Legal Research on Joseph L. Rauh Testimony 3
Annotated Secondary Research
February 4, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Legal Research on Joseph L. Rauh Testimony 3, 1982. 362b6356-e192-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/94fe53ff-05ee-4fff-9d2c-663c5163f2cb/legal-research-on-joseph-l-rauh-testimony-3. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
\o1*-r S,fd-*^+ of - )rYt, /'>oJ'^J. ' I S+t e86 llteracy t€8tt r,aa appropriate to enforce the CiviI Har erndrntr 'II2 U-S. at I33. So, too, night Congreas conclude from the record in tirrc hcarings that the difficulty of providing discri-oinatory irtcnt created aubatantial likellhood that lntentional digcrini- nation barrcd by ths Fiftesnth AEndrent uould continue' and the llpact of Paat dlacrininatioo go unreuedj'ed' unlega the 'reaultl te8t' uere adopted ag the statutory legal atandard In Section 2. congrc8a vould notr by euch an arndment' be overturning . th. SuPt@court'a decision ijl Bolden abut uhat the Fifteenth ADandBnt rsgulrea. That araertlon has been repeatedly Dade and It 1. frts€. TIl€ Fiftoenth Anendnent teat in conatitutional lltlgatlon uould reuain a requlremant of intent' at l6ast rhll6 E!lg! renained tt\s controlling precedent' The 'Reaulta TeEt6' Is the Appropriate Standard ThraecondiagueyhichyouandtheAttorneyGeneralhava rairad ia the uiadoa of the 'reaulta teat" You have both claired that b€cauae lt lackg an 'intent' teat the tlatlriaE-xennedy bill sould require guotas and make any failure to have proportional rePreaentation of minoritiea a violation of Scctton 2. You havo alleged that it uould be the death knell for rt-larg. €I6ct1on3' At flr.t, there vaa a 1ot of enphaala on what the legal 3taDdrrd hra been ln Paat challengea to at-large el'ectiona or other election practic€3 on groutlda of racial diecrimination' Io heard the auggestlon that the lau haa alwaye required proof of lltcnt in auch ca8a3' follehrvah.danuDb€rofdaysofhearinga.flit[e.. rtt.r rltnos. uho ar€ GrPerts iI auch litigation hava tertlflcd ulthout contr.dictlon that uT til Bolden no proof of intent uar raqul'red- Tha BousG RePort' ud the aPonaora of the senate blllrbevo radc clear th't th€ legrl' ltandard rrhich S' 1992 vould r{fu lr th. te.t lrld dOrrr in tU() SuPrere Court Cases' Whltconb / t' 98? l% lliui.is .. - --,-i \ -==-----+ ) lJt < i'1, -7 2 ( 2 iJ .tv4t k t'' r2of -'tt";^ t1Z2 ;.5iri; '' I have been around thia twon for a few ye.ira, arrd I [:trre, that. shen a bill codifies a legaL teat from a particular caae or Iine of ca8eE, ygu look at the track record under those deciarons to ae6 what that legal. Btandard uiII mean in practice. You and the Attorney General aay that the atandard wiII Iead to quotaa. Yet each of thoae expert uitneaaea te8tified that for nany yeara under that t{hite v. Reqeste! atandard the courta never required a qud,a or proportional repreeentation. They never found that the abaence of proportional repreaentation sufficed to establish a vioJ,ation, even in the case of at-lalge e.Lectiona. In fact noat of the deciaj.ong, including the tuo Suprene Court ca6ea, expreaaly dieavowed any right to a particular election outcome. In ahort, the record le overwhelming that there le no basia for the acare tactic claima that the lthite v. Reoeater atandard, uhich this bill adopts, would leod to proportional repreaentation. Under white v. Regester the plaintiffa mugt prove additiona factora or circuratancea establiahing that, in the context of the entir€ Iocal political ayEtemlthe challenged practicee deny egual access to participate in the polltical process. That point haa been made repeatedly, ttx. Chairman. I rrouLd Like to deal rrith your reEponse Lo it. you have responded that the plaintiffa could alrraye establieh an additional fact or two which rould guffice to aupport a violation. you atated ttra 'even the disclaimer o.f quotaa in S. 1992 would only require 'an additional gcintilla of evidence,' which pJ.aintiffe could alwaye eupply. If that t,ere true, t{r. Chairman, f night agree with your position. But aa l.lr. Juatice Bolmes observud, a page of hj,story is rorth a volune of logic. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And if it is so clear that plaintiffs challenging at-large eLections couLd aluay6 meet the Whrte v. Regester teat, then I ask you why plaintiffe lost in a substantial