Legal Research on Congressional Record S6779, S6781, S6931

    Tum however
tint the opponent“)! the remit: test
hove toiled to due Mme in '
which there has beenthe imposition
of proportional rcprcoentndon. Al-
though I egree that this connot easily
be ahownwith respectto section 2 be-
causethe"reeulte”teethuneverbeen
the law there. at least in my opinion;
perhaps I could give several examples
of proportional representation under
the sections “effects” test. me cases I
would cite would include om anach-
mond v. United States 42: 0.3. 358
(1975» City a! 92mm v. United
Stowe. 354 I". Supp. 1031 (110.0.
1978). stunned per curiam (without
pplnion) 410 0.8. 962 (1973). United
Jewish Omnlzauou v. Corey. 430 .
0.8. 144 (1911). Bone: v. cm a!-
Mobtle 7423 F. Supp.- 384 (8.11m
1976). cm a! Port Arthur v. United
State: 51? F. Supp. m (DD.C. 1981).
Kidney v. Hind: County Board afSu-
per-visors 528 F. 2d 536 (5th Cir. 1978).
the recent redistricting cases in Geor-
gia end New York Cityond there are
others. Those on cases when the “ef—
tecte” test in my opinion Ictunlly re-

representation.

I suSEE [fit my cofieagues should
keep in mind that. for the first time.
the US. Congress. i1 it passes this bill.
will introduce the quota concept as a
test in elections That is a revolution-
ary and radical idea. and any fair read-
ing of the legislation will how that
quotas will result.

The legislation not only guarantees
the right to register and to vote and to
have the vote counted. but also—and I
read from the bill—"and to elect repre-
sentatives of their choice.”

That is a new concept. and it means
that the quota concept is new intro-
duced into the electoral process of
voting in this country. Before Con-
gress does that. it should think long
and hard about the nationwide impli-
cation oi such a change the bin will
jeopardize abiarge elections. annex-
ations. Any kind of proposed change in
the election process will now be sus-
pect in the United States.

The distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts said we should make it
easier to vote. I do not quarrel with
thatlamwillingtosupportanyrea-
sonable legislation based upon the
15th amendment. which guarantees
the right to register and to vote and to
have the vote counted. The bone of
contention is. should we guarantee re-
sults? That is the nub oi the problem.
That is the new concept. “

I find it alien to the democratic tra-
dition in this country to say that.
‘ yondeayingIasaSenatororyouas

individual have the right to register
dtovoteandtohavethatvote
unted. you have a right to see that
candidates of your choosing are elect-
ed. That. we should not do. That is m-
eonceived- and ill-considered and I,
suhmitithat a (air reading of the legis-
lation—not the report—will show such-
areqmrementtobealogicalresult.

So I end on this note. Mr,VPrcnident:
It is simply a misconception of the
public and someoi our distinguhhed
colleagues that we are merely extend.
ing the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We
are going way beyond that. We are
adding a wholly new dimension to the
law-quotas; results in ' evaluating
whether a particular election is tree.
from allegg discrimination.

5 Nil”? its”

 
   
   
 
 
 
  
  
 
   

sentation is important enough to
merit separate discussion.

The original version of S. 1992 had a

provision that stated that a lack of
racial proportional representation was
insufficient. “in and of itself." to es-
tablish a violation of section 2. Oppo-
nents of S. 1992 claimed that the “in
and of itself" language merely implied
that a lack of proportionalrepresenta-
tion plus virtually any other evidence
of discriminatory effect would estahi'
lish a violation. This interpretation
was faulty. because the langu
the original bill wu a paraphrase of
the following portion of the White
against Regester opinion:
It is not enough that the racial group alo
legedly sted against has not had
legislative seats in proportion to its voting
potential. 412 0.8. 755. 765-6.

Nevertheless. after the completion
of the Constitution Subcommittee's
consideration of S. 1992. many moder-
ate Senators still' had doubts that the
language of S. 1992 would. in fact.
reestablish the White standard. There
was. however. a broad consensus that
a return to the pr -Bolden. White line
of cases was the desired end of S. 1992.
It was this consensus that eventually
led to a resolution of the conflict and
broad support of S. 1992 in the Judici-
ary Committee and in the Senate gen-
erally. ' ‘ A. p , ’

Senator Dots acted as the focal
point of the effort to clarify the intent
of the bill. He took those of us in sup-
port of the bill at our word, and sug-
gested that if "results"

days of intent, patient, and diffi-
work followed; while a version
( which would be acceptable to the CM]
rights community. the o sponé'
sore. and to the moderate Senators
withwhom we worked was developed.
A number or phrases were worked into
statutory language and incorporated
into a subsection (b) of section 2 of the
act. This new subsection provided
(bl A violation oi subsection (a) is estab-
lished if. based on the totality of 01an-
atances. it is shown that the political proc-

eeseal or electionio
visiozr -

(a) in that itlvmcmbers have
ty than other members of th
participate .in the political, process

\ elect amazing at theircholcal! _. . ‘

, 7. The_extcnt-td.Whicle
tectcd. class have been elected
the State or political subdivision is one "cir-

" which may be considered. pro-
vided that nothing in this section estab-
lishes a right to have members of a_ protect-
ed class elected in n equal to their
proportion in the population.“ '

This language was adopted by the
Judiciary Committee by a vote '01' 14 to
4. A numberofadditionalSenstor-san-

' - - thamoatseriom objections
‘ ,about s. 1992’s1“results" stand.
volve the‘ contentions that it
.allow adjudication of violations
' -. n Tofthe act on thebssis of r
or proportional representation by
lus some additional scintilla oi
-- and that racial proportional
' tation might be either permis-
cr required as a remedy to adju-

this subject several times

i this discussion. but I believe
issue oi proportional more.

S 6931

nounced thereafter that they intended
to support the bill as amended by the
Judiciary Committee. Among those
Senators. I am proud to say. is the

the Senate. that the combination of
the clarified language of the statute.
the holdings in the White