Excerpts from Senate Report RE: Proportional Representation
Working File
April 28, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Excerpts from Senate Report RE: Proportional Representation, 1982. da2d1928-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/dedf3139-0d83-40be-8d82-90df35137ca2/excerpts-from-senate-report-re-proportional-representation. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
?""r"*;""t B"f'**W "n €rcen?ts Ptorn Se*ra*<, Rqo*. p.ao-zt [P.la91 ? 23 (P'zo) ?,27 (9pzol-E The failure of the ghetto co have legislative *sts -u-t plo- -Ji* t" its populiti;n em€rges morc Is a function of lql38 ilections theri of built'in bies agrinst Poor Negme& 'r-ne votinq oower of chetto rtsidents moy have been *crncelled ;;;:;;L'th;-DiJrflet court held, but t[i!seems I mene tuP.b$? \ .it-i".-p.titieol defeet ^t thc CoyramJtte e b;liqes t0^L+ *ttq- a.rvre*t^d,met* iS sound , +t\Ll it is ^ccessary utd, appropn'afe- {o e)\svve-fi,rtt grotech'o4 g('YL Fovr+eet*ll.4 Fi*tecn+h 4n"* @ n,'3q1,3?d ||1t- t'i-,r'rr'r'\ "oi 7-"&^1 tt^c darye+?"ired .bg fose. tTlto Ll,r"' 4i*^ .,+l -- a "r-{ uiiirirA uo F variat gvolas, ov an'a,U- au* assour]ij* or1 oh ol-lavaL O)ec{:.on sr/stt6s i^ g eyt*c(. - The evidenco showed thtt the ghetto arer voted Democrrtic, that the Rcoublicrns *on fou"'ii ;h; T;; il."tiot,' from 190o to 196E-' and ;i-J;il'fiil{, ;ir;t-;h; Democrats r-on. ghetto-srca senato* "l'i TP: ;;;Aives'rerp elected. Nine blecks hid i .-+*-:==a* f a minority-gr,o.up heve no Oourt and lower t!i":t"! reoresentation. end the disclaimer in Section 2 eodifies thisT \iudicial disevowol. (Pa4 E)__ t p rb Lpp lq3 - t! %e-*.ona/- ReP ' ^ -TFE-illscloimer is entirelv.consident sith the ltr:" rngliT4, y,vr IP'Loq s"i,"iilI diit';d "c; ; ;i' .l q n""G p rgredents' w h ich eonts in si iilI';;i;;i. *g""ai"g the ab'sence'of anv.right to -nEenfclinn ft nrrl-c tn mst onv c(xloerDli tnBC navi w."3 Lpp.zto-tD ttre casc never ? Us Ler 2'tb-7) noc bcen chauencled bv env or tlre t€-cclmonv. Irus relqcuon or orooortional reoftsentition as the stsndard f6r lesolitv under the 't-",itt" test, is eiolicitlv incoroorrtcd into the staiutc-bv the dia- claimer, bcsed ori the holding in Wluile. The disclaimei squarely strres thet the Section crcetrs no right to proportional represe:^tr +onto4y group. New Subection tr(E) rlso rcplrces the p-celled .dischirner" tin- gurge in the House-plssed bill ln order to meke morc cleer thet the emended mc;tion crtates no right to prpportionel mprcaentrlLion.rr5 Tho Cornmittee lengrnge codifies the-epprodr used'in Whitconb,'White nd subsequeit eiseq rhich is thelihe extent to shich minor-' ities hrvc been elcted to _offiee is only one ,,eircurnstanee" mong the 'Totelity' to be eonsidercd.zrr -Ififpresly st*e-ffimFrs of r minoritv crouo do not heve e right to be eledod in numbers equel co their or6odrtioir in the mou- lrtion. The dirleimor thug suerint€* t}ar. tLe iuerion of *liether mingrity crndiddes heve beeln suceessful at ttre pbtts ;in;ot, L ai.-- ptsitivr in dacrmininc rhether r violetiron lns'occurred. If r viora- tfon is cfiblidred tnditional equitable principles will be applied by the co,rts in fadrioning relief thit onplltery irmeaies ttre p'r[or dilu-- tion found to-bc-in-:qioiition of this *ciion. Addi*rbna,t V,'eps o( gevtalov Sfvoyrn Thu vv,.ovd P.s$ Q.zt,l equal 6pportunity for minoritY -hiacte'Jof their- choice."' - ?*?or*'onal BtP 5 *ad,'hbh&( Vr'attr S o( Orrin l]a:+clt -Th" "compromise, proyisiol Aso 7p 4+-t CgTzw -il p*liuitio" irpon .suQ4ion (a) s,fi"s."i* !" 11l;:ql!-!1,Py]prohibition irpon sub&ction (a) Sr"iog rise to lqy ngh! to,ProPor' iionrl represeirtation. TE. F not quito the.case.,I}d po'.189_{f-Fl; i'Jii. tT5iT,i'ffihil t" th+;dfi;o tt J "aa""*is the idsir6 of pripbrtional reprcsenition s t twned,y. '-t'U"* i" fiiit"trrUitt "t -.r,y p-p-oneuts of the rwultr tBst, in frcf .- A;;aiv a.t"t-i""a not tir irreitude thc use of proportionrl reP ;il;il--&; -b""i" i* rttfii*i"g remedies for i'ioletions of section 2.c-- flo." t-,aementally, however, the purportod "disclaimerD lenguege in the rmended sectio-n 2 is illuory lor other nels<xrs rs t Pmt'ectlon ryainst proportionol rrpresenta8ion. It stf,t€E . . . nothing in this sction edrblishes e lght b 4"." TPq'' bers of e pittected chss elected in numbers equal to t'herr proportion in thc population. It is illusory becruse the prrcise "r'8ht" involved in the nev rctim 2 iirri-t" p-ibpo"tional refrteentlrtioit per rc but to politicql Progeg the,t rro "eouallv open to porticipatioir by members of r chss of cttt- ;.*;-;tdil-ulvi'uue"tiin (a)1" The p-noblem, in short' is thet crtis richt'is one that-crn be intelliioirtly defined only in terms thrt pqrteke l*flilffi ]f "ffii j:fh"t'tii* i" ilr f rf rLpdrti6nat reiresentition phu theeri*ence of what hew il;;f"r*i t6 as "obiestite factors of discriminction'.' Such-facto-rs ;; d;"ib"d in sr"rti,r detril in the subco'mitcc report,' but t'he .o*-iis"in""nt of these factors is cletrly thc at-lergc electoral 3ydom. The at-Jerc6 system is viewed by eome in the civil rights cqmntmrty rs .Jr[i*t?r" "tt to" of discrifrinrtion' bouse tf,-ey believe thd ic nnes is a "borrier'to minority electonl participetion" Under thc rtsults test" the ibsencc of pmportionrl -Iu[T eenttfion arJlle eristence of oo" i"n.oo "objectivi fritors of disciiminrtion", !r"tr * an et-large system of governinenl would cofftitutl e section 2 "ioiitlon. f" " dt niot*rrs"it *o,ila na, be the lrck of propo;tionrl rcom*ntation in and of itself thet would eonsummete thc nolftron ili ;fi th" lecf oio-potti*"I rcpre*ntrtion in combiner'ion with tt " r"-otta objective'*br'rrier" to miirority prrticipation. rc would be lrrolv imlevant that ttrer: l'ea no dirriminrtor-r motive behind the rt-irrie syst€m. for eremple, or thrt therc were legitimcte, non-dis- crimin-atoiv reisons for i-rc isteblishmcnt or mrintenance.-l-ir"" irr* ifsw edditional "obiective frnlors of dimriminaiion" orZboff"fttttp minejigy participotion would be lrws crncellhS.r€A/s- ,-ti"" for failurs to v'ote, rtsiilency rtquircmentg special bellot re- ouirements for i.udependeni or thinl-parti candidrteq etaggertd terrns ,if onice. rnti-eful|rle shot voting rcqriimients' cviduce of rzcial bloc voti-u.a. i Uistoriot Enclish+Alv bcllots, numbered electorol podq -ri"Fiiv vote nhuiromen]ts. and il forth- Erch of these factor:' whon th;; "xis within'e goveranental Eyd€m lacking prcportional repre' senl.ation mav e[ecdly caplain thi leck of proportional rcprceent'r' tion In.Ey yicw, tEe.nisul$ tast lctds io:lld[ts_!P_ry_191_tfl: J*"t*ioi becairse it is the ebaence of propoftionqt represenlatiq.n th'lt triotruD,hhe ffi of discrininxion in the 6r#ft-ce- TtceEeory of the rsiults test, agein, is thac such factors aUeqsdli exolein whv srich en ebenoe of prpportionel representetion aiist. di"ui tle vi*-nelly udimit€d erre/of nrch "obiective ftctors", iiis diffcult to imesine eirv communitv (;ith or without proportionel repreentrcion) thai would.not conlap ed lea* several such. facJgry.i In "riJi"". t[e nbutts teat. with or without the rcquiremcnt that "objec- fivc teciors of discriminrtion" be identifid' ii e8eqtivelv indistin- is not with &n tst, indeed of env test lor unry3Eitr8 '6discrimiution" other then en int€nc tesL" &rlyor+ona) ?q ?.1X,n,q Ce'2,+D pq1 CptO p.11 ,n.tr (P. 'l'he stte test &s on{ focused upon political processes that are not "equall.v open to parf tieipation' is tine rhetoric, lrrrt hrs hen identified b.v the $uprenp Court in Citu of .Vobile for what it is et heart. The Court olxervetl ih ifffiT,," a-sirhilnr descriltion of the rcsults test by Jrrstiee }larshall The dissenting opinion would <liscard fixed principles [of I low] in favor-of o judicial inventiveness that rsould go far I toward meking this Court a "super-legisl&tur€:'.rr I fn short, the eoneept of o proeess "equally open to participation" I brings to the fore whet is perhaps the mejor defect of the results test{ To the extent that it leads anyrrhere other than to pure proportionall rcprcsentation (and I do not believe that it does), the test providesl aknolutely no intelligible guidance to courts in determining whether' or not e section 2 violation ha^s been established or to communities in determining whether or not their electoral stmctures and policies are in conformity with the lar. W'het uan "equally open" political process? How ean it be identi- ffed in terms other than statistical or results-oriented analvsis? Under whrt circumstanees is an "objective factor of discrimination", such as an at-large system, o barrier to sueh &n ttopent' process and s-hen is it not? \.r='ha[ *ouid a totally "open" poliiical firocess look like? How would a communitv effectivelv ovCrcome evidenee thai their elected representative bodies lacked' proportionol representation! In my view, these questions can only be onswered in terms either of straight proportional representation analysis or in terms thot to-)r stralgn[ propo[lonel represen[etlon anElysrs or ln terllls tlla[ LU :ellv suEstitute'for the rule'of law rn arbitrarv case-bv-case rule of rndividull jurtges. As .Iustiee Stevens noted in liis eoncrirring opinion inCity ol Mobile, L7d r aaC U.8. rt ?G Tb. CoEDltta" Rcport aqgua tblt thc mEpromlp.leD81[3e ls dilFn?d to r"lt"ct llta,€ r. Ecoa.tc", {l! U.s. 7553tle73). Thl! li ht8hlv-nrlElt&dlng F.ot !-lgrDly Uccelri ruch lrotulSr-totlllt r"Dord ltrf,ar" frcm ll!-l,oteot DoorinE!, re ltctldn Yl(r, 6i-tui ruUciramiitce-nport.-Uut 6 h Dot ?v?a l-ftltbfu-l rcfrGcttun ol lhc tull tert Gr' "ii.ca-in flttc. ?lrr'crorar t qulr"n?ai ol vr,llc, lor cremph. thet lh.?e b. :'lE' ildlour' dhcrlDlDrtloD l! lvotdd llk. rh" phru" ln bolh th" itttutoh- eDd rpo?t lrn' iiriii ot -diti i"-n-orontm. ar2 U.s. .t ?55, i6a, tBJ. ?Bo, 7c?. fht oolt plae? lD $'lar? i-t-dic ttc tlro ;'-nruttr" llrunr pmmlncnth- ti ln th" ltrt?n"nt trk.tr from the- los"? ourt-r oilnloo thrt M?rtcai-AEerletor tn th" d?f.ndent'n)untr hls lorrE "itrfcred fron!. irrt ionilnua to .ut?? f?om. tb. rtrrrt. rnd etccl. ol lira,rioil dllerlmlnNtlotri enrl -l??Nt- ocoi-in i[c ictOi of rducat'ton, -coptoimiai. trrcnomlcr, h.alth. t,olltle!. ind_ oth.?!." rrz U.S. aa 768. tt lnttblnS' th? ur. bf ih" raultt oDapt tn thl{ mDl'xt rould !{6 to cteaif thrt tbc "lnvtdiour'' ?cqulrcE.ot l. lDdl.tlnrulrhtbl. fmnt I rfflulr?Eent oI lp 9Lllr'E ing da-v of hen ?mgor*^'ona) Rq '5 TheETi'ffiEf'66Pctions to the proposed '*tigP 2 "compromise ' urt -*i """ aii.rs*i irioioogi,ty in^thd subcommittee.report I would note. however. that in one important respect the P-rovslon ls elen mol? obiectionable than the House provision. It refers expnessly to lne qi;;qffi".i"i ""a *f*t"a *fni" groups to "elect.repiesentstives of theTr choice,,. This is little more tltan a euphemrstrc retetuce to ure ie;; "I ; ;nlirl., rucl, sroups to the establishment of safe and secur." ;;ti.;i;hEii-d ." it,"i !t,q :"n be apgred- o{ f ry- ry=.:::llYffiffi;f;;;"*"r"tit-t"* i" itri"."g"rd,I note the recent ststement of' 6;;;;i;'Si;i;-3;;;;; j"ran Bon? wiih referenco to I rcdistricting propisal in that S[ote, I went this cohesive black community tq-!a.ve sn oPpor- tunitv to elect a candidate of tfuir clwice'-.\\'\ia -peoPle see nothins wrong with har-ing a 95/o white dlstrrct' lt'hy c&IrE we hafr u 69Vo black district! rs ,t'hat ultimately is nhat this so-called.right to "elect candidates of ooJi "tioi""" a;rounts tJ th" right to hai'e establihed raclally lrPP' g.rro* districts to ensure proportionel repr€sent&ulon through [xe election of specific numbers of Blact, Hisponic' Indion' Aleutian' rnd Asian-Americon officehold"d- Each of us can sp6ak all the platitndes we want about concern for A"ii "i"t tr and minoritv riehts', but let us make no mistake ebout it- U*t tt% Durrx,se and the e"frect of the immediate measure will be to ini""t- o"l"i ^considerations into incr.easing numbers of electoral and pdlitical decisions that formerly had nothing to do with race. Incrpas- i"iiv. i" titf be moving in ttie direction of providing compact end ho-m-oorcneous nolitieal shltto€s for minorit.ies and coneeding them thelr ;shar;" of olhceholdeft. rather than undertaking the more difrcult (bu0 ultimatelv more fruitful) task of attempting to integrate them into th" electoral mainstream in this country by requiring t-hem to ;tace in neeotiation and compromise, and- to-entei into electorsl *ilit-io,rs, in "order to build their influence. Minority reprewnlation i"-tn" rn.ir primitive sense m&y be enhanced by the froposed amend' ments ; minoiitv infuenne will suffer e normouslv. fP loo -t (pr2+3-'1) P. )03 Cp t+u) PPtot-q(Vvzso-D Rea"* o? )he gubcnvnn^il}e, on,t 1{^! &ns*'to*'u-'n',, Whrt is beinc proDced in the context of the present Voting Rights Act debatc is th"at Coigress alter this traditional-*andard for identify' inc discrimination-ie.rth+llintinttt .+'tn't' ;.r*ultstt standerd- Rather than foeusing upon the Pnocees ot cuscnmr- o"iion. the new strndard would focus up-on elrctoral results €;6ttb. ;;'h-il;irp*a -r,""dment would iriitiate a landmark tra'sfor' -ilii. ir t[" fi"i.cipat gools and objctives of the Voting Rights Act. lil "no"ta t" *ia""st iroa it the outsetihet proponents of the rtsults test lerr no loneer telkinc ibout (diecrimination" l they lrs simPly t'-lElng lrl-:t- "dr-"--oerete lnplctt'Th€* conccDts hwe tittlc to d ffi fonsing upon thm p,blic rctions S"t.+ *mcted or interferid-with ths access of minorities to the rcgEtrsuon end votirur Dnooesss. the propced results trst would focus upon whcher oi riot minorities ieri successful in being elected !o oFge. Discrimination would be identified on the basis of whether minonttes ;:x,ffi '!?,tgi"r#*:?il1"*'lffi'ffd ii; d;ri.d r"".r" t -r"gisirstion a,na tne ballot because of their rrce orskitrcolon p lro Cp zzl rWieiPs o- x)/;es %op"h'orul W b U'kA' )'ectsioras ' Depita objections to the deacription of the rsults tcst as one fcrrsod utrnn proportional- repruen-trtion for minorities, therc is no otJrer log'rcel meening to-the new. test- Tq spec& of ,.discriminatorT ruults' is to speak furely and simply of rircial balance and racidl quotls. Ihe pmmise of the results te*,- is that any disparitv between minority population and minority reprcsentation evidincei discrimi- nrtion. As the Supreme Court olxerv:ed in the rccent Cily ol Mobilo v. Eoldandeisioni The theory of the diasenting opinion [pmposrng a ..rr8ults,' tr*J Eppeirs to bo thai evtry political grpup or at leest every arch group that is in the minoiity bae a-fedelrel constitutionil right to clect crndidetes in pniportion to its numben . . . The Equtl Protection Clursc- doee not reouim orooortional npre*itetion rs an imperrtive of political orginiiation. Apart from the frct tlrat the rcsults tcst imports inCo the Votinc Rights Act a theory of discrimination tha,t, ie inconsistpnt with th-e treditionel understrndinc of discrinination the public oolicv impact of the new test would beTnr-rreching. Under ttre rwutts'test, FederEl oouts will toobligEd 1p dig'nsntl6 colntls aystems of Strto ina tocrt Government that rre not designed to achievebrpportional rcDrcsento- tion This is procigely whrt ihe pleintifie rttcmited to ruuir in the lQila-w in4 in hcq werc irccsful in rchieving in rhe lower Fedenl courta. Despitc th€ frct that therc was no pro6t of discrimi- ulory purposo in the establishment of the eleetoral (et-larrc) svstem in Mobile Cnd dcpita the frct that then were clear and legitimit6 non- discrim,inetory. purpes to such-a systomt, thc lower court in Mobileomcrec r totar Evernlxnent of the cityb municipal cystsm because it ,hrd not_ghigxd pmp6rtionel tpr"s"rit tion -TffiErffi--e rcsulur tcsc rn section 2 would bc ti piace etJrrgc sydoms in constitutional ieonudrthroughout tho Nrtion' pr.rticu' lirlv il iffieitoral w-sreEu contained significant nudbeniof minorities and hcked proportiouel rsprcsentrtion-on their clmted rcorwntrtive councils or lecigletures.- IacislBtive bodic eunerellv 'thr,t lrck€d omoortionel ispnsontrtioi of sicai66nt frinorit'i &TouDn world bisu6iea to clce icrutinv bv thc Fedcral judi- cirrv. inter 't.he uopcd hsule tsL To tfe -ertent thrt ble' toral'rogult"r becomi thl focus of disriminetion rnalysis, end indeed desne tbs cxidencs or nonsri*euca of disariminstido' it ie diftcult to conceive how proportional representatioa by race cen avoid being ccttblished iB th; h; es the Btsirdard for ideritifying discrimination rnd, equelly importent, rs the standard for esc€rt8infrg the effective- noq ol iudlcial civil rights mmedies. Given the lack of proporti6mt'Ep rr*n!fif6n'and the e:rgt- uco of en! one of a countliss humber of ',,obietive factors of dis- crimination,' it is diftcult to sec how e prima- facie ca,s (if not an intbuttable. cese) 9f discrimination would.not bs eEtsblishod. Ct^ p?.nt-l2q [u taoy 2.104.q The s.ub?.^v'i++co o{ jucl.,c,at U.kA' o\ectsic ,uA* -6Y:a.rd ttr'Po''*t' our.d'rnovAync^t j6y:aldS rndih3 a- .rno' fepvzse*fa*r'arn uhA'\ lt.,lobr|.] Qp.t3b-3s' fzot n P ?rr,yon*low'l' PeP +' The fundamental observation is that the results test hes rbsolutelv no coherent or understanda,ble meaning beyond the simple notion of proportionol representotion by mce, h-owei,er vehementiy its propo- nenLs deny _this. Ultimately, the results test brings to thl law-either an inflexible standnrd of nroportionrl repmsintrtion or, in the words of Benjamin llooks of rh; NAACP (ih describing discrimina- tion under tlre rtsults tcst) : Like the Supreme Court Justice said about pornogtaphy, (f may not be able to define it but I know it wheir I *;i;fi ro1' - In thc finrl anrlwis. that is preeisetv what discriminetion boils dovn to under the results test because there is no ultimote etanderd for identifying rliacriminetion, short of pruportional reprcsentetion. Uirder the intent test, for errmple, iudirs br juries eviluate the to- trlity ol cireumstsnces on tlre boiiE df rihethei or not such sircum- Cencas ni* an infereneo oI intant to discriminth. fn other rordq onco tlrey have ben erposed to the full erray of relevent evidmce rt- lating to an allegedlv dircriminrtory action,ihe ultimato or thr=shold qustion is, "Do€s this eyidenco add up to an inferenee of intent to dis- icriminatei" That is thc stEndard bv ihieh evidence is eveluated in or-J der to determine rhcther or not such eviderice rises to c level suftcient to stablish e violation. Under the rsults teat" howevcr, thcre is no eompanble question. Oncc the evidence is before the court-vhether it bc the totrlity of the eirtumetenees or lnv other deffned claas of evidence-thcre is no logi- cal threshold question bv which thc eourt crn lsess such cvidencc, short of whethdr or not thore is pruportional rcpre*ntrtion for minor- itia As Pmfessor Blumstrin obcerwed on this mrttcr: The thing you must do undcr the intnnt stenderd is to drew e bottom line . . . Basically, is the rrtionde ultimetely r Eit-.r. E-rlotr, ,r!r!?t 2i. tenz. ottcrtDr ttrtcilroL o.!. !.r.to? ott|E o. E.IGLI !c!!ta Ecrrlo3:, Jrlutrt Zt. tet2. B.oraDlB I^ Eoot.. &ccltlrr Dlrtcto?, I{lUo!.| Aroclrtlo! lo? th? Adrrocao.lt of Cololtd PoDt.. lpage lItl ghrm or a pretert or is it a lccitiEdo neutral ratioudcl Thet is under the intent standard ond thrt is a fact findinc decision in the judgc or the jury . . . Under the rcsultE stindard it eemg to nre tlrtt you do not have to drew the bottom line. You just have to aggftgato out a series of frctors end the problem is. once you }ave iccrecstcd out thce frctors: whet do you hivcl Wher{r ere ydill You know, it is the old thing we d6 in lew school: you bilance and you 'balenco but ultim"ately hor do you balaricel lVhsc is the 6re raluel '6 Thene is no "corr value' under the results teat ercapt for the velue of egual electoral results for defined minority groupg or prcportionel ropresentStion. TherB is no other ultimate oittrrel*rold criterion by which a fact-finder cen evelurte the evidence belore iL W'hile there have been e number of attempts to definc such en ulti- mate, eveluetive standard, more probinc induiry into the meening of t hese' standords d urins suticomm i'ttee hdrinis irivariablv deqeneritpd into either increasincTv erplicit referrnces fo the nume'ricrf end str- tistical comparisons ihit are the tools of proportional reprcsentotion/ quotr analylis ol else the wholty uninstrirctive statemenls of tlre sort that ttyou know discriminotion when you see iLtt rc The implicacions of this arc not merely ecademie. In the ebsence of sueh stinderds, the results test afrords i'irtually no gridanee what- soever to eommunities in evaluating the legality and eonstitutionality' of their governmentel rrranqemeri-ts (if t-hev leck proportionel rep- re*ntatiSn) and it rffords ilo gridarice to courts in teciding suits (if there is n lack of pmportional representation).!0, Given thgJrqk of proportional reprtsentaCion, as well as the exid- enee of o fnsle\ne if the countless"'obiective factors of discrimina- t!on,'l tor tlreEfiommittee believes not orily that o prime facie ease of discrimination would be established undei the resritts tBst but that en irrebuttoble case would be established. What nesrDonse could r com- munity that is being sued reise to overcome this evidence I Neither the fact that therp wes an absence of discrimina,torqy DurDGp nor the lrct thrt t here were legitimate, nondiscriminatory'rtisoirs for pa rticular E t.a-r!a BcerloSr. Fat"urrt f2. f98q Jr!!6 P. BluDrtrt!. ptoli.r?. VaDdr"bltt U!t-nttltr Schml ol h;. ^ E Sc" rupE Dotc t(X. $'ttb Hpcct to tbc gacttoD t -attcta- taat tt?ra tra at tcail r! obrrctlro qlrodt?d bt rbleh to Judic the IED[ct ot ehrlaa uDoD utoortilcr. L?. tbc .trtE.qoo rDt.. Thur thc ,.?etrotr?EloD" aarDdrnt cstrbltrharl ln ,c;Gr hr! rt t...t aoE? tlcrllDa m"d solrl! to eblnS? h Do Do$lbllltY of r .trndrrd abort ol eol to rhlcb tb?y rotrld S.nttc HarlD:!' llrr( aoycrnmentsl strnctures or institutions, tgy.ld seem to h setisfactory' These werc certrinty fi";ffiiltfi,d".gi[tJ" plaintiffs or the lorrer courts ia Lhe MobikJ; ffiffih;i *ia"nt" oi what other reponse would be appropriete; ;brii tf'" J'iat"o described here? So long ., tu"* i"^ i,o irq,aef iJ"' ""iJol-lio!- ""ia*o' rf;Tr,tL};x:Jr"dil to" i"t"oa""ing evidence' The stand iffJH"fii;G;"ifiui;rii;;;d ;; a crse-bv-cose bosis. By neces- "i:vtr,"-"=rrur,."r-*o'otf, t'oEiilttt"til;+*t*TS5n ;tf m:"#'pi;;iffi relatively certoin *1" of It \!ent trsL lpage l38I ?wprv*lb".a! Qea g turmoil-in a p. r38 DP sr[ pp. lr-Jo . L)1 [.gPztz' zq Under the curreut language, as construed !y the Supr9n19 Cgu$ !n lhe Mobile case, I violation of seetion-2 $guires prcot ot dlscnltr^Tr- t"* oo"ooe" or intent. The House bill changes the-gravamen of che "i"l--t"b*of of a disparate electoral nesult' This.change rn the verJ essenoo oi the elaim filld under section 2 necessan-ly eh-anges 9e .P- -"ai"t options of cour.ts upon proof of e section I noletron. ln uie ;-;;;i;ffi;ii;;.;;;; "in -pi""ia. en adequ.ate remedv merelv bv teclarins the purpocefully discriminatory-action vord srnce sh9 es' ;;;';;it;;'tt[r;ir* .1"i. G a right to freedom from-wrong{ullv motivrted oficial action. Horever. under the proposcd-chlnge P .*tion 2. the richt established is to e particular result rnd so'-rnevrt' "bl;. ;;til';ifr'*iiii" t"quir"a t" providc an adequate remedy' The ;biitilli;a of judges will rcquip use of their equitv power:s to fl1u^c- turrielectoral svstims to provide a rcsult that rrill be responsrve to the new dshl.rie otherwise, the new right woultl be wlthouc an eI' f;il remt;, " tt"t" of afiairs which-is logicrlly and legally un' accepta,ble.*fii* l;rched in seanch of e r"emedy involving rtsults the srbcom- mittes believes that courts would have to solve the problem 9f me9s' urinc that remedY by distributional coneepts-of equrttv-whlch are.ln- ;i;ii;;ilbilil;i th, *.."pt ot propirtionelrtv' -The numerica'l 312 ?yopo-*ional W I contribution of the group to the age-eligible voter croup will almostc9rtunly drctlto gn entrtlement to office in similar p-roportion.rr, It is tho oprnron of the subcommittee that if the substantive nature of o sec- @i-rtr)(2, tDctud6.rlthto th? qrt"rcr, of s?oupt^D?q!?ct!q rad"r tb" vofllB iif.54.i,ii'"isis.'ii.*:,;',,,ftlrj ^'.,f;1Tf.![,jf;*id*:lT,.r*li:i*.ilj::grctlo! la(c) (2).D8.8" BGp._No. yl-Zi2f .t 20 (tetf ). -ETtG..la!l!clDe" oa tblt dtttloctidn rr. lotcd bt !tr. Blor rbo rlcccrlbat..tm tt Ho( Itdlrrton, ritt t3. th? provros-rouierF- p.E r;e ii;;'|fi ict-.oJ-ili.; gi'ijii6,i6tortbC" thrt "ooc. tba riaon "oiriniica' r[-]rilii-r'i'a - ir.iic t-irj-ii. -cftiLiifi ;tb.n.tb. coort . do rcqnrre ttret_iou i6-r6-ai-a'ifrcr-fi+-r ,rr,tlicG-uiriilit-iiii-ii.?cEcd, rtrn." toorrc Hartnn, L.r'roirr'{. i 5e fr;i:;ri"'iiil'tcs:i'Di-;&d;, Blrii.tGat Vote! R?dttlattoa Erluntlon phh";: -' - | For toflbar dtrr..roa of tbl eririecli 9r net.t "?Dtttt.D?atr'.. .a Eonrt? E?rrrDBFGbt!.rr 12, ret2. Jrma srn.ir.t''- rrrorniir]']er'j'c];iir- rdirfiiir-i'iiii,r",ii'iiil.P?oftrlor Bru,.rcro rkilanr thraiha'pio;;rt-iinip-jiilscctriro'2.'riirrmiltl-ririi riico ?! fll l._pl!1-'!r-uogcrrrl.nr'tt;'n-o'i io;i-ri-rdlJr;'i. 'riiiii.f i";iii;;;il:': ti:;l! Bl. lBtrEoDy. D" cbrnct.rltcd tb|t tb6r? t. follorr: "Be:lollf. fi cdi'orrr-tii. nottolofmF ! ?.t? rbii" ro r relr rhrre.-i-piccc-iir ol-iiiiij. uiJed-ri-idd-rlcrrr-laiiiieii,oriii.rld thrt la rbrt I i[d ootcctloorbh.;i lpage t{tl tio.n 2 cleim^is changed to proof of a per{,icular electoral rrsrlL the obllgatron of judges to furnish adequale remedies aecordinc to 6asic l11flpl"S of equity..will leod to widespreed esta^blishmenT of pro-portlonsl repre*ntetion. YirturJly the seme conclusion wes drtcd by numerous witnesses who appeared-beforo the subcommittee. Attornej, General smith told the suboommitlee: [Under -Qe new |ost] qy voting taw or proeedurc in the eountry which producir el6ction risults thit fail t" mi"ro. the populction's meke-up in e particular communitv would be Tlryo.bt. to legal challenge-. . . if carried to'its logical eoncluslon, prcyrcrtional representation or quotas woul-d be the end rcsullrrr Assistant Attorney General Reynolds testified : A ve5y real prospect is that this amendment eould wbll lcad o3 tq the use of quotes in the electoral process . . . We ere deeply coneerned that this language will be constmed to re_ jurro governmentel units. to. pr€sent compell ing justifi eation lor eny voting--system which does not l6ad to'froportional rcprcsentation.rrt Professor Horowitz t€stified that under the results test: Tlhot the courts rrt going to hove to do is to lok at the p,roportion. of minority vote* in r given locality end look ai the prcpodion of minority repreenfrtives in a given loealitv. _lhlt rs wherc they will besin their inouimlttrrt is verv likely where they iill end tf,eir inquirr.'ani when thev db that, we will hsve ethnic or racial pro'portionality."t mfessor Bishop has written the subcommittee: It seerns to me that the intBnt of Che amendment is to Fryr" that, blacG o" rn.rnU* of otf,""-*i"o"i;i};d"; ensured prcportional rupreentotioru If. for ereinile. 6la"k" {* 20 Fr flt o.f the population of a state, fiSpalnics tS Flr cent,,end Indians 2 irei cent, then at least,'2O ner cent of lle members of the legislature'must be Utact, f-S-p"" ceni Ilispanic, and 2 per eeng-1n6i"n r:r 2 U S.Cong.Nff 12 Bd. Vot _A2 3 1 3 Pr-po,.h'at'o! ZcA lo Profsor Abraham hes stst€d: Only thos who live in r dr.eam world can fail to perceive { the beiic purpose and thrust snd inevitable Esult of the new I *ction Z: It'is to establish o pattern of pmportional rep- I resentrtion, now based upon raebut who is to say, sirl- | perheps rt a later momeitt in time upon gender, or'rcligion, t 6" ".tl""rfty, orl*r, "g*'t I A similer conelusioar-ttret the concept of proportional reprtsentaf tion of race is the ineviteble rtault of the change in *ction 2-.4 -Frco.a s..rtrat, JrDu.r, z?. 1e82. Attof,!.t o.o.t t ol tDG lrattcd Et.tG. wurrtq F**1:jiirf*"d5hX,i:i l. t06:!' ar.trtrot atto,.t o"D"r.t ot tbc Enrtcd ltrtJ E !.ort? Eadlrl. FGbErrt t2. fe&!, Do.rtd Edotltr Mmr. Oufo EalvatfEl l$gi:!!.ft:;, Joroh Bhbon. J?.. P?oL.ro?. r.te tciol ot hr, to lcartor orrrn o.l Hl-r"#H'*AiH,!i:S:ffi9{f i$#f ;.r'{iffiiiT.;f lf ltii'l neched by e lergs number of edditional witnesses end o,bserers. (SeoI Attrchment B.) I Tlu ilhclaimtr ppois;n I hrooonents ol the Ifouse ehanco in nction 2 have srgucd thet the rmendment vould not Esult in p-roportional reprcontrtion, ond gen- errllv nlicd ou the 'discleimert seitencs which was added to soction 2 rs L prrt of the Houce bill.'r Sinc.e thie iB the chief argument con' tnry ti tlc conclusion of the subcommittee, the likely efrect of this pro- vision meritr earefirl ettention. A8dn, the enolysis begins with the lrnguego of the pmvision: The frct thrt memberr of a minority gmup have not been elcted in numbers ecuel to the qrortp's prpportion of th: populrtion ahell not, in and ol iticUr'cllrrstitirte a violatior orihis *ction. (Emphrsis added.) Thc llous roport comments on this changc rs follows: The pmposed amendment does not cneote r right -of pro- portionil iepresentetion. Thus, the fact that members of i recial or lingrage minority group hrve not been elected in numbers eqriil to the groripE proportion of the popula- tion does notr-in itself constitute a violation of the srtion dthough srch proof, along with the objective factors, would be higthly relevanL Neith-er doee it cieote r right to pro- portiond reprc*ntrtion es a rcmedy.rt This rcport language is fitquently cited as explaining the protection efforded by thC disclaimer language of the House smendment.r" Anelysis oi the Eouse report laiguip shotts that it is e misleading end i-rrelevant eomment oir the lik-ely"effect of the stotutory referenel to proportionality. Moreover, the srbcommittae note that courts ,orita loot fir$ 6 the lanFrage of seccion 2 itsolf in resolving eon' eerns rbout orooortionel re-ore&ntdion and would onlv consult-lesis- lative history if the statuto'ry lanErrge wers found to'be ambiguius. 314 ?voVoraiorwl ?e4' ll The House fupo"t reference to no ,.richt of proportional reoresen- tation" is highlv hisleading because, as eiplained ,'bor". the ehince in section 2 actually erpates a new claim to n6n-disparate election rrEults smong racial gmups.I'0 The inevitability of prdportional representa- -:S.qE !tc-Da-t" EcrrtDrr. F.brulrry 25. to32. Artllb.td eor. p?otr.!o!. Itrrvrrd S-o-lr,T-"]!r .L'. schoor, reprdrCauis_Cd;uoi -Ceiii:-Fi6ir;iiy-i5. iriiil-bi'irri-Iirn-.r,prcrlocDt, ADttteau Bu Arsclatlou; pcbrutrt {. fggA U.S. ttadr?3aatltlr. lrmasiu*u. Dratna?. I E.R..Rcp. No. oZ-227 !t go (lg8r). ! !b9- s-r1nrcoe eourt tn rtDrl;;ii'ioormntcd rrth r rrmrrrr dr..ralm"r of lrmrrorttourlrprcaaotruon b! Jutflo ltenhrll lD blr dlrr?Dt. ID r?snoo3e. th. eonrt obrcrvod. ._1P--"_!!!:,.!!tgF ontDton i?ck-r to ot..rrtm trtilieiinttnn 6r rt. tirioii-f riiit. tatlDt tofr"3ilot thtt I cllln ol rot? dllutlon mt}. ?tulrr. to rddluon tb irroof of ite.to?rl det"rL !oh. "llicne ot..blr_?ortmt ena rictit;-rectorr tnAtmtiie-tiii th;;;;ipla quatloD rr rltroot Dortrcil iDntra!6.1-. niiii'dr id-ti;'ri,r;'ii;'e?,iiii iii:tiir-*.llulr rmlolortetl clnrld.nrlons taro 96 eorltltutlontl ballr. lt nmrlnr frr (toD $-filn,J!r! rh.r ronrd. ln ror prlnetpted mii-nli.-iieiiiir-irrl"ctirrii-o?"i'nJti""ilrcpo,fllrert.r"oun tbat 4iDp?n-r to! !hrl?r.? r.trron to .lFt feE"r ol ltr eendlrleti ihio frr.?LD-nijle__LD_dtcrt"r tt.m_t(ht. Ind.Gd. rb" nu.rtl"" llml?! .r? tronnh 1o-f[!t 1nr1;1lr rnc "tnH! tru?hor. ln,om_lns_ th.lr, innllorlon Botrld b.. er tbe dlircrii iriuna. io . -_rltlisr thp tnmultf,ht. dtrrtbuaton or iiltii;i l;rhi;;., ite Us. ib. ir.ig.'---*"tt Ar Prorolmr Grnq ohaenal : Th. eonrtltuilon rrcih oati of ltr,ilrtiltreh. Thor iF mrnr rh.orl". of nollil.ali"Drtl.ntrrron htrt mrr ^m ot fl.'a rr rnia,a rn irii coi.itttiiiiii,.'s.iriiJtii'r. _-lnrr. Jtnnrrr 2r rar!. Berrr Gmir. pmririri.'Crri dirtilio *'r...i'r;;i."-.." ":' Tt. .onc?Ft nf r ,.dlltrt..t.' voto. r- i..onc.iri-ri.irii-'rainiiiimon! lrromn"nrr of rh. ratrrrrtttt. li o-na- thrl.l! brr n,nln! ontr tn tb" eonteri'ot tntfrxt sroufir. Th. Enul pmtrilonctrrr...Gf th. Fotrrrenrh Am.odmaat ir ritiir-ttri"ritirniu-hnerianoriliri"n'a' t'tiiirprotcctlont erDrllrl, to lBdlrldtrrt.. not to-irorim.-- ""' [page l{31 g',ifiiq,:rEfiT:"TIIiqi i1-:"tr"i?11'&s',-13'.[iiB'li"'.lii'"lfl;8,:i'.Ti,1i:?i,g: l'f,lffi .{:J:,tr.,,,'t]:i]ffif 'efi Hi:]i!"Ifi i:t1{}i[diti."$i*{"FJ,# 315 ?ropo"*lbna t ?er, lz 6r. 8e S.Ct. nm. a L.H.u M. [page tff l eilJ rcquirements for independent or third-perty condidatns; r& (?) 9!:yo; elections;'!' (8) sibstlrntial ccndidite d.xt requiremintsi"i (9) steggered terms of officc; "n (10) high economic cdsts associaCed yt.th _rggistration; t.o (11) disparity in vbter registration by rac€; r{r (f 2.) history of lack of proporlionai represent"li-on. ro (lB)'dispaiitv tl_lepcy rattr_by race;r.t (14) evidence of racial bloc votinglt.. {lI) \i"t"ry of Enftlish-only ball6ts; '.' ( 16) history of poll toxd j '."(1?) disparity in distributibn of servicei bf race; i., (t'8) numbeird electoral postsl t.t (19) prolribitionson single-shot voting; '.'and (20) malonty vote rcquirctnent&rEo Such-ttobjeetiv'e factors of discriminationt, Iercelv consist of elec- toral proedurcs or mechanisms that ourportedlv 6oie barriers to full perticipation by minorities in the elictoial pno,ris. Given the exist- enee of one or more of these factors with ihe tack of proportional rtpreentation, the nerr test in section 2 operetes on the breinise that the existence of the "otjeetive factor" eiplahu the lacf of propor- tionol representation. Thirs, in a technical iense, the ctisc.laimei rr6uld 316 ?r-,yon+iov,) 8e6> 13 -- r,le=..r..-Yoilra Rteht! .{et ot t065. l a(b). {2 t,.s.e. I t073b(b). gc. Sorrl eom.Us r. Katzdbn [, 383 t'.S. 301 (f068). ----t.t &.. c.8.,-Iloni" R.Dort rt 3(L3l: CIrr ol ttoblla r. Botdcr, af6 U.g. 5f (toto): e,rr o, Rorc r. lrrlterl Sloa?.. 116 l'.S. t36 (rO8O). _ tl *q...,:.. Yglllt-Rtdlr l-cr-of 1065, t 4(i). a2 u.s.e. I r0?3b(rt i a,,.tos eorrtg f. Otlt?,l Sauaer.:lgt U.8. 28n {tgGOl.n So.....a.. Boui. R?port !t 3O-3I i el t o, yobila r. Dotld- 11A U.S. IJ ,lg8ol:qlrt-ol Eqte_i. (trrlel sa.tc.. {46 lt.S. 15i ,l0AO). S.nrt. ll.rrlnlr Jrn. 2?. 1982, B.nJUnln L. Fmi!: Voto? Educrtlon Pror.ct B.lm"t...Bimhrr" rt 5 (lfr;eh. r08lt.rtcc e,9.. Votlns Rlrhir Acr of t06.'i. 12O3. {?I'.S.C. I l9?.1(nr(htrt). Tb. Jortle? D". natim?Dt htt oblxtal to "f:nElkhanls hitloir" tn Tuhe eolntr al'-26-76r rn, ltonr.Fr e.^nDtr.6-llfornt! (.3{-77). Sclrt? H..rto!r, Urreh l. 1082. Wtturm Brrdto?d BatE. oldr (AttrchDert IL2r.r8... c.t, Votln. Rtrht! Aet ol t96t. I 10.42 U.s.C. I t073h.rt 3.?. c.t. COn q1 tro^" v. lrslt..t Stitar. a16 1t.9. r li tl0qol 2 Lotac r. ,rrtor. 690 F.2.1 tStt (5tb elr l9f,l): S"D.h lfarrnrr. J.n. 27. 1e82. B.nhnln Eo6kr.t.L?...r.. Eou.c R?rrort rt 3(Ftt. TIr" Jtrrtl(." D.Dr?tmcDt hrr eonalrtcntlr obt.ctad to "!umD?Fl .lRtorrl portr" ln S€tloo 5 nrmlann'e lubmlsslonr : c.t. Blrutnlhau, Alabrmr (7-o-?Il: th. Ftrta. of O.o?.li (7-8-alt. J.ollrlnn. (:l-20-711. ltl$k.lnnl.(Lto-?r). :Voilh Crrolln. (F27-71). Soofh e.mllo. 16-30-721 : lnd T?ttr eltr. Tctrt,t-lF?Glr S.nrt" Barltrtr. Itrrch l. te82. Tlttlrm Brrdtord R?ynold! (AttldhEentr. I>l .trd I>2) : l.nr?. E?idnnr. Jro. 27. tO82. F"nlrmln Emtr, - t. ta. 4.a.. Bonp R"nort ,t to-ll. T1" .ltrrtlm D"Di?th.nt bu on rilrlon obl..t.d io "atttale-thot n?ohlbltlonr- ln S*tlon t Dl.clcrrtnca lohnl.rlonr: c.r..'Felledcm Al.h.lti(7-tl-71): 8ont"r eDti. (Ah.l D.moc?ille EiFtrtlr" Connlttr (t(L2.rL74). .q.nat" EG.tlnBr. Mrrch t. I na2. Flltlin R?r,rtor{ P.rnoldr. ( Attrchm?ntr JLI I . attr ol Eaaot. fl;tbe Rhrc.. aie U.S. ,56. t3{ n.lo ,rgFnr : I'S. Connlrrlor on etlll Rlshrr. "Trtrr Yotllr. Rlaltr /tct: T.D I?rrl Aft?r" gg. 2O(,-2Ot 00?5) : S.Drt. Ilartot!. Jrn. 2?, 1082. B"nl.mlD Emi..D EF. c.t . Itotrr R.fto?t rt ilL.lt. The Jrrtler n nrrtm"nt hrr mutlnrl- 6hlrt.d to 'mrl,odtt tot. mutrcm.ntr" In 8tstlon I Drrlormne rnhmlrrlonr: r.s.. Plt. ('^uFtr. Al.h.nr (8-12-?al: Ath"nr. Cr. (l(Lll-?nt. ltrnrrtr. Or a3-2-81): Orlmnr Parkh. Lr.(Ltn-?!tl: Etrt. 6f lflql.rlnnl (i-11-7el: alr-nrlllr. N.|t. ,a-?-t{}l: Roct Rltl. S.C. It2-12-7rl : Dtr|rrr l?X) Indcrpn,l?nt t.ho6l nrt?l.t ,3-t2-?il thnrt. Ir.r'ln< ltrnr.h !. fe!z. Blltlrn Bnrtfonl R.tooldr (Attrchrn?Dtr. D-t rBd I)-2). Sae SeDrt" E"rrln8r. Jrn. 27. te82. Brnlemln Bmtr. lpa8e l{51 be setisfied. It would not be the abeence of proportion&l rcpr€sentr-- tion in-oul ol iraell that worrld constitute tlis diqilsitive elLment of the violation but retlrer the "objective fector". ThL existence of both the abeence of pmportional representrtion and any sobjeetive factor" tould consummate s section 2 violet,ion. Becouse of the limitless num- ber of "objectire fectors of discfimination," the disclaimer provision would essentially be nullified. Effectively, any jurisdiction with a sigrr ifi cant minoiity populrtion thrt tack# pr6pirrtlonet Fepnesents- ti6n rould nrn afoul'of the rtsults test. Ideniifl'inc a furthdr .,obiw- tive factor of discriminaiion" would be lari,eli mechanical ind perfurrctory. lhe analvsis of the subcommittee of the Iikelv sienifiernce of the disclaimer intencc, in fact, accords it morc weight tf,an suggest€d by spverel opponents of the chance.who aopeareil before ttie"subcom- Bittee" Tf,iir views ane not reiecltld. but dri recocrized as lendins im- portmt support to the conclusion of the subconhith€" Assfutsnt Attoraey General Reynolds t€stifid. for erample, that the disclaimer would only oprate to prevent a viotation of irrcdion 2 whcrp u electoral sys0uir hid, in facl, been tailored to achieve pro- portiood rcpreeentetion and the inhnded result was not achieved eolzly fuutsn the right rras not exerrcised as. for example. wherc no minority candidote *rgi* o6ce.ttt This reasoning led AsiissntAttor- ney General Remolds to conclude that in most s'ituations a foilure to achieve proportionel nepre*ntation by itself would be srftcient proof of a section 2 viola,tion : fn tJre archettpel erse-wherp minoritv-backed crn- didd€s uneucessfully seek office under electoril svstems. such rs at-lrrge systems, ihat heve not been neatly fesignid to produce proportional nepresentrtion{ispropirtionite elec- 317 Pvopo'*'ru"al kP' 11 torel rcsults would leod Co invalidation of the svstem under 9.ecti9n !, and, in turn, to a Federal court order ristmcturing the challenged government s]*sgr.r[ Prpfessor Youngpr t€stifi€d thot the discleimer is tikelv to be whol- ly ineffective beco[se it is ..simply incoherent., a He *eerved: If Che draftsnen of propced section 2 wiehed to s to it that the mciol makeup bf in elected bodv would not be trken as evidence of o violaiion. thev hcve faiied to sev go in their moving *ntonce. If enacted. dhat seving sentenei will either be rewritten by the courts or icnored. in Jitherevent dishonor- ing Congress''rreponsibility ib write the Nation,s lrl&r.. Prpfesmr Berns t€stified thet the disclaimer might simply be ignored rnd Cated: .. T[hetever Cp-Ur"o' intention ia mrking this disclaimer, the courts cre likiiy to trcst it the rey they-treated e similar dilqleimer in the Civil !,ights Act oi fS04. Th€re Congress esid sp€cificalty that nothiig in Title YII of that Act stbun tlEr#:,s5?IrlTi#rri r. ti!2. ard.t !t lttotlcr oGs.rrl of tl? udt.d 8trt6 lnt. ,r'r$i,tiJtS5ltgi,Hp'flo3i l??1,,1" touotcr. Fmr'r .!d co!!.ur. trorDc? r I.!. [page l,t6] be interprcted to rrquire employcrs to grant prrfencntial trertment" to sny penDn or group beceuse of rece, eolor, sex, or netional origrn, not even to cormct ttrn imbolance whioh mey erist with rtspect Co the total number of perrcentage of percons of any ncc etc. employed by any employer. Clear enoush. one would think. but the Srrnreme Court paid it no heed.-To reod this ns written. said Justice Brennin in the Wcbq case, would bring e,bout'an end eompletely at variance with the statute. bv whiih he meont the ouioose 6f the Court" Congress'discliinier shoulcl be trken toit.t i gnin of solt.t6! whatever theory one prrfens, the discloimer is little morc than orical smokescr6en thit ooses utterlv no brrrier to the develon-oncol smokescreen that Do6es utterlt'no bertier to the develoo- of p-roportionrl- representation rnaniated by the preceding lair- tn tho now results test. o srmmarize onog more. the disclaimer provision is meanincless as rrrier to,proportional representation b&ause: (a) .it is abSlu.teJy the qqmidies, as opposed to the subctantive violi- .r€quiryd -bt-T_ (b) even with recpect to the sub- ive violation, the language tnken et its face velue-simplv reouircs lentification of an additidnal "objeetire factor of disciiriinoiion." or moFe of which sill exist in m-oet iuridictions thmuchout the !try.;-(c) the provision ean equally hi interpreted to plale an eb- te obligrtion i!T, " jurisdietion t-o establish gqlgmn}lgCl_st4tg- 318 Propo"t bnal Ptsg ' 15 or procedrrre-s" eRn be violations not, by.definition. the raciol m,a.ke-up of on electcd bod.r'; and (e) the provision. even if it meant what its proponents argrre it means. is uneomfortablv elose in lanetree to dis- elaimers in earlier Iegislation that has been'effectivcry igiorfu br. itr" eourts. Prcportiottal reprercntation at public poti.q The eonelusion of the subeommittee that proportional reprcspnta- tion is the inevitable resrrlt of the proposea 'chairse in section g. n;t- withstonding the disclaimer. leads'the inquin tjwhether the;do;- tion of such o svstem-sould be odvisoble'policv. On this point, tlie testimony was virtuolly unanimorrs in coneiusion : pronortionri'r"r- r.esentation is contrnn' to o1r political tradition and oright nJ to L accepted as a general part of our svstem of qovenrment oE anv level.r3. Professor Berns. for example, indicated thit the Framer-s c6nsidered - $ii--"voilDr. Btrht-! .!d wroD8r.,. -coEn.ntrF. M.rch ,oF2 ,t 3s. ..F.rr?r., r"r.Elo ott,.a.t gtccrrotacr. or aa.da.a:webr. tti 0.s. ib:j-it6iei.ttiititiiil*'ijii.lDmrt lD J.t.rDothcr r?nr. h rhtt_tt-der aothlgt Doii iiin rrrtrte rnrt-tJil-riilr -rini. !!q t.!.-FrireiD r. ciarlr. {pi_g s. rzr-yeroirCiii :'Firi}-ii'ieoiiir'rliiz ili 'iiiir M_(rp.1ll i _ct..y-ot yotttcv..Doucr rtc u-n. s:r.-cr-rrbaoi:-ioiii-il iigl.iil;s,i'F.'?o !glt& 1382 (otb et?. le8t)..trr rrrot.d ruh ooa tooajil f,oJoi.-t:*l-usi.-iiii-ii6zr'irD thrt.r"nc. rt doa not edd'rdr et err tbJlnprci rird rrfrieitioi"-di t[i[ iiiitiS.ectlon-2.tDrt ir b"ln! ehrn.G{-th".?"iutti 6.t. -tt-i r-in trit tfrit eonir.* }iii'firicctrnrld th..tindrrd of s.crlo! 2 ertdrnca r;;tri;ur tiicnt o-o irrcpa-ri-6r eonirde-ioehrno eurrmt lrr. _ lg.C ?.t.. S.nrt" lfatrlDrr. trehmrry-a. 1982. Ivomrtr Doncn. pmferm?. N"r .t'ori uolr"nltr gchoot o! rrr. ?Gor.i.nttni iti'encaern'airii u-#?irh-iiirroti'i'r,l iiiurli'i,.IEI!!! qlor,-qlrtonrl Fnmr-trtron. I'rhtnr ttet limnt. rmii?lti-d'rir'i,ii. r,ia]r"-n"'rii.r[o onrutuuonlt rrlt?n t!d^th_rt Drom_"ttonrl r?ttmlantrlloD his not h,n 6n7 rr..tim.,;: *""i:.r**nor. Februlr rz. reaz jorroi Ciio'ui'n.-iiirracot. iieep-r:iri 'o.ri'nc 70.' 9l s.ct. t858, 29 L.Ed.zd 363.7r. 93 S.Ct. NZ n L.Ed.u 3r4. [page l{7] 1!11V,gu..tion th.e subcommitt€e has addressed and rejected any syst€m of representaiion based on intertst groups. He tpstided: their best to minimize theii \'lrh-ercas the Anti-Federalists cslled for sm.all districts and. \ thercfore, mary represeltstives, the Framers *fA t " lrrigot ) Iarger districts and fewer re.prcsentatives. Thev did ;;a meons ^of eneompassing within each district ,ia creotpr vanety of parties and intereste," thus frceins the electEd ren_ rosentatives from an excessive dependence "on the unrefinid and norrow views tha.t are likely to be erpressea Uy particuia. gmups of their constituent&u? - The tBstimony of Professor Drler sounded the srme theme: N-othing could be more alien to the Americon political tradition thcn the idea of proportional representati6n. pro- portional repreencerion mitrri it impossible f;-ah; *;;- pntaCive.process to find a eommon ground that trrnscehds tactlonalrzed rnterests. Every modern government based on thc proportio-nal systern is highly fragftented "na ,*t"Uie. rhe genrus.of the Arnericqn sys-tery is that it rrquires factions ancl lnter€sts to take an enlarged view of their oir.n welfere, to 319 ?npo*+-r'ona) ?e4' 16 seg 0s it were, their own interests throrrch the filter of the Tmlnon good. In the American system. &csuse of ifg fluid oreetoral alrgnments, a representative rnust rcpr€sent not onlv rntercsts thgt elect him, but those who votc agrinst him as well. That is b oy., he musi represent tt* ...?n int""".t ""it-",E-lBn 8ny pertrcular or narnow interest. This is the senius of e $lryrsg countrT whce very electoral institution;prrtieu- le-rly the political party stnrctuemilitate acoinst lhe ide.a ot. proportional representation. Proportionel -rneoresentation bTogr nErrow, particularized interests to the for6 and under- mrnes the necessity of eompmmise in the intercst of the com- mon good.rB . The subcommittee adopLs these views and believes that prooor- tionel nepresenta[ion oug]it to be rejectc! as ,"a,iiilT. iri,li5iiliiiytoqtly apart from the dnstituriondt aimculrG r6tit r;i;;;,iJ di" racial conscibusness that it fosters. Since it t rs ,on.fua"a iil A;propoed chenge in section 2 will inevitablv leed t *," p""""iti."it reprcsentation- end thet the disclaimer langrage will not'prci.ent this I$ult, the subcornmittee necessarily and-firrilv concir&-tt J -tii" House emendment to *crion 2 shouid be rejected bt thi; bod;:--- -.- ff,ao-il ( ? 31.3J !r ontv insofar ee regidentie,'[ii#lla" were mrinrained for sueh8"ouP& ?wyo*brral k'P' lA (p'\st - 52 Cv szt) g.l5z CP .3zs) Fp . r5l '58 qlzsoatl [page l52J minority populetion end whieh hes not aehieved proportional rtpne- eentation by raee or language group would be in jeopardy of a sec- tion 2 violation under the proposed results test. If any one or more of a number of additional "otjeitive factors of discriminition" r" rrere present,- e violation is likely and court-ordered restrueturing of the tectoral system almost eerti!4 to follow. $##H'f ff :,rsrfT"*--%S,:rilxff;l..J:.tr,,"".J*fr ii,#: ]imJ:,,-1,r,::;'$iriJi*t"tii[ry1.,:r*1_Tii1T;?tte,f'irxsthe.rcsults est. Federar fi;i-;"d.;d';;il.ir"ng of those ereetorar@glerethe eritical eombinaii"n il;;:' ^the subcommittce fnG;Ii eonffiiled os to what^kind of .ridenJ{frr r[- 6iii'6'i,-it-tia t" i "6i "t Ui a def end a n t- i u ri sd i ctiggr. i n ;f;;'i; -"""te"","-tt" lack of proportional represeritation' 'whst evidenee would rcbut evidence of leck of pnoportionsl rtPresentsllon (and the cxistence sf an odditionrl "o,bjectivet'factor of drscnmlne' tio4)_r r-tc mucoqprg H,# nhq-q,;i:H;'!ffiH;*: il{jq {isTiH}'ffi "q*Efi tr THx t*ii, * t r:i ""s"ffiI;ffi' ;;iil;*e-d*6.6i-to or-ercome the leck-of ProPor- ffiImffixmt*r*'il,trtffi"}THs;rS liol'a"ffi" %t"ltty ;f &;&@.". As not€d in section.Yr(e)' ffitlffi;1'fl 'ffi ffi :*[F#H j;t"fl'#{i$ :ffr' "iffi ; H"#i;HTn "I;;; H.,' t["-'ti'a""a of proportional ;;ilJiffiil"i,utfitilfilrt"" *lg *d s'"d""d' fhporh'o'rlaL f+ , I fF lxo'sxLggts)-se] &+tarl*e,vt* A " &uav,ffi,lnk* ''fl';uv h S,,rbamn**tee PeVo"l M prc po rt ional re p reeenl at ion by race" ? The sotuoortional representation bv mce't *andard is one that cvaluatci el&toral actiois on the bosii of whether or not they con' tribute to ropresentstion in a State legislature or a City Council or a Countv Conimission or a School Boer:d for racial and ethnic grottps in proirc*ion to their numbers in the population. Wlwl it urong with"proportinnol repreaenlationby race" I Thc intcnt test allows courts to consider the totrlity of evidence mrrounding en elleged discriminatory action and then requirts such evidenoe to be evduatod on the basis of whether or not it raise an iri"-*ir* ,trrrp.." or motivation to discriminate. The results test' hr;;;;; *otild i*ut analysis upon whether or not minoritv gmuf wene reDresented propotionately or whether or not some eha'nge ln i:;;i-ffi-;; p;&di* would iontribute toward that nsult' 'lfllml doce thc tcrm'td.itriminatory rceultt" mPan? It meons nothinc more than is me+nt bv the eo-neept of raeisl b"i;r;;;-;ili'ii"ti;, una"" tt " results 'standard, actions-wo-uld tl'-iira-*i.'"ir*- l"aii.pt.. on color-conscious grounds' This is iiriil.it ddc with avervthinq that the C,ond.ituCion has been directedtotsllv;t odis with everything that the C,ondituCion has been dlrccted ;;;;;1;;i"; tl. n-"stnreiion Amendments. Brovrt v. Board of Im't tlu uproVortional rupvemtatior by ruccn dcecription an Qo' tnne dteeiptiotl Yc. but the results test is an ertrome t€st. It is b!+d upon Justiee Th-;ild-MJJir, ai.*nr in the lttobite case which wa.s deecribed by the Court as follows: "The theory of tlis dissenting opinion . . . sppesrs to be that every 'political gmup'or ct least every wch gloup thot is in the minority has e federal constitutional righCto eleci can- didstcs in proportion io its numbers." The Hou* R.po""t, in discussing tl" pr"Sa i "r-'lro,rlt"';te$, admGtil pili"f diie"b.ril;? pnopottionol reprtsentation "would be highly rslevlnt". But doetn't the prapoced tuw sectioa9lnngvo4c aVraely ctale tlnt proportiorul rcpreuntation it rct ite ob jecniue ? Therc is, in fact, a disclaimer provision of sorts. ft is clever, but it is a smokescreen. It states, "The fact that memben of a minority group have not been elected in numbers equal to the group's proportion of the population shall not, in and of itself, coustitute a violation of this stion.' Americon in the elec'toral towerds sinee the Roconstntction n iffibite,the Constitution "dcs not te' ouire b.ooortional reprcsentation es an imperative of political og-a- riizatidn."'As Madisori observed in the Federalist No. 10, a meior ob' "" dt tt " drrfter" of the Constitution ras to limit the influence of Propo"l,'ona\ eaP, 11 W h,y it thit longuage o " tmokettrwn" ? The kev. of cource. is the sin rnd of itself'language. lt Mobile,lus' ticc Mari6all soughi to deflecc the "proportional -rtPrcee3.t"9o." uy ra"et aescription"of his results theor.v with o similar disclaimen il*ia"" i[d-t"tpo"* of the Court, "The dissenting opinion :qk" t9 dilT;il trrir a.itiption or its the6ry by zuggestin? thgt e- claim of voto dilution may reluire, in addition to pPq{ of electoral defeat' some e"ide,nce of 'tristiricdt and social factorsi indicating thot the grorrp in quostion is without political influence Putting to the side the evident iacrthrt theso cuszv sociologicsl consideralion--s have no constitutionrl Ursis. it remoifrs fei from drtain that they could, in any principled manner, erclude t}e claims of any discrete group that hqppeng {or whatever Fsrson, to elect fewer of its cc^ndidates thon erithmetie in' dicatcs thot it migltt. Indeed. the putotive limits rre bound to prove illusor:v if the exf'ress Purpose inf6rming their rpplication would be. as the dissent- essumes, to rcdress the 'inequitrble distribution of polit- ical influence'.tt Eoplnin fwtlwr? In rhort. the point is that thers will alwevs be en edditional ecin- tilla of evidencc to aetisfy the sin end of itslf' language. Thie iE perticularty tme sincs th6rs ig no standard Uy wbich-to-judgs any ividence except for the rcsults Etrndsrd. 'Vld adn&imal eddeace. alono oith ettidetue of the lack ol mo- port-iotul rcVtuauario4 woutd, i1fue to coatplcte a'ecctioaC AiUitAo" wdtr tlu rcailte tatl Among the edditional bits of "objeetive' evidence to which the Ifouse Report, refers arc a (histola of discrimination",'hecially polar- ity voting" (sic), at-lcrge electiohs, majority vote rcquiremerits', p*o- hibitions on single-shot voting. and numbered poets. Amons other frctors that hav6 been corrside--rrd relevant in thi past in evafuating sutmissions by -"covercd" juridictions under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act a,re disparatB recial registration figurcq history of Engligh- only bellots, maldistribution of prvices in rrciollv defineble neishbor- hoods, staggsred electoral term& some history oi disriminatidh. the cri*anoe 6f durl school systems in the pesf, impeaimmts to third pnrty voting, lcrdency reiuirements, redistricting ptans which fail lpage l82I to (mrrimize" minority influmce, numbens vf minority registration o6cia.lq re-regis.tr*r_on. gr rogstialion purging rrquiiemEnrc, eco- nomrccoetE assocreted wlth rc$strf,tlon, etc., etc. T lue c I ut otz hans e b een ut ed, b c I orc ? Ye* fn virtually every case, they have been used by the Justice De- paftmer* (orbythe courts) to ascertain the eristence of discriminotion in "coverpd" jurisdictions. Ic is a mttter of one'g imegination to come up rith additionsl factors that could be used by errotive or innovative coults or bureaucrots to satisfy the "objectivet' factor requircment ot the "results'tBst (in addition to the absenee of prooortional rcpre- sentetion). Bear in mind egain thrt the purpoee oi m6tivation belirnd such voting devices or arraigements would li irrelevant Bummarbe ogain tlw eignif,cance of tlwde..objectioe,' ladore ? . The significance is simpl+where there is a Stete legislature or e city co-uncil or a county eommission or a school bqnil which does not rcflect racial proportions within the relevent pooulation. that jurisdiction will bo-vufneroble to prooeeution under *tion 2. It is vir- tuallv inconeeivable that the "in-end of itself" Ianguege will not be sotisqed by one or more "objective" frctors existiig i-n nearly any iyrisdtp{rog in -the country. TIie eristence of these fao[ors. in corijunc-- Lion with the absence of froportionol representation, would reprisenttion with the absence of proportionol representation, would represent an eutomrtic trigger in eridencing a section 2 violotion. As Lhe-Mobile eourt obeerverl. the d isclaime r is,,Il I usor;rr,t. Bd @ouldn't youlaok to tlu Even if you did, there rrould,bs no iudicial strnderd for evclualion other than proportional reprcsentatioh. The notion of looking to the totality of circumg,onces ii meaningful only in the context 5f some 353 f l8 qfg355l li#'i"ffi Tl#il*,H*s:ii:1fi ..im!.tift #H,}[3'T?E ;#ffi r##$.ffi?**Ul*$;f:"r'*l#*1r#I"; ;;d=;t'd. ;"en the sbsonco- oJ proporttonal, existsncs of some "otlJi'J" i*dtot, " primr feeie (if not sn irtebut- teble) case has been *ttiitr'"a" ii"Jr[ is 1o.1t"d foi further inquiries ;T[i"ffi;..nil"; E;;;fi;"i;, tt'"ot'ota question for the courts' Pon reditticting ard rup,port'otnrtcnll n"ai"t"i.ti"g eud recpportionment actions.also w{l be-j.g{ed on the brsis of propo-rtional rcprcsentstion snoly$s. As IJr. lV. .t'. (ilDson! tf" pr-ii"oi of tt c Sou[t Carolina NAACP, recen_tly observed obout propca legialetivc redistricting.il th* Ftde. "UnleT *e sie,q,f- ?ropor|'o^.l q'Zo of blacks havinc the 'VLol it sooh diTutiot"? Thc conceot of svote dilution" is one thrt hes been responsible for tnnsfomtini other pronisions of the Voting Rights Apt (pp' ?ct!-on 5) from thds desidned to ensure equal access by mrnontre to th€ ;"*;#;d;-;ffi;D*";;ln-ti thoae desrgned to ensure equal ;iffil;'0";. iti"-ti'c'i,i-t"-*Ei.t t end voto frs beenggrlificrntly i" ?o.ora in reccnt, v&o intoit e right to cest ln "effective'' vote end the rigt* of rrcid or ethnic gmupa not to have 0herr colleetlve "ota "aitr[a'. S€e. -:rl-tt"il.t?rr,'ntt" odd Evolution of.the Votinq Riqhts Ld",\iTlw Publie lntercil {9. Detsrmtnrng wh€tner orli".'to?";q?&-ilf i"iaijuia';isgenerallydeterminasimplv by proportiond represcnbtion enelysis. ( rts fP 3tq nwawiu tlu occtioa2 beul Thc dcbcta otrr rhether or not to ovcrturn ttrc Suprcmc Courtb drigion in tobile v. Boldeq rnd oaeblish e rsults ta* for.idcn- [page t85] tifying voting discrimination in placs of ttrc presGnt intent tost, is prirbe5ly theiingle moet importrirt constitutioiral isre thlt vill'bo considered by the 07th Congrs. fnvolved h this ontroveny rrt fundsmenccl-issuos involvinf tlte nature of Ameriern repreecn[ative demcr.rcy, federalism, the aivisioo of powers, and civif rights. By rodefining the notion of "civil rights" Lnd "discriminationr' in thi contert of voting rights, the propoeed tr?sultstt ornendment would tlensform the objctive of the Act from equal accesg to the ballot$ox into equal rcsults in the electorel'process. A results test for discrim- inetion can lead nowhere but to r stsnderd of proportiongl representa- tion by rre. ?*po,.+lr-t ?l+' zl ( lq s(9 3w 4't) g l1{ AIDRII'8INO TED PROFONf,TONAL NTPRISA! TAf,ON IIAIIA While convinced of the inepproprietens of thc sintani stsndud', horevcr, I was also convinceil ttiet in onder for this legislation to gerncithe broed bipartisan zupport which it descr.red, the codificetion of thc "mults'trcil, hd to be accompenied by Iangrrrgc which ellevi' etad feers thrt the stf,ndlrd could bc intarpretod es gnnting a right of pnoportionrl roprteental,ion. During the harings, this wrs r con' crri ciprsd byinany urd oppeiffi orimerilv on this fes--Yat ftffinc the hesrirus r unuriruxrs oon-jrffidt Urnlm opponenia rnd proponeats of tbe ruults tad,, thet ttre td for Setion 2 cleims should not bc wheahcr mcobers of r protocted closa h^eve echieved pronortioorl Npruntr- tio- It wrs gelnenlly rgred thrt tle concsit df ccrtria idintifirblc groqpE hrving s right to bc elctad in propo-rtion to thGir votiry po-groups hrvins s riS'ht to bc elctad in propo-rtion to thGir votiry po- t""!i.l rrs rcpugn:Tt to th: democntic principlga. u4on rhich our ocioty is b.sd. thG domocn ,rc DnnqDIGt u of dl ncc ue'otitfd to tp atvl -a,rs, oy reryffi e su-Eiiiilllrnttiltlmenr. rs 19ll-p the prccedcnt which the amendment is designed to make rppliceblo f am confident thet the ..ruults" test rill nof,be con*nred to reqqiry proportional rtprtsentrtion. Sueh r onstmction sould be patcntly inconsi*ent with thc expnes prorisions of subaection (b). Further. the trrck record of ceses-decidil under the 'White *rndird irrcfltebly -dernonstr*e that r right to pmportional rtprc*ntetiontla neecr damed to exi* under the standard, and, in fact. was con;.- sirtently disvored by the eourts -----/ P rq + Q-s*'68J so4.: As it becesre evident thet there ras to be e change in Section 2 mrny of us focused our rttention on the pmblem of distingrrishing between e ttdisprcportionate" result end r (discriminatoryD result. I for one wos rrncomfortrble with the lensuase in the House-ptss€d bill. I was sympethetic to the desires of our"coll-eagues in the House to ensure thot the irrohibitions of Section 2 were enfdrcable. I did not feel however, thaf the proposal which the House approved sas an aduluate guaran' tee againit a-n ultimatp mandate of proportional reprtsentation-. Therc' forr.-I erpreseed my re*nretions with that propcal ot the Subeom- mittee ma^rk-uo. I ilo indie.eted thot I wG not satislied with the pragmatic implicetions of the "intent" te,$ and declared my intentions of seekinc some form of comprvnrise. -In woiLing on this propcict.-I acted on. the basic assumption that selected mindritv nroubs ihould not be subieeted to invidious exclu- sloS lrom effective"poliiical porticipetion; neither should thev be en- E. hss ston from efiective poltttcal p&rtrcrpstlon; netther shoulcl they D€ en- titled to eonstitutibnel proiection from'defeat at the polls. This premise is -simply. a Ot,r t't"e VOh was conhdent that some mecnanlsm cou of the difrerentiation ?royoA'"ow) QeP ' zL distinction could ,be mode in an equita,ble rnd certain mr'nner' 1i""" ttiitlfie eompmmise proposal which I eo'sponsored and hss b€€n roprored bv the Corimittee achieves this gool' ffioNALntPRrSE!flfATIor =---- {qally,.the amendment-rceds trothing in this section estebrishes : rlgnl ro nrve members of a protocted class elected in numbers eoualro rnerr pnoportton ln _the populetion." At *versl instences the Cim- .rnlrrec fieport states "thet the section crcates no right co prooor-''uonat.representrtion for_ rny gmup,'. The Committ& R.DdJ;Im lrr,aEes rnat inv eoneerns that have been voiced about rrcial qirotB ere *#"fr'tP',ili'trr,Y;ffi ",.Bllil#Higliffi H#tr'#port Seetion YI pc.9. Thercforc, p.iI"ry is no.right.to pmportionrl rtpresentetion. thecourta &rc pr-oh i bi tcd f rrm im[osing'pr.^p"rtfi ;i ;t ;;;ilffi ';; lp1Sy. fn fact, the Su-bcomriritt* ,irin6.itv .r.f,.ia tf," *riil'#"_crusron I ..the mi,nority joins the majority iir ,*i""ti"r-i--ojiii"iif rep rcsen tr t ion rs e i rhir rn . " pp -p "iit" ;- A ; i"hi"tt g,,f,fl HIS"ffi m.h:[ffi "'1':dr"i';;;tyi"; Ibe-/ whichf p lq qCP'3bq 'o.ts5 o{ Se,nalov DeCanc)'ur a^d SenaJov V+^^ grtb cnvnrilt1rzr- QePo* (oqac*s YII'QY lo iL;*** ;lte' Qrpd ) .. .,r*ouu=o, rnaon *rM *r,=r r, ,,,, ,r*ro, ol.r,cAr.}:LE CTI O.\- s oR R DQ UIR}: Pfi oIORTI o\.\, o"n,d"n-.,,, o *p $? #ffiil{if$i',1';:'mt',j}].!t::::,,;:i';li#;:,.i,T}il".;,,!?i cou I <t ur i,r r,.: iii"h'" ;di*lli I 3l: *: H,,it,ll"ii,T,. t ri "t' p'r "i, iif . r.aiso the speeter. of ,".ioi "r.rh; Report .t, i i ",,1, x H,I,i! i;*i:f ln,{, :i ;_ :T: :::::standa.d:'-nhicrr .S. rsgf "r;ra ,a"pt.'-i.'ai")r"JJa ,,,o.* furrr. berou..two Su,renre cou.r cro"ision. "r,a r',i,i,.ir,;a";"ilr"c"rrts of ^a.ppears,enses nrake arrsoluter'erea, t,rrat trx,r.e is no right to proportronar ren-lresentation under trris stunrrar.tr..eitrrer as o ,,,Eo.",,rirent of the rioL_ltion or. :...11: ,"q;ir".r ;;;li",iy ir i--i.irir,;# ii.i,ilnd. rrre minoritrrjoi,s the.,rajo.itf in *r."iirl p.ol,,rtioiioi'."pi.I*.rt"tion as eitrrera' nppropriate standard for &rirpr!.ir! ":iti,'tri.i'-i.t o. a-s a proper,methorl oi renred-vin! na;,iai".r*a.r;oi"?ior.. -t:o *ilr... ulro testified.* fore t'e Su bconr r,,Tt i.;, ;;,;rr.d ;;;;;;t i";,,ir ii p....r,at ion. A n dwe must poinr out trrat trre,,resurts.t'"'a,!;i',s.'igs2.,routa not lead toor require prrcportional representat;on.