Attorney Notes Pages 1575-1576

    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