Excerpts from Senate Report RE: Remedial Powers of Congress

    Fwrpv?.k ?@v Son& Re>rovL

pp lb-t+C7'nq , rft-rpiqtroffimondment
constitutional authority. It is not e" eno* to;;"d[;H;i;;

P .27 177 zot -<)
ft,h6 CommfEffi-Eliffi-t-het the afrendment is soundtthat

]t rr neces6rv and gpprcpriate to ensurs full protection-oI the rour-
L;dti-;;d Fiitee"tf,'im'.ndments rights. au{ihqt it will not present

?.?+f7'ztsl
fhe inherent dancer

in exclusive reliance on prmf of motrvetion lies not only in the difr.
culties of plaintiff estoblishing o prima facie case of di-scrimination,
but also inthe faet that the di?enients ean ettemot to rebut that cir-
cumstsntial evidence by planting a false trail of direet evidenee in the
form of ofrcial resolutio'ns. spof,sorship stiGments and other leor.isla-
tive history eschewing any reiiol motive. and odvancinc other so?.*-
mentel obfectives. Solong as the court must meke o seiarrte u'ltimate
fitrding of intenl after iccepting the proof of the fietorc inrolved
in the Whitc analysis, that ilanftr rcnieins end seriouslv elouds the
prrosp€ets of eredi<hting the r€miinins instanees of raeiaIdiscrimina-
tion in American elect-ions.

p tDl Lp zt&
_--

, the 1>roposed "com
th; ;;i;iG;f ttie i{ouse provisi6n i'n that, it satemp_ts stacutorilv. to
overtrrrn the Suprenre Court's decision in City ol Mobilc i1t9."n"e3t1q
;il' iiiil;;tf, i*""a-.nr. It is altogether- ai_rrnc.onstitutional, in
iiir tii*. es the unorn.n.I".l House lariguage." Under our system of
i&",ir:r"1,"t, rh; t'ong;Giimply confrot "overturn a constitutionbl
:;;-; ;i'tlt" Suptelne Courf ihrough & mere statute' The Court
il'i;;fi ir,"[-tr," r'iri""ttl, Amendrnett requires a demonstralion of
ift ;;i;; ;i ;" pii.r-* t, t rl i.scri m in at ion. T-o ihe ertent that the Voting
ilili;G-A"i s.n.tirtty and section 2 specifieally are predicated upon

thii Anrendmlnt- aird they are-therc is no authonty wlthrn.Uongress
to reinterpret its reeuiremints and to impose greater reStrtcttons upon
th6 Statei in the conduct of their own affairs''3 The-re ls -no. power
*iif,i" Consress to act outside the boundaries of the Fifteenth Am-end-

;;;;';-i;'t.tp""t"a uy it- Court, a-t .llst so.long ss the Federol
government rehains a 

-government of delegated powella

the defeits of the

of the



Remedial Powcrs A

f? ltq - lztP7;'tz -'ts]
r Supreme
rhether or

:i:X;::*l:lll-lt;i#;ft ilil;"1'il"llgl,q*fl""i*tl
lil'ffi,'fi[H,",ff:i::-::y*.11,;:l**:f n#:,;*g"":

Re{e,;od+\<svbcavnm;+keoP*1"t'Cov6;ill.'r-t

ffid,t.ttffslltflJ3Trr"ilil jfi ,lqi',lffil"F-[]i#i1

nTttflj*,l,{.**lif.'x;-*teke such an action.

LU uue w.-U - 
ri6vo some otherrurend section 2 to acl 1:-- o

other purpose. In (xn€r wururt v"e

i#z n'*a'not-bs meinteined indefi'
:ommittee recognizes thet sectron z n@ql9[ f,E rrrur'uEurw "'r
lyastheststutorv"-#iil;t;f *:^:**e*"3-f**"#hLoly as tho statuEory errrwrlue.u ---- 

Co.,* bes constru€d
T'J ffi';;t""l,-toh"'"", that the sry:i"r^-^-olmlian nr r,rr-'"lfLitff "i;tli;ffi ;6'"*iij'q.Sr';1s3i1 lr:il"-,:f ..P#::

&ilTtrJlhfi.!qil^;_,*::,I**,"'"'lX;pJ'*XH',fi ifJ';f;
3ffi'H $r:'r"T?.iilrJ';ffi; ilil;;J uv c""gr"* under the

conditutional euthoritv of ttre Fiftcenth Amendment, the subcom-
nitt- does uot believe thrt Conraress is empowered to legislato out'
side the prremetert st by the Coqrt, indeed -by th" Constitution.

Scction 2 of the Fiftoenth Amendment provides:

CongreEs shdl enforco the prcvisions of this Article by 
"P-propriete legirbtion

Crcnqress. however. is not empowered here or onywhere else in the
eonititution to "define" or to"'interpret" the provisions of the Fif-
teenth Amendmenl but simply to *snforrcet'those substantive constitu-
tionsl nrarantees rirerdv iri 6ristence. To allow Congres to interpret
tho suEtsntive limits of lhc Fifteenth Amendnrent in r more exponsive
mcnner (or indeed in r dispante manner) then the Court is to sherply-
alter the'apportionment of powers under our constitutional system of
separated powerB.--ii ii it$ to enlergu subatantially the authority of the Federel Goy-
ernment at the erP€nso of the strte governments srnce tt must De

"*"srrir"a 
thaf the Fifteenth Amendmlent fundamentolly involves a

;;f,il;;;;1n"-"utto"itv of strts sovornmsnta rnd t-conferrtl of
;;horfi ;oon idFa.;l Governm"ent. To permit Congrcs itself
to defind*ri nliurc of this outhoritv, in c'ontravention of thc Supreme
C-rt- i" t" i"totre Congr:eu" in a judiciol funeJion totally outside its
DrroDor out-iew.tt--'iIre 

Jnactment of e restllts test in seccion 2 would be eqrrally im-
DnoDer to the ertent that its ptpponents purported to emplov the
k'od"taentn Amendment rs its 

-constitutionil 
predicate-.- As with.the

Fiftoenth Amendment, ttre Supreme Court has rcpeetedly made clear
thet it is necmory to plpvo some discriminototy motive or Pury)o* ln
order to esteblish r oonstitutional violation under the Equal Protec'
tion Clruso.n'

u/'trile pruponents of the new resutts test argrre that selected -Srr-
preme Couft-decisions exist to justifV the expansive. exercrse of Lion'

ifresgionel authority proposed hsrr !'s this subcommittee rejects these

;;d;;. N; Co,i"f a"ti"ion opproeches the proposition being ad-
vdoted here that Congress moy strike down on I natlonsrde bo^sls an

"ntir" "t"o 
of laws thit are n6t unconstitutional ond that involve so

il;["*".tJty it" 
"igtt" 

of republican self-government guoranteed
to och stare inder Aticle IV, irction 4 of the Constitrrtion'- Ii-u* Ue emphasized a*pin'that what Congress is purporting to. do
in *ction 2 is viSly difrerent than rhet it. did in the ori*ntl yotrng
niclrt" Act in f965.in Soufh Ceolinav. Katzetfiach,lhe Court recog'
;ilft;;i*"tdiiii nrrrli"l powers in Congress under seetion 2 of
thc Fifteenth Ameirdmelt.ra Kahanbrch. did not authorize Congress
to r.cvir the notionts election laws as it saw fit. Rrther, the Corrrt there
ln.a" "t*" tt ii ttt" t -"ai"t power being employed by Congtess in



Ruvqfjdt ?owrnt -3

=8e. 
af.. tr.lzcrbetr v. Yoroot,384 U.8. ilt?l(tgo6) i Onoos v. Iltclctl, {oO U.S.

ll2'"(10?O) i Ca,J ol Ros. r. UsU.d $totc., r{6 U.S. 106t0(loEO).o 38E U.l. .t 8ta.
76. 96 S.Ct. m10, 48 L.Fd.U 5C7.
77. rI S.Ct. 5.55, 50 L.Ed.zd 450.
7r. 86 S.Ct. 1717, 16 L.Ed.2d E28.
79. 9l S.Cr. m, n L.Ed.?t rn
60. 100 s.Cr. 1048. 6,1 L.Ed.zd ll9. 

[page l7l]
the original Act was founded upon the ecturl eridcnce of r subdrn-
tive constitutionrl yiolation mquiring somc remedy. la Kolufiula
following e detriled descriDtioi of a-higtorv of oo:nstitutiorul viols-
tions inlhe covercd juridictionq Chief Jirstice Ylarren concluded
thot:

Ardcr tbu cittcnttdncrt, the Fiftcenth Amendnent has
cleorly ben violatBd.o, (emphrsis rdded)

While Kotzatioch rnd later Ci.ttt of Ronrzheld that the ertraordi-
ntry-powens employed by Congriss'in swtion 5 were of e clearly
rsrnedirl ghqqacqer, ond therefore iustified tlrc ertraordinerT procc-
dures estebliahed in section O. there is abeolutely no rsord to"s,igglst
tha.t the proposed chrnge in section 2 involvc ohmilrr remedirl iier-
cise. Beccuse section ? opplies in scope to the entire Nation, there
is the necesity of dembirstrating tliot the "exceptional" circum-
strnce.s found 

-by 
tha KatzznbacTh crlurt to erisi in the covercd

jurisdictions in fact perzreated the entire Netion (olthouch rnain bv its
very definition the c6ncept of serceptionslity" wbuld seim ti precludc
**#,[Tll'Ln 

,o sueh evidence offered durins either the Hour
or Senate hearingrs. Indeed, the subject of voting discriminrtiou
outside the coverid jurisdictions has been virtualli ignored during
hearings in each chunber. Indeed as the strongest-rd-vocalas of tho
House measuro themselves orgued, a proposed floor amendment to er-
tend preclecrance nalionally rras 'tll-idvised" beeaus no fectuel
record exigtod to iustifv this strinaent constitutionel rcouirement.il

During one er6hang6, Dr. Fleriming, the Director irf tne U.S.
Civil 'Rights Commiiibn ocknowledg6d that the 420-page. 1981
R€po$ of qhe Commission on votiig rights violations-'' con-
tained no infonnetion whatsoeyer obout con-ditions outside the cov-
ered juridictions.,lo In the total cbsencs of such evidence, it is im-
possible for Congress to seriorrsly contend thd the lrcrrnrnent, nation-
wide change proposed in the standerd for identifvins civil richts
violecions is a "remedial" effort. As o rrcsult, there cin,& tittte d6uUt
thot such a change is outside the legisletive euthority of Congess. fn
short, it is the vilw of this subcomfrittce that the pr6posed eh"ange in
sec-tion 2 ie elearly unconstitutional, aS well as impnrdent public
policy.ttr

Moreover. a retroertive results test of t,he sort eontemplated in the
House amendments to section 2 (the test worrld apply to existing
electoral structuros as rrell as changes in those stnrcturcs) has never
been approred by the Court even Cith regerd to jurisdictions with a

o Id.r 84, r.g. rmr?l-r of U.S-.- !ajrrr!-.D-trt-!re JuGr E Da.nbrcoD"?. tt Ete?6: tL8. BcO-
!e!tlt-lJ? P_.ta? Rodlno. .t lI097C; U.g. Rcpr*Dtrrlv" Ulet"t lrl.Ed, tt E60Zt ; Octi>
bcr 5.108f, CoDfrillloDrl RCcord.
_-Th" VotlDg RlSbtr Act: UDful0llc{ Gdlr, UnltGd Strt6 ComElrloD oD CtrU Btahtr

( l08l )

344



Rulvrdh) ?oweys I

E sart? 86rl.rr, tr"brurrt 2t. 10t2, D?. Arttu! Fl.Eltr& ChlrD.D' Uotttrt Stltar
Clrll Rtrhtr CoEEIlrloo.--iitti Subcoomlttcc rould rtto obl.?t" thrt ElDt ot thc irttrc oattltqtlo,oal lruat
nlrr{- in itc oorrit of S.ctloD 2 hlt. .Irc 0..! rr(..d lD th" cootett ol l"d.l.ttoq to
iil-rGru tui Sunrtue iourt'e ihorttort d(tl.loo ln &oc t, wc{tc' lD both lottrnecc.-Co!'
tr;-i; irniooiit-ns io rciiicrcrii--i rt'ritttuttomt D?ort.loD ln eontrrlltloD-ol .thci;-";;; l'ouii ifi6uil r'rtoolc itetutc. si' c'r.. tiiloonv bt Robcrt Bo?k' Il'tlltr
iiiorc thr lhorntloriol Poro'n Subomoltta? m-E. l6t. JuD" t' lg3t; Add-ltloD.l-"1.t'
i?'il.i. dtoribi-iriiin--O'.-natct. eonrutiii prtot ot itr Subcoaaltt"c oE th? ScprrrtloE ot
Porcr. oa & tot, e?tb Coagrtr. l.t EasloD.

[page 172]

p. lsq [P s5 ul

ive hidory of conditutionel violetiong ln South Covlha.y.rrrSalvo hrgtori, ot consrcuBlonll nolt3lolr& Llt Doafrtt, u@1octfu, v.
Eatocrfia!,.the prcpeAivc naturo of th" *di"rl 5 procosa (.".pPliTP.l:Eaucrfiact^the-prcpeaivc nltum of the oction 5 procesa (applicable
ggly qo chahga in.vi*ing lrwa rnd proced_-g1g). ies GsEential P !h?
Cori.t'r deteririnetion of-constitution'tlity."' Tliis wss closcly ."l"ted

Svbannyr4 ilke R

-Ovest ons 'r Answerr : ln*e'r* v' Resut+

Arc thetp other coutittrtiotul heue irutoloed with ecctiot 2l
Ye. Given thrt thc Suoreme Court has interoroted the 15th

Amcndrnent to nquirc r dcm6nstr.rtion of purpooful di*rimination
in o,rdcr to ete,blish r eonstitutional violitio'n. rnd lriven that the
Vr*ing Rightl Act ia prrdicehd u1rcn the lSth Amendirent, there ere
rrious onCitutionrl questions in-volved as to rhether or not Con-gru in *ction 2 cur ri-interprw the prnmeten of the lSth Amend-
ment by simplc strtuto. Similir conditu0ioneJ ouestions are inrolvd
in psrding efro*s bv tlre Conress to dacrrtorilv Lverturrr the Sumcrne
Court's ebrtion decision in-Roc v.'Wde. As-forqrgr-{tto-rney Crer-
enl Griftn Bell hes oboncd, (To overmle lhe llobilc decidion by
stttutc rould be rn extremely drngrroue oours of action under our

qw;Itw,r-'

ftJd;h'ona(. vitrus o+ Scuta*ov l)eCovtc,,'t,, uJA Se*ta-hv kAh

ffiGtrAcE or sECTroN 3 rs .\ coNsrrrl'Tro:rAL EsERCIsE
oF colicnl:ssloli.{L ForlTR

The Report. questions thc constitutionalitv of S. 1992 on the grounds
that Congless cannot orerturn the Suprerne Court's reading of the 14th
and 15th Amendrnents iu the l/olilev. Boldenca,x.

We agree thnt Congress cannot and should not overtunr the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

But i.t is-absolutell'clear trrat cougress c&n pas-{ Iegisratio, at trrtrrtute lsvel to enforce the rigtrrs pi1:;iglt L5. ti,o* .{;,;*,,d,,;;;,i_ o,,A

uru rL ." a( iorulelv crear tlrot uottgress c&n pas,{ Iegislati.tr at tlrtr
:ll,.rt]S":t to enforce the rigrrrs pii:;i;,ILtif;; .iii,.,,tu,",,r,. o,,a
II*:*!S11,1111.,""ir.1.;;fEl;i{'i,.-',iiiuct prolribitions 

"f tl,;'.1'1.,:

PP 
gr-s1

stitu-tional provisions r..elves.. That is nori- )rornbook l;*. ;. ;;-