Legal Research on Racial Vote Dilution

    historical research
:r a minority grouD
/ere enough to jus-
restionable. As the
argued, the intent

h an alternative t<r
mg maintained 1.or
urn of motivation
,si.reness of mrxed
mrakers as racists
e ease with rvhich .

I motivations dis-
ble inferences.16r
serious problems

r intent standarrl.

Racial Vote Dilution
TIIE GEORGE WASHINGTON I,AW REVIEW

icipal government for
U, but when consenr-
s-upervisor to conduct
Iaw permitted ward-

fng body w:th eleven
s srnce remained.
i56l (dai.ly ed..Iune 9_
e 14, at 29 (,,not only

Cir. l9?7). In McDon-
ld have replaced the
-cout found thar el-
irers regarded rt neg-
lestron 7 apparentlv
e racrally motivated.

Act ex;ension hear-
nce of racial motiva-
e Voting Riqhts Act;
of the Hou.sb Comm
>aquin Avila. Assoc.
.ted as Hou.ce Hear-
:tempt to rebut .
r in the form of offi-
cial motive, and ad-
rce, Justice Stervens
lsubjective motiva-
ave an adverse im-
reme was .,not tile
nsupported bv anv
ely nrotivated bv i
0 (Stevens, J., cirn-
oups are no more
8&88, and that rhe
rnd shiftins srouo
:ffects rathir"thal
ity, ra. at 90.
lominant" motir.a-
ra note 146. at ll8:
;tribution of ben,-.-
;erially inlluenced
nents essential to
ially, the nshr to
rn be reached. /d.

[vor,. 50:68g

Because direct evidence of purpose is armost never avai-rable, the
lower courts were faced with the task of attempting to infer intent
ftom circumstantial evidence. As Justice white pred'ictea, the lower
courts felt themselves to be "adrift on uncharted seas.',r62 A panel of
the Eighth circuit expressed its problem in perkirs u. city o/ westHeleya:'The precise nature and extent cf the evidence necessary to
establish discriminatory intent is . . . iaught with ambiguity after
fipl2lsn.nr63

Because the impressionistic approaeh of. white u. Regester had
neverprovided much helpful guidance to the lower courrs in reaching
conclusions as to the exstence of dilution even without consideinf
inje_nt' the key question for the courts became the continuecl vitalit!
of the more useful zimmer factors. ?hough the stewart pruralityk
hostility to Zitnmer was obvious,r'a its reluctant admission that thezimmer factors "may afford some evidenee of a discriminatory pur-
pose'tt's permitted lower courts to follow accustomed modes of anaiy-
sis_with an overlay of inquiry into purpose.r66

whether Bolden caused a substantive change in dilution jurispru-
dence is a question that evades easy answer. Had the lower courts
strictly interpreted Justice Stewart's opinion to reqube either direct
evidence of invidious motivation or a iingte piece of circurnstantial
evidence from wirich intent couid be clearly inf"o"d,ru, the dilution
theory would have been sapped of alrnosl all its vitality. Indeed,
courts rejected a number of dilution claims in the wake of go lden on
the ground that plaintiffs had failed to establish purposeful discrimi-

W. npl4"ra 446 U.S. at lC3 (White, J., dissenting).
l:i 931|f1lgllio^il8lh^_c_.1: !?s.2):q{d ","i.. ii u.s.Lw. B2iz (u.s. oct. 4, rso2).ld,l. A panel of the r.iitrr circuit in'Lfrse ;. B;;;;;;;;;;; ,hi;i;" Botden ptu-rality hadiejected the z;iii,"-citiii-"i"tr,I'&"iusiue.,ne""i o-i i;i;;;s inrent andordered the district courts to consider evideice of other meaningful factors related tothe facts of the particular 

9gpe. 63s F.2d msA iiis istii'&. fiilali;'L)L noro Rogersv. {4-dge, 102 S. Ct. 32iz (r}Bzt.
l9i. *, s-,tpra tert accompanying note g6.
166' 

^see Perkins v. citv of weit lielena. 6?s r.2d 2ql12oq (Bth cir. r9B2), affd mem.,51 u.s.L.w. 3252 (u.s. oca. 4, 1982); loqce y. Buxlolr, o-:l-s r:d risa,lizr ott cir. l98r).
W"#'"ru;-*t3:',J,r3fr-?.r'iif;i,t*tJtt'"it'"i*li'iii""Hranchoithe
".LI1h.^C^T:_it,p1n-:l 

rejected the district .ol.,"t'" nnainf in ,VZ ACp thatproof of thezrmrner lactors rs not an adequate basis from which to infer intent. 639 F.2d at t38s.The court.of appears interprerid Borden ri.nprv to bar a fresr*-Jiii,i'ii inrent fromprool ol zimmer factors and to require ..an irii6pendent ligal 
"o"'.iurio"" by the dis-trict court, in Iight of rocal ,-rircumsiances, as to tire existen-c'e 

"i 
air"ri"r-i""tory intenLId. at l3t!5{6.

Similarlv. the Eishth Clrcuit in Perkins held thct proof of the zimner criteria mavimply-intent, 
-becarise the factors *u"u au"i,,:"i from the stilt-valid opinrons in llhit-eand witcomb. 6?5 F.2c at 208. The .orrt rt"t.d, h;*;;E;.r-;; ;#;; factors w.asdispositive and that even if all.the objectiv" 

".it""i" 
in zimmer 

^iiiitiigton Heightswe-r'e-established, a cou:t need not automatically i"t""i"i""t. la';iib;:'
167. such a single item of.eridence t*,outa ue. ro. e*r*p,i", it," 

"*n-"outr,ness 
of theplside{ boundary"l.r,e carveci o"t uy m" a"clsio:n-ar""s in Trrskegee, u,hich was ,.tan-

F1y,y,Tll": r,u,3;?:!i*lp:gpg:1^!6S.T^rhenarical demonsuatioi; dt'ai"""i-ination.vL-.se.. r, u6r.uvvr, uu: u.;). o.ru, t {j. (l!,ou).

I

715

FDatffiIrIIIrf-

l9B2l

---**<&D.



a
o

t
I
a

nation.r's But it is apparent that not all of these suits wourd havesucceeded even il judged under the wite-zirnmer standard,ror ai,;;despite dire predictions to the contrary,tzo Bold,e, cannot fairly beregarded as a harbinger of disaster.
Even if outcomes were not substantiany altered by Bord.en,s ne'standard, however, the decision may righifury o" 

"ii""Ld for inac-curate-reading ofprecedent, failure to consider adequately the funda-mental rights aspect of vote dilution, and the aisutiiity oi mandatingan inquiry into the subjective motivations if aistrictin!
decisionmakers.

Re/ormulation o/ the ,,fntent', Test in Rogers v. Lodge
fire unmanageability of a subjective intent analysis appears to have
influenc_e-d the supreme courl in its surprising iecisizi in Rog"r" ,.L-odg-e.r,L Rogers concerned a chalenge to the atJarge system forelecting the five-person board of commissioners of" rurar Burke
9ou1t{, Georgia, which had a majority black pop.,i"tio, tut a minor-tlv-9f black registered uo1s1s.r?f The arlarge system, rike that in
lold?q was imposed in 1gl1 by the state legistatue.r3 Many ,,en-
hancing" factors characterized the system, including a majority voterequirement, numbered posts, the absence of subdistrict residency
requirements, and 

" 
gggqrplically large district.r?4 The Fifth Circuit,relying on circumstantial evidence of cliscrimination that the districtcourt had evaluated under the zimmer factors, affirmed the districtcourt's conclusion that the at-large system was being purpcsefuly

maintained to disadva njage-.+h1 
. 
rrt""[ population.rzs i1''1r. Supremecourt accepted this finoing,'?o in an opinion that signals a significant

s. ct. 2eas (re82), MaM.uan-v. Eicambi"C";;;y,-63a-r)iq'i;is, iiifi\i'1511., co;, cert.distnissed,4sB u.s. e46 (ls8r), ,""iiii-aalFi;i-e60 (s;i dil. isbii,'L;alrship Round-tabre v. city of Little Rock, +'ss r. S"p]. 5is, isi t6.D.LI:i;;;;,,LFi;)er curian, 661F.2d 701 (8th cir. l98l).
169. For examole- the. district court in Lead,ership Roundtabre u. ciry or Lifire Rockconcluded that prainti,ffs' eriaence *as il;;;;;ir;i.;;I,;6;IJ"'Jf, in"ruong trrezimmer analvsis ana Justice s;;;;;r;.;6ldiie analysis ii g6iaen d.iscussed in r?anotes 217'26 and accomoanying text. rt 

"G"n-iound thet the e,ridence did not clearlvestablish even a aisoarate-im[act. rsd-F.-iip; at sB4, s92-93. Similarry, the court oiappeals in washinstbn u. rintEi_ic;;pd;;5'dirt",.i i,o,rnt hrtig-ii'"t the at-largesyste-m had no disariminatory 6nect. do+ F.ia-"t sia.lto 
.. ! u r"rq'r6 lrrc

170, See, e.s., ,he Supreme Co_urt. tsii iei, gS-H^*r. L Rev. ?5, l3B (1980)r Noi.e.city of Mobile v. Borden' voter Dilui.tiin-""i iir* tntent neqiliimiiribra", the FiJ_teenth and Fourteenth Amendments, rs Houi. i. n"r. otr, orilrsdri-ii.i,;y have endedsuccessful challenses to unconstitutio""r ,-o1l-arrrtili;,1, eli-#,""Id iirl, .r Mobile v.Borden- A setback"in the Fisht is;;r;-bi";iiiiir"'iftilil;""i.1n".,. l6e, rz3(1980) ("effectivelv undercuis thE possibitiiv'oi raising ";i;;;tit;;:iilal auacks onele.cllion-systems that 
^ilrr',^ts 

tt 
" 

,oiu ;;i;;"i,y groups,,).l7l. 102 S. Ct.3272 (1982). -- ---------J
lT2. Id at3274.
tT3. Id.
11! I_d. -at 328G81. The -dj{riqt was 831 square miles. IrL at 3274.175. Lodee v. Buxton, ors r.zd rji8, iiao idil'_cii. iiarl. rt i,i-iririct court anaryzedtrre voluminous evidence in ught oiiire-nar)7i'-z;^*", i'r"tJi-r,l-rr'ltifb. ct. at lz?8.and issued its order in l9?8. tir" vu""r u"i."" tt" aiu"i-ii"isi;;,;;; id. atJ27s.rt

[H:"*"ljte 
svstem was neutril i;ili;-b"; *"s uei"gii,aili.i"La ro" racial rea-

176. 102 S. CL ar i281.

?16
[vot- 50:689

n*r,:_-r^,rrwfrs@

I

tttreai' "

revitali:
ented ir

The r

used th
the flnc
Zimme
Bolden
for the
requirc
cernin;.
tent ne
o. Side
The .Ec

analys,
plurali
tive vi
whites
electot

The i

their i-

tnrlY s

ory. Rr

177' l
trict coi
court E ''
l3?5-?6i
13?4; he'
the circr
was no:
id. at i

1?8'
179'
180'
181'

see suF

Pated t

Zimme
ing on L

ing or:
zaU (5r.
SuPrer
Bolder
LdCe'

182'
the dii
decisir
SuPre''
isolati'
tainin:
APPeli
below
Probalr

19821

-=rr-l!rlr,.-

i: - {ndrEE*.lir4f::il- -*- 
-



r,-.;1,-#..-' ry

suits would have
standard;r6s thus,
cannot fairly be

by Bolden's new
rttacked for inac-

luately the funda-
lity of mandating

of districting

ge

; appears to have
ision in Rogers u.

'large system for
of rural Burke

tion but a minor.
;em, like that in
[€.173 Many "en-
g a majority vote
listrict residency
Ihe Flfth Circuit,
rthat the district
med the district
ing purpcsefully
75 The Supreme
nals a significant

8ll, cert. denied, 102
l4rl.{5 (5th CV.), cta.
e l.eadership Round-
qfd per cuiant 661

t. City o/ Little Rock
,r'oach, including the
lerq discussed izy'a
lence did not clearlv
nilarly, the cowt of
ing that the atJarge

75,138 (1980); Note,
nents Under the Fi/-
) ('tnay have ended
ilg City of Mobile v.
r,vn L Rev. 169, 173
itutional attacks on

t
trict court analyzed
a l@ S. Ct. at 32?8.
ry see id. at 3275. It
dned for racial rea-

lvou 50:689

Rocial Vote Dilution
IIIE GEOBGE WASHINGTON IAW REVTEW

t
'l

:

""o""tlro-,ht;;;r, 
pt*"uty's racial vote dilution analysis and a

Gfrtalization of the Zimmer factors in the context of an intent'ori-
ent-ed inquiry.

Tlie'Court rejected the claim that because the district court had

used the Zimmer factors to reach its finding of discriminatory intent,
the-flnding was invalid.u? In approving the district court's use of the
zimmer factors, tlne Rogers majority did not admittedly retreat from
Boldeni indeed, Wright a. Rockefellerlls was one of the cases it cited
for the proposition that proof of discriminatory intent has long been

required in all types of equal protection cases, including those con-

cerning voting.l?e But the Court stressed that direct evidence of in'
tent need not be availablerso and placed its imprimatur on the Neuett

u. sides court's overlay of an intent inquiry on the zimrner factors. r8r

TTne Rogers majority still sniffed a bit warily at the expanded zimmer
analysi;rs2 but ultimately departed dramatically from the Bolden
plurality's skepticism toward dilution theory by accepting the proba-

tive value of myriad pieces of evidence of disparate conditions for
whites and blacks in Burke County and a causal link between the
electoral system and the perpetuation of those conditions.

The range of factors that the court conceded to be probative and

their remoteness from the supposedly central issue of intent are

tnrly startling after t}re Bolden plurality's constrained dilution the-
ory. Race relations in Burke county were undoubtedly in a dismal

ln. Id. at3277-78.The Fifth Circuit also rejected appellant's argument that the dis-
Uidi i'ou.t t aa co-*itt"a reversible error in ipplying ihe Zimmer- factors. The cirrcuit
co-uit p""iria the lower court's "foresight" in 

-pidaiciing 
the Bolden rule, 639 F.2d at

igZS-i5r""t"a that Botden did not absofutely bir the use of the Zimmet criteria' dd. at
igia, tlld thit airect evidence of intent is not necessary, id. at 1373; and concluded that
tt 

"ii""o-rt"ntial 
evidence of discriminatory intent in the maintenance.of the-system

;;;;fiJy adequate but'Virtually mandaied" a flnding of unconstitutional dilution'
id at 1380.- fig. SZO U.S.52 (1964);see supra text accompanying notes 123' 128'

l?9. 102 S. Ct. at 32?6.
180. 

'd.igi: Nevett v. Sides, 5?t t'.2d 209, 215 (5th Cir. 19?8), cert. dedied, 446 U.S. 95r (198O)r

Eee stpra text accompanying notes ?l-i8.-In .Neuet, the F'ifth Circuit not only. antici

"rteaine 
Botden rut6 on ini-ent but emphasized that courts are not restricted to the

T.liiii tictors and should explore all relevant circumstances that might have a bear-

inc on the operatiorr of the eleitoral system and the intent of those charged.with creat-
ilE ;;tt;i"i"s it. 571 F.2d at 22'l'25.-Oddly enough, Bolden "' 

qitY of Mobile, 571 F 2d

tifi i}th 
-Ci" ii?gj, *"r a companion casl to N6oett and applied it-s. rationale. The

S""iem" Court hia reversed tlie F{rfth Circuit's Bolden decision in City of lVlobile v.

SoidJ", aaO U.S. Ss (1980), but indirectly approved its Netsett decision in Rogers v.

Irdge, 102 S. Ct. at 3278.
--iS:2.' T,lre Rogers majorit-v conceded that a "tenable. argument" co'ild be made that
tnJ aist"lci co,.irt, in reiyini on the Zimmer factors without the beneflt of the Bolden
Gi.i.;;;ghttrave afpUEa an improper_legal standard. 102 S. Ct. at 3278. Had the
S;;;;; Co"urt used lirltice Stewait's'Soldez approach of examining each factor.in
Eolation for its relevance to the question of the Georgia leglslature's rntent rn maln'
taininc the atJa:ge system, it is ciear that the proof in Rogirs woul{have failed. Qf,
app"ii""ii'Stai"-r"urit as to Jurisdiction at 23, Eggerg ('In efigc1, the Court of Appeals
bil'ow uptreld " ...r" 

oi ,rn.onstitutional vote diiutioi on evidence no strongen and
probiiblj weaker, than t,Lat held insufflcienl in Boldett"l,

19821 7t?

.,d, s-<.{.4*



t

a

l}

.,r"rJll.-

subjecr
had mr
discrin
Coun'"'.
Suprer
only b
from a
outlas'
neutra

This
appear
argurn
and lo..
mize o:

voting
sis is c
isterrs
contin'
for ele
compl'
existir
crimin

the flr.st
diction '

r95.
t'subver
WLites.
Burke c
F2d at

196.
l9?. '

Doint th
aviolat:
(en ba::
netory'.
access
omittec:
Curiae,
Rights t

and th ,

and Brt
CourL

I98.
school 

'

have a

Bd' of '

U.S.zli
199.

tory il
district
again''
politic
and ot:

19821

8tate,res and the court,-in a surprisingly unquestioning fashion, ae-cepteg as probative findings that range from-the lingefrng un""islrpast discrimination in voter registrationlru* to ,rr""Ipo.rrii"""* iothe need for paved roads in black .reas,186 to the aep"u"."o so"io".il
nomic status of black residents,r'. to the effects of tn" zmm", ii-hancing factors that marked Burke county,s at-large system.rsz

- fire Rogers decision may signar four significant deveropments infourteenth amendment dilution jurisprudence.rs8 the inference ofdiscriminatory intent from the maintenance of neutral devices thatperpetuate the effects of past purposeful discrimination,ras 
" "utrito deference to district court assessments of local cond.itions, in tire

wt :t: o._ Regester tradition,rso a new emphasis on the importance of
f9i{ bloc voting as a prerequisite to a nnaing of dilution.rsr 

"rrjheightened attention to officiai unresponsiveness as a factor indicat-
ing minority exclusion from the political process.rs2

_ rn a mysterious analytical detour, the court concluded that the
P.*\" county at-large system was being purposely maintained to
disadvantage blacks. Justice white reiteraleh ttre aisirict court,s find-
ing that although the state policy underlying the Burke county elec-toral scheme was neutral in origin, it traa been ,,subverted to
invidious p,u4loses" because the Georgia legislature hal aetened to
lfe lurle county legislative delegation,s deiire to retain the existing
discriminatory scheme.rs3 The court made no mention of any efforts
to convince the delegation to seek a change,rs or of the pirticular

_ ltlt. Race-consciousness penades tt " t"U"i"
corrly, as is perhaps best si,mbolizea uy tire-siiu ,t'.iur" lviriiJ'-a-nlacotorea,, 

signsorer the courthouse restroorirs and the slgregat"d taunaromai ao*nirr" street. 102 s.
-c.t qt-328-0; id. atJZBJ n.r (stevens,-.r., aii'i"fiti"gl. rneevraen"" uri"uii"t"d that noblack had ever been elected unaer itre J-rJ.g.-.vrt"m despite the high percenrage ofblack popu-lation, id. at 32?9, and that iaciaj-urb" voting lubstantiairv impeded thechances of black candidates, id. T\e district aorrt ;";;il&ai[.Itt 

" 
r'i'z rate of voterre-gistration among the eligible black pop_utation u'as clear evidence oitingering effectsof past-ofHcial exclusion from the trinchise. ra. Neiiire" th" fi;;;; bourt nor the*II-1l"pp"als suggested the possibiliry of voter apathy to rebiri ir,is inrerenc".-rne co-un ot appeals, referring to some rather appalling evidence on patterns of roadpaving (fo-r example, the road. to the dos trial neta, ised 8ne;;;;;, il 
rplved 

white the
::.1* 1f:f^"jli,_Tgr-egated and stir'|red.",i-",i"trl,-uii"ii Ai;.*;;i;"choor is nor;8everu roads are Daved only.to the point of the rast white <rccupied driuelllng, though
l}.Hlf"lgT1|1^T_o"rio po.tiolii,-ouiu*ta tr,rt airc"ir"rrl^toUtrlatmenr tl,pi-Eeo lne Dlack exDerience "in_every interaction they have with the "white controitid
ravorable treatment in public employment and education, Id. atl376_77i 102 S. Ct. at
9,.813" county commiisioner. irla lo"Gtut'ed puuuc funds for band uni1orms for aneu-wnlte Dnvate academy.. 102 S. Ct. at 3280. Black residents had repeatedly beenrorced to iesort to repar aiiion in o"e;;i; a#erfiiil .i"iilir"iiilr,i?and jury, id.,an$-tg qlprgve votei regrstatron opportunities. 6i9 r.ti'; iir? i.s:a.' 

*
184. 102 S. Ct. at 3229--80.

lqq. d at 3280; see tupta note l8B.
186. 102 S. Ct. at 3280.
187. Id. at 3280-81.
r88. A subseouent fairure to folrow gogerc, however, may be e:rqlained by its pecu-liarly egregious iacts.
199. {", in/ra notes lg3-201 and accompanying text.
199. {r, inJ,ra notes 202-03 and 

"".o-p'"nvine t"*t.
l9l. {., in/ra notes 20rl-08 ar.d 

"."o-i"r,yirri t"*t.
l9?. f:: inJr_a notes 209..14 and """o-i""yi"i t"*r193. 102 S. Ct. at 3280.
l9tl The Rogets appellants asserted that the flling of the lawsuit by appellees was

7r8 [vou 50:689

t-\Lrf-



ioning fashion, ac-
ingering effects of
responsiveness to
lpressed socioeco-
,t the Zirnmer en-
ge system.ls?
developments in
the inference of

utral deviccs that
tationrrss a retunr
eonditions, in the
;he importance of
f dilution;rer and
s a factor indicat-
,

ncluded that the
ly maintained to
*rict court's find-
rke County elec-
n "subverted to
l had deferred to
ltain the existing
ion of any efforts
of the particular

social life in Burke
'and "colored" signs
,wn the street. 102 S.
established rhat no

s high percentage of
ntially impeded the
:he 33/o rate of voter
e ol lingering effects
rcme Court nor the
t this inference.
I on patterns of road
r, is paved while the
rntarl' school is not:
ed dwelling, though
lory treatrnent tt'pi-
te White controlled
ved markedlv less
37u"7?; 702 S."Ct. at
rnd uniforms for an
rd repeatedlv been
the grand j,iry, id,

fl,rined by its pecu-

I by appellees was

[vou 50:689

Rocial Vote Dilution
IIIE CEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW

subjective motivation of any individual delegate. The district court
had made a gigantic leap to the conclusion that the system was being
discriminatorily maintained simply from the fact that the Burke
County legislative representatives had always been white.rss The
supreme court's reasoning in accepting this conclusion is indicated
only by its suggestion that discriminatory purpose can be inferred
from a pattern of replacing blatantly discriminatory practices, when
outlaw_ed by court order or legislation, with .lractices which, though
neutral on their face, serve to maintain the status quo.,'re6

This is indeed inference of intent with a vengeance. what the court
appears to have done, either unwittingly or szb roscl, is to accept the
argument that the constitution imposes an affirmative duty on state
and local offfcials to structure their electoral systems so as to mini-
mize or eliminate the lingering effects of past discrimination in both
voting and nonvoting practices, including education.re? If this ir..;.y-
sis is comect, school desegregation jurisprudeneerss and White u. Ileg-
isterr$ suggest that the duty to cure past discrimination is a
continuing one, which need not be triggered by any voter's request
for electoral reform. Restructuring of the electoral system can be ac-
complished by federal court order, and neutral justifications for the
existing systenr will not overcome the need to eliminate lingering dis-
criminatory efrects that dampen minority political participation.

the f,rst initiative for reform of the at-large system. Appellants' Statement as to Juris-
diction at23, Rog*s.

195. the district court found that the at-large policy, neutral in origin, had been
'subverted to invidious pur?oses . . . . Burkers ieprdsentatives havialways been
wlrites.,{ccordlngly, they have retained a system wirieh has minimized the aiiuw of
E!{ke qgglrty Blacks. to participate in the p6utieal system." order at pJ, quoted in" 6.tig
F2d at 1379 (emphasis added).

196. f02 S. Ct. at 3280.
l9I. The United States as amicus curiae in the Flfth Circuit explicitly raised the

point that the Rogers litigatior should be regarded as a 'temedv" case rither than a
'violation" c..a.se, rglyrlg 9n Kirksey v. Board 6f supervisors, b54 F.zd 129, 142 (Eth cir.)
(en banc) ("A redistricting plan_is constitutionallli impermissible as racially discrimi-
natory if it is a racially motivated gerrymander or if it perpetuares an existerit denial of
access !Y the racial minonty to the political procesl." -(emphasis 

added) (footnote
omitted)), cert. denied, 434 u.s. 968 (197?). see.Brief for the ilnited states as Amicus
Curiae, Ircdge_v. Bu,xton, 5?l F.2d 209 (5th cir. lg8l). Ttre Larvyer's committee for civil
Ru-trt-s ulder !aw, Motion for Leave to File and Brief Amicui crrriae al ls-21, Rogers,
enq !!e ryAAqB I4gal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Motion for I-eave to-f.ile
end Brief Amici curiae at 53-62, Rog*s, also raised this angument in the supreme
Court.

198. Under the school desegregation cases, school boards that were ooerating dual
school systems at the time Brown v. Board'of Educ.,34? U.S.4S3 1t95+;iwas dJcided
have a_continuing duty to eradicate the efiects of those dual systems. ,iiee columbus
pd: o-f pduc, v. Penick,443 U.S. 4{9, 458{l (f 9?9); Milliken v. Bridley (iViiliken II),4A3
u.s. 267, 281-83 (1977).

199. Though the Court in Rogers cited no precedent for its in{erence of discrimina-
?ry intent, White had held that the district court correcrlv imposed sin5le-6u*1r"t
districts on Bexar County "tc remedy 'the effects of past aird piesent disirimination
against_Medcan-Americans,'. . . and to bringthe communityinto the full stream of
p"tluqft uie 9! lhg county and state ty encouraging their furiher registrauon, voting,
and other political activities." 412 U.S.-at ?69.

7191e82I



t

a
,
a

a
a

,Y

The,r
voting,
It is st,

tiona.l r

establi:
cient t'
bloc vc
ignore
minonl
are rac
the mir
compe'
patterr
of "pu
Count'
at-larg

The
respor
positic
ship t<

the cc
indeec
proof
but th
in Bur
elusi'.'
facilit
the s1

its ret
on wi
subst;

- ,or.
tution:t

205.

Chavis
discrin

2A6.
2C1 '

situati'
t}at c<:

also di
dentia
oolitic;' 208.

209'
zlc'
2ll.
212'
213'

ol con

19821

If not a mandate of an affirmative duty to remedy past discrimina.tion, Bogers at least signals a retreat tim tne aili",i piurarity,s sin-gle'minded focus on intent to white a. nigiiii;;- totarity ofcircumstances test. The Rogers court was surprisingly casuar aboutits analysis of intent, but if the court:neans what it-ippears to say,Bolden is obviously overrhrown.2oo The facts ; i;;;" were ex-treme, but were not equivalent to those in Gotnilrior,""I*ro,rgh raceseems to be at the,root of everything in Burk" co.rrty, ihe at-largesystem, far from b9i"g "uncolth,"2-or is t)"i";-;'i-,lJcat electionschemes and its maintenance was'not self-evidenily inrrid.ious. Thecourt's acceptance 
-of the probative varue of evidence organizedaround the zimrner factors substantialy eases trre uurJen of proving

i"t9"t by affording courts liberal s_cope to draw inferences of d.iscrim.inatory intent from circumstantiar 
"iid"rr"" of oscriJrrito"y condi-tions in areas such as public serwices and education.

The return to wite is underscored by the Rogers court,s empha-sis on deference to rower court findings. The" co".t 
"ppried 

the"clearly erroneous" standard of Federal"nute o] ciril pio."dure s2not only to the district court's subsidiary flndings 
"b;;t zimmer-typefactors, but also to the district 

"o"rt;. "o"clusio-n 
that ihe system wasbeing maintained for 

$s.cn3inatory p"rp*;*. ir" 
"""ir;, questionunder the Bolden analysis. tn accoraance with puilman-standard o.suin1202 the court regarded intent as a ,lrure question o11".1.,,20s

2([' Justice power- ioined in dissent by Justice Rehnquist, 
""r,ig","ait," aogrr"

#rii$i,?*1{i1?{[::L"",iu:liuu"*##'a::tl,:.itrffi

il
JI

il

201. 364 U.S. at S4G s-e-e-ntpra notes l2rt_2? and accompanying text.2t2. t02 S. ct. lzSl'(l98rl.'; pil,;" ii,l l"rrt of appeals had reversed a districtcouft flnding that the cindidions di ila{;'or 
"n "-f,rlffi"TJJ""i,y system didnot result ftom an intpnt to oscrimin'aie on'til basis of race. Id. at rigl,The Suoremecourt characterized tt -o-"_G"f"oii{J'n""'iilig-.s to *r,Ltr,e" i'a]h""Eiti"r impict re.flected an intent to discriminate as a .?ure qu":"tio, or t""i,-rrui"i'io'rirr. E2,s clearlvernoneous standard." Id. at l?89; see r.i 

"t 
tim,-rzgi. rh; sllilii! i;fi;"fi;ililacourt of appeals had improperty u"."d iii a"t"..ri"";;;;;";;H";!*rh", ,nu d.istrictcourt failed to consider and -ttrit tt " ""." Jioiilq-t 

""" been remanded to the districtcoq4 to make the initial flndings of facilJ-at rZSZ.203. Rogers, 102 s. ct. 
"t 

ery!. mi.;ffifi of review will inevitabry lead to someinconsistent decisions that. will ";tb" ilili "*pr"iiiui"l;.;ii#;"". in factualgituations. The new t."istatire resritir-;;ffi;i1" sime drawbi c{iii-irno nores 252-?{ end accompanyrne;:Itit"*t 
""co-prnyirri no-tes 291-9i. o"" 

"t 
ir," -o"" intrigrringe8pects ot Rogers is rhat_it_comes on fhe leeis of-the d;;il;;; to-gI. amenaea g zwas passed on June 23.1s82, 128 cor*c. R"". iitdr6-G+^";9d;i;;1id;el by presidentReagan on June zg' rs'z. E;e-.;;;-;;;;?,i_q"t. za, r-sri;r, ""i tf;" 

-opi,io' 
was is-rued July l, 1982. Of course, in" a"U"t" o'u""if,u S Z amendment had been ca-rried on atleest since the introducti"n"l-4i iirz, irziii c"-rg., lst sess., 12? corc. RBc. HIB*,

ll*tit'f f i,r,*'3ri)i&iilf,[{{*+F#f:,#*i,i+ff';5:*,*:,;g#i'-#
$ifrii",lt:!?ff"o"iiB, .auo,tiri" 

"oi,iii,iii"i"uty 
-or 

an amendme,,ito tr," voringRights Act that would require n*L"-c.i.r""i""]ia otn"" covered jurisdictions to aban-don speciflc kinds or at-rarge votrnj ;";;;;;.fitl s. a.; ; 3ii3. rrffiifru", tr,i. tips Jus-tice stevens's hand in ,th'e il;i"i,il-;;;.'tiirtior,"t challenge to amended g 2 bylndicating a restrictive ,i"* 
"i i"rg.i.;{:;;;"""-ent power under the fourteenthand flrteenth smendments remains t5 u" r"e".-5._"ti"" r;6;u";;;;;;;", not just tocovered jurisdictions. ,na atitiougtr-it-a'oli,"iiiii-pose a 6an on at-large elections. it1ges. apply.a resurts iert rrralg;';-,;;*; *ilL tr," coun has held th-at the amend_ments reach.

HfrZ.* :l l}r:Hp*y nature ot mou""uon ;;"rffi;'#;iiid ;;:iljllJil

n0
[vou 50:689

'.LI[;F-.



ly past *r*rn*"-
dezz pluraLity,s sin-
esterb totality of
ingly casual about
I it appears to sav-

. Rogers *""" 
"*-on: although race

lunty, the at-larse
of local election

tly invidious. The
{dence organized
burden of proving
nences of discrim-
riminatory condi-
n.
s Court's empha-
ourt applied the
ivil hocedure 52
outZimmer-tyoe
t the system was
central question
man-Standard u.
tiOn of fact.,,203

tstigated the Rooers
ve and asserted ihat
stice Powell, thoush
cling four-square"to

€xL
I reversed a district
reniority system did
_l7tlil. The-Supreme
rercntial impict rc-
to Rule 52'icleartv
Court held that ttrl
rce that the district
rded to the district

tably lead to some
lere.nc-es in factual
cc.nlrd notes 252-
he mone intrisuint
r g 2. Amende-d S I
gned by hesidenr
he opinion was is-
been carded on ar
Coxo. Rec. Hl3tB
c. 53510 (dailv ed
ut'r awareneis ol
rns in dissent that
ent to the Votiru
tclctions to rbrn.
lher this tips Jur.
emended E 2 bv
rr the fourt-ecnrlr
nwide. not just to
ergc elec.jons. rt
tlut thc rmcnd.

[vou 5O.@

i
I
i
I

Racial Vote Dilution
IIIE GEORGE WASEINGTON I.AW REVIEW

The Rogers opinion also highlighted the importance of racial blocvoting, without actually identifying it as a prerequisits [6 filllflsn.2o+It is self-evident that if the minority arready u"joyr faary propor-tional representation, it cannot estatlish ailltio",-j"st as it is well
estabushed that a lack of proportional representation alone is insuffi-cient to prole a violation.2os The court'in Rogers re"olrrir"a racial
bloc voting for the first time as a practice that ..allows those elected toignore black interests without fear of political 

"orr"qr"r,ces."2o6 
Theminority is helpless lld": an at-large system only if majority voters

are racially motivated in-their voting be-havior: if voting were neutralthe minority could remedy its excrusion simpry by *rrrr'irrg attractive,
competent candidates.2,T The Rogers court regaraea Burke county,spattern of bloc voting and failure to elect black-s as power{ul evidenceof 'lurposeful excrusion,"2'8 again without tocusing o" tt " Burkecounty legislative representatives' motivations for iraintaining theat-large system.

The Rogers court gave serious attention to evidence of official un-responsiveness,2.e in a- clear departure from the Bolden plurauty,sposition that such erridence hal onry the most attenuated relation-
ship to motivation.2ro The ,rrr"".porJiveness in question was that ofthe county commission, not the legislative represlntatives, but it wasindeed prodigious.2ll The court rejected the trifth circuit's rule that
Proof of unresponsiveness is a necessary factor in a dilution suit,zrz
but there can be litile doubt that the negative facets of at-large votingin Burke county were demonstrated primarily by this eviaence. rrreelusive aspect of unresponsiveness is ttrat atthouih it is undoubtedly
facilitated by^1!-larg_e elections, it is an effect rather than a cause ofthe system.2r3 The court's attention to unresponsiveness illustratesits return to the white totality of circumstances test, which focuses
on whether a challenged. electoral system shuts the minority out sosubstantially as to require federal court intervention to provide a

I

204. Ttre Fifth circuit has.held that racial bloc voting is a sine qua"";;f ,r*orrrti'tutional dilution. Nevett v. sides, szr r.ia-"i zii a 
".rol205. Eogers, 102 S. Ct. 

^at _32?6, Wi,it" ,. h"-g"ster, 412 U.S. at ?6$.66; Whitcomb v.chavis,40B u.s. r24, 149-s0 rtszrj. e"t 
""otir"-i*"y, discriminatory effect, as wen asdiscriminatory_intent, is a requirid 

"or"pon""i of ,irf"tio". 
"-

206. 102 S. Ct. at 32?9.

I
?
i

i
t
I
,207. The drawback to mandating proof of bloc voting is that in the truly hopelesssituations there mav have been no. 

"oi 
so i.*, 

',li,i"iiv li;- ir-iriii.iv:1,i"'r,,"a candidatesthat competent statisticai.;;.G;;;;f -ur;;blils 
may ue lackin!. nbol or broc votingalso depends fairlv hea'rily on racialry ia""tinru'r"-*ta",'*t-*ii'iii*" require resi-dential-segregatioir. of course, singt6-memf,e" ai.t"i.t"-L.rt 

""."'*ii'o.ity access topollical poyer only in contexts ot iesiaeniiJsegregation.
2@. 102 S. Ct. ai 32?9.
209. Id. at 3280.
210. gO U.S. at 74 & n.20.2ll. See szpza note 183.
2t2. toz s. Ct. ,. i28o n.9.
213' The decisio:: to maintain the atJarge system was not in the hands of the boardof commissioners.

721

rII.-r-=-F'+'

re82l

b**__b



E[, {T'TE- i-qsFia F'r411'-in I]f 11 r1r;4asx'r

-drflzEirl:F.ff.

;

8hrrcture permitting greater minority participatiop.zr*
where the courts will take the intent standard from Rogers is diff-cult to predict.2rs At least as to raciauy oUsesseJ-1o""r"" such asBgF county, one can assume that dilution suits witt succeed underawhite rationale that avoids the Borden plurality,s search for,.smok-ing gun" evidence of intent. It is problematicil rrow trre supremecourt will consider a challenge to an atJarge system where there isweaker evidence of unresporrliuerru.", more temptation to brame mi-nority powerlessness on apathy, and consequently greater reluctanceto interpose the powers oi the-f"derar courts into locar decisionmak-in&-Perhaps the safest prediction is that the courts wili have rittte

f:trhg" opportunity to develop fourteenth (or nt""rrtrrl 
"mendmenttheories of raciar vote dilutio-n, at least if it " ,t"t"l."y 
-resurts 

testpasses constitutionsl tnusfg1.2r6

ff. htstice Steaens,s Stntctural Test
fire third contender among d,ution sta.ndards is-$e test proposed byJustice stevens in his 

"oniurrirrg opirrio, in Bolden and his dissent-ing opinion in Rogers. Justice s-tevens took a somewhat confusing,maverick position in Borden2lz that was based primarily upon hisaversion to subjective motivation anarysis. He sugiested I three-parttest for dilution derived fuom Gomilhon thatworlJ"rrti""ty avoid theissue of subjective intent: (r) whethe" trre ost"i"ii"* *i"; is mani-festly not the product of a routine or traditional political decision;

[vou 50:689

(2) wheth
(3) wheth
either tot
system ti
"good go

would be
vidious P

In his ,'

his objec'
his "obje,
pudiated
cause it r

central P,
ical Powt
analysis I

tem coul
desire fo:
cially-me
PurelY oi

ality on t
legitimat
Burke C

requiren
that the'
for their
theY cor

Justici
tion reli'
neutral -

traditior,

218. 4l'
219. lci
220. l0-
y2l. Id
M, IA
D3. lc'

olace nrl'
it 3288 n,
decide u

224. lt
ment drs'

I 2000e'1
vantage I

formanc'
329 (19?';

225. "'
evidenct'
neutral :

iB, in m!'

19821

a

)
t,

a

214. White o. Regester,4l2 U.S. at ?bs,S6.zro. Dome lower couts anticioated the p

ffi ft,r":ffi f ai"gs,d""iu"dfr o'";i-ilil#;'i#tH'"::il?#1XT:"fi lif l

.rr. 'rome rower courts anticipated the Rooers^an4ysis. The Eighth circuit, in per-kins v. City of West netena,.ozd F2erol)fu:il (8th cir. t9u2t, af-d mem., itU.S.L.w.3252 (u.s.-oct. 4. 1982), perrormea-very:6t"; iogicar g,yrnr,lrii"Jio'concluding thatfailure to reform a sv"iein with 
" 

a"""iy a}ptte_impact was an adequate indicationof racially motivated maintenance of tti. sv5t"m. The desire of the iniumbents ro re-tain ofnce appeared to be--the a;-i"""i'ii.,iirrr-" 
"g"ir,rt ""io.-.-tiiiiir.".,ilsers, though,the unresponsive local offic'ars aia tiirJirl-p"*er to alter the system themselves. .seeo&o seariv v. w,liams,.oso F.ia--lb6s;'i0'ri"(sth"cil.^id;ririJJiili'J"p"tu"tio, orappointive school board .with. segrelatirJ p"ri"ibr"t", irr"-io-rrit""r.,il-"alerra-enty.216. somewhat surorisingry, i"ifr;;il;-oiponunities t"*G"p""tl-ended g 2 inpgl{ng litigation, uoth ti," Hfirr 

-c;il;;"d"ti"" 
Eleventh circuit.avoided the task ofEtetutory interrretarion in favor gt sdrU"-;iisr to ti," dilution plainti.ffs on a rbur-reenth amendment theorv expanaea'in i!rr?;ii;e;;r.-ii"frtffi;:ffi1;_bia county,688 F.2d 960, e6+6s rsth c"i"- risrr;nAA'c};: dra;a"1 county School Bd., 6el F.2d 9?8,980{1,983-84 tttttr'cir. tsgzj. B6ih'""*J, 

"itlitr," a"irvi"'r.Ir"a"ir,-r-na""t"t i'g 
"ninterpretation of the statute, 

" 
qu"ition oiilrii-p""".io".r, as trre r"ason* for disposing

a1#r:tii"":rt:?H?T:,"*i s,iiii";;;";nifia os8'ir.ii";i b-oi:'ei'".2, cia"aez
McMillan is the more interesting ol tle two decisions be.,ouse of its interpretation ofRogets. The fourteenth amendmeit;;i;ti;;'i'c_oa"a"n county was premised on di-

'ect 
historical evidence .r """iii-i"t"irTil;il;'s&-;";;i;;;;;ii" l:i#il system. 6elF2d at e82. rn McMi,a4 .h;;i;;;;li,;'r:i[r, t*;;;;;;-;;f i"""?r"i'ir, own priorBoae,,'based reiection 

"f 
tt 

" 
pr"i"iiar;io,ri"L"tr, amendment claims, see suprd note

dl*ii::"'fi +!3H{"*7i;p;,:tx*;;:i1a,r:'r}.flf"r;:,y"a*"r

i

I

I

,rw*f""#""f:3tt?:ii",-d^.r1i:$iffii,B"ilxffi li:iffiig,i,s,i:ffi il"#,
fl?f.ft Trr:Td;,Tdi?"*,fi 

";,"q16itt$tll*;:Xl##"rt*::u#ff eany mor? speciflclti. l0l S. Ct. at 32?2.

722,

ffqEillt=::--- .d--+^

\n--



,m Rogers is diffi-
I locales such asill succeed under
searth for,,smok-
ow the Supreme
m where there is
tron to blame mi-
:eater reluctance
cal decisionmak-
s wi[ have litile
rth) amendment
tory results test

"est

est proposed bv
rnd his disseni-
vhat confusing,
nnty upon his
ed a three-part
lirely avoid the
ystem is mani-
itical decision;
____-_-
,th Circuit in per-
mem,5l U.S.LW.
n concluding that
equate indicatron
ncumbents to re-
e Rogers, though,
r themselves.,see
'peryetuation of
r amendrnent).
tamendedQ2in
cided the taik or
intiffs on a four-
lcambia Countv.
Bd",69l r.2d 97'8:
undertakine an

on for dispoiinp2 n2t Gaasaei

nterpretation of
premised on di-
rge system. 691
I its own prior
see &tp|a note
that was more
lr deference to
rc\erning intenl

gtice Stevens's
Cir.l98t),atd
I it cursorilv in
rot attempiing

[vou 50:689

Racial Vote Dilution
TIIE GEONGE WASHINGTON IAW RE.irIEW

(2) whether it has a signiffcant adverse impact on the minority; and(3) whether it is unsupported by any neutral justification and thus iseither totally irrational or entirLly motivated uy raciai animus.2ra l\system that has any neutral or traditionar justlfication, such as the
"good goverrrment" justification for Mobill's commission system,would be insulated under this test even if it coulci u" p"o""a that in-vidious puq)oses played a part in the decisionmaking'piocs5s.zrs

- .h -Er Rogers dissent, Justice stevens expanded impressively onhis objections to the court's focus on intent and further elaborated
his "objective" test for unconstitutional vote dilution. The Justice re-pudiated the court's i"qlrry into subjective motivation not onry be-cause it is unseemry but because it rlhtes o"rv t""l""iialry to the
eentral problem in dirution, the fencing out of the minJrity from polit-
ical power.uo He attacked the "ephemeral character,, of motivation
analysis illustrated by Rogers, where continuation of the at-large sys-tem could as easily be explarred by the officials' simpl,e-and typicar
9:j:j:::eU-perpetu"lio--,r.zzr In the interest of identifying a .Judi-
crauy'manageabre standard,"22z Justice stevens again-proposed apurely objective test that would premise a flnding oI unconstitution-
ality on the use of "enhancing" factors that have ,iot u"""l"stified bylegitimate local policies. HJ eited three enhancing faciors in theBurke county electoral system: the ,,nlace" nlle; t[" *";o"ity voterequirement; and the rack of residencysubdistricts,zze 

"li suggestedthatthey may be invalid "because there is no regitimaielustincation
for their impact on minority participation in ele"ctiors,,i iot becausethey convey any information aboutiubjeetive motivation.zz*

Justice stevens's approach provides onry a narrow avenue for dilu-tion. relief: it appears to insuiate any ele-cto"at syst.m lor which aneutral justification can be convincingly articulat"d.r* If fondness fortradition were regarded as a neutraijustification under Justice ste-

?18^. # U-!, at g0 (Stevens, J., concurring).
219. /d. at 91.
n0. W2 S. Ct. at 3286 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
221. Id at 3289,8290.
2A,. Id. at 3284.
223. Id. at 3287. Justice Stevens observed that removar or the majority run-ofi andplace rules would permit.a *'ell-organiz"a -ir"rt1, to elect one or two candidates..Id.at 3288 n.22. He dijsented in aogeri becir"" i" it$ 

"i"* it " ""t ro"*I.'irr"a"quate todecide whether these deyices ,i*" iuiiilfrUfe. fa at gZgg.
n4. b some wavs. the Stevens standard resembles the.,disparate imDact,, emplov-ment discriminatioi inalysG ,"a* niii'ft-Jiir,i'b-i.,ii nffIr-A1T;ii6{ d'tl^s:C:! 2000e-2a (19?6), which birs the;i" 

"i"-if"-:1,-rjient 
exams or qualifications that disad-ventage minorities and that have not ueeri valaitea", """*"-tffi"i"6", of job per-formance. required bv business nu"uiriti.-srq la., oottrara,. R";!i;;, 43a u.s. 321,Bz9--(_19?i criggs v. bur<e po*er Cr. ,io'r il.il ll4 +roaz f rszr).

225' "rl a challensed raw iisadv-antages minority citizens 
"rrd 

it, justiflcations - asevidenced bv custoirarw inaicia iiie-gi'si"tir"l'rt";t - are insuffi"i"rrtio persuade aneutral obseiver that *r! 1ay ivgs """8i"a 
i* r"srtimate, nonais;;;;;;;ry reasons, itis, in my opiniorl invalid" roz S. cl Jaze-i;:iE is;;;;;;j;il;ffii.

EffiFG-'

le82l
723

_5.----- r!*



t.t
ln[

fi

t
a

,
I

t

-.qwl'.9ire-.' as!

vens's test, dilution claimants would rarely succeed.226 within these
limits, however, the structural test rvould be appeaiing as an accom.
modation of the governmental unit's interest in structuring its own
elections and the minority's interest in political access. It would per-
mit at-large elections but prohibit devices that needlessly minimize
minority voting strength. The Stevens analysis also has the adran-
tage of focusing on objective characteristics of the electoral system
itself. Thus, it may be a more manageable and consistent test than
the zimmer approach, which emphasizes the more slippery evidence
of past discrimination and unresponsiveness and thui creates troub-
lesome possibilities of inconsistent adjudication.

Although Justice Stevens's approach has some appeal, it appears
incomplete and ematic compared to the white-zimmer results-ori-
ented approach. By restricting the inquiry to the ,.enhancing" factors
and to the tenuous state policy behind the system, Justice stevens
unjustiflably constricts the white-zimmer results standard. ,,pri-
mary" factors such as racial bloc voting are simply more important
and probative of the minority's political access. Despite its logical
gaps and lack of candor about the continued viability of. Bolden, the
Rogers majority's analysis is preferable to Justice stLvens's because
it is more comprehensive and likely to provide appropriate relief to
minority groups shut out of the political process.

V. Amended Section 2 - The Statutory Results Test
congress sought to embody the principles of white o. Regester and
its pre-Bo/den progeny in the 1982 amendment to section 2 of the vot-
ing Rights Act. subsection (a) of the amend.ment permits a federal
court to invalidate a voting standard, practice, or procedure that ,,re-
sults in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of
race or color."z, Subsection (b) codifies white by providing that a

t

violation of
ity of circu'
nation or
minority gr

disclaimer
mates the r

stancett tu
rlilgfign 

"',dard, unler
dress will
u.s.c. $ 1f
under the
preted as :

In its re-
Judiciary
frameworl
this actior'
extent sec
because tl
ing an "u:

226. Both the Mobile and Burke County atJarge systems were established in lgll,
when the Progressive movement- was touting_thE mlthod as a reform against ward
politics. See B. Rrce, supra note 150. at SS, ??:?8.

The most vulnerable systems would be those where the at-large svstem had been
f_"_"ljly imposed in a fairly rransparenr effort to neutralize the 

"ecEntfj, 
a"q"ired Utact<

tanchise, as was the case in stewart v. wailer,404 F. supp.206,213-15 (N.D:Miss. lg?i)
(invalidatiJ-g \4ississipp-i statute requiring at-iarge elect'i6ns fo."ff loii" in ati munici-
paliues). cJ Zimmer, 485 F.2d at 130? (until 1961, Louisiana had a nrmty entrenched
policy agairlst-at'large elections); see supra note ti3. But these situation"s are aireadv
easily reached under the intent test and do not encompass nearly the range of dilutivi
stnrctures that could be invalidated under the resulti test.

u7. a u.s.c.A. 6 1973 (west supp. sept. 1982). The amendment to g 2 provides in
tulL

(a) No voting q.ualiflcation or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice,
or procedure shall be.imposed or applied by any stite or politicaiiubdivi-
sion in a manner which results in a denial oi abridgement of the right of any
citizen of the united states to vote on account of rlce or color, or In contra-
ventio.n.of the-guarantees set forth in section lg?Bb(f)(2) of this title, as
provided in subsection (b).
.. (b) A.violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on
the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leadingto nomination or election in the state or political sulidivision are no!
eq.ually open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected b_"- .. .. .subsecdon (a) of this-section-in that its members have iess'opponunrry.. .

than other members of the electorate to participate in the politidai pnocess '

Ivou 50:689

and tc
a.pro.it
slon ls
in thrt
electc'

228. See:
229. This

Cltouis, 4011

230. Sen
97th Cong..
ment take e

ciples of E
Alabama,.J'

The SuPr'
to the aPPli
amendmert
claim in th,

231. (tr,
232. Fou

e.g., Willta:
Heights v. .

llil. 'Se''
oressed ntr' 234. s. I
Congress's '

a Supretn'
235' +tt;
236. Set

which vott'
PORT',9uPr'
flght agattt
ProPosal t'
s6965 (dt.'''
mittee Rcl"

l9B2l724



1.26 Within these
ling as an accom-
:ucturing its orvn
ess. It rvoulcl Der.
dlessly minimize
o has the advan-
electoral sysrem
srstent test than
lippery evidence
rs creates troub-

rpeal, it appears
rezer results-ori-
hancing" factors
Justice Stevens
standard. ,,pri-
more important
spite its logical
r of Bolden, the
)vens's because
rpriate relief to

'esults Test
r. Regester and
on 2 of the Vot-
:mits a federal
rdure that ..re-

l on account of
oviding that a

-

rtablished in l9ll.
>rm against ward

s;rstem had been
l;r acquired black
(N.D. IUiss. l9T5)

,sts in all municr-
hnly entrenched
ltons are alreadv
range of dilutive

o$2providesin

rd practice.
ical subdivi-
right of an1.
)r rn concra-
;his title. as

i( based on
;ses leading
on are not
rctected b.\.
,pPonunlt_\.
cal pnxess

Ivou 5r):689

I

t

Racial Vote Dilution
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON I.AW REVIEW

violation of subsection (a) is established by proof ,,based on the total_ity of circumstances . . that the poritical p"o""rr". teaaing to nomi-nation or election . . . T9 not equally op"r, to p".ti"ipation,, by
ltngrity group members.22B Subseciion (b) also contains the familiardisclaimer of the right to proportional representation]r, but legitimates the use of statistics on minority representation as one ..circum-
stance" to be weighed in the totality. pendingzro and future votedilution cases will undoubtedly be primarily go;r""r,"J by this stan-dard, unless it is decrared unconstitutional. Alternative means of re-dress will remain available under the fourteenth amenclment and 42u's'c' $ 1983,'s' which require proof of discrimi""io.y irri"nt,2:]2 andunder the fifteenth amen-dment, which the aoilei "pt,.,rrrity inter-preted as requiring proof of discriminatory intent.233
_ In its report on amended section 2, the senate committee on theJudiciary set forth a modified version of the Zimmer factors as aframework for application of the results test.234 The committee tookthis action.in part to forestall senator Hatch,s ,"g.,*"rri-that to theextent seetion 2 codified white u. Regester, it embodied an inteni testbecause the Supreme court in Bodenz3s construe e whr;; as impos-ing an "ultimate" requirement of provirrg arcrimi""to[ intent.236

end to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to .nhich -"-bu", or-
:,ff.,,""::ld^q9:*"1:"-!^":l9l9c1ea to omcelniire st"tu o. poiii*r-i.,lui*i-

,t
a
TJ

:,

a

$
It
(
l
,t

itt
I
t
f
iii

!
a

I!
e

I
T

tI
i
tI:
!
t
I
?

I

I
t
I
t

I

\

)

sion is one circumstance whicrr mq; b;H;r,d;';;;';;;;iu"l,"Tbat nothingin this section e,stabrishes 
" "ighi'tJi"ve members of a protected classelected in numbers equal to tt,"ir- p""p".ti-..i" iii'tn-"i";,i"iffi:

??9. * ". 
s:.tpr a text accompanyi ng 

"ot!, 
-ia--+S.

229' This disclaimer h-a. ,ip"L"E u"ir""."rry in dilution cases since l,vhitcomb u.Chauls,403 U.S. 124 .e?l);.sJe'""p;; ;;;;;;i, or 
""a 

r""o_;;;i;?_,.230' Senator Kennedyi the minority nt* *"r,"g"r for the l9ti2 elte,sion, s. 1992,97th cong.,2d Sess. r1s{1r,,"*p.""ilJ*iirr'oui opporition the intent rhar the amencr-ment take effect immir
ciptes oi-rir;;1;;';:ti"fli,:,iii!: T$!:356'fl?i,:fi"?i&i;"::.fti,I#i[i!x?:Alabama, s.z u.s. ooz. ool[ison).'list6;r?. He.crs?.ss-ldailv ed. June 18, reB2).The supreme coun in nog""Ju. tag", rbi's. cr. 32?2 ( r9B2), expressed no view asto the appiication of amendul S z. rr," p'*iiui-ii Rrsrrr" ;;r'r-;.ii;-h;; not argued the
ffi,Hif;ilj':i,T,,ff,i:ti,:,\{,{{ "rt"i-$;;i;;Gii;;;;-;".iililii, i,,"r,r"a "! i231. (1976).

232. Fourteenrh amendme-n t, Rogers u. Lodge. l_0? q. gt. at 3276i42 U.S.C. g lg?3, seae.9., wilhams v. Anderson_. soz r.za icsi,-ioaoiiir, ci". retil j;il; v]:i*g" of Arrington*"j{l*J.-*:::l"Ilil 
{.-1,:le n",. t"ie" };b u.S: iii, ldj'iis?zii'. ".za6. Dee ,szp70 notes 120-21, r3l and accompanying text.'ih"'iiognr., court ex-pressed no view on the appllcaiion of ili" nrt""rit I;;'";;;;r.'i;z'H.'c,. r,t 32?6 n.6.234. s. RBp. No. 4r7- supra note 22, at 28-29. senaa;" H;;;h';;td ile pecuriarity ofcongress's adoption of a-legal tt"ra"JJlrr"a upon on" lower courtls-inlerpreration of"?ii:$f By,t!::?:"*,;::{!:x"ffi 

"',',',,,xsi*itJ.',',tfx,li?!,i236. Senaror H"t"r, *a, irr; ;;;il;;";iiii" sTru.o-mirtee on the constitution,which voted out a bill wittr no substa"'ti""l-"ia-ent to $ 2. see sr,,eco,uNrrmEE rtE-poRT,supra nore 35. at6,reprinted in S. Rep. No.4l7, 
""prii;"-z{,"i"rre. nu ied theflght against the amendmeht-to gl;;;;s;;t" floor and vored for senatoi Easr,sproposal to strike amended- g 2 fr6m s. rsgi, siirr cong., 2d Sess. (1982). r3s coNc. REc.s6e65 (dailv ed. June l:, rsa'zy. s""ril.-H"'t"ii i';;";;;.,;;;i";il"fi .i the Subcom-mittee Report, which argued in* wniiri.-iiigi'tt* was not a .tesults,, casei thar the

FEIEE.FiF

le82I
725



a

a

a

t
I

Ttre committee arso stressed that insofar as the standard embodiedthe principles estabrished in white and its pr.-aitii p"ogeny, itwould provide federal courts with adequate guidance and a proventrack record of manageability.zsz
According to the committee Report, courts applying the statutorvresults test are not.required to examine aecisionm"i".rl ffi;ilIcreating or maintaining challenged erectoral schemes, u"f".. to con-sider a variety of factors that riay indicate minority voting strengthdilution. These factors include: (l) a history of official discriminationthat has affected the minority group's righi to r"siste", ,;te, or par-

ficipa-le in the political pro"e"s,lz; a pattern of raJialry polarized vot-ing; (3) enhancing fagfo1s sueh as very.large aistricti 'rrr"lo"ity ,ot"requirements, and anti-singre shot prdvisioirs; (4) o""i"i-lt minority
access to the candidate slating proless; (5) the extent to which the

Bolden pluralitv had authoritatively charact edzed,.white.b holding 
". ""q.r-ilffini3*:;g*ff,l*Lr^,i:::""yll_", ylg lido""i tn" white opinion, acquiesced in this

I

It

li

constnrction inhis Botden dissent; ;a!h;;;i-;":ilfi;:#H;ti"*l',Ti""",ir11","",i
law since it had not been.ovemrlea. s", stEtliir,rrrd;H;;;,'drj'iilt" 35, at 23-24,rcprinted in s. Rsp. No. 4r?, szpza 

""iL 
zz, 

"i r'eo-a1ir*-ili, ii. iii ffJi'+rz at r04 n.24

{ii"T":li:irt"#1filf,i,j: 
Hit"i,r' rza E.;b:h;;. Sbs6a,*S-sz6'ri""tyLi..r.,,," s;ieiiri

Senator Hatch's views-became a subject of.explicit debate on the senate floor. Sena-tor.Hatch tri,ed^t^o prepare. the ground for the'suoreme court either to decrare theamendment to € 2 unconstitutional or ro interpr,el it 
"i "5rt"a;U;ii the progeny orwhite, i,nctudrn-s tho". p"_;-E;l;;; Jr."-rii,?i"rr"dmoved toward an intent srandard.128 co*c. Rnc. 56szr ra'iuy 

"a. 
Ju"; g,-re'fiil. cor"rir,o,rif,;";; i,," ..exceptionalpolitical circumstancei'i sr.urouad.ina the ratig Rights Act extension debate in orderto understand how an unconstitutio-n;i;;;il? cofud pass bo;il;;; of congress

lnl,",r't*!,t"*:'ei,f ,'iN$$,!*ffi "li*"tr,_,.";ft ".Ju:Hf 1HHouse version, thus abandoninj a pure effe"cts test and strengthening the prohibitionon proportional representation)-; dd. 1in interpreting amended $_2, courts must recog_nize"that congreis . . . chose'to in;"p;;;tJil" cise law 
"t inliii _- 

^[ of its ca&
Senator Kennedv sharply.disputed Senator Hatch,s interpretation of white andstressed that resarate"s oi iune.ingl"t"-.p"!ilii" ns of white, congress intended rhat! 2 codirv a resu-rts ,*L{lF^W'ili"iri-!['r;;;la, isiiii."H;'?'t=""ri",g"a senarorHatch on the floor !o examine his copy & tn" diti'ipili"ii ii=rIl,# any ranguageeoncerning "intent." .ld. at 5699? taalv'ea..lun1.rz, fseii. S;"t"" i""*i"av counseledthe courts to look to the- committi" *ir"n i.-J'th" 

"t.t"-"rrts of himsel( senator Ma-
s.r[?f ,#?:iy,f.Ti:!i+ti:;,_{itl*l*liri:1,*r.,ri:",!.,i;}i j"d"Jr:
*:.:l-l_,-sqr)- He.insisred tr,"t [E""*.-s"ijL; natcrr was an ipiol"rrt or g 2, hisvlews were not entitled to much weight 

"r,d 
accusld-the!&H;#;f",.yrng to triggera judicial flndins that th-e uil i. u".o'"rliiit,Ji"iuv d.i;dy;;;ffiig i;s 

"each. 
ra. ,t57095 (daily edlJune te, ISAZi.

Senator Hatch asserted that his comments were entiiled to great weight because he

$.;_"Tffi{,,"{:ii?i,s"F,j({*,[""ti,,1"*giii;:i*".t"*i*i,"t-i,=ffi *il;in ravor of the bilr. see ra. at szra6 ia;lv-ia. ili,'".r'a, issii ;"";;;;;i;;t least in parrgo that he courd be re*arded 
". "*;;'d;it]'*nite simultaneously attacring g 2 asunconstitutional, is disihgenuous at the least.

23?. the Report labered Bolden "a ma"teJaeparture from [thel prior law,,set forthln Regnolds, aims. wnrioio, 
"ra-lrri*r, rilrr=e ,.se*i.rat courr of appears decision,,ol zimmeri and in nearly two d";;;;i.,;;;";rted dilution 

""."...s.. RBp. No. 417,supta note 22, at rg'zr, lee also remarks or s5n"to. Kennedy, l2B couo. Rrc. 56559
{#;;**"li:riiE,"Si{li$*,1,-:t:'#rklgi{tiHi_,,tBirdfl.::lli
ed- June 18, 19s2) (white and rrb;qi";;;;"i"rior,r'-"a" it ctear thaiatli".g" .yrr"-,atfe not per se unconstitutio-nal und6r the .ur"G test); and Senator f)eConein!, dC. :ts6e30 (dailv ed. Jurre iz, isozi tft";;;;'il;;; ;" s. issii. tri" lliir" iJtr,at used bymost federal courts prior to tir. Boaii-a*iiiJril.

726
Ivou 50:689

\.-rr,-

I
i
a

i minoritr'
lic and p

paign ta
been elt
minorit'.
the disa
factors"
less ma:
are not i'
to decid.
votes ar'

The st

ability. .

suggestr

the Pro,

In a fool
cationai
tive oi '

prove a

politica.
tially pr'

tion an,
are due
one.It i

proving
effects t

ity of ti

238. s.
239. /.,

in II.3ll..
siveness
tent aCjt
identifie,:
Lodge v'
Lodge, 1l'

of dilutit'
240. s
241. l,:
ZrA. Ii
243. u

cies in r'
such as (j

7L.5/a lot
244. l)

ous ban''
cated ou,

245. I
levels of
guPra n'\
to 40.3i: '

19821



ndard embodied
Iden progeny, it
ce and a proven

ng the statutorv
akers' intent in
i, but are to con-
voting strength
I discrimination
er, vote, or par-
y polarized vot-
s, majority vote
nial of minority
ot to which the

as requiring intent
, acquiesced in thts
reinstate WiE as
ra note 35,at2J-24.
No. 417 at 104 n.2.1

y ed June 9, l9g2)

lenate floor. Sena-
rer to declare the
all the progeny of
n mtent standard.
e the "exceptional
rn debate in order
ruses of Congress
a Supreme Coun
anguage from the
tg the prohibition
curts must recos-

- aU of its cai
on of White and
rss intended that
aUenged Senator
rte any language
nnedy counseled
self, Senator Ma-
x of the 6 2 com-
t S6780 (daily ed.
onent of g 2, his
ttrying to trigger
J its reach. .Id. at

light because he
chairman of the
onduct in voting
y at least in pan
attacking g 2 as

or Law" set fonh
rpeals decision"
l. Rep. No. .ll?,
rrc. Rec. 56559
r the courts and
at 57105 (dail-v
t-large systems
eConcini, rd. at
ts ihat used by

[vor- 50:689

:
it
I

i

Racial Vote Dilution
IIIE GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW

minority bears the "efrects of discrimination,' (presumabry both pub-lic and private) in education, emproyment, andhearth; (6) raciar cam-paign tactics; and (?) the exteni to which mino.iiy c"iraia"t". t".r"
been elected.23' The report also includes official 

"*""po"riveness tominority needs23e and the tenuousness of the state poticy underryingthe disadvantageous electoral structure or practicez4o as ..additional
factors" that have some probative value uut trrai 

""" "pp""enily ofless magnitude. In accord with the Zim.mer anarysis, minority voters
are not required to prove any particular number of factors: courts areto decide based on the. "totality of circumstances,'whether minorityvotes are being minimized or cancelled out.z4r

-The statutory results test has some flaws that may impair its work-ability. A discussion of the major objections to theiest^fouows, withsuggestions as to how the objections can be minimized o" ou"".orrr".

The hoblern oJ Voter Apathy
rn a footnote to factor (s), the committee listed ,,disproportional edu-cational, employment, income level and living 

"o.rartio^rrrl, 
as ind.ica-tive of vote dilution, but stipulated that mi"norit;;;";, need notprove a causal relation_ship between these conditions and inrpairedpolitical participation.ze The lack of a causation requirement essen-tially prevents courtstom assuming that row levels of voter registra-tion and voting, which tend to charicterize minorily pofulations,z+a

are {u9 simply to apathy-_ yet the pro.biem of apatiy-is-a troubling
one. rt is true that, were dilution plaintiffs saddled *itr, irre burden ofproving a causal nexus between lack of participatio.. 

""a 
[ngering

effects of discrimination, they would rarely ,,r"""Ld.r* The universal-ity of the problem of minorities' depresied political inysrysrngnf2as

238. S. Rsp. No. 417, supra note 22, at 2g-2g.

#ri, {f "l^r.r^1. H: Il"^r.:fr"* 9;il1i. f-idi:r version of the results test containedin H.3l12 stated that a*-*i;;ii;;;il:rr'dily suujecJiveii"t",ii,"r,"iliiL1il1"":siveness of elected ofhcials to ttre minority corimunity" because of the risk of inconsis-tent adjudications. H.R.^RB_p. No. 22?, 
"-oei--iot" 14, at 30. The Senate commitree

ilft:Ydff l;f.tffi 1:;1 
q s a- re I eva ni r".to" u 

" 
t rej e c te d t r' e riit r, c ii,., i t's _ru u nf in

,+ia;,,bts.6;:'324i,i,!"#11"','I?J"'ff 
l},,"#fl "Kfr fi:fl Tl#f.,Xi,:ffi;ff ffi:iof rrilution. S. RBp. Nci. +fi, strpra not" Ii, 

"i zji n.rro.
?19. S. RBp. No. 417, tupra'note ZZ, aiZi.
241. Id. at 29 n.ll8-
242. Id. at 29 n.ll4.
2{3. u.s. corvnra'N or crvru Rrorrs, szpro note 14, at 16, rg-21, documents discrepan-cies in registration rates in iurisaictionS *i:""t to preciearanc;-;;e;; the lg6i Act,such as 63.17o tor whites and +g.z% ro" ur"cr.i'ii coveied No.trr ba"oiira counties; and71.67.o tor .whites, 60.9/p for Hispanics; ;d 4'8-.da for Indians in Arizona.24{. Direct erridence wourd generaity ue unavaitaur. e"cept *h";;il;"" were ob,,ri-ous barriers to minoritv partici-pation, i""t li porri,g pi;;;;;;;;rr""rio" offices lo-cated outside th_e_ tra nsp6rtatioir zo n J ;"*; ;ii, i" ro mrnonrres.zrD' Elacks' Hispanics, American Indians, and Alaskan 

-Natives 
alr have rowerlevels of voter regist*rtion tt a" *t iies inir.,rii'ro""uties. u.S. co""'"L"'crvrl Rlcrrrs,tup"o note 14' at 21. Senator Helms cited tgg0 cur,s.s estimates, particutarty the ?1.0%tD N.3yo white-black registration gap i" ki"i";;;a;; 8.4;i"'ieloiiiri"e-brack gap

19821
727



t:
t
t

provides some suppo-rt for a general inference that the phenomenonis causallv linked io tt 
" 

ar"a?""i^a!es or tow"" ;;;;;;nomic status.even in jr:ris dictions wittr o uil i"""i, rri.r""y 
"i "in"i"il" "r", dis cri m -T1f".T in voting., But this;;;;;;ilr.rence does not sts umption th a t minoritie s' ri, urJ-io'*"*i. 

" 
th 

"i. i;;;i?I""I i jff;attributable to aoathy. I'fre Amcui] i., 
"."u*ainins theleversorporiticaipSf i"tp;,;';.J.:l;1*qil;;"d:ililTr""1i,"J

federar cotuts srrouta "d;i;; "1.'ri-u"r*i,g of ,tri"=I,r ro""r electo-ral systems in order 
1" pi"-a'" -r"llry .iii?"r, r*tti#er access tothe political process in irre "t;;;;; any aemorr;r*;t* that the mi-noritv sroup has been r'ymi;'il Ii.r."r"rrvrr",- 

"iri is rikery totake advantase or_enhr";;-;;pJ"iiiti"r.r* 6;H;" that reme-dial action wi-ir oroduc" b".,"nir'io ii"."irig, ;;rJ;i"j onry wherequariffed minoriiv candidates t "* ""p""reaty run urr.r."".rtur races*"ffiffi':ff ffix,|,}:il'" 
"u,f 

i, rl " " 
i,tpi.J"s-li,,ot". to m

.. {ev-ertheless, to insisi that minoritithat their ra,ureio vote is ,,ot au"-i""1fi,ffffffiT.f,:::iH:Xfrom chauenge the molt- 
"gregious siiuations - those in which theminority is so opore.r.a uv-p"i"rirJai"""i*ination ttraiit has abso-lutely lost hope. bor this #;;, ;;'d have been 

""""ptir" to d,u-tion suits even wherett 
" 

i"iti"ir'i r"rilu"g argument i.-i"a" that ani;'ilii:lHfr f,fliy.l*** ;; ;ffi g"" up th a t 
" 
o* tit, t", a maj or.

,r|iTilrr 
r["" 

TTT_ 
0",:: 

i ^f3] f ,yty politicat p owerl e s s n e s s is in

ca\n
tair:,
issu.
feSt'f
is u'

C',
resl.i
proi,
plai:
pres
dispr
Abst
pres,
men
€gre,
mits
conc
tatio
proc

The

Ame
cial
refo:
bece

appe.
canCl
ings i
(cJ)
Aom
awar:

Ill.
didatr
inexp

2i:'
x50
t( 1

Bostc
votit:r
acccu
subje
(lst t.
ably ,

Iargel
25:

mel .l

thoul
as to
Circu
Side:
no[e I

198:

part what the intent standard il;;il;;ilH#H:::T:il'#
,.iffiffitlli#i,}

a

,
)
a

t

*",e,Hi#***ffqry*t+ti[+*:+q,, i
pgru$ffinitti,r**fti'lgultru

ffi#$iffi$fi*l.eiii;;i;qt+siid+iEi:dBf 

"#"","I$

ffifrffi#,ffiffiffiffi
s rauonale, adopted 6y the 

"oir"t-oi

,I

lr
I

ll

j
!

728

lvou 50:689



,t tt 
" 

pr,""imenon
:roeconomic status-
reial racial discrim-
not support a Dre-
franchise is never
g the cause of low
question whether

;e and local electo-
th fairer access to
nation that the mi.
m and is likelv to
ldence that reme-
ssible only where
nsuccessful races
ing of votes from

uery dilution suit
ld risk insulating
ose in which the
r that it has abso-
receptive to dilu-
t is made that an
rstitutes a major-

yerlessness is in
Where plaintiffs

Rocial Vote Di,lution
rlrrp-Ggoncp wAsHTNGToN r.Aw REvrEw

rt limited to covered
:L June 15. 1982).
the investigatirin of
e tribal affiirs were
liitically active Indi-
rn to single-member
tfe" Indian district.
Alaskan Natives, oi
us as partiallv self-
tpathy toward state
ontext.
rs made up sUshtlv
a Zimmer,' the'il\ttit
rt-large system in a

eaie4 44$ U.S. gbl
It to flx the moral
nericans challene-
electoral practicei.
I in privite white
at 1269. Thev also
'lease that actused
and of seekins .,to

' 
the doors to i'heir

tu orderly govern.
ence of racial bloc
its. .Id. at 1269. De-
properly ordered
rised a genuine is-
al of access to the
: operation of the
d 5y the court of

[vou 50:689

:I
t
I
I

:

can demonstrate that the electoral system was designed or main-
tained in a deliberate effort to reduce or exclude their influence, the
issue of apathy falls away. Minority indifference becomes justffiable
nesentment at oppression or an intelligent recognition that the deck
is unfairly stacked.

courts concerned with the problem of apathy under the statutory
results standard may be guided by the rirur circuit,s approach to the
problem in cross a. Baater.24e The Baiter court ruled that dilution
plaintiffs satisfy their burden of proving that past discrimination has
p-resent effects by showing a history of discrimination and a present
di,sproportion in minority voting registration and electoral success.
Absent rebuttal evidence from defend.ants, courts may not attribute
present disproportion to minority voters, apathy.zso This apportion-
ment of the burden of proof avoids the problim of insulatinglle most
egregious and despair-inducing situations from challenge, yet per-
mits a trial court, upon a proper showing by defendaniomtiati, to
conclude that the minority is the author of its own exclusion or limi-tation of influence through sheer indifference to the political
Process.2sr

The Lack o1f a "Core Value"

Amended section 2 does not provide courts with a litmus test for ra-
cial vote dilution. The committee was reluctant to make any of the
reformulated zimmer factors a prerequisite to a finding of dilution
because of the factual diversity of dilution cases.252 coults applying

aPp9ils'was that the '{ailure of Mexican American voters to elect Mexican Arnerican
canCidates . . . is attributable, largely, to apathy." ^Id. at l27i 

"pp.-iai.t"i1t 
court,s find-ings of fact and concrusions of lair); Aranida vi van si"kt;; a5f'F..-s-u;;. 62s, 62?; 

-619

(C.D. Cal. .1976). Likewise, the court attributed the 
"Us"n""- 

oi ivr"il&n-Americansrom aPpointive commissions and professional-level civil service jobs to ,.low cisicawareness" and "low levels of educaiion." 600 F.2d at 1274 app.; 4s5 r] b"pp. at 02g, 62g,
,\\y a.2tdy plr'ality engqqe-d in similar finger-pointing ri!,isg"rti"s ttat brack can- ,cuoates' lacl( or success could be attributed not to racism but to ihe candidates'vouth- 1
ine-ryeri_e-qc:,-and_modest :uppg{ tom the black commu"ltv. l*o-u.s. 

"t 
zj *r"s. 

--' I
?19. qq4 F.2d 875 (sth cir. le?e).
250. Id. at 881-82.

- ??1. Io: example, in a case chaile_ngrng the at-large system for the election of theSoston School Committee, the First Circuit noted thai "uirusually low regisuation andvoting rates for Schooi Committee elections in ttre preaominaniiy Ui""t"urtOs,,could
account in part for black cardidates'failure to be Llected 

""a 
tir"iiiri. situation ..is

gyuj$ tg^glgnge without court inten'ention." Black voreri r. M"D;;;Ah, s6b F.2d r, t(lst Cir. 1977). A black had been elected in an atJarge race for the city cohicil,l""r-"ri,r-
*YS-f::^"..i1EI"..Ilg conrest. Id. The circuit clurt touna the cise ctose,^tirough,
lsrgje-ly because of blatant racism by the incumbent school committee. Id. at' B, i, ' '

252. The committee expressry rejected the fftn circuii. ;fi;1;;gi dify tie zlm-mer a.nalysis by requiring proof of offcial unresponsiveness- s;, ;;;Z-note 289. Al-
Enough the committee accepted the relevance of racial bloc voting, iftook no position
as to the necessity that.it be plo.vgq. S. Rrp. Nc. 4l?, *pr" ioi€'ii,.izs. Th" riftl.,circuit had made proof of-raiiar-ui"c-votini-an ausbtu[e r;i;;""t in Nevett v.
!i-d:.if1ll.2q ?9!:_r??!n.ro rstu cir. isi6i,'iZi.eii.a-,i{6 u.tslii'1fii0;. ^s"u op""note bV ancl accompanying text.

5

*
}t

l
r

i
t
I,
t.

{
t
ttl
$

F

;t
t

i

i
t
t,I
T

$
t

r
a

ti

729

G.E@F$FttrtEFiflrt.iir-

1e621



a

t
0

,
I

the statutory results test will thus have great d.iscretion in evaluating
dilution claims.

coagressional opponents of the results test seized upon the ines-
capable vagueness of the relevant factors as indicatirr" 

-of 

"r, 
unwise

and unconstitutional transfer of power over the structure of political
institutions from state and local governments to federal 

"o*1s.2s3senator Hatch, in particula", compared the results test unfavorably
to the Bolden test, which has a ,,core value,' of intent around which
all the relevant evidence may be a:rayed.2il opponents of amended
section 2 strenuously argued that the only -""rrirrgfrl core varue tobe inferred from the results test is a standard of prlportionar repre-
sentations5 and thus that a finding of dilution wilt-be'mandated onceplaintiffs establish a lack of proportional representation and one or
more "objective factors" of discrimination, iuch as staggered terms
for elected officials, a history of discrimination, cancellJttn of regis-
tration for failure to vote, at-rarge election systems, or residency-re-
quirements for voters.256 senator Hatch concluded that the results
test would lead inexorably toward a pure standard of proportional
representation, with a totally ad, hoc assessment by each federal d.is-
h'ict cout.257

. These arguments are overblown and ignore the difficulty of meet-
ing a "totality of the circumstances" tes-t,zsa which is iliustrated by
the dilution case of. Black voters a. McDonough.zss Btack voters aI-
leged that the at-large system for the election Jf Boston School com-
mittee members fenced them out of power.26o They cited several
factors evidencing-.li I uticrr: . blacTtt".constituted ZO% ;f. the relevant

populati
ever bc'
position
elected."
tics.26lt
commit,
schools
educati
concluc.
tional c
particii
ing pr<;

tion.26?
ttenhat:

a willir'.
that a ,

McDor
that th
powerl

opp
places
will sp
tion, e

sults I

occuPi

2tiil. Senator Hatch warned that $ 2 would
:*31,"9-9"o"*ous.ly. the role of the-Iederal judiciary in the State and mu-Dctpar governmental process. 

.., 
. ., [Decisionsl will iuddenly be subjeci-tonew scrutiny by the courts on the bisis of whether 

"""f, 
.rp.,L"t, ;;l{;;"-ous", whether they contribute to an ..equal opportunity to p"rti"ip.t",, . . , .opportunity to participate,'

lfi ll".mx,"'i'iq'1"1',?:"*::*th"-.i*",iilt"*,lgi',1;:*='1,"'-all-judgment". There is, in fait, uttt"-"io"Jto'ti" test than this.
P.^*"..T:. 21"1,"yf:,notg J2, at-103- (^ldditional views 

"f 
S""- U"t.r, )i see also tZBCorc. Ruc. 56786 (dairv.ed. rune rs, rs'szllil-;k;;; s;;. i';ni;?. iivral (new g 2undermines citizeris'"igtii" a;i"-rri,j;;ioH;f l*Jr-.;;;;#r'i.ii". lrona*r ar

lressure groups").
deterrnine form of local government, to it"'U""efrt"J

2il. 128 Conc. RBc. S6i09 (daity ed. June 9, l9B2).
255. suacorr,nranrpE REpoRr, ipra note ss. at zs-eq revrinted iz S. Rpp. No. 41.?,tu?ta note 22, at 136.
2.66, Id. at 36-38, reprinted iz s. Rep. No. 4u, srpta.note 22, at r4B-M. opponents

*,:,*,"::.'^:!j::tive-factors" from various sources, such as letteii to- tt u AttorneyLrenerar oDJectrng to erectoral changes under g 5, osgia! repofts of d.ilution caser, anites-urnglry before the Subcommitte 6, u. at go-ia nn.tsuo o, i"pi"tia ii S. R"r. No. 4l?at14344 nn.l30-50; see arso 128 couo. nec. S6sl+ (daily ed. ir;; 9, idefy lremart<s otSen. Hatch) (32 state regislatures wourd be ,"i;;;bl;U;ili;;s; 
"iil" s 2 because

!he.y tlgt< proportionallepresentation 
""a rr""" one or morne-of these ..objective

lactors").
257. 128 Cor,rc. Roc. S6El6 (daily ed. June 9, lg82).
258' The Senate Committee insisted ttrat'lilt is not an easy test," but sets,tealis-Uc stinga-:rd:" for gauging dilution. S. nip. N5.' an_,_supri,.ie-ii-"t lf . proponents

asserted that of nearlv twi dozen cases between- tgzz jna r.qis, pGirirffs prevailed inonly slightly over harl ue.conCir"i. Sosio'ii;ily 
"a-. 

iir". ii, i5Czi'i"Ii.,*r." or sen.DeConcini); S. Rsp. No. 4l? at 31.

?59. 56s F2d I (tsr Cir. l9??).
2ffi. Id st2.

261' '
262. ,
263. ,

2U.
qfd, it

265.
266.
2tt.
268.

could t'

electerl
269'

date fo'
candl'lr
ing wa:

:, 270.
court t'
ened' /

211.

'the a:

[shed
S' Ret'
1982) t

iust i-''

gated I

SuBc(

19821
730 [vou 50:689

t-i-7.-f



liscretion in evaluating

seized upon the ines-
ndicative of an unwise
e structure of political
s to federal 

"6uts.2s3sults test unfavorably
f intent around which
pponents of amended
aningful core value to
of proportional repre-
yill be mandated once
rsentation and one or
h as staggered terms
cancellation of regis-
ems, or residency re-
rded that the reiuirs
dard of proportional
t by each federai dis-

re difficulty of meet.
d9J1 is illustrated by
r 25e Black voters ai-
Boston School Com-
They cited several

20/o ot the reievanr

n the State and mu-
tdenly be subject to
h aspects are ..tenu-
topanicipate",...
.of the "court's over-
han this.
,rL llatch)i see abo l2g{atry F. Blrrd) (new € Z
rment" to the beneflt tf

ted in S. Rrp. No. 4lZ,

2, at l4{l-44. Opponents
Iters ftom the Attornev
s of dilution cases, a,:i
nted in S. Rop. No. {l?
re 9, 1982) (remarks of
tngeunder$2because
e of these .,objective

test,' but sets .tealis-
' 22, at 31. Prooonents
plaintiffs prer'"il"d in
:982) lrem'arks of Sen.

t
1

!
I

I

population and were.geographically concentratedl,26r no black hadever been elected to the committed and white candidates who tookpositions in harmony with the brack 
""*;;;ilt-;;"" ,,uu"" 

""-elected,262 and some white candidates used racial campaign tac-ccs.263 Mo;;t importantly, until federal cout interrention, thecommittee had engaged in purposeful 
""g"u!"tior, 

-oi 
trr" publicschools and had resisted court o"&"", to remedy shortcomings in theeducation-al-system.2n The trial and appellate courts nevertheressconcluded that the praintiffs had not demonstrated an unconstitu-tional discriminatory effect.26s Black voters were not excluded fromparticipation in school committee elections266 and the candidate slat-

Tg q:g"_"_rs was open to anyone securing z,oOO ,iga1r"".. o' a peti-tion.267 Moreover, tl:^ at-ta'Se system lacked many of the typical"enhancing" factors,ze, and white-voters in Boston had demonstrated
: ryhg:.rs to support black candidates in other political races, so
t!"1" finding of rigid raciar bloc voting was unsupportabre.zoe TheMcDonough court carefirlr.rr balanced these 1""io"riio i, conerud.ingthat the electoral structure itseif was not a major contributor to blackpowerlessness over the school committee.

- 
opponents of amended secti.n 2 also crairaed that the resuits testplaces too much discretion in the hancrs of d;;;l;;;, a,ti thusrvill spawn inconsistent outcomes.z?r This criticism <ieserves atten-tior, even though such discretion is not unique to the statutory re-sults test. The white. go""t emphasized that trre ostrict courtoceupies "its olvn special vantage point" fuom which to *-"r." nr; *-
fir. Id.
2@, Id. at 3.
2f3. Id. at 5 & n.12.
26{,. Id. at6isee Morgan v. Hennigan,3?9 F. !gp_p. al0,4S4 (D. Mass.) (court order),at4_ioe-F.2d 580 (Ist Cir. rszl;, "*T,iii,A'in rj.s. sigTlii5)..,.o.o.,265. 565 FJd at ?.
266. .ld. at 3.
2dl. Id. at2.
268. !-oters were oermitted- to vote for one to flve candidates, so minority voterscould cast a "singreishot" balloi t* """ r;iiorit, candidate. rir" 

"onaiaates 
wer€electeC from a fletd of ten and coula win-wiiir-; pi*"ti;y.;;: 

"i2.." 
"-.

269. Id. at ?. A black had-won an at-large seat on the ;it],;o;;;il and a black candi_date for the united States Senate t 
"a "-&ia iloston. .Id. conve:.sely, certain whitecandidates had received strong support fr.ila; ur""t 

"="ai i"ffi;if; that bloc vot-ing was far from absolute 
"-dng 51""i.-, 

". ".Jil. 
la.

270. The First circuit found tle case to uo u*r"u--"ty close and ordered the d.istrict
:lH la**n 

jurisdietion and to consider an amenaei p;d;ira;"it,,auor, *ors-
2?l' The Subcommittee. Report deniglated the results test for its subsritution of'the arbitrary discretion ot juciges in pii." oitt,e relatively ceftain rure of raw estab_lished under the intent testi'S'iacor,r;d;;i;;"r,s1tpra nore 35, atil,repinled in

-S.r_Epp.No.4l7,stpra note 22, ot tgS, ";"L, S;iisriii;il;;;r?i'tii:;;;!;"F.;i;;;,1ffi,"r;xfil,"f;Liff; "r,ll3"l3i"*1"fi!rl?just have to aggiegate outa series or racio"s'i"J tle problem is, once vou have agsre-gated out those freto-: ..vhat dc yori hav-ei. . l'rrrr.',-rr-i;;.ii.""';;,i#;:;;;;i';;SrrscoMMnlEr Rpponr at 30, repi.tiieJ;; S.' d";. No. 4lz at lB?.

[vou 50:689

k

I

,
i

I
t

I
I

731

',*GE.@q

Racial Vote Dilution
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON I.AW REVIEIf,.

1e821



It can-reasonably be predicted that the courts will apply amended
section 2 in a fashion similar to the McDonough model i"d trrrt racial
bloc voting may provide an anchor or core vaiue to maximize consis-
tency of outcome. Perfect consistency of outcome, however, will be
impossible to guarantee. Despite the specification of relevant criteria
in the senate Report, courts wiil have flexibility in making find.ings oi
fact and assigning weight to each factor in driwing an ultimat"-.on-
clusion whether the minority in question lacks equal access to thepolitical process. unavoidably, the question may often turn on the
district court's subjective assessment whether thL decks are stacked
against the minority or whether its lack of representation and low
levels of participation result instead fuom simple indifference.

The Lack oJ Guidonce to Triat Courts

hoponents of amended section 2 were far too sanguine about the
clarity of the pre-Bolden results test and the guidin ce pre-Bolden
case law would give courts applying the statutory resrlts test.2?s
Even before Bolden, several circuits had moved toward a test of pur-
poseful <iiscrimination2T6 that is clearry not the standard intendei by
the drafters of amended section 2.22? Thus, courts applying section 

-2

cannot reliably be guided by the entire body of appeitate jurispru-
dence sandwiched between White and Bold,en

The body of judicial and administrative practice built up under sec-
tion 5 of the voting Rights Act278 is also not a reliabte guiae to appli-
cation of the results test. The supreme court has interpreted a
discriminatory "effect"Jor section 5 purposes as a ,?etrogression,, in
racial minority political strength caused by the voting cf,ange in is-

272,. 412 U.S. at ?69.
273. 102 S. Ct. at 3278,
2?'L It remains to be seen whether the Fifth Qircuit (and the Eleventh Circuit) will

continue to.require district courts to make detailed findings of tact unaer the Zimmer
factors for the Prupose of adequate review and will continu'e to "u-""J ""res 

for overlvsoncrusory flndrngs. see- cross v. Baxter, 604 F.2d g?5, g7g (sth cir. lgTg)1 supra teit
accompanying notes 6468. Nothing in the legislative history or amenald $ z e,lxpucltiy
recomrnends or criticizes this practice.

2?5..The Senate report -asserts "the legislative intent to incorporate lwhitel and
extensive case law which deveroped arouid it." S. Rnp. No. +tl, iijii nbt" zz, Lt sz.

1I: rel^":u-r11t-e$opnonents'ciaim that the statutory resurts t".t *"s ."d.i""iiy n"*
and unt€sted by obserwin-g that these decisions constiiute "an extensive, reliabie and
reass.uring track record of court decisions using the very standJd *t i.f, tfr" Commit-tee biU would codify;' Id. at 3l-J2.

276. see Aranda v. van Sickle, 600 F.2d 1267, t27l (9th cir. lg79\, cert. denied, 44$
US:-951_(1980); Nevett v. Sides, s?l F.2d 209 (sth Ci".'rszei 

"1"r. 
;;;;;;,446 U.S. esl

(19^89Jr CheW v..County of New Hanover, +ai f.Za zn,zt,i'tqin Ci. isitl.
-z'l'1.. 

'l'he Senate r€port states that "the speciflc intent of this amendment is that the
qPrnpr: may chcose to. establish discriminatorv results wirhout protnng any kind oI
dis-criminatorypurpose."..S. Lep. No. 417, st pa"notiii, 

^tiai 
ii Eii'ipra"note zza.

278. A U.S.C. ! llt?Bc (19?6); see s\tpra note A9.

I

sue.2?e It
voting st:
viously i'
long-stai
evaluatir
theoreti<
this Poir
knowle<r
to the si

The d'
scant gu
introduc
tuted t};
ment cl-
need fo;'
vailing t:
on Civil
Judiciar^
ings2sa ;

amenCer
portionr,

I
t

a

I

2?9. B.
280. R.'

it would t'
Hearings
35, at 31. r
bers of ri
tsn RpFc.
Haward i

printeci I

281. s,
1982). Th.
under $ 5

PerPetua,
object to
States, 4-.
and $ 5, r,
in City o'
declined .

ooo l'

simultan,
Sess., 13.

plained t

to "makl'
283. s.

National
tration F'

Texas S,'
gal Defe;

284. .(.
sor Arclr
systems. '

190. Prol
285. " I

1eB2l

I

I
I

l'

I

732 Ivot. 50:689

E'qt-ry--



rg dilution.2z Simi.
:icourt's fi"di;;-;;
actors are to be re-
3 thereby insulating
tte court concerned

will apply amended
rodel and that racial
;o maximize consis-
e, however, will be
ofrelevant criteria

imaking findings of
rg an ultimate con-
rqual access to the
often turn on the

r decks are stacked
lsentation and low
indifference.

rnguine about the
idance pre-Bolden
rry results test.275
ward a test of pur-
ndard intended bv
apply'ing section i
rppellate jurispru-

ruilt up under sec-
5le guide to appli-
ras interpreted a
'tetrogression,' in
ling change in is-

I
,
I
i
t
1.

I

;

I
!
i
I

I
I

Racial Vote Dilution
TIIE GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW

sue 27e A finding of retrogression requires a comparison of present
voting strength to past voting strengtt. trris pro"".. or anatysis is ob-viously inappropriate in a dflutioniuit where praintirs auege that along-standing electoral system fences them out of potiucat access:evaluation of this claim requires a comparison of present rearity to atheoretical possibility of voting strengtl. Despite ,o*" 

"t"rusion 
onthis point,280 proponents of tlie section 2 resurts t".i g""""aily ac-knowledged that section b effects test jurisprudence *oila not applyto the section 2 results 1"s;28r

The drafting changes to the section 2 amendment provide similarly
scant guidanee for the operation of the results standard. As initially
introduced by Representative Rodino, the amend-"rrt ,i*ply substi-tuted the phrase "in a manner which resurts in a deniar o"Lu.iage-
ment of'for the original "to deny or abridge" of the 1g[i A";zaz 16"
need for a legislative response to ttre Botdin intent test was the pre-
vailing theme in the testimony of witnesses before the subcommittee
on civil and constitutional Rights of the House committee on the
Jurtic^iary,283 but sufficient questions were raised during the hear-
ingsza+ about the operation bt a pure effects test that tle bill was
amended in committee by the addition of the disclaimer against pro-portional representation.2ss The amendment passed the'nouse al-

2?9. Beerv. United States,42S U.S. 130, l4l (19?6).

319:, "11r1:::,L11tL 9_"f^"nbrenner.testifi ed'before the Senate Subcommittee that

Eleventh Circuit) will
rct under the Zimmer
mand cases for overlv
Cir. 1979); aryra Ert
mended E Z e:xpUcitty

rrporate [White ) and
supra note 22, at82.
lst was radicallv new
itensive, reliabie and
I which the Commit-

?9),cert denied 44li
denied, {46 U.S. 9sl
:ir. l9?3).
oendment is that the
Ploving any kind of
ako supto note 236.

[vou 50:689

il"J#,:"d?I'i;f":iii+f I;,,1[r,H"T,",]"".,1j;ru,x]ji:xtltH*#
15, at3J,.rep-7nted in s. T.: No-'+rz,s:ijii note zz, ;trgiil;;;;;"r."i i,rrir. L. cham-bers_of the NAACp-Legar Defense_Fund, tnc., id. tr.u. rz, rsB2;,';;;;';;" suBcoMMn-re e REponr at 3l-32, reprinted iz s, Rep. No.'417 at l3g, and hofelsor Archibald cox ofHarvard Laqr School,'ia_1feU. ZS, tgSZl, quilea iz Strec-oMMr;ii'ni"o", at J2, re-,printed iz S. Rsp. No.4l? at_13-8, regarded'the tests as teingluite aii""".rt.

281. ,see l2B corc. Rec. s6930 1-remarks of Sen.. o"co"'"ii,ij-ia"ily 
"a. 

June l?,1982)' The more interesting, question qrlr be-*nether preclearance can be denied
ynder. $ 5. to a voting change. b.y a cov^ergd jurisaiction that'crlates .,o-"-"tiog"urrion butperpetuates a system that violares s 2. The Attorney cenerat rrasl;',! h^.t it 

" 
po*L" i"obJect to^n-o-nretrogressive_changes that violate cdnstitutional norris. 8""" ,. Unitedstates,425 u.s. r30, I.il (tsz6l. althou-gh.thi" pecuriar *t""-"rri'tli*eel amended g 2and $ 5, apparentlv unforeseerr uv $ ?! drafteis, was raised uerore ttre Supreme courtin City of Lockhart v. United si.3pis, No. 8r-80I1'U.S. i;:i6,1;hl;,h" d;r", expresslydec[ned to decide the issue. Slip op. at Z-8 n.Sj.

282. H.R.3ll2, g?th Cong., lst Seis., 12? CoNc. REc. Hl38il (daily ed. Apr. ?, l98l),simulraneousrv introdueedln the senate uv s"n"io" rrt"^rli;;r:-S:'dg5,'sztt cong., rstsess., l2z cor.rt. Rrc. srs+o 1a.i1" 
"d. 

ai,..i,"rssrl. nep"eientatir" rioalno simply ex-plained the amendment as one to ,.restoie the law to where it was,, before Botden andto 'make section 2 comport with section 5." lzi Coxc. nec. Hi'3g3. 
'-."^

. 283, See. e.o.. Hottse Heg!1nC:,^s1!pro. note 16l, at.16 (testimony of Vernon E. Jordan,National urba-n *"sr".)i ra. aist tttrii-"ry 
"r 1.grrnq9 nior;$ft;;; voter Regis-tration Educ. proiect\,id. at g24 (testimony of wilirm H. whii; virlii'e p""r., univ. ofrexas School or Lawi; ,a. ii rr-ad-it";iil"'r;^";i;;;;;'ii,iil:i\{'"iul..i,-""i"ar r-e-gal Defense and Educationat Fund).

I

2Y !:r, e.9, subcommittee Associate counsel rhomas Boyd's question to profes-
sor Archibald cox u,hether the amendment io $z "or1I[;'r;i 4l"irandate quotaeystems-for city councils" and other elecred bodiis..ffouse nrirrigr, irfio ,,ot" tot, 

"tI90-Professor cox responrrec thrt he traa not previousry considered tlie question. .Id.
281i. 'Ttre fact that members of a minority doup have not been 

"teciea 
in numbers

19821
733



most without comment,286 exprained simpry,1. 
"r attempt to crarify

f;.$,,**l 
congressional intlntio" tr,"t section 2 embody a results

I

1l

',
o
a

under the management of senator Hatch, however, the senatesubcommittee on the constitution heard a string of witnesses, somehighly placed in the Administration, who predicted dire conse-quences from the enactment of a resurts 1"r1.26e wrrir" in" House de-bate over the voting Rights n*t"nsio" Act had tocusea o., proposarsto abolish or extend pr""r"r""rree nationwid" 
"";;;;;endments tothe bailout provisions,2se amenaed sectio" i-t""r*" the causec,l,bre of committee and floor debate in the s".,atl.iile senate de-bate eventually resulted in trr"-ui""r.through,.Dole compromise,,that adopted the language of. Whiti i. RegestsT.zso

In light of the questionable guidance provided by the course of pastlitigation and the legislative iirt".y oi amended ,."tior, 2, districtcourts will have considerable leeway in ualancingltl Lt".-uratedzintmer factors and appellate couis may give considerabre defer-ence to the trial court'j Letter knowredge l,tio""r1-o"aitions in mak_ing the requisite flldings ot tact. wlih6ut the-u"iryrrrgl"nuence ofcentralized review,2sr such as that exercised by the Attolney Generarunder section 5, there wfll rikely be some inconsistency in adjudica-tion. N-evertheless, the resurts test aoes offer a flexibre tool for identi-ffig the most eeregious cases or aiirtiorr, *tr"iu tt 
" ili""t".rn".,of the minority ii uir."a t" ;;E;;ted by defects in the erectorarsystem, and it *"r :::.d r.u".".i-fruy after whtt, io-ii'iust this.2s2some think this flexibiritv is not *.yGJr"ui;;.;r;";ior Ho,ings

-__-,:r'.-,-.. .. .. :ll?i.

;xi"&1,:"1'li'ft :x?:','#13#,fi:f ii:;yry,1"9;,jh@
sJ?{;^?i'l'-i"ffi l;*l";,qf :S"ti::i:f "..:lti}:."#*?:lr;,;,1;1dla:i:1Rsc' H6842 (dailv ed. ct.r z,-ibaij. fr'"-p*;;#;i;" Rodino responded by asseftins thatthe 1965 legislative history supported rris inierpretation.that the ameidment did not
iiih-.""ii,i"""liX; i!;L""":"il-";;i;-r82,;;; n'"^J"".".,t"ti,u S",,"uiil"in"ner pointed to

*ffi$*.*,q#'-,le*!i$r,,*iluh+=+t$.t'i*'ij,ffi(dailv ed. June 23. tsalr. pgp1.rs"iri"iir" ii"i:r"r'simply nored that the resurts test hadbeen'qualifl ed" ihoush_.mb"" 
"o;;;;["llj,"i].,"n "uu.t".,tively.,, .Id at H3B.t6.?li. E R. Rep. No. lzt, ""ii-iii; rd;,rd:''

288. William Bradford Rdilqti;, A.liJi."it Attorney General for the civil Rightsg5:x1"i:liot"o?ifil"lt or.r"stice, t"-"tiiiid'tr,"r;i, 
"-ri""ii't;'t iii=d." 

"*",-d"dtorat orocedrrres rnrr -".,"1*r-" ,hu:g::ilad,restru_cturi.g LY* f;;;J.f*. of elec-

remar
justcr

Thc F

Criti';.
shed
"effet'
of the
dons
conce
can i
clairn
'?rop
the r''

To
the 1!

Righ;
regis;

,r&
rl-elco.:
quent
for igr:
taking
of the
in anr
at 568
decisi
CoNc.
follo'.',,
281 (ll
128 Cr:

294.
295.

June t
(dail1'
Justicr
u.s.5:
Thurr
Coxr;.
note:l

296
nents
had it:
128 C'
ofrerer
tionai

29i.
estab:
their .

295.
Bight,
Dractl
iect."'
contiil
Haras

1982 I

i'
I

l

$*611;$gg#,ff!
?fiiift'fli:::'*"1T:Iiiii"ti"u ti',ii#oi,iJi"p.r"tion irareupl,rrll-r"ran. zz, riiazi

289. See H.R. Rep. N,

?9e: irc d;;. fr;;:'&r.!Tif;ii"#:,",ffi,?;Si!.lremarks 
or Sen. Dore).

,*'31i. 
It is very unlikely tt "iit " 

"sri*,i"'cou", *rr review every decision constm-

---292. 
See, e.9., Brown v. Moore, 42g F, Suop. 11:

ift iitf*:#lmiHa*1-"itr*,sri}*:!S'j#;:'titEiH
;th";;;;;;;.iio"ili'ril?,X'f;??":i:Jff#.-.#,,1dC:;;';;';;; remanderi on

734 
[vor,. Eo:689

<rh
q*:<

-,a t:1,,,?

iEli!L:-]:.-: 
--.*

\tF-



--;..-.' rlr-"_-- -_ "-=7

attempt to clarify
embody a results

yever, the Senate
rf witnesses, some
icted dire conse-
tile the House de-
rsed on proposals
n amendrrrents to
3came the canue
e. The Senate de-
ole compromise',

the course of past
;ection 2, district
the reformulated
nsiderable defer-
rnditions in mak-
ying influence of
Ittorney General
lncy in adjudica-
le tool for identi-
re powerleSsneSS
; in the electoral
o do just this.ze2
Senator Hollings

of itseLf, constitute a

nt actually changed
nination." 127 Coxc.
led by asserting that
amendment did not
nbrenner pointed to
arge,l27 CoNc. Rsc.
ate in the House on
tse on June 23, 1982.
Rec. H3839, H3B.l6

the results test had
ld. atH,384$.

lor the Civil Rights
-"st under amended
leral courts of elec-
e election system is
,ar,ngs, supra note
fiam Ilench Smith
: procedure '\rhich
"Id. (Jan.27,7982)

Sen. Dole).
y decision constru-

tfd mem., 575 F.2d
upp. 399 (W.D. La,
nied, 438 U.S. 915
I and remanded on

[vou 50:689

Racial Vote Dilution
TIIE GEORGE WASHINGTON IAW REVIEW

remarked about the l9B2 extension: "[I]t is weu eonceived, well ad- I
justed, not for the academic, but for reality."zos I

The hoblem of Remedies

critics of amended section 2 assailed it most persisiently as a 'tater-
shed measure" that would introduce a ,,totally alien principle" and
"efrect an incalculable transformation in the purposes and objectives
of the Voting Rights Act."z% They charged that the amendment aban-
dons the ideal of a colorblind society,2ss and incorporates instea{ a
concept of proportional representation entirel5' foreign to the Ameri-
can poItical system.2e6 Proponents responded by citing the dis-
claimer against proportional representation.ze? What kind, if any, of
'firoportional representation" does section 2 implicate, and what is
the effect of the statutory disclaimer?

T<l answer these criticisms and quesiions it is helpful to identify
the 1965 Act's purposes. If Congress's intent in enacting the Voting
Rights Act was simply to remove purposeful barriers to black voter
registration, the Act can be seen as a substantial success2ss and the

293' 128 coNc. Rsc. 56864 (daily ed. June 16, 1982). senator Hollings provided a
welcome breath of reality to the Senate debates by sharing with hrs coileigires an elo-
quent reeclle:tion of voting abuses in South Carolina. id. ile criticizeci SEnaror East
for ignoring the history of voting discrimiaation in the South, and recailed personally
takingen oath pledging support of racial segregarion in order to qualifl. as a'candidatl
ol the,Delrocratic Party in south carolina: "I further solemnly swiar that I . . . believe
in qltd wi ! support the social (religious) and edueational separation of the races." /d.
at 56863. He described in-detai] the-findings of dilution in Edgefietd County in the l9g0
decision in Mccain v. Lybrand, c.A. No. 7+2Bl (D.s.c. epr. iz, lgB0\. reprinted in l2g
corc. Rnc- s6951-54 (daily ed. June 17, l9B2), which was vacared by the district courr
!g!oylg_tt^" announcement of the Bolden decision, McCain v. LySrand, C.A. No. Z*.
281 (D.S.c. Sept._a, l-98Q), reprinted in 128 coNc. Rec. s6954'ss (daiiy ed. June l?, lg62).
128 Coxo. Rec. 36864.66 (daily ed. June 16, l9B2).

?9. 9, Rnp. No. 417, supra note 22, at g4 (additional views of Sen. Hatch).
295. This ob-rection was raiseci by senators Denton, 128 coxc. Rec. s6?88 (dailv ed.

June 15, 1932); Hatch, id. at 56518 ldaily ed. June 9. lg82)r and Thurmond, id.'ar S694b
(daily ed. June 17, 1982). For an example of Senator Thurmond's dedicarion to the first
Justice Harlan's colorblin-d ideals expressed in his dissent in plessy v. Ferguson, 163
u.s. 537, 559 (1896), see the oath pledging support of racial segregation thai senator
Thtrrmond was required to take as a Democratic candidate in Sbuth Carolina. See 123
Corrc. Iuc. S6E63 (daily ed. June 16, 1982) (remarks of Sen. Hollings), quoted szpro
note 293.

296. S. RBp. No. 417, supra note 22, at g4 (additional vie.*rs of Sen. Hatch). propo-
nents challenged opponents to produce any case appl;ring the white stanclirds tirat
II$ used apure_qlgpollional representation test orhad oidered quotas as a rernedy.
118 Corc. Rsc. 56?78 (daily ed. June 15, lg82) (rernarks of Sen. Slecter). None weie
ofered; however, Senator Hatch cited several $ 5 cases thar he feltiesulted in propor-
tiorral representation. /d. at 56779.

29'7'. lubsection (b) of the amended g 2 states, in Fart, that "nothing in this section
establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to
their propolt_io^n ln the population." 42 II.S.C.A. g l9i3 (West Supp. Sept. l9B2).'

298. See U.S. Cor.llr'x ox Crvu- RrcHTS, supra note 14, at 28 (..Section S of the Voting
Rights Act. ._ . has been instrumental in preventing the implementation of reeistratioi
prae-tjce1-an$ procedtrres that could discriminate against minorities in ptr--pose or cf-
fect."). Black, Hispanic and Indian voter registrati-on levels in covered juiisdictions
continue to lag behind white rates of registration. however. Id. at 19 (ta-ble 2.10), 21,
lian'assrnent of potential minority registrants continues in some areas.'Id. at 22-24.

ie82l

!

F
:'
5
i
l)
?

i

a.-o7J

ffi-o
o -rf
tz,iuJa *)L \o rf-r?-l/

735



:
,i

amendment to section 2 as an unrelated measure. If, however, theintent was- to bring minorities irrto the mainstream of American pori-tics, in ordgr to permit them to exercise political influence commen-surate with their presence in the population and to protectthemselves through the politicar procesi igainst depredations by ahostile or indifferent majority, then the amendmentio section 2 ap-pears not only consistent with the original goals of tt "a"i but neces-sary to achieve those goals.
Ttre framers of the 1g6E Act may have been overry optimistic aboutthe consequences that would flow from increases in minority regis-t'ation.2ee Despite registration increases, a substantial disparity re-mains between the percentages of min-ority population 

"rra*irrl"iq,elected officials.3m The objeciive in a otufion i"it, *irltner broughtunder an intent or results test, is to enable the minority foputation toelect a representative of its own choosing who generauy^*il be of thesame race as his constituents. successtut alut-ion suitl have invaria-bly complained of racial bloc votinggor because it-i, 
""ry 

i" that con-text that minority voters are deni6d access to the political process
and minority candidates are defeated regardless of their merits.3o2

Proponents of the section 2 results test clearly sought increasedmingrity representation,3,a a goar which section i', ;;;;;"nts criti-cized as alien to the American political tradition..* dt'"raing on its

299. .9ee e.s., ttt CoNo. Iec. 15,996 (1965) (relnar\s of Rep. O,H*"y !friIlenactment of H.R. 6$0. I shan _haue i senie oi'."L*ity trrat *re iause iilquatity . . . is
PkiJ:q 9-1 

fi",' ground' ' '. ' lotuls w,iu" 
" 

gr."t"" and a happier counrrv becarrse nr

a

a

t

I I

I

irr,"d""**".,"'"-ul,i'to;;5",,,;""Ii;"do'oi"ffi*T,"Jr.*xi:Eli.,?""":iiry,i:,Txl:#

ffJ"iXy11"1.&:Xilfr,,[1,*:].;:$ji:,*prejudices *rii"r, io-i- iid psycriorogicai
300. For example. south carolina-t"r 

""ui""t popuration of.30.4ao and no blackstate senators. In hone ot tt e eGi,t J;ilil; iltes iorer"a uv tri"-pru"iearance provi-sions (Alabama, Georeia, r,ouisiina, Mi;;i;6;;irHi-c;ui;'i;"1il), south caro-lina, Texas,.and.virsi;ia) is ti,e aGparirv #t"il;;;;;;T;r,;Lifr; and minoritvlepresentatives less than flve to.one jn thl state senate oruig"rn6""trv G;ffiilffi;one in the house. In North_carolina, tte aislarity in house sEats is ,"i"r, to one (22.4<ioto3.?7o). u.S. corrarvr'N ox crvu- tucrrr",*pi" 
",it" rq 

"i 12 (t"il;-rJ), ai, 15 (tables t.Band 2.4).
senator Hatch cited minority underrepresentation in 32 state legisratures as evi-dence that the results test is uhwise u""ilr" -i-iir:o--,iia'i,""r'""iifia115i,";lad 

reach. 128Couc. Rpc. 565l+15 (daily ed. tr";-9.-1982]. 
- '

sqT,'e#i,34;r.S[,T:,I#f,i,#i!,"".1^ifl?,:Slil]?S?f :ffi *i,'i5ifl "iliti6#fl;
Nqv.eg v, Sides, 5?l F.2d 2oe, zi tstr' ci". i'sia) (ir," 6;r;;;u;i; prjl't-ro, is used as avehicle for intentionaxv^ign-oring bu"r. i"t"i"lk presupposes racially polarized vot-W): -"n\ deni.ed l+o tr.s.-ssi li'seoj. 

-"
{?. $"" supra text accompanying note 20?.
3Gl. see H6use Hearings,.suplb n6te 16l, at 63 (testimony of Benjamin Hooks); id.at 1779-81 (testimony ot Artirur S. nemmi"pt_ 

-'
3(x' hofessor Blumstein of vanderbilt Liiv sctroot testifled that he found a[en andobjectionable the notion reflectea i" i f ttrat min=orities are entitled to a ,Tair share,,or'a piece of the action." Senate Heaaigs, ipra'"ote so (r"u.-i-r, lgidi [p""p"r"a ,tut"-ment at 9-10). Professor Erler assertid thaf *"ry syrt"- of proportional representa-

99-l ir ]'lictrlr fragmenr,ed. ,na ,r"ri"uie;' and ,,makes it impossible for thenepresentative Drocess to flnd a common s.o"nd .J,"t-L""r-.";;r;;fiilrr"rized 
inter-ests." .Id. (Jan.'28, r9B2\, quoiei ;; s;;;oi;ilee Rreont, supra note 3s, at r47 , re-printed-in s. Rep. No. 4i?, szpra ,,ot"z-, 

"i r+i.-wJt"i.il"irlilSiii"iiilt the franrersof the constitution oppoied',Tactions;tna-tavorea i*!;-dj:.t.i;;;'in-J,iorra encom-p.ass voters of varied interests. Id. (Jan.2g, lg8z), quote"d;" sus;o*;iles Rrpont at41. s. Rnp. No. 4l? at r47. But.see ;riv" 
"iil-3tz fr; b;"aih ;1"n-*iii.i the g 2 oppo-nents lnterpreted the term ,lrrop6nionat representstion,,, i. iU"iti"i"i by Senator

[vot- 50:689
736

-tIG3!:r-

't--.-

head t:
bloc vt
dilutio:
buildir
distric
nority
minon
tricts'
electo:
a sign 

'

lowini
distrit

The
not a.

Ilatch's
tion, u'l
REc. Si

30s.
306.

ity in v:
accept,-
salprd .

spons'l
ter whl
makes
of acct'
ble rei,
ings. lr

Perir
agE ra\'
trict a,
RgP. i'
Hatch'

307.
*i63
Ponen
comrt;
McM:'
rePrirt
[rent '

309.
to the
distnc
that i'
reflec'
Bober
Anto:
Plainr
Novct
Elect;
See g
Dilut'
studii
more
strucr
of6ct'

1982



e. If, however, the
r of American poli-
nfluence commen-
r and to protect
depredations by a
nt to section 2 ao-
the Act but neces-

y optimistic about
in minority regis-
ntial disparity re-
tion and minority
whether brought

rrity population to
nlly will be of the
uits have invaria-
r only in that con-
political process

'their merits.3o2
sought increased
; opponents criti-
a Standing on its

O'Hara) ("With the
,use of eguality . . .is
tr countqt because of
ryers) ('\rill go a long
m the psychological

30.4/o and no black
e preclearance provi-
in part), South-Caro-
ulation and minoritv
rntly less than two t6
t Eeven to one (22.4Vo
Zl), 13, l5 (tabies 2.3

,legislatures as evi-
idespread reach. 128

v. Regester,4l2 U.S.
7 (S.D. AIa. 1982): cf,
rlen that is used'aia
cially polarized vot-

rnjamin Hooks); dd

t he tound alien and
I to a 'tair share" or
82) (prepared state.
ortional representa-
rapossible for the
factionalized inter.
t note 35, at 147, re-
led thst the framer:s
that would encom-
rMuIffEE Reponr at
whichtheg2oppo.
strated by Senator

[vou 50:689

.^_= Racial Vote Dilution
1ITI OEOBGE WASHINGTON TAW REVIEW

head the reality in locales like Burke County, Georgia, where racial
bloc voting is prevalent,3os opponents asserted that a results test for
dilution will inject race into politics306 and prevent the coalition
building that occurs when a minority is part of a larger multimember
distdct.3o? It is not possible to determine conclusively whether mi-
nority political influence is better enhanced by an increase in "safe"'
minority districts or by coalition building in larger majority white dis-
tricts where the minority can influence, without controlling, several
electoral lssss.3os It is, however, possible to demonstrate empirically
a significant increase in the election of minority representatives fol-
lowing a change from at-large to fairly apportioned single-member
districts in racially polarized 6rgsg.30e

The goal of increasing the number of minority representatives is
not alien to the principles of American democracy, as critics of

Hatch's criticism of cases establishing single-member districts as a remedy for dilu-
tior5 which he characterized as imposing proportional representation. See 128 Cotcc.
BEc. 5693940 (daily ed. June 17, l9B2).

305. See supra tert accompanying note 208.
306. Section 2 may have the "detrimental consequence of establishing racial polar-

ity in voting where none existed, or was merelv episodic, and of estab[shing race as an
accepted factor in the decision-making of elected officials." SuecoMMrrrne Rnront,
Eupta note 35, at ,9-43, reprinted iz S. Rrp. No, 417, &tpra note 22, at 149. The Senate
sponsors responded that this analysis "is like saying that it is the doctor's thermome-
ter which causes high fever." S. Rsp. No. 4l? at ll4. They stated that the results test
makes no assumptions about racialpolariariitr-- 5':+places the burden of proving lack
of access on the minority plaintifis, and criticized opponents for ignoring the 'tegretta-
ble reality" of continuing racial politics established during the House and Senate hear-
ings. Id.

Perhaps the most ludicrous argument by opponents was that $ 2 would create or
-.iggravate racially segregated housing patterns as blacks would choose to live in a dis-
trict assigned a minority representative. Sugcour,rrmps Rppont at 4\ reprinted in S.
Rpp. No.4l? at 150; 128 CoNG. Ruc. 56512 (daily ed. June 9, 1982) (remarks of Sen.
Ilatch).

307. SuacovurrrBE REpoRT, $upro note 35, at 43'44, reprinted iz S. Rpp. No. 4l?,
tuD?d note 22. at 149-50.

30S. Honesi dif?erences of opinion in particular situations are clearly possible. Op
ponents cited the division among Houston's blacks over plans to redistrict the county
commission. Senate Hearings, &tpra note 36 (Feb. 1, 1982) (testimony of Prof. Susan
McManus, Univ. of Houston), quoted in Suscor"tMnTre Reront, supra note 35, at 43,
reprinted iz S. Rpp. No. 417, szprc note 22. at 149-50; id. (Feb. I, f982) (prepared state-
ment of hof. Susan MacManus at 6-?); see ,tuprct note 36.

3(D. Witnesses testiffed that minority representatives were for the flrst time elected
to the Houston City Council and School Board following a change to single-member
districts, House Hearings, supta note 16l, at 890 (testimony of John Henderson); and
that after a similar change in San Antonio, the city council for the first time closely
reflected the racial and ethnic makeup of the city's population, rd. at 903 (testimony of
Robert Krueger). City Councilman Bernardo Eureste credited his election in San
Antonio to the aboUtion of at-Iarge voting. Id, at 1274. T\po blacks, including named
plaintiff Herman Ircdge, were elected to Burke County's Board of Commissioners in
November 1982, after the successful outcome in Rogers u. Lodge. See Powers, Burke
Election oJ Blacks Hailed ds Inportant Slep, Augusta Chron., Nov. 4, 1982, at Bl, col.2.
See geaerallg Butler, Constitutional and Statutory Challenges to Election Structures:
Dilution and the Value oJ the Right to Vote, 42 Le. L Rev. 851, 869, B?3 (1982) (citing
studies revealing that, especially in cities with a history of racial prejudice, blacks are
more underrepresented under at-large election structures than under district election
stnrctures, and citing a study indicating a dramatic increase in the number of black
ofEcials elected after a changeover from at-large to ward elections).

re82l 73?



amended section 2 urgs.aro Many theorists of the democratic poriticar
proges: have regarded minority representation as an aim that is ofintrinsic value in, and essentiai to, the proper functioning of a truedemocracy.3ll The resurts test's goal is not absorute p"opo.tiorral rep-resentation,3r2 but simply the cieation of a *o.u t"'i"tf apportionedelectoral structure. The presence of minority represerit"Jir", in thecouncils of government performs the valuabie function of creating asense of shared responsibilities and shared rewards between major-
ity an-a minority and may enhance the stabiiity of thesyrl"*.srs pig-kin describes this aspect of democracy as ..standing for,, or"descriptive represe,tation," and observei that even critics of pro-portional representation generally accept the assumptio' that accu-rate resembrance between the populacsand the representative bodyis a basic element of represenl"llorr.ar+

If the right to vote is to be preservative of other rights, minoritiesmust-exercise political power commensurate with their share of thepopulation- The goal of the fifteenth amendment and of voting rights

legisl:,
right L

have r

acces:
implc
syster
despit
tion.';
is not
of mi;
popui
nesen
the c

frami
310' senator Hatch cited the Attorney General,s objection under g s or ,t 

" a", to
I:y..l :*'.-:.1::,1T.:,1y.:;;*ii;;-;i;'#.ill, i"i,-rir, ":;;,.d i"l.,iulj,.i"n and ao.pnoval of a new plan thai increased tt," 

"r-iiEi. of seats tt 
" 

iri"i.ltv 
";',1ffif,|rr, "Jfielect' as an exairpre 

"t onensi"e "";;-;;;;i;. eforts to i.,c"e"se ih" chance of erec-tion of minoritv rioresentativ"r. rig co;c. iiic. sozzr-? (daily ed. June 14, r9B2); seea&o s. RBp. I'io. tr'. sttpra note 22. 1t ri [ar."yr_ring New-ibri.-rJ&stricting ptany.Eace-conscious remeriies a1e permissible under 5- s. sJL u"it"al"*iJbrgs. v. carey,4s0^ 
-rl.s. _l 

441 I 6168 ( I e?z ), dj;;;;;A;;;;'"iil r ++.311' 'see LetterfromJohn-Adams toTot"ii""" (Januarv r.rT6r,reprinted in 4Tue\tronxs or JonN Aoa,vrs zos tc. ai"t, 
"f^idsii (a reoreseritative boiy .,shorild be anexact portrait, in miniature, of the people 

"thrs;: ;+ il;ril;;"k,ir"ul, 
""asor, 

,.,dsct like them"); I rue pounc, 
".'a"Ii."r"" E;k-n;,-;; ii; iB':';;;;r, trans. 1885)

fi x,'ffi u*;5t1[ii:d;",nii[:l*:Hrr:,."1f ?rlfl$"?J#T"?irr"*most"); T' Hane, Tnn Elnc,,oN 
"id;;;;;;;rrv.s xxix (4th ed. rB?3) (.,[ar per{ectrepresentation is prainly inconsisrent ;th ii; exclusion of minorities.,, because anaccurate corresDondence betwe:n 

""p""t"nt"ti-*s_an_d populace-i"-""quir"ar, J. Mru-RepresentatiueGouentmenr, in Trrnei ciiiri-iiz (19?5) (advocating pioportional rep-rresentation as ..the first principle ot a"-o".L1y.f .312' A true svstem of.proportionrr.uj""t"it"tion structures the electoral svstemao-th-at each poriticai party oi interest s"l"o h;r. Iegislative seats in propcrtron to itsPercentage of population. The Americai turi.. haJnever been one 6iactuat propor-
lf q*l:1!e:if 

_ffi 

,f F":Tilll..i"Jl;'31""13;iru*Xr::y;*ru1:,i"f,qllt
reprinted in S. Rrp. No.4r7,supra ".i;rt. ;i'ii'e n.l16. rn d;";;$N;. 10, hou,ever,Madison expressed a recogrrition 

"iih;;r;;;i;i;;;t""";;-r;i.iio"r, i. acknorvl-edging that citizens wourd-ahvays t'tr"" airli." interesrs and praising the republic forthe "greater securitv afforded bi;s.;;;;;ety ot parties, &;i;;'ith; evenr of anyone partv beins able to outnumber i"a opp.*ri6";;;ili;; f;;;;;i!r No. 10, ar 64(J. Madison) 1J. Cooke ed. 196l). ---- 
vrr'lve !

Cong
have
duci:

: Bol,7,

; ratio:
: consi

315.
Right,.;
exatrl .

mocri.
made.

316.
tiona]
note l
128 C,.
in W-h
149-llc
sltpf('.
Phobi
seat il
Jury.

3l:
Sena'"
dictio
at 56(
court:
id.. at
Kenrl

Set:
tive l'.

P€ITItr
nays.
Sen. .

SPcc:
fuse I

3l ''

Pro\."

198:

313. .See 128 Coxc. Rec. 56?1g (daily ed. June 14, lg82) (remarks of Sen. Moynihan).3l'l' see H' prrxrr. Tyr.e coxcdpr d" R";;;;"*"arrow 60-61, 63-6s (1962). (rritics ofproportional reDresent-ation.concede ttai-lGirui"e representatives'i would emergeg*.{ 3T:-rrstim. of proportional repres"ntitio.,. but argue that the need for efncientS.vernment outweishs the interest iri genuine representatio n. see id. at 65.Pitkin ofiers an eiriphtenirg air",rrr[r,'Ji a"r""iptiu" ,.o.u"".rt"tiiilwhich propor-tionalists see as focu"sing. on"the .up.urunt"tiir'e,s role as channel for constituents,views (the representativE's "tail.i"gri;;;;i;;j. Id. at 63. si,"-".-p*"s descriptiverepresentation unfavorably to .,auth"orizat -' a;;ri""r"t"'Uiritf:fi"|', of represen-tation, which-epphasize_icti;"-ui *i" .#".JrGtiii";i.'Jt"oi,ts, b.oland criticizesproponents of descrintive representation fbr being inadequaterv concerned with whatthe represencative does 
"nabre.iy "o;;;;;i";Bil;;T#i:'p;:'J;;11," is, id. pir-kin characterizes the descriprive ii;;;i;;;;"r"rrt"tro' as ,.a partial rruth.', id. ar 66.that deflnes only a pa:.t of what 

""p;;";;;;;" o. ta at 66, 91.

738

:--*::-:*:*---

[vot- 50:689

--E- -



noeratie political
rn aim that is of
;ioning of a true
'roportional reo-
irly apportionea
entatives in the
on of creating a
between major-
] sfstem.atr Pi1-
mding for,' or
t critics of pro-
ltion that aicu-
rsentative body

hts, minorities
rir share of the
rf voting rights

rgSoftheActto
rbmission and ao-
,community couid
ne cnance of elec-
June 14, lg82): see
rdistrictins pian)-
sh Orgs. viearey,

e7rinted in 4Tttx
,dy "should be an
feel, reason, and

twett trans. lggs)
nd in democracy,
nment to the ut_
l?3) ("lal per{ect
ies," bechirse an
rquired); J. Mru.
proportional rep

elLctoral system
Proportion to its
tf actual DroDor.
on's disaiprival
te 35, at 3J n.l 16.
No. 10, however.
ion in acknowl-
the republc for
he evint of anv
i.Isr No. 10, at 6i

ien. Movnihan).
196?1. iriUcs 6f
would emerpe

eed for efflcieit
at 65.

, which propor-
r constituents'
rcs descriptive
vs of represen-
, and eriticizes
ned with what
rtive is, id. Pit-
uth," id at 66,

[vou 50:689

I

.:

i

I,
t
T

!
,
I

I
a

I
I

Racial Vote Dilution
lHE GEORGE WASHTNGTON IAW REVIEW

legislation has been 
-more than simpry securing for minorities .,the

right to cast meaningless banots."3rs-dhe"" 
"t-ri"s" "r;;iion systems

have been shown to have the resurt of shutting trrE minoiity out from
access to the political process, an appropriail response is to orderimplementation of a more fairly 

"pptttionea "i"gl"-rl*ber districtsystem. This remedy is open to ttre-courts under amended section 2despite the statutory discraimer of a right to proportionai r"pre""nta-tion. The disclaimer's only real eftect is to stress thar the results testis not satisfled by a simplL statistical demonstration thaithe numberof minority representatives is less than the percentage of minoritypopulation. Because the ereation of a true system of proportional rep-resentation by a federar court has never beln a r""iT", -porsibility,s'io
the courts will simpll. be _srlided by basic 

"q;il;Li; litncipres inframing remedies for ilegal-dilution 
-unde1 

sgq[i6n 2.erz^

VI. The Consti.tutionali.ty of Amended, Section 2
congress amended section 2 in order to enable dilution praintiffs tohave state and local electoral structures decrared ile!"iriitrrout pro-ducing the evidence of discriminatory intent 

"""".'rrj'under theBolden plurality's interpretation of thl fourteenth ameridment. Anyrational plaintlff will^henceforth pursue the statutory iather thanconstitutional route;3rs consequently, the plurality,s coristitutional in-

315. Boldea 446 u.s. at 104^(Marshall, J., dissenting). In debate or"" tt" vori.rg
Xg*:,*,,*T::qi.,1t_" :l lsl2, s","i""'wiiJr."" poi,,?6h ;;;;; s;";;; union as anexample,of a system in whic! broad exercis" or tn" franchise did not lea<i to true de-mocraarl be-cause important decisions auout ihe allocation of power had alreadv beenmade. 128 CoNc. RBi. 5-7-116 (daily 

"a.l-rr* iii, rsbrti. 
"."" v' r'vwL^ 'qw

316' see supra note lL2 ""d a"to-p""yinii.*t. tto court has ever ordered propor-tional representation or "quotas" in irac"iat'vote dilution-sui;. -s. i;;. N" . 4r7, supranote 22, dt 3g; 128 conc. Rrt. sotaa'ia"i]y.,e iine ts, 1982) (remarks of Sen. spect-er);128 coxc' Rec. 5698l rd3r.!y-ed.-J-u1g ti, i9B2i-G"martrs or isin. o"co*ini1. The courtin White v. Resester. irz.ri.s. ios,i6s:6b'(d,r3);and whitcomt;.-c;;;,403 U.s. 124,r4s-50 (1971), repudiated any craim or a ;;"i!iit'lt" ;;;;;il;;l ieiiesentati.,n. seesuprd text accompanving noies 22,48. The riEr circriit, i;;;6;;;;ileaction to thephgbia against propo-rtiornr r"p."i""i^tio"]'h;iJ th;;;# il;iffi;'i'a' safe minoritv
;iili"iii35",Ti:','ir'Sfiir11"3r*:ffiii:sritilation' wv"[;; fi;d;;;i*;i$;ii::

i'17' r?oDonents defeated by a vote of 14 veas to gl llyt an amendment offered bySenator eait, tzg coNc. irc.-Sos6b-idriiy 
"d.'.ilne 

rz, 1982), to limit the courrs, juris-diction to order oroo"*igl?.I ."p."."nt"tiln * lrot"r as a remedy for g 2 viorations, id.at 56969, on grorntis that it wis 
"., 

unn""""r"ii,-"ia ,i:ir"tiElirl"ir,rrir.ion into thecourts' traditional eouity powers to ordei 
" ""-Eav ""-.ii-".1-it" *iii,"tt u r.iolation,id' at s696? lremarris ,it's"". rvr"tr,i"rl,'ri.'iilog68 (remarks of senators Dore andKennedy).

senator Herms attemot-ej t_o 1a,te strongly. antiproportionar representation regisla-tive history by proposin! an amendment, to"ri.t ici, h" d""r"".J tl;i;""i;; opponent, topermit the courts to order electorar quota.. rJ-at sosos.li;;;;i;";;; r yea to g4nays' rd. at s6970. on the asserted gr'ou'Jr th"t it *", 
"nn"""r.""v,r:)i 1"e-arks ofSen. Kennedy), and roo sw.eeping.la. 

"itoii6g:r,i if"l"iil;i#i.'#;"). Senatorspecter voted for the amendme"iu""u""u rr" i""""b s"""io" lr"r-r,Ji'esign to con_fus-e- 
-the- 

legislative history . Id. at SOSi6. 
- - --- --

318. Neither Bolden nior Roge.rs suggests that an electoral system that in practiceprovides fair representation to tl:e *i;.lty i. u"r""ili" ffi;i;L?i'"iil?ii'j #;r";
I

l
le82l

739

I
i
I
a

,

!
i

Y

't,(
I



:ision,rsr courts ma,r
rmakers as racists if
;he neutral explana-
rctorate itself, as it
m, the difficulty of

1
a
I,

o, o"o,o, *Il?i"[,-, *,xXl*

All the standard techniques for establishing legislative purpose in
t}te absence of a decisionmaker's admission of raciai motivation are
fraught with inadequacies.r5a A severe practical drawback, which is
particularly acute when the challenged decisit)n was made in the re-
mote past, is the historical nature of the necessary proof. Although
plaintiffs enjoyed a successful outcome on remand in Bolden, rss rhey
achieved this result only after producing voluminous cocumenrarv
evidence, in the form of historical records and newspaper files. and
expert testimony by historians and poiitical scientisrs.156 The inquiry
into purpose required the parties to delve back into the nineteenth
century for the origins of the at-large election system, although the
particular commission form of government being challenged was not
irnposed until 1911.15?

fulti- M-ember L e g i s I ar: t e
a. weaknesses of sineje-
umember sy.,iems hi,..o
lsENrArroN S0+0? fl$t,ggesilng tiat the form"j
political pany). As the
muructpal governmen!.

unicipal elections. ho*.
rdice. In such situations
I9l by the respectaole
tornes commission olan] to keep the so-called
tself_ in participation oi
oN (-iOVERNMEN r lvlcr:-
s was that the at-larr,;
rffice-holding. See U. =ai

rse. The city council of
ls the prospect of !nte_
.ce and saving monev_
acks, the Cor.Lt hela ir
tial for its criticisms of
invalid because it ,^.as
e stated that a lenisla-
the motivations c"i thq
fficulties in identiMnq
d observed the futili:i
notive, when the sami

I into legislative moti-

:ials'motives mav
nation even wheir
)carrse an indil,ic!-
a of motives, and
:ons.:iousness, in
rity for a Eovern-
ially neutral con-
rpect the judge to
goverrrrnental ac-
,cy iolvard gener-

ng before the time of
ns, arEuments that a
:ause it is the tvnicai
at28-29,rcpriniid;n
rte 36 (Feb. 25, l98g)
at28-29,repinted in

rt insulate a decision
392 (f969); Lucas r..
tfth Circuit has hr'ld
testioned as to thel.i
commission svstem
'.2d 659, 662 (5;h Clr.
r prove that the vo!-
ed any inquir-w into
owever the-v sa'r fl1.

Ivou 50:689

a

,,

1e821

E-------

for whatever reasons they-wished." 663 F,2d at 662. In its decision cenying rehearing,
the circuit court acknowledged Zzcas but held that plainti.frs would havi to make the6
case as to voter motivation without direct testimony from voters.6tig !'.2d at 3l&l?.

154 The Senate Subcommittee cited the Kirksey plaintifls'brief for lts elucrdetion
of the techniques of proving intent inferentiaUy. Plaintifis cited evide-nce from the i903
qeriodof widespread fear of the black poLitical threat, one legislator's admission ttrlt
the at-large..system could be used purposefully to exclude blacks, other le.gislato6,
remarks indicating racial purpose, and the inevitable and foreseeable conseq-uence of
biack exclusion. suecorrrMrrree Rsponr l supra note 3s. at 28 n.101, rcprinted rn s. Rep.
N_o._41?, szpra note 22, at 135 n.101. The Subcornrnjttee Repcr: aiC noi itl3rriiofi rhat t.:le
iiirksey plaintiffs failed to convince either ihe t:ial or ippellate co'.:n that this evi-
d-gnce was afequale to establish a discriminatory purpoi6. Kirksetl, 6ti:i F.2d at b6ii
Kirksey v. City of Jackson, 506 F. Supp. 491, 50? 1S.O. Ivliss. t98l).

ltre recent decision invalidating the Arkansas Balanced Treatment ior Creation-Sci-
ence and Evolution-Science Act. Anx. Srat. Arx. $ 8G1663 to -lti?o (Supp. lggl). illus-
trates the troubling nature of motivation analysii in another irnpbrtirit contexr. In
Mclean v. Arkansas Bd. of Educ., 529 F. Supp. D5i (E.D. Ark. l9B2), plaintilis ciaimed
that the statute, which manciated that pubiic schools give balanced treatment to crea-
tion-science and evoiution-science, constituted an estabhshrnent of reUsion in viola-
tion of the flrst amendment. Id. at 1257. The district court, apglyrng the th-ree-pronged
test of Lemon v. Kurtzman. 403 u.s. 602, 612-13 (lg?l), conciucia itr,rt the sratute was
unconstitutional because it was passed for the pu?ose of advancirrg n"tig:on. 5ig tr'.
Supp. 1t tJQa. Thg district court observed that theAci had been wr.ittei by a-religiously
motivated "creation scientist" from South Carolina, id. ar 1261r that lirs cci:resDon-
dence, introduced into evidence, indicated his awareness that "Act 590 is a religious
cntqer: id.;that religious organizations lobbiect ertensir,-eiy for the bii.l,s passag:e, 2,.i.
at 1262'63; and that the primary legislative sponsor admitted bn the stand tliLat he-acied
out of religious convictions, id. at 1263 n.14. Reiiance on this kind of evide.nce is ex-
tremely unsettling, but essentially unavoidable when subjective motivation is the
touchstone of unconstitutionality.

155. See Bolden v. City of Mobile, 542 F. Suop. 1050 (S.D Ala. tgBZ).
. 156. No-t su-rprisingly, plaintiffs' research indjcated that nearly all important deci-

sions-in Mobile throughout rhe 19th and 20th centuries *'ere lreivil5, afiected by the
'everlasting negro question," as it was described in the ]rlobile Regiiter, Jan. 30.-19r)9,
eited in hoposed Findings of Fact anri Conclusions of Lrrv f:r the U:rrite<l States of
America at 50, Bolden v. Crty of }llobile, 5-12 F. Supp. 1050 (S.D. AIa. lg8t).

Ar:nand Derfner testi-ffed before the Senate Subcommitree that the Bolden plain-
tilIs'attorneys estinated that they Ce'v-oted 6C00 hours of lav,yei's' time anci 4100 hours
of exp-ert witnesses' time to the remand. and that the partiei incurred $120,CC0 in out-
of--p-o-cket expenses, not coundng attorneys' fees. senaie Hearings, supra note 36 (Feb.
a 1982) (prepared statement of Armand.Derfner at l0).

l5?. Plaintiffs discovered that Mobile hari used atJarge electicns in 1319. but begaa
to elect ci$r aldermen from wards in 1826. Proposed Finfungs of Fact and conclusi6ns
oi Law for the uruted States of America at 5. During Reconstrucuon, the Republican-

713



*Jlfr=.,

The utility of a standard of proof that requires historical researehof this scope and depthi" 
";J;; iJ ""."r* ,i,t,"ir,"" , iri,o.rry Brouors cu*en'y suffering a lack or poiiticat 

".""".-r"i"i """rg,, to jus-tifv restructuring tnE ereciion r;;;;1s highiv ;rr"ir"""ure. As thecongressional proponents of amended.s""Ti"i i-*gli, the intenttest "asks the wrong question,, about dilution.lssBordea of course, provides d,ution plaintifis with an alternative tothe. historieal route _ proof tfr"tli"'.invi.di;;;;;;;;;..,',8;;;;"ffi ;I"'j:fi 
","*:*?T?,*:,,i,""H";anarysis aSain creates.gra"u aim*iti"s.. the p"*"ri,r"iess ot mixedmotivation and courts' 

"uruct"r,L" i"'Lu"r d"-",.i;;r;;;. 
". racistscause the burden of proof-to U" qriiu i"avy.roo ,1,n-'"1r" *i,f, whichneutral justificatio-s 

-g1, be articuratea ana "";;i iio"tivations dis_guised makes this a difficutt;;; f*;awing reliabre inferences.r'r
,Jli,i.:!o*j.""j:f *_l"_ry"ll"g"",rl"createdseriousprobrems

i

for lower courts attempting- to "onio"iril;:iH.r"#:ff il"ljH:

ffi::$:;l:ffikiftiffini

Becil
lowt',
front
coul'1
the i'
Hele :

estai
Bolii

Be
neve
conc
intet
of tl'r
host,
Zirn,
pose
sis ',,

wi
denc
stric
evid
evii
theo

f

a

0

i
a

.t

the1870u"r"i'"t;[".;1ffi 
rilff ,_"""i1:li!!i;'i:fis".*:t*TiH,,1;":"*,:]*

#h;trilg:ii:ffi $i:dffi i*ii,rHiiffi t",'"ffi [$
lll. {* 446 U.S. at 7+ts n.21.

"it.ii!;J*'","r*r,*:rlrT{raltal;i1i*i,;"-,m,f{:,:H.,}i}#":",*.at.large Boston Schor

[Lfiii:i:$I,f,"?;?i'8, * f;:;:$11t""e",-1' ""iil",, "ir,'"-"r""8_arded ir nes.

if,'.iu$.*'*rii"esio'tirat ii *"" noilJ,iro1l ,,ih,fix:i:f":1,sff;:'"T,1;ffiii{ily
. 16l_ Congress hear
ings that -"'a"*-ar'i.%t"i:i:1"1'.,*Hl"t"ltE.Jl8:,--y-"Jtng Rights Act extension hear-

?iii?;,,'-};u:fl ;:11,,..,*::f 5f#;::f .f ::,iir,:x::W"i;:,:i;,;),7;',;*,

;.11gi,Hi5ortrip3;iiii,i?,ff ,i5lt$1gglt:.'*,l'ffi ffi '
lr;iit"Tr,UHritills';*l;::":r'Tg; jaifr fgi[f ;f-r#ffi
llill*m,l*#,i$-1stf ti'ltl#r,b{*:nui1E35;*ilrr*;

iffi*:t$'flx**,g,x.fr*'Nim*:fru*-.,tffioecrsionmakers'motivationi sto.ura'6" Iir;;;ir"" of.consritutionality, id. at g0.. John Hart Ely has elucidated tf," arin"rjii""."'o"i p.orlng *sole,, or ..ddrninant,, 
motiva-

Hff*H*'r#,,*n*hrfi ffi ffifffiffiffi

coui'
the 1

r6i
l6:
IG

ralir),
or<ier
t}e t:
v. L;

IU:
16{

51U.
afd
NAA

Ai
Zimt
The,
Prooi
trict
rd. ;t

Si:
imPl.
and
disPc
1Ver"

16

28-sir
tam':
Gor::

;j

I

I
I

I

,i

.l

198:

!r.r;-;il!t- -

7t4
[vol50:68g