" aooortionment scheme- under ihe cinumstances of a
pirticuli. case. would oTterate to minimize or canetl out t}re
ioting strength of racial or political element.s of the voting
population.to

lnZimmer. the court artieulated the factors that the Supreme Court
had us€d in Tf hi.tc to appraise the impaet of the multi-memtrer districts.
The court concluded'thot t|e fact- of dilrrtion is esta)'lished upon
proof of the esislence of an aggregate c,f 1]re-sa factors. Tlre Supreme
Cou rt's pron ouncelrient in ttr h iti t' .' E t q e a ! c r. lu ?rq. demonst rates. horr'
ever, that not everl one of these facton needs to be pmved in order to
obtain relief.6'

200

b*v9

,crr,

cj



VOTING RIGHTS ACT AI1ENDMENTS
P.L.97-205

Zim,nwr lras subsequently relied upon in the vast majority of nearly
two dozen reported dilution cas9.::

Ot-t", *".1 also specificallv follorred the 1f hi.te results test.e
Th;;. it i.-ciear tiat untii the Fifth Circuit in 1978 attemp

ie voter
lual inr-
n levels.
s Legis-

ttsas in-

circum-
from the

ion ease-"
" intent;
r did the
rnt moti-
:t.'Whitc
he Statc
:d plans.
the Fed-

cling
ourt
rte.'?

lor to Pre'
rs had not
ooulation.
di Botdzn
Court of
ng voting

st and did
s dilution
lzr s. Mc-
clear that
sults basis.

il6rn
erqise
sofa
rut tlte
voting

:eme Court
er districts.
Lshed uPon
re Supreme
;rates. how'
in order to

the Fifth Circuit in 1978 attempted to
r sr rsirh lf hite end Wh.i.teom[,. the nre-reconciie ll'ashington r. Dude s' rcith Wh!t4 and Whi'toomD, th9 gre;

i.iiirg'it"r;-;;a h voting dilution sas the "results" te^st and intent
was not a prerequtstte. , ri r .-.r -'3;;4,"il-;fu=;ii;t 

case the lower fedcral courts followed 
-Whitc

i r i p, a i L ii;t-th" ;; 
". 

pt of -p"o.port i on al rt plqsen tati on'. Tv 
Pi !l-1, :-li, ;p;d i;ii;; th";;".pt of .p"o.port ional rtpresentation'. T1'pical of

the l6u'er "orit 
tr*at-en't of tliis i'ssue s&s the Fifth Cireuit's decision

in Paninr t. Ibertille Pari.eh Sch.ool Board:'5

Members of a minorit)' SrouP have no federal right to be

represented in legislative Etiei in proportion to their num-
beis in the general PoPulation.

Third. the lower federal courts followed the pronouncement tn'White
i totaino multi-mem*r districts &re not'Per se u-neonstitutional.
ADpi;'i;gihe results test, the courts rtpeatedli'concluded that at'large

_-ffir_!*9 {r=.lor.r c{urt dDuttoD- er..r.rr.nrryred rD tb? t..$Do* n fftent peifcr. 8.nat? b?erlD8e. F?bnrrrt fl. f982.
n.8o F. 2a tzel rctu cii'ii|iii 'i;; ffi;;i:q..d oD-otb?r lrouDd' rub ooo Eort cor'

rctt iila'ji Fitrcoi Aoo.d t. lorthatt, a2r U.8. e30:\ (1976)'
F td at l3n4 (?mpba!l! lupplled).
n Id. .t !8O5.r 8cc Parlcr t?!tlE|oDt.3 $cc, e.t.. DoDc r. loorc. t30 F2d lti (8tb C)-r. ,.9?6). tbcta the eourl tGJrt"d r clrlEl

tUet-iii,i'Ar,:,tr.'iri*ii.;'ei.iirs;-riti.D ;t clcctlag ltr clty couDcll E.Eb.ri dlrcrlp'
tDrtcd lratD;t mlBorltt votcn.-- - tZCT.S. 22e19(19?6). 8.c. lEtrr rt D. 66.

.33C r.zd ror, (6i! Clr. 10?6).

It. 96 S.Ct. 10t3. 4; L Ed.zd 296

19. 96 S Ct 20{0. {r L Ed 2d 59?

lPage 241

elections wert. not vulnerable to attack unless, in the context' of t'he

tot"l 
"i."o*stanc€s, 

denies minoritr voters an equal chance to parttct'
pate in the electoral sYstem.to

The BoldenCe*

Bolden involved a challenge to the city of llobile's-"!llrg" sYstem

of electi::.s its citr commissioner.,' Blac( ...ia""t. of }tobrie aigued
ihri-m ;..iri""i ryrt"m impermiq{bly diluted their voting strength
iiiiiJ"l-, of tt. i'ourtonth and Fifieenth Amerrdmel)ts. ss well as

fiection 2 of the Yoting Rights Act of 1965.--iir. ai.trict couri Eonciuded that the at-large s)'stem unconstitu-
tionallv violated plaintifls' voting right-. b1' "improprl-\' restrlctlng
their a-cces-. to tha political process." 'o After.t'equestlng submlsslons
i;;;, ;i;;iiff. "ndi.fendarits 

on the remedf islie,.the iourt adopted
;pi;ri*tti"tfor a mal'or end for a citl'council elected from single
member distrtcts.t"- Wfrit" brlden v.as proceeding, the Supreme Court had decided two

""*. *t i.t involved'allegatioi-s of racial discrimination in employ-
;;;i, nil in4totit'. Da'-i.426 L'S. 22f11976) ; and housing.Artilg--
ii Urirut t:. Metropolilun Hottaing Detelopmt'nl Corp'. -429 

Lr'S'
zbt'Ogii\. In t-he-se t*o cases. the Supreme ('ourt for the first ttme
.rpriolv irdopted a broad rule requinng plaintrtts to prove discrim-
initorl''inteni in order to estat,liih a cf,nstitutional violatiorr urtder
the Fourteenth Amendnient.o''

201

/)
(to



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L 97-205

Tt Mobile and companion litigation a year later, the Fifthcircuit
t"i*a to trrmonize V'hite,ll'tviiic,mb and its on'n prior vote dilution

"r*r. *ii[ i;ith,inqton arid Arlir,gtun Heights'" T]" Court of 4p-
;il. ;i;;.or"t"d"the "results" teit of wi;te and Zinunig, and, for
;h; fi;tii;": r-i""'"a the frctors controlling in tho-se cas€s &s circum-
stantial evidence of discrirninatory intc.nt.,:
- .1" zr^"*r, tbe Ftftb elrcult !t!t€d ttat "lt.lt l-s orloEatlc lbat 8t'lalg.e tDd bultl-
neo'uirltiiii"irii rilimes'ldioipc'-riunconitttuttonal." {85 F.2d at 1-304.-*; 

i;" Crti ii ll%Urri i" ;r;;;"d 5i tii"* conmlsslorrerg sbo are elected ar'lors€ Com'
ml8stoD eaDdtdrtes rre r"qi"ti;a-ii il;; f; ;uE6lt"d rro'tF and mutl $'ln by a majorlts
vote. rA.blle canauatrtes .uii'u-" ri"lEloii-oi rt.uite. inore lr no requlrement .that each

coprols3toner reslde tn . p"iif.itj"i'iiii;i tb; attI ihe rommlslaon€r8 &re €l6ted for four'
ilit*te'nii'i.it'ii"'roavoiaitili-iliieo cqulll mo'ng the co,mlsslonern durlns tbelr termn'

"'irii"ii tl;p-"r*iiili. -l,i'ri'ici'ri,'i rti'cJseiuetdo' -th€ coun ansll'ed.r-nuDber or ob

,ecttye facton, tu tue conteir'oi;iidi ririir"i- tniitbe at-larsp 6sstem rlolsted plslnlltrF
oDstltutloDal rrrnts. amon-i 1;;;;4";tc;nitoereo bt tbe court tere; blslorl' of past

iil*i;i;;;;; dEir,iit- uro"-f. lio-iirj efrKt .oD preaeit mlnorltr polltical partlelr'atloD'
;;i;]d p"i;rr"iE-"oiros. ;;; i[; uireaponsrvenis-s of $btre elected ctt]- oticlals ro thc
needr ot tbe blac\ nrnorrti]"Tbe-'co-rtt-aiJ" d."nid releraot tbst a blact had never ben
clTt:l ii: :lrT :?',H11:t?ircourt r.esuar€d tb. Darrtes to Bubmlt protBscd. .plaDs tn tbe

.r"oiit'"-i t'U1'"6irri fdi,oll tbe at-larle E!'st€D uDcon{iitutloDal ltoblle e('uld hare maln'
i;i;;-i;'c-oin"ir-r"ioo r-. Ll'r'8;;;;;e;aiitt uaa nrr"ed to-a plau uDdPr.sblcb all or
ii,iri"*',i,tilii.o"ti *"il'-itol."fii;;;;;1"-;;;b"r dtstrlets Boierer' Moblle re-peatedlr

refuEed to !ubptt ! pr"o p-r"o'tfif'oi?oi'"'o-itntiii. oiUir than at'lar'e. e)(tlons-. Mor?orer'
tb? cltJ lDatlcated tbat tt'iieil-r'ere to tre stnizle'member dlFtricr-€leetloDs lt preferred

io-il-";-i.-iii]-...6igbiiri-;iit'io'i ilyo.ioriDcll plaD. Tbe attstrtet court tequetted tbc
ctty ro Domtntt" t.o ."--b"?-ir-i1ilt"i-;;;tF; s-6rlrorr co6rDlttee rblcb rould pro'

Dose I rcmedr. rnc tnmmriil'pi.ip6t"O-'"- pn-n bared ot thimaror'eouncll 
'om 

of tovem'
i"-""-t-r'o lii& lo 

- 
*ootgone-nr'' in Alahima ctt'r mmparab)e' lD slze to Moblle' Af ter

rubDlsrtoD of thts propomiiii'oiia-a *rlri tntirea a;d reccifed.e.ormenta oD tbe pleb

iiot'ri6in-"Juo-J"i-r6i't'ue plrilrL-i-rd'i,ini,i er,'cGa ooetals rrcm Moblle Tbe courr tqgqr$
il;*Dfi';i;b-;;;i ri,iarnE*riiii uasf,a oo tbo-re coEDeDts, t1 Dotpd, bo$erer. tbat Moblle

iiir6'ii l;i il--" *pr"i"irii-iotti:ipprol-eo pt-an rltb aDr otber "coDttltutional forD
bi}i"!^il'otrrrt 

"i-o-uro 
i,rii,i.i-"r.t:'aiiId* ri piefineo to tbd plan ldopt€d bl tbe dlEtrlct

"o'"* rotr, t. Boldct'a{6 U.S. 65 (i980, Brlct for tbe EDlted stlte! l! Amlcus Cuilae'

";9"?h'#:1,1'r'f8ljl;faBg."r-,h,e qory1 r-e7r rer,: In Detcrse ot tbe ADtr'
prrc-aiirriiu6i-iitnciptit'. so Eirv. L t€s 1. 2'1-.25 (10?6'l'
-'tiio-iiil-".-ct7ioTi,inn, *r F. 2d 236 (atb c.tr' 18?6r

r 6?l F. 2d. Jt 2$.
20. 96 S Ct 20{0, 4E L.Ed.zd 59i
21. 9i s.ct 555. i0 L.Ed.2d 450

[Page 25]

A deeply split supreme co}rt Fevel.Sled the loser courts.os Justice
$;;;;irdi.ii" piirrtitr opinion, for himself, chief Justier Burger,
Justice Powell and Justice Rehnquist^

I 
*ruiir 

i"iii il:;; tttt t ia tr, 
"1 

., r". i a I I y d isc rim in aro 11' m ori v ati on

rs a necess&n' rDsreai;;ioi" Fifteentt' Amendment violetio-n'o' The
;;lrtr "# 

*.-ara.a that siD* Scction 2 nas designed by Congress
'to tracf the Fifteenth Amendment, it too requlres prool oI drscrrrnl-

nstorv intent.ts- t'# Jir*iito also conclu<led that the. Fifceenth Amendment onll
b";ai;a-Gt1"f"""r,"" w:th the right to votd and does not rerbh
iri*i'ii r,itir;-;i;i ;.; i i""t t-r, the-pl urtl it)' f o,"l.d that a d isc rim-
inatof intent must be .ho*n io estattist a-violatior, of the.Equal
"pirt""tir'" 

"ilr* 
,itt. Fourteenth Ameod.ment ir racial vote dilution

"r;. ii'iih 
"*.p""t 

to t4. 
"qr-"t 

protection g!q!m, thg plurality jould
ifiat the circumlstances a".*'"a r6levant 'tn V-hite e;nd re]ied on bv t]e
lower courts sere i-nsufticient to prot.- "n ,""o"ititutionally'dis'
tionallv discriminatorl purpose'D?-- JGi* SL*"tt acbr6wled6'ed the impact of the Ta"ah'ingtan' cssr..

"""fi; 
p^ti;;;;i;.i ;;i i'ot E,t otion cases un der t;r,e W hite standard :

TheDistrictCourtassessedtheappellees.claimsinlight
of the standsrd thst had lreen artic-ula't'ed by the Court of

202



th Circuit
e dilut.ion
rrt of Ap-
", and, for
rs clrcum-

re rDd multl-
l.
t.large. Cor,
-r s Da.i('rll I
nt tbal each
.ted for Four'
I thelr t"rDrs.
uober of ob-
red plalntltrs
itor.r' of past
)!rtlctprtloD,
belalF to the
d D€r?r bee!

plaDs lD tbe
d hrre nratD.
xblch all or
le repestedl.r
rs. Mottorer.
It pr€rerred

r"quested tbe
b rould pro-
'E of torerD-
doblle. After
i on tb€ plaD
surt rdopted
. rblr ldobtle
utioDal torE
! tD€ dlstrlct
alcur Curlae,

ol tbe ADtl-

s.cs Justice
ice Burgor,

motivciion
tion.D' The
y Congress
f discrimi-

Iment only
. not rtsch
a discrim-
tbe Equal

rte dilution
rlity lound
d on bv the
onally'dis-

inoton cesn
e itandard:
n light
ourt of

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDME]YTS
P.L. 97-205

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Zimmcr v. McKeithzn 4SS

f'. in rzsZ. That case, coming before Wailuington v. D:anb,
426 U.S. 229'?,,\as quite evidently decided upon the misunder-
standing th;t, it ii not n*.""r'ry' to show a discriminatoly
purpose in order to pmve a violation of the Equal Pr4ec-
tion Clarrse-that pn&f of a discriminatory effect is su-frcient.
See 485 F. 2d at 1304-1305, and n. 16."8

Jus{,ices Blackmun and Stere.ns concurred separately in the result
mached by the plunality.'e

Justices- \['hite, Marsha]l and Brennan dissented. Justice. \\'hite,
the author of both White v. Regeater tnd fl'athingtant v. Dauia called
the plurality's opinion "flatly ineonsistent" with Wlvite and further
noud that i-n hiiview, the evidence of an inference of discriminatory
inttnt, in Mobile "is even rnone comPelling than that prtsent in
White. . ." too Justicp l['hite. said that the flurality had incorrectll'
viewed each of the Zirurner factors in imlation, rejec.ting Tlhite'a
totality of cireum$ances test. Jusices l\farshall and Brennan argued
that iritent was not a requisite in voting dilution cases brought under
either the Fourteenth oi Fifteenth Amendments,ror but that even if
it wero the oppe.llees had cleariy met their burden of proof.

r{.16 u.s.55.r446 U.S..t 82..rd. et 61.r /d. rt 65.a |tl. tt 73.) Id. .t 71.rJusttce Bl.ctmuD eoncurred on the tmuod tbrt the remedv lmpored bI tbe dhtrlct
court "ri! not @E-EcDsurate rltb tbe iound eterclse of )udlclal dlecretlon." ,Id. !t 80'
q'hue r"s€rvtEg tbe qucsttoD of;b"tber dlscrlElDrtorl purpo8e l8 r requlslte. be dld.trte
tDlt tf tDteDt icre nlcersr.rr, th€ laets tound bJ tbe dlstrlct eourt rare ruficleDr to tup'
Dort rn lDf"r?Dc€ of dLcrlmtDttort tBt?Dt Jurticc Stereos 

^greed 
rltb tbe plurelttr that-Do coDrtltutloErl vlotatlon had been rborD ; but. uDltte tbe pluerlltl be or8:ued tbat the

"prorer t?st.bould focu. oD tle obrectlre etecte of tbe polltlcal de(lslon ratb?r than tbe
aubrcctlr€ EotlvrtloD of thc decbloDErhr." ,Id. rt trc.D rd. rt lO3.n rd. rt 9{, lO{.

22. 96 S.Cr. 201ti. 4b L.lid.zd 59;.

lpage 261

A fair reading o! Bokie n reveals that the pluralit-v opinion F&s I
marked departu-le irom earlier Supreme Court and ]ower courl vot'e
dilution cales. As Judge Goldherg i.rote in Jonts v- City ol Lubbock'
025 F2d, 27,22, (1981), "the Supieme Court (in Bold<n) colrrp.letel.r-
chtnged'the mode of a6sessing the legtlit.v of electoral schemes allegcd
tr: discriminate against a class of citizens." I02

ln Bold,en, the-pluralitl' abandoned the clear lnd workable totaiity
rrf circumstances [e-.t of. ilhite. but in doing so-it failed to articu]aie
a substitute standard to guide federal eourti in the future. As Justiee
\Yhite noted in his dissc"nt in Boldert^ the plurtlitl"s rejection of the
\Yhite test, "leaves the courts below adrift on uncharted seas . . .r: r03

The impact of Bolden upon loting dilution litigation became ap-
pnrent alriost immediatell,ifter the Court's decision-was handed down
6n April 22, i980. As the ,\ubcommittee heard throughout its hearings,
*ft,er- Bold.err. litisat.ors virtualll stopped filing new voting dilution
cases. Iloreover, ihe decision hid I Airect imp-ict on votin-g dilution
cases that were making their wa-r' through the federal judicial s-Y.-stenr.

Perhaps the most dienratie ei-idence-ot tt," drastic drang'e rorked
bv Bold-en is the decision's impact on the Edgefield Countv, South

€Li [uf

203



LEGISLATIVE JIISTORY

Cnrolina case, MeCain'; Lybrand' O-n '{pril 1?' 1980' the district eourt

ruled the eountrJs ,,:i"!s:"'=;;;;; ; iiilns countlj council members

wrs unconstrtutronal' iil "i' exha-ustive t'o-inion' ihe district court

iaithfullv applied th.-Tr[i;;;;ltt 1i;1 "'"a 
concluded that blaeks

.,riiil., dia;oi htx ;J"i' tr'"n"' t" p".*i* trilfl*
;;; rii;i p"t, ; in E d gdfieT-rcffirirstre
i1;i-. i,;i been on a teiv small scale'" '"'

Despite the orer*ir'eil;?;r:tJ;nce of unequal &ceess to the eleetornl

.oil"?|.'iir"'ti J,.iii .1,',i;i ;i'i;;; 
" "t 

i"r- .oit a not w ithst and the im -

uact of Botden. sr,oirll;'i;;';;;;;;.! itilriii"l decision the district

i';;;;;i;d the judgincnt and stated:

A careful tu"dit'g of Moltik -a-nd 
a reconsideration of the

evidence in the ;ffi;i fJgtntta Countv case convinced the

courr thal rh. pi';i;ii;ir t,^io. not pror.ed'that the voting nlan

for election of -?#t^'oi t-f't C.ountv Council in Edgefieki

Countv *". "ltt.T't"ont"it:"4 
ot-is op'tt"ted as a purpose-ful

i-'-t*tt"'ir,1 h;l;"; i;i' ai r.ri*in 
"ti 

o'n nor w a s it i nten ded t o

individually d#i,"i;;i;""g"l"if ui"cks in violaton of the

Equal Protection Clause''o'

The extent to rhieh Boldcr, has changed the law il toJilS dilution

cases is also iilustratii frr:;r;.lritit"ti5n on remand in Bolden.itsr.lI.

on rrmand. follo*il-,"g'i;;'b$;;!-crrrti. deeision in Bolden- the

,listrict eourt sas riciirerl to make an inouirv into the rrotives of leg-

islrrtors to determind;;;ii;;1!; qt=t"; ;;t devised. or maintained

for a discriminetor'l porpo... The 6ourr found itself immersed in atr

'.,xhaustive examinatiiri Ji;;;t a"tf-r1'p-"'t in the cits eouneil elee-

tion svstem from rsli;o"th;;;.;;i. irio.d". to cornnli' sith Bold,en,

the district "ourt 
*as io'"t'tt'to '*reate 

erlents shedding light on thc

rnotivation of potiti.ia;;';it;htla ofi"" during'the several crucial

il".iin?','ia".; I;;;Ji;;iion"Li*."n- 1814 and the present. -4.n ex-

-ffi21.22 (5tb Clr. lgEI) (coDcurrlns)'
D.a6 f'.S. at 103;iii;;;i't;;.'is tp s c j\-o ?'-28r' ADrl! 17' 1e8o)

- oiaeiir Aurull 11, l98o'

lPage 271

haustive search of local ""*tp"p"' 
fiIes and other records revealod

a number of racially infle.tnmator)' ststements b; the sPonYs- of some

of the predeccssor it*s in question from the Segrnrlurg of thrs cetr'

;';i' rff ;;;; i; Ji i [;t H ; -'; 
oli n e g' n' nlea d u-ne rr' 

l'J'; iS;i.-:";;i;'ii,'ir,-"i iil iil';;i;' oi tr'o'iti*sl /desired and i

the lesult."'oG

D. Tsr Orun'trtos or AurxoE'D Sr'cnox 2

ll.ith the beDefit of the record of explanation and anall'sis of tltl
Section 2 amendmeii;;'t;1*ressidnal sDonso.s and witnesses m

the House of ltel'reseniatives'to'-and the 
"t6n 

*o* detailed' elmod

ex ha ust i'e. inq u r rrl'f,rl'l" "S'u""-tt*iit*- ;; 
-tt'" 

cot'"t it u tion' the

Committer has had ;i 
"OO"+P"iir"i; 

tt^tn" itt tt. ssPech of t^he

issues and impiicatio-nt ii'*'d bl the ne* iangusry' ff:9-ll t'his er-

aminarion. ti,* Corni",iir"i^&'ii.;'o ttrat it. 
-afren?ment 

L' sound, that

ii'ffi;l;'i#i "rd 
appro,riate to en.rr" luii protertion of the Four-

teenthandFiiteent}iAnlendmentsrrghts.and.thatitwillnotpresent

,lr.Q

204



strict court
il members
trict court
hat blacks
rnr. ttBlack
n end eren

re eleet.ornl
nd the im-
he district

of the
ed the
g nlan
reficki
bseful
led to
rf the

rg dilution
den. itself.
olden. the
ves of leg-
raintained
rsed in an
uneil elec-
h Bolden,
rht on thc
al crueiri
t. An ex-

: revealed
rs of some
: thrs cen-
ringly" to
I inrended

'sis of the
,tnesses in
d,, almoot
ution, the
cts of the
rn this ex-
rund, that
the Four-
ot present

vorrNc *' 
""I-., I|;AMENDMENTS

il:liff *a:""',*li;*,:'ulilxT,:fl ff r.lJ.;:$g,:lTff i.:leral.
The committee decided that it would be usefur to speil out morespecifieallv in t^he starute the standara tt "t tt. 

-p.1ft;f,';;;dnrenr
is intcnded to codifv. To this una. ii," C.-,,ittoo qrtnnro.r o,,k-rir..+^

3"-ii:f ri:i*t.'Hr?:r"iliil.i:iT",J*Ti?ii,T:itff i**
^, Jl: ;l1r 

-:,1111|_r 
"_ 

t h e I a n gu age ;i'S;;t i;;- z i. t"".ffi d't'o rn 
"u "

?L
h\- \9^ 

*-

jl";:u

,*J
*

\
60'

clear that ptaintiffs ,*a ,"t'prrn 
" ii*r#ir#ffiffiti in ,r,..odoption oi maintenar"lili,Jth"ir;g; svstem of practiee in orderto establish a 

'iolation. 
plaintiffs must-eiiher p;;;$;'inLn,.,", o..

:lf*T',',"lii frt'l,il t I i}:ffiffitgt * n#; i ru* i:: ;[i
".$t{d:t1i.*:#,$;H:(ffi :t'Jrii*i,#3}",tjii#.,".,
il:,,H:iifr ff ,Tfl iT:"iilHtr"ff l"ts1ili*ii?*Jjrllttri-
embodies the test Iaid down bJ.th; S6;;;JC;;;'i; ti;r?.;rf the. plaintiff proeeeds und'er the i,[.Jt.iurii't1., tlffin rrouldassess the impaet of the chalrenged structu.e or praetiee on th" u*ri.of objec.tire iartors, rath"" th;f;';;tlil a determination about themotivations which Iiy behind its adopiitl, or maintenan;;. -"'

v\)hft "VL-1

^ .,^'K
0n^'' ^a-M

nk f|* 1:
,. ,rf,ln'

!r F_old"n /lltD oDlDlo-l p{ (Anrl' t5. l0g2) (oD rerleDar) ),D NoffitbrttDdtDc rrrteD;B-ti -lo.-ii-itl"iJJ"-L t..rtor 
-t-b3t. oDtr tbrer 111sq33".rddrcis"d thc Sfttto'L 2 t.r-ue durtDE iU" nor""ttlrDtG. rome BO.BttD?uer dlicurred t-heDC"n tor. or tbe m.rntnq of. the seirt-oj j'ii"njil?o^t d-u-rtDr tb? Hr,ur procerdtD8R.E ptdat,? uar atrirrtib it".amri-aioiy-il'rlii?or 

.rrrno8eF of thlh leettoD tbrousb
lFE'rfI rt""'.'5J"iir;r';1;Ii['.iit*l,T;.t''"1iljo" o'" 

'io,;", 
-ior"i","*'ii'x a."i,

or rr"iiir'-iii;ii-i'f,iir".''i ruf-i."', -'oiliiii'iiii"a",l';r:t"frjl,ritr;,i:,f;",",1 
:1"."e:l17";lril;i;! l:l;f], f"i rit toetlmon" or ii'r'is*r:;oE-r. Fcn'te n"i'r",;.ll"of i. t'qta4?' - D,,;.,.s- ii,l' aiil;riilj'g:i,'J:,,:,i:l:"#i:,;i:r,^, r'.i izi f' b. 

'i5z" zh*]es:r, ip#i
Ef,iis"-ilf li*I:rtl":".iliil':}lJ[H':iH??.','#il{ifrJ'ss[,,'T:""JT#"i5"'"tiicolor " The rirupeDt fs ttai i["i^,-i.';i;:'-1"-.,':.' IiI".'-19 Yo.rel oD rc(ruDt of rre? or
ri,iur:r.j'.T.ni[i"1".i$$;:ir,i*;*k+{#if ii:*fu {iru:#,elj""1fftootDotG eoDdDuad or p. 2g.

23. 9; S Cr 5ii, 5() L Ed.2d {ilr

- As the supreme c,o'rt,]". 
"j;::;"311r. 

not"a, dixnminatorv erecrionE)'stees or practice_s s-hreh 
. 
opei"t.. d.si g.ed Ij. o; ;, h.;; il : rg{ryd*l.u i 1r,.'oi ini ;; il;;' ;n d por i t i ca r o n"., i.'*io%.

**"il',1,'.TJf;' 
jxT::ffi'.iT':=JilLfi i:ii"1'if "lflllilii-xli;

In adopting the ''resurt-standard" as artieurated in lI-[rrtc r. Re ge.*-fcr. the comnlittee has codified the b"si. frir.ipielrir,", *." 
". ir 

rrasapplied prior.tothe l!obile li4zrion"' ''
lne Lommlttee has concruded that ll'iitr. and trre decisiorrs fouo* -ing it made no finding;"d-r"qri;;;no'p.*l as to the motir-ation orpur-nc€€ behind the piactice or stnreturJin quesion.iil i{."er"it*., nrdiffe nne intero reta ii glt of n'i" r, 

" 

"",j' li' h; t eorn.b. howe r.e-r . an cr dt, _

T",*,,ah:tluralit'.v.opi-ni* L ,Vra;1.-tf,'"itf,. $.hirc in'olr.e.s an .,ulti-mare r€qurr€ment of proving discriminatorJ' purpose. tL-ip*in.

205



-2
5t'/"

elec-

h"1'mffiroi)oi;;i;iii io?*'t'i"ipate in the politicirl prrresses and

i" 
"io.i5&a/aaiis 

of their choice. thery i-s a rio)ation of .thts s*"tton'
vb

' ,/ tffiainrifls eould show a varietv of fuctors. de-

t ,,d'J +fgilift;';;;fi;;';r-;1;; po'ii"'' or pr'*"du'e cailed into

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L.97-205

intent of this amendment is that
dirriminatorY results q'ithout

the plaintiffs may
proring anl kind

choose to
of disc

=,Y tr

fss+*irsn\
e ar(equal)
rlect Dtndfda

i-Uu 
- 

question"
Ttr,ieal factors inclttde: tr3

"''i:lh;'.;;;;i 
-ri;tr 

historv of official dirrinrination in the

"c"iu 
* political subd'ir-ision that touclred t5e right of. the me'm-

ffi ;i it,e miro.it]' Erroul) to register. to r-ote. or otherwtse to

participato in the demcxratic process I

;iffii116u"6
GeDeral or the dtstrtct eourt to dlsapprose a profresed \oting laE ebange u.nles-s the sut>

iiiirf? "iaiar"iini-iit"uriir,"i't[iir 
ii'';dom ior ha\p rhe purrnsp and vitt not.hotc rh(

Iriil.i"ir a",iii;t.;ianlioFtni tu"itsut t(, rote o, oce.,.nnt ot'roit or (ot6 . " tEmtrhasls

dlsprose dlrerlDlnat(,rt. p"'#i"i""'i,iE tue hurden to disannrore direrimlnalr,r' lmpacl Tbc

ram€ uae or "oD aec()unl oi"i.;-or-"i,t,iri' ls made in a'dlfierent e('ntert llr s"tl('n { ra I

Tbus tt ls psteDlll er.arrs iuii'Ciigt"ti uii sed the q'nrdF ''on sceounl of-racp.or color"
tn tbe Aei lo mean ,.sitn rJs',nl'eiio:"iic" oi-"otor. eDd not t(, eonnotc anr.reqrtire.d purnG'
of rrctal dt.ertmtnstloD. eJi'iii"i"#ii-"nti uanea on eimllar parFlnF of lsolaied *.rdn lrr

tbc blll rhst thcre t*o."i.pii"i :ir'gif;s;;eo,poDpDr tn spcil'n 3. PreD sbPD plaintlfrs
;;;;a ;;,i"; ii. ierult iGh6'ia -o-t"' equalls EtEplsced aDd lncorrect'
'';ii ,;;rar; \' rrorttv: Bunr r ' Richardron

;i";i;;i'or"tu"'.ininr"i"in'ntiiiir"i'"als no-dlre"r.lon of erldenec or ansl'ils hr lhF

courl aa t() the mottYatloni"iiroa iUL 
"hati"og"a 

practi'e Dor aDr FlrggestioD tbat sueh a

fiDdtnE Eets e.rpnttal ,o r"ii'.i'I:ili"'rir-Jii" 
-rt'ti.ti"'. onlnlon aaslsned DlalDlllTE a hear'5

burdeD. htrl nor onc ,.qur'rioi nii.r oi',iii".tmtnatorr'lr,rent " I'. BrPFt. "Tbr SuJrrenre

court_Forsard. In paenii"6r i'u*'eiirori".tntoarton Prtnclple,' 9o Harr'. L Rer' I. 4'l

(19?6 I

The CoBE]ltlce doe8 not rdont rDr rt?s of Fillr. aF lFUtrln3 nlalDtltf to mcPl 
'omc.,oblpctlro destgn., tcst tuit'il' i'n l-tr."i. o rprnl<,n of :hc ..for+trahlp e,.nF.^ ren.,r" l.\t

"ii,,ir\.,r"*l'iiiilnorrl'g,ii'" 
i"riir'i., 1-6.-,,6e"trr'.. ot rhp mulrlmenrher dlFtrlctF. the coD-

terr Erahc^ cl€ar thar d,r'J"ii"ii'ro'ti,-"rr ilri]curii fJimat. ana traF Do eoDDotstloD of

nurDof,e. ThuF. Rr6r nn""i.ll'j:rrii iii'it-aia-noii-'tr tbst tbe nrulllnember dlstrlcte
t;;"b*, iiiiiiJiiirottls deslFDed '' Id (Eoph86lt ldded )

u The FIfib Clrcult. f,h"L lt afirmed -Boltl?n. tB, 
'976 

h'ld thtt th' 7-hlt"'Zinn"t l,-e'

ton altosed the dlrrrlct .i,lri'ti'iiiir-alFcrlmlnarorr nurr-"" I'D/lpt the comDlftcc l"lll
tbrt Fte,, tF unneeeFFarr ,-I',iniior-'ir iiii'i-io"riite f cit^rr ahoFlns crrrrcnl dllutlon
lB Fufi.lpnt. stlhorrt ,n. J"Ji"tt'?ft"ia"'tt'"rf'"t thov linr:lnrn hr lb'mFalreF or rlth
rd^ttionsl clrcuDFlsnlial llii"iI"lif"' *tuid *armot ao lnlerenc' of dttcrlmlnalorr
pul;9i;*" 

fi.loti !re derlreti frc'm tb€ rDtlJtlert tnm?torli us?J b!
lD trrir?. ai rrtlculslcd lD Zi^6d'

lpage 291

ibe Eupr€m? eouri

,PV
2. the extent to which ]'oJing ln lt't, e)ections of tlie state or

oolrtical :uIdrvision is raclali.\' Irulerlze-d I*i:"','fi ;;i;i ;;;i; i,,);;'ii"i* oi p't it rt'al su bd i v ision )ra" used

rrr.r^ili"'iu.g,:'.i.;.t,otr dlstrlcis' IrraJorit.\ \:gtf 
leil-Y]JlIl,u.i.F'

anti_srnglr. shit pror.isio))i. or other votrng Ilt actlces or procedules

;h;i ;;i eni,a,l'e tt,,iotlpuit'nit1' for di&imination against the

minot itr grouP;
{. if t}rcrt is a candidate slating Process, u'}retirer t)re nlembers

ot-it,,,iriuo.iti g.orp-t"r. been-denied access to that process:

5. tlrt' erte^t tu .'"i,i,.i, ,nt''6ti:t of the minor.it.r group in th-e

.t"t. o. t,"fiii.ui.rUaiti=ion bear the efrects of discrrminatron')n
il:i; ;;-'#' ;;';e ;;"t,;;;;;pi;J-;"1 and hea rt;' q sic)r hinder

ir,.ir "i;ii,r:it puti.if,itt eiiectitetr in the political process; r1'

6. u'hetlter pnt,ti.ui''ia"'p"it-t hatt bee'n characterized by

overt ot' subtl6 racial aPPeals;

206

;'"\'"nh^ntl"
Nts/

Sl ^T'^)

:M,.t"w

SI ^{,

*a(o,1''

V L,.

1 i",h'
h.,l d,r'

,*r+ ,*'l



astablish
minatory

'rom elec-
ne oppor-
ns ontov.
ffs doibt
'esses and
s section.
ctors. de-
lled into

,n in the
he mem-
:rri* to

,3s the suFtt hore th?(Emlrharls
oyraet Tbe.tl('n.l(a).
c ot eol()r"
Pd nurDcF
'd words ln
o plslntlfs

'slr hr thc
blt ruch a
e a hcerrp sunreni"
RPr. l. 4{

D?at !oh.
nfer" l.st
r. thc coD-
otrlloD of
r dlstrlctg

mmor ltc-
DltiPr httl
r dllutlon
, or rllh
lminator.r

tre Court

ilat€ or

Ls used
ements.
iedur'es
,nst the

elnbers
,rocess:
in the

tion in
hinder
€i<: llr

zed t5'

VOTING RIGHTS AC"T AMEIVDMENTS
P L 97-205

?. the extent to which members of the minorit;,group have beenelected to public office in the iurisdictton.rrl
Additional factors that in sonie cases hai-e had probative 

'aluees part of plaintifls'e'ide,ce t. esrablish a vioration;;;;-"""
whether there is a signifieant lack.of respo-nsi'eness on the partof elected ofticials to rire particurariz.a 

"deai-oiiii" ,i."iLo orthe minorit.v group.r)6
whether th*".,olic1'.underl.ving the state or political subdivi-sion's u'. of suih vdti.g qrafincltion, prerequisite to voring, or

-- 
standard. practice or pr-ocidure is t€nuous.r:;

lt lrrle these enunrerated factors will often be the most relevant ones,
in some cases other factors q'ill be indicarli.e of the 

"ri"c"d-in;iion.The cases demonsrrare. and the committee i"i;;e;;i;; ir,.i. i. n"r"equirement that an.v.part.icular number of t".io.i bu p.ir"a.'o. ,i,rt
8 ma1orrtv of tlrem poinl one s al. or the other.rrs ' -' -

F *'"

u^1

o\)'"1"q

],k
A0 a"

4

-6U\

:i;;;rtF hare recotnlzrd tbat dlsproportloDst€. ?du*tloDal e.plor,eDl. tDcomp
i[ii'#f,]l;liii,;:':o;,.,,#il,',"rlr !ro-!, pan' bii"ifmTiauoD_reDd. to o"i,-#"i 

"iiio-ri.t-r rrcrr.

istt'i:I;.,':xi+"*xr;"xrlt*i:ill{rtli*},ffi :l j,*;ffi t'#fi fidlnparare r.cf1r.pssnep,l sraru$ !nd tt" o?i,i"i*io r"i.ii'ri'p.irriii.i': ii?ii.rillr"",,
r:.ie{:i"iie-'ii!,&T_fi!ffi.tli nlrr:llii; iit}j"mni"*T",t 

r!;?T,iilii;,,ru:llo()ps not "treGBarllr forxlose rbe Fi'rrlbilttr oi Ottjii-on of.rU-e Uf acii ;;i;.Y.'ii;'rio'tcr,,,,, ,,filJl,;:,[i!,,, fff: l;; l:,1"",, jli",r{'1",.1t,"'"*r",.s;iir"iii-!'irij:ibii:r;i',1i ,,,-/ctrtzcnt hlEtrt .-i-ad. tbe ceitlon'..i.. t'r _.ioii,-urr'f,i,s"ii,"Jiil*"',r5r''ir:i J'.1LIlt ill,i;:i;li/ eandidetc :;\'.r" *1. t,' u.io iriit 
"'nitoba,. crinorda'ii's'ii:c".i'"'"t tu" lrorrr tr cr,ncrrr.rrr.,/ pro('t ('f a min,,rtn iiorr,'" i""-".i iii ru* poirtl"rr-;;.;*;.';;";outd nrprelr lx. ir,\rr n!'/ att"mr'r^ ro clr(,un)\'cnr ibe constiruri,,n_..-. .-i;;r;;; i:ir'"lirri coprruur r(, requrr, or,lnd,p.ndent eonF,demtlotr of tl. renorO... lblarr'I nresrronsltene$ Is Dot al es"orittai pin of ptalottfrr eane zinm?r.. trhir. ras toDarlac r Treretore. derindunri'r,inir"or s.im" r"ip[n-"r".ii"[.'i.lrro nor negarr r,lair,ttIrshou irg b.r otbpr. morr ohjer.rli " ianron enumeiar.O i"i* t-hii mlr,,,rtr. r.,,t"r. rrerer.tbelesr gere Fbu? our of eqial aceir ro.rbi poriti"Ci-pril"".'ti," EDrpndnrpnr r.jp.r( rhorulln! ltr Lo'lge t Rutton'and eoml,rnion-(!'Fer that'unrcii,oo"l."n.., ls o requislr. clF.EeDt.63e F.2d 135(. r3?r, rirb cir rslii. renln;;;;;i"i;;arcnrt\ rat.rr rn ordorf(' eomr'lr Blth tbe lnlcnt rpeulrcment rblcb itr" s,iii".i-c-o'u'rt r pt,rnttr, or,ininr, ,rrBotdrn tmponcd on tbe fompi Iar,grjige of .("eil"n'i..,"fi;".;i;rl Fbor)ld ntsrnlif, (.ho(,\rto ofl''r erldprrco ot unrespoDsi.eneii. iben tr,e diren-oani'-"io'i,rii i"ii;ii;t";l:i;";;:'';iIts reslrontlrenessrrilf lhP ll('cdrire.msrledll dpDsrtF rroE1 past praett.es or from pra.ll.pF elspB.hareln thr Jurl^rllcti(,n lbat bc# ;n'ii," fatrn"i"- or'rii'i'.p..""i' 'Br, 

"."u I eonsr(r..Dr.j\rnplred r,ra*rcc premrscd on a racraiir niriiit'poii.i';J;it;i, n'cgnr" s nr,rnri,r ts FhoF.tDs lbr('rtrb otbir facton tuat rti iuarteog"d'pia.triJIi"i'j.'irruorlrie. trlr a.cpF: r(,I be nrocmslr'The courtF ordinari)I barr not uFed thpse lSetors. nr,r dopF tbp aommtls. Iniondtbenr to he ured..ar.8 mccl,8n,.8t ..p,,tnr 'n,unrii,",,'O".i"l 
Tile talturc (,, r,tat,,rtt t..

"itahljFh 8nr parileuljrr f8.t^r t( Dor'rohuttai'e;ld"r";';i onn'.6itrtt,,r, Rarhpr thp nro<.L- ffi"li.lurii:r::rui,'.riu-id"rfrulil$i**i:*ltffi

C*J4,

a-.,,a)

\v"\
..\

Ipage 30]

l>

-,/-

207



/,

LECJg!/.rtYP llsrgBx

The requiremenTthat \e politlnfir:,Tt* leading to nomr

#[*:::.hffi"1.,4[t"str'Tl'mu'*i*:i:lt*

\ ,tt'

'lritr, th" question shether the political
.rr ,latunac rrDon & searching Pr8ctlcal

or[omainu_iningaEtrndtgaey' ;tion shether thr
"^ it'ift.- Coutt- ;*ia (p Wluite' the 

'que
p r oee sses 

" r ^:$lv^9}ii':":tff *i'l f n * * 
"":n 

t,, 

:

DlSCI.ATMZR

Tfhen a federal j'dpe is called upon to determine the validitv of e

tJ::tii"[ii*r;*:lT:*,'f ';ffi 3"*ilHilii'sli':i'l'*'n'::ffi1

ffii:i,rji.:':'il'll'"jei*i'ri+"uirruii,ii.Hrffii t/?,

:,:,"'*ill r l*kl;l*I i.'". ii3,ffi '

\-.zoe

k
l.AU

t \ilc -"
C'\r0qr

ttt'

as follows:
The extent to which memters of e oroteeted class have 

??
t*"r'Ll..t"a to of#"i" lr'"-St"t" "t r'rtl'.tl:tl ;*lIffi"t",
one ,,cireumstance" which -T.BI 

b" cql

nothins in this t""ti"t tti"tiit'n.tt " 
tiehiio haie members' of

a proteeted tr"tt'Jr*Ii"i in "*u"tt 
eq"ual to their proportton

ir'th" PoPolation'
Contrarv to assertions made during.the full Committee merk-up

of the legislation. tr,ii p.otision is both lfi"t'"i'i"ttia-ightfotntaril'

l ^frh

*rt${ffi*;l
l*tffi**+ih$titli",. rpage 3,r 

lifl;;'d Ti'ri'i'ir"Ii;tilr

This tlistlaimer .is entirel-s 'consi*"nt 
sith the atpve mentionea- 

--

Srrprenre Court snitili ;i rrirrlli^p.recedents' which (tontarn srm-

, a i st a r e m en t . * g"i ffi ih" 
"b,",,.. li l,l]-fSt ii:.'*".ryiX#

"Jnresentation' 
It Puts to YIBII '-

;oi'i,'.'ffi '.i:liy:ir,t.ll(*,,U,*1ffi T,F1i.'_[!lgti:TH:".H
commenSurate.wttt

tii"t?",i;x1i:1"'$Ili##H;'-ili{ii,li*+X**X*#
;;;;;tt d'pe-nd upon *iq:ti:'il** 

o.,,,itable Dosers to']"ti'ion

\.\,n
!ru t'



) nomination
'oup in ques-
3 and voting,

the political
ng practicel

rrivatc right
by Congress
,1969).

;aliditv of a
e is re{'uired
which reads

ss have
ision is
ed that
rbers of
portion

ee mark-uo
;htforward.
loa 2 ceret lo-'orcd by rbov-
!eD! wltbout r. Po.t, 279 y.
rcc a dlecrlmt-
F.2d 3lo (6tb
lor re.r?rlstrr.
r a dlrcrlmlna-
t Ellled tbeE
D. Lr. 19ED).

'lulloD lD tbe
b...omlDs e!D-
1"". ?ould Dot
tlral nro^eas".
tlorlr? Ltke
b. llmtr.d ro(sltbout.t-

'ho'rt qltaatlon
{tbt dcDlel o!

mentioned
>ntain sim-
'oportional
een voiced

,d must be
:s adequate
cing in the
rses shich
umsts.nces.
to fashion
f minority
r mlnorttr
iC€.rzr

vorrNc *,""T:L 
IflAMENDMENTS

r#,r+:lFJ*|ffi 
i{{dfli$r}#Arthur Flemmins

v. Regele1 sets'realisti. .t"ra".f.-'ii
""sS.. 

ii ; ;; It ;;: o, r.: 
-" 

rt u 
"-*"; ;#o;i* :?"1.il:'H,]ll,H, tlti,:application bv the lo*er federar *ri. tr,oi-;i;;;i]:i;,ffi,in _"rojurisd ict ions hnar Ir' tegan i;;;.;;' iiom .ri rt uar eicr usion f rom theerectorar proc€ss. lte are acring to Lstore ir,;';;ffi;rir]. ifr furtherprogress.

E. Rrsroxsrs ro errsrroxs R.nrsro Arorr rrrB Resrlm Trsr
Opponents of the ',results test" codified br the Comrnittee hare madenumerous ailesations qs ro the p"i"rti"r;;;a; #iiifrl'i,i"". atbottom. all of-rhesc:r]:gl-,*'n"#H rrorn rwo assumprions. botJ,of_which arc demonstrabrT rncorrtct. ^ru,r LEU llssurrlP{'lo

-^riy',rhy aregarions fu;;-;i;; rhe ,.resurts tf,st" is a raricarv

$:-T:"Hir$,'j"xfff *:J:,*fl ,*r#Hw"xllxi:l,xx
lH T! r#;I T rli?:,1;li1f \', 

tfl in': p I i ca t i on-r o f t h i s ; i i;i'.dr,'
inevitabrr lead to a requirem-ent of p.oport.ionai re.presentationfor minonf.v grgups 

"n ft.t"Juoai*.,
make thousards of at-largr electjon s.t-stf,Ins arross the countneither per te itlesot or r-ufi"oii;;, li;;-'il;'"f-d;'"f,didi

er-idence of undeiepresentation oi-mrnorrtres: andbe a di'isive facior in rocai;rr.d;;;Li'ilrpn"sizing therole of racial politics.
The..' specificailv^list a number of states and cit.ies q.hose erection

ll,1?'-$-;::*n;i*i"n"iilir"i'"*:t1f 1,.,trHilT"|+,safeguard against tliex dange.r'i.-t" -"r.c proof of dirriininaionrnt ent an essent.iar erement ol .st abr ishirg n i,ir"ii"n;;i #ii;;:"^,The trstimon' and-otirer .r'id.rce-p."Jnted to the c,ommittee berieboth assumptions. ri,e proor- ti.=-iri'tl- fact that nunlemus courts

ffi'iiifi 5ffi {,.fifi jfr iH*,Jtdhi'tijj,ffi ;"',ii:f

a7 u,

L? (*

24.
25.
26.

E5 S Cr El;. 13 L Ec 2d :09
8r. -q.cr t6rfi. 20 L.Ed2d -t6
9r s.cr 12r.1 2! L Ed 2c sril

il#ilf , ii:l.: xi mil : # ffi l:m; ;*lt "ffi 
,rtrj#l

There is, in shorr. an extensiv", ';ti;Li;;"d il;ilil'f;"i"[iH Jof court decisions'using rh;;eri. ;;il;;;u.r, tni'b?ffitlt"e uirrwould codifv. The witpesses irt-"tt 
"ted the .,rcsurt atandard,'

n[f,'$ lTr:H,,.ffi-1Tfu,,T 'r'ffiiilrytil "'itif ,ffi1 
"*,"",

*#;ffi ':l';fl'ff *:'i"1il,'"H*t*f,{,,l,;tn,ii".,,H::',.rri,f
209



LEGISLATIVE JIISTORY

;',",#lH;!l"r!r'ii,i",iiP'i'*::JilfffiHl:ffi#:Ti
#ff :'"'*t'x&lt""rHiffi,*ffi 

"11ffi;-T*:''",:ir"=ffi :

il'il*ltll""[:"f 
'.'f li,aii"r-to"tr-ecoldl+d"*^tl"*' 

jresultstest"!

ti, ii'.*"' a t"*t':?r.d-f#
The Committee
w hit e c o mb an d # iit'.,'P'i- ;1 tq tiT,:' zs";'pltt"d''vote d il u t i on ca ses

[Ji#**$#$"i;ffi it;fl*i"'*'rI,"4#{ldrp,
cosered most ot

;$rrt##f ***tu[u*,"rmrx*.:.:t:*:.'rmitteets review o

il'.'uffi #.af i,3'r+i{#fq}^$:*fr- 
1*ffi$

relre sent"atires of 
.t 

heir, cno][' 
- -, "intent standard. " Justice Stew -

z#3'li"Jr'x'ffi irS:.61}i*Jt*Jti[liry3*r#Ti
oroceeiled';; ii'..J;y'p!-tu thnt m'oof of ident
,iila1;;#laai,i",.ir,,"","i'fr 

;*f i*:;,f.tff :'il"llii{
niili*l'il,lllffilnl{*#J*:ij}r.H*::i$*!fi !i
ii"f ;","*:lT*n;n""1"t1'I;Id;' ;d the'co'urts did not rocus

onthe*o...i"*t..*-r,i'a1p...r;..ii,i*?i[J'u"i"gcha]lene€d.let
a)onerequireproofofdiscriminlio[-int"ntasipre."qu.isiteto

Z}
Cirab

Z7

Z'

/7

relief ."'

ffi**i'mt*r
3. Under the results *l li;:"JL, never'reql'ired proportional

ffi 'ffiTxtiti$"l*'i.1frl*,;'ft ,iil"tr{f Hls*.,st:i*
'JlJ'?:Tl"lSl;li:ii\i'|iliir.'--#i,f q*".'$;'h'Jil'"*\I
claimer' bosed r

?(-

210



le com-
in the

ding in
rte that
into tne

:s testtt I
earings.
slons ln
on cSses
le. Nine-
I period'
was the

d appli-
he Com-
oints:
applied

p altlcu-
in Zim-
e courts
and the
al proc-
the mi-
in the

to elect

ee Stew-
qes that
iwed it)
twt re-

,ns from
dilution
. in most
mont of
Lot f6cus
rged. let
urs)te to

Etr lDtld.,e rroDflI
l?61. tblt
trlt. dorn
trlnr tblr
,h lDoultrd
rl3llat or

prtional
rsion has
ption of
nder the
the dis-

squarell'

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS
P.L 9?-205

stat€s thst the Section creates no right to proportional repre-senta-
tion for sny group.

4. Under the results test. at laree ele.ctions \,serr not auto-
metically invalidated. In fact, in iti articulation of the results
test, in Zimmcr the Fifth Circuit explicitly stated, "it is axio-
matic that at large and multi-nrember districting schemes sre not
Nr se unconstitution&l.t! r2s

tr{ulti-membor districts rere upheld by the Supreme Court in
Whi.tcornb under the same test uied to strike them down-in the
context of a different totalitv of circumstance,s-in WlLire. Siz-
teen of the subscquent courts "of rppeals cases involved challenges
to at-large elections. and the defen-dants prevailed in 10 of those
decisions which permitted the continued use of the at-large elec-
tions. These included cases fmrn Cireuits ot,her than the Fifth
CircuiL"'

5. The results test did not assure victory for plaintiffs. Of the
totel 23 cases. defendants rron 13 and prcvailed in part in two
others. fn rcsponse to this unehallengeable statist.ie. some hare
suggested that plaintifrs eould nin under the results test. by
miritl' shou'ing'(a) at-large eleetions; (b) underrepresentation
of minoritiesl and (c) "a scintilla" of evidenee. i.e.. proof of one
additional fector from amorrg rrhich Zim.nvr lists as reletant.

The cases analvzed shorr that tlrLs position is simp)1' rrrong.
On a number of occasions. p)aintiffs who had proven one or

two or three of Lhe Zimmer fuctors-<ertainlr more than a
"rintilla"-were found to fall short of the showing required to
render an electoral scheme void rrnder t.he re-sults test.r27

6. LTnder the rtsults test, the eourt distinguished betree.n situa-
tions in rhich racial yrclitics plav an ercessire role in the electoral
proccss. and communities in wlrich thel do not.

Tlie Subeommittee Report claims that thc results test aaarrmz',c "th&t
raee is the predominant cleterminant of political preferenet." The
Subcommitlee Report notes that in mnnv eases racinl blcrc voting is not
so monolithiq and that minority voters'do reeeire substantial support
from white vot€rs.lts

That stotement is eorrect. but misses thc point. f t is true with re.spect
to most eommunities. and in those eommunities it q'ould be exceedingll'
difficult for plaintiffs to show that thev q'ert effectivelv exeluded from
fair accBss to the political process rrnder the re-sults test"

['nfortunate]v. however. there still are some commrrnities in our
Nation where rleial polities do dominate the electoral process.

In the context of such racial bloc voting. and ot.h.

Iar election method can denv minoritl' voters Fqu"! )pportunit5' to
particinate meaningfully in eleetions.

r,lt 5 F 2d rt 130{.u Blocl Volc". s v"ncnougr.t 565 F. 2d 1 (lrt elr. 197?) : I)ot'
I t !t2 , 8th c'tr. I p76 ) .eD.o. ner)t+r t. Jo.cqh, tt9 P. 2d f265 (tth Clr.) eert
F. 2.r t roe ( ttfi-TlETltg75).rSubcoDtDltt.. B.pon, Dp. al-,L.

r. lfooru. 53e P. 2d _/
,r/

211



LEGISLATIVE fIISTORY

lPage 3al

To suggest that.it is t'he results test, carefully applied b}' the-courts'

rvhich rs r=sponsrbr.'i"r ttr* instances of iirteisive.rncial politics'

is 
'ke 

saying thar rtil'tfri,"a*ti.;s itermometer which causes high

t"r*il; 
results te*,makee rw onump.timw.otw @q'y f lh"oii'er sbout the

role of racial politi;i";;;il;;fi9;-t.in a paiticular comm*nitv' lf
nrarntrfis ass€rr rh&t fi";.";;;'.;;-d-1"i. *"* to the politial"pto""ts'
in part. because ,f ;il'#i*i -;ili;;-t6 context wittrin which the

iii"ir.r"*a'a'lti; tv;;";;;"ks' thev'wduld have to pl.ve rt'

Prop-onents or trr"'*it'*tt;; stIni";ei no*"""t' do preiume that such

, *'i;i*#il; i;i ;;"i;"d; ;;il;ffi oiity *ot".. rn Am erics. rhis pre-

su, ptton rsnones " 
;";;ifii"'l;;lii;/ esiablished bv o'erwhelming

"' f;l5 11 ;|iit"*:| #$ f # T iil'Xry;" 
" 

ie w o r the e r istin g track

record under trr" "r1",Iiils- ti"'; * ltt; Committee amendment have

;;#il:i;;triiii tr* qririons raised by some about that test are sstrs-

factorily answered by that record'

Allegation that C,ertain Cities Are Vuhreratrle Under the Results Test

During the hearings, Assistant Attornev General 11'illiam Bradford

Revnold.f provided in6 Commlttee wit^h'" litt of cities which' i! his

ooinion. would b" ;i;";"";'i;;-"i1"..t, ula".-tt u resu)ts standard of

tie arnended sectiontlHfiii;;i)',;h" sub"o-'oitte Report provided a

list of cities where";;t&"g #i'i'g t'pott'.I ''t".P't 9td-:Tt rqstruc-

t u r ins" of electoral :;;#"" ;ld U ff" ;i ikely" outco.m-e- under the

resulE test.r2e Th" C?;;;;; l";1"i"*i"J th& assertions and hus

found, that the t".t""Ifi""'t"'h th;t,"i["*a, *'ithout more. would

:::lt"$*t":ilf si"r**:titml,ti":'"1'i:t'l'"l"*:"s";l''t:
used bv the Assists;'ilil;;#J d"*r"t and the subcommitt€e Ferc

incorsistent with ho*' the resutts test T i""t op"ot""'31l lq1o*d 
S'

track record of ""il a""ii"a ""a"i 
tf," r*^oit" tcst'discussed above'

Briefly, tirg n.iriiti-G; io1 t5" Assistant Attorney General's

list,ns ;f cities^ "*"'fo;rr: tni t"'u "1f;i:ff*'flli'u[1ff':ig]H
olus fhe eristence of an at-large oI {
:i.:i.;:'Sn'i".ii, ,i,. Subcomnitte"'= tiri *"= based primarilv ou the

sune t \f, o c r) t€ rra, ;T;",:h;- ;a;it ion of ;;;';[;i;.'lr;," usfally the

existence or pr"tlofi't;;r;!*g"t"a schools' As hus already been

dixussed, tlrr, .i-iij:*as not th"e a[proach used b-v the courts under

the 1l'hite/ Zimnur t*-st.
This Repoft t,*" "i""ay 

cited several cases where plaintiff.s )mt'

d;fi; iirE *ni un.t iot'i 
"t- 

tsrge sJist€rns and uqfl errepresentatron'

and. the pnes€nce o, 
"-*oy-*o'"- faitors than thoee relied upon by

Assistant Attorney t$''ilt'it'it"i"oia= or the Subcommittce Report'

lf the mero existeoJ oi u"at'fop""*"t"tion plus a history of dual

schools had been ,umJi"Int r.J"1fl;rr, then olaintiffs wou-ld heve won

in every lewsuit b,.dililil;'Fifth Ci"";il";ffiil;; Cit*Ltl no ll^ 'f 
o'

il;:ii;;;. til;;:;;;'d'[ oot '* a mechanical "ractor cou

#mli*tlmi****:"*':"';"J3 :ii,fi*'i""'m.: i' ! 
:]' ^)

^ | J- /r
-ffiffirttceB?pon, pp {6_52 

I Vv"trt )212 
Il-* f\L

8/



utt8,
itics,
high

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AIT{ENDMEI\TS
P.L.97_205

[page 35]

:t^l?f p9 in light of the ultimete issue to bc decided, i.e., whether thepotlttcol proeesses rere eeuallv ooen.
The inaccuracies of bot} of"thise lists of allegedlv vulnerable iurie-dictions are also revealed by a studv cond,cted'bf:it,. O"pJrii"driiif

.Iustice in 1978. This studl''anaryzef more than doo cities^throuchout
40 nofihern and western stites to-see whether vote diluti,on d;;;;E;i,i
be brorrgh.t it. t.h.qf regions. The standard usud Lr: th.-ff,p"-"trn"nt to
evaluate the lrabr.lrtl' of those jurisdict.ions wa^s thi w h,itc,iresults" testwhich the amended-section z hould r"store. The initiei review of mostof these cities revealed an insufficient ba^sis for proceedine drth;;:A few were selected for more detailed inr:esiigatio'n;. t;t;if,d;iti;;t"hI.IS 

!l!imatel.v {oun$ Ul'{ll" department iot to warrai,t titig"tilnil he L:ommrttee notf,s that this lgTS stud.v covered 20 of the sEme 2E
cities cited bv the Assistant Attorne.v Geniiral. on" .ilr: tti"i rr. *"*
tioned-, Cinciirnati. is particuiari; iiiiil;li:;'bir;;;;i *i" tr,. .uu-ject of one.of the mosi deraired i"n-vestigation." ;f th;;;ti." .tr6. -Th.
report of tJre studl'squarely stated: "

In lke manner. Cincinnati, Ohio, sas the subiect of a vote
dilu.tion.inwstigation b; the Civii'Rights Oi"ilion Lrt or,..
pgain, the Division did not discover'ihe facts necessarv to
rnstrtute a lawsuit. under the v'hite r. Begeeter standar-d.rro

The 197r. Justice Ilepartnrent investigation also eneompassed over halfof the cities rnenrioiied in the Subcfmmittee Report.-and-two of the
cities cited b1' the Subcomnrittee sere the subject'of tt. -o". ietaile<t
.]ys!ice i n vesi i gat ion s. Cin e innat i an d ii; 

"t..L'r 
rr.. C;;";i;; ; t. *f,. *,

lS,n-. no.potential dilution case under the resulls standard was found.
L'he .ru.st)ce I)elrartnrent's o''n reeords also showed the inaecurac.v of
the subcommittee's listing of still another cit.y, sarannah. Geoigia.
That citv had eompleted a-n annesation in 19ig.'a r.oiins.h;rc1 *h]ch
Eas submltted to the r)el)artment of .Iustiee for prec]earanie under
^Seetion 5. After subjecting the propcned nr,nexatio" t. iti. .rgor"u*
requiren.rents of Section i. ihe Dei-,artnrent tleeided that the anne"xation
$as not obje<'tionable because the'eleetion svstem pror-ides black votersrrrllr ad_equate opportunitl for participatibn and fair representation.'Ihe ('onrmrttee has been well asane of ihe great imporiance of this
is.ue and a-e.ordinglr has exanrined it at grerrtTength. fl";;;r;;. it con-
clu<les as did the Ilouse.Iudiciary comriittee . thEt the amendment to
Section 2 is carefrrl. rcrrnd, and nicessar-v. and wiil not r".rii i, whole-
sale invalidation of eleetoral structures.

Resulrs Test Supported Br. Affected Jurisdictions

Ifemtrcrs of the ('omr,ittee also receir-ed eommnnications fronr
t'epresentatives of tlre States and political suMir.ision whieh the ,,re-
srilts test" ultimatel\. norrld affect. The conferenee of staie Lgi.i"-
tures. the confereni'e of }Ia-r'om. and trie rrague "i C,ii". 

"-ll 
h"u"

cndorsed the "results" tesr in tli.. comnrittee bill 
". 

p..i.ot,ie to re-quirin-s proof of a disc.iminator-r' inrent in order to i.t"irtiJia riola-
tiun of Section 2 of tlre -lq{.r:r

"r?*tF-n).{srlFirDr 
-{riorDeI.GeD?ml \tecouoell to Rrp. Ftcnry EI1.de. Jut,9, legl,

. D "In Inrtlcular. re urgr oo chaoge lo Seciloo Z o, g lee3 rr lDtroduer{ xbleh ralD.rtales the 'tesultr' tebt Er tbr bae ir tirr oiterntnroi iheruer r-:u-iriiiitGi'iJ oi.lrrnrurr-
213

t the
r. rf
€8SSt,

' the

such
pri6-
nrng

rack
have
atis-

Test

ford
I his
dof
led a
,ruc-
'the
hus

ould
tho

lysis
rel!
t the
ove.
ralts
lion,
rtion
r the
'the
been
rder

l.06t,
:lon,
rby
)ort.
lual
won
: the
ing"
ort-
um-



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L. 9?-205

lPage 361

F. Tls Lrrnrerroxs Or Tre Ixrexr Tnsr

,,=T,l-"'lTij,n',H',T3!xill'il'ir",1'Jl-;i:'*:l::ii?:i$i:i':iiil;
the hiarinS, there *i""otitiatoUit aittu*ti'on of the difticrrltv often

encountered i, *""tri! ,iii:it;e;;',"![,Lrt'it"i is not the pr:ineipal

re$son shY we have relecteo tt'
The matn resson ,."'th"i. ;;pl1'.pu.t' the test asks the srong ques-

tion. In the Bolden il';; t"#""a' the district c'ourl after a tremen-

dous exnenditure of ;;;;;';i 11't p"tti"i-"na tnt collrt'' concluded

;#i;trii;il;;e'";;"d ;"'* ir'"" turi'ea's aso for discriminator\ nrG

tives. However. if an electoral systenr tl*il:;totl'1"to "tctude 
l'lacks

; 1 r, r ; i,"11 i1i'::: i,',,H{Hi,;ii ii ;; U liif; :I;: l* 
"n:''*lilIil"l' ?:i::.'"IlTrT. "Ji #;;d,, i.. t r,. cl-," it t?. ame nd ntent is

rrretrrer minorities t"r.-"qu"r acc€.ss ," ii,* fro""*.,of .elerting 
their

renresent at ives. I f ,[;; # J;rl;;' ; fui t 
-of 

i'5'nit r to,Part ici lrat e'

thL Commit,"* U*ti.illi ti*, if,.'rt'*,, .t,n,iti k chairged' regardless

of rhat n'r&v or ,,.,"];;i'L';il;.,i; "b"ui'e'ents 
wliich took place

decade" ago.
Secondlthe Committee-tra.s.heaStl persuasive testinronl that the in- \

tent test is unnecessariiital.*ir. Irciu.e ii ln.'ol'e. chaige-' of raetsrtt \

on the part of inaitiairi'l;H;l;i; "-t 
t'ii* "t'munities' 

As Dr' Art'rrr

S. Fleirming. Cr'"1#1"";i iil tlieo S;i; 
';'nrissior 

on Civil

Rights. testified d';iff;;"'*;'il;":tl;; Sutronrmittee on the /
Constitutron:

(L)itigators representing es-cluded minorities will have to \

exp)ore the motriitions of lndit'idual t"'"tif-t'"'rlrn;' nral'- \
ors. and oti,.t "iilt"' !1t 99e-s1i,91.rs"uld be wlrethcr their

decisions sere motivatgd .b1' tnvtdtous racial considerations'

sucl inquiri::;l ""i' r" 9i'l'i::\Ii;Tl:^ilf.',l,.u:;l::i /
tLl l""tll .-.Hi."l'l:l'ftT :1i' ;'#il; ii^ ;;';';'i i' t''u"'i /
indir-iduats ". 

J;i" il orilr *oi,ain iudic.ial relief '"'
Tlreverl'concernvoieedbr.Dr'Flemmin,,rr.asillustratedh.rl$.ot.('.

eent deci=io*.. frla)ll';;;in.,"r;;-. ".a 
f.il';r.* r'. Cir'.q' of Il"st Htt-

€no.t3s In botlr eases. the 
-fede.ral 

eollrt-s- *"" totp"lied'to lal'el tire

motives of reeen{ p"Utit'on"ials as "rat'ia,l" in reacliing t}ie eonelusion

that an electoral ..to"** it't -"i"itined for a diseriniinalorv purl)ose' \

Third. the intent'i"tt'*iii'U.--"'' in..'tdln"t"lt aim''trlt liuider' for \

DIaintifls in most "r.t'.'tr,'ii,. 
*r. o-r la.*s ensried manl' decad.l. 1{l:

l'i:'i[iil;;;.:;;# ,* 'rr,p**ga 
from thei,sraves for testtmonr

;il;;ii;;;;iir"" rr"irtra-t-h-eii actions. Frrrther. rrhatever tlre une\-elr

estent of legislatir.'*:;il'i;;it:l':"t:filntitt s€s'ions of fro or 1(xr

vears ago. lt rs elear that most eounties a"Iirnttt.t'cities rrill not hate

tiilI"ro* -toorltr6." k5g,,i'iii;oo:,J rP""*[":' 
ljr(utlre l)tmct('r' l'nlted strtt'

('rinfcreoce of f,tEtors to t

^"",'mii:i.",tit.!iiJi'#'i:il,l,;,i'#;*!i!*:rt,?;{}'t';,':-.'i$ll,i,fiili*i*:t',:'l';vutlDE nrsctl'ets tban pr@I,or-i',t:i^'-^- 
^r *tit.'f-"J.t:tr,rer. Jen. 2(;. l9ll' -;..o.g3lSili*fJ",1"","."*,S:ii:i:i!:"'ili.t^"io|,i'ilil';;i;iiii*"o .,''nor -or 

drrcrrm

,,3i,,f :,,:*s i $ iiJ' # il"*"ii' i,r*#l,l t,* li *it i;ixi* i [' ; ; 1""i*"';: r Si hi l l ::1

iirrlr z,;, iei: tetter to commlttee-',i'ri".tiios igt"."fhlil Elr;r-, rrr. No, 8t-1510 (8tb c4r. le82).r P6lin. a. Ci.Y ot 
Z j4

I
at

$.

\



'estub-
During
T often
incipal

g ques-
remen-
rcluded
)r\ mG
'blacks
,tter of
re most
nent is
g their
icilrat e.

:ardle-ss
k place

the in-
racistrt
Artliur
,n Civil
on the

t$'o l'(,-
, s1 lJ rl-
rbel tlre
rel usion
)urpose.
den for
des ago.
st rmon)'
unelen

(t or 1((j
rot have

ted Siates

lDc Rlrhlt
rlElnE tort
r!D. Strte-

rf dlterlm
rln)llrttlorr
t o! Cltleo

,to
a \'-
IEI I'
)ns.
ro)'
ent
rnd

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AITIENDMENTS
P.L 9?-m5

[page 3i]
available the kind of official records and nerspaper files rhich the
plaintiffs were able to procure for the retrial oi .iobitc.

In the case of more reeent enaetments. the eourts mar. rule that
plaintiffs _face barriers of "legislative immrrnitr'." both as to the mo-
tives involved in the legislatirr process ,3. and as to the nrotives of the
majority electorate when an election law has been adopted or main-
tained as the result of a rtferendum.rs3

lforeover, recent enactments, and future ones. ane those most likelv
to pose the fundamental defect of relving exclusivelr on an inteni
standord, namel\'. the defendant's abiilti' tioffer a non-iacial rational-
ization for a lai which in fact prrposelv discriminate-..

This defect cannot be cured ci,mfletetj' even thoug)r plaintiffs are
allowed to establish discriminatorvinteni bv use of a"wide varietv of
circumstantial and indireet evidence, including proof of the sante iac-
tors used to establish a discriminaton' result.iic'15. inherenr danser
in exelusive reliance on proof of nrotivation lies not onlv in the diffi-
culties of plaintiff establishing a prima facie case of diicrimination,
but also in the faet that the deien&ants can attempt to rebut that cir-
cumstantial evidenee by planting a false trail of direct evidence in the
form of official resolutions. sponsorship statements and other legisla-
tive history eschewing an^v raiial motir e. and adraneing other govern-
mental objectives. Solong as the eourt must make I sefarate u]timate
findins of intent. after ieeeptins the proof of the fietors involved
in the-E'irfle anall'si-.. that dang?r remains and seriouslr clouds the
prospeets of eradi&ting the rem-"ining instanees of raeiai discrimina-
tion in American elections. 

r

Post-Bctlden Csffs E'
ctu?

During the hearings. proponents of the intent requirement ciaimed
that severa) case-. decided subsrquent to the Suprrnre Coun's Ilaidtt, ffuA
decision denronstrale that the intent test is not krc difticult 8 stun(iard '

s1'stem.
McMillan r. Eacanhia County,t" in which rrlintiffs prer.ailed in

pari Eec frequent).v cited bv opp6nents of tlre ,'results" le'st. Eacoml,ia
involr-ed the at-large s-r'stems of electing errunt.\. conrnrissiorrer:. eit.r.
councilmen. and rhool board members in Pen.sacola and Escambia
Co_unt1',.Florida. The Fifth Circuit sustained the judgment for plain-
tiffs with resp€ct to the sehool board and city couniil. but not as to.._nffirpt^ 

Iteightt \.. urtropoliton H.D corg..rugrra at 26t.a Karkt?y r. Cirr/ o./ JocLron. F.2d (stb clr. I9t2). -

r S-ee. e.F t"itlnroDl of Arcblbatrl Cor. p. 06 i qut, f.(.. lrobit. rh.r. thc Dlurallrr an-pearerl to sererrlr cunrll tbe ure of clrcuD6taEtlal rnd todtrRt avldeDc" to plote tnreni.It lr tlre C(,nrmlite€'t lnlenr lbat platDll,tr bt ablr t0 relr on ruch.r.tdpDc. lrr nr,,vllg r.loia.tl('ns of SrtloD 2 rbere tbe\ cboine to Drmed und.r ili,,..lDteDt" attDdrrd. irretad ot tlreterult6 rteDdard codlned ln tbe re!lred Se(.tioD 2. lofra p. f.n.r635 F.2d r23e (3tb Ctr. l98l).

J
br"'
Lqtg

for plaintifrs 1o meet in vote dilutiorr cases. It is true.that.plaintiff-s tr'Oq
the post-Bo/do, decisions confirms its decide paet on
the abilitl of minorin' I'oters to end discz

llinoriiv voters losi some eases despit
Even sLen plaintifrs have prelailed. thc\ s'*sflnposed on
federal eourts its requirement of prot raeted. burclensorne inqrririe. iIeoeral eourls lts requrrement oI protracted. bllxtensolne tnqrrrrre> tnto
the. raeial motives of larrmakers-ratlier than examininc t-he Dresentrne. ra('l8t morlves oI larTmStiers-rSllrer Inan examlnlnc the Dresent
abilit.v of minorit.v voters to participate equallr. in their pbtitical

215



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L.97-205

lPage 381

fHl-]i i€h1'ft T f,,:j;;;?q,;:H,:\,!,iiiTT*':::';Li:;i!l':'ir
stances where tr,. "o"iiJ"iai 

;t-"ft"gsrn" t'o satisfu' the hear'1'

l"ta""inrlrcsed by.Bol'den'"" ^ ^i^ ^^-^ t n)no * Rc. ' r"l\I'; 
"iiia 

.rr" ii," if i" coutttv, o.t"'.T.1ffi,1i'ffhl;,ft?Jl;
Th"t p]"*;fis prevailed in both the dist
tn Lodqe should .,til[,;;;' Ti'*-;i'iti;"o o'* so over$helming

that the plaintifls' r'ictor-v lras to U" t'1"t1"a regardless of whether

one applie d 
" 

.,.."uuil''I;'..#l d;; ;t"ni:' *tt"l'sil' 1.fre d istrict court

conclucled th&t everJ:o;; "f 
il';;"Le.vant factois considered tn 1l'hite

tnd, Zimnu" **' p.oJ.i' ui ii"ii'i;fl-' iittuallr unprecedented re'

su-lt according to &n exlxriencetl \-otlng tigi'r' "ttb'n^t!''o 
Tht'!-iftL

Lj-;;ii;;d'tha.t the tutu l"ottnted an extreme srtu&t)on:

The picture plaintifls paint i.-s-all too clear' The vestiges of

racism 
"n.on.,ptSt''i" 

i;;1ii.t "i tiie in Burke Count'1"''

Two otlrer cast''s drcide'd after tlre <'otrrnletion of t)te SuLr<'onrlrrittec

)iesrings have als<-r l-reen cited t'1.propne'nit of tt-r* intPnt'test' In the

Commit,ree's vies. i;;;t;;: n"ii't"er tit tn&* ** it incorusisent with

out overall "on.t,tion 
il'ut tt" jntnnt irst places an unat'coptable

burtlen on plaintifl"It'a'[it"'i- tr* j'ait*]-iirquiry f'oTl llt: crucial

ouestion of u'hetlier'nliio'iti*t r'"'t:"- tq;;t ti.c*'l to t)tg'electoral

3:H:'rii. ;;;';;;' i;;':;'n--". u'rt"' Arkansas": rl*' sr:cond

post-heartngs ca{ ,f}"'i'"titl"'ii:ai*t='"J d.*ision in Bold' r' itstlf '

Eoualll tnstructtve 
-ai*'t)" 

cas€s. whiclr plaintifl-'' h11^'.l1st stnce

fri;;;iil.?;;;;; i,:';;';;^l'''"1'q" io 1i*r)'aps the ttrott j:'i;?l'l: 
?judicial rc'spons{',o'l''ja''"-'t" t'agtnttit Co'nt't case''U

"!1:,#! ^r 
lat'g,' sc)i<xrl lpartl elections uert up)teltl in Gs(lsden/-

Clount]'. Fiorida."' ait"f-'gf' tf"\' Fe're'Iase'l ot' tl'" te,t't' sarrrt' statel

-l;l;3r reDbscora bsd adopted E roited 1t l:lli 
""'01,?'f 

*"rJjll?:'"ftf "J:fr,{:l ll;
:ll #'tiili",fl1: X;;i,::"-:;* lill'l,i",l'i1","i,11;i.i,,-;;;;,-uud'|r.Fl tu'' q:aiJ in rt''q

nertreapporrr(tnmeDiI(ri'ii'-i"i'ri'rivterLrl'r''iitl''r'iti';"iisaaopteaacomDlPtpl)
".r;l"HIol,il"xi,*;ll:",liii"i:i"'li:i;;*,t:;,;l '{ii:l':li:ifl;;.'0"ll,T'.:ul'li,':of 

:i;
aDd s(, D&n] $birpF tu r'i;i l;; 

"rO-r..ii 
tbr I'ot'il;tl;r"i'' btluut" E6.ro ra(c" 6:r' l'

2d 8r l2.l;. F,,rmer r.,orri?' t-iJr'.ir-,*-rr"rtier .rrieo]iit,, bad bren a stalr teprebeDlatllt

i? th( t)me. also tertlnei-iU"''i i'i'" i'i ibc r<'uocil o"-i'"tt had todlcutcd "the chauEP raF

s.aDted r(, aroid a.'rart 'an-d- pepr*r couLcll .,fq, 
jl j;i-tdi"::l:'*r!i-'',1;"'l:l:,lrl";'.tl:

i'+*ift 1i$* ;i tt I irr : ii;L#, i*i*'i+i t i' f'n I q 1$. 6 ;r, g.
i.nl",t"it";:iI,,:l?.';iili'",i'f""[:3;'1',iif t,l;i.;:l?l,,"il[".;;illi.tir".i;rrilon",l,

ll;:ir" "rl*'i'ilrrr['J,';'"*";j':r!i"1,jii:iitf,r ;;; ";;;:"; n !i"ri: saiDinr r{'qer

aDdtbuFnurl'|o6et)l!1"li'iir"-i"ail'i"-513'slrorios-;f;;s1t'tbr('uBhtLr'uF'oiar'Etr.io& rtsrcm " ,d sl r::{:' suct' direcr te!tlrDosi'6t ira'][ro-t-t (haiD of eIenl6 lB Dol

** tif ,Ti:.j,irri Fii :iil [ ]:',,';, ",. a, 1 1 i J a D u a r s 2 6, 0 6 2

r., 61q F. 9d at 1361.
E P€rfinl. lDrol\Fd ln a challcngp lo Setst -HelonE'h 

at large eleetttrtr ol lt^ aldersrett'

rhp Eisbth orcuir r"ri'r"l"i'i-# ii'''i"t.-'.'.1t"-o"iiili1;'""lilil'liil"lt;,:ti,[A,lfi ?f,:

i;ilirt.,'xli"l"llin"",iJ:?4,x,'",'id'"i"""9Ir"'"r:t..u*$.ufi i.ffi fii''i" i il,ii' u' " t' d s) I "'"L11 ;ll ;, " :i0,""? "; Jrff * if,osot.r' fraugbl rtltt
I)r"n,i,i iii ct''")trl'rt: lhat th' a\stPnr qar'-mar

li,'. iiiii,ti, citcuir h8( rhe ben€frr ('f I sE''tlnl

lm$l:lii;,1'J:':'l','""01,TT'1ll{i!fi:ii?'ll,li,';;i';'i;"'it"rinn' 
tir scio:' ra at

2!F 3rr "Such olrcc: etriJ"'l* n-l rn'ialuui tnt"ot. 
"n 

"rirlii atillablc muFt b' sir?n gr"al

EpichliDaDssPriDFtn?QuPFtiortfsbPtner"ii"i"o'aioitiiealtrbldttcrlmlDatorJ
"'iii"*" " ,d !r 34-,,. [,|].ljl;to"ofl"ri Boora. TCA z3-r?z (N.D n! l08l).
' ri go,mpbcll \ . Gddrd?n ( ovr'y Ft revt

216



even
'e in-
,eav)

tott."
rcuit
rning
ether
sourt
t'hite
d re-
!-ifth

i

rittee
n the
with
,table
'ucial
:toral
lcond
itself .

since
rrrat ic
rlir t'.

lsden
state

or thr
ed ,or
lD the
)let?l]
:haDge
. qard
6:a l'.
rtalile
:E T 8E
ir(l; l(,
I clec.
. Fol
t'lar8t
rbar :

ts ?lac
tb lht
I,()q ef
8L aI'
i! !ot

pfD)Clt
rd Dot
'r. t he
'r I rhe
PDt lE.
rlt. ln
L r I roFe.
of lhe
rvrl m
,d. !r
gr"r I

D! t()r]'

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMEMS
P.L 9?-205

IPage 39]

]awthatwashel<ltobepurposelydiscrirninatoryseverslcountiesto
the west in Escsnrbia.

ln Crots v. Barter. a challenge- to eloctions in }Ioult'i:, G-T:F]: G
was ro.iected. "r.n 

,iiJ,rlr,-itu "*Ia.nce 
shou.ed pervasive dirrinuna'

tion in the Political Drocess'r"
Two cases *itr, stioi-gI.la"n"" of present-da1'dirrinrination serc

)ost because district ilu?r. i,-iJit"ithe adoptidn of ch-allenged pra.3'

tice,. in the early t."^-oi ihis centurtr'to'fd t'ot have been racially

,rcrrivated .ir,"" utr"i.";;r;';i;;Ii' rlr"t out of electoral plitics bv

other methodr'"' rlri, ;;it;i;;1'"! *1ti' the anall'si-s by the Disrict
Courl in the Botdei,;#;';;;1ra *.t ;.t rtvealul thai a-reneu'al of

'lack 
politi."t por"ur'ii-iir.-a'-" flLiriatit'e cor,.,ern even during that

neriod.,.u In AlaL,anra.-"-iii.tii.t "6rrt 
disr.issed a.n ett€tnpt bv the

i'nitett States to inirhi.;;ir;;",1 kir;';f,""tir,,on1 call.id fbr b1'

)l ob il,-" h i storica i ; tT,l-;;';;*.g'1;ht 
"t "-ont 

f or i lie adopt i on of

,, - r".n. 
"r".i 

ionr,._";' th; d;;<l-t)rat rvithout eridence of unrespon-

3i;;;;1t';;i' ot a i* ti * i riatory pu rpose w as u$e I ess' "'
Finallr'. ti,* .lu.ti.iiiti',"tttt;frl*i aiimitsed'tro co'ses it had liled

on the bisi. of ,f ,* l.-'.u'i,.'i't'.a"ta''"i,eiconcl'ding the proof of dts-

"rlrri""tlt,.r 
in tl,e =i;t;'i wou-l-d not meet the intcnt t"it':':

In sumntarv. " 
tii;;;;;f t)'t """tJoiio*ing 

th9 t!!e7 dectsion

pr--i,1..-iii;ii '.rppo.ilor exclusiue reliance on the intent test'

(i. CoxsrrruuoliAllrl- or ArrtsplrENT To Sncrrox 2

The proposed anrendntenl modiff ing a results test to Section 2 is a

elearlv constitutionri .t...itt of ('ongieisional power under Article I
;;;';il.'F;l;;i;;;th ;;a-iirt""n1' Airendmenti' Bv nos the breadth

- .f Congressio,at ;;;;; i;;;i;;;. these oro'isioni is horntnok law'

In a series of c"."l.'d"tiiig back more thJn fif-leen ]'ear:' the Supreme

c;;ir,u.. ,."ogni;;d iil;is"ction 5 of the Fourieenth Amendntent

and Section , of 
-thi iifteentt' Amendment grant Congres-s broad

l,orrer t(, €Dht'l u1'1'tt1'titit-l*-g-itt"tio" to enforie thc righis protected

i,.\' tirose anrendmenls.I'P . 
rns of the'''I;',i;;l-- aiiil;,* t. Kolzer,boch. sustaining ke5 provrs)c

f'oiing Rigf,t* e.i of i..Oi. tf,. Srrprenre Couil noled that "('ongress

las full renretliat ;;;;;" i; ;R..i,i"t".ti,e constitutional prohibition

norinit raeial discfinrination in voting"''50
'Sr,ecificallt. tf ,u'i'ou.i'ff i;^C ti"ia ti,at Congres need not limit it-

* i;'; i;;iJi; iir" .*r,.r.i.:* 
-* 

ii t, t he Fi fteen t 6- Amen dment . i f there

is a basis for rtre (i;;-g;;;:i"ral deternrination that the.legislation fur'
llrers enfor('emenl oi'it,* anrendment. The \-oting.Righls Act is the

i,..i "i""inf e of Congres:' ,o\4'er t() enact intp)enrenling legislation that

goes l-,e.voird the direir prohit,itions of the ('onstitutton ttselr.

rs639 F.2d 1363 ('tb clr. l08l): coEpate crolr r' Bo',tcr'60t F' 2d 875 (stb Clr'

lh;r*fil dfr;;'jjsi,bi',i'Li,:,1f,.'""1",:,Jrri4ii{$:,ifl1lj.'iff^;iJ;;,l
,.r l nit?d 6tor?. \. von"iio'c;';;;;'dJii'-'4ii Ci'si- isj-i't-B-(s'A Alr ' r08l)

sur, (,prrroD 8r D. 3: ,* iil ir"rli,ri's"rii"i 
-i'iar"ylod,r"rl 'zo ois. gzo. szl ({tb c1r'

[L]!,,,q, s,rl.i. I.,ql,h cororino,-(.l3nlrg:9r.9{rNfu,r."o-J;"ri.lBEtFb*'iill,il
rror.'"','."Clrv 

-ii-Hrtti\bu'g, CA No H-7F-O1'?lc) (

Itearlttsr' rl po':l:|35 2:"6?

2 u S Cons News 82 Bd vo -20 217

*t
.,2

1\

-/



LEGISLATM 
2HISTORY

r[$;lt:l,r.r,,f# ,!it::Fi: h"li"i:i#iiljliiisd'"1iff;,ii^,iirr{"r8i",,?l.t*
27. 86 S.Cr 803. ts L.Ed.2d 76928. 86 S.Ct rzrz, rs L.ea.za disze. 9t S.Ct. zn, Z.i t.Ea.za zii-.30. 100 s.ct. 2?58, OS I ea.za goz.

Bou.th ca,rolrin 
[page {0]

",*ti;,srifi tiliiit,i",lL!"lt,lr,Xf,"lf .H:?,,if ru{,Shnot per ae viorare section I of tt. Fftooii, d;il;;r""ii tt"t.u"t
ffi "XJili3l'*f;g;*i:[],;-tfl,iffi 

ili':i[fi lla=iitr,"y

"rYffi 
f; fij,iJi"iH:ffi :li:,qiX-,H::tl!.drrectrequirements

ry*l!',-it'r"t?"Iifi tif :ililrtHjl:ffi liiil*,-,rn
#[ffi1r*,m?,;*i;P; i a*;i;,-;; ;il #; Eii"*,v
r,rir:i"n;g*r**n***:##::" 2 or the l'otiug Rights Act is

The prevailrne opinion;i ti;rfireme court in Bordcnherd that,roof of discriming'to"y at3"[iiii"iurr.rrunt to estabrish e viorationunder the Fourreenth ind Fi-fte"iti.,al-.oa-;;.;; H;;ier, on rhevery same dav that Borden *" a.iala,-ih. s,;*;."irr", in theRomc cax. er-nri"itty' ,p[.ii'6d;s-'power to pro'ide in .\ection Dof the ect ihaf a 
".o^iro.i.o 

,oti"g ii*Tf,"rg" 
Tr.-1. be.rejeeted ongrounds eicher ofdrxrimrnatory purpose or or ctrscrrmmslsn effect.ts3In e case decided-several mo'nihs Lier-Btlden, Fulli)ote,v. Klutz-nbk. Chief Justice 

^B_urSri;;;1til 
i". ,n. Courr. reviewed the casesand reiterafed the C,ongresslon&l poner.t

statutes tha; d;-; Fequrre proof of ,l"XI*f", 
voting rights though

The commitae has cirn"tuiua-ttii io .nto""u fury the Fourteenthend Fiftcenth Amendm;;e,;;;;;;.)_ that -section 2 ban eteetionp.rocedures and practices ttili-*ri?ffi deniar_or abridgment of therrght to vote. In reaching tti, 
"on"lu.irr, ;;fi"d-iii*il"i.,i,. alf_fi culties faced b' pt"r*rfu-#"?"i' iJ"p-ve discrirninetory inrenrthrough csse-bv-'cai 

"di;dl;ti"ri#" a substsntial risk'irrat in-teotional discriminatlrr'-U".*a'Lr:^ii. Founeenth and Fifteenth

l}"r*5g,ildm'ffi $ffi**$fttrtdffif
As Archibald Cor, a lesdi.g C,onstitutional siholar, testified:

Congr€ss ha-s th.e powel to ou[law all voting srsngementsthat result ia den-iaf o" ab"idgm;ii'o, ,n* nght to vore event'hough. not eil such arrangfi;;;; e're unconstitutionar. be_

,, 
ou* ,his is a rneans 

"rp'r_".rtiUti.,,-J#'"i-ii,"g,"I..r

:*iff*:*:xr*i+mui*rly,sr,.r,,ix
218



,or, t8a E.E.
I 8loaa., 11C

acv t€sts,
tdsts did
that such
ge tf theY

uirements
In&tf,. and
re riglrt to
ent. .l'lrat
seriously

nts Act is

held that
violation
er, on t,he
rt, in the
Sectien 5

on
y effect.!33
r. Klutz-
the cases

,t-s thouglr

our{eent}r
n election
rnt of the
t the dif-
rv intent
i'that rn-
Fifteenth
ed unless
rat voting
€rpetu&te

6ed :

nents
even
I, h-
.es of

?tteDsloD of
I'ourtRDtb

t?Dta
?!6 urt! pro.
oeDt. ao loDS

_l

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS
P.L.97-205

rfi tbe prohlbitioDr are approprlste as tbal t?rDt lB denDed lo ,,eCytloch v. Narybnd atd
Dt Partc, firqinio. . ID tbe DreleDt case. se bold tbat tbe Acl r baD oD ?lecloral
poses of tb€ Ftfte€Dtb ADeDdEeDt, eyeD lf lt ls asruDed that 3eetloo I of tbe Arn€DdEent
problblt6 oDlJ IDterDstioDal dlBcrlmlnsfloD ln yotlDE " t{6 t.S. rt 177.u448 U.S. ar 477 (1080).YClty ol Romc, eugro,447 tr.S. at 1?6, 1?7. {Congr.nr m!t problblt Et!te actloDr f,hlch
do oot lnvolve purposetul dtsarlElDetlon tbems"ly6. but rbtcb "p€rpetuete tbe etects of
lra8t dlscrlDlDatlon" or wblcb "creat€ the rlsl of purporeful dlBcrlmlDatoD.",

31. 79 S.Cr 985.3 L.Ed.2d l0?2

lpage 4ll
purposive and therefore unconstitutional racial discrimina-
tion.Is

\\'e are also aware of several collateral questions that have been
laised about this exercise of Clongressional porrer.11'e belieye thel'are
easih answered.

It has been suggested that the Committee bill would overturn a
<'orrstitrrtional decision bv the Supreme Court, irr spite of the strenuous
oppositron of some of the bill'= prolx-'nents to'un16lated Congressional
etforts to override Supreme Court decisions in other area^s b-r' statute
rather than bv constitutional amendment.

This argument sinipll' nriscolrstrles the nature of the proposed
amendlrrent to section 2. Certainll'. Congress cannot overturln a sub-
stantive interpretatiorr of the ('onstirution bv tlre Supr.erne ('ourt.
Such ru)rng. ian onlr'[r a]tereJ urrder our fonrr of girerrur,ent lr]'
constitutional anrendmenr or b1' a sulrsequent decision b1. t]re Court.

-Thu1, Oongress cannot alter tlrr jrrdicial interpretations in Bolrlt,t,
of the Fourteetrth and Fifteenth Antendment. bi sirnple statute. Rut
the proposed anrendnient to section ! drx. noi sx,ck- t<,r reversc tlre
Courl's constitutional interpretation. Ilathet. tlre propcna] is a I)r.oper
statutorr esercisc of Congre::s' enforcentent lm$'et' descri[,ed abore
and it i-. not a redefinition- of the scope of tire ('onstrtutic,nal 1rr.t,r'i-
sions. As Anrerican Bar Association President I)avid R. llrrnk etrr-
phasized :

Under tliis amerrdnrent. tlrt, Sulrlenre ('orrrt's interpleta'
t.ion of the proper constitrrtional stanciard s'ould tx, left jn-
tact. ()nlv tire section 2 staruton' standard rroulrl be cLanged
to reinsrate the llrior )egal standirrd.,,'

As Professor ('os note(i. tlie prol-,osecl aniendlrrent to rpction 2 is
clearll- di:tilrgrrishablt, f ro:n I)r'()l)():alr pending in the 97th ('ongress
to oflset sutrstantive Sul,renrd ('orrri interpretitions of thr Constitu-
tion bv siniy-,)e st{rtute.r5s

L.nlike legi.lation propo.e<l in otlrer oroa-:. S. 11t9J d<xs n(,1 attetnl)t
to restricl tire federal courr's juri.tliction in anl u'ar'. It <loes not direit
the result or tlre renreclv that courts rriav reacir s'iil, rr,specr to ellrims
brouglrt unrlel' tire Flfreentlr or l'ourteentlr Arficndnreni-. \ol. rltxs it
pll!^J)ose to retlefi}ie tenDs in either arnendmerrt for purlroses of con-
stit utional adjudicaLion.

Anotlrer questi()Ir raiv,tl lrt' several u'itne-.se. in the Srrbcornnrittee
hearings is n'lretlrcr Cotrgres-.ir,rral autlrorit.r. to enret tlre an)endltlent
to.Sectron ! rs contrngent upon a dt,tai)ctl sirorring of r.oting riglrts dis-
crlnilnatlorr througlrout the eorrntrr. Tlrel suggest an analorr to th(,
record of abus., in eo'ervd jrrristl;r:rion. ti,at ih* Suprenre (rou11 e,r,-
p_)rasized in ,\ottti corolira-t'. h'orze nl,aclr. as orrc baii. for uplrolding
,. E P.1e parcri atatpnrcDl t, l{-, Cor l6tltlonr. Spnate lrrnrlnlr. f.ebruar.r 3i. ,lrA:,1. Tbe('ommllt...8l.,' f,r!nd perrulrllt thp ethEustitp analr.rp. of I,rofersor i'ormari Jx,rr.l,.!notl)er dlrtiLcuitsbed eoDstit,rtional Ech(,lar. ehose tertlmoDl ena prepared''"tgtenreat

219



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L. 97-205

locur"d Drlm&rllr on tbe eonstltutlonat larues. Profeator f)ormD ooDcluded tbrt th€ rE?Dd'
;;;i 't"';"cit;;'C-iii-rrti-btn eongrm"' mf,er to adoDt lr€thodts lt ratlonall] eoneluded
;;;; ;aedilri'to entorce the Forirtcenth aDd Flttenth Am?DdneDtc. Senat? b?srlngs'
Feb. {. 1882. p. 10.- -r pripar-id ttatement of fhrld R. Rrtnl. p. ?. sentrte betrlnEs. FebruarI 2l'1._Iniofer !t
tbe Botiir diclalon also lDvolred en lnterpritatton ot leftloD 2 ol the lotlnE RlEhix Acl.
ilii C.ommlttee rmendmcDt ol tbai prorlston sould. of (nurre. cbange tbe terult- \\'hlle tb?
(lourt tr 1b; ultlmate rrblter of wbai enacted rtatutet mcan. Confimr unquestlo-Debll hlr
iti-poi-ei to iii"no a rtatuie t-f thi Court'r lnterpretatloD tDdleal?s tbat ! ctarlncatlon of
tbe eoDrrerllon!l lntenl tr requlred.ETcrtlmony ot Arcbtb.ld Cor, p. 15.

Ipage {2]
the imposition of precle&r&nc€ on those jurisdictions. The Committee
finds tfiis conoern 6qually without merit 6ec&use the analog)' to section
5 is fatallv flawed for several nea.sons.

First, ihe anslog)' overlooks the fundamental difference itr the de-
gree of jurisdiction needed to sustain the extraordinary.nature of Pre-
Elearance, on the one hand. snd the use of s particulsr Jegal standard
to prove discrimination in court suits on the other.rts It is erroneous
to ^assume that Congress is required for this anrendment.to put forth
a record of discrimination anaiogous to the one relied on b1' the Court
in Sarfh. Onrol.inn. shpn it rrnhelJ section 5. As Professor Dorsen testi'
a record oI dlscrtmlnaLlon analogous Io tne one relleo url
i South Carolina. when it upheld section 5. As Professor
6ed:

Ttrhile nationwide raeial discrimination in voting might In'
necrsssry to justify or make "appropriate." extendrng section
5 to the entire countr)', such finding would be unnecessary to
justifu' &mending section 2 because it is less intrusive on state
hrnctions. As Jiitice Powell has stated "(p)reclearanee in-
volves a broad restraint on all state and local voting prac-
tices . . . )' City ol Bonw v. L'niled Statea.446 Ll.S. at2U)-203,
n. 13 (Ponelt, Ji dissenting). B1' contrast, a+gnd4 section
2 does not require federal piecleaiance of anlrhing: it mere)1'
prohibits practices that can be pror-en in a eourt of law to
have discriminatory rtsults.too

Sec.ond, the Souli. Carolirw. decision emphasized the reco.rd of abuse
in the covered jurisdiction. in part, in reiponr to the claim that the
areas designated for special cot'erage seri unjustifiabll' singled out'
Br definitlon, no such is-.ue arises in the case of provisions with liter-
allv natiotrwide epplication, sueh as seetion 2 of the Act'

third, this critiiism of Section 2 overlooks Supreme Court decisions
subsequent tn ,\otilh Carolina indicating that-C,ongress c-an.use its
Fourt'eenth end Fiftenth Amendment 

*powers 
to inaet legislation

shox reach includes those without a prbven history of discrimina-
tion. lIost. pe.rtinent, in Oreqon v. M itcicll.. the Supreme- Court uplrtld
the provisibn of the'Voting Rights Ae-t that prohibited literac.v tests
natiinwide. even though thEre w-ere no findin6s of nationride discrim-
ination in voting. Iet ilone findings that literaty 1es5 hqd been used
to discriminate -aguinst minorities- in everl' jurisdietion'in the coun-
try.tc' These case-f make clear that Congriss )tas authority to arrrend

D Tbc htt?r l! Dot rD GrtraordtDrrt tltru3loD upoD lb? DorEaj alloeatloDts of tuDctluD6
rttuG ite fcderrl rytteE. Tbe Supriue Coln bla r?g.1t€dlr r.6cogpl-red tbe por?r of
Consrem io oieserlb" tul?s of erld6nee rDd.tradrrd! of Dmf lo lb? ted?rll murlr AF
tnitourt noicd lo l'oic? u. Tctrtzat, "(l)bls Doter (l!l root"d lD thc ruthorlr! ot
conSrcrr @n("rrcd bt An. l, aacttoD t, cl. 0 ol tb. coDltttutloD to crelle tDf"rlot
oourrr. ." l4 t:.8. 26H0 (f080).

E NomaD llormn. orcoer"d ltrtcDaDt. D. 6.n ElEllrrlt lD Frlltloi'c, ,rpro, tb? C6uri upheld rL? sDttltutl(!!t!t!!l ol.r olnorltl
pt-erlai orcihlon mDtrtDed td tb. Pubtlc Eoris EmplotoeDt Act o( l9?T Cblet Juttle
Bunrer r&ofolrrd that the a"t-rrid? rpplted Dot onlJ to mDtrrctots rbo brd ttr"rlourlt
dlicitotntt&. but rlro to tbot? rffb-io rcord of rre||l dlrcrlDlDrtloD. ID Orcaos t.

220



d.

"drs.

tt
ci.
rb?
Ill
ot

.ee
on

le-

VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMEI\ITS
P.L. 97-205

IltcL?rI. the virlous.oplnloDs dld Dot?-.teD.crrl G"td?Dcei{of,:cS;-T1-i"J"Y'"'t:l:ttl:

mif:i"'*:#,'r;.',':-r-.1*1,t::.'r,lJi'i*'1""'J.'Jir'ffi;; ''-iit" 
Li";ty re+blo u+

i;;;'i[i;-c";;rtti eio ;i,,:,".J;,ir"lr.";**{Fi,""*::,",,f",11"14;i,.'i^:ji:,:',1,T;.:;i
ol dtlerlnrBitort plactloet oullloe or tP(.il','-:1:i^'-u^r-ir::::;;-1-r'"." iee f,ubrtl.tlal
rdludlcst.d .SalDst vrnou."il"ri--.ir-dr.i-'ruitraietto-ng Mormrer. tbere $it rut

11f,ii+*ii$f*i+n*t",';i,f,,:*, *i*ii'*',ffi;itii
nthcr oD tbe lDbrrcDt tDad(

ne-
rrd
ous
rth
urt
sti-

,buse
t the
out.

liter-

sion-.
x its
ation
nina-
pheld
' t€sts
crim'
r used
coun-
rrnend

toctlusr
orcr of
urlr. A8
orlt, of
lDt.rlor

Dlnorlll
'JultlG
'rrlourl!
7c9on r.

lpage {31

Section 2, in the absence of adetailed record of nationwiae votinS;|5;
crimination, because ;t-, if there were.some over-inclusion of ju:

ii;;ffi;id be const itutionalll' permissible'
The most importani'd"* i" it,6 an"logJ-'ihowe_\'er, is tbe assumption

that. wi th ou t a prlo r'd "; ii *i C'; gr9*i&t I ti.rtd.i tt g of$ 
T-l'^Ti ""ti 

on

in the areas to which tr;;iHii":ii,on z *ould be"overinclrrsive- This

ignores the very terms iid operation of the provision' which con-

hH; i; 
-" ill i; "tiil i;1i"t ;; I ;;,i ;il.,* i n'u o'n. u n I i ke the m inoritv

set-esrclo pnovrsrons ,;-i;ii;';"na u" nationwide literacy test ban

;" d;;;;,'#i i;; 2';'';iil ;i; ; p *r' t" - or oote nt'i a I ov erine I u sion en'

*xtrll,tiir*"'l**iiit,:::t'U*ffi '"i;rs;{fr 
i[';::

criminating. (e.g. hterse)' tests.rn .ung';f ii-y:1:::l:t*:l5
iiflT,lifi.f;r l'# J;C'l i,ii i.,i r I; 

"A; 
i*;ni in orde r. to 

_e 
uar i fi'

for participa,tio' ir,-i' f:dfi i';i;i ii J: lL g-' *-:.1'll#i33"il)r Damlclp&rrurr ur a r<uEror .--f, 
to S"Ctioii 2 .roi'"ll{lri"):P*ther, 

the Proposell amendmu:^ r ^L^r -r,^^;-,
iiffiffi ,ffi; ;i#i;^"i""*;;t; ;;;'t n" d' th at d iscrim i nat ion'

been proved.

VII. BAILOI]T
A. Suuuenv

Thebilleonta,insasubstantialrer.Lsionofthesoea]led..boilout''
pror-isionsoftheV"tirgn'',gfttt-'q'"t'ts"iloutrtlatpstotheprocedurts
ti,"*'ii;il'""L, i * J i r.Tsd i & ion can Fenro\-e itsel f f rom t he pmclea r'

I-i* ii,ii,ii"-;;i' ;' $il;'i' 
"na' 

ti," 
"ther 

special remed i-es un der

tntffl; 
pr€sent raw. the bair-out .nrechanism 

would as a practical

matter. keep the ..;';;e jurisdiction subiect to Section 5 unti) a

fired calendar date. T;;"J;i*d'U"liort *6.hanisnr is geared to the

ar:tual record or -nir.t'i;';;h l;;i"dietion' Those iitS s retord

of compliance with ift" i"* in receit years and a eommitnrent to full
oooortunit t ro, -r.rot t i'p"ii itl i"iidn in- the polit ical process cou ld

HfffiI'dir*. iil'i.iiL'i"il;';;'IJ i';1'.1o 
""ni'pile 

sueh : "*"t''Tft"il;#;.'.Jig'ibi.. Oi,l1' tho* jurisdictions tlat insist on rotarn-

il-;Fffi"rt"{ nr""",tur*, or 'othernise inhibir full minoritS

Dart)clDatron souro [;;i;;'bjeet to prrlearanee' Indeed' the ne(

ffiffi;i1'#"c.*-i"*';;i;; * r. maie.it p,msib)e for jurisdictions

H;i, il; ;b" ]';d 1i,; 
-i 

" 
* ""a acce pt ed :ri',*3ii t 

Inlip l,i Tntl'log
nemore themselves from Section 5 eover

i;;;";";a [t tr,- C"."tiilil;; Sutromniittee bill'
""":-:I;ffi'J;r:'iil; c";;;,it1"- *t' willing to meet,concerns that see'

tion 5 might be pereeired as I Permsn'l:l;;i:t'iil'ill;i,li"I#'"5i1.
so"t in th-e covered jurisdictions' The sut
il;'"i 2;'i; ;;pJ;;"$i'l* r' 

"t- 
*i'l"h point preclearanee woultl

;;;';"1;.i congri* l;;;'lt;;'Lit"n*io' if pretlearance sas still

l
:

I
I

noce^asarY.
221