The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

October 1985: Volume 1, Number 2

Department of Justice Attempts to Weaken the Voting Rights Act

A case presently before the Supreme Court, Thornburg v. Gingles could determine whether Congress' 1982 amendment to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act "is preserved as an effective mechanism to ensure that people of all races will be accorded an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes of this country and in the election of representatives of their choice" (see Brief of Senators Dennis DeConcini, et al, as amici curiae in support of Appellees, No. 83-1968, (U.S. filed, Aug. 30, 1985)). This Administration, which opposed Congressional efforts in 1982 to strengthen the Voting Rights Act - acquiescing only when it became apparent that a Presidential veto would be overridden - is now attempting to do in court what it couldn't do in Congress, weaken the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, the congressional authors of the bill, five Republicans and five Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, have stated in a brief filed before the Supreme Court that the DOJ's position "was e xpressly rejected by Congress." Interestingly, the Republican National Committee and the Republican Governor of North Carolina James G. Martin have also filed separate briefs opposing the Administration's position.

Background

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled in City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980) that to prove voting discrimination, proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is necessary. The fact that a particular voting practice (in this case at-large elections of city commissioners) resulted in minorities not being able to exercise effectively their right to vote was found not to be in violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.

In response to the Mobile decision, both Houses of Congress in passing the Voting Rights Act Amendments sought "to reinstate fair and effective standards for enforcing the rights of minority citizens." The section 2 amendment and the legislative history clearly established that local election practices can be found to be discriminatory, if the results of such practices negatively impact on black voters. Thus, the amendment eliminated the intent test the Supreme Court required in Mobile.