Proportional Representation Notes from Senate Hearings

    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.