Excerpts from Senate Report RE: Remedial Powers of Congress
Working File
April 28, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Excerpts from Senate Report RE: Remedial Powers of Congress, 1982. b3a4a01b-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ae3cc236-2448-4a18-994d-f307af56bd2b/excerpts-from-senate-report-re-remedial-powers-of-congress. Accessed July 13, 2025.
Copied!
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;*. ;. ;;-