Legal Research on May 4th Session 7

     

we 20”,- W%F
Evan/‘4 W020 .92... 9%,;

”.2544 9?]

OFirst is the unfounded fear of “racial quotas” being invoked by some in opposi-
tion to the proposed amendment to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Argumen
couched in terms of “logical consequences” and arithmetic extremes are entitled
to little weight in the light of experience. clear legislative history of the amend-
ment to section 2 and proven record of judicial restraint.

The amendment to section 2 of the Act does not introduce proof \of results of
discrimination in a radical way; such a method of proof has always existed. Nor
does the amendment to section 2 inject numbers with any new magic. Statistical
evidence will remain what it has always been, a part of a showing from which
a court might conclude that racial discrimination in the denial or abridgement of
voting rights has been established.

In reapportionment cases not involving claims of discrimination no plaintiff
is required to prove the unlawful “purpose" of the legislature in its uneven draw-
ing of district lines. Numbers almost purely and simply have prevailed. In the
context of charges of racial discrimination, numbers have assumed and will likely
continue to assume a less prominent role as one part of the fabric of the claim.

Neither I nor any of the other cosponsors of the perfecting language to section

‘ 2 have spoken in favor of “racial quotas". Indeed, the bill passed by the House,
the Senate bill 65 of us have cosponsored and the compromise language Senator
Dole has proposed each expressly disavows the intention and result with which
opponents seek to color the debate.

The House bill and 8.1992 proclaim:

“The fact that members 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, con-
stitute a violation of this section.”

And the Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary explained:

“The proposed amendment does not create a right of proportional representa-
tion. Thus, the fact that members of a racial or language minority group have not
been elected in numbers equal to the group‘s proportion of the population does not,
in itself, constitute a violation of the section although such proof, along with
other objective factors would be highly relevant. Neither does it create a right to
proportional representation asra remedy." House Report No. 97-227 at 30.

If that language left any doubt in others' minds, that being introduced by Sena-
tor Dole leaves no room for misunderstanding:

“The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to oflice in
the State or political subdivision is one “circumstance” which may be considered,

/

provided that nothin
tected class elected i

78

gin this section