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 November 23, 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