Legal Research on Joseph L. Rauh Testimony 3

    \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