Legal Research on May 4th Session 4

    éaflbéaah»fléumEigr
Max:563] ӣ7 V

OUurlng me suucoiumittee hearings on S. 1992, many Senators ex-
pressed concern over the potential consequence of the bill’s prcpo

’— results test such as racial proportional representation and per se in-
validation of at-large electlon systems. The response which 1 had and
the other cosponsors of this bill gave was that the results test did-no
more than to reinstate White v. Regester’s standard for vote dilutlon
cases, a standard which had been in use up until the 1980 Supreme
Court case, City of Mobile v. Bolden.

Many Senators, including the Senator from Kansas, Senator Dole,
and the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, agreed that the rein-
stitution of the White standard was the proper goal but were uncom—
fortable with the language of S. 1992. As a result, we worked out an
agreement which affirmatively states the standard in vote dilution
cases would be with language taken almost word for word from the
White decision. We made some additional minor changes such as the
25-year limit on the preclearance requirement of section 5 of the act
and a provision to insure that blind, handicapped, and illiterate voters
can receive assistance from persons of their choice in the voting booth
so that such individuals will not be subject to undue influence or har-
assment from voting officials. Indeed, Senator Metzenbaum, the Sena-
tor from Ohio, certainly articulated this cause with great eloquence.

While I have never believed that the original language of S. 1992
would lead to the dire consequences which have been predicted by some
of the bill’s opponents, I believe that the agreement which we are
presented with today represents an improvement in the legislation and
marks an important point in the progress of S. 1992 through the Con-
gress. The amendment will preclude speculation concerning propor—
tional representation requirements or impossible bailout requirements.
Both of these matters are of deep concern to me. My own State of
Arizona is covered under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and is thus
subject to the bailout requirements of the act. Similarly, the largest
city in my State, Phoenix, has an at-large election system.

I would never support this bill if I thought that it would make any
State bailout from prec earance impossible or if I believed that it
would result in an automatic invalidation of the electoral system of
the Phoenix city government.

I have studied this legislation very closely. I have worked hard to
help put together the agreement today. I am convinced that none of
these consequences would occur under our agreed language. I can thus
support the agreement without reservation.

\—

I want to add that I am pleased that the administration now agrees
that the results test IS the proper test and that the Senator from Kansas
has forged the amendment which satisfies the administration’s posi-
tion and. concerns about proportional representation and at-large elec-
tlon. This agreement is the result of hard work by reasonable people.
In additlon to Senators Grassley and Dole, Senator Mathias and Sena-
tor Kennedy and others who have worked on S. 1992 deserve the credit
of finding a middle posmon here that will insure the results test but
Wlll also insure that the intent of the Voting Rights Act is carried out
and W111 not mandate proportional representation. ’0

T namnlimnnt the Senator from Kansas and thank him for his dili—

aéHbE—ta

64