Legal Research on Congressional Record S6505

      
  
  
  
  
 
   
 
  
  
  
  
   
 
 
   
   
 
  
  
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
  
  

The far-ranging implications of this
expansion were evidenced in two im-
portant cases which followed. In City
of Petersburg against United States.“
the city of Petersburg, Va. had an-
nexed an area that had been under
consideration for nearly 6 years. The
annexation was supported by both-
black and white citizens and involved
an area logically suitable for annex~
ation for tax and other reasons. The
effect of the annexation. however. was
to reduce the black population from 55
percent to 46 percent. When the an-
nexation was submitted for preclear-
anee. the district court held that it
was not racially inspired. but never-
theless found that the annexation
would have the effect of decreasing
minority voting influence. Because of
this. the court approved the annex-
ation only on condition that Peters-
burg change to ward elections so that
blacks would be insured of representa-
tion “reasonably equivalent to their
political strength in th enlarged corn-
munlty." " The court specifically

< noted that the mere fact that blacks
made Lup‘ a smaller percentage of. the
city after the annexation did not
amount to a violation of the act, so
long as the court-imposed system of
ward elections insured blacks of safe
districts. Thus. the ideal of propor-
tionality in representation was intro-
duwd. although only in the context of
covered jurisdictions.

This precursor to “proportional rep-

‘ resentation” was followed‘by the Sn-
preme Court’s 1975 decision in City of
Richmond again“ United States."
The annexation in City of Richmond
reduced the black population in Rich-
mond from 52 percent to 42 percent.
The Court reversed the lower court's
disapproval of Richmond's preclear-
ance application and remanded the
case for reconsideration in light of its
explanation that the City of Peters-
burg decision was intended to “afford
[bucks]. representation reasonably

‘ eqmvalentri to. .theirr political
strength."“ _ ‘ ~ '
> The concept of‘lproportional repre-
sentation'was' again involved in United

- Jewish Ornamensagainst Carey}!
which related to the: attorney genen;
al's rejection of‘a‘ImugislltiverediE
tricting by New York» as it applied to
Brooklyn. a covered Jurisdiction under

the act. The attorney general original- '

Vlyiruled that themwerean insuffl.
cient number of election districts with
minority populations large enough for
minority candidates to likely prevail.
The attorney general indicated that a
minority population of 65 percent was
necessary to create a safe minority
seat-‘9 In a new plan adopted in 1974..
the legislature met'the objections of
the attorney general; but in so doing.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- S,EN.

divided a community of Hasidic Jews The evolution of section 5 was funda-
which had previously resided in a m-tally complete—having been large-
single district. The attorney general. iy transformed from a provision to
approved the plan, but members of cused upon access to registration and
the Hasidic community objected. the ballot to one ,foalsed upon the

claiming that they themselves had

been the victims of discrimination.
The Supreme Court rejected their

claim. Although unable to agree on an

electoral process itself. in the narrow
context of section 6. the “effects" test
was constitutional.“

A recent and telling application of

opinion. seven members of the Court the “effects" standard by the DiStflOt
did agree that New York's use of racial Of Columbia District Court can be
criteria. in revising the reapportion— found in City 01 PM Arthur against

ment plan in order to obtain the At
torney General's approval under the
Voting Rights Act did not violate the
lath and 15th amendment rights of
the Hasidic J ewa

The preceding line of cases all the

United States,“ an annexation case in
whichtheCourtstatet M "
The concludes: reached to this Court is
that none of the electa'al system proposal
by plainth Port Author affords the black
citizens of the city the realm opportunity
to achieve- representalias commensurate

t

‘1‘): ~.‘ . _ .

         
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  

« I

an... as, l

. r

‘ fl pro-clearits , _ “A
W'eommissionerio a mayor-cmmcil form amendment; The district court.“ air

-theCourt held that the Voting Rig '

' subdiva that neither conducted rm“ mm“
*voter

- . _ the act because of their discriminator! under thatsectiorutr» .c '
.dfmmmtmmtufmdtm

Progeny 01 Allen “mt Sim 308-“ with their voting strength in the enlarged

. 0‘ Elections.“ constituted 3 major ’3' community. Blacks ocmpric 40.50 percent
population. and

dicial expans -the act’s original of the total post-expansion

focus - upon acilitating registration we estimate that they constitute 35

and securing the ballot.“ As Professor 0! the votlnssse population. [None of the
Thernstrom has written: proposed schemes) offer the black-comma.

The "Edition“ ”mm 0‘ 0"“ “8h" "* fligfa‘iififi‘fifim would reloléct political

vocateshadbeenaccesstotheballot... magni
[These expansions] assume a federally guan power to that tude."
hanteed right to maximum political effective- ‘
seas." Nowadays. local electoral arrange-
ments are expected to conform to Federal upon the electoral process itself. and
executive andjudicial guidelines established proportional. representation for cov-
to maximise the political strength of rscid cred jurisdictions made: section 5
and ethnic mummies. not Inerels tom would also have occurred in the con-
CQWWWWW- ' text of section 2 but. for the case of
. More recent expansion of section 5 City of Mobile against 30‘ F1 In
occurred in two 1978 decisions. In Mobile, however, the court H a
United States against Board of Com- original understandings of section 2
missioners of Sheffield,“ the Court and the 15th amendment. Mobile in.
held that section 5 applied to political voived a class action»on behalf of all
subdivisions within a covered jurisdio- black citizens of the Alabama city
tion which have, any influence over wherein plaintiffs alleged that the
any aspect of the electoral process. city's practice of electing commission
whether or not they conduct voter reg- era through an at-lam system unfair-
istration.“ Sheffield was required to 1y "diluted? minority voting strength
electoral change from a in rviolationuof the lath and lath

of-Lgovernmenk Sheffield-reaffirmed though finding. that hats in the city
thedritt away fromthe original focus registered. “devoted without. hin-
of the Voting Rights Act of equal derance. nonethelm agreed with
accesa~to- the registration and voting plaintiffs and held that Mobile's at-
procesa to focus upon the- electoral large . elections: operated unlawfully
prowss itself, In Daugherty County with respect toblacks. The fifth drs

*Boardof EducationagainstWhite,“ witaffirmedwbutonappealdheSu.
the Court held thataschoolboard premeCourtréver-sedandrennnded.
‘ rule requiring all employees to tab The plurality opinionststed; ,. n .

unpaid leaves of absence while cant misthamndnons doe-not entail the
paigning for elective officewas subject right ”have Nance-noiseless“ -./.
to undersectionh. Thu...tbatmendment.nrahiiutsonlywrmsefulg

wmmnmw
Government ofthe

Act reached changes made by W D m “on so-

H II . mucous-1mm

, in Rome. Ga...- were enacted without and that, sincesectimzotthe‘sctwss

discriminatory purpose. they were nev- a codifieatisnofthat moment, the
ertheless prohibited uder section 5 of “intent" test applied ‘ in, all, actions

the standard of conduct in covered lu- amendment. to. section 2' would over-
risdictionsseekingpreelearancepm'sn- tumtheeoartgsdefldonmtheuobih
_ant;to section 5 maybe measured eg- case bxelindnatlngtherequirement a."

' ’elusively by the effects of a change.“ proof. “intentional. , discrimination

__
8‘3 "33".le3 Mass ’86 3°B'8'35 4-3 mm , ._
3: ago- 3§E 5:3." 553.35 a = %3 3°3 £38 5 5 "“4.
«£2353 5333?? ggsfiigggfigggfi gagigésggéliggfi "g.—
§3§3§§ 537535553 5 5353 E5353 5g 822:” ‘ngfi 7g 2-?
s gsgsg ggtnstsg egg-S‘Bgssggfigfi _ 5025 232‘!a a; 23;
else Egiaéé’ga gig-:gélféiigggégo§°§§§§§a§§5§§i
Egéggésgsaéisi giggilséisggggglgadléigggiggigéa
="°“3g 5 ‘5‘“.5 ae-Es“¢§32s=n’§ S"
a, aggggggg‘égggigg §§§3§3§§§§§§58§ 533§§§§§§§8“”§ga
5 assessment? Sailfish Eila‘éggl gillfiiiié‘aiggégg'