Romer v Evans Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents

    ?""r"*;""t B"f'**W "n

€rcen?ts Ptorn Se*ra*<, Rqo*.

p.ao-zt [P.la91

? 23 (P'zo)

?,27 (9pzol-E

The failure of the ghetto co have legislative *sts -u-t 
plo-

-Ji* t" its populiti;n em€rges morc Is a function of lql38
ilections theri of built'in bies agrinst Poor Negme& 'r-ne

votinq oower of chetto rtsidents moy have been *crncelled

;;;:;;L'th;-DiJrflet court held, but t[i!seems I mene tuP.b$?
\ .it-i".-p.titieol defeet 

^t

thc CoyramJtte e b;liqes t0^L+ *ttq- a.rvre*t^d,met* iS
sound , +t\Ll it is 

^ccessary 
utd, appropn'afe-

{o e)\svve-fi,rtt grotech'o4 g('YL Fovr+eet*ll.4
Fi*tecn+h 4n"* @ n,'3q1,3?d ||1t- t'i-,r'rr'r'\

"oi 7-"&^1 tt^c darye+?"ired .bg fose. tTlto
Ll,r"' 4i*^ 

.,+l 

-- a "r-{ uiiirirA uo F variat gvolas,
ov an'a,U- au* assour]ij* or1 oh ol-lavaL
O)ec{:.on sr/stt6s i^ g eyt*c(. -

The evidenco showed thtt the ghetto arer voted Democrrtic, that the

Rcoublicrns *on fou"'ii ;h; T;; il."tiot,' from 190o to 196E-' and

;i-J;il'fiil{, ;ir;t-;h; Democrats r-on. ghetto-srca senato* "l'i TP:
;;;Aives'rerp elected. Nine blecks hid i

.-+*-:==a*

f a minority-gr,o.up heve no

Oourt and lower

t!i":t"! reoresentation. end the disclaimer in Section 2 eodifies thisT
\iudicial disevowol. (Pa4 E)__ t

p rb Lpp lq3 - t!



%e-*.ona/- ReP ' ^
-TFE-illscloimer is entirelv.consident sith the ltr:" rngliT4,

y,vr IP'Loq s"i,"iilI diit';d "c; ; ;i' .l q n""G p rgredents' w h ich eonts in si

iilI';;i;;i. *g""ai"g the ab'sence'of anv.right to

-nEenfclinn ft nrrl-c tn mst onv c(xloerDli tnBC navi

w."3 Lpp.zto-tD ttre casc never

? Us Ler 2'tb-7)

noc bcen chauencled bv env or tlre t€-cclmonv. Irus relqcuon or
orooortional reoftsentition as the stsndard f6r lesolitv under the
't-",itt" test, is eiolicitlv incoroorrtcd into the staiutc-bv the dia-
claimer, bcsed ori the holding in Wluile. The disclaimei squarely

strres thet the Section crcetrs no right to proportional represe:^tr
+onto4y group.

New Subection tr(E) rlso rcplrces the p-celled .dischirner" tin-
gurge in the House-plssed bill ln order to meke morc cleer thet the
emended mc;tion crtates no right to prpportionel mprcaentrlLion.rr5
Tho Cornmittee lengrnge codifies the-epprodr used'in Whitconb,'White nd subsequeit eiseq rhich is thelihe extent to shich minor-'
ities hrvc been elcted to _offiee is only one ,,eircurnstanee" mong the
'Totelity' to be eonsidercd.zrr

-Ififpresly st*e-ffimFrs of r minoritv crouo do not heve
e right to be eledod in numbers equel co their or6odrtioir in the mou-
lrtion. The dirleimor thug suerint€* t}ar. tLe iuerion of *liether
mingrity crndiddes heve beeln suceessful at ttre pbtts ;in;ot, L ai.-- ptsitivr in dacrmininc rhether r violetiron lns'occurred. If r viora-
tfon is cfiblidred tnditional equitable principles will be applied by
the co,rts in fadrioning relief thit onplltery irmeaies ttre p'r[or dilu--
tion found to-bc-in-:qioiition of this *ciion.

Addi*rbna,t V,'eps o( gevtalov Sfvoyrn Thu vv,.ovd

P.s$ Q.zt,l

equal 6pportunity for minoritY
-hiacte'Jof their- choice."' -



?*?or*'onal BtP 5

*ad,'hbh&( Vr'attr S o( Orrin l]a:+clt

-Th" "compromise, proyisiol Aso

7p 4+-t CgTzw -il p*liuitio" irpon .suQ4ion (a) s,fi"s."i* !" 11l;:ql!-!1,Py]prohibition irpon sub&ction (a) Sr"iog rise to lqy ngh! to,ProPor'
iionrl represeirtation. TE. F not quito the.case.,I}d po'.189_{f-Fl;
i'Jii. tT5iT,i'ffihil t" th+;dfi;o tt J 

"aa""*is 
the idsir6 of

pripbrtional reprcsenition s t twned,y.
'-t'U"* i" fiiit"trrUitt 

"t -.r,y p-p-oneuts of the rwultr tBst, in frcf
.- A;;aiv a.t"t-i""a not tir irreitude thc use of proportionrl reP
;il;il--&; -b""i" i* rttfii*i"g remedies for i'ioletions of
section 2.c-- flo." t-,aementally, however, the purportod "disclaimerD lenguege
in the rmended sectio-n 2 is illuory lor other nels<xrs rs t Pmt'ectlon
ryainst proportionol rrpresenta8ion. It stf,t€E

. . . nothing in this sction edrblishes e lght b 4"." TPq''
bers of e pittected chss elected in numbers equal to t'herr
proportion in thc population.

It is illusory becruse the prrcise "r'8ht" involved in the nev rctim 2

iirri-t" p-ibpo"tional refrteentlrtioit per rc but to politicql Progeg
the,t rro "eouallv open to porticipatioir by members of r chss of cttt-
;.*;-;tdil-ulvi'uue"tiin (a)1" The p-noblem, in short' is thet crtis

richt'is one that-crn be intelliioirtly defined only in terms thrt pqrteke

l*flilffi ]f "ffii j:fh"t'tii*
i" ilr f rf rLpdrti6nat reiresentition phu theeri*ence of what hew
il;;f"r*i t6 as "obiestite factors of discriminction'.' Such-facto-rs
;; d;"ib"d in sr"rti,r detril in the subco'mitcc report,' but t'he

.o*-iis"in""nt of these factors is cletrly thc at-lergc electoral 3ydom.
The at-Jerc6 system is viewed by eome in the civil rights cqmntmrty rs
.Jr[i*t?r" "tt to" of discrifrinrtion' bouse tf,-ey believe thd ic
nnes is a "borrier'to minority electonl participetion"

Under thc rtsults test" the ibsencc of pmportionrl -Iu[T eenttfion
arJlle eristence of oo" i"n.oo "objectivi fritors of disciiminrtion",
!r"tr * an et-large system of governinenl would cofftitutl e section 2

"ioiitlon. 
f" 

" 
dt niot*rrs"it *o,ila na, be the lrck of propo;tionrl

rcom*ntation in and of itself thet would eonsummete thc nolftron
ili ;fi th" lecf oio-potti*"I rcpre*ntrtion in combiner'ion with
tt 

" 
r"-otta objective'*br'rrier" to miirority prrticipation. rc would be

lrrolv imlevant that ttrer: l'ea no dirriminrtor-r motive behind the
rt-irrie syst€m. for eremple, or thrt therc were legitimcte, non-dis-
crimin-atoiv reisons for i-rc isteblishmcnt or mrintenance.-l-ir"" irr* ifsw edditional "obiective frnlors of dimriminaiion"
orZboff"fttttp minejigy participotion would be lrws crncellhS.r€A/s-
,-ti"" for failurs to v'ote, rtsiilency rtquircmentg special bellot re-
ouirements for i.udependeni or thinl-parti candidrteq etaggertd terrns
,if onice. rnti-eful|rle shot voting rcqriimients' cviduce of rzcial bloc
voti-u.a. i Uistoriot Enclish+Alv bcllots, numbered electorol podq

-ri"Fiiv vote nhuiromen]ts. and il forth- Erch of these factor:' whon
th;; 

"xis 
within'e goveranental Eyd€m lacking prcportional repre'

senl.ation mav e[ecdly caplain thi leck of proportional rcprceent'r'
tion In.Ey yicw, tEe.nisul$ tast lctds io:lld[ts_!P_ry_191_tfl:
J*"t*ioi becairse it is the ebaence of propoftionqt represenlatiq.n
th'lt triotruD,hhe ffi of discrininxion in
the 6r#ft-ce- TtceEeory of the rsiults test, agein, is thac such factors
aUeqsdli exolein whv srich en ebenoe of prpportionel representetion
aiist. di"ui tle vi*-nelly udimit€d erre/of nrch "obiective ftctors",
iiis diffcult to imesine eirv communitv (;ith or without proportionel
repreentrcion) thai would.not conlap ed lea* several such. facJgry.i In

"riJi"". t[e nbutts teat. with or without the rcquiremcnt that "objec-
fivc teciors of discriminrtion" be identifid' ii e8eqtivelv indistin-

is not with &n

tst, indeed of env test lor unry3Eitr8
'6discrimiution" other then en int€nc tesL"



&rlyor+ona) ?q

?.1X,n,q Ce'2,+D

pq1 CptO

p.11 ,n.tr (P.

'l'he stte test &s on{
focused upon political processes that are not "equall.v open to parf
tieipation' is tine rhetoric, lrrrt hrs hen identified b.v the $uprenp
Court in Citu of .Vobile for what it is et heart. The Court olxervetl ih

ifffiT,," 
a-sirhilnr descriltion of the rcsults test by Jrrstiee }larshall

The dissenting opinion would <liscard fixed principles [of I
low] in favor-of o judicial inventiveness that rsould go far I
toward meking this Court a "super-legisl&tur€:'.rr I

fn short, the eoneept of o proeess "equally open to participation" I
brings to the fore whet is perhaps the mejor defect of the results test{
To the extent that it leads anyrrhere other than to pure proportionall
rcprcsentation (and I do not believe that it does), the test providesl
aknolutely no intelligible guidance to courts in determining whether'
or not e section 2 violation ha^s been established or to communities
in determining whether or not their electoral stmctures and policies
are in conformity with the lar.

W'het uan "equally open" political process? How ean it be identi-
ffed in terms other than statistical or results-oriented analvsis? Under
whrt circumstanees is an "objective factor of discrimination", such
as an at-large system, o barrier to sueh &n ttopent' process and s-hen
is it not? \.r='ha[ *ouid a totally "open" poliiical firocess look like?
How would a communitv effectivelv ovCrcome evidenee thai their
elected representative bodies lacked' proportionol representation!

In my view, these questions can only be onswered in terms either
of straight proportional representation analysis or in terms thot to-)r stralgn[ propo[lonel represen[etlon anElysrs or ln terllls tlla[ LU

:ellv suEstitute'for the rule'of law rn arbitrarv case-bv-case rule of
rndividull jurtges. As .Iustiee Stevens noted in liis eoncrirring opinion
inCity ol Mobile,

L7d r aaC U.8. rt ?G Tb. CoEDltta" Rcport aqgua tblt thc mEpromlp.leD81[3e ls dilFn?d
to r"lt"ct llta,€ r. Ecoa.tc", {l! U.s. 7553tle73). Thl! li ht8hlv-nrlElt&dlng F.ot !-lgrDly
Uccelri ruch lrotulSr-totlllt r"Dord ltrf,ar" frcm ll!-l,oteot DoorinE!, re ltctldn Yl(r,
6i-tui ruUciramiitce-nport.-Uut 6 h Dot ?v?a l-ftltbfu-l rcfrGcttun ol lhc tull tert Gr'

"ii.ca-in 
flttc. ?lrr'crorar t qulr"n?ai ol vr,llc, lor cremph. thet lh.?e b. :'lE'

ildlour' dhcrlDlDrtloD l! lvotdd llk. rh" phru" ln bolh th" itttutoh- eDd rpo?t lrn'
iiriii ot -diti i"-n-orontm. ar2 U.s. .t ?55, i6a, tBJ. ?Bo, 7c?. fht oolt plae? lD $'lar?
i-t-dic ttc tlro ;'-nruttr" llrunr pmmlncnth- ti ln th" ltrt?n"nt trk.tr from the- los"?
ourt-r oilnloo thrt M?rtcai-AEerletor tn th" d?f.ndent'n)untr hls lorrE "itrfcred fron!.
irrt ionilnua to .ut?? f?om. tb. rtrrrt. rnd etccl. ol lira,rioil dllerlmlnNtlotri enrl -l??Nt-
ocoi-in i[c ictOi of rducat'ton, 

-coptoimiai. trrcnomlcr, h.alth. t,olltle!. ind_ oth.?!."
rrz U.S. aa 768. tt lnttblnS' th? ur. bf ih" raultt oDapt tn thl{ mDl'xt rould !{6 to
cteaif thrt tbc "lnvtdiour'' ?cqulrcE.ot l. lDdl.tlnrulrhtbl. fmnt I rfflulr?Eent oI lp
9Lllr'E

ing da-v of hen



?mgor*^'ona) Rq '5

TheETi'ffiEf'66Pctions to the proposed 
'*tigP 

2 "compromise '
urt -*i """ 

aii.rs*i irioioogi,ty in^thd subcommittee.report I would

note. however. that in one important respect the P-rovslon ls elen mol?

obiectionable than the House provision. It refers expnessly to lne
qi;;qffi".i"i 

""a 
*f*t"a *fni" groups to "elect.repiesentstives of

theTr choice,,. This is little more tltan a euphemrstrc retetuce to ure

ie;; "I ; ;nlirl., rucl, sroups to the establishment of safe and secur."

;;ti.;i;hEii-d ." it,"i !t,q :"n be apgred- o{ f ry- ry=.:::llYffiffi;f;;;"*"r"tit-t"* i" itri"."g"rd,I note the recent ststement of'

6;;;;i;'Si;i;-3;;;;; j"ran Bon? wiih referenco to I rcdistricting
propisal in that S[ote,

I went this cohesive black community tq-!a.ve sn oPpor-

tunitv to elect a candidate of tfuir clwice'-.\\'\ia -peoPle 
see

nothins wrong with har-ing a 95/o white dlstrrct' lt'hy c&IrE

we hafr u 69Vo black district! rs

,t'hat ultimately is nhat this so-called.right to "elect candidates of
ooJi 

"tioi""" 
a;rounts tJ th" right to hai'e establihed raclally lrPP'

g.rro* districts to ensure proportionel repr€sent&ulon through [xe

election of specific numbers of Blact, Hisponic' Indion' Aleutian' rnd

Asian-Americon officehold"d-

Each of us can sp6ak all the platitndes we want about concern for
A"ii 

"i"t 
tr and minoritv riehts', but let us make no mistake ebout it-

U*t tt% Durrx,se and the e"frect of the immediate measure will be to
ini""t- o"l"i ^considerations into incr.easing numbers of electoral and
pdlitical decisions that formerly had nothing to do with race. Incrpas-
i"iiv. i" titf be moving in ttie direction of providing compact end
ho-m-oorcneous nolitieal shltto€s for minorit.ies and coneeding them thelr
;shar;" of olhceholdeft. rather than undertaking the more difrcult
(bu0 ultimatelv more fruitful) task of attempting to integrate them
into th" electoral mainstream in this country by requiring t-hem to
;tace in neeotiation and compromise, and- to-entei into electorsl
*ilit-io,rs, in "order to build their influence. Minority reprewnlation
i"-tn" rn.ir primitive sense m&y be enhanced by the froposed amend'
ments ; minoiitv infuenne will suffer e normouslv.

fP loo -t (pr2+3-'1)

P. )03 Cp t+u)

PPtot-q(Vvzso-D

Rea"* o? )he gubcnvnn^il}e, on,t 1{^! &ns*'to*'u-'n',,

Whrt is beinc proDced in the context of the present Voting Rights
Act debatc is th"at Coigress alter this traditional-*andard for identify'
inc discrimination-ie.rth+llintinttt .+'tn't' ;.r*ultstt standerd- Rather than foeusing upon the Pnocees ot cuscnmr-
o"iion. the new strndard would focus up-on elrctoral results €;6ttb.
;;'h-il;irp*a -r,""dment would iriitiate a landmark tra'sfor'
-ilii. ir t[" fi"i.cipat gools and objctives of the Voting Rights Act.
lil 

"no"ta 
t" *ia""st iroa it the outsetihet proponents of the rtsults test

lerr no loneer telkinc ibout (diecrimination" l they lrs simPly t'-lElng
lrl-:t- "dr-"--oerete lnplctt'Th€* conccDts hwe tittlc to d

ffi fonsing upon thm p,blic rctions S"t.+
*mcted or interferid-with ths access of minorities to the rcgEtrsuon
end votirur Dnooesss. the propced results trst would focus upon
whcher oi riot minorities ieri successful in being elected !o oFge.

Discrimination would be identified on the basis of whether minonttes

;:x,ffi '!?,tgi"r#*:?il1"*'lffi'ffd ii; d;ri.d r"".r" t -r"gisirstion a,na tne ballot because of their
rrce orskitrcolon



p lro Cp zzl

rWieiPs o- x)/;es

%op"h'orul W b

U'kA' )'ectsioras 
'

Depita objections to the deacription of the rsults tcst as one
fcrrsod utrnn proportional- repruen-trtion for minorities, therc is no
otJrer log'rcel meening to-the new. test- Tq spec& of ,.discriminatorT
ruults' is to speak furely and simply of rircial balance and racidl
quotls. Ihe pmmise of the results te*,- is that any disparitv between
minority population and minority reprcsentation evidincei discrimi-
nrtion. As the Supreme Court olxerv:ed in the rccent Cily ol Mobilo
v. Eoldandeisioni

The theory of the diasenting opinion [pmposrng a ..rr8ults,'
tr*J Eppeirs to bo thai evtry political grpup or at leest every
arch group that is in the minoiity bae a-fedelrel constitutionil
right to clect crndidetes in pniportion to its numben . . .
The Equtl Protection Clursc- doee not reouim orooortional
npre*itetion rs an imperrtive of political orginiiation.

Apart from the frct tlrat the rcsults tcst imports inCo the Votinc
Rights Act a theory of discrimination tha,t, ie inconsistpnt with th-e
treditionel understrndinc of discrinination the public oolicv impact
of the new test would beTnr-rreching. Under ttre rwutts'test, FederEl
oouts will toobligEd 1p dig'nsntl6 colntls aystems of Strto ina tocrt
Government that rre not designed to achievebrpportional rcDrcsento-
tion This is procigely whrt ihe pleintifie rttcmited to ruuir in the
lQila-w in4 in hcq werc irccsful in rchieving in rhe lower
Fedenl courta. Despitc th€ frct that therc was no pro6t of discrimi-
ulory purposo in the establishment of the eleetoral (et-larrc) svstem
in Mobile Cnd dcpita the frct that then were clear and legitimit6 non-
discrim,inetory. purpes to such-a systomt, thc lower court in Mobileomcrec r totar Evernlxnent of the cityb municipal cystsm because it
,hrd not_ghigxd pmp6rtionel tpr"s"rit tion

-TffiErffi--e rcsulur tcsc rn section 2 would bc ti piace etJrrgc
sydoms in constitutional ieonudrthroughout tho Nrtion' pr.rticu'
lirlv il iffieitoral w-sreEu contained significant
nudbeniof minorities and hcked proportiouel rsprcsentrtion-on their
clmted rcorwntrtive councils or lecigletures.- IacislBtive bodic
eunerellv 'thr,t lrck€d omoortionel ispnsontrtioi of sicai66nt
frinorit'i &TouDn world bisu6iea to clce icrutinv bv thc Fedcral judi-
cirrv. inter 't.he uopcd hsule tsL To tfe -ertent thrt ble'
toral'rogult"r becomi thl focus of disriminetion rnalysis, end indeed
desne tbs cxidencs or nonsri*euca of disariminstido' it ie diftcult
to conceive how proportional representatioa by race cen avoid being
ccttblished iB th; h; es the Btsirdard for ideritifying discrimination
rnd, equelly importent, rs the standard for esc€rt8infrg the effective-
noq ol iudlcial civil rights mmedies.

Given the lack of proporti6mt'Ep rr*n!fif6n'and the e:rgt-
uco of en! one of a countliss humber of ',,obietive factors of dis-
crimination,' it is diftcult to sec how e prima- facie ca,s (if not an
intbuttable. cese) 9f discrimination would.not bs eEtsblishod.

Ct^ p?.nt-l2q [u taoy 2.104.q The s.ub?.^v'i++co
o{ jucl.,c,at U.kA' o\ectsic
,uA* -6Y:a.rd ttr'Po''*t' our.d'rnovAync^t j6y:aldS rndih3 a- .rno'

fepvzse*fa*r'arn uhA'\ lt.,lobr|.]



Qp.t3b-3s' fzot 
n P

?rr,yon*low'l' PeP +'

The fundamental observation is that the results test hes rbsolutelv
no coherent or understanda,ble meaning beyond the simple notion of
proportionol representotion by mce, h-owei,er vehementiy its propo-
nenLs deny _this. Ultimately, the results test brings to thl law-either
an inflexible standnrd of nroportionrl repmsintrtion or, in the
words of Benjamin llooks of rh; NAACP (ih describing discrimina-
tion under tlre rtsults tcst) :

Like the Supreme Court Justice said about pornogtaphy, (f
may not be able to define it but I know it wheir I *;i;fi ro1'

- In thc finrl anrlwis. that is preeisetv what discriminetion boils
dovn to under the results test because there is no ultimote etanderd
for identifying rliacriminetion, short of pruportional reprcsentetion.

Uirder the intent test, for errmple, iudirs br juries eviluate the to-
trlity ol cireumstsnces on tlre boiiE df rihethei or not such sircum-
Cencas ni* an infereneo oI intant to discriminth. fn other rordq
onco tlrey have ben erposed to the full erray of relevent evidmce rt-
lating to an allegedlv dircriminrtory action,ihe ultimato or thr=shold
qustion is, "Do€s this eyidenco add up to an inferenee of intent to dis-

icriminatei" That is thc stEndard bv ihieh evidence is eveluated in or-J

der to determine rhcther or not such eviderice rises to c level suftcient
to stablish e violation.

Under the rsults teat" howevcr, thcre is no eompanble question.
Oncc the evidence is before the court-vhether it bc the totrlity of the
eirtumetenees or lnv other deffned claas of evidence-thcre is no logi-
cal threshold question bv which thc eourt crn lsess such cvidencc,
short of whethdr or not thore is pruportional rcpre*ntrtion for minor-
itia As Pmfessor Blumstrin obcerwed on this mrttcr:

The thing you must do undcr the intnnt stenderd is to drew
e bottom line . . . Basically, is the rrtionde ultimetely r

Eit-.r. E-rlotr, ,r!r!?t 2i. tenz. ottcrtDr ttrtcilroL o.!. !.r.to? ott|E o. E.IGLI !c!!ta Ecrrlo3:, Jrlutrt Zt. tet2. B.oraDlB I^ Eoot.. &ccltlrr Dlrtcto?, I{lUo!.|
Aroclrtlo! lo? th? Adrrocao.lt of Cololtd PoDt..

lpage lItl
ghrm or a pretert or is it a lccitiEdo neutral ratioudcl Thet
is under the intent standard ond thrt is a fact findinc decision
in the judgc or the jury . . . Under the rcsultE stindard it
eemg to nre tlrtt you do not have to drew the bottom line. You
just have to aggftgato out a series of frctors end the problem
is. once you }ave iccrecstcd out thce frctors: whet do you
hivcl Wher{r ere ydill You know, it is the old thing we d6 in
lew school: you bilance and you 'balenco but ultim"ately hor
do you balaricel lVhsc is the 6re raluel '6

Thene is no "corr value' under the results teat ercapt for the velue
of egual electoral results for defined minority groupg or prcportionel
ropresentStion. TherB is no other ultimate oittrrel*rold criterion by
which a fact-finder cen evelurte the evidence belore iL

W'hile there have been e number of attempts to definc such en ulti-
mate, eveluetive standard, more probinc induiry into the meening of
t hese' standords d urins suticomm i'ttee hdrinis irivariablv deqeneritpd
into either increasincTv erplicit referrnces fo the nume'ricrf end str-
tistical comparisons ihit are the tools of proportional reprcsentotion/
quotr analylis ol else the wholty uninstrirctive statemenls of tlre sort
that ttyou know discriminotion when you see iLtt rc

The implicacions of this arc not merely ecademie. In the ebsence
of sueh stinderds, the results test afrords i'irtually no gridanee what-
soever to eommunities in evaluating the legality and eonstitutionality' of their governmentel rrranqemeri-ts (if t-hev leck proportionel rep-
re*ntatiSn) and it rffords ilo gridarice to courts in teciding suits
(if there is n lack of pmportional representation).!0,

Given thgJrqk of proportional reprtsentaCion, as well as the exid-
enee of o fnsle\ne if the countless"'obiective factors of discrimina-
t!on,'l tor tlreEfiommittee believes not orily that o prime facie ease of
discrimination would be established undei the resritts tBst but that en
irrebuttoble case would be established. What nesrDonse could r com-
munity that is being sued reise to overcome this evidence I Neither the
fact that therp wes an absence of discrimina,torqy DurDGp nor the lrct
thrt t here were legitimate, nondiscriminatory'rtisoirs for pa rticular

E t.a-r!a BcerloSr. Fat"urrt f2. f98q Jr!!6 P. BluDrtrt!. ptoli.r?. VaDdr"bltt U!t-nttltr Schml ol h;.
^ 
E Sc" rupE Dotc t(X. $'ttb Hpcct to tbc gacttoD t -attcta- taat tt?ra tra at tcail r!

obrrctlro qlrodt?d bt rbleh to Judic the IED[ct ot ehrlaa uDoD utoortilcr. L?. tbc .trtE.qoo rDt.. Thur thc ,.?etrotr?EloD" aarDdrnt cstrbltrharl ln ,c;Gr hr! rt t...t aoE? tlcrllDa



m"d solrl! to eblnS?
h Do Do$lbllltY of r
.trndrrd abort ol eol
to rhlcb tb?y rotrld
S.nttc HarlD:!' llrr(

aoycrnmentsl strnctures or institutions, tgy.ld seem to h setisfactory'

These werc certrinty fi";ffiiltfi,d".gi[tJ" plaintiffs or the lorrer

courts ia Lhe MobikJ; ffiffih;i *ia"nt" oi what other reponse

would be appropriete; ;brii tf'" J'iat"o described here? So long

., tu"* i"^ i,o irq,aef iJ"' 
""iJol-lio!- 

""ia*o' rf;Tr,tL};x:Jr"dil to" i"t"oa""ing evidence' The stand

iffJH"fii;G;"ifiui;rii;;;d ;; a crse-bv-cose bosis. By neces-

"i:vtr,"-"=rrur,."r-*o'otf, 
t'oEiilttt"til;+*t*TS5n ;tf m:"#'pi;;iffi relatively certoin *1" of It

\!ent trsL

lpage l38I

?wprv*lb".a! Qea g

turmoil-in a

p. r38 DP sr[

pp. lr-Jo . L)1 [.gPztz' zq Under the curreut language, as construed !y the Supr9n19 Cgu$ !n
lhe Mobile case, I violation of seetion-2 $guires prcot ot dlscnltr^Tr-
t"* oo"ooe" or intent. The House bill changes the-gravamen of che

"i"l--t"b*of of a disparate electoral nesult' This.change rn the verJ

essenoo oi the elaim filld under section 2 necessan-ly eh-anges 9e .P-
-"ai"t options of cour.ts upon proof of e section I noletron. ln uie
;-;;;i;ffi;ii;;.;;;; "in 

-pi""ia. 
en adequ.ate remedv merelv bv

teclarins the purpocefully discriminatory-action vord srnce sh9 es'

;;;';;it;;'tt[r;ir* .1"i. G a right to freedom from-wrong{ullv
motivrted oficial action. Horever. under the proposcd-chlnge P
.*tion 2. the richt established is to e particular result rnd so'-rnevrt'

"bl;. 
;;til';ifr'*iiii" t"quir"a t" providc an adequate remedy' The

;biitilli;a of judges will rcquip use of their equitv power:s to 
fl1u^c-

turrielectoral svstims to provide a rcsult that rrill be responsrve to
the new dshl.rie otherwise, the new right woultl be wlthouc an eI'
f;il remt;, " tt"t" 

of afiairs which-is logicrlly and legally un'
accepta,ble.*fii* 

l;rched in seanch of e r"emedy involving rtsults the srbcom-

mittes believes that courts would have to solve the problem 9f me9s'

urinc that remedY by distributional coneepts-of equrttv-whlch are.ln-
;i;ii;;ilbilil;i th, *.."pt ot propirtionelrtv' 

-The 
numerica'l

312



?yopo-*ional W I

contribution of the group to the age-eligible voter croup will almostc9rtunly drctlto gn entrtlement to office in similar p-roportion.rr, It is
tho oprnron of the subcommittee that if the substantive nature of o sec-

@i-rtr)(2, tDctud6.rlthto th? qrt"rcr, of s?oupt^D?q!?ct!q rad"r tb" vofllB
iif.54.i,ii'"isis.'ii.*:,;',,,ftlrj ^'.,f;1Tf.![,jf;*id*:lT,.r*li:i*.ilj::grctlo! la(c) (2).D8.8" BGp._No. yl-Zi2f .t 20 (tetf ).
-ETtG..la!l!clDe" oa tblt dtttloctidn rr. lotcd bt !tr. Blor rbo rlcccrlbat..tm tt Ho( Itdlrrton, ritt t3. th? provros-rouierF- p.E r;e ii;;'|fi ict-.oJ-ili.; gi'ijii6,i6tortbC" thrt "ooc. tba riaon "oiriniica' r[-]rilii-r'i'a - ir.iic t-irj-ii. -cftiLiifi ;tb.n.tb. coort . do rcqnrre ttret_iou i6-r6-ai-a'ifrcr-fi+-r ,rr,tlicG-uiriilit-iiii-ii.?cEcd, rtrn." toorrc Hartnn, L.r'roirr'{. i 5e fr;i:;ri"'iiil'tcs:i'Di-;&d;, Blrii.tGat Vote! R?dttlattoa Erluntlon phh";: -'

- | For toflbar dtrr..roa of tbl eririecli 9r net.t "?Dtttt.D?atr'.. .a Eonrt? E?rrrDBFGbt!.rr 12, ret2. Jrma srn.ir.t''- rrrorniir]']er'j'c];iir- rdirfiiir-i'iiii,r",ii'iiil.P?oftrlor Bru,.rcro rkilanr thraiha'pio;;rt-iinip-jiilscctriro'2.'riirrmiltl-ririi riico
?! fll l._pl!1-'!r-uogcrrrl.nr'tt;'n-o'i io;i-ri-rdlJr;'i. 'riiiii.f i";iii;;;il:': ti:;l! Bl. lBtrEoDy. D" cbrnct.rltcd tb|t tb6r? t. follorr: "Be:lollf. fi cdi'orrr-tii. nottolofmF ! ?.t? rbii" ro r relr rhrre.-i-piccc-iir ol-iiiiij. uiJed-ri-idd-rlcrrr-laiiiieii,oriii.rld thrt la rbrt I i[d ootcctloorbh.;i

lpage t{tl
tio.n 2 cleim^is changed to proof of a per{,icular electoral rrsrlL the
obllgatron of judges to furnish adequale remedies aecordinc to 6asic
l11flpl"S of equity..will leod to widespreed esta^blishmenT of pro-portlonsl repre*ntetion.

YirturJly the seme conclusion wes drtcd by numerous witnesses who
appeared-beforo the subcommittee. Attornej, General smith told the
suboommitlee:

[Under -Qe new |ost] qy voting taw or proeedurc in the
eountry which producir el6ction risults thit fail t" mi"ro.
the populction's meke-up in e particular communitv would be

Tlryo.bt. to legal challenge-. . . if carried to'its logical
eoncluslon, prcyrcrtional representation or quotas woul-d be
the end rcsullrrr

Assistant Attorney General Reynolds testified :

A ve5y real prospect is that this amendment eould wbll lcad
o3 tq the use of quotes in the electoral process . . . We ere
deeply coneerned that this language will be constmed to re_
jurro governmentel units. to. pr€sent compell ing justifi eation
lor eny voting--system which does not l6ad to'froportional
rcprcsentation.rrt

Professor Horowitz t€stified that under the results test:
Tlhot the courts rrt going to hove to do is to lok at the

p,roportion. of minority vote* in r given locality end look ai
the prcpodion of minority repreenfrtives in a given loealitv.
_lhlt rs wherc they will besin their inouimlttrrt is verv
likely where they iill end tf,eir inquirr.'ani when thev db
that, we will hsve ethnic or racial pro'portionality."t
mfessor Bishop has written the subcommittee:

It seerns to me that the intBnt of Che amendment is to
Fryr" that, blacG o" rn.rnU* of otf,""-*i"o"i;i};d";
ensured prcportional rupreentotioru If. for ereinile. 6la"k"
{* 20 Fr flt o.f the population of a state, fiSpalnics tS
Flr cent,,end Indians 2 irei cent, then at least,'2O ner cent of
lle members of the legislature'must be Utact, f-S-p"" ceni
Ilispanic, and 2 per eeng-1n6i"n r:r

2 U S.Cong.Nff 12 Bd. Vot _A2 3 1 3



Pr-po,.h'at'o! ZcA lo

Profsor Abraham hes stst€d:
Only thos who live in r dr.eam world can fail to perceive {

the beiic purpose and thrust snd inevitable Esult of the new I
*ction Z: It'is to establish o pattern of pmportional rep- I

resentrtion, now based upon raebut who is to say, sirl- |
perheps rt a later momeitt in time upon gender, or'rcligion, t
6" ".tl""rfty, orl*r, "g*'t I

A similer conelusioar-ttret the concept of proportional reprtsentaf
tion of race is the ineviteble rtault of the change in *ction 2-.4
-Frco.a s..rtrat, JrDu.r, z?. 1e82. Attof,!.t o.o.t t ol tDG lrattcd Et.tG. wurrtq

F**1:jiirf*"d5hX,i:i l. t06:!' ar.trtrot atto,.t o"D"r.t ot tbc Enrtcd ltrtJ
E !.ort? Eadlrl. FGbErrt t2. fe&!, Do.rtd Edotltr Mmr. Oufo EalvatfEl

l$gi:!!.ft:;, 
Joroh Bhbon. J?.. P?oL.ro?. r.te tciol ot hr, to lcartor orrrn o.l

Hl-r"#H'*AiH,!i:S:ffi9{f i$#f ;.r'{iffiiiT.;f lf ltii'l

neched by e lergs number of edditional witnesses end o,bserers. (SeoI
Attrchment B.) 

I
Tlu ilhclaimtr ppois;n I

hrooonents ol the Ifouse ehanco in nction 2 have srgucd thet the
rmendment vould not Esult in p-roportional reprcontrtion, ond gen-
errllv nlicd ou the 'discleimert seitencs which was added to soction
2 rs L prrt of the Houce bill.'r Sinc.e thie iB the chief argument con'
tnry ti tlc conclusion of the subcommittee, the likely efrect of this pro-
vision meritr earefirl ettention. A8dn, the enolysis begins with the
lrnguego of the pmvision:

The frct thrt memberr of a minority gmup have not been
elcted in numbers ecuel to the qrortp's prpportion of th:
populrtion ahell not, in and ol iticUr'cllrrstitirte a violatior
orihis *ction. (Emphrsis added.)

Thc llous roport comments on this changc rs follows:
The pmposed amendment does not cneote r right -of pro-

portionil iepresentetion. Thus, the fact that members of
i recial or lingrage minority group hrve not been elected
in numbers eqriil to the groripE proportion of the popula-
tion does notr-in itself constitute a violation of the srtion
dthough srch proof, along with the objective factors, would
be higthly relevanL Neith-er doee it cieote r right to pro-
portiond reprc*ntrtion es a rcmedy.rt

This rcport language is fitquently cited as explaining the protection
efforded by thC disclaimer language of the House smendment.r"
Anelysis oi the Eouse report laiguip shotts that it is e misleading
end i-rrelevant eomment oir the lik-ely"effect of the stotutory referenel
to proportionality. Moreover, the srbcommittae note that courts
,orita loot fir$ 6 the lanFrage of seccion 2 itsolf in resolving eon'
eerns rbout orooortionel re-ore&ntdion and would onlv consult-lesis-
lative history if the statuto'ry lanErrge wers found to'be ambiguius.

314



?voVoraiorwl ?e4' ll

The House fupo"t reference to no ,.richt of proportional reoresen-
tation" is highlv hisleading because, as eiplained ,'bor". the ehince in
section 2 actually erpates a new claim to n6n-disparate election rrEults
smong racial gmups.I'0 The inevitability of prdportional representa-

-:S.qE !tc-Da-t" EcrrtDrr. F.brulrry 25. to32. Artllb.td eor. p?otr.!o!. Itrrvrrd
S-o-lr,T-"]!r .L'. schoor, reprdrCauis_Cd;uoi -Ceiii:-Fi6ir;iiy-i5. iriiil-bi'irri-Iirn-.r,prcrlocDt, ADttteau Bu Arsclatlou; pcbrutrt {. fggA U.S. ttadr?3aatltlr. lrmasiu*u.
Dratna?.

I E.R..Rcp. No. oZ-227 !t go (lg8r).
! !b9- s-r1nrcoe eourt tn rtDrl;;ii'ioormntcd rrth r rrmrrrr dr..ralm"r of lrmrrorttourlrprcaaotruon b! Jutflo ltenhrll lD blr dlrr?Dt. ID r?snoo3e. th. eonrt obrcrvod.

._1P--"_!!!:,.!!tgF ontDton i?ck-r to ot..rrtm trtilieiinttnn 6r rt. tirioii-f riiit. tatlDt tofr"3ilot thtt I cllln ol rot? dllutlon mt}. ?tulrr. to rddluon tb irroof of ite.to?rl det"rL !oh. 
"llicne ot..blr_?ortmt ena rictit;-rectorr tnAtmtiie-tiii th;;;;ipla quatloD rr rltroot Dortrcil iDntra!6.1-. niiii'dr id-ti;'ri,r;'ii;'e?,iiii iii:tiir-*.llulr rmlolortetl clnrld.nrlons taro 96 eorltltutlontl ballr. lt nmrlnr frr (toD

$-filn,J!r! rh.r ronrd. ln ror prlnetpted mii-nli.-iieiiiir-irrl"ctirrii-o?"i'nJti""ilrcpo,fllrert.r"oun tbat 4iDp?n-r to! !hrl?r.? r.trron to .lFt feE"r ol ltr eendlrleti ihio
frr.?LD-nijle__LD_dtcrt"r tt.m_t(ht. Ind.Gd. rb" nu.rtl"" llml?! .r? tronnh 1o-f[!t 1nr1;1lr rnc 

"tnH! tru?hor. ln,om_lns_ th.lr, innllorlon Botrld b.. er tbe dlircrii iriuna. io .
-_rltlisr thp tnmultf,ht. dtrrtbuaton or iiltii;i l;rhi;;., ite Us. ib. ir.ig.'---*"tt Ar Prorolmr Grnq ohaenal :

Th. eonrtltuilon rrcih oati of ltr,ilrtiltreh. Thor iF mrnr rh.orl". of nollil.ali"Drtl.ntrrron htrt mrr ^m ot fl.'a rr rnia,a rn irii coi.itttiiiiii,.'s.iriiJtii'r.
_-lnrr. Jtnnrrr 2r rar!. Berrr Gmir. pmririri.'Crri dirtilio *'r...i'r;;i."-.." ":'
Tt. .onc?Ft nf r ,.dlltrt..t.' voto. r- i..onc.iri-ri.irii-'rainiiiimon! lrromn"nrr of rh. ratrrrrtttt. li o-na- thrl.l! brr n,nln! ontr tn tb" eonteri'ot tntfrxt sroufir. Th. Enul pmtrilonctrrr...Gf th. Fotrrrenrh Am.odmaat ir ritiir-ttri"ritirniu-hnerianoriliri"n'a' t'tiiirprotcctlont erDrllrl, to lBdlrldtrrt.. not to-irorim.-- ""'

[page l{31

g',ifiiq,:rEfiT:"TIIiqi i1-:"tr"i?11'&s',-13'.[iiB'li"'.lii'"lfl;8,:i'.Ti,1i:?i,g:

l'f,lffi .{:J:,tr.,,,'t]:i]ffif 'efi Hi:]i!"Ifi i:t1{}i[diti."$i*{"FJ,#

315



?ropo"*lbna t ?er, lz

6r. 8e S.Ct. nm. a L.H.u M. 
[page tff l

eilJ rcquirements for independent or third-perty condidatns; r& (?)
9!:yo; elections;'!' (8) sibstlrntial ccndidite d.xt requiremintsi"i
(9) steggered terms of officc; "n (10) high economic cdsts associaCed
yt.th _rggistration; t.o (11) disparity in vbter registration by rac€; r{r
(f 2.) history of lack of proporlionai represent"li-on. ro (lB)'dispaiitv
tl_lepcy rattr_by race;r.t (14) evidence of racial bloc votinglt..
{lI) \i"t"ry of Enftlish-only ball6ts; '.' ( 16) history of poll toxd j '."(1?) disparity in distributibn of servicei bf race; i., (t'8) numbeird
electoral postsl t.t (19) prolribitionson single-shot voting; '.'and (20)
malonty vote rcquirctnent&rEo

Such-ttobjeetiv'e factors of discriminationt, Iercelv consist of elec-
toral proedurcs or mechanisms that ourportedlv 6oie barriers to full
perticipation by minorities in the elictoial pno,ris. Given the exist-
enee of one or more of these factors with ihe tack of proportional
rtpreentation, the nerr test in section 2 operetes on the breinise that
the existence of the "otjeetive factor" eiplahu the lacf of propor-
tionol representation. Thirs, in a technical iense, the ctisc.laimei rr6uld

316



?r-,yon+iov,) 8e6> 13

-- 
r,le=..r..-Yoilra Rteht! .{et ot t065. l a(b). {2 t,.s.e. I t073b(b). gc. Sorrl eom.Us r. Katzdbn [, 383 t'.S. 301 (f068).

----t.t &.. c.8.,-Iloni" R.Dort rt 3(L3l: CIrr ol ttoblla r. Botdcr, af6 U.g. 5f (toto):
e,rr o, Rorc r. lrrlterl Sloa?.. 116 l'.S. t36 (rO8O).
_ tl *q...,:.. Yglllt-Rtdlr l-cr-of 1065, t 4(i). a2 u.s.e. I r0?3b(rt i a,,.tos eorrtg f.
Otlt?,l Sauaer.:lgt U.8. 28n {tgGOl.n So.....a.. Boui. R?port !t 3O-3I i el t o, yobila r. Dotld- 11A U.S. IJ ,lg8ol:qlrt-ol Eqte_i. (trrlel sa.tc.. {46 lt.S. 15i ,l0AO). S.nrt. ll.rrlnlr Jrn. 2?. 1982,
B.nJUnln L. Fmi!: Voto? Educrtlon Pror.ct B.lm"t...Bimhrr" rt 5 (lfr;eh. r08lt.rtcc e,9.. Votlns Rlrhir Acr of t06.'i. 12O3. {?I'.S.C. I l9?.1(nr(htrt). Tb. Jortle? D".
natim?Dt htt oblxtal to "f:nElkhanls hitloir" tn Tuhe eolntr al'-26-76r rn, ltonr.Fr
e.^nDtr.6-llfornt! (.3{-77). Sclrt? H..rto!r, Urreh l. 1082. Wtturm Brrdto?d BatE.
oldr (AttrchDert IL2r.r8... c.t, Votln. Rtrht! Aet ol t96t. I 10.42 U.s.C. I t073h.rt 3.?. c.t. COn q1 tro^" v. lrslt..t Stitar. a16 1t.9. r li tl0qol 2 Lotac r. ,rrtor. 690
F.2.1 tStt (5tb elr l9f,l): S"D.h lfarrnrr. J.n. 27. 1e82. B.nhnln Eo6kr.t.L?...r.. Eou.c R?rrort rt 3(Ftt. TIr" Jtrrtl(." D.Dr?tmcDt hrr eonalrtcntlr obt.ctad
to "!umD?Fl .lRtorrl portr" ln S€tloo 5 nrmlann'e lubmlsslonr : c.t. Blrutnlhau,
Alabrmr (7-o-?Il: th. Ftrta. of O.o?.li (7-8-alt. J.ollrlnn. (:l-20-711. ltl$k.lnnl.(Lto-?r). :Voilh Crrolln. (F27-71). Soofh e.mllo. 16-30-721 : lnd T?ttr eltr. Tctrt,t-lF?Glr S.nrt" Barltrtr. Itrrch l. te82. Tlttlrm Brrdtord R?ynold! (AttldhEentr.
I>l .trd I>2) : l.nr?. E?idnnr. Jro. 27. tO82. F"nlrmln Emtr, -

t. ta. 4.a.. Bonp R"nort ,t to-ll. T1" .ltrrtlm D"Di?th.nt bu on rilrlon obl..t.d io
"atttale-thot n?ohlbltlonr- ln S*tlon t Dl.clcrrtnca lohnl.rlonr: c.r..'Felledcm Al.h.lti(7-tl-71): 8ont"r eDti. (Ah.l D.moc?ille EiFtrtlr" Connlttr (t(L2.rL74). .q.nat"
EG.tlnBr. Mrrch t. I na2. Flltlin R?r,rtor{ P.rnoldr. ( Attrchm?ntr JLI I . attr ol Eaaot. fl;tbe Rhrc.. aie U.S. ,56. t3{ n.lo ,rgFnr : I'S. Connlrrlor on etlll Rlshrr. "Trtrr
Yotllr. Rlaltr /tct: T.D I?rrl Aft?r" gg. 2O(,-2Ot 00?5) : S.Drt. Ilartot!. Jrn. 2?, 1082.
B"nl.mlD Emi..D EF. c.t . Itotrr R.fto?t rt ilL.lt. The Jrrtler n nrrtm"nt hrr mutlnrl- 6hlrt.d to
'mrl,odtt tot. mutrcm.ntr" In 8tstlon I Drrlormne rnhmlrrlonr: r.s.. Plt. ('^uFtr.
Al.h.nr (8-12-?al: Ath"nr. Cr. (l(Lll-?nt. ltrnrrtr. Or a3-2-81): Orlmnr Parkh. Lr.(Ltn-?!tl: Etrt. 6f lflql.rlnnl (i-11-7el: alr-nrlllr. N.|t. ,a-?-t{}l: Roct Rltl. S.C.
It2-12-7rl : Dtr|rrr l?X) Indcrpn,l?nt t.ho6l nrt?l.t ,3-t2-?il thnrt. Ir.r'ln< ltrnr.h
!. fe!z. Blltlrn Bnrtfonl R.tooldr (Attrchrn?Dtr. D-t rBd I)-2). Sae SeDrt" E"rrln8r.
Jrn. 27. te82. Brnlemln Bmtr.

lpa8e l{51
be setisfied. It would not be the abeence of proportion&l rcpr€sentr--
tion in-oul ol iraell that worrld constitute tlis diqilsitive elLment of
the violation but retlrer the "objective fector". ThL existence of both
the abeence of pmportional representrtion and any sobjeetive factor"
tould consummate s section 2 violet,ion. Becouse of the limitless num-
ber of "objectire fectors of discfimination," the disclaimer provision
would essentially be nullified. Effectively, any jurisdiction with a
sigrr ifi cant minoiity populrtion thrt tack# pr6pirrtlonet Fepnesents-
ti6n rould nrn afoul'of the rtsults test. Ideniifl'inc a furthdr .,obiw-
tive factor of discriminaiion" would be lari,eli mechanical ind
perfurrctory.

lhe analvsis of the subcommittee of the Iikelv sienifiernce of the
disclaimer intencc, in fact, accords it morc weight tf,an suggest€d by
spverel opponents of the chance.who aopeareil before ttie"subcom-
Bittee" Tf,iir views ane not reiecltld. but dri recocrized as lendins im-
portmt support to the conclusion of the subconhith€"

Assfutsnt Attoraey General Reynolds t€stifid. for erample, that
the disclaimer would only oprate to prevent a viotation of irrcdion 2
whcrp u electoral sys0uir hid, in facl, been tailored to achieve pro-
portiood rcpreeentetion and the inhnded result was not achieved
eolzly fuutsn the right rras not exerrcised as. for example. wherc no
minority candidote *rgi* o6ce.ttt This reasoning led AsiissntAttor-
ney General Remolds to conclude that in most s'ituations a foilure to
achieve proportionel nepre*ntation by itself would be srftcient proof
of a section 2 viola,tion :

fn tJre archettpel erse-wherp minoritv-backed crn-
didd€s uneucessfully seek office under electoril svstems. such
rs at-lrrge systems, ihat heve not been neatly fesignid to
produce proportional nepresentrtion{ispropirtionite elec-

317



Pvopo'*'ru"al kP' 11

torel rcsults would leod Co invalidation of the svstem under
9.ecti9n !, and, in turn, to a Federal court order ristmcturing
the challenged government s]*sgr.r[

Prpfessor Youngpr t€stifi€d thot the discleimer is tikelv to be whol-
ly ineffective beco[se it is ..simply incoherent., a He *eerved:

If Che draftsnen of propced section 2 wiehed to s to it
that the mciol makeup bf in elected bodv would not be trken
as evidence of o violaiion. thev hcve faiied to sev go in their
moving *ntonce. If enacted. dhat seving sentenei will either
be rewritten by the courts or icnored. in Jitherevent dishonor-
ing Congress''rreponsibility ib write the Nation,s lrl&r..

Prpfesmr Berns t€stified thet the disclaimer might simply be ignored
rnd Cated:

.. T[hetever Cp-Ur"o' intention ia mrking this disclaimer,
the courts cre likiiy to trcst it the rey they-treated e similar
dilqleimer in the Civil !,ights Act oi fS04. Th€re Congress
esid sp€cificalty that nothiig in Title YII of that Act stbun

tlEr#:,s5?IrlTi#rri r. ti!2. ard.t !t lttotlcr oGs.rrl of tl? udt.d 8trt6 lnt.

,r'r$i,tiJtS5ltgi,Hp'flo3i l??1,,1" touotcr. Fmr'r .!d co!!.ur. trorDc?
r I.!.

[page l,t6]
be interprcted to rrquire employcrs to grant prrfencntial
trertment" to sny penDn or group beceuse of rece, eolor, sex,
or netional origrn, not even to cormct ttrn imbolance whioh
mey erist with rtspect Co the total number of perrcentage of
percons of any ncc etc. employed by any employer. Clear
enoush. one would think. but the Srrnreme Court paid it no
heed.-To reod this ns written. said Justice Brennin in the
Wcbq case, would bring e,bout'an end eompletely at variance
with the statute. bv whiih he meont the ouioose 6f the Court"
Congress'discliinier shoulcl be trken toit.t i gnin of solt.t6!

whatever theory one prrfens, the discloimer is little morc than
orical smokescr6en thit ooses utterlv no brrrier to the develon-oncol smokescreen that Do6es utterlt'no bertier to the develoo-
of p-roportionrl- representation rnaniated by the preceding lair-
tn tho now results test.

o srmmarize onog more. the disclaimer provision is meanincless as
rrrier to,proportional representation b&ause: (a) .it is abSlu.teJy

the qqmidies, as opposed to the subctantive violi-
.r€quiryd -bt-T_ (b) even with recpect to the sub-
ive violation, the language tnken et its face velue-simplv reouircs
lentification of an additidnal "objeetire factor of disciiriinoiion."

or moFe of which sill exist in m-oet iuridictions thmuchout the
!try.;-(c) the provision ean equally hi interpreted to plale an eb-
te obligrtion i!T, " 

jurisdietion t-o establish gqlgmn}lgCl_st4tg-

318



Propo"t bnal Ptsg ' 15

or procedrrre-s" eRn be violations not, by.definition. the raciol m,a.ke-up
of on electcd bod.r'; and (e) the provision. even if it meant what its
proponents argrre it means. is uneomfortablv elose in lanetree to dis-
elaimers in earlier Iegislation that has been'effectivcry igiorfu br. itr"
eourts.

Prcportiottal reprercntation at public poti.q
The eonelusion of the subeommittee that proportional reprcspnta-

tion is the inevitable resrrlt of the proposea 'chairse in section g. n;t-
withstonding the disclaimer. leads'the inquin tjwhether the;do;-
tion of such o svstem-sould be odvisoble'policv. On this point, tlie
testimony was virtuolly unanimorrs in coneiusion : pronortionri'r"r-
r.esentation is contrnn' to o1r political tradition and oright nJ to L
accepted as a general part of our svstem of qovenrment oE anv level.r3.
Professor Berns. for example, indicated thit the Framer-s c6nsidered
- 

$ii--"voilDr. Btrht-! .!d wroD8r.,. -coEn.ntrF. M.rch ,oF2 ,t 3s. ..F.rr?r., r"r.Elo ott,.a.t gtccrrotacr. or aa.da.a:webr. tti 0.s. ib:j-it6iei.ttiititiiil*'ijii.lDmrt lD J.t.rDothcr r?nr. h rhtt_tt-der aothlgt Doii iiin rrrtrte rnrt-tJil-riilr -rini.
!!q t.!.-FrireiD r. ciarlr. {pi_g s. rzr-yeroirCiii :'Firi}-ii'ieoiiir'rliiz ili 'iiiir
M_(rp.1ll i _ct..y-ot yotttcv..Doucr rtc u-n. s:r.-cr-rrbaoi:-ioiii-il iigl.iil;s,i'F.'?o
!glt& 1382 (otb et?. le8t)..trr rrrot.d ruh ooa tooajil f,oJoi.-t:*l-usi.-iiii-ii6zr'irD thrt.r"nc. rt doa not edd'rdr et err tbJlnprci rird rrfrieitioi"-di t[i[ iiiitiS.ectlon-2.tDrt ir b"ln! ehrn.G{-th".?"iutti 6.t. -tt-i r-in trit tfrit eonir.* }iii'firicctrnrld th..tindrrd of s.crlo! 2 ertdrnca r;;tri;ur tiicnt o-o irrcpa-ri-6r eonirde-ioehrno eurrmt lrr.
_ lg.C ?.t.. S.nrt" lfatrlDrr. trehmrry-a. 1982. Ivomrtr Doncn. pmferm?. N"r .t'ori
uolr"nltr gchoot o! rrr. ?Gor.i.nttni iti'encaern'airii u-#?irh-iiirroti'i'r,l iiiurli'i,.IEI!!! qlor,-qlrtonrl Fnmr-trtron. I'rhtnr ttet limnt. rmii?lti-d'rir'i,ii. r,ia]r"-n"'rii.r[o onrutuuonlt rrlt?n t!d^th_rt Drom_"ttonrl r?ttmlantrlloD his not h,n 6n7 rr..tim.,;:
*""i:.r**nor. Februlr rz. reaz jorroi Ciio'ui'n.-iiirracot. iieep-r:iri 'o.ri'nc

70.' 9l s.ct. t858, 29 L.Ed.zd 363.7r. 93 S.Ct. NZ n L.Ed.u 3r4.

[page l{7]

1!11V,gu..tion th.e subcommitt€e has addressed and rejected any
syst€m of representaiion based on intertst groups. He tpstided:

their best to minimize theii
\'lrh-ercas the Anti-Federalists cslled for sm.all districts and.

\

thercfore, mary represeltstives, the Framers *fA t 
" lrrigot ) Iarger districts and fewer re.prcsentatives. Thev did ;;a meons ^of eneompassing within each district ,ia creotpr

vanety of parties and intereste," thus frceins the electEd ren_
rosentatives from an excessive dependence "on the unrefinid
and norrow views tha.t are likely to be erpressea Uy particuia.
gmups of their constituent&u? 

-

The tBstimony of Professor Drler sounded the srme theme:
N-othing could be more alien to the Americon political

tradition thcn the idea of proportional representati6n. pro-
portional repreencerion mitrri it impossible f;-ah; *;;-
pntaCive.process to find a eommon ground that trrnscehds
tactlonalrzed rnterests. Every modern government based on
thc proportio-nal systern is highly fragftented 

"na 
,*t"Uie.

rhe genrus.of the Arnericqn sys-tery is that it rrquires factions
ancl lnter€sts to take an enlarged view of their oir.n welfere, to

319



?npo*+-r'ona) ?e4' 16

seg 0s it were, their own interests throrrch the filter of the
Tmlnon good. In the American system. &csuse of ifg fluid
oreetoral alrgnments, a representative rnust rcpr€sent not onlv
rntercsts thgt elect him, but those who votc agrinst him as well.
That is b oy., he musi represent tt* ...?n int""".t 

""it-",E-lBn 8ny pertrcular or narnow interest. This is the senius of e
$lryrsg countrT whce very electoral institution;prrtieu-
le-rly the political party stnrctuemilitate acoinst lhe ide.a
ot. proportional representation. Proportionel -rneoresentation
bTogr nErrow, particularized interests to the for6 and under-
mrnes the necessity of eompmmise in the intercst of the com-
mon good.rB

. The subcommittee adopLs these views and believes that prooor-
tionel nepresenta[ion oug]it to be rejectc! as ,"a,iiilT. iri,li5iiliiiytoqtly apart from the dnstituriondt aimculrG r6tit r;i;;;,iJ di"
racial conscibusness that it fosters. Since it t rs ,on.fua"a iil A;propoed chenge in section 2 will inevitablv leed t *," p""""iti."it
reprcsentation- end thet the disclaimer langrage will not'prci.ent this
I$ult, the subcornmittee necessarily and-firrilv concir&-tt J 

-tii"
House emendment to *crion 2 shouid be rejected bt thi; bod;:--- 

-.-

ff,ao-il ( ? 31.3J

!r ontv insofar ee regidentie,'[ii#lla" were mrinrained for sueh8"ouP&



?wyo*brral k'P' lA

(p'\st - 52 Cv szt)

g.l5z CP .3zs)

Fp 
. r5l '58 qlzsoatl

[page l52J

minority populetion end whieh hes not aehieved proportional rtpne-
eentation by raee or language group would be in jeopardy of a sec-
tion 2 violation under the proposed results test. If any one or more
of a number of additional "otjeitive factors of discriminition" r" rrere
present,- e violation is likely and court-ordered restrueturing of the

tectoral system almost eerti!4 to follow.

$##H'f ff :,rsrfT"*--%S,:rilxff;l..J:.tr,,"".J*fr ii,#:
]imJ:,,-1,r,::;'$iriJi*t"tii[ry1.,:r*1_Tii1T;?tte,f'irxsthe.rcsults est. Federar fi;i-;"d.;d';;il.ir"ng of those ereetorar@glerethe eritical eombinaii"n il;;:'

^the subcommittce fnG;Ii eonffiiled os to what^kind of
.ridenJ{frr r[- 6iii'6'i,-it-tia t" i 

"6i "t 
Ui a def end a n t- i u ri sd i ctiggr. i n

;f;;'i; -"""te"","-tt" 
lack of proportional represeritation' 

'whst

evidenee would rcbut evidence of leck of pnoportionsl rtPresentsllon
(and the cxistence sf an odditionrl "o,bjectivet'factor of drscnmlne'

tio4)_r r-tc mucoqprg H,# nhq-q,;i:H;'!ffiH;*:
il{jq {isTiH}'ffi "q*Efi tr THx t*ii, * t r:i ""s"ffiI;ffi' ;;iil;*e-d*6.6i-to or-ercome the leck-of ProPor-

ffiImffixmt*r*'il,trtffi"}THs;rS
liol'a"ffi" %t"ltty ;f &;&@.". As not€d in section.Yr(e)'

ffitlffi;1'fl 'ffi ffi :*[F#H j;t"fl'#{i$
:ffr' "iffi ; H"#i;HTn "I;;; H.,' t["-'ti'a""a of proportional

;;ilJiffiil"i,utfitilfilrt"" *lg *d s'"d""d'



fhporh'o'rlaL f+ , I

fF lxo'sxLggts)-se]

&+tarl*e,vt* A "

&uav,ffi,lnk* ''fl';uv
h S,,rbamn**tee PeVo"l

M prc po rt ional re p reeenl at ion by race" ?

The sotuoortional representation bv mce't *andard is one that
cvaluatci el&toral actiois on the bosii of whether or not they con'
tribute to ropresentstion in a State legislature or a City Council or a
Countv Conimission or a School Boer:d for racial and ethnic grottps
in proirc*ion to their numbers in the population.

Wlwl it urong with"proportinnol repreaenlationby race" I

Thc intcnt test allows courts to consider the totrlity of evidence
mrrounding en elleged discriminatory action and then requirts such

evidenoe to be evduatod on the basis of whether or not it raise an

iri"-*ir* ,trrrp.." or motivation to discriminate. The results test'
hr;;;;; *otild i*ut analysis upon whether or not minoritv gmuf
wene reDresented propotionately or whether or not some eha'nge ln
i:;;i-ffi-;; p;&di* would iontribute toward that nsult'

'lfllml doce thc tcrm'td.itriminatory rceultt" mPan?

It meons nothinc more than is me+nt bv the eo-neept of raeisl
b"i;r;;;-;ili'ii"ti;, una"" tt " 

results 
'standard, actions-wo-uld

tl'-iira-*i.'"ir*- l"aii.pt.. on color-conscious grounds' This is
iiriil.it ddc with avervthinq that the C,ond.ituCion has been directedtotsllv;t odis with everything that the C,ondituCion has been dlrccted
;;;;;1;;i"; tl. n-"stnreiion Amendments. Brovrt v. Board of

Im't tlu uproVortional rupvemtatior by ruccn dcecription an Qo'

tnne dteeiptiotl
Yc. but the results test is an ertrome t€st. It is b!+d upon Justiee

Th-;ild-MJJir, ai.*nr in the lttobite case which wa.s deecribed

by the Court as follows: "The theory of tlis dissenting opinion . . .
sppesrs to be that every 'political gmup'or ct least every wch gloup
thot is in the minority has e federal constitutional righCto eleci can-
didstcs in proportion io its numbers." The Hou* R.po""t, in discussing
tl" pr"Sa i 

"r-'lro,rlt"';te$, 
admGtil pili"f diie"b.ril;?

pnopottionol reprtsentation "would be highly rslevlnt".
But doetn't the prapoced tuw sectioa9lnngvo4c aVraely ctale tlnt

proportiorul rcpreuntation it rct ite ob jecniue ?
Therc is, in fact, a disclaimer provision of sorts. ft is clever, but it

is a smokescreen. It states, "The fact that memben of a minority group
have not been elected in numbers equal to the group's proportion of
the population shall not, in and of itself, coustitute a violation of this
stion.'

Americon

in the elec'toral

towerds sinee the Roconstntction

n

iffibite,the Constitution "dcs not te'
ouire b.ooortional reprcsentation es an imperative of political og-a-
riizatidn."'As Madisori observed in the Federalist No. 10, a meior ob'

"" 
dt tt 

" 
drrfter" of the Constitution ras to limit the influence of



Propo"l,'ona\ eaP, 11

W h,y it thit longuage o " tmokettrwn" ?

The kev. of cource. is the sin rnd of itself'language. lt Mobile,lus'
ticc Mari6all soughi to deflecc the "proportional -rtPrcee3.t"9o." uy

ra"et aescription"of his results theor.v with o similar disclaimen
il*ia"" i[d-t"tpo"* of the Court, "The dissenting opinion :qk" t9
dilT;il trrir a.itiption or its the6ry by zuggestin? thgt e- claim of
voto dilution may reluire, in addition to pPq{ of electoral defeat' some

e"ide,nce of 'tristiricdt and social factorsi indicating thot the grorrp in
quostion is without political influence Putting to the side the evident
iacrthrt theso cuszv sociologicsl consideralion--s have no constitutionrl
Ursis. it remoifrs fei from drtain that they could, in any principled
manner, erclude t}e claims of any discrete group that hqppeng {or
whatever Fsrson, to elect fewer of its cc^ndidates thon erithmetie in'
dicatcs thot it migltt. Indeed. the putotive limits rre bound to prove
illusor:v if the exf'ress Purpose inf6rming their rpplication would be.

as the dissent- essumes, to rcdress the 'inequitrble distribution of polit-
ical influence'.tt

Eoplnin fwtlwr?
In rhort. the point is that thers will alwevs be en edditional ecin-

tilla of evidencc to aetisfy the sin end of itslf' language. Thie iE
perticularty tme sincs th6rs ig no standard Uy wbich-to-judgs any
ividence except for the rcsults Etrndsrd.

'Vld adn&imal eddeace. alono oith ettidetue of the lack ol mo-
port-iotul rcVtuauario4 woutd, i1fue to coatplcte a'ecctioaC AiUitAo"
wdtr tlu rcailte tatl

Among the edditional bits of "objeetive' evidence to which the
Ifouse Report, refers arc a (histola of discrimination",'hecially polar-
ity voting" (sic), at-lcrge electiohs, majority vote rcquiremerits', p*o-
hibitions on single-shot voting. and numbered poets. Amons other
frctors that hav6 been corrside--rrd relevant in thi past in evafuating
sutmissions by -"covercd" 

juridictions under section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act a,re disparatB recial registration figurcq history of Engligh-
only bellots, maldistribution of prvices in rrciollv defineble neishbor-
hoods, staggsred electoral term& some history oi disriminatidh. the
cri*anoe 6f durl school systems in the pesf, impeaimmts to third
pnrty voting, lcrdency reiuirements, redistricting ptans which fail

lpage l82I

to (mrrimize" minority influmce, numbens vf minority registration
o6cia.lq re-regis.tr*r_on. gr rogstialion purging rrquiiemEnrc, eco-
nomrccoetE assocreted wlth rc$strf,tlon, etc., etc.

T lue c I ut otz hans e b een ut ed, b c I orc ?
Ye* fn virtually every case, they have been used by the Justice De-

paftmer* (orbythe courts) to ascertain the eristence of discriminotion
in "coverpd" jurisdictions. Ic is a mttter of one'g imegination to come
up rith additionsl factors that could be used by errotive or innovative
coults or bureaucrots to satisfy the "objectivet' factor requircment ot
the "results'tBst (in addition to the absenee of prooortional rcpre-
sentetion). Bear in mind egain thrt the purpoee oi m6tivation belirnd
such voting devices or arraigements would li irrelevant

Bummarbe ogain tlw eignif,cance of tlwde..objectioe,' ladore ?

. The significance is simpl+where there is a Stete legislature or e
city co-uncil or a county eommission or a school bqnil which does
not rcflect racial proportions within the relevent pooulation. that
jurisdiction will bo-vufneroble to prooeeution under *tion 2. It is vir-
tuallv inconeeivable that the "in-end of itself" Ianguege will not be
sotisqed by one or more "objective" frctors existiig i-n nearly any
iyrisdtp{rog in -the country. TIie eristence of these fao[ors. in corijunc--
Lion with the absence of froportionol representation, would reprisenttion with the absence of proportionol representation, would represent
an eutomrtic trigger in eridencing a section 2 violotion. As Lhe-Mobile
eourt obeerverl. the d isclaime r is,,Il I usor;rr,t.

Bd @ouldn't youlaok to tlu
Even if you did, there rrould,bs no iudicial strnderd for evclualion

other than proportional reprcsentatioh. The notion of looking to the
totality of circumg,onces ii meaningful only in the context 5f some

353



f l8 qfg355l

li#'i"ffi Tl#il*,H*s:ii:1fi 
..im!.tift #H,}[3'T?E

;#ffi r##$.ffi?**Ul*$;f:"r'*l#*1r#I";
;;d=;t'd. ;"en the sbsonco- oJ proporttonal,
existsncs of some "otlJi'J" i*dtot, 

" 
primr feeie (if not sn irtebut-

teble) case has been *ttiitr'"a" ii"Jr[ is 1o.1t"d foi further inquiries

;T[i"ffi;..nil"; E;;;fi;"i;, tt'"ot'ota question for the courts'

Pon reditticting ard
rup,port'otnrtcnll

n"ai"t"i.ti"g eud recpportionment actions.also w{l be-j.g{ed on the
brsis of propo-rtional rcprcsentstion snoly$s. As IJr. lV. .t'. (ilDson!

tf" pr-ii"oi of tt c Sou[t Carolina NAACP, recen_tly observed obout
propca legialetivc redistricting.il th* Ftde. "UnleT *e sie,q,f-

?ropor|'o^.l q'Zo

of blacks havinc the

'VLol it sooh diTutiot"?
Thc conceot of svote dilution" is one thrt hes been responsible for

tnnsfomtini other pronisions of the Voting Rights Apt (pp' ?ct!-on
5) from thds desidned to ensure equal access by mrnontre to th€
;"*;#;d;-;ffi;D*";;ln-ti thoae desrgned to ensure equal

;iffil;'0";. iti"-ti'c'i,i-t"-*Ei.t t end voto frs beenggrlificrntly
i" ?o.ora in reccnt, v&o intoit e right to cest ln "effective'' vote

end the rigt* of rrcid or ethnic gmupa not to have 0herr colleetlve

"ota "aitr[a'. S€e. -:rl-tt"il.t?rr,'ntt" odd Evolution of.the
Votinq Riqhts Ld",\iTlw Publie lntercil {9. Detsrmtnrng wh€tner

orli".'to?";q?&-ilf i"iaijuia';isgenerallydeterminasimplv
by proportiond represcnbtion enelysis.

( rts fP 3tq nwawiu tlu occtioa2 beul
Thc dcbcta otrr rhether or not to ovcrturn ttrc Suprcmc Courtb

drigion in tobile v. Boldeq rnd oaeblish e rsults ta* for.idcn-

[page t85]

tifying voting discrimination in placs of ttrc presGnt intent tost, is
prirbe5ly theiingle moet importrirt constitutioiral isre thlt vill'bo
considered by the 07th Congrs. fnvolved h this ontroveny rrt
fundsmenccl-issuos involvinf tlte nature of Ameriern repreecn[ative
demcr.rcy, federalism, the aivisioo of powers, and civif rights. By
rodefining the notion of "civil rights" Lnd "discriminationr' in thi
contert of voting rights, the propoeed tr?sultstt ornendment would
tlensform the objctive of the Act from equal accesg to the ballot$ox
into equal rcsults in the electorel'process. A results test for discrim-
inetion can lead nowhere but to r stsnderd of proportiongl representa-
tion by rre.



?*po,.+lr-t ?l+' zl

( lq s(9 3w 4't)

g l1{

AIDRII'8INO TED PROFONf,TONAL NTPRISA! TAf,ON IIAIIA

While convinced of the inepproprietens of thc sintani stsndud',
horevcr, I was also convinceil ttiet in onder for this legislation to
gerncithe broed bipartisan zupport which it descr.red, the codificetion

of thc "mults'trcil, hd to be accompenied by Iangrrrgc which ellevi'
etad feers thrt the stf,ndlrd could bc intarpretod es gnnting a right
of pnoportionrl roprteental,ion. During the harings, this wrs r con'
crri ciprsd byinany urd oppeiffi
orimerilv on this fes--Yat ftffinc the hesrirus r unuriruxrs oon-jrffidt Urnlm opponenia rnd proponeats of
tbe ruults tad,, thet ttre td for Setion 2 cleims should not bc wheahcr
mcobers of r protocted closa h^eve echieved pronortioorl Npruntr-
tio- It wrs gelnenlly rgred thrt tle concsit df ccrtria idintifirblc
groqpE hrving s right to bc elctad in propo-rtion to thGir votiry po-groups hrvins s riS'ht to bc elctad in propo-rtion to thGir votiry po-
t""!i.l rrs rcpugn:Tt to th: democntic principlga. u4on rhich our
ocioty is b.sd.

thG domocn ,rc DnnqDIGt u
of dl ncc ue'otitfd to

tp atvl

-a,rs, 
oy reryffi e su-Eiiiilllrnttiltlmenr.

rs 19ll-p the prccedcnt which the amendment is designed to make
rppliceblo f am confident thet the ..ruults" test rill nof,be con*nred
to reqqiry proportional rtprtsentrtion. Sueh r onstmction sould be
patcntly inconsi*ent with thc expnes prorisions of subaection (b).
Further. the trrck record of ceses-decidil under the 'White *rndird
irrcfltebly -dernonstr*e that r right to pmportional rtprc*ntetiontla neecr damed to exi* under the standard, and, in fact. was con;.-
sirtently disvored by the eourts 

-----/

P rq + Q-s*'68J
so4.:

As it becesre evident thet there ras to be e change in Section 2 mrny
of us focused our rttention on the pmblem of distingrrishing between
e ttdisprcportionate" result end r (discriminatoryD result. I for one
wos rrncomfortrble with the lensuase in the House-ptss€d bill. I was
sympethetic to the desires of our"coll-eagues in the House to ensure thot
the irrohibitions of Section 2 were enfdrcable. I did not feel however,
thaf the proposal which the House approved sas an aduluate guaran'
tee againit a-n ultimatp mandate of proportional reprtsentation-. Therc'
forr.-I erpreseed my re*nretions with that propcal ot the Subeom-
mittee ma^rk-uo. I ilo indie.eted thot I wG not satislied with the
pragmatic implicetions of the "intent" te,$ and declared my intentions
of seekinc some form of comprvnrise.

-In woiLing on this propcict.-I acted on. the basic assumption that
selected mindritv nroubs ihould not be subieeted to invidious exclu-
sloS lrom effective"poliiical porticipetion; neither should thev be en-

E. hss

ston from efiective poltttcal p&rtrcrpstlon; netther shoulcl they D€ en-
titled to eonstitutibnel proiection from'defeat at the polls. This
premise is -simply. a

Ot,r t't"e VOh

was conhdent that some mecnanlsm cou

of the difrerentiation



?royoA'"ow) QeP ' zL

distinction could ,be mode in an equita,ble rnd certain mr'nner'
1i""" ttiitlfie eompmmise proposal which I eo'sponsored and
hss b€€n roprored bv the Corimittee achieves this gool'

ffioNALntPRrSE!flfATIor =----
{qally,.the amendment-rceds trothing in this section estebrishes

: rlgnl ro nrve members of a protocted class elected in numbers eoualro rnerr pnoportton ln _the populetion." At *versl instences the Cim-
.rnlrrec fieport states "thet the section crcates no right co prooor-''uonat.representrtion 

for_ rny gmup,'. The Committ& R.DdJ;Im
lrr,aEes rnat inv eoneerns that have been voiced about rrcial qirotB ere

*#"fr'tP',ili'trr,Y;ffi ",.Bllil#Higliffi H#tr'#port Seetion YI pc.9.
Thercforc, p.iI"ry is no.right.to pmportionrl rtpresentetion. thecourta &rc pr-oh i bi tcd f rrm im[osing'pr.^p"rtfi ;i ;t ;;;ilffi ';;

lp1Sy. fn fact, the Su-bcomriritt* ,irin6.itv .r.f,.ia tf," *riil'#"_crusron I ..the mi,nority joins the majority iir ,*i""ti"r-i--ojiii"iif
rep rcsen tr t ion rs e i rhir rn 

. " 
pp -p "iit" ;- A 

; i"hi"tt g,,f,fl HIS"ffi m.h:[ffi "'1':dr"i';;;tyi";

Ibe-/
whichf

p lq qCP'3bq

'o.ts5 o{ Se,nalov DeCanc)'ur a^d SenaJov

V+^^ grtb cnvnrilt1rzr- QePo*

(oqac*s YII'QY lo
iL;*** ;lte' Qrpd ) .. .,r*ouu=o, rnaon *rM *r,=r r, ,,,, ,r*ro, ol.r,cAr.}:LE CTI O.\- s oR R DQ UIR}: Pfi oIORTI o\.\, o"n,d"n-.,,, o *p $? 

#ffiil{if$i',1';:'mt',j}].!t::::,,;:i';li#;:,.i,T}il".;,,!?i
cou I <t ur i,r r,.: iii"h'" ;di*lli I 3l: *: H,,it,ll"ii,T,. 

t ri 
"t' p'r 

"i, 
iif .

r.aiso the speeter. of ,".ioi "r.rh; Report .t, i i 

",,1, x H,I,i! i;*i:f ln,{, :i ;_ :T: :::::standa.d:'-nhicrr .S. rsgf "r;ra ,a"pt.'-i.'ai")r"JJa ,,,o.* furrr. berou..two Su,renre cou.r cro"ision. 
"r,a 

r',i,i,.ir,;a";"ilr"c"rrts of ^a.ppears,enses nrake arrsoluter'erea, t,rrat trx,r.e is no right to proportronar ren-lresentation under trris stunrrar.tr..eitrrer as o ,,,Eo.",,rirent of the rioL_ltion or. 
:...11: ,"q;ir".r ;;;li",iy ir i--i.irir,;# ii.i,ilnd. rrre minoritrrjoi,s the.,rajo.itf in *r."iirl p.ol,,rtioiioi'."pi.I*.rt"tion as eitrrera' nppropriate standard for &rirpr!.ir! 

":iti,'tri.i'-i.t o. a-s a proper,methorl oi renred-vin! na;,iai".r*a.r;oi"?ior.. -t:o *ilr... ulro testified.* fore t'e Su bconr r,,Tt i.;, ;;,;rr.d ;;;;;;t i";,,ir ii p....r,at ion. A n dwe must poinr out trrat trre,,resurts.t'"'a,!;i',s.'igs2.,routa not lead toor require prrcportional representat;on.