Excerpts from Senate Report RE: Episodic Barriers

    Pi" 1041, n.22 59.1874]

P- M [PM]

W

P. 29 [p.200]

"30 [PP- 2014;]

Epl'sodt‘c/ %vr—1'&r$
EXCWPB \Cnm Hm SW RfiPOVt

Both the House and Senate hearinz records contain Mole-
! direct Mo oritv participation. includidng pun-i ntimian.
tion of voters and candidates. discriminatory manipulation o era. rereriutrn on rec
meats and pnrginl 0! mm. chantinl the location of pollilng places and insistence on re-
taining Inconvenient ration and resistrntinn hours. House RPM?! No. 97-221. no. “-21 and
teetimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution by Ruth J. Hinor-
fold. President. League of Women Voters. Jannarv 21 .1982 at 18 and Lawn": Committee
Ill-niacin!“ Renort. at 13.94 (intimidation. inconvenient reri-trwtion locations and hours.
chant» In polling plum): and Senate Marines. testimony at Ahinil Turner (rt-identifica-
tion plan). February 2. 1982 at 2-1 Vilma Martinez. before the House Judlcinry Subcoln;

mlttee on Civil and Constitution! Rights. June 18. 1981. at 1878. 1895 (“House hearings")
(polling places! : House Hearings. testimony of Rolando Rios. May 6. 1981 at 42 (Intimi-
dation): the Senntne hearings testimony of Vilma Martinez. January 27. 1982. at H
(pm-gin ). Civil Rights Commission Report. The Commission sets out numerous eumnln
o dwiflii inst-diimei‘ita to‘mtlno’rity (candlzgntze‘sfnd tlgir sup ortera (pp. 59-61) : harassment
an n m l on I: re: a rn on pp. — : pur ii: an rere atrntlon 27-28 ; "in

places (29—3l : and harassment and intimidation in voting (34—3‘5‘). ( ) po ‘

Inmnimnttee's View, this reco s e conc usion that

the pre clearance remedy is still vital to protecti voting rights in
the covered Jurisdictions and that its enforcement ould be strength-
ened. This conclusmn is strengthened b the realization that the
abuses Which. take the form of voting c aligns which are not sub-
plilittfid orfwllliich dbreaw (apiection;i from the Attorney General are only
e 1 o teice rg. ypeso abuses aartfromchanges ra
bmfi‘fy fmm irgnwmmwwmg
WW
Milan-53 ’ ' ' '

Postings-protects Elm-1W voter? to be free from elec-‘
ion pmfiicw, procedures or methods. that deny them the same oppor-
tunity to partmpa e p0 Itica process as other citizens enjoy.

W. plaintifis could show a variety of fuctors..de-
pending upon the kind of rule, practice, or procedure called into

l question.

Wlimmr, and their progeny dealt with em
system features such as at-large elections, majority vote requirements
and districtin plans. However, Section 2 remains the major statutory
prohibition 0 all v- ' - ; hts discrimination. It also prohibits prac-
tices which, whil-“nd not involving permanent structural
barriers, result in -. ; H of equal access to any phase of the elector-
’al process for minority group members. _
If the challen ed practice relates to such a series of events or epi-
: E flicient to establish a violation wou

     
    
     

n
permanent structural barriers. 9f course, the ultimate test would be the
ma stun at c ed b t is amendment of Section 2: whether,_in
’the particular situation. t 0 practice operated to deny the minority
plaintifi an equal opportunity to participate and to elect candidates of

Mice.”

5?“wa finders 3L

quirement that the political processes leading to nomination

and election be “equally open to .rticipation by. the'group in ques-
tion” extends bevond formal g; ngial bars to registering and voting,
or to main ming a can idacy. M

P‘ 65 [Pp 23‘ " 1] The bailout provision also—requires W undertake

posit' steps;
to eliminate intimidation and harassment of minority voters;
1‘: to expand opportunities for minority participation; and

.to eliminate voting procedures and methods which inhibit or
dilute equal access to the electoral process.

evond the outright elimina ' n of discriminatory barriers, the a -
plican juri ic n n ma '9, con me i mate 9

continued efl'ects of many years of discrimination in order to be
relieved of special obligations under the Act. The Supreme Court
found it appropriate for Congress “W95

years of rvasive voting discrimination.” City of Rome v. United
57W

\

 

Before a Jurisdiction ends Section 5 coverage, it should eliminate

€14 E 1 3 7D discriminatory voting procedures and methods of election which deny
P' P ‘ equal access to the electoral process. This does not mean that minorities
must have been elected in proportion to their numbers, but only that

they have an opportunity to participate on an equal basis with non-

minority citizens."‘

In determini whether rowdures or methods “inhibit or dilute
equal access to t e electors process,” the standard to be used is the
results test of White. In other words, the test would be the same as that
for a challen brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as
amended by t 0 Committee bill, except that the burden of roof would
be on the jurisdiction seeking to bail out. As discusse under the
amendment to Section 2 of the Act, the White standard is one with

hich the courts are famg’har.’ aniwhich has bee "
nuiderable litigation

       
    

‘: ,j - ' ' ' 'ntion and Harassment
, ~ IQ _ ‘— .~-

’3‘. , - ~
The reason for the requirement of constructive efl'ort hould be self-
evrdent. particularly at a time of renewed concern abou 'iolence prone.

Vigilante or para-military organizations. hate groups and other means
of physrcal intimidation.m It is an essential aspect of am" jurisdic-
trons firm commitment to ensure the full opportunity foi- mincritv
participation in the polMLocesi .

‘05“! [Pp 131‘3

(Efl‘urootc

  

    
  
   
 
 
   
    

  

is requi ne epending upon the particular
need n itions in the a plicant jurisdiction. The court will make
a determination, under tra itional, equitable principles, of whether
such constructive etl'orts have achieved a system affording full oppor-
tunity for minority participation.

The statute lists two of the most likely channels for such efi'orts:
(1) enhanced opportunity for registration; and (2) the appointment
of minority election oflici - . u m- .- ' u-ummim-n-n-

   

 

e ommi e caring record is rep ete wifii examples of restfic-
tive registration practices and procedures, such as restricted hours and
locations for registration, dual registration practices, and discrimina-
tory reregistration requirements, which continue to exist throughout

cover ' 'sdi ' m ,
Registration opportunities can be enhanced through the ap int-
merit of deputy registrars who are present at locations accessi 'ie to

. minority citizens, offering evening and weekend registration hours, or
providin (postcard registration. Other examples of constructive ef-

orts in u e appointment of minority citizens as deputy registrars or
pollworkers, or other oficials, thereby indicating to minority E1213
members that they are encouraged to participate in the po 'ti

process.
932w

 

 

TEA/rim, 2