Attorney Notes Pages 1578-1579, 1606-1607, 1609-1610
Annotated Secondary Research
January 1, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Attorney Notes Pages 1578-1579, 1606-1607, 1609-1610, 1982. 625a54f0-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a75f4fe8-fabf-41f1-b629-9a5df19edb5a/attorney-notes-pages-1578-1579-1606-1607-1609-1610. Accessed July 20, 2025.
Copied!
t-s2y- z**fu^r/"Y. a The propoeed revisioo of I 2 doel not Purport to mandate system of proportional repreaenEation; indeed' it appears to 1579 explicitly reject any such notion' We underatand that in teeEimony before thig eubcoooittee' boEh the eponeore and supporEer8 of thia legislacion have disavor,ed any intention to implement auch a syoten' A revierr of current lert and the proposed changes will ehow, however' that the reeult may neverEheless be Ehesame.Itiedifficulttoquancifythatriek'butevenifonly niniual, we believe thaE there ie no reaaon to run thet risk at alL, particularly eince ic is posaible to elioinate the risk wiEhout uodermining the ProEection nhich ehould be afforded to the effective exerciee of the franchiae' There appears to be a general conaenaua thet the Voting Rights AcE should not require proportional rePreseotetion' There ia, however, a good deal of dieagreeent over shether the Present language of S' 1992 is eufficient to insure that the courta do noE impleoenE such a requirerent' tJe believe EhaE the present language ie not as clesr aa it could be' and that the legislaEive hietoryinthellougedoesnotclearuptheseprobleme.onEhe oEher hand, we believe thaE an inlenE requireoenE' particularly in the foro of a requirenent thet a "emoking gun" be ehown' ia not neces8ary Eo inaure that the Act doeE not require proportional rePreaentation, and iodeed' sould unneceeearily pertit juriadictiona to escaPe liability for discrioinatory electorel echemea. O DrlBv-iaK 1je6 o some havc crPr'3t'd th' conc'rn that this lcgislati'on night creatc a rlght to prolprtlonal rcPresentation by race or a racial guota 6yEtem. But the Plain worda of the Protpacd Scction 2 MendmeDt state: The fact that rrb'r' of ' dtrortty grouP have 1607 not been elected in nunbers eqPal'to thc ErouP's fiopolt:.o"-i! rik.;:;[',:li:l;;:]'.;;:' =::.::i."'itself, con I am convinccd that this statutory language ls Eufficient to disPel any inplication that the "retult'n standard could bc interpreted to create a right to ProPortional r'Pr'3'nt'tion by tt":,.ot t::'.tt. n*t""'-t . Lbq OSenator Kpxrrov. Onc can, I thinlt, easily get mrred down rn or scune law review debati ebout past cases. Of course, there is an l6to overr*'helming tr-ack reco.rd ""g:1-!!:^White v' Regester standard o'hinh our bill adopts' It is a reassurrng. o''".b,9"?"-=:t.:l:Y:.-'*li3:f ,:;";,Irilfi ::1h:fr "i."'-;;;;;i,_sof:,bf "3:-':l,,il:1i.'*::ITrrS:L"}i ;'";ffi i;; ?*iffi-il,i,-il"t -ii seems that the rear -.-^^+i^- I'ornro ,," ,:';'^;;i'ri.li.i'-tt"ice Congress will make nowrE no quota t'"'"*,."ri^rrli'*1;;i;ti''oi"f congress will make now question -before us t dn-d for tbe-.future.o