Correspondence from Davis to Jones

    esar@renseH. NA.ACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 . (2I2) 586-8397

June 24, 1981

Steven J. Uhlfelder, Chairman, Esg.
Election Law and Voter Participation
American Bar Association
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036

Dear Mr. Uhlfelder:

I have received. and read what you describe as the
"report with recommendations on the Voting Rights Act
which the Special- Committee will submit at the

-' Aga's 1981 Annual Meeting." We approve the decision
of your Committee to support an extension of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965r ds amended, and an amendment to
Section 2 of the Act to provide for an "effects" test
as well as an intent test.

We ilo not, however, cu,pFnrf thc othcr recommenddtions
made by your Committee. It is our belj-ef that these
suggeslions, if enacted, will have a deleterious effect
on implementation and enforcement of the Voting Rights
Act.

A. General Comments

Before proceeding to present the specific details of
our objections to your recommendations, I wish to make
two general criticisms of your report.

Although the report acknowledges that the Committee
hosted a symposium on the Voting Rights Act on April
9-10, 1981, the Committee's recommendations seem much more
detailed than the discussions at the symposium. Partici-
pants at the symposium did not discuss at length or in
detail: (1) your recommendation #3 that the United States
Congress creale a body during the five year period commencing
in l9B2 which would examine the impact of the Voting Rights
Act and the issue of voting rights in the count1z., or (2)
your recommendations #4 that loca1 federal d.istrict courts

(.otttriltutions arc letluclible lor U.S. incone tal Purlroscs

The NAACP LEGAT DEFENSE & EDUCATI0NAL FUND is not part ol the Nalional Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.



Steven J. Uhlfe1der, Chairman, Esg.
June 24, 198I

Page Two

be used for bail-out suits. Moreover, in light of
your recommendation *4, I am also not persuaded that
the Confer:ence participants had sufficient time to
allow bail-out suits for local political entities
when the state in which they are located is itself
subject to coverage under the Voting Rights Act.

My second objection is based on the failure of the
report to disclose the sources upon which the report
relies. This omission makes it difficult to evaluate
certain portions of the report, such as that which
recommends that local federal courts should be given
jurisdiction of bail-out suits.

F. Recommendation #4 - Proposed Amendment Allowing' United States Attorney General to Exempt Annually
Jurisdictions from Section 5 Coverage.

In its report, the Committee states, in its recommenda-
tion *4, that it sees no merit in extending that portion
of the Voting Rights Act which prohibits the bail-out

in states that are covered under the Voting Rights Act
and are not eligible for bail-out. Just recently, the
Supreme Court affirmed the validity of this statutory
prohibition. See City of Rome v. United States, 64
L.Ed.2d 119 (1980). In support of the recommendation,
the Committee claims that this prohibition is too onerous.

In particular, the Committee states its belief that
political subdivisions should be permitted to bail-out
when the number of black residents with their boundaries
is too few to engender racially discriminatory efforts
to dilute the voting strength of mj-norities even though
the state in which the subdivision is located is itself
covered by the Voting Rights Act.

We do not support your recommendation #4 and do not
believe that the rationale you offer for it is sufficient
to support it. Your analysis ignores the political and
1egaI relationships existing between a state and its
subdivisions. In particular, it ignores the role which
state legislators representing local subdivisions play in
securing state legislative action to comply with the
Voting Rights Act. When political subdivisions are them-
selves covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,



Steven J. Uhlfelder, Chairman, Esg.
June 24, 1981

Page Three

they are likely to be helpful in assisting the legisla-
ture to adopt necessary legislation for complying with
the Voting Rights Act. On the other hand, when political
subd.ivisions can bail-out themselves, they have Iittle
incentive to insure that legislative actions affecting
other parts of the state have neither the purpose'nor
effect of discriminating on the basis of race.

C. Recommendation #2 - Establishment of a Governmental
Body To Examine the Impact of The Voting Rights Act.

Recommendation *2 of your Committee provides that Congress,
during your proposed five-year extension, should study or
establish a body whose responsibility would be to stud.y
lhe issue of voting rights and determine whether the Act
should be further extended after its expiration in 1987.
There is, I think, little merit in this proposal. As
the members of the Committee must know, various committees
of Congress hold hearings each time the Voting Rights Act
comes up for extension. There is no reason to assume
that this will be less true in 1986 and 1987 than it is
American Bar Association reconrmend the Congress to consider
studying whether the Voting Rights Act should be further
extended after five years

Although you recommend that Congress consider establishing
a body to determine whether an extension of the Voting
Rights Act after 1987 is desirable, there is nothing in
your report to j-ndicate why such a body would be preferable
to the committees of Congress or to the United States Civil
Rights Commission. In the absence of any evidence to show
that this is a feasible and worthwhile idea, I do not see
why the Committee should urge Congress to establish a body
to do what Congressional committees and the United States
Civil Rights Commission would ordinarily do

Conclusion

While we are glad to see that your Committee supports an
extension of the Voting Rights Act and agrees that there
is a need to amend Section 2 Eo the Act to provide for
an "effects" testr w€ do w-ish that you would reconsider
the recommendations to which we raise objections in



Steven J. Uhlfelder, Chairman, Esq.
June 24, 1981

Page Four

this letter.

Sincerely,

-/l- Y1'.7t-r,*'l
Napoleon B.
Assistant At

* (-.-r.. b,lr^', t(-f,---i*t.- t)
Wi11iams, Jr . '' il
torney

NBW/r