Excerpts from Senate Report RE: Statement by Orrin Hatch

    ( t*t ia&cled ;- arL.r c-a.teX*ret. l-f u;li,*, d*>^r6&,
li o ??.cfrr>. 4D +7.- &\)tO G ),,

Janllarv 21 r982

(Durinq testinonr/ of R.uth H:-nerfeld-: )

(320) lts. ;III'TEP.EELD. ... As I indieaterl, \'te !:eI:-eve

that the baiLor:t prcvisions, "'hieh '^ro:-rlC. insure
ti1at the lrinil of things that entaile4 soverage in
the first place is no{ Ioncrer oecurrinq and has not
occurred for 10 lrears, are fair. Therl are totroh;
they are i:rtenCed to ]re tough.

Sen. iLq.TCH. f think phey are ipn6ssi!]g. I ant

not sayinq that precLearance should not be there
itecause, ES rTou must ha'te noticed, mll arqument is
rvi-th section 2. f am for a simple extension of the
irrLl-.

f thinl.. the chancres in secticn 2 are verv i:ad,
:r:'ri r tr:-nl< tirere are other inadvisa]:'le chanc-res

Xao, 5'-,.t f think section 2 Ls a oarticularllz bad
provision. I t:rink it is partic'.:''! arl'r 4etrimental
:D the entire Corlntr',,, not i':st the ior:'Lh. Even if
j-t en"I-rr apnl- j-eC to the South, f thrir'l: tl:e r'rarr.

seCtirn ? rs ::e',r:itten brt this p1a:i:1::-C:r. I'as 1;i l'l iS
not on-1..r'-rnconstitutiona-'!- l:r:t ren::e::en,3-i'I)1e. "

(-i,:tclr .yoe,s on t,c sa\., i-t's 1-:ke t''r.e 'rS'-rman

Lj-fe Bj-1:l-, t:'.1'ing to or.rerturn t"ie Sll'nrene Ccurt. )

Janr:arrr 28 t9,l?
C:en.lni S'':ltgnen'i:':tz -dat,ch

( :l -? 3 ) " Brr :edef i ninq tae stanri.a:r:1 l.:',' :'lnicL: l're 4ef i ne

discri-nina:lon in tle 15th arnendnen't irorn the oresent
:nient standarC to a never-before-u+-ilized results
standarC, I believe tlr.at the House versj-cn of tl:e
Vcting ?.ishts :1,ct is effectinct a radical cirange in
the trad-:-tio1a1 nctions or repll:esentat-:ve qorlernrnent

anC. f erleraf isrn.

iilr--'i-1e thdre r.ras sharp ,:Lisac::eenent rlesterc-i.arz over



Hatch, 2

tire d.escrrption of the .re'..r section 2 standard as a

stanCard. of prooortional representaticn b:'z race,

= ,-rurq rlet to lrear a crerli'cLe alternative
rlescription. 'r

(340) "ghe harrL fact is that tlte resulis test has

absolutely no coherent or understandbble meanj-nq

beyond the concept of proportional representation,
jrowever m:-ich its prcporents labor to riruddlr the
r,.raters with generalittes and meanincrless vageries.
There is absolutely no standard for evaluating
e,ridence under the test, short of simplistic raciaf
i:ead counting.

Every tine that f attempted to pursue an

understandj.ncr of the results test yesterdav and

l.ror,r it ''rould r'rorj< inpractice, I r"'as met t'rith the
response that the court "roulC simp-1-v have to
consicler the totalitv of the circumstances or wor:Id

have to l'reich al-L the factors. That, aoain, is
al-I ve::'"r fine. Tltat is also irrelevant.

The n:.ssinrr oornt is how rlo yo''r evaluate the
totallty cf the circumstances" Ho''r d'o vou raeioh

al-1 the factors? I.'Ihat is the c-ruestion ti:at the
court aslcs itseLf in <loing all this?..."

(341) "Tl:ird, the in€ent standard is not a ne\'l

stand.ard. ,''Ie are not returning to the status ouo

prior to {g}L}g ):y instituting a results standard.
That !.ras estalllishe.l as beincr r:nmit:qate d hocnvash

yesterday and certainl..z can clairn no creater credi-
bilitv toriarr. I'Ihile there mav be an isolatet{
Ior..rer court case that can be loolteC to in order
t,o shot'r use of an effects stan'iarC, this theory
'iras never loeen acceDted bv the Supreme Court, nor,
rea}ly, lcy anvone e1se, for tlrat rnatter.'l



llatch, 3

(Durincr testirnony of Lauqhlin McDona1d)

( 357) sen. I{ATC!{. ... I have concerns about sectj.on
2. That's baslcally the only issue,.ES far

. as I'm concerned;

(Durincr testimony of Barry Gross)

(432) Sen. IfATcI{. ... In the process, this change

mandates a reverse problem that mav turn out to
arnount to more seoregation in the politcal clhettos.

Prcf . GROSS. Oh, I think that's exact.}lz '.'rhat it
r.ri 1I 11o.

Sen. HATCH. It has a reverse problem of pitting
blacl< acainst r,:hite, HisDanice aqainst black.

P::5f . GitOSS. Olr , yes .
Sen. I{.\TCI{. This is so profound to me, f canrt

understanC '..vhrr anvbody would be for section2.
Prof. Gaos,s. I'IelI, I canrt either.

Felrruarv I - L982+

( f :som l{athh's oPening: )

(l,:ter sayincr tiat l.lobile is clood ooJ-icy: )

(516)"There should l:e a requirement of an intent to
Liscriminate befcire individuals are consiCered to
be ci-vr1 riohts 'riclators or even brande4. racists.'l

Fei:rrrar.v 2. I982
(tn exehanqe ',rith Sen. Metzenbaum: )

(545) "f 'oelie'ze i-n an extensi-on of th-i-.s bill. T\e
rruestio:r i.s, 3s r:r€ have been debat j-ncr here, ifl
'rhat fo::m shou-ld that exteasion tal;e place? If I
had n.z ?..ra1r, it 'ryou1C be a simple extension of
thg cresent 1atr.... "



eP Tbo -b t

Vra^rs of S?t.a-'[ov Ovm'n llatk'h

f{^S -'tg " 
I E<,. i'-'"" A"'bJ

tives

fleaator l(rrrrrov. tbank you, Mr. Chaitman-
AsTunder8tana nom the House rnecord, thers were a nusrber of

sitac{r;tro taUea about the problems t}rat antedat4f 1965 and
;ho atDcrcd the importance of tf,e eection 2 provision. Ih"t9, waa a

"ervirtcngive 
amorint of information and taatimony abou! the im-

;ilE"ce A oecti,on 2 to r€ach thoee particular needs. I thhk thst is
inmrtant to have on the record-
-f i couta have the attention of the chairman, aa we go through
tle coureo of theee hearings, Mr. Hooks, I thilk' very eloquently

'taa 
hia-uaaetstanding aia *re purposs foq thq provrqioqg uuder

tion Z ana was quct'ioned quiti inte"cjvely. about whether. this
i"ct n going to Eiake it a re{uirement that there be proportional
rrentltion in various elections.--hr..o *;; oGto i number of etat€ments read into the record al-

t"{fi;-thaa-it-teast eome people might draw conclusions that it
;;:.4I. t ttrousht Mr. Hmle 

-reapogped 
to. Ph98e. queetiona both

if,.wirtf"U;da *itl an understanding which is shared by m-yaelf
r"a-t-Uetieie-senator Mathiar as to what we iltend witf,. the legi8.

I would b€ urtoreEtod rn saxrng Ene uru
th"t;biecti"e-ttrt has been out[ned by Mr. Hooks. Are we basical-
F;X.fic;boui attering or changing language to try and achieve
Jr'.t tur'l H-U has e6ted. to-dve minorities an oppoftunity to

Iation.
i'i6"U be intereoted in asking the Chail qlretlrer he differs with

ritrat Mr. Hooke has etated, an <ipportunity to
ln

that 'n 
EEat mint. or does-me-EllElFEglggwrtn tno oDJacErveg

Hooks has idvanced, and are w€ really trying to findUE! aLl. llwE tE nv5'st

words to achirave tlrat objective?
that I agree with the objec-
anywhere it e-i"ta !4 this

Ssnator Hmcx. There is no

the implication and in thst
not be

*L" whecher the Rodino-Kenne
dyfililitiG-revision of eocfiirn ?. i" "+ -sPplopriate change in tlP
d* t" f*itit"t€;ttainment of this end. I lbhehently diesSree with

Ueve tfre'suirime 'Court will change, reguirea proof of iot"t-tt,
t{rrygsh dir€it, indirect, Sirylryt,11lr4- :l9j:3 ?I ^o3:*=, J.T;iJi"?-e"ia""b oFttre 6mects or disparate impa.c!-gf an action'.But

aoc not allow tl.e effects, as defrned in thi8 biu, to stand alone

PolicY ?nd
ouih-t to-conlinue oi be eatablished as public poliCy. I hope that
cldiifi"a my meaning for the distinguished Senator'- 

S.11|_161'Iftlr-NEDy: Yea. I was in:t€rest€d in frnding o-ut_ whether
tfi-sonatoaagreea that in theae queations, sinfe one of the pgint.
i["t-tra" U*":Jtressed and emphaiized here today-and there have
U*i-" ""-U.r of inai"iauab ihoee views have been read into the
;;o4 and i understand Mr. Hooks' etat€ment to be an inte-rpreta'
iil oi*h"tiEEth my understqnding of the language and Senator
ffl.itrias; 

"oaerstandiig 
of the language, atd thoee people Mr.

HoLs reDr€s€nts and the othera who will be testlDnnS-thelr un'
dergtandi;q of whot the effect of it will be.
-iE-F"h"ii--, differ with that? If the chairman differs with
th"t, thil;, h*tgot. an area where there can be no.--e,ide{rtly

"t tir"I, tt-j G-"n irea where there cannot be adtrstment. Ie it



l+a+* Vr'arrs L

jr.rst a question of worde, or doee he just take iesue with the point
that Mi. Hooks made?

Senator Hercx. kt me eay thiE: If you were eaying that your
point, Senator Mathias' point, and perhapo to a degree Mr. Hooks''point, was that this may not arnount to proportional representa'
iion, yee, I do indeed dGa$ee very strongly. I think it definitely
amouirta'to a call for proportional repreeentation, and I do not a€o
how anvone. who has-etudied this isEue and lmkg at the ultimate
effect of whd't this E€ction provides, could conclude otherwise-

la
been directed toward

since the-Recoistruction amendments, since Btuun v. Bmrd of
Hucalbn, as I Eaid in my statement, and the Civil Rights Act of

It means nothing more-than ia meant by the concept of racigl
balance or racial quotas. Uldef-lhg-fgqtilts
be iudced purely and simpTyrnffi'ffil

actions would

' is Orwellian in the eons€ that
1964.

The "discrimina

or a meanS lnto an eno or a

and it is

bill must.b€ intc^rPrqtc{, and its
impact'will not just be felt in thoae States in the South that have
hai a past praitice qI patlern of discriminatory conduct it will
affect every municipality of any,size and coneequenco in America,
qnd it i" ornino tn rierrn'it calls-for orooortional-reoresentation all