Attorney Notes Pages 1575-1576

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Date is approximate.

Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 5a085cea-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Attorney Notes Pages 1575-1576, 1982. 5a085cea-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/89017b4a-a030-4d84-8779-0b9b91e3cded/attorney-notes-pages-1575-1576. Accessed January 07, 2026.

Copied!

    lsY-7(tr*W( a)s- 1992 voulh anend S 2

of the VoEing Righte AcE of 1965' a pcrreottt rection of the U'

S. Code,42 U.S.C' !.11973, in order to overEurn Ehe decieion of

Ehe United StaEeg Supreue CourE in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446

U.S. 55, (1980) wtrich held thaE a violaEion of that section may be

eetabliehed only by proof of diecrioinatory intent' S' 1992 would

subsLiEute a nodified effecl test for the Courtre inLent standard'

It would outlaw any practice ttwhich resulEs in a denial or

abridgemenE" of the right to vote' provided that t'the fact that

oembers of a minority grouP have not been elecEed in numbere egual

to the grouP's proportion of Ehe populaEion 6h411 not' in and of

itself, consEicute a violaEion of chie aection"' In our vierr this

propoeal ia, eianding alone' vague and inherenEly

eelf-contradictory' Ilowever' there is a more fundarental reaaoo

for our reluctance to endorse this secEion as it is currently

sritEen. We believe that Ehe propoaed ! 2 oay be applied' by the

courEa (and legislaturee) 8o that in practice it ioplemente a

syaEem of proportional repreaentaEioo -- that ie ' a syatem in

wtrich effectivenees of Ehe freedou Eo voEe ie oeaeured by the skin

color of the Pereons elected'

. lJe undersEand EhaE these reaulte are not inEended by the

aponaora of S. 1992' It is our uodergEanding thet the suPPorter8

of S. 1992 do noE intend to equate the standard under t 2 t'ith the

non-regression effecEs aEandard of S 5' and Ehat' in thie view' S'

1992 would not allow a plaintiff to oake out a $ 2 cage nerely by

a showing that a particuler 3roup ic oot elecEing rePreoentatives

in proportion to ito Presence in the populetion' se l8'ree that

theee principlee ought to Sovern I 2 creea' but ec 're 
Dot

..ti!fied th!t EhG Hourc-perrcd lroguegc' or th' lcairletivc

hirtory, ir rufficiQotl, clc'r to prccludc rn iotcrprct'tion rAicb

yould tcnd tou.rd I priociplc of Trogortiorlity'l

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Attorney Notes Pages 1575-1576

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in