Diamond v. Louisiana Brief for Petitioner

    o The House bill would alter 52 dramatically by incorporating
in that provlsion a so-called "effects test". Under the House
bill, the inquiry would focus not on whether the challenged
action was taken with discriminatory purpose, but rather on
whether the "resu1ts" of an election adversel.y affect a pro-
tected group.

By measuring the statutory validity of a vot.ing practice
or procedure against election "resultsrn the House-passed
version of S2 would in essence establish a'right'in racial
and language minorities to electoral representation propor-
tional to their population in the community. Any election
law or procedure that did not Lead to election results which
mirrored the populatlon make-up of the particular jurisdiction
could be struck down as being impermissibly "dilutive'or
"retrogressive" -- based on court decislons under 55 of the
current Act (which does include an "effects" test). Historic
and common political systems lncorporating at-large elections
and multi-member districts h,ould be vulnerable to attack.
So, too, trould redistricting and reapportionment plans, unless
drawn to achieve election results reflecting the racial balance
of the jurisdiction. The reach of amended 52 would not be limited
to statewide legislative elections, but would apply as well to
Iocal elections, such as those to school boards and to city
and county governments.

As Justlce Stevrart correctly noted in his opinion in
City of Mobile v. Bolden, lncorporation of an effects test
ffisentialty a quota system for elect.oral
politics by creating a right to prffi
tation on elected governmental bodies. Such a result is
fundamentally inconsistent with this Nation's history of
popular sovereignty.

2. Proponents of the House bl1l attempt to counter this
argument by citing a 'savings clause" in S2, which provides
that "the fact that members of a minority group have not been
elected in numbers equal to the grouprs proportion of Ehe
population shall not, in and of itself, constitute a violation"
(emphasis supplied ) . Ey lTs Terms;-Towever, Ehis provision
removes from the S2 prohibition only those election systems
that are neatly tailored to provide protected groups an
opportunity to achieve proportional electoral success
(i.e., single-member districts dra\rn to maximize minority
vo-Ein-g strength). In circumstances where the racial group
failed to take advantage of the political opPortunity
provided by such an election system (by refraining, for
example, from running any candidates for office), the resulting
disproportionate electoral rePresentation vrould not, in such
a situation, be fatal under the House bil1, since that slngle
consequence is not, 'in and of ltselfr' sufficient to make



{16

out r vlolrtlon. Il, on th. oth.r hrnal, th. ohrlhngrd
.l.otorrl .ytt.rn lr not !t!uotu!.d to D.rmlt proportlonrl
aaDlaa.ntrtlon, (tuoh rt tha oonmon et-lrrga rnd tnultl-rnanbardllrtrlot .laotlon ryrtrrnr) I tht rg-orllodl -rvlngr olrur lr to
no rvrll. llhr "rorultarr ta.t tn 12 o! th. Hou.a blll wouldrlfootlvrly rnrnal.ta ln ruoh olrounrtrno.t rn .l.otor.l
raatruoturlng (.van on r tnr.alva lotla) ao aa to rllow aohhvr-
mrnt o! proportlonrl r.pr..antttlon 1! th. Drrtloular raclelor lrngu.g. group .o dorlrrr. r

3. ProDon.ntr o! th. amrndmlnt, r1.o olrlm thrt lntrntlr-vlrturlly lngorrlbl. to DUov.. ilhlr ergunrnt ll rlmDlylelto. Eh. AuDr.rn. Court hfu mrd. ol.rr tf,rt lntont in- tirlrrroe, llkr rny othar, nty br Drov.d by both dllmot rnd olrcurn-ltrntlrl .vld.no.. It .o-orlI.d I'rnoklng gunt' (ln trrmr o!eotual cxprrrrlonr o!.dlrorlnlnrtory tnEont by m.rnb.r. o!thr hgfulrturr)-fu rlnrpty not-n.o.-r.ray. Dlilntl!!. crn rly
on th. hlttorlotl baokground o! olttolr-l aotlonr, drptrturorlron nor:nel graotlor, and othrr lndllrtct rvldrnoi ln-provlnglntrnt. In thlr r.grrd, th. votlng Rlghtr Aot r. ourirntly-wrtttan rtrndr on tha rrnr lootlng-rr nort othrr lrdrraloon.tltutlonal and ttrtutory provlrlonr ln tho olvll rlchtr!r.r. Proo! o! wronglul lnt.nt ar an olrnrnt o! tha lciir-latlvr olfrnr la tha rulr -- not th. .xocptlon. Adhrrinorto that tr.dltlon'rl rtrnd.rd ln thc prrrnt oont.xt lr aIIthr mor. oomprlllng whrn onl r.call. thrt 12 1r lntrndrd tob. oo.xtan.lvo wlth th. 8l!t..nth Anind.nrnt, grhlch ralrguardtthr rlght to vot. only egrlnrt purporrluI or lnt.ntlontl
dlrorlmlnatlon on rooount o! ilor or oo1or.

Morcov.r, vlolttlonr o! 12 rhould not bo tnrCta too .atyto Drov., rlnor thry provldo a barlr lor thr rnort intrurlvilntorlrnnor lneglntblo by !.dl.rrl oourt. lnto rtat. lnC
1oor1 proorrror. llhr dlrtrlot oourt Judlgr ln th. Mobl1.
orrlp lor .xrmDl., rotlng rol.ly on thr brrlr o! pE6fFra
dllrorlnlnrtgry nal!.otrrr, ttruok dlown thr oltyrr -thrm-nrcmbrrr
rt lrrga oonunlrr,lon ayatam o! govrrnnrnt, rrhloh hrd oxlrtrdln Mobllr lor 70 y.rrr. In lt. Dlrc. th. !t6rre1 lu6gr ordrrrd etnryorrl ty.t.t! rvlth r nlnr-nonbor oounoll .I.ot.d iroir rlnelr-
m.rnb.! dllrtrlotr. lt lrould bo dlllloult to oono.lvr o! e -

nor. drratlo rltantlon o! loor1 gov.riln.nttl rlftlrr, rnd
undrr our loChrrl !y.t.n ruoh rn lnrtrurlon thould not b. too
rordllly D.rmltt.dl.

l, Eoctlon 2 ln ltr Dr.r.nt lorn hat baan . auco...!ul
tool ln combrttlng rolel dlrcrlrnlnrtlon ln votlng. thr
Hou.. ln ltr hrrrlng. on .xt.n.lon ol thr Votlng Rlghtr Act
lalhdl to makr th. o... to.upport r ohrngr ln thr rxlrtlngrrlntlntr' atrndrld. 8lgnllioantly, no trrtlnony war ollorrd
t. to .l.otlon praotlcrr Ln non-oovorrdl Jurlr(llotlonr to



116

indlcate a need to lntroaluce a nationwldle ireaultar test ln 52.
The House Rcport itself conceded that 'no apeclflc evldence
of votlng discrlnlnatlon ln p'reas outslde those prenently
covereil rras preaented.' llhen Congrees decldcd in 1955 to
depart from the 'lntent' atanderd ernbedded in the Ftfteenth
Amendment and to adgpt an "effocts' tegt for SF aB a femedlal
tneaaure. f,op speclf,ically ldentlfled covercd Juqledlctiona,
1t based that leglslatlon on a conprchenalve congresolonal
record of abuses of nlnorlty voting qlghta ln thoae cover€d
Juriadlctlona. In rddltlon tt rpplied the effects teBt only
on a tenporary baals and only to el€ctlon lat changes. The
Bouse blll seeka son€ aev€nteen years later to lrnpose a
slmllar reffecta' standard nrtlon$lde on the atrength of a
record that 18 sllent on the rsu5Fct of votlpg abuses ln
non-covered Jurt8dLstlons. The Houao blIl l,ould also aPply
the effccts te8t on a pernanent b.aels and tq exiEtlng electton
sy8tem8 anil practlces as welL as changea. Such an effort is
not only constltutlonally suapect, but. allo contrary to the
,nost fundanental tenanta of the 1e9lelatl.ve proces3 on whlch
the lalrs of thls country are based.

\