Legal Research on Congressional Record S6959
Unannotated Secondary Research
June 17, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Legal Research on Congressional Record S6959, 1982. bb9b6a96-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/dcf4af7f-8692-43c1-ab88-048345cdbacb/legal-research-on-congressional-record-s6959. Accessed April 22, 2025.
Copied!
RESSI‘QI‘LALBECORD — SENATE °¢ We) ? June 17, 1.982 C r we might , edit 0 ~ “Ir-I’m was required to mak .' - abmmmfigéen. rs intothemo “9 ‘J- : ‘1‘! section trfwould be willing to 1:, . - mlne—tf‘ the system was devised ' a ‘ u. the yous-an v ' u ---.-_‘ t we maintained for a discriminatory - . ‘ ‘ - / . ose. In order to comply with B oe 1. int. - e district court was forced - i eat c eate events shedding light n , Um. mtlvntion of politicians w -~ I ' ex- of e during the several cru ,‘ pe . - i It ‘8 ods under investigation betw, _n 13!: 1 " e very and he present. L. 7" " S-- no. as 'Dr. Arthur mm .3 _ pose it the .tinguished former C11,: .311 .’. l" ' ' (‘th the ited States Commiss on Cit t ‘ Rights and the distingu ' formi c .g. Hon 2 as Secre . 1 of new. told in; Subco 1, DrODOS/J “56 t0 the mlttee . the Constlt on. “such 1, y. Cam‘s-ll, 2 - me Court, quiries u der the inte t t-.~v can onl 1 2d ' . "‘3“ 0 In that be divi iv , threatenig to estroy - - a case I b'—' ‘ ' ‘ "ajority exist“ : ial pro 53 in I x'comm s 1 of to i or believe my ' ’ * y .~ -. . ‘ red in inter- Thiri.) th inten test Laces an t t,' o - . ‘ accep le -urde on laintiffs g .1. I -. V" ‘ 0f the voting hiscr'u'nat. on c ’3. It treat Cw -' . ’gr ‘ 01195 who the risk that lectoral s stems will - * ~ are at f .‘ " 'ng eXDFESSEd free [r m cha . n'ge eve where the- > > the “737- : g a any that f '1' C0u1'- a po 31' o t . - I. - rmisinter- ,. ;, preted. an Rafi - ‘ Jig; hat' -a.re d 1' doing he : ' ’ { 1' a. ;‘ We. Hafiz 1‘ .t' elawasit 2-, ; was clearly 3‘3 5 'r” and as it had 9- :1 been lnterpr- { gt y. - and again in the ‘h‘ , ' days he T§1 ‘ ’15; SUDT‘" 53°11“ wuncil m rnbers - . constitutio _, if; :3 hande ... - 143;. decislo 11: City of In an exh native éion. the dist i; , rr- Mob' ' w; --, ‘ court mit :uny led the White ,5 SO I ' ' ".1 ‘ at assertion will against Re ester n: ts test and con- ;ej" ;_ 7 so a , ' a .4", ml ans! , - the eluded that lacks L ly did not have 1 0011' cm by the tutor a fair Chan e to ’-. icimte in the ff " f... orth ' H‘- i: whic activated, system. The \lrt laid: ! ' ‘1'. mm t0 0‘ ,5"; 4'8- ' "ent- “Black pal-tic .. ‘ in In: field W '3 Befo I 3191.. Case, pl: ' ’3 hubeenrnerei mm It deventhls it could a "-1‘ z‘ 0 aainwlngfih: It chal- beenonnverys- . L». e. " u: 191‘ng 81" 'I'J 8‘ P" “‘ “‘8' m the Despite e . 'rwhelm .- evid- ...'. 5d a; context of, "Zia.” .; - .5 es of oLJmequ 7’1”.“ 7m" , Hel— _ if“ ‘ " “‘3' Mifiifi$'\' ‘ " ‘i' ' ‘ the system. the/ t ct court's dete . u. - -d . result}! "3 ',.'- '-.' i '1' 1mm tion could/u twi and th impact - it. "y'- : 11-81 Chm ‘0 theBold'yndecisl. . .4 ‘ mthe 618910”! Mr. ‘H'MO -. Mr. d ‘2: , “8, ‘~ it “8 will the ator yie .9 lit. to” -thatthe . .. : ,Y-.,Iam app! .5- or procedure yield. I , l -edforadls- ML?- '0ND.I -mindeSe- ' intfiflt— In ator --.lieve that. was he :1 . eta-J "1 the Supreme» oft Judgewhohadre 1. ' - himself. e eat and sub— ! MATHIAS. As I sa. that case. ed- ha burden on co 4‘ not Withstand the kn 2- (if the .. u! of dis-- d- [.1013 offlagcom in Le Em .. ‘ntheae monster; - ~— dent. ‘t 1m” 1 r $1; ‘0 - .fi-We'couldrerysh _y'ha -avo ' from very encluv‘ ut . In ‘ ',1~:0W05!'the 1.. ‘ fidb‘monitand proceed W1 1; ,5."- “them ‘ . B . + 21:3" :1 complete ‘ weaken, 'alter and change it in a very' mm laws. it would be extranely dimeult to \ recent experience with labinttve ration-let- . in the Novel-tier: to! their: in the game's; ‘- W.m North-Caroline udWehe wince. mat; the Voting ultimatum“ ulmhhhalbdnl’ ' ‘ ‘ rut-flmnfié'mx; SW— the strongest in terms of its nation- wide application is section 2. and I am sure during the debate and discussion we have heard today there have been statements that this Voting Rights Act does not have nationwide applica- tion. Well. section 2 is nationwide in its application, and it is. as in the measure before us. a meaningful provi- sion. and the amendment of the Sena- tor” from North Carolina.~ would significant way. ' Q i will take a few moments here. Mr. President. to read an editorial which appeared in the Raleigh News and 0b- server of North Carolina. on May 2. 1982. I find this editorial. which was written 6 or 8 weeks ago. reassuring because it is exactly responsive to the principal arguments that have been raised by the Senator from North Carolina. I will take just a. moment to reed it: In truth. there should be no controversy surrounding the Voting Rights Act. It is. after all. a law that rmbodies a fundamental tenet of American democracy. And it is an example oi a federal law that has actually worked well. The Senate J udiciery Committee. 01 which East is a member. has before it legis- iation. identical to a bill passed by the Excuse. that would extend the voting not for 10 years. The legislation contains a crucial new on» [sign that a violation occurs when 3' ante of local election system “results" in discrimination against buck; or Hispanics. This provision is needed as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. in a Mobile, ALL, case. the court ruled that challengers to an election system had to prove an "intent" to keep blacks and other minorities from win. ' ninz oiiice. if every Voting Rights Act case entailed delving into the "intent" of olil-V this who adopted a particular locale's elec- enforce the law. The leadership Conference on Civil Rights points out that it took more than 6.000 hours of lawyers' time and 4,000 hours of the time 01 witnesses and parale- gal: to make the case that Mobile oiiiclals intended to discriminate when they adopted an st-larze city election system. East copeses the provision that requires only prool that an election system in effect d'seriminates. Pointing to North Carolina's ing. the Senator anne- that the law is movinxtornrd guaranteeing black; “proper Lion-l. normentatzon" But-erects a. straw man. Prior to the, ‘ Mobile ruling. no Voting Rights Act ruling required proportional representation as a. remedy. The North Quantum and ~ Senate redistricting Dims do not mice the: black: will be electedto the 1111st " » mm one— am to be gimvmfm‘: math-she put, . .....-»——..v~ t » ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE of an effective Voting Rights Act spurn the legacy of the first Republican president. Abraham Lincoln. Mr. President. the compromise re- ferred to in the editorial is exactly the measure which is before the Senate at the present time. I could take more time. Mr. Presi- dent. I do not think it is needed. I think the best answers—I know the Senator from North Carolina has made the argument many times-are. printed in the report beginning at the 'bottom’of page 15. "amendments to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act." and which very closely track that edi- torial. That editorial was written 8 weeks ago. but. I think. it is absolutely responsive to the proposal of the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina. and I think we are prepared to vote. 4 Mr. EAST addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Mr. EAST. Mr. President. I would like to respond briefly to the com~ ments made by the Senators from Maryland and Massachusetts. I have already communicated to the Senator from Maryland my desire. in offering my amendments. to state my case as quickly as I can and let others com. ment as they desire. as briefly or as fully as they wish. I would like to respond. very quickly to what they might say, and then I am prepared to move to a vote. Let me address. first of all. Senator Kmmr’s comment. I would hope he could offer more substantive discus- sion than simply quoting from editori- als of the Raleigh News and Observer. If we are going to have a battle of edi- torials. I will quote from a newspaper . with a little greater national—prestige." the Wall Street Journal. This is what it has to say: The new bill would further embroil the courts in local elections across the country and would give citizens less of a voice in de~ ciding on the type of government that they want to run their local affairs. It goes on to say: _ The “compromtse’flfurther muddiee the. ‘ waters. with legalistic Jargon such as a "to- tality of circumstances rather than making effects the sole test. The point of the exerH‘ ciseistowriteabillthatmeansallthingstor all parties. But since. the bill gives oontndic-; wry instructions. it means nothing at all. 7:: -. ‘The. practical effect of course. will W , dumpthe hot potato into the hands of the; 'TCQWLOurzmfithat the end result will. ' be a hugel impetus toward proportional rep-_ mm for: minorities. But uncertainty-T » ‘ smut-them willtakea'longfime figure A. ingontwh’at the legislation menu-and that: kidsth ' Trashy-flunk cloud? if . , .. .mded- Ne" Y9." and? which rename! their»: law mugging “black .-. 4 Wu; enfienchinmmbentsi nourisymineamaflmne m - m elm us a voting rights act that will stop the voters from voting? So I pit the Wall Street Journal against the Raleigh News and Observ- er. and if it is a battle of editorials, I will take the Wall Street Journal. Let me return to the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Maryland. He refers to the Bolton case. and he rather casually notes that the bill he is supporting overturns the Supreme Court decision. That is' a rather unusual position fonthe distin-.. guished Senator from Maryland to be in. as he is usually careful to caution us against taking simple legislation and overturning Supreme Court deci- sions. What the Court said in Mobile against Bolton was— Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. will the Senator yield? Mr. EAST. I wish to finish my re- marks. Mr. KENNEDY. I thought the Sena- tor wanted a debate. ' Mr. EAST. I do wish to debate. Sena- tor, but I wish to be able to complete my statement so that you can respond in toto to it. Completing my remarks will make for a more meaningful and substantive debate. In the case of Mobile against Bolton, the Supreme Court held the 14th and 15th amendments require intent. and what they were saying was that these amendments. and particularly the 15th amendment is the pertinent one. here. guarantee access to registration, to voting. and to having a vote count- ed. However. they were saying the - amendment does not guarantee elec-‘ tion results and effects, and that is what the distinguished Senators from Massachusetts and Maryland are argu- ingrfor; " " ‘ “““ ""““ I agree with the Supreme Court this time that if you want to amend the Constitution you do not do it through—you do not do it indirectly by—leg'islation running counter to the spirit and the letter of the 15th amendment as articulated by the US. . Supreme Court. 80 I find it somewhat curious that that would be the posi-- tion of the distinguished Senator from Maryland. Finally. putting all that aside. forget, the constitutional arguments. forget _, the battle of the editorials. I leave you with the premise totheh my amendw ment is directed; .nam itsalear- that the inter! apply. the test. which is teat ahmldfi' the currents». ted“ mem that meant oil Womb-Ff? An’ ‘ committee: It. would meabeclearm f we-mi-mteeuna-ifi Wright» ' . Militias Md Phenomenal-represené . jiwmm_m.hu 'mt been km: 141:2 tation—T .or mart-imposed election re-v‘v ‘ ' "gr—suits age not-what we wanteTo .. debate. W; 97099, be ”Ignaznolicyiu, , A , . a . w «the;8 register-”andivote mat. 'avelthatj', .“vo V39flns . command itgwoald ' _ hcimrJiimfm we madam-m June 1?; 1933 sentation. What we want is to have the vote of every American counted re gardless of race. I have no quail-re] with that principle. I do not think there is one Member of the (13 Senate who would quarrel with it. So. on that point. I rest my case. Mr. President, I am happy. unless others wish to speak on this matter, to more to a vote. . . Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. have the yeas and nays been ordered on the amendment? ‘ ‘ I ‘ ' ‘ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. there a sufficient second? There sufficient second. _ The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr DOLE. Mr. President. I wish to speak Just briefly on the amendment. I want to compliment all those who have spoken on this amendment. It seems to me that we can properly debate these amendments. But as one who offered. along with others. the compromise. I think it might be of some help if the Senator from Kansas at least indicates what he had in mind when'offering the compromise. I Certainly can understand the dif- ferences of opinion. but I think the record should clearly reflect the intent of one of the authors of the compro- mise. And I will take a minute or two to do that. I certainly appreciate the willingness of the Junior Senator from North Carolina to let us proceed to vote and have other amendments. as we should. and have debate, as we should. It seems to this Senatortha]? We. had Is is a ‘ an obligation't'o make it as clear as we could that plaintiffs may base a violap tion of section 2 on a showing of dis- criminatory “results," in which case proof of discriminatory intent or pur- pose would be neither required nor rel- evant. We should make that clean-And there was some discussion after the House-passed bill whether or not that had been made clear. ' I was convinced. and I tried the best I could with other matters before us in other committees to take the cases home. read the cases, try to under- stand what the Justices had in mind. what-theSupreme Court had in mind. leguamkefiwhat- meaty-officials had in mind. whetheFit"be~m Alabama or Texas or wherever. theicaee- may have arisen. .7 I .he‘came; convinced of theinap-Z peanut-tangle 40% ans_—'-'_int‘ent standard'f- 3 ; . mm- “of', establishing, cw..- claim. as were the malorw-z And asiundersta‘nd.‘ looking back at: the. committee action. it' seemed tghthis Senator. matbecause of the nature of.~ thedineufidm thecommittee with reaw erotica; 1931M House-med bill; that: perhaps, mermaid” tservice—to ,- Q=W$¢¢§RE-W with'somgi, , we ‘ June 17,1982 1 passed bill which was later the Kenne- dy-Mathias. Mathias-Kennedy bill in- troduced in the Senate. and intro- duced with 60 or 70 cosponsors. So this Senator worked with a number of Senators, including the principal sponsors of the bill. the Sen- ator from Arizona. Senator DECON~ crux. the Senator from Iowa. Senator GRASSLZY. the Senator from Wyoming. Senator Smsozv. and. indirectly, the Senator from Alabama. Senator. Ham. and others trying to figure out if we could come up with some lan- guage that might satisfy the majority in the committee. Otherwise. there was some doubt that the bill would be reported out. And after a number of efforts. we found. at least in the begin- ning. some agreement. and after a number of day's and'number of hours t of discussion we were able to reach an agreement. Obviously. he agreement has been the compromise that has been re- ferred to-—-no compromise by some. compromise by others. As explained more fully in the com- mittee report, the basic problem with the test is that its focus is misplaced. If a voting practice or structure oper- ates today to exclude members of a. minority group from a fair opportuni~ ty to participate in the political proc- ess. the motives behind the actions of the officials which took place decades before. I think. at most, is of very lim 'ited relevance. How are you going to prove intent? They may have moved. They might have died. They may no longer be active in the legislative proc- ess or where it may have originated in ' the city council. Further, it places an inordinate -- binned-of proof on-plaintltfsr-thus' frustrating vigorous enforcement ef- forts. It also causes divisivenem be- cause it inevitably involves charges that the decisioris of officials were ra- -cially motiv.ated In short, from both I. policy and legal standpoint. exclusive reliance on the test is misguided and would prevent eradication of the racial discrimination which. unfortunately, still exists in the American electoral process.- Another big question I have hem . faced with and that 1 did not may un-' ‘. ' dcrstand and may not yet fully underm .4. stand. but understand it much better.— was wratthisSenator had readabout ’Wxfionsl representation; that we were. in effect, setting up a scheme whecoby we ,would hare proportional CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE - of the “results" test that had to be ac- companied by language which alleviat- ed fears that the standard could be in- terpreted as granting a right of pro- portional representation. This is a matter of great concern. I might add. to the distinguished chair- man of the committee, Senator T111711- Moxp. who raised that question with me dozens of times in private conversa- tions, and in a period of discussions with Benjamin Hooks and other. civil rights leaders in his office for a couple of hours many weeks ago. Yet. during the hearings. s unani- mous consensus—and I would corn- mend the distinguished subcomnuttee chairman. Senator HATCH. for the hours and hours and hours spent in subcommittee hearings. And a. consen- sus developed from witnesses on all sides. among both opponents and pro- ponents of the results test. That the- achievednrnnortmmmgresen: ed that became a matter 0‘! great importance. It violates fundamental principles in this country if we are going to have proportional representation. it was generally agreed that the concept of identifiable groups having a right to be elected in proportion to their voting potential was repugnant to the demo- cratic principles upon which our soci- ety is based. Now citizens of all races are intended to have an equal chance of electing candidates of their choice. but if they are fairly afforded that op- portunity. and lose. the law should offernoredrossAnd Ithinlr thatisa matter of some importance and some concern to everyone. And I mist say that there was that general consensus “’39an I” well- “dbl-“premise from proponents and opponents alike. that this should not be the case. So in an effort to accomplish these two key objectives—and I want to cer- tainly thank Shelia Bair- of my staff ,andother members on other Members’ staffs.“ well as members of the lead ership conference. But to accomplish these two key objecflres-qnalntalnlng ~ the integrity of the results test while at the sometime alleviating fears about proportional representation-- was. actue‘redbydividinzsectianzinm two new subsections..- ' ' New subsection (A): retained the re-_ sultslansuw‘e of the Ho hill. thus. mommies: that-C the intent standard; as the sole means 3:21”th m under see» It does 1’39th Lyon Mot imam born ismlected maths mammoth”: (3) def; S 6961 quently applied in some 23 Federal courts of appeals decisions. As expressed in the language of the subsection, the standard is whether or not the political processes are equally "open. " whether there is access, whether they are open in that mem- bers of a protected class have the same opportunity as others to participate in the pci_tical prcccw an d to elect candi- dates of their choice. ' ' - Imofireosotdr. the focus of the~-~~ . Wuhmmqual’ access to t e politicameess..M whether members of a particular rig-i7 ,nority group have achieved propor- WW»; would again un erscore as strongly as I can. in the event the legislative history is referred to in future court cases in future disputes about this matter. that I think it is clear. the Senator who offered a compromise be- ‘lieves it is clear, that in no way can this be construed to provide that remedy that would require proportion- al representation._ I hope that, despite some of the statements made in the past few days. that there really is not much dispute about that. The language of the sub- section exclusively rejects. as did White and its former cases, the notion that members of a protected class had a right to be‘eiected in numbers equal to the proportion of the population. . 7 . Wenf‘bo mtected» WWW-elected sander the challenged practices struc- sharpie—Just one factoramong the totals Mot circumstances to be considered- undais not disposill-ve Thus. by relying on the plain language of the substitute which the amendment is designed to make applicable. the results test should never be construed. and ! ream- , phasize never be construed. by anyone ‘ to require proportional representation. Such a construction would be patently inconsistent with the expressed provi- sion of subsection (b). Further...the track record of cases decided under the white standard irre~ futably demonstrates that a right to proportional representation was never ' deemed to exist under the standard... and. in fact. was camsteotly dis- avowed-bytheoourml., ,Iwautedtotsmhdetmol‘mnity selects?” the principal murmur-2th: W ment which. as .1 indicated. is. ccspom soredby amber of NEW Edam... were...“ ec- sham untamed .r mi FM." ., ._ S 6962 now. but any judge or any court or any student or any writer or any future Senator looking at the record should understand clearly the intent of the Senator from Kansas. if for some reason it is not made clear. I understand the Senator from South Carolina may wish to address some questions in that area. I would ,be pleased at this time to yield to the- Senator from South Carolina so we might further clarify this particular area. ' ‘THURMOND addressed the Mr. Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gmssm). The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. THURMOND. Mr.'President. I thank the able Senator frOm Kansas. I want to express my approval of the statement he just made about prepare. tional representation. and I thank him” for making that very clear statement. that his amendment is not contem- plated to bring proportional represen- tation. In order to further clarify the situa- tion, I thought I would propound a few questions. Do our democratic principles include the concept that certain groups have a right to be elected in proportion to their voting potential? Mr. DOLE. No; I appreciate being , able to stress this one more time. The senator from Kansas indicated in his earlier statement that such a notion is ' repugnant to’ our democratic princi- ples. That ought to be clear. It ought to be underscored. underlined. That is not the intent and it is not withimom democratic principles. Mr. THURMOND. The next ques~ tion: As citizens of all races are afford- -~-ed anrequal chance of/electing-candi- , dates of their choice and those candi- dates lose. does this bill afford any re- dress? Mr. DOLE. No: and it should not. if the process is open. if there is equal access. if there are no barriers. direct 'or indirect. thrown up to keep some- one from voting or having their vote ,, counted, or registering, whatever the, process may include. Absolutely not. Mr. THURMOND. The next ques- 1' tion: Is the locus on the section 2 ' . standard on equal access to the politi- ‘ ‘ cal process or is the icons on whether a . particular minority mun. has achieved equal election results? - ~ L Mf.DOLE.The mammals .~ a thank tnSmator for directing the 'Iiknow of no one in this chain and Ilheardé‘ no ‘ where elsx Indicate} that It should be: theiwise. Italiouidheonaccemis peopmiin". ICG‘NERESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE reject the notion that members of the protected class have the right to be elected in numbers equal to their pro- portion of the population? Mr. DOLE. The language in section 2 does clearly reject that notion. Again. we think the language is explic~ it. It is pialn language. It should not be subject to some further interpreta- tion or some different interpretation. The answer is an emphatic yes. Mr. THURMOND. My next question is: Should section 2 be construed to re; quire proportional representation? Mr. DOLE. The answer there. as a followup on the other question. is ab- solutely not. I again believe that the record is clear. that the report is clear. that the hearings are clear. The gener- al consensus of the proponents is clear. as I have indicated earlier. Mr. THURMOND. My last question is: Do you believe that the new bailout is in fact achievable by Jurisdictions subject to the preclearance require- ments of section 5? Mr. DOLE. In the opinion of this Senator. and I know there is some dis- agreement on the bailout section. sec- tion 5. which we intend to address later—and I know there will be amend- ments to that section—I believe the bailout is. in fact. achievable. I would hope that we might reserve further discussion of that until we get to amendments on section 5. Mr. THURMOND. I thank the dis- tinguished Senator for his answers. Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a question, is the Senator fa- miliar with the letter to the editor from William Reynolds. the Assistant Attorney General. on May 31. 1982. where he points out the Senate com-‘ promise removes entirely the highly offensive concepts of proportional rep-” resentation based on race. a concept that had been in the House version? I’ did not know whether the Senator had seen that letter. ' Mr. DOLE. I think it would be well to make that letter a part of the Recon» at this point. It was a very clear statement by Mr. Reynolds. MrrTHC‘RMOND. Mr..President. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Rncosn at this point. .‘ There being no objection. the letter“ was ordered to be printed in the Races». as follows: . [Prom the washinston my 31. mm .;;1_‘§! Vanna Rmnrs A m m. In his nmvpage article (‘fonith Called Embanament’ Bot Unlikely to- Looe 311 Jon]? may an. we Cannon comments 0% thaattomey general? earlier Waco apropcsedam names:- for Section 2 of the:- Voting Rightt' Act. adramuidment tpanedtthemhflmbflmrecmtly ' W 1; act. Tortjlasv. for example. uses a new -_- “sense or. reasonableness staddard. m 'w’mxtmoreoitemf' June 17, 1.982 most serious concerns about House bill Seek tion 2. Far from “preserviingl all the essen— . tial features of the liberal version fo the bill Smith had opposed,” as Mr. Cannon boldly but mistakenly declares. the senate compro- mise removes entirely the highly offensive concept of proportional representation based on race—a concept that had been in- cluded in the liberal [Housel version." Of equal importance. the Senate‘s compromise shifts the essential focus of Section 2 away from an emphasis on election results (as in the "liberal {House} version") and back to a proper concern for individual rights: i.e.-. protecting for each citizen the opportunity of equal access to the electoral process. free from racial discrimination. By securing these changes to Section 2 in the giveand-take of a negotiated compro- mise. the administration was able to alter significantly the bill that had been passed by the Home. To be sure. it did not get the straight 10-year extension it would have preferred but neither did it capitulate and simply accept the “liberal version of the bill." As with every other major decision made by the president. the balance struck in this instance rested on principle. not politl. cal expediency. Mr. Cannon's suggestion to the contrary demonstrates another example of his regrettable lack of understanding of the subject matter with which he purports to deal. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has the floor. Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina. Mr. EAST. I would like to comment on the points the distinguished Sena. tor has made. First oi all. his concern about having to prove intent. I know he knows, as the distinguished lawyer. which he is, that intent is the stand- ard in Anglo-American law. so the notion of having to prove intent to show wrongdoing is hardly novel. It is the norm; it is the standard. What is the aberration, the mutation. is the idea of eflectaor results. This stand- ,, ard is what I find troublesome. You say. "You know. plaintiffs' law» yer: have trouble proving intent." First. I would point out that they have- been able to meet the standard in civil rights cases. But naturally, plaintiffs' . lawyers in any kind of cases. civil or criminal. will always say. “I wish we~ could change the law so I did not have to preve very much; then I could win.” - We do not want to get into special interest Iedslation- for attorneys. That» will bring the wrath of the gods down. on us. We have enough trouble with-‘~ out revising the law for plalntifis' at» tomcyssotheycangettheresult they] .. The purpose: of intent in Anglo- Ameneanhwis..that.inordet"tobea. chargedand found guilty of may»: ing; yamnmsthave mememal‘stateo? mind WWW a-particular act: yew srcnottobeiudged exclusively on the basi‘s-‘ofthrresuit or effect ofyouc June 147; 1982' depart from that standard. you ought to think long and hard about it. Your second point. the most critical one at the moment. is on the question of proportional representation. Look- ing at your compromise, we find. "Pro- vided that nothing in this section as- tablishes a right to have members of the protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the popu- lation." . _ . . :' ‘ Let us look at this passage carefully. ' < First.- it says there is no right to pro- portional representation but it does not preclude proportional representa- tion as a remedy imposed by a court. That is my first point. Second. the only thing it disclaims is the right oi minorities to be elected in proportion to their population. But certainly. the bill could very easily .promote not only proportional repre- sentatibn as a remedy. but something less than strict proportional represen- .r tation—a quota. - This is a very cleverly worded provi- i sion here. It says there is no right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their pro- portion in, the population: but. you see. earlier. it says that minorities do have the right to elect representatives of their choice: the only way you get ‘i that result is through a quota system of some kind. We are back to the at- ,‘ .' tirmative action situation. in which E; quotas rule despite statutory disclaim- " em. 30. yes. it may just be that we would not have literal proportional represeno tation: and oh. yes. the bill disclaims proportional representation as a right. But as the Attorney General 0! the. United States said in the Washington — Post-oanarChrzsrthe“ disclaims?- either completely reveals the results. test or it is meaningless. And‘he is con- _ rect: It either repeals it or it is mean-. 1 ingless; You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say there is a protected class and that it has the right to elect -' . representatives oiits choice and then . '- turn around in' the next. sentence and - . -, say, Y'Oh.; tor heaven's sakes. don’t think for a moment we mean that any- '* body should beguaranteed theright ' to elect so many people to public .,9ffi°°.F'.--'. . ,. . V Either you mean it 'or you-do not ‘3 jammand-the‘clever little- llne here ' .V .2. 5“ lathe; Weight: thelrightrof- "pro-- partiorutarepresentatiom”. But what .will slip. in under- the line? iaquotag. l; , ;mmpgttry . its ' - . . its, mm at; .771... 57-4» fi" . '12:.1 . a my...“ y ”r. . m mYnextamendmntmn y I.» «it me'pW umotuummeumr WI) (helium-mm 1. «a.» .. : __,. —~.v.....~ CONGRESSlONAl. RECORD — SENATE abuse here. That is the way to solve this problem. Everybody is 38.371118. Why, no. we do not want to impose quotas: we do not want to impose proportional represen- tation. I am saying with the current language. we run a risk that they will be imposed as a remedy by the courts. So we should all agree on what we are doing. let us settle next on‘ an amend- ment that will make it clear that the. court cannot impose remedies involv- ing proportional representation and quotas. Then we can at least go back to our States and say. "No. that Voting Rights Act will not bring. about that particular kind of result." Given the way the bill is worded now and knowing the nature of the courts proportional representation and quotas are wherewe~ are headed. It is just that simple; I" caution my col- leagues about voting for the bill the way it is. no- Ml’l“ lily- Drneidnnf Y cknl‘l “no S 6963 .c‘0 ‘,'/ “.r- =.'-_._" ' ‘ ‘ h‘ ‘ m‘éuEI—I LthnBTW‘W ere pr. "fig“; - 7.: r w rderd 1.4.32! ,, . a???“ r 'a "'N est ;,n-.'.-|'-,,-" '. . ’olafldmii. e avea sun's .— .-. or ,fifirfl*=fi"‘=‘w . I Of 13.“;;.§f !: c eSea— tor “0 52":039,I: a m . e a , 9"? St "I "';’)-‘;t ‘ -‘- Wu; are 0011 grifirfl’ffi i 4:! . . "f- i’ 9’5" g“ u ’ l"'ar»"', . . 3- .0 ee “ that, ' - I. :4: .1" f :«u mo 0 {yfil’fiyffi' ; I .“d to re .v » -;.- . , ‘.« .nt the CO I' - ( 'i' 1 ' l : ' e Sena V: Ms: nob pr-vo ' alre . - i (Q Cerrglmy ." 2 a . n a D fer’ces ; =4 - ~ . i? - l n f 11-: a -2 - u o g ef e—b -t - 'o - . - tense crest and import ' 95!!- mend the Senator from Nort " olio . _ u. a. Mflfiem. .nv