Proportional Representation Notes from Senate Hearings
Working File
January 27, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Proportional Representation Notes from Senate Hearings, 1982. 8c3768cc-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8c1e24ba-0fae-48b9-9e18-d2481f08cebe/proportional-representation-notes-from-senate-hearings. Accessed April 22, 2025.
Copied!
PR.OPO9.T IONAL R.EPRE SE}TTAT IO}T }TOTES FROM SE}IATE HE.\R I{IGS Januarv 2'7 L982 Openinq Staternent of llon. Strorn Thr:rmond(Sen.-N.C., chairman - Committee on the Judiciarv) (page 6O)feferrins to the proposeri results testl "This radical addition to the Votinq Riqhts Act would shift the focus of the law from a qt:estion cf accessrto the bal1ot box: to a question of results or cutcome of the electoral Process. " ( 51) ". . . some ',rould have us def ine discrimination as something othef than inhibitions on registering and voti.ngr. They rvould define ddscrimination in terms of the results of elections. For these people the kelz words are not "ecua1 access to the ballot bcx" but "effective political pov/er" oi''access to the ballot process." These terms have recently been created or in part borrorved from other types of cases which aCdress the rights of Dersons as inCividuals. Renoved from their oriqinal context of lnCividuaL rights, these phrases have taken a giant step to not, signifilu a theory of political representat'ion which reouires us to move along a path which measures success by comparing the representation of a qroup in elective bodies '..rith the propor*'ion of a g:roup in the general popuLation. From those who r'rould apply tiris theorl; of Ciscrimination '.re shoulC seek to find out r.rhv ti:ev' believe that the adoption of this PE, 2 approach rvill not encourage or take us closer nandated proportional representation by' race ethnic group, a po.sition which is being i- openly advocated by some in our society today. (paqe 83 ) A.G. SMfTH. It seems to me that when you are talking about th6-change in section 2, you are talking about a good deal more than the question of intent; you are talking about what this would ultimately produce if that section is applied as its languagre rsould indicate that it should be applied, and that is ultimately proportional representation. I Co not see hor., anvone can reallv subscribe to that as a test under our svstem of demoncracy. (84)Sen. METZENBAUM. I do not think anlzbody does that. A.G. SI'1ITH. l'[e are talking about election results, not the right to vote, when you get into that area. Sen. METZEItrBAUM. You can have manv other wavs of provi-ng effect rather tban merely election results- If there a.re no candidates, for example, that is certainlv a different kind of situation. Prer:ared Statement- of l{on. Charles McC. }iathias ( Sen. -}1D ) to or (paoe 2f5) "I ccncern about understand the oroposeC that scme arnendrnent ha'ze expressed tc Sect-ion 2 in French Smith PR, 3 S. Lggz. It has been said that this language may Iead to a statutory requirement of proportional representation for minority voters. I think these concerns are unfounded. As the original sponsor of s. 895, I can say unequivocally that Language in s. 895 and H.R. 3112, as introduced, Cid not (215) have anY such meaning." (Z2O ) ',. . . r^re must be warlz Of the Scare tactiCs and mis-information that will'be used against the proposed amendment to Seetion 2 of the Voting Riqhts Act. I'Ie have already heard extremely rnisleading statements of what the law has been and of r'rhat our amdndnent ,,,,rould .d6. In fact, the Mathias-Kennedv bill r'rould restore the la'.s in votind discrimination cases to tqhat it has been for nostof the past 15 years. The courts have made clear that under tha standard in our biLl there is no right to a quota or to proportional representation, even in the context ' of at large elections. Some have alleged that our bill r.*ou1d, strike dor,rn at large elections unless miaori-ties elected a proportional share of the candidates. That allegation is false and misleading. " Testirnonv of i{on Edward M, Kenned ( Sen . -l,tA) (paq'e 21S) "Let me just say that rvhat basica'l Iy \lte are atternpting to do with our proposal is restore the rule of 1a'.+ as it r.ras in Lhe l{hite decision. T\ere is no recruirement for strict proporti-onal representation at Large elections, and to try and state that as part of our particular legislation is I think the ".rords r,r7€r.€ used earlier in the course cf the hearing -- ar smokescreen. It basica] Iy fails to und,erstanC :,,hat tne courts were dealing with in the DDArl\, = I{hrte decision and t^rhat r're are attempting to dov.vrith this legislation. " Prepared statement | - (223) "In fact, the amendment of Section 2 Ln 5.1992: reflects the oriqinal understandinq of Congress in 1965; restores the leqa1 standard that applied fcr most of the Past 15 Years i is const'itutional; and -- would not require gggEg. Section 2. as arnended would not make mere failure of , even if that came as the result of at large elections." Testinonv of Prof . i.Iglter Ber,ns. (American Enterorise Institr:te) (opponent of amended sectj-on12) (229 ) ". . . f cr some groups it &n" right to votq is the riqht to be represented in proporti.on to their numbers in the community. I say this because the amended section^2 is intendeC avor.redly to reversqLhe Supreme Court's decision in City of Mobile and bring it into line rvith the Court's decision in Citv of :r.ome v. United States." "\,Ihen 1s a vote diluted? When the group is deprived of the opportunity to elect one of the group; for examoJe, to cruote from UJo v. Carev, rvhen the number of blacks in a Cistrict is not sufficient to insure the opportunity for the eLection of a black representative. " PR, 5 (230) "I am not unmindful of the fact that the amended section 2 containe this disclaimer that: I 'Disproportionalitlz of results sha1l not in and of itself constitute a violation of this section. I All that means, and all it is intended to mean, is that some factor, in addition to disproportionality, will have to be present before it can be said that a grrouprs vote has been abridged by being diIuted. " (233) "... a vote is understood to be diluted -- and here of course we are talking about not the vote of an individual but the vote of a qrroup, and a group's vote is saj.d to be diluted when its legislative representation is less than i.ts proportion in the communitv. t' Testimcn'r of Beniamin I{ooks (Exec. Dir. . }IAACP) (246) " I know of no civil rigrhts group an/t may state unequivocaLly for the NL\CP and for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights that we are not seeking proportional representation. 'rJe are not seeking a mirror image of the ethnic classifications of neighborhoods or cities. l{e are simpllr seeki-ng the unfettered right to vote without having to prove that trhich sometines is not susceptible to proof |- Lr.".' intent] . " (252) Sen.H.tTCll. You indicate that l/ou know of no one j-n the civil rigihts community that has advocated proportional repre.sentation. Permit me, if vou wil-1, to qucte f rom the Greenville, S. e. "ITe'..rs , " of December 13, 1991, the renarks cf Dr. WillierGibson,',.rhom I arn PR,6 su.re vou know. He is the president, I believe, of the south carolina IIAACP. He indicates his opposition to a redistricting plan in South Carolina by statinqr, ,,Unless we see a plan that has ther possibility of blacks having the probabllitlz1 of being elected in proportion to this population, we will push hard, for a new pIan." can you explain to the subcommj.ttee rqhat Dr. Gi.bson is talting about here? It appears to me that he j-s talking about proportional representation. 1.1r. HOOKS. I understand preciseJ-ir what Dr. Gibson is talkinq about. Those are not unusual statenents to be made. I think there is a big differenee between proport!-ona] representation and representation in pro- portion to their population. It sirnply neans that'we are not looking for 00 percentage points if we ha'ze 42percentr'arer+ant42percentrepresentation.Butit d.oes mean there must be some appearance of equity -- that '.,re r^rould not be satiSf ies with a pl an, for instance Sen. fiATCll. Is that not a forrn of proportional representation? Itr. HOOKS. ff you get to the nth degree, 3nY retrresentation is sctTt€?/hdt prooortional. it is a part cf our Consti-tution. It is not aC- ( 253 ) hereC to ctenerally, but the 'rhoile business of recistrictino ".'as to adhere t-6 the concept of 250p00 mem-irers for a ccngressperson, 2 fcr er"rerY state no lnatter "lhat size for the Senate. It '.ras set up like that .... Iihat Dr. Gibson r'ras dealinq rvith '+as a precise srtr-raticn t';here scrnebody saiC, "There are 30 rnembers of the senate; rvould you be happy to settle for 1?" In that lcind of rhetorical statement to a people, the an-',ier -' a1t'rays is, "Certainly not. I^Ie want something tnat resembles ou: population.' That is a far different cry fro:n a nathenatrcal proporticnal representaticnt r.rnich is the terril that is beinq used here over anC over acai-n. PR, 7 Testimony of Vilma Matti4ez (Exec. Dir., Gen. , MALDEF ) (291) "In my judgment, the section 2 amendment reflects the original understanding of Congress in 1965, restores the legal standard that applied for most of the past 16 years, is clearly.constitutional, and would not require proportional representation of quotas.'l Prepared Statement (305lcritics of this amendment and this standard j.ncorrectly contend that we seek to enact a requirement of tprcportional representationr of minorities in clcvern- mental bodies. CLearIy the standard outlined above requires far nore than proof of 'lack of tpronortional representation. I At a minirnum, ninor:-ties :aould have to show racia1l1z polarized voting toqether with other objective factors vrhich effectively preclude their participation in the political process ot' dilute tl:e va]ue of their vote. The issue, then, is not proportional representation, but equal access to the political Drocess. Thj.s does not gruarantee that minoritj.es will be elected to office; it rloes guarantee that rninorities lrho are barred from noLding office or whose votes are Cebased because of their race or :nembership in a lanouag:e rninority group qriIl have lega1 channels through tuhich to challengc their exclusion. Office. ACLU Foundation, Inc.) Januarv 28 PR, 3 198 2 Testirnonv cf Lauohd-in McDonald (Oir Southern R.eoi-onaL (3721 (t1-. l.IcDonald says that the cases tried. under the effects standard. before I'lobiIe did not regui-re or result i-n proportional representation] Sen. I{ATCH. That's precisely what the !19[i!9 case tras about. Had you won that, the result would have been irnplementation of proportional representation Mr. !{cDO}IALD. I.'{e11, I respectfulllZ disagree. l'Ihat those cases do is establish equality of access. 373) And that's'more than just rhetoric, The only people who can determine vrho their representatj.ves tsi1l be, who wl11 represent them proportionately or ctherwise, are the voters. There is no wav that the court in those Cases ca{t insure proportional represen- tation. All the court can Co is establish a s:/stem cf access. As a practical inatter, that is true." "So I guite honestly'^ri11 have to tel1 you that in mlz own experience, proportional representatlon is nei-ther r.rhat the folks r^rant or uhat the cases have required or what the continuation of the Zimrner standard would. entai1. " 9reoared Staternent \_, ( 330) (ases before $p-tif g used a results test-J "I'Ie have had t,he experience of cases that cperated unCer the principle of not requiring proof of d.iscriminatory Purpose, (3gL) and lzet those cases did not in the slightest involve any tirincr remote[.-y-':esembling p:cgcrtional reDresentation or ciucta avstem. " After Q:lesticn bv l{atEh: (420) "I do no! l<aor^r of a single case and I o YL t J again respectfully cha11-enge you to show me one -- that says the mere absence of blacks from office is ever enouqh to violate either section 2 or the 14th or lsth amendmenta Not on11z are there no cases that have ever said that, but every case says precisellz the opposite. " TestiEonv of Honl l{enrv Hvde (Rep.- II1. ) (4Og) "Very simply, then, what we are talking about trere is quotq representation based on race, a principal Et"Jwhich, though camouflaged by the rhetoric of effects or results, nevertheless demands some rather dismal assumptiorrso It suggests the r.rorst kind of racism, a policy vrhich concludes that prejudice is infinite, that blacks cannot be represented b1z whites and, with €qua1 logic, whites cannot be repre- sented bv blacks." flrae suqgests the I'Iashlngton v. Davis approach as a middte'grounalJ "The political issue here, tbouqh, is proportional representation, just as it was in Eg!!l.e. " (40e) sen. EASI. You put your fi-nqer on thrs question of proporti-onaI representation . !f. r^rnat vou're trizin-o to cc is grl33antee !n the statute the righ! cf ind'i'ricuals to reqliste: and vcte, irrespectlve of race, thatrs one th:-ng, but r'rhere a statute is designed to guarantee speci fic results, b€ it r+hite representation, b€ it .b1ack represent,aticn, llexican-rlnerican or :'.'hatever, p-roportrcnal representation, that\ a I'ri-ro11-v ner'r ccnceDt inr-tl:e -\ne:ican Cereocratic electo:al D:ocess. " PR, L0 Testi-nonru cf Prof . Barrrr Grcss (CUITY) House bill's (424) f.eferrinq to theldisclaimer:J Prof. GROSS. ... That language must nean, can only nean, that proport:-onality ls the najor factor in judging a vioLation, that lack of proportionality plus a scintilLa of further evj-dence prot/es the violations. The ccmmi-ttee report its61f bears tnis out in commentarl'. I quotei ' The number of minority e.ldeted officials is still a fraction of elected officials. Only five percent of e'! ected of f icials in the Soutl:ern covered states are blacl< in an area where 25 percent of tire popu}aticn is black. Sen. HATCil. Yotrpoint that the mere lack of propor- tional-ity pLus one other scintilla proves the valj-dity of a claim in a case seems to be very si-qnificant. (Cto=" sar./s the House statute and cases citeC in the\,- :icuse t"lotQ ,'nake it c'lear that the irnpermissible result is dilution of the potentiaL nr:me.rica1 strength of a rninority voting bLock, and the measure of that strength is the nr:nber of ninorl-ty representatirzes !t or:qht to elect- Eith.er the intention belind sone chanqe in votinq regulations or structure must be decisitze, ct lacl< cf proportiona'! result rnust lce Cecisive. Iio other standarC is offereC, and, inCeed. there is no other standard. " (427 ) Sen. iIATei{. . . . Secti on 2 r'riLl create sing] g- race rllstrictsl] Don't you f ind even the sugqestion cf. irnpl-ementing such a colcr-conscj-ous systern -anza'r a- e'i 'n'l a 2 ;9:Ja P:cf . GRoSS. Tirat i5 , r thinl<, constltutionall''' inoernlss:l:le. f belie're it to be absc'l utel lz repre- :rersibie. The Consti+-ution, as I read it speaks;onJ-y PR, 11 of individr:al-s and po'litical subdrvlsions. I knorq of no provi-sion that makes any room for proportional ' representation. Sen. IIATCH. I made the point yesterCa:, that politicians should be representing individuals, not blocks of special interests. Prof. GROSS. I believe that's true. Sen. HATCI{. Doesn't this proposed biLl move us totuard representinq blocks of special interest? Prof. GROSS. I believe that vrhies can represent bLacks and blacks can represent r.rhites, n"""ir"e we I re aLl citizens. (429) Sen. HATCI{. Horv is an "effective vote" defi.ned in terms of qrouP Politics? Prof . GROSS. I t+ould think the only way to define it is that rrour group has an effective vote if lzou vote in the proper percentage of people of your qrouprs persuasion, Ithatever that happeas 'r-o b€. 'l'Ihatever qro!-lps are protected by the act will then have a proporticnal right to representation. Pretrared g1:atement (434). "No one has a right to slate a candidate, or to :rin an election, cr to proportional representation. Every citizen has a Ccqstitutional right to be free of fet fs:.d] or hindrance in the attempt to do the f irst t'..ro -oE these. Those rights are not violateC absent acticns done rrith the intent to prevent citizens either from voting or from the attempt to s.Late cnadidat€s. 'l (435) "Tl:e Constitution neither proviCes for nor perrnits crooorlional representation for oroups. IhCrvid.uals alone are reDresented throuoh pol-itical PR, L2 subdivisions. " (442) l.Proponents of the effects standard and propor- tional representati.on finC fl "non-exlstent right: to be represented as a group and in electoral results in numbers reflect.i.ng their voting strengrth. This they attempt to butress b1z arguing that unless th6ir- is some such right, then their votes have lost full va1ue. But they are t,rrongf . There is no such Constj-tutional rlght. The value of a vote is fu1I when it is freely cast and accurately counted. " Testinonrz of lIon. I{enrv L }tarsh (Mavor. Richmond, Va.) (449) Lcites 'l^Ihite v. Regester "equaIly open" approach as what is sought, not oroportional representationJ (470) "Ia nany cases in Richmond, blacks have voted to elect whites, rejecting other blacks, and so what :re are asking for is not proportional representation by this anendment, but the right cf minority people, black citizens of this country, to elect the repr€s€n- tatives of their choice, and to prove in court, under the new standard, they would have to meet a burden of shor+ing that thelz were denied equal opportunitlz. " (4751 fin exchange r^rith HatCh, Ilarsh says the Pre- l_ Mobi13, post-l'ihite cases had saf eguards against proportional- representatiorllJ Te.+imonilcf Di:. Ed',varcl J. Erler (ilational Humanities Center') (tlDaonent of results ie.st) (.13s ) E.r" that the ';Ibite case itself neant that PR, 13 lacl< of proportional representation together with other factors was a violati.on, and that this threatened almost all political entlties 'that l-acked proportional representation J "The arqument in its simplest fo:rrn Dresunes that a political process equally open to mi-norities will produce proPortional results. " t-(489) "The LuouseJ comnittee's reference to !{hite and its progenlr render unrealistic its assurancds tbat the reviseC section 2 '*'iLl not create a right to proportional representation. The Courts r.ri11 undoubtedly req;ard the anenCment as an imprimatur for the Cecrsions that have alreaCy, ifl effect, required propor*-ional representation based, cn rElC€.r! Qeferring to @i!g|s . "equa'l Iv op6n... equal opportunity to elect legislators of their choice... " (S12) sen. HATCH. (erooonents of section 2 believe it ,,.ron't lead to prcporti-onaI representatrorf Dr. ERLEB. I think that belief is mistaken, because o]:vious'liz the'stanCard that t"rill be created to test t!:e right to an ef fective vor.e , Q! to test whether ninor:-ties ha.,,e equal access to politlcal processes, r.ri1l be :esults, anC results can be rneasured onl'7 bv the standa:d cf proportional representationo' o.o ..- llo!.rcd.c rzou kno',r tnat somecnet richt to participate esuallv i:: the political process has been diluteC '..ri+-hout lool<rng at r-he result? The stanca:d tsat r.r1lL be t:le test of CiLution must inevitably be proporticnalitv, especialllz since the cLC arguennt that equal access to-the ballot '-'roulC necessaritLlz lead to polrtical po'..'er fcr ninorities has ( 5I3 ) -oeen Ci splaced by the prooosition that t:-:e political process regarCless of ect'-,.aI access -- li't,-tst qroCuce ec,'ual rest'l lts. " PR, 14 Februarv I L9A2 Prer)are Statement of Hon Itl. Caldl'reLI Butler Reo. -Va. ) (54f ) pnCer the "effects" test] local vot j-ng aCcpt inpact f:r,,", "rou Id "... State and off!crals uould b€ required to stuCy prospective proceCures to determine their "effect" and on1lz those ,,,rhich statisticai-ly maximize the voting of eachlminority group withi-n the eLectorate''l any l-ocality r.vithout proportional' representatlon be ,zulnera:fe] TEstinonr.r of .roaqUrn Avila (Assoc Counsel l4r'\LDEF ) A(564)/-;.lti*-e does not mean propor:tional representation whites have been electeC ir - ,- we are not ta11<ing about guaranteeing the election of a particular minoritlr or Hispanie cancidate. ir'ie are talking about a':oiding any fragmentatlon of a eohesive ininoritl.z voting cornmunitv. " (573) Sen. EAST ... I'think this proporti-onal representa- tion, this effects test, this guarantee, is going to fragmen! and polatLze and elininate harmony in Anericar politics. All of it goes bacl< tc t'rhat I ih.inl< acain j-s a misreading of the 15"h Amendment, rrhich is the =lght of each and everv one of us to register and, vcte. But vle certain'!:z ought not to read it tc quarantee the right of particular et:rnic, reli6icus, cr racial c.rroupinqs tc hold office. '['ihat do you think of it? !1r. AVILA. I.Ie]l, I do not think our position has ever been to have a guaranteed rainoritrr seat in anll elected boc:.z. our orqanization interpre+-s the 15th -lnendment -- :'re rised to, an'\ llav, prio: to i1*ifS -- a5 noi cnl-v touchinc l:.Don physical- access to the polls br.:t aLso to incunSent situations r'rhere ''rorr have an PR, 15 electlon structure (574) tlrat dilutes or mlnimizes the impact of minority votinC strength trrhen the minimization or dilution of that vote is based on racially polarized. voting and is based on a history of voting discrimination and. discrinlnation rvithin a political subdivision.i {iie're not after proportional representation, and i'Ihite had no such requirement) None of the cases -tha*r were involved i.n Texas or other jurisdictions :vith rvhich I an familiar even had incorporated within their remedy ihe notion of a porportional representation , scheme. Rather, the focus was on avoiding the fragmentation of a cohesive minority voting community in the context of racially polarized voting. So the amendment to section'2 would not raise the notion g53! rue are ""atirrq to quarantee minority seats. rn fact, all of ou= J-itigation in the southwest has never usec that as a basic prem'.se. The premise has ahvays been to try to preserve or portect the integrlty of a cohesive minority comnunity in the contex!.of racialLy polarized voting. I In Tex"u, there' are 3 rna jority l{ispanic districts\ t"pti""r,ied bv irnglosl) So ue are n,ct talking aboqt -- $udranteeing the riqht of minorities to be 6lected; we are ta1)<ing about minorities havdng .an inpact into the politi-cal process and to make sure that impact is not being d.iminislied becat:se of racist,,-concerns. (576) Sen. KEITITEDY. Do lzou ever f inrl a court in any of the cases that vou have reviewed that has requi-red c'uotas or proportional representation, ia vour research? !,1r. AVILA. lTo, I have not. Sen. ]<EIRIEDY. Even j.n usino the standard prior to ihe llobiIe case? PR, 15 Mr. AVILA. tTo, I have not. 7(Sll ) {tennedlr says H.R. 3112 incorporates I,Ihite, vrhich rloes not requi.re prpportional representation, ancl Avild "Ot."=] Preoared Statement (5g9) Gection Z relies on the standards of llhite. I' l\ -) 'rNone of the litiqation undertaken under l'Ihite ever adopteC proportional racial representation as a requirement for remeclying a ( se0) constitutionallY def ective election structure. " l-t (iection 2 does not require QuotasrJ Eestirnon'.r of Sterze Suitts, (efcg-q.--Pir, Southern P. ional Counci L ) -(599) 7$a-,ch says tnat results test is measr:red biz proportional representatioD -- the court r+ould look at '.rhether there !./as DrcportionaL rep=esentation an.d one other sclntilla of . evid.en";lJ Test''incnrr of DaviC i'IaL.bert Ex-Lar* Professor Enc Univ. ) (519) lSavinq litigated many votinc; rights cases lcefore llobiLe, ne can say tilat judges :let''er found a 'riclatj-cn s:_nply because of lack of p=oportional reDresentat:on .J (530) Sen. E]1ST. ... I',rould submit, QS one Lor'Il',' fresh:lan Senator if -r-'hat ir7€ *Iailt -i 5 prcportional reDre5entation, t'1en t're or:c{ht to arnenC tre Corstitution PR, I7 and aay So, that raclal minorities trilI be guaranteed X percentaqe, and f presume is trill mean racial :najorities vtili be guaranteed X percentaqie. (532) ltr. ;'IALBERT. ... Most assuredlv, I would not sugrgest that we are talking about guaranteeing results. I vrould agree with you there, and I do not think we are talking about proportlonal representation, and, I vrould disavor,r any relationship',ri-th proportionaL representa- tionalists. f do not suPport that. --------v Februarv 2. 1982 Testi-:nontr of Prc John Bunzel (Hoover Institution) (g53-53) G^rr. the attempt to teturn to pre-Mobile fccus on results neans proportional representation. Dra,rs a paralLeL '^rith affirmative action.] /(555-56) funaer questioning by ilatch, Bunzel savs lack cf proportional representation plus a scintilla of evidence vrould Lead to an adverse findingr despite the disclaimer of I{.R. 3L12f, Testinonrr of -'{on. Hen:'rr J. Kirksev (state sen.. Jaekson, Uiss. ) (669) "Under the stan,lards ar:plie:i. i>v the Pede:a'l courts pricr tc the Mobile decision, t're har;e never proved ou: case sinpllr bir shol+ins --h€ lacl< cf propor- ticnal =epresentatica, nor have "re obtalned propor- ti-onal representaticn as a remeCy. rr Dt, 1a I .\ , lestimonv of Prof. Michael Levin (CUIIY-Philosophv) (719) @"tlon 0 "is a move toward quotas in voti-ns itself . " Testimonrz of .\rrnand Derfner (,Joint Center for Political StuCies ) ( ?96 ) r'The results test of section 2 is supposed to be a return to the standard of Ehi-te v. Reodster' r,rhich was familiar in a good number of cases during the 1910s until the Mobile case essentlally sgpplanted, it. " funCer irrite7 "there was never anv sense of a quota V E- system or a prinrtlple of proportional representation. Quite the contrary, that notion tras specifically re jected. 'l J (8OO) I-Ouotinq fron Judge Chapman in uccain v. Lvbrand !L-;- "'BLack vot,ers have no riqht to elect any particular eanCidate or number of candidates, butthe law requires ti:at black voters and black candidates have a fair chance of beincr successful in electioDs.rl Prepared Statement lj?l) "In these situations /-wtrere m:-noriti-es have been lJ sirut cut) , the goal of a change is to create an opportunay -- nothing more than an opportunity -- to partr.cipate in the political system. Proportional representation is not the goal, and il1usor1z fears about proccriional representation should not be allovred to jr:stify ' nnaintaining a slustem that shuts out an entire segment of the popu1atiotl." PR, 19 Februarv 4. I9B2 Testimonv of P. James Sensenbrenner (889) Sen. GRASSLEY. PLease Look at the last sentence on page 5 of your testimony, and then f want to read from page 30 of the House report, the last sentence on page 30. I guess ny point is, I consider that the two sentences.do not square' If thelr are intended.to,Iw.ouldliketohaveyou.expJ.ainitor:. if there is an inconsistency, then explaln that as we1lt You saYr "Even the House-Dassed billrs strongest supporters rqi1I state it is not its intent to decide who r.rj.Il r.rin elections but jsut to make sure that the rules apply fairly to all the partici'pants"' Then on page 30 frorn ihe House report, I quote, "It would be illegal foraparticularStateorlocalbodlrtopernitabloc- rrcting majority over a substantial period of time Conei (990) sistentlrz tc defeat minority cand,idates :' or'bandidates irlentified with the interests of a racial or 't aaguage minority- " Mr. SEITSEITBRENNER. I woul-d draq vour attention to tl1.e two paragraphs which precerle the paragraph from r,,rhich yorr read in the l{ouse committee report' Sen. GP'ASSLEY. I have also read those, too' l,{r. SENSE}TBRE}I}IER. I think that the sentence that lzou have rearf has to be read in the total conterct'-of the discussion that the House Judiciarlz Ccrnmi"tee made relevant to arnendments-to ttttisp 2 of' the act' fiuotes langr:age saying,/proportional representition Ai- is not in itse.l-f a violatj.on of .seetion 2, nor i.s there a ri.ght to it as a reneaYll') ?hen. it cces on by sayine t:ris '': s :1o+- 3 ll€r.'t s+-andarc, anc tal]cs about varicus other f actc:s suelr as si nsle- eha.r- rrntinc a: Ool-arltlZ of votinc qrcups 'rhere peoEle J-:',J u t v --...1 t PR, 20 vote along racial lines, and the Like. sen. GRASSLEY. If the determlnatiOn from the House committee statansnt that X read -- the last sentence on pagrc 30 -- is a determinant, then ths remedy could be proportional representatLon. ur. sEtitsENBRENlIER. It does not creata a right of proportlonal representatLon. I do not thlnk that reading thc ptain langruage tn the statute would lead one to the conclusion, or would lead a court to the conclusion that a proPortlonal represEntatlon renedy was cnvisioned by the Congress at all.