PAGENO="0001"
EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
MAY 6, 7, 13, 19, 20, 27, 28, JUNE 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25,
AND JULY 13, 1981
Serial No. 24
Part 2
Printed for the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83-679 0 WASHINGTON 1982 V `~
~-`~j2 L~7~~'
PAGENO="0002"
COMMI'I'I'EE ON THE JUDICIARY
ALAN A. PARKER, General Counsel
GARNER J. CLINE, Staff Director
FRANKLIN G. Pouc, Associate Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGH'FS
DON EDWARDS, California, Chairman
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,
HAROLD WASHINGTON, illinois Wisconsin
DAN LUNGREN, California
CATHERINE A. LERoY, Counsel
Iv~ L. DAVIS, Assistant Counsel
HELEN C. GONZALES, Assistant Counsel
THOMAS M. BOYD, Associate Counsel
PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairmçzn
JACK BROOKS, Texas ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois
DON EDWARDS, California HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio
ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio
SAM B. HALL, JR., Texas HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan
MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma DAN LUNGREN, California
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,
BILLY LEE EVANS, Georgia Wisconsin
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
HAROLD WASHINGTON, illinois
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
(H)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
HEARINGS HELD
- Page
May 6, 1981 1
May 7, 1981 85
May 13, 1981 169
May 19, 1981 205
May 20, 1981 355
May 27, 1981 417
May 28, 1981 469
June 3, 1981 573
June 5, 1981 885
June 10, 1981 1439
June 12, 1981 1511
June 16, 1981 1751
June 17, 1981 1815
June 18, 1981 1863
June 23, 1981 1925
June 24, 1981 1981
June 25, 1981 2067
July 13, 1981 2111
TEXT OF BIUS
HR. 1407 76
HR. 1731 82
H.R. 2942
H.R. 3112 70
H.R. 3198 72
H.R. 3473 163
H.R. 3948 1856
WITNESSES -
Abernathy, Rev. Ralph, Pastor, West Hunter Street Baptist Church, Atlanta,
Ga 86
Prepared statement 87
Abrams, Hon. Robert, State Attorney General of New York 1449
Prepared statement 1449
Alcock,. Robert, Former Legislative Assistant to Hon. Barbara Jordan 1866
Alexander, Paul, Acting General Counsel, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1772
Alvarez, Hon. Adolpho, Sr., county commissioner, Frio County, Tex 929
Arnold, Prince, sheriff, Wilcox County, Camden, Ala 1525
Prepared statement 1580
Arrington, Hon. Richard, mayor, Birmingham, Ala 1605
Prepared statement 1608
Arriola, Alfredo, Alice, Tex 929
Prepared statement 1181
Ashworth, Treva, assistant attorney general, State of South Carolina 1462
..Avila, Joaquin, Esq.; associate counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, San Antonio, Tex 929
Prepared statement 936
Bachrach, Deborah, Assistant Attorney General,- Deputy Chief, Civil Rights
Bureau 1449
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
Iv
Ball, Howard, professor and chairman, Department of Political Science, Mis- Page
sissippi State University 2075
Prepared statement 2083
Banks, Hon. Fred, member, Mississippi House of Representatives 548
Prepared statement 551
Barber, Rims, project director, Children's Defense Fund, Jackson, Miss 470
Prepared statement 479
Barbour, Haley, Esq., vice chair, Mississippi State Republic Party, Yazoo City,
Miss 1624
Prepared statement 1629
Barefield, Stone, member, Mississippi House of Representatives 1624
Prepared statement 1638
Barragan, Hon. Polly Baca, member, Colorado State Senate, and vice chair,
Democratic National Committee 102
Prepared statement 103
Baskerville, Lezli, Esq., Washington, D.C 418
Bergmark, Martha, member, Mississippi State Advisory Committee, U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights 1682
Prepared statement 1705
Blacksher, James, Esq., Mobile, Ala 2029
Prepared statement 2038
Bliley, Hon. Thomas J., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Virginia 356
Prepared statement 2153
Bond, Hon. Julian, member, Georgia State Senate 224
Prepared statement 231
Bonilla, Ruben, national president, League of United Latin American Citizens
(LULAC) 1238
Bozeman, Maggie, Aliceville, Ala. (Pickens County) 1525
Prepared statement 1562
Brinson, Robert, city attorney, Rome, Ga 205
Prepared statement 206
Brown, Ed, district corrdinator, NAACP Camilla and Mitchell Counties, Ga 59Q
Brown, Michael, field director for branches, Virginia State Conference of
NAACP 364
Prepared statement 371
Brown, Raymond H., director, Voting Rights Research Project, Southern Re-
gional Council, Atlanta, Ga 1800
Prepared statement 1791
Buchanan, John, The Christian Life Commission, Southern Baptist Conven-
tion 1966
Buchanan, Hon. Mary Estill, secretary of state, Colorado 1957
Burguillo, Luis, Jr., counsel to Congressman Robert Garcia 1483
Burroughs, Theresa, chairman, Hale County Civic Improvement League,
Greensboro, Ala 751
Prepared statement 819
Buskey, Hon. James, member, Alabama House of Representatives 841
Prepared statement 855
Caddy, Douglas, former director, Elections Division, Office of the Texas Secre-
tary of State 1198
Prepared statement 1200
Clyburn, James, commissioner, South Carolina Human Affairs Commission 224
Prepared statement 236
Colom, Wilbur, Esq., Columbus, Miss 2098
Prepared statement 2106
Cooper, Maudine, Vice President for Washington Operations, National Urban
League
Cotrell, Charles, Professor, Department of Political Science, St. Mary's Uni-
versity, San Antonio, Tex 440
Prepared statement 446
Cox, Archibald, chairman, Common Cause 181
Prepared statement 2154
Crivens, Thelma, project director, Voting Rights Act Study, U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights 1772
Dawson, Sam, legislative representative, United Steelworkers of America.. 886,
1987
2115
2115
Days, Drew S., III, Professor, Yale University School of Law
Prepared statement
PAGENO="0005"
V
DeNardis, Hon. Lawrence, a Representative in Congress from the State of Page
Connecticut 1751
Prepared statement 1752
Denison, Ray, legislative director, AFL-CIO 21
Der, Henry, executive director, Chinese for Affirmative Action, San Francis-
co, Calif 1490
Prepared statement 1.494
Derfner, Armand, Esq~, director, Voting Rights Act Project, Joint Center for
Political Studies, Washington, D.C 868, 1847, 2029
Drinan, Robert F., vice-president, Americans for Democratic Action 1754
Prepared statement 1757
Dunbar, David, general counsel, National Council for American Indians
(NCAI), Washington, D.C 1907
Prepared statement 1900
Edwards, Hon. Al, member, Texas House of Representatives 1192
Engstrom, Richard, professor, Department of Sociology, University of New
Orleans 440, 45
Eureste, Hon. Bernardo, member, San Antonio City Council, Texas 1274
Fauntroy, Hon. Walter, a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia,
and Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus 1981
Prepared statement 1982
Figgs, James, member, Quitman County School Board, Marks, Miss 1669
Prepared statement 1674
Figures, Hon. Michael, member, Mississippi State Senate 1605
Prepared statement 1614
Findley-Shores, Anne, president, Alabama League of Women Voters, Birming-
ham, Ala 1621
Prepared statement 1623
Flemming, Hon. `Arthur S., Chairman, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1772
Prepared statement 1761
Fluker, Larry, Conecuh County, Evergreen, Ala 1605
Prepared statement 1618
Folmar, Hon. Emory, mayor, Montgomery, Ala 1512
Prepared statement 1514
Ford, Hon. Harold, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee. 1440
Prepared statement 2158
Garcia, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
York 1483
Prepared statement 1483
Gay, James, Esq., Norfolk, Va 405
Prepared statement 402
Godwin, Lamond,.special adviser, Operation PUSH 170
Gold, Laurence, associate general counsel, AFL-CIO 21
Gray, Fred, Esq., Tuskegee, Ala 841
Prepared statement 2160
Greenberg, Jack, director-counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Inc 418,
Prepared statement 421
Guinier, Lani, Esq., NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc 2115
Hardaway, Hon. Eddie, district judge, Sumter County, Ala 751
Prepared statement 826
Harper, John, Esq., Columbia, S.C 170
Harris, Rev. Curtis W., president, State Southern Christian Leadership Con-
ference, Hopewefl, Va 405
Prepared statement 401
Henderson, John, human relations director, AFL-CIO, Texas 886
Henry, Dr. Aaron, president, Mississippi State Conference NAACP 470
Prepared statement 474
Hernandez, Antonia, counsel, MALDEF 102, 1483, 1887
Hinerfeld, Ruth J.,. president, League of Women Voters 197
Prepared statement 2163
Hooks, Benjamin, executive director, National Association for the Advance-
ment of Colored People (NAACP) 58
Prepared statement 59
Jackson, Isaac, staff representative, United Steelworkers of America 886
Jackson, Rev. Jesse L., national president, Operation PUSH (People United to
Save Humanity) 170
PAGENO="0006"
VI
Jackson, Rev. Jesse L., national president, Operation PUSH (People United to
Save Humanity)-Continued Page
Prepared statement 2170
Jones, Elaine, Esq., NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc 7, 418
Jordan, Barbara, professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas,
Austin, Tex 1866
Prepared statement 1864
Jordan, Vernon, president, National Urban League 7
Prepared statement 15
Joseph, Lori, Machinists Union, Texas 886
King, Coretta Scott, president, the King Center, Atlanta, Ga 1938
Prepared statement 1937
Kirkland, Lane, president, AFL-CIO 21
Prepared statement 19
Kirksey, Hon. Henry, member, Mississippi State Senate 1682
Prepared statement 1743
Korbel, George, Esq., Texas Rural Legal Assistance 1353
Kousser J. Morgan, professor, Department of History, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, Calif 2001
Prepared statement 2009
Krueger, Hon. Robert, a former Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas 902
Prepared statement 910
Leaming-Elmer, Judy, Regal staff, National Congress of American Indians 1907
Lodge, Herman, Burke County, Waynesboro, Ga 573
Loewen, James, Ph. D., Department of Sociology, University of Vermont 270
Prepared statement 255
Lowery, Joseph, president, Southern Christian Leadership Conference 2068
Prepared statement 2073
Marsh, Hon. Henry, mayor, Richmond, Va 364
Prepared statement 369
Martinez, Vilma, general counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Edu-
cational Fund (MALDEF) 1887
Prepared statement 1876
McBride, Ann, legislative director, Common Cause 181
McBride, Lloyd, president, U.S. Steelworkers of America 1987
Prepared statement 1990
McCain, Thomas, chairman, Edgefield County Democratic Party, Edgefield
County, S.C 868
Prepared statement 878
McCloskey, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Califor-
nia 1472
Prepared statement 1473
McDonald, Laughlin, Esq., director, Southern Regional Office, American Civil
Liberties Union, Atlanta, Ga 590
Prepared statement 596
McLemore, Los, professor, Political Science Department, Jackson State Uni-
versity, and State Coordinator, Mississippi, PUSH 170
Mcleod, Hon. Daniel, State Attorney General of South Carolina
Prepared statement 2173
McTeer, Charles Victor, Esq., Greenville, Miss 1682
Prepared statement 1687
Mondragon, Hon. Roberto, Lieutenant Governor of the State of New Mexico.... 191
Prepared statement 2175
Mont, Frank, director, Civil Rights Department, U.S. Steelworker 1987
Montoya, Alfredo, LACLA representative 1987
Moreno, Hon. Paul, member, Texas House of Representatives 1347
Neas, Ralph, executive director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 58
Néely, Jasper, president, Grenada County, Mississippi Chapter of the NAACP. 1669
Prepared statement 1676
Nettles, Rev. John C., Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Anniston,
Ala 841
Prepared statement 849
Nunez, Louis, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1772
Offenheiser, David, UAW 1928
Parker, Frank, Esq., Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Wash-
ington, D.C 489
Prepared statement 493
PAGENO="0007"
VII
Page
Patton, W. C., former national director, NAACP Voter Education Project 1525
Prepared statement 1574
Paulette, Betty, Macon, Miss 1669
Prepared statement 1671
Peterson, James E., executive assistant to Ralph Albernathy 86
Phillips, Barbara, Esq., Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.... 86, 224,
1970
Phillips, Thurman, director-elect, Southern District of U.S. Steelworkers of
America 1987
Pottinger, Stanley, Esq., former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division, U.S. Department of Justice 818
Prepared statement 1820
Ragsdale, Hon. Paul, Member, Texas House of Representatives 1279
Rauh, Joseph L., Jr., general counsel, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights... 58
Reed, Dr. Joe, chairman, Alabama Democratic Conference, Montgomery, Ala.. 1525
Prepared statement 1529
Reid, Herbert 0., Sr., Charles Hamilton Houston Distinguished Professor,
Howard University School of Law 418
Prepared statement 419
Rion, James, staff attorney, South Carolina Human Affairs Commission 224
Rios, Rolando,Esq., Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Austin,
Tex 30, 1238
Saperstein, Rabbi David, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Wash-
ington, D.C 129
Prepared statement 136
Saye, A. B., professor, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga 440
Prepared statement 444
Sedillo, Pablo, director, Hispanic Affairs, U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops. 129
Prepared statement 132
Sheldon, Hon. Dr. George, member, Florida House of Representatives 1970
Prepared statement 1974
Sherman, Brian, Ph.D., professor, Department of Sociology, Oglethorpe Uni-
versity, Atlanta, Ga 573
Prepared statement 577
Siegleman, Hon. Don, Secretary of the State of Alabama 1591
Prepared statement 1595
Simmons, Aithea T. L., director, Washington Bureau of NAACP 58
Smith, J. F., schoolboard member, Henry County, Ga ... 573
Stepp, Marc, vice president, International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) 1928
Prepared statement 1925
Sugihara, Fumi, chair, Government Issues, League of Women Voters 197
Sutton, A. C., State President, Texas NAACP 886
Prepared statement 2174
Taylor, William, director, Center for National Policy Review, Washington,
D.C 270
Telford, Dr. George, vice president, National Council of Churches, Washing-
ton, D.C 129
Prepared statement 145
Thompson, Hon. Bennie, supervisor, Hinds County, Mississippi 552
Prepared statement 554
Thompson, Geraldine, executive director, Voter Education Project, Atlanta,
Ga 1942
Prepared statement 1947
Torres, Arnold, congressional liaison, League of United Latin American Citi-
zens (LULAC) 1490
Trasvina, John, commissioner, Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections, San
Francisco, Calif 1914
Prepared statement 2190
Trinidad, Jesus, Sequinn, Tex 929
Turner, Abigail, Esq., Alabama Legal Services, Mobile, Ala 751
Prepared statement 755
Valentine, Dr. Foy, executive director, Christian Life Commission, Southern
Baptist Convention 1967
Vamlasquez, Willi, director, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project... 30
Prepared statement 34
Von Hoff, Jean, Esq., legal department, United Steelworkers of America 1987
PAGENO="0008"
VIII
Walbert, David, Esq., professor, School of Law, Emory University, Atlanta, Page
Ga 2029
Prepared statement 2032
Walker, Olivia, staff representative, Black Caucus, Texas State Legislature 1351
Walker, Robert, field director, Mississippi State Chapter of the NAACP, Jack-
son, Miss 1669
Walker, Simon, staff assistant to Dr. Ralph Abernathy 86
White, Hon. Mark, attorney general, State of Texas 1263
Prepared statement 1271
White, William, visiting professor, University of Texas School of Law 902
Prepared statement 910
Wilder, Hon. Doug, Virginia State Senate 364
Prepared statement 384
Williams, Eddie, president, Joint Center for Political Studies, Washington,
D.C 1847
Prepared statement 1832
Williams, Rev. I. Joseph, National President of the United Christian Front for
Brotherhood, Antioch Baptist Church, Norfolk, Va 405
Prepared statement 404
Woods, Hon. Robert, member, South Carolina House of Representatives 868
Prepared statement 872
Woodward, C. Vann, professor-emeritus, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.... 2001
Prepared statement 1999
Ysaguirre, Manuel, human relations director, AFL-CIO, President of the
State of Texas Labor Council for Latin American Advancement 886
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1.-Prepared statements submitted by witnesses 2153
APPENDIX 2.-DOCUMENTS INSERTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMIrFEE
May 20, 1981, By Hon. Harold Washington, on behalf of citizens of Rome, Ga.. 2208
June 18, 1981, By Hon. Henry Hyde at the request of Hon. Trent Lott, on
behalf of citizens of Mississippi 2208
June. 23, 1981, By Hon. Don Edwards, correspondence regarding section 2 of
the act from Hon. Henry Hyde and Peter W. Rodino, Jr 2045
July 13, 1981, by Hon. Heniy Hyde, on behalf of the citizens of South
Carolina 2112
July 13, 1981, By Hon. Henry Hyde at request of Hon. Trent Lott, on behalf
of citizens of Mississippi 2210
Turner, James P., Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Divi-
sion, letter dated December 24, 1980, to Hon. Don Edwards, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, with Attachments 2217
Turner, James P., Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Divi-
sion, letter dated April 9, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards, Chairman, Sub-
committee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, with Attachments 2231
Edwards, Hon. Don, Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional
Rights, letter dated May 20, 1981, to Hon. William French Smith,
Attorney General, Department of Justice 2373
McConnell, Robert A., Assistant Attorney General, letter dated June 17,
1981, to Hon. Don Edwards, Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights, with Attachments 2375
Reynolds, William Bradford, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division, letter dated August 20, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards, Chair-
man, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, with Attach-
ments 2398
APPENDIX 3.-DOCUMENTS INSERTED BY WITNESSES
Reidentification Bills for Percy and Lawndes Counties, Ala 1543, 1544, 1556
"The Election of Blacks to Utility Councils: Clarifying the Impact of Electoral
Arrangements on the Seats/Population Relationship," Richard Engstrom,
Michael McDonald, American Political Science Review, June, 1981 2577
McDonald, Laughlin, director, ACLU-Southern Regional Office, Exhibits 1-6 ... 2583
"Voting Rights On the Chopping Block," Laughlin McDonald, reprinted from
Southern Exposure, Spring, 1981 2635
PAGENO="0009"
Ix
"A Mississippi Case for the Continuation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965", Page
Robert M. Walker, Mississippi Field Director, NAACP, 1981 2641
"Laurel and Laurel A City Divided," transcript of videotaped study prepared
by the Mississippi'.:State:.Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, 1981 1716
"Voting: A Right Still Denied," the Atlanta Constitution, December 1980 279
"Voting in Mississippi: a Right Still Denied," a Report of the Lawyers Com-
mittee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C. 1981 499
"The Voting Rights Act in Alabama: A Current Legal Assessment," Jane
Reed Cox and Abigail Turner, June, 1981 765
McCain v. Lybrand Civil Action No. 74-281, April 17, 1980 and August 11,
1980 302, 323
"The Odd Evolution of the Voting Rights Act," Abigail Thernstrom, The
Public Interest, No. 55, Spring, 1979 327
APPENDIX 4.-CORRESPONDENCE
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Governor of the State of Arizona, letter dated July 16,
1981, to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr 2652
Barragan, Hon. Polly Baca, vice-chair, Democratic National Committee, letter
with resolution, dated June 11, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2654
Bliley, Hon. Thomas J., letter dated July 14,1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2657
Bradley, Hon. Torn, mayor* of the city of Los Angeles, letter dated June 19,
1981, to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr 2661
Callejo, Ricardo A., Counsel, on behalf of IMAGE of San Francisco and
IMAGE of California, letter dated June 9, 1981 to the Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights 2662
Corrada, Hon. Baltasar, Resident Commissioner, Puerto Rico, letter dated
May 27, 1981, to Peter W. Rodino, Jr 2664
COX, Archibald, chairman, Common Cause, letter dated September 8, 1981, to
Hon. Don Edwards, Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional
Rights 2665
Cunningham, Joan, president,. the League of Women Voters of Mississippi,
letter dated June 10, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2740
Dalton, Hon. John N., Governor of the State of Virginia, letter dated June 19,
1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2666
Days, Drew S., III, professor of law, Yale University School of Law, New
Haven, Conn 2669
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, mayor, San Francisco, Calif., letter with resolution,
dated July 17, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2673
Hart, Hon. Gary, U.S. Senator, letter dated June 25, 1981, with prepared
statement, to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr 2676
King, Hon. Jean, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii, letter dated
September 23, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2686
Koch, Hon. Edward I., mayor of the city of New York, letter dated June 24,
1981, to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr 2698
Lewis, Jan, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Mississippi, letter dated June 11, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2699
Miller, Hon. Terry, Lieutenant Governor, State of Alaska, letter with Resolu-
tion, dated July 7, 1981, to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr 2700
Newman, C. B., Speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives, letter
dated June 10, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2703
Rodriguez, Norma S., city. clerk of the city of San Antonio, Tex., copy of City
Council Resolution, letter dated June 18, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2707
Roybal, Hon., Edwards, Member of Congress, letter with prepared statement,
dated June 16, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2709
Sanchez, Rodolfo Balli, `national executive director, the National Coalition of
Hispanic Mental Health and Human Services Organizations, letter dated
July 8, 1981, to Hon. Don Edwards 2716
APPENDIX 5.-STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Anderegg, J. Philip, Esq., prepared statement 2718
Kellock, Susan, executive director, Equal Justice Foundation 2740
McCrary, Peyton, Ph.D., Professor of History at the University of South
Alabama, prepared statement 2749
Mitchell, Clarence M., III, President of the National Black Caucus of State
Legislators, prepared statement 2777
PAGENO="0010"
x
Morrison, Donald R., Sr., mayor of the city of Pleasant Grove, Ala., prepared Page
statement 2784
Ramsay, Claude, President of the Mississippi AFL-CIO, prepared statement .... 2791
Rose, Barbara E., Executive Director of the Rural Coalition 2799
Williams, Jimmie L., civil rights coordinator, U.S. Steelworkers of America,
District 36, prepared statement 2810
Wynn, William H., international president, United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO and CLC, prepared statement 2815
PAGENO="0011"
EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1981
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:25 a.m., Court-
room No. 1, U.S. Courthouse, 200 West Eighth Street, Austin, Tex.,
Hon. Don Edwards (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Edwards, `Hyde, and Sensenbrenner.
Staff present: Helen C. Gonzales, assistant counsel, and Thomas
M. Boyd, associate counsel.
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning. Today we begin our ninth in a series of hearings
on., legislation to extend and amend the Voting Rights Act. Our
hearing here in Austin is the first of two regional hearings which
the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House
Judiciary Committee is holding. Next Friday, on. June 12,' we are
going to convene a hearing in Montgomery, Ala.
~On behalf of the subcommittee, I want to say how pleased we are
that we could come to Austin to hear from such a distinguished list
of witnesses. We also want to extend our thanks to Chief Judge
William Sessions of the Western District of Texas for allowing us
to have the use of this courtroom for today. We also want to thank
the.. staff of the Office of the Clerk of the Court for their assistance
and hospitality, especially to our subcommittee staff.
It is important to note that all of the bills before the subcommit-
tee recognize the fundamental importance of the right to vote.
Where they differ is on the means of guaranteeing the effective-
ness of that vote.
Texas was brought under coverage of the Voting Rights Act in
1975. Since that time, there has been a 64-percent increase in the
number. of Hispanics registered to vote. Concurrently, there has
also been an increase in the. number of Mexican Americans who
have been elected to office. According to testimony by the South-
west Voter Registration Education project before, our subcommit-
tee, there has been a 29.5-percent increase of Mexican Americans
elected to office in 3 years, from 1976 to 1979.
It is also clear, from the testimony we have heard to date regard-
ing Texas' that much progress has `been made since `1975. It is
equally clear, however, that significant problems `may continue to
exist, thereby requiring the continuance of the protections afforded
under the act, primarily under the section' 5 preclearance provi-
sions.
(885)
PAGENO="0012"
886
We did invite several other witnesses, including the distin-
guished Governor of the State, Bill Clements, State Attorney Gen-
eral Mark White, and Secretary of State George Strake. I regret to
say they did not accept our invitation. However, we look forward to
hearing from all of the witnesses today and know that their testi-
mony will be of great assistance to this subcommittee in its delib-
erations.
I now have the pleasure of yielding to the ranking Republican on
the subcommittee, the distinguished Congressman from Illinois,
Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I associate myself with
your remarks. We are delighted to be here and look forward with
great interest to the testimony.
Mr. EDWARDS. We are also pleased to have with us another
distinguished Congressman from the great State of Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I will not reiterate the accolades given by the chairman and Mr.
Hyde for the hospitality we have received while in Texas. I am
looking forward to this hearing and to the testimony that will be
given today.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Our first witness is Mr. Sam Dawson, who is legislative repre-
sentative of the United Steelworkers of America. Mr. Dawson, we
welcome you. Will you please introduce your colleagues.
Without objection, all of the written testimony will be made a
part of the record, and you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF SAM DAWSON, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY
LORI JOSEPH, MACHINISTS UNION; JOHN HENDERSON,
HUMAN RELATIONS DIRECTOR, AFL-CIO; ISAAC JACKSON,
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMER-
ICA; MANUEL 0. YSAGIJIRRE, HUMAN RELATIONS DIRECTOR,
AFL-CIO, AND PRESIDENT, STATE OF TEXAS LABOR COUN-
CIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT; AND A. C.
SUTTON, STATE PRESIDENT, NAACP
Mr. DAWSON. Thank you.
I would like to thank the committee for coming. It's good to
know that the legislative branch of Government can work on the
banks of the Colorado as well as on the banks of the Potomac. With
the rain out there today, the banks of the Colorado may be getting
closer all the time.
On my left is Lori Joseph, who is with the Machinists Union;
Johnny Henderson, who is human relations director with the AFL-
ClO in Texas; on my right is Isaac Jackson, who is a staff repre-
sentative with the Steelworkers Union; and on my far right is
Manuel Ysaguirre, also human relations director with the AFL-
ClO.
I am testifying on behalf of the United Steelworkers of America,
district 37, for the retention of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I know
of no other piece of legislation that has done more to give minor-
ities access to the political system than the Voting Rights Act of
1965.
PAGENO="0013"
887
Our forefathers, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, designed a
document that~has stood for over 200 years as a symbol of democra-
cy and justice. But those men of wisdom didn't provide access to all
that democracy and justice to a majority of the citizens of the
Nation. You had to be a male, Anglo-Saxon landowner to vote or to
hold office.
During the history of this Nation, different segments of our
society have demanded that they have a part in the political proc-
ess. We have said by law that we will not discriminate against
race, creed,. or sex, but just saying these things simply was not
enough. We were discriminating against certain segments of soci-
ety.
The Voting Rights Act gave these people a law with enough
teeth in it to make the law work. Any person saying the Voting
Rights Act was not needed or isn't needed now is one of two
things-either totally ignorant of what goes on in this State, or a
liar,, or possibly both. The blacks and Mexican Americans have
come a long way, but still have a long `way to go. There are
numerous cities and schools that would allow minority office-
holders if they had single member districts. These cities and school
districts will not form single member districts unless the law dic-
tates that it be done.
And the State of Texas and its political subdivisions have a
history of trying to violate the right to vote. Texas had a poll tax
which was declared unconstitutional. Texas had an annual voter
registration which was declared unconstitutional. Texas required a
full year's residency before being eligible to vote. Texas cut off the
period for registration to vote 8 months before the general election
before the practice was declared unconstitutional.
Since the poll tax was declared unconstitutional, voter participa-
tion in the general election has increased from 1 `/2 million to over
4 million in 1980. Since the Voting Thghts Act became effective, the
participation in the general election has increased from 3.4 million
to over 4 million.
The State legislature passed specific laws prohibiting students
from voting in counties where they attended college. The law was
aimed at black students attending Prairie View A. & M. primarily.
It was held unconstitutional.
The legislature passed laws prohibiting assistance to voters at
the polls. This law was held unconstitutional.
Bilingual ballots and voting instructions were prohibited. This
was held unconstitutional and the Voting Rights Act specifically
required bilingual ballots and instructions.
Before the Voting Rights Act, legislators, city council members,
school board members, and special district elected representatives
were elected from at-large districts as a general rule. The single-
member districts have become the general rule since passage of the
Voting Rights Act.. Single-member districts, of course, provide mi-
nority community members greater access to the political process
in most instances.
In many cities and school districts election members were elected
under .the plurality system `before adoption of the `Voting Rights
Act. Under this system, city council and school board members
were selected not by majority of the voters but by* the "high man
PAGENO="0014"
888
wins" voting. For example, there would be three seats on a city
council up for election. All the candidates would run against each
other, and the three receiving the highest number of votes won.
The system has been all but eliminated.
The plurality system was abandoned when blacks and Hispanics
began to get close to winning elections, and the at-large, by place
system was adopted in most cities, towns and school districts.
Ward systems that existed and set up since the existence of cities
were abandoned for at-large systems, when blacks began to run for
city council seats within the wards. There have been a number of
situations in the State of Texas, one being in 1975, when they
redistricted Jefferson County. Twenty-five percent of that county
was black. That county was entitled to four State representatives.
The blacks were in one area of the county. Instead of cutting the
county where the blacks could have a representative, the State
legislature, in its wisdom, cut the lines where each of the four
districts had 25 percent. black. Because of the Voting Rights Act,
that was held unconstitutional and now we do have a black repre-
sentative from the county of Jefferson.
Right now the State legislature has just redistricted the State,
and the county of El Paso is entitled to five State representatives.
It is unreal-or I don't understand how they have managed to cut
that county up to where there is only one Mexican American
representative in that county. I'm satisfied that will not stand up,
either, because of the Voting Rights Act.
There are now 109 more Mexican American officeholders in
Texas today than in 1975 when the act came into the State. That's
county, city, and State officeholders. I don't have the figures for
the school boards, and I don't have the number of blacks in Texas
holding office as a result of the Voting Rights Act, but I'm sure the
numbers are significant.
I know there have been a number of counties in east Texas that
have been redistricted as a result of the act, and there are a
number of suits pending now that would redistrict other counties
in that same area of the State.
There will be testimony later today giving the details and history
of all this litigation. The United Steelworkers of America support-
ed the enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We strongly
support the retention of the act. It seems a shame in this society
that such a law is needed, but it is, and we hope this committee
recommends it be retained and continue to cover the State of
Texas.
I would like to now call on Lori Joseph.
Ms. JOSEPH. My name is Lori Joseph. I'm an active member of
the Machinists Union. I was a delegate last year to the Democratic
National Convention.
As an active member of the Machinists Union, I think the Jus-
tice Department should continue to have the preclearance it has
right now. I believe it will save the taxpayers money in the long
run. Right now there are 254 counties in Texas, and if they did
away with this preclearance hearing, it would be in litigation every
time the precincts weren't drawn properly, the county wasn't
drawn properly, or the congressional districts weren't redrawn
properly. Peoples' organizations would always be constantly in
PAGENO="0015"
889
~ourt fighting it. With preclearance from the Justice Department, I
;hink that it. cuts down~the procedure immensely and it gives a fair
shake according to the Voting'~Rights Act.
Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS; Thank you.
Mr. DAWSON. Manuel?
Mr; YSAGUIRRE. .1 am Manuel Ysaguirre `with the Texas AFL-
ClO, and also president. of the Labor Council for Latin American
Advancement for the State of Texas.
Let me just say that the Texas AFL-CIO supports the extension
of the Voting Rights Act.
I have a copy here of the McAllen newspaper, and the Voting
Rights Act has been very critical for the Hispanics. This year, Your
Honor, for your information, it says Dominga Sausedo was nervous
as she walked from the cramped house to the neighborhood school
a few blocks away. For the first time in the 48 years since she was
born here in Texas, Mrs. Sausedo was on her way to vote. Like
thousands of American citizens, Mrs. Sausedo speaks no English.
The language and information barriers that existed until recently
were enough to keep her away from the voting booth.
There are so many things that can go wrong, she said, with a
self-conscious smile, to pull the wrong lever and make a mistake
once at the polls. Earlier this month, however, she found the booth
was~ biling~~ial, the election officials and voting machine, with
instructions in Spanish and English. HerS confidence increased .by
the moment Mrs. Sausedo strolled into the booth and pulled the
lever for Ramiro' Casso, a McAllen physician, challenging the in-
cumbent, Mayor Othal Brand. Then, feeling content, she went
home.
Dominga Sausedo has never heard of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, but without, the protections of the act extended to citizens
who do not speak English, she would probably have yet tO register
and' cast her first vote. Even so, as a Spanish-speaking voter, Mrs.
Sausedo is in the' minority. Forty-one percent of eligible Hispanic
`Americans cast ballots in the 1980 Presidential election. But the
minority is also rapidly growing. The number of Hispanic Ameri-
cans who voted last November was 20 percent higher than in 1976.
This Voting Rights Act is `not universally admired, particularly
in those Sun Belt States where it has been most widely applied.
Many election officials assert that their jurisdictions have been
unfairly singled out and urge that such segments provided are no
longer needed. They agree with President Reagan, that the law
should ~e rewritten to apply to the entire country. Civil rights
leaders contend that such a move `would make effective enforce-
ment impossible.
Some critics also contend that bilingual elections causes separat-
ism, an argument rejected by Archibald Cox, the Harvard law,
professor who is chairman of Common Cause, a public affairs lob-
bying organization. `
So I `say to you, Your Honor, that `we, the Hispanics, and also as
representatives of the AFL-CIO, are in favor of. extending the
Voting `Rights Act.
Thank you.
PAGENO="0016"
890
Mr. JACKSON. My name is Isaac Jackson, staff representative
with the United Steelworkers of America. I am here to testify in
favor of extending the Voting Rights Act.
The act has been and is a very effective tool in guaranteeing
effective participation of all sections of the community in the politi-
cal process. At this point in time we still need the act because
there are areas where all sections are not permitted full participa-
tion. There is a lot to be done in Texas, creating single-member
districts for city councils, school boards and county commissioners
courts. The act is the only thing that in some cases prevents the
dilution of minority voting strengths. I urge you to extend the
Voting Rights Act.
Thank you.
Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I want to talk just a minute about some things
that I think are important to all of us, and at the same time would
ask for continued support for the extension of the Voting Rights
Act.
Going back to a couple of years ago the students on the campus
at Prairie View A. & M. were denied the right to register and vote
because they were students, when all of the other students at all
the other universities had a right to register and vote in the area
in which they were going to school. Those students did not, have
that right at Prairie View.
Because of the Voting Rights Act, we appealed it on to the
Supreme Court and those students were given the rights that all
other students have. Because of the Voting Rights Act, the citizens
of Waller County were able to elect. two minority county commis-
sioners. So, we want to encourage the committee to continue the
extension of the act because we know it has done much to help
many.
Another area that we want to talk just a minute about, very
briefly, is about the Houston area. The mayor and city commission-
ers in Houston, Tex. were in place but at large. At that time it was
very difficult to elect a minority to the city council or school board
in the Houston-Harris County area. Since the Voting Rights Act
and since we have now single-member districts because of the
Voting Rights Act, we now have minority representation~ on the
city council and also the school board, which would have never
come about without the Voting Rights Act.
So, because of those areas where we have gained support of what
we were rightfully entitled to, we want to encourage again that the
committee extend the act.
I am with the Texas AFL-CIO and we are, on record as support-
ing the extension of the act. We know that without the act many of
us who are elected to the school boards and city councils and other
elected positions would not have been elected to those positions.
So, Mr. Chairman, we want to encourage the committee to
extend the act. Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Henderson.
Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman, A. C. Sutton, who is State president
of the NAACP, has joined us. I would like to relinquish the rest of
our time, about 10 minutes, to Mr. Sutton.
PAGENO="0017"
891
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Sutton, you are welcome and you are recog-
nized.
Mr. SUTTON. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is A.
C. Sutton. I am the president of the Texas Conference of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The
conference is appreciative that the committee is holding these
* hearings in Austin, Tex., the capital of our State, on the extension
of the Voting Rights Act. We strongly support House bill 3112, the
Rodino bill, in its entirety.
Blacks and other minorities in this State recall the white pri-
mary where they were allowed to vote in the fall after the selection
had been made in the spring and in the summer, with a poll tax
fee for the privilege of voting, with the restrictions as was in all
other Southern States. Although the law has been changed, the
attitudes of the controlling element remains the same. Thus, they
continue to devise systems and procedures to make voting as diffi-
cult as possible.
The act of moving polling places prior to election as far as
possible from blacks and other minorities, at-large elections, hard
to get to locations to vOte, harassment of voters, harassment of
minority candidates, harassment of poll watchers, holding precinct
conventions and meetings at hours difficult for blacks and other
minorities. I have attached a letter from a county clerk denoting
these procedures.
Thus the Voting Rights Act has been declared as one of the most
effective civil rights laws ever. It has had a significant effect upon
the electorial process in this State. Much of this presentation will
indjcate the ratio between Texas and the other of the southern
States covered by this act.
It is believed that Texas, by its locality, further west than south,
is not as prejudiced or has the same relationship as the other four
deep Southern States. But I would like to compare some figures to
bring out some facts that do indicate that Texas is as the other
Southern States.
During my research I found that Texas is the second largest
State in the Union in size; it's the third largest in population
according to the census population of 1980. I also discovered that
Texas has the third largest black population in America. There are
14,228,383 persons in Texas, of whom 2,985,643, or 21 percent, are
Mexican Americans, and 1,710,250, or 12 percent, are blacks.
There are more counties in Texas, 254, than in any other State.
Of the 1,016 county commissioners in Texas, less than 1 percent
are black, and 5.43 percent were Mexican American in 1978. Ac-
cording to the percentage of the State's population, there ought to
be at least 213 Mexican Americans and 122 black county commis-
sioners.
Of the 150 State representatives in Texas, only 19, or 13.6 per-
cent, are Mexican Americans, and 13, or 9 percent, are black.
According to their percentage in population, there ought to be at
least 32 Mexican Americans and 18 black State representatives.
Of 31 State senators in Texas, only three are Mexican American,
and there are no blacks. According to the percentage of the State
83-679 0 - 82 - 2 Pt.2
PAGENO="0018"
892
population, there ought to be at least 7 Mexican American and 4
black Senators.
Several of the ~other Southern States, such as Alabama, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virgin-
ia. have black senators-except for South Carolina; it has none, like
Texas.
There are 24 current Congressmen from Texas. Only two, which
is 8 percent, are Mexican American, and one, 4 percent, are black.
According to their percentage of the population in regards to the
1980 census, where Texas will be alloted 27 Congressmen, there
ought to be at least 5 Mexican Americans and 3 blacks. There are
no black Congressmen from any of the other seven States and no
Mexican Americans, nor are there any U.S. Senators, black Sena-
tors, from any of the other States.
When we take a broader view, comparatively speaking, Texas
ranks seventh out of eight in total number of black officials, over
196 of the 2,019, with Virginia saving Texas from the bottom with
91. Yet Texas is last in county governing boards with five, up from
four in law enforcement governing boards with five. Other officials,
21. A tie with Alabama for third with State house, with 13-in the
delegation there are three women. In other county offices such as
clerks and officers, there are reported none, in comparison with 27
for Mississippi, and only Alabama shows a zero as does Texas.
In municipal offices, Texas is ranked seventh with five. Mississip-
pi again with 17. Governing bodies finds Texas No. 7, with 68, just
above Virginia, with 48, but no comparison with Georgia, 139.
Other elected positions, Texas ranks fifth with two, and No. 4 with
other officials. I have attachments with information that bring
these facts out to bear.
As Congresswoman Barbara Jordon testified for the extension of
the present act, to quote:
Among the civil rights legislation enacted in 1960, the Voting Rights Act epito-
mizes the black struggle of equality. In the South the Voting Rights Act has opened
registration for eligible blacks. The Voting Rights Act has increased the possibility
of free and equal representation by blacks as voters in the political process. But for
many, the promise is yet unfilled. A few electoral victories should not mask reality.
The Voting Rights Act may have overcome blatant discrimination practices; it has
yet to overcome subtle discriminatory practices. Although the means may be differ-
ent, the effect is the same.
Blacks in the South continue to be excluded from the meaningful participation in
a democratic process. Allowing the Voting Rights Act to lapse this year would vitiate
the progress made in the last four years.
Further excerpts from Miss Jordan's presentation gives account
of the political career, when in 1962 she ran for the Texas House
from Harris County, Tex.
Will I be permitted to turn this in to you, since my time is
running short?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. The full statement will be made a part of the
record, Mr. Sutton.
Mr. SUTTON. All right. In order to expedite the time, since I find
that my time is running short, I would like to say that what we are
indicating is the proportion of elected officials ranges with Texas
being near the bottom and very~seldom ever getting up toward the
top line in relation to the other States that are covered by the
Voting Rights Act. Thus, we are asking that the Voting Rights Act
be extended at the session in 1982.
(Materials submitted by Mr. Sutton follow:)
PAGENO="0019"
893
[From the Austin American Statesman, June 4, 1981]
REAGAN PROPOSALS OPPOSED-VOTING LAW FACES REVISION
(By Robert Pear)
WASHINGTON.-The Reagan administration may ask Congress to giake major
changes in sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, scheduled to expire next year.
Administration officials said Wednesday the purpose of the contemplated changes
was to relieve the burden the law imposed on state and local governments.
Civil-rights advocates say the changes would diminish protection of voting rights.
In a series of interviews over the last two weeks, White House and Justice
Department officials indicated a distaste for extending the law in its current form,
saying it violated basic principles of federalism and states' rights that President
Reagan has endorsed.
Under current law, states with a history of discrimination must get approval from
the Justice Department or the federal District Court in Washington before they can
change voting qualifications or election procedures.
This "pre-clearance" requirement applies to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, and to portions of 13
other states.
Administration officials said the proposals under study would make these
changes:
Limit the pre-clearance requirement to those types of changes that have elicited
the most objections from the Justice Department. These include the redistricting of
a state or political subdivision, the change from single-member districts to at-lai~ge
elections and the annexation of territory by a city.
Change the formula for coverage. Cities and counties with a history of discrimina-
tion would still have to obtain federal approval for changes in election procedures,
but cities and counties with a clean record in recent years might be allowed to "bail
out" from coverage.
Replace the pre-clearance requirement with a mandatory-notice frovision. Cov-
ered jurisdictions would have to tell the Justice Department of proposed changes in
local election law, but the attorney general would have to seek a court injunction if
he wanted toprevent a change from taking effect. The department can now exercise
an administrative veto simply by objecting to a change submitted for pre-clearance.
This proposal would switch the burden of proof from the local authorities to the
attorney general.
Let the pre-clearance requirement expire in August 1982 but make it easier for
plaintiffs to win voting-discrimination suits by stating they should prevail if they
could prove either a discriminatory purpose or a discriminatory effect. The Supreme
Court has implied in recent decisions that a discriminatory effect, in the absence of
a discriminatory purpose, is not enough to establish a constitutional violatiOn.
Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. said the
pre-clearance requirement, known as Section 5, was "the heart of the Voting Rights
Act."
"Any weakening of Section 5 is totally unacceptable to the minority communities
in this country," Jones said. "If that is taken away from us, it sends us back to the
period before 1965. It makes us litigate everything.'
When Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act in 1975, it expanded the law to
protect members of "language minority" groups who do not speak Or write English.
States and counties covered by this part of the law must provide bilingual election
materials, using whatever other language is understood by the local minority group.
These requirements do not expire until 1985, but civil-rights groups want Con-
gress to act this year or next to extend both the bilingual provisions and the pre-
clearance requirement to 1992. Administration officials said they did not want to
confront the bilingual issue any sooner than necessary.
[From the Houston Post, May 28, 1981]
EXTENSION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT BACKED
(By Susan Grafeld Long)
WASHIIcGTON.-MexicanAmericans and blacks in Texas desperately need the
strict protection of the Voting Rights Act in order "to gain equal access to the
political process," St. Mary's University professor Charles Cotrell told a House
judiciary subcommittee Wednesday.
PAGENO="0020"
894
Cotrell said his extensive research into the impact of the act on the Texas
electoral system and his experiences ~growing up in Texas have shown him that
"only with the aid of the Voting Rights Act and federal court litigation have
minorities in Texas been given the opportunity to reverse over 100 years of discrimi-
natory election practices."
Cotrell and other political science professors testified in favor of a 10-year exten-
sion to the act's controversial "pre-clearance" provision requiring Southern states-
including Texas-with a history of racial. discrimination to receive advance approval
from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any changes in their
election laws. The provision is scheduled to expire in August 1982.
Cotrell said that since 1975-when the original Voting Rights Act was enacted-
the state of Texas and its political subdivisions have attempted to enact 130 elector-
al. changes, many of which would have been "devastating" to Mexican American
and black political participation.
"These 130 proposed changes were included in 86 letters of objection by the
Department of Justice," he said.
In the six years the "pre-clearance" provision has covered Texas, the state has
received "more. letters of objection than any other state covered by the act for 15
years," Cotrell added.
Election practices in Waller County, the only majority black county in Texas,
prompted one such Justice Department objection, he said.
After 12 years of being denied the right to register to vote in Waller County,
students of predominantly black Prairie View A&M attained "political access" only
after the Justice Department objected to "racially gerrymandered county commis-
sioner precinct lines,' Cotrell said.
~otrell and other witnesses. testified that although the Voting Rights Act perma-
nently banned blatant discriminatory practices-such as poll taxes, whites-only
primaries, literacy tests and voter intimidation-comparatively subtle forms of dis-
crimination still exist.
Witnesses cited "discriminatory practices" such as gerrymandering to break up
minority voting blocs and annexation of neighboring white districts to dilute minor-
ity.population concentrations.
[From the Corpus Christi Caller, May 11, 1981]
VOTING RIGHTS ACT SHouu BE RETAINED
Congress is confronted with a dilemma. Admittedly, this is nothing new: Congress-
men and senators are forever grappling with dilemmas. The one at hand, however,
is a particularly formidable example of the species, and its handling is going to
require more than a little delicacy.
The issue in question has arisen because the Voting Rights Act of 1965-the
measure credited by many observers with securing real voting power for American
blacks and other minorities is due to expire in August 1982.. It is up to Congress to
decide whether the act shall be extended or shall be allowed to lapse.
This is a matter of more than academic interest, particularly in the states of the
South and Southwest. The Voting Rights Act has provided for continuing federal
monitoring of elections in the states involved, and has required those states to
demonstrate to the Justice Department that any changes in electoral procedures
will not have an adverse impact on minority voting rights.
Many conservatives have opposed the measure right from the start, and with
Washington tilting noticeably to the. right, the scent of blood is in their nostrils.
They argue that, whatever purpose the Voting Rights Act may have served, it has
outlived its usefulness and now represents nothing more than unwarranted federal
interference in the electoral process.
Not surprisingly, liberals and minority groups tend to see the matter in a differ-
ent light. Benjamin Hooks, executive director of the NAACP, says failure to extend
at least the most important provisions of the act "would embolden those who want
to return to the bad old days. The National Urban League and the AFL-CIO have
also jumped into the struggle for extension.
We find ourselves caught in the middle. On balance, however, we find the argu-
ment in favor of extending the act more compelling than that in favor of letting it
lapse. For one thing, the. provisions of. the act have not been all that onerous. For
another, it has served to make electoral politics more equitable in many areas
where minority groups had previously been denied a voice. And for a third, it serves
as visible reassurance to ethnic minorities inclined to question the commitment ~of
PAGENO="0021"
895
"the system" to their interests. All of these considerations, we believe, militate in
favor of giving the Voting Rights Act of 1965 at least a limited new lease on life.
VOTING ACT EXTENSION Is BACKED
WASHINGT0N.-Organized labor and major civil rights groups on Wednesday
threw their weight behind the proposed extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
but the battle looms as difficult against the conservative tide of the 97th Congress.
The heads of the NAACP, the National Urban League and the AFL-CIO all urged
renewal of the law before a generally sympathetic House Judiciary subcommittee.
But heavy resistance is expected in the full House and in the Senate. Strom
Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has indicated he
will fight any bill that would keep alive one of the major legal tools used by civil
rights enforcers over the past 16 years.
Failure to extend important provisions of the law before expiration in August
1982 "would embolden those who want to return to the bad old days," said NAACP
executive director Benjamin Hooks.
Hooks recalled pre-Voting Rights Act days in the South when voting registrars
would ask prospective black voters, "How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?" or
"How far can a little dog run in the woods?"
He said without renewing the parts of the law under which the election laws in
seven Southern and two Western states and parts of 11 others are monitored by the
Justice Department, there will be a return to the "hostile, difficult conditions" of
the past.
The states now required to demonstrate to the Justice Department that any
changes in voting rules or jurisdictions do not deprive minorities of voting rights are
South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Virginia, Texas, New
Mexico and Arizona.
In addition, parts of Maine, Idaho, Florida, California, New York, Colorado, Michi-
gan, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Hawaii are also monitored by depart-
mént lawyers.
Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a conservative member of the subcommittee, said the
seven Southern states to which the law now applies "have been in the penalty box"
long enough.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Sutton, and thanks to all of the
witnesses that were introduced by Mr. Dawson.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, is recognized.
Mr. HYDE. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Wisconsin;
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
Just so you ladies and gentlemen know where I'm coming from, I
do support the extension of the preclearance provisions of the
Voting Rights Act.
But in listening to the testimony both today and in previous
hearings, I am a little bit puzzled, particularly about the at-large
versus district election issue of school board members in the South.
Where I come from in Wisconsin, most school boards are elected on
an at-large basis, on the philosophy that a school board member's
obligation is to provide quality education in all of the school build-
ings in that school district for all of the students attending those
schools, rather than being an advocate for a specific neighborhood
or a specific geographic area within that school district.
Incidentally, when the State legislature in Wisconsin changed
the law to provide for district election of school board members in
Milwaukee, which is our largest city, the number of blacks serving
on the school board actually went down because blacks did better
in the citywide elections than they did in specific neighborhood
elections.
But I would like to have your comments, Mr. Dawson, about this
general philosophical issue, that a school board member's responsi-
PAGENO="0022"
896
bility is a little bit different than that of the city councilman or a
State representative, or even a U.S. Congressman, in that there is
a greater responsibility to an area outside of a specific electoral
district in providing good education.
Mr. DAWSON. I can agree with what you said, and I'm sure that's
the way it is in Milwaukee and in Wisconsin. But, in fact, in the
State of Texas, until we got single-member districts, we didn't have
anyone on the city council or on school boards-and I know we're
talking specifically about school boards and city councils.
But just to give an example of what goes on in the State of
Texas, over in East Texas, some of the counties had as much as 50
percent population black, and the districts were gerrymandered to
such an extent that there would be 180 percent deviation in popu-
lation just to keep a black from being elected. The amount of
money that it takes to run for a school board in the city of Houston
almost prohibits anyone, unless you have a lot of money, to run.
We have not found that to be the case in Texas, where you run at
large, that blacks and Mexican Americans just do not get elected
unless they have over 50 percent of the population of that county
or the school board district, whatever.
I can agree with you, that the school board is not necessarily run
the same way as the county and the city, but they do handle funds,
school board funds; they are taxed to the same extent as everyone
else in the district. We feel that in the State of Texas, if they're
going to have access to the political process, that we need single-
member districts.
Mr. SurroN. May I speak to that also?
Mr. EDWARDS. Certainly.
Mr. SurroN. The schools have gotten to be such a political entity,
since it is a taxing body now, and the protection of every section of
the city must be protected, with the amounts of money, as he
explained, that it takes to get one in, there are systems that are
being devised in many of our communities that actually do tax
property to such a degree that it's better for some blacks to actual-
ly move out.
Now, we found out when blacks are able to get on school boards,
it isn't in that direction so much. For instance, if a school district
has a priority of advertising when some property is going to be sold
for taxes, many times what they would do is publish it somewhere
where no one would hardly see it. When we have blacks on those
districts, then they call attention to it and those lists are furnished
to everybody in the community. There are so many areas now that
the school is almost as involved as it is in any of the other political
arenas.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Have any of you found that school board
members who have* been elected by districts really don't pay as
much attention to what goes on in the schools outside of their
electoral districts, but within the school districts, as they do pay
attention to those schools that are within their electoral district?
Mr. SurroN. I think what has happened is the media plays them
up so much that they can't really-and I think it's safer for all of
the districts because they're going to have to give and take in order
to be sure that they can fit the guidelines of the Federal Govern-
PAGENO="0023"
897
ment and the other educational guidelines. I think they have to
deal very fairly across the board.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. OK. Getting down to the bottom line, the
concern I have is particularly in school district affairs. We're living
in a period of declining enrollment in the schools, and school
boards around the country are having to face the very painful
decision of closing school buildings and consolidating classes in
other buildings.
Have you found that a district election of school board members
has really not provided the objectivity that is necessary in school
closing situations that perhaps an at-large election of school board
members would?
Mr. DAWSON. I don't see it as any different than electing a
Congressman from districts, and naturally, the Congressman is
going to look at his district and then he looks at the rest of the
country. This system seems to work, and it seems to work for the
school boards here. I haven't heard of any school official complain-
ing about that aspeët of it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. All I would say in response is just look at
the difficulty the Congress has in closing up unneeded military
bases. [Laughter.]
Mr. DAWSON. I understand.
Mr. HENDERSON. Congressman, may I just add that there are
only a very few school districts within the State of Texas that have
single member districts. The rest of them are positions at large.
When we talk about positions at large, what are we saying? We
are simply saying that I run in position six, but everybody all over
the school district has to vote for a minority. The chances are
almost zero of one getting elected by a position at large.
We have some school districts and city councils and counties
where some counties have 49-51 percent of the total population,
and certain, counties that's minority; but when you talk about a
position at large, there is just no way that a minority person can
win in a position at large. So that's why we need to keep what we
have intact, to make sure at least that we try to hold on to what
we have. That's why we think it's important.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I have no further questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Joseph wishes to comment.
Ms. JOSEPH. This is a small comment. It goes back to when I was
in high school, when I was in the 9th and 10th grades in 1968 and
1969.
I was a participant in Dallas County with the Greater Dallas
Community Relations Commission. At that time it was the first tn-
ethnic committee put together in Dallas County. I was on the high
school's. I was going at that time to Hillcrest High School, which is
in far North Dallas, which received excellent funding, had super
teachers, clean grounds, and any kind of facilities that you wanted,
including computers, back then.
I participated in a program where I exchanged and I went to
Lincoln High School, which is over in West Dallas. The distinction
between the schools was incredible. The funding for the schools
was incredible. The difference in levels of education was incredible.
There was at least 4- to 5-grade levels difference. The teaching
levels were different. What the teachers had to work with-there
PAGENO="0024"
898
were no audiovisual aids. They did. not have the kinds of things to
help teach that the teachers over at Hillcrest had.
I feel that within the last 10 years, through single member
districts, that has changed. Because now the pevple can get up and
say "the schools out in this area are not getting the same materials
as over here." All that anybody is asking in education is equal
opportunity to learn.
There is not equal opportunity. This one gets audiovisuals,
speech therapists, and all the other goodies that come along, and
the people over here who might need remedial reading, English for
foreign language students, more programs such as that, accelerated
programs, things like screens, paper, pencils, chalk, erasers, very
basic things are missing out of those classrooms for those teachers
to teach with. They come out of those teachers' pockets. Those
teachers can't afford it any more than the people out at Hillcrest
could afford it. I think that is one of the major changes that I
personally have seen in the last 10 years.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Joseph.
I have one question that can be directed to any member of the
panel who cares to answer it.
In a January 1980 study of Texas by the Texas Advisory Commit-
tee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the committee said in
part:
Texas yields to no State in the area of voting rights violations. As was the case
with most Southern States, Texas has employed the extra legal tactics of physical
and economic intimidation to limit the use of. the franchise by minorities. It should
be observed that never has the Texas Legislature acted to encourage minority
political participation in the absence of a Federal court order to do so, or where
such an order was inevitable.
If the voting rights provisions that expire next year are allowed
to expire, then the matter of voting rights in Texas will be largely
returned to the State and local governments.
I would like to ask any member of the panel who cares to answer
what would be the consequences?
Mr. DAWSON. That statement would probably be just as~ true as
now. I mean, it would probably go back to the same thing it was. It
appears to me that the same folks who have run the State are still
running the State, and I would think, without Federal law to make
the people do what's right by the citizens, that it would revert back
to what it was prior to the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Sutton, do you agree that after 17 years of the
Voting Rights Act, the situation in Texas would revert to the days
before the 1965 act?
Mr. Su~rroN. I certainly do, because Texas has had 84 objections,
and of the 84, 13 have been declined. But it has filed more objec-
tions than any other State, so there are more infractions. But the
real problem of the 17 years is, after so many years of discrimina-
tory practices, it will be years before the white population as well
as the black population actually recognize they can do something
about the system.
In the last 17 years many people up until now don't know
enough about even how to file an objection and are being discrimi-
nated in not knowing what to do. The educational process is the
problem, of getting information to them and giving them the cour-
age, in face of intimidation. It's going to take another 10 or 15
PAGENO="0025"
899
years before the people will actually recognize that they have a
privilege of voting, a privilege of filing an objection, because the
educational processes that go down through our communities are
so limited when it comes to voting and voting rights.
So I certainly believe that it will revert immediately back, and if
we do not continue to file objections, I think it will revert quicker
in that system than any other system.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Sutton.
As my counsel points out, Texas has only been covered since
1975, SO you only have 6 years--
Mr. SUTTON. That's right.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask Mr. Sutton, do you think that reregistration
is ever proper?
Mr. SUTTON. Yes. The only reason that I would think reregistra-
tion would be proper would be to update the list and not to purge.
Mr. HYDE. By updating the list, you would be purging people
who--
Mr. SUTTON. Died.
Mr. HYDE [continuing]. Who have passed away, right, moved
away.
Mr. SUTTON. Yes, moved off, rather than purging.
Mr. HYDE. How do you determine what the purpose is, say 10
years--
Mr. SUTTON. I would say not every year would be proper, or
every other year. The idea of reminders and the kind of education-
al programs that we need to encourage the people to stay aware of
the electoral process is I think where we need more than anything
else, because people are not kept aware enough of the procedures
and how they can participate in the procedures because they have
been deprived and they have no knowledge of how the procedure
actually works.
Mr. HYDE. I am always a little leery of some of the statistics on
voting activities, because in many communities where there isn't a
racial difference at all, there is great apathy. Apathy has charac-
terized the electoral process in America for many years. It isn't
because people are discouraged or intimidated from coming. They
just don't care. Or they're satisfied with the way things are, or they
don't think it makes any difference. So I do think those reasons
ought to be borne in mind and in context. They certainly aren't
applicable everywhere.
But when I hear statements about Texas not encouraging minor-
ity participation, I can assure you in Chicago Democrats don't
encourage Republicans to participate, and vice versa in other
areas. They have some interesting ways of discouraging participa-
tion. Voting machines break down in Republican precincts and the
long lines, where people finally have to go to work.
Assistance in voting, which you have cited as an abuse, the
denial of it, is abused on the other side in communities I am
familiar with, where the precinct captain goes in and votes for the
voter, to make sure they vote for the right candidate. If they're of
Polish extraction and maybe have some language difficulty, it's the
assistance in voting where the fraud occurs. It's very much abused.
PAGENO="0026"
900
So, you know, some things may be wrong in some areas and not so
wrong in others.
Mr. DAWSON. One thing that's not wrong, I don't think, in the
State of Texas is the voter registration law that we have. There
could be some minor changes, but we do have what I consider to be
one of the better voter -registration laws of any State. Post card
mail, you can register just about any way. You are mailed out a
registration form every 2 years. If it is returned to the courthouse,
then you are purged at that time. But there is no reregistration,
and I don't think, as long as we have the law we have, that
reregistration is necessary unless you move your residence. That's
what we have in the State of Texas and I think it's working well.
I would like to see reregistration closer to the date of election,
but--
Mr. HYDE. What about undocumented persons registering to
vote? What. safeguards exist on that situation?
Mr. DAWSON. How high is up, Congressman? I don't know how
-many. are- registered. I just absolutely do not know.
In the precincts that I have worked, where there were a number
of undocumented workers, they didn't seem to be registered. So I
wouldn't be able to answer that question.
Mr. HYDE. When you register, do they require proof of citizen-
ship, or do you just say you're a citizen? Is the registration bilin-
gual?
Mr. DAWSON. Yes, the registration is bilingual, but they do not
require proof of citizenship.
Mr. HYDE. So as far as you know, however many undocumented
workers-illegal aliens-are in here, if we continue with the bilin-
gual there's no inhibition for them casting a vote, is there?
Mr. DAWSON. I don't believe that is happening a lot, I really
don't. It may be, but I just don't believe that's being abused. I don't
believe that many. illegals are registering to vote.
Mr. H~mE. May `I ask the gentleman over here, is it common that
someone would be born in America and live 48 years here and not
be able to speak English or understand it?
Mr. Y5AGUIRRE. It is. It sure is.
Mr. HYDE. Why is that? Is it that there's no education in those
communities?
Mr. YSAGUIREE. Well, that's one of the problems. The other one
is, since the Voting Rights Act came about, a lot of our people-
and we're talking about the oldest ones that have been here for so
many years-they never participate in the political process.
You mentioned awhile ago, - you know-take Corpus Christi, for
instance, where we've got 55 percent -Mexican Americans and 10
percent black and what have you., and yet we do not have a
Mexican American in the city council for the simple reason that
they don't want to go out and participate, because they say "why
should we go when the at-large takes care of it." We never get a
Mexican American elected. -
Mr. H~E. Well, maybe someone who isn't a Mexican American
can be an honest, decent person and do a good job in office, and
maybe a white could be an honest and decent person and a black
and a Mexican American. -
PAGENO="0027"
901
But I'm more concerned about how someone can spend a lifetime
in our country and never learn any English. That bothers me.
Something is even more wrong there, if that is widespread.
Now, I know how it can happen here and there. The more we are
bilingual in this country, the more it seems to me we perpetuate or
deny. the incentive to learn English, which is the language of this
country that predominates. We cripple people by not giving them
the incentive to learn English, and 48 years without being able to-.
if that's widespread, you know. That's what you said.
Mr. YSAGUIRRE. We do have some, you know, here lately. Let's
take it 10 years back. I don't know whether you know or not, but
once you have worked in the fields, you get back with your people
and really know what's going on. You know, you can sit in an
office and say this and this and that, but when you work in the
field and find out the conditions of these people, where they can
participate or go to school at night, where they can learn English-
and you know how it is when you are older, that you don't learn
that easy as when you're young.
Mr. HYDE. Oh, sure. But I thought this woman was born in the
United States.
Mr. YSAGUIRRE. Well, take, for example, my mother. She was
born in Mexico and up to now I finally got her to where she can
write her name. But English and how to read it, she can't do it.
That's just giving an example on the part of my mother. She has
been in the United States for so many years that she is a citizen Of
the United States. But yet to that point, I can't get her to read or.
write English.
Mr. HYDE. Lastly, you read from a story that President Reagan
wanted to make the preclearance sections universal across the
country, or some statement like that.
I am surprised to hear that, because the White House has not
taken any position as yet there-it's under study-on the extension
of the preclearance sections, not the Voting Rights Act itself, which
is permanent law. We're just talking about the preclearance sec-
tions. I know they have not because they have consulted me and
others on how our hearings are going. I am sure as these hearings
develop it will have an impact on the position they take.
Mr. SUTTON. May I shed some light on the issue of why there are
some people, 48 and 50 in all.
If you will look at the policy level of Texas, you will find that
many people don't even get a chance to go to school in order to go
out and to work. Many of the families have gone to the conformed
labors and so forth where it's not necessary to speak the English
language. In many instances, we find this quite often in our serv-
ice-I'm from San Antonio, where we have 54 or 55 percent Mexi-
can American and only have about 6 or 7 percent that are black.
Being a minority in a minority setup, I'm able to tell you a lot of
the background of that minority.
Unless we can begin to lift the poverty level to where we can
more or less see that every one of them are able to go to school,
we're still going to have people that will be speaking the language
of their native land rather than the English language, because of
their habitat and how they grew up in our society.
PAGENO="0028"
902
I guess until we're able to really lift the poverty level enough to
where we can demand that every child would go to school and see
that they get the proper education, at that point I imagine we will
be able to have people growing up with the idea of English only.
Mr. HYDE. Are you saying, then, there are substantial numbers
of children in the .San Antonio area who do not ever go to school?
Mr. SUTTON. Well, now it's not as bad since they started the
different programs. What the bilingual program actually does is
focus in on those children that forces the parents to send those
children to school. That's one of the greatest features of the bilin-
gual program, to see that those children who have really no back-
ground of English up until their third or fourth year of life, they
then begin in the program to learn. But many of the children that
are in our elementary schools have not had any background at all
of English, and this is why the bilingual program is so important,
to see that they do get the foundation of English in order to speak
the American tongue.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our thanks to the panel. We appreciate your
contribution very much.
We are very pleased to have as our next two witnesses Ambassa-
dor Robert Krueger, who is accompanied by Mr. William White,
visiting professor of law at the University of Texas.
Before I introduce our former colleague, I point out that the
Congressman from this area, our good friend and colleague Jake
Pickles, wanted to be here. But he is chairman of a very important
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security and he is over-
whelmed with work. He gave us his very best wishes and offered us
the hospitality that we are enjoying.
Mr. Krueger, I am delighted to see you. I can assert that we miss
you very much in the House of Representatives. You made a great
contribution during the years that you were there. I don't think I
will ever forget the day that you walked up to me on the floor of
the House a few days before consideration of the extension of the
Voting Rights Act in 1975, and said, "I'm going to help you. I think
it's a good thing, not only for the State of Texas but for the
country." You went out on a limb because it was a very daring
thing to do at that time. I applauded you then and I want to thank
you once more because we haven't had a single witness-and we've
invited a lot of witnesses-perhaps one, who didn't say that the
Voting Rights Act and its extension in 1975 has not only been good
for minority, citizens, but it is also good for the country. So we are
pleased to have you.
Without objection, your statements will be made a part of the
record. Professor White, we're delighted to have you, too.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT KRUEGER, FORMER MEMBER OF
CONGRESS AND FORMER AMBASSADOR AT LARGE AND U.S.
COORDINATOR FOR MEXICAN AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY
WILLIAM H. WHITE, AH'ORNEY, AND VISITING PROFESSOR
OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IN AUSTIN
* Mr. KRUEGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for those
kind remarks, and we wish to thank you and members of the
committee for the opportunity to be here today to testify.
PAGENO="0029"
*903
My name is Robert Krueger, and joining me in preparing and
presenting this testimony is William H. White.
We have come to urge the extension, Mr. Chairman, of this act,
which has brought the premier privilege of citizenship, the right to
vote, to more Americans than any other act in the last half cen-
tury.
We worked for the continuation of this act and its extension to
Texas in 1975, one of us as a Member of Congress, the other as a
legislative assistant. We recognized then that it was not a perfect
act. If people were perfect, they would require no laws. Being
imperfect, they write imperfect laws. Desiring a better society, they
seek to improve those laws. We support that aim. But we believe
that any alterations to this act should be minimal, and that its
overall success in practice warrants its continuance without sub-
stantial alteration.
The success of the act has been real and substantial. The in-
crease in registration of black voters in certain areas of the South
immediately following its passage in 1965 is well known. Yet how
the act can indirectly affect the course of participation in elections,
and their results, can be seen nearer our home in San Antonio.
Before extension of the Voting Rights Act to Texas, and before
the inclusion of language minorities such as Hispanics in its cover-
age, San Antonio had a city council of nine members. Only two
were Hispanic, although the population of the city consisted rough-
ly of 50 percent Hispanics, 10 percent blacks, and 40 percent
Anglos. Following the extension of the Voting Rights Act and the
elimination of at-large elections for city council, the first council
elected in single-member districts was composed of five Anglos, five
Hispanics, and one black member-a close reflection of the ethnic
makeup of the city. Since then San Antonio has elected its' first
Hispanic mayor in this century, Henry Cisneros. No one should say
that this change in mayoral and council election results came only
from the Voting Rights Act, but anyone who knows the region
should acknowledge that the act helped create the conditions to
allow such elections.
We are not, of course, engaging in the racism of saying that it is
better to have a mayor of one ethnic background, Hispanic, rather
than another, Anglo. We are saying that is is important to all
Americans that people of all ethnic groups have the opportunity,
real as well as apparent, of being elected to the highest positions in
the community; and that voters of all, ethnic backgrounds have the
realistic opportunity to choose and elect someone of similar ethnic
background to represent them. That opportunity has historically
existed for Anglos; it should for Hispanics and blacks as well, and
the Voting Rights Act helps assure that it will.
We cannot ignore history in considering the demonstrable effects
of this act. State Senator Bob Vale has told me that when he
entered the Texas Legislature in 1965 there were: One black
member, one Republican, five Mexican Americans, and no women
among the 181 members. Those were all minority groups, and they
certainly included Republicans at that time.
Today, because of single-member districting and the changed
attitudes that have accompanied passage of this act, over half of
the Texas Legislature's 181 members are composed of those groups~
PAGENO="0030"
904
Nationwide, the number of black officials elected to city and county
offices increased four fold between 1970 and 1979, or, from 715 to
2,647. In elections of positions in education, the numbers went from
362 to 1,136 in the same period. Part of this increase is attributable
to the expansiOn of single-member districts to replace at-large
voting.
Consider, for example, what has happened in certain local school
board elections in Texas in which all members are elected on an at-
large basis. The Southwest Voter Registration and education proj-
ect undertook a study of 361 Texas school districts, in which,
among such districts, the student population was 20 percent or
more Hispanic. Within these districts, only when the student His-
panic population exceeded 89 percent did Hispanics form a major-
ity on the school board. And in 42 of the districts in which the
Hispanic student population exceeded 50 percent, there were no
Hispanics on the boards. Thus, many students who are reared in
homes where English may not be spoken, or is not spoken exclu-
sively, study in school systems in which probably no one on the
school board has ever been reared bilingually.
The Voting Rights Act was written with an eye to historical
patterns of discrimination and not with an eye to giving equal
attention to all areas of the country. Some have criticized it for
that, saying that it focuses excessively on one region of the coun-
try, thereby singling it out for coloquy. I say today, as I did on the
floor of the House in 1975, that I look forward to the day when the
citizens of Illinois will receive the same protections as those of
Texas. But I don't want to remove those protections from Texans
just because they are not extended to Illinois, any more than I
would wish to remove police protection from Texas if it were not
available to Illinois.
Texas can take great. pride in the way in which it has opened
vastly increased political opportunities for its citizens. We wish to
continue to be a place of opportunity and this act helps us to do so.
If we are in a~ time of budget cutting and more careful attention
to Federal expenditures, then prudent management suggests that
Federal attention go to the areas with historic problems until the
time at which those problems are solved. For this reason, we favor
continuing to apply the coverage of the Voting Rights Act to those
States to which it has applied, and not to expanding its coverage to
all States, as some have suggested.
We recognize, having spoken with various local and State offi-
cials, that some provisions of the act result in increased, and some-
times unnecessary paperwork. We wish to be responsive to such
criticisms.. One way of reducing paperwork and unnecessary delay
in effecting changes ~might be to continue the basic preclearance
process under section 5, which we consider essential, but to reduce
one unnecessary step in the process.
We understand that.. currently the Department of Justice receives
documents requiring its preclearance and has 60 days in which to
review them. Meanwhile, the Department also informs, from its
list on file, interested parties such as MALDEF,. LULAC, the
NAACP and similar groups who wish to be informed of proposed
changes in election procedures. These groups, and any other inter-
ested party, have the opportunity to express their views to the
PAGENO="0031"
905
Department of Justice. And in practice, at least in Texas, the great
majority of instances in which the Department of Justice raises
objections during this preclearance occurs in instances in which
interested parties have raised objection.
Nonetheless, even on routine and noncontroversial matters such
as slight changes in election procedures to which no one objects,
the Department of Justice must now spend time. Meanwhile, those
who proposed the changes face delay while Justice officials review
these proposed changes. Wouldn't it be possible fully to maintain
the strength of the Voting Rights Act, and yet to eliminate unnec-
essary delays for local or State officials, if preclearance scrutiny
were required only when an interested party raised objection or
requested such scrutiny? It might actually allow an overworked
group of attorneys within the Department of Justice who are re-
sponsible for voter rights legislation the opportunity to spend more
time on significant problems. Such a change, however, if effected,
would have to guarantee full and adequate notice to interested
parties at both national, State and local levels. Without such guar-
antees, the changes should not be undertaken. With it, however,
the preclearance process might be streamlined.
There are some additional areas in the Voting Rights Act, Mr.
Chairman, which some people are proposing should be altered,
especially because of certain reëent court decisions. I should like
now to ask my colleague, Mr. White, to present this part of the
testimony which addresses these changes.
Mr. WHITE. Like Bob, I will address my remarks to perhaps some
changes that the committee ought to consider, or at least some
legislative history that the committee ought to consider making.
We are in basic support of the legislation, and I think the thrust
of our testimony, as well as support of the legislation, is to analyze
perhaps some changes that might be made which will make the act
more effective and minimize any objectiOns that people have due to
any bureaucratic delay and redtape that the act causes, and my
remarks should be taken in that light.
Specifically-and I'll go through my statement. Perhaps if it's
submitted into the record, I can skip portions and get to . maybe
explain in more detail what I recommend if it's not in this state-
ment.
I believe that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which is the
general prohibition against abridgement of voting rights, could be
strengthened, benefiäially strengthened, either through a change in
wording, perhaps, or a clear legislative history that would give the
courts better guidance in their interpretation of this troubled pro-
vision.
As you know, section 5 of the 14th amendment gives Congress
the power to outlaw discriminatory practices even where those
practices would not necessarily violate the 14th or 15th amend-
ments of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Federal courts.
However, section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been interpreted
by the courts simply to restate the law of the Constitution against
discrimination in voting practices-notably, as you are aware, the
Mobile v. Bolden case
Last year the Supreme Court in that case decided that in order
to show the violation of voting rights under the Constitution, and
PAGENO="0032"
906
under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a private plaintiff had to
show that there was a subjective intent to discriminate.
Let me pause from my testimony right there and say that I think
it is very important, either by express language or legislative histo-
ry, that there be a private cause of action under section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act. If the committee is successful, as I hope it will
be, in clarifying the law in this area so that the courts are given
somewhat more leeway under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to
find a practice of discrimination than they are under the 14th and
15th amendment, you see. So if you are able either through some
change in the wording or through the legislative history to make
the coverage of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act greater than the
14th and 15th amendments, then make quite clear, please, that
private plaintiffs have a right of action under that section.
The Supreme Court in the Mobile v. Bolden case says "well,
maybe they do" and dropped a footnote, or "maybe they don't."
That's my point.
Proof of subjective intent to discriminate is very difficult, as you
know. We have come a long way from the time at which, for
example, the mayor of the city of Richmond in the 1960's could
justify the annexation of a white suburb after blacks became a
force in city politics by saying, "As long as I'm the mayor of the
city of Richmond, the niggers won't take over this town." I think
it's worthwhile to point out at this point that some of these people
who think it's so ridiculous to have the Voting Rights Act extend
to annexation ought to consider some of these historical incidents
before they make that type of generalization.
Modern discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities is
likely to be subtle and unexpressed rather than stated in the press
and in the chambers of government. As a result, it becomes ex-
tremely difficult and in some cases nearly impossible to prove
subjective intent to discriminate, even where the facts fairly and
clearly indicate that intentional discrimination might have been in
the minds of the officials in charge of voting practices.
Perhaps the prime examples of cases in which a burden of show-
ing subjective intent to discriminate becomes almost impossible is
the case of at-large elections, which I am sure you considered at
length. As the statistics noted earlier concerning at-large elections
in Texas' school boards indicated, at-large elections can have the
effect of preventing access by minorities into leadership positions
in important community institutions. If at-large elections have
been the rule since the application of the Voting Rights Act to
Texas, there is no opportunity for the Justice Department to
review these practices under the preclearance provisions of section
5, since there has been no change in the voting practices. There-
fore, the private lawsuit is the only means to effectively remedy
any discrimination that would occur.
Now, in many counties in rural Texas it is well recognized that
the predominant Anglo and historically the subordinate Mexican
American populations have led independent existences. This is a
historical fact, and questions such as the effect or intent of an at-
large school election system should not be analyzed outside of that
basic historical context. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin, this
is one case where Texas might be distinguished from some of the
PAGENO="0033"
907
situations which he was talking about. I'm certainly not saying this
is true throughout Texas. But I think in many areas of rural Texas
it is just a fact that you have had two communities leading inde-
péndent existences in which one community has had the power for
generations.
In a case like that, how would you go about showing intent?
Now, under present law, the answer to. that question is unclear.
Since the case of White v. Register, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals tried to devise a test that would allow private litigants to
demonstrate when these at-large elections denied members of mi-
nority groups access to leadership in political positions, including
school boards. As you might be familiar with, this was a fairly
detailed test. I think the Fifth Circuit was very conscientious in
this regard. They wanted to avoid the criticism, which might have
been valid, if they failed to devise a specific test for discrimination,
that they would just be deciding cases by the seat of their pants. So
they had some very specific jurisprudential rules for determining
where there was discrimination.
The Mobile v. Bolden case makes clear that this multifaceted test
devised by the Federal courts in this part of the country was wrong
unless it focused-and I would say, from reading parts of the
opinion-almost exclusively on the element of subjective intent.
That confused decision, which was supported by only a bare major-
ity of the Supreme Court, strongly suggests that a court inferring
discrimination only from discriminatory effects risks reversal. Con-
gres~, in its extension of the Voting Rights Act, can give to future
courts and future litigants some guidance as to how intent to
discriminate might be proved~
We propose that the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act
make clear that the test of discriminatory intent under section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act should contain the following elements:
First, the voting practice at question should be. in some sense
abnormal, not the type of practice that is routinely encountered in
the political process. I believe that the use of at-large elections in
this day and age should automatically qualify as an abnormality in
the political process. Certainly you wouldn't tolerate it in Congress
now, would you?
Second, the voting practice at issue should have an adverse effect
on minorities. This is the second prong of a three-pronged test. To
satisfy this test, a plaintiff would prove that members of minority
groups are not proportionally. represented in the political process
and, in addition, perhaps, that the interest of minorities had been
neglected compared to the interest of the majority group.
Let me just make a note here. I don't think courts-this would
be a very tough decision for courts, but it's an evaluation the
courts have been able to make, notably, for example, in the White
v. Register case, where they analyzed the fact that Mexican Ameri-
cans had not had~ a significant impact on the political process in
the city of San Antonio. The Supreme Court was able to make that
finding in that case.
Third, where there is a practice that is found to be abnormal and
is found to have adverse effects on minorities, it should be consid-
ered discriminatory if it were not supported by any other policy
that could not have been achieved by another alternative. This test
83-679 0 - 82 - 3 Pt.2
PAGENO="0034"
908
resembles somewhat the less restrictive alternative test used to test
whether various regulations violate the first amendment. Yet, if
the State or locality has an important State interest that can only
be furthered by the practice in question, then evidence of effects
alone should not be sufficient to show discriminatory intent. How-
ever, if the abnormal practice with discriminatory effect is not
necessary, or is scarsely necessary, to accomplish the purpose by
which it is justified, this is strong evidence of discriminatory
intent.
Let me give you an example of how this type of test might be
applied, I think, to strengthen and rationalize the law. Let's consid-
er on the one hand the case of at-large elections, and on the other
case of annexations. Consider the case of at-large elections where
minorities, as in many school districts, were not able to be repre-
sented proportionally on the school board, where it is abnormal
practice, and where it is very theoretical and in some cases a very
tenuous argument that at-large elections are necessary to protect
the integrity of the educational process in that community. In that
case, I think clearly a court, in considering all the circumstances,
should be allowed to infer there is discriminatory intent.
On the other hand, taking annexation, where -a city annexes a
suburban community that contains a greater proportion of Anglos
than reside in the city prior to annexation, there might be an
important and justifiable reason for that annexation-protection of
the tax base, which is in the interest of all of the citizens of that
city, whatever their ethnic background, and I would add I would
think it would be particularly important to those members of mi-
nority groups. I don't think flight to the suburbs should be encour-
aged, and in Texas we have statutes-for example, in Houston,
where I'm from-that allow aggressive annexation which has been
quite successful in conserving our tax base. That is an important
State policy.
Even though there might be some dilution of minority voting
strength, in that case a court, if that policy of furthering and
protecting the tax base is plausible and the annexation is necessary
and significantly furthers that goal, then in the absence of other
evidence of intent to discriminate I think that practice could very
well be held to be lawful and not enough evidence of intent.
Finally, a clear legislative history expressing the intent of Con-
gress for courts to use the above test in determining discriminatory
intent will streamline the voting rights litigation without causing
the additional problems of having the courts define discriminatory
effect and apply some test of discriminatory effect as such.
Some people might advocate that section 2 be amended to bar
voting practices which have a discriminatory effect. As I say, I
think that, too, would lead to some severe jurisprudential prob-
lems. In addition, it might be politically impossible, as I suspect.
A clear statement of legislative policy that permitted courts to
use evidence of discriminatory effect to infer intent, however,
would make the law in this area less naive and more effective, and
more effective in remedying the actual devices of discrimination
such as at-large elections, where direct proof of subjective intent is
impossible.
PAGENO="0035"
909
Finally, we believe-and I will repeat-that the Voting Rights
Act must be extended. We hoped to have offered a few modest
suggestions about ways in which it can both be strengthened and
streamlined.
We conclude by recalling the words of the only President that
our State has given the Nation, Lyndon Johnson, when he signed
the act in 1965, where he termed it "an important instrument of
freedom" and, when urging its passage, stated: "Their cause must
be our.. cause, too, because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of
us who: must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injus-
tice."
Thank you.
[The joint statement of Mr. Krueger and Mr. White follows:]
PAGENO="0036"
910
Testimony offered before the
Subcommittee on Civil ~ Constitutional Rights
of the Hcuse Judiciary Committee
on June 5, 1981,
meeting in the Federal Courthouse, Austin, Texas,
by The Honorable Robert Krueger,
former Member of Congress;
~ former Ambassador-at~Large
~ U.S. Co-ordinator for Mexican Affairs
William H. White, attorney
Susman ~ McGowan, ~
Visiting Professor of Law,
University of Texas in Austin
PAGENO="0037"
911
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Robert Krueger, and joining
me in preparing and presenting this testimony is William H. White. We wish to thank
you for coming to Texas to receive testimony regarding the possible extension or
amendment of the federal Voting Rights Act and for inviting us to testify.
We have come to urge the extension of this act, which has brcught the premier
privilege of citizenship, the right to vote, to more Americans than any other act
in the last half century.
We worked for the continuation of this act, and its extension to Texas, in 1975,
one of us as a Member of Congress, the other as a legislative assistant. We recog-
nized then that it was not a perfect act. If people were perfect, they would require
no laws. Being imperfect, they write imperfect laws. Desiring a.better society,
they seek to improve those laws. We support that aim. But we believe that any
alterations to this act should be minima], and that its overall success in practice
warrants its continuance without substantial alteration.
The success of the act has been real and substantial. The increase in regis-
tration of Black voters in certain areas of the South immediately following its
passage in 1965 is well known. Yet, how the act can indirectly affect the course
of participation in elections, and their results, can be seen nearer our home, in
San Antonio.
Before extension of the Voting Rights Act to Texas, and before the inclusion
of language minorities such as Hispanics in its coverage, San Antonio had a City
Council of nine members. Only two were Hispanic, although the population of the
city consisted of approximately 50% Hispanics, 10% Blacks, and 40% Anglos. Following
the extension of the Voting Rights Act and the elimination of at-large elections
for city council, the first council elected in single-member districts was composed
of five Anglos, five Hispanics, and. one Black member: a close reflection of the
PAGENO="0038"
912
ethnic make-up of the city. Since then San Antonio has elected its first Hispanic
mayor in this century - Henry Cisneros. No one should say that this change in
mayoral and council election results came only from the Voting Rights Act. But
anyone who knows the region should acknowledge that the Act helped create the
conditions to allow such elections.
We are not, of course, engaging in the racism of saying that it is better to
have a mayor of one ethnic background (Hispanic) rather than another (Anglo). We
are saying that it is important to all Americans that people of all ethnic groups
have the opportunity, real as well as apparent, of being elected to the highest
positions in the community; and that voters of all ethnic backgrounds have the
realistic opportunity to choose and elect someone of similar ethnic background to
represent them. That opportunity has historically existed for Anglos; it should
for Hispanics and Blacks as well, and the Voting Rights Act helps assure that it
will.
We cannot ignore history in considering the demonstrable effects of this act.
State Senator Bob Vale has told me that when h entered the Texas Legislature in
1965 there~ one Black member, one Republican, five Mexican-Americans, and no
women among the 181 members. Today, because of single-member districting and the
changed attitudes that have accompanied passage of this act, over half of the Texas
Legislatures 181 members are composed of those groups. Nationwide, the number of
Black officials elected to city and county offices increased fourfold between 1970 -
and 1979, or, from 715 to 2647; in elections to positions in education, the numbers
went from 362 to 1136 in the same period. Part of this increase is attributable
to the expansion of single-member districts to replace at-large voting.
Consider, for example, what has happened in certain local school board elections
in Texas in which all members are elected on an at-large basis. The-Southwest Voter
Registration and Education Project undertook a study of 361 Texas school districts
in which, among such districts, the student population was 20% or more Hispanic.
Within these districts, only when the student Hispanic population exceed~9% did
PAGENO="0039"
913
4
MALDEF, LIJLAC, NAACP, and similar groups who wish to be informed, of proposed changes
in election procedures. These groups, and any other interested party, have the
opportunity to express their views to the Department of Justice. And in practice,
at least in Texas, the great majority of instances in which the Department of Justice
raises objections during this preclearance occurs in instances in which. interested
parties have raised objection.
Nonetheless, even ~n routine and non-controversial matters such. as a slight
change *n election procedures, to which no one objects, the Department of Justice
must now spend time, Meanwhile~ those who proposed the changes face delay while
Justice officials review these proposed changes. Would it not be possible fully to
maintain the strength. of the Voting Rights Act~ and yet to eliminate unnecessary
delays for, local or state officia1s~ if preclearance scrutiny were required only
when an interested party raised objection or requested such scrutiny? It might
actually allow an overworked Voting Section of the Department of Justice the oppor-
tunity to spend more time on significant problems~ Such a change, however, if
effected, would have to guarantee full and adequate notice to interested parties
at both national, state, and local levels. Without such guarantees, the change
should not be undertaken. With it~ however, the preclearance process might be
streamlined,
There are some additional areas in the Voting. Rights Act which some people are
proposing should be altered, especially because of certain recent coi~rt decisions.
I should like to ask my colleague Mr White to present this part of the testimony,
which addresses these changes.
PAGENO="0040"
914
Hispanics form a majority on the school board. And in 42 of the districts in which the
Hispanic student population excee~5O% there were no Hispanics on the boards. Thus,
many students who are reared in homes where English may not be spoken, or is not spoken
exclusively, study in school systems in which probably no one on the school board has
been reared bilingually.
The Voting Rights Act was written with an eye to historical patterns of discriininati
and not with an eye giving equal attention to all areas of the country. Some have criti-
cized it for that, saying that it focuses excessively on one region of the country, there-
by singling it out for obloquy. I say today, as I did on the floor of the House in 1975,
that I look forward to the day when the citizens of Illinois will receive the same protec
tions as those of Texas. But I don't want to remove those protections from Texans just
because they are not extended to Illinois, any more than I would wish to remove police
protection from Texas if it were not available to Illinois. Texas can take great pride
in the way in which it has opened vastly increased political opportunities to its citizen
We wish to continue to be a place of opportunity and this act helps us to do so. If we
are in a time of budget-cutting and more careful attention to federal expenditures, then
prudent management suggests that federal attention go to the areas with historic problems
until the time at which thome problems are solved. For this reason we favor continuing t
apply the coverage of the Voting Rights Act to those states to which it has applied, and
not to expanding its coverage to all states, as some have suggested.
We recognize, having spoken with various local and state officials, that some pro-
visions of the act result in increased, and sometimes unnecessary paperwork. We wish to
be responsive to such criticisms. One way of reducing paperwork and unnecessary delay
in effecting changes might be to continue the basic preclearance process under Section 5,
which we consider essential, but to reduce one unnecessary step in the process.
We understand that, currently, the Department of Justice receives documents
requiring its preclearance, and has sixty days in which to review them. Meanwhile,
the Department also informs, from its list on file, interested parties such as
PAGENO="0041"
915
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits abridgement of the right to vote.
Unlike Section 5, this provision applies whether or not there is a change in voting
practices.
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the. power to outlaw dis-
criminatory practices even where those practices would not necessarily violate the
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as interpreted
by the federal courts. However, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been
interpreted by. courts simply to restate the law of the Constitution against discrim-
ination in voting practices.
Last year the Supreme Court in the case of Mobile v. *Bolden decided that in
order. to show the violation of voting rights under the Constitution and under Section
2 of the Voting Rights Act a private plaintiff had to show that there was a subjec-
tive intent to discriminate. Proof of subjective intent to discriminate is very
difficult. We have come a long way from the time at which, for example, the Mayor
of the City of Richmond in the 1960's could justify the annexation of a white suburb
after Blacks became a force in city politics by saying: "As long as I am the Mayor
of the City of Richmond, the niggers won't take~over this town." Modern discrimina-
tion against racial and ethnic minorities is likely to be subtle and unexpressed
rather than stated in the press and in the chambers of government. As a result, it
becomes extremely difficult and in some cases impossible to prove subjective intent
to discriminate, even where the facts fairly clearly indicate that intentional dis-
crimination might have been in the minds of the officials in charge of voting practices.
Perhaps the prime example of cases in which a burden of showing subjective intent
to discriminate becomes impossible is the case of at-large elections. As the statis-
tics noted earlier concerning at-large elections in Texas' school boards indicated,
at-large elections can have the effect of preventing access by mincrities into leader-
ship positions in important community institutions. If at-large elections have been
the rule since the application of the Vcting Rights Act to Texas, there is no oppor-
tunity for the Justice Department to review these practices under the pre-clearance
PAGENO="0042"
916
6
provisions of Section 5 since there has been no change in voting practices. There-
fore the private law suit is the only means effectively to remedy any discrimination
that would occur.
In many counties in rural Texas it is well recognized that the predominant
Anglo and Mexican-Aaerican populations have too long led independent existences. In
some of these counties school boards a~re elected at-large. Suppose that an analysis
of the facts in a particular school district led you to believe that the device of
at-large elections to the school board had limited the participation of Mexican-
Americans in the leadership of a most vital resource in the community. How would
you go about showing intent?
Under present law the answer to that question is unclear. For many years since
the case of White v. Regester the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals tried to devise a
test that would allow private litigants to demonstrate when these at-large elections
denied members of minority groups access to leadership in political positions,
including school boards. The Mobile v. Bolden case makes it clear, however, that
the multi-faceted tests devised by the federal courts in this part of the country
were wrong unless they focused on the element of subjective intent. That confused
decision, which was supported only by a bare majority of the Supreme Court, strongly
suggests that a court inferring discrimination only from discriminatory effects
risks reversal. Congress in its extension of the Voting Rights Act can give to
future courts and future litigants some guidance as to how intent to discriminate
could be proved.
We propose that the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act make clear
that the test for discriminatory intent urder Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
should contain the following elements.
First, the voting practice at question should be in some sense abnormal, i.e.,
not the type of practice that is routinely encountered in the political process.
Use of at-large election districts should automatically be determined to be abnormal
under this test.
PAGENO="0043"
917
Second, the voting practice at issue should have an adverse effect on mincrities.
To satisfy this test a plaintiff would prove that members of minority groups are not
proportionally represented in the political process, and in addition, perhaps, that
the interest of minorities had been neglected compared to the interest of the majority
group.
Third, a practice that is found to be abnormal and is found to have an adverse
effect on minorities would be considered discriminatory if it were unsupported by
any other policy that could not have been achieved by another alternative. This test
resembles the "less restrictive alternative" test often used to test whether various
regulationsof speech-violate the First Amendment. Yet,ifthe state or locality
has an important interest that only can be furthered by the practice in question,
then evidence of effects- alone -should not be sufficient to- show discriminatory intent.
- However, if the abnormal practicewith discriminatory effect is not necessary to
accomplish the purpose by which it is- justified, this is strong evider.ce of discrim-
inatory intent.
A clear legislative history expressing-the intent of Congress for courts to use
the above test for-determining discriminatory intent will, streamline voting rights
litigation without -causing the additional problems-of having the courts define dis-
criminatory effect. Some- people might advocate that Section 2 be amended to bar
voting~practices which have a discriminatory effect. This might be politically ia-
- possible, and in. addition might invite some courts to impose racial- quotas for
elected officials, which would be unjustified. A clear statement of legislative
policy that -permitted courts to use evidence of discrimatory effect to infer intent
-would,-however, make a law less-naive and more effective in remedying the actual
devices of discrimination such as at-large elections, wtere direct proof of subjective
intent would be impossible.
PAGENO="0044"
918
8
We believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Voting Rights Act should be extended. We
hope to have offered a few modest suggestions about ways in which it can be both
strengthened and streamlined. And we cenclude by recalling the words of the only
president that our state has given the nation, Lyndon B. Johnson, who, when he
signed the act in 1965, termed it "an important instrument of freedom," and who
said, when urging its passage,
"Their cause must be our cause too.
Because it's not just Negroes, but
really it's all of us who must overcome
the crippling legacy of bigctry and
injustice.
Thank you.
PAGENO="0045"
919
Mr. EDWARDS~ Thank you very much, Mr. Krueger .and Mr.
White, for really a very thoughtful, scholarly and helpful testimo-
ny.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to salute both of you. I think your testimony has been the
most valuable, at least that I've heard, in terms of making me
think and in being helpful.
We have all been playing with the effects test as though this
were something we ought to do and crank it in. It would have the
effect-not the intent, but~the effect of discriminating, and then it
ought to be a voting rights abuse. But you have pointed out clearly,
Professor White, that there can be a desperate need for annexation
which would have the anciliary and unfortunate side effect of
discriminating against some minority voters, but the need to in-
crease the tax base is crucial. It may be crucial to the whole
community.
So I commend this thought to my colleagues here in studying
how this bill should be amended, to be very careful on an effects
test. I think your suggestion of legislative history or some way of
spelling out acceptable evidentiary presentations that would not
automatically make an effect of discrimination of voting rights
abuse is very important.
I also appreciate your comment on the possibility of imposing
racial quotas for elected officials. That is a distinct possibility, as I
view it, if section 2 is amended simply to provide an effects test. So
both of these points I think are awfully important and I know we
will take them into consideration.
Let me just say, in the form of kind of a discussion, I do not like
*the notion of some geographical areas being less equal than other
geographical areas just as a basic principle. I believe in the princi-
ple of federalism; I believe that the States are sovereign and ought
to be sovereign; and I don't believe the Federal Government is a
supergovernment, where States ought to be administrative districts
of the Department of Justice or anybody else.
But I am also keenly aware, and am being made more aware as
these hearings go on, of the abuses and the history of abuses and
the basic fundamental right to vote has been abused.
I am seeking a middle ground between the status quo and as
things are for another 10, and another 10, and another 10, and at
the same time just permitting expiration of the preclearance sec-
tion, because I don't think that would be appropriate at all. But I
would like to have some "good conduct ribbon" available to those
areas that have, indeed, cleaned up their act, and I would like to
provide incentives for jurisdictions to continue to respect the con-
stitutional right to vote by all of our citizens!
I have the notion, and~have introduced legislation to eliminate
preclearance, automatic preclearance, and require the showing of a
pattern of practice of voting rights abuse in a court proceeding.
Once that is established, then mandatory preclearance would be
imposed for a period of years-4 years, 5 years, something like
that. That is in addition to section 3(c) which is already in the bill
and provides~ for a court action anywhere in the country, and
PAGENO="0046"
920
preclearance is a remedy now under 3(c), although it is not manda-
tory.
The more I think about it, and the more hearings we participate
in, I am beginning to think that isn't going to be too workable or
too feasible. I am drafting legislation now that would keep the
preclearance in~&~~but liberalize the bailout sections where a juris-
diction can show that for 10 years there hasn't been a single
significant objection sustained on any of their submissions, and
show that they have made the submissions that are required, and
then permit a hearing in a district court where adversaries can
come in and say, yes, they have followed the letter of the law but
very subtly they have done this and they have done that. Then a
court may, upon hearing the evidence, issue a declaratory judg-
ment, that an automatic preclearance no longer will apply to this
jurisdiction, whether it's a county or a city or a State. But the
court would retain jurisdiction of that case for another 5 years, so
if something goes wrong, they don't have to file a new suit. It's
right there.
That, it seems to me, would recognize some of these areas in the
South that aren't all bad all the time, recognize good conduct, and
permit a jurisdiction to bail out based on their record, an honest
appraisal of their record, but to retain preclearance.
In Texas, as I heard someone say, there have only been 13
declined out of 80-some objections since 1975. Not a sparkling
record, I would say. But some incentive to live up to the law and
some recognition of the fact that they have, might be more politi-
cally acceptable in the other bodies than a blanket extension of
keeping South Carolina and Virginia and the rest in the penalty
box for another 10 years, and at the same time it maintains the
club of preclearance over areas that have not had a very good
record.
I would like your response to this rather long rambling but to me
an important point.
Mr. WHITE. Let me just address that notion of court proceedings
to allow an additional bailout.
You must be very aware of how this litigation is brought, and
the fact that in many cases litigants in these types of actions rely
either on private funded organizations, such as the Southwest
Voter Registration and Education project, or lawyers who work pro
bono in this area, and I would be very, very careful and very wary
of any proposal that increased the burden and the amount of
litigation that these lawyers would have to go through to prove
such an illusive factual issue as to whether a particular jurisdiction
has been a "good boy" for a number of years.
I just think, especially if there is cutbacks in Federal funding of
various legal services, that that would be simply another area in
which there could be protracted litigation which could tax some
very important resources available, such as these nonprofit organi-
zations, available to private litigants. For that reason, I would be
wary either of your initial proposal, which you say you probably
now are rejectin~, or another--
Mr. HYDE. Let s say I'm losing enthusiasm for it.
Mr. WHITE [continuing]. Or the institution of another set of legal
proceedings.
PAGENO="0047"
921
Mr. HYDE. Initiated by the jurisdiction, with notice to every
interested party, which is now provided in the administrative pro-
ceeding. Yes, it's a court proceeding; yes, it would require some-
body to go to court, but not to Washington, but a district court in
the jurisdiction involved, which is more convenient for everybody.
And yes, attorneys' fees are available under the act and would
continue to be.
But you're trading a very efficient, almost summary proceeding,
mandatory preclearance, which doesn't square with my notions of
procedural due process, frankly. Yes, it's good for emergencies, but
as a lawyer-you're a lawyer and I'm a lawyer, and the rules of
evidence are there for very good reasons, and yes, they sometimes
are slow. But justice is sometimes better served, I think.
In any event, I didn't mean to interrupt your--
Mr. WHITE. It's just my perception that the act would be signifi-
cantly weakened if there were additional proceedings dealing with
threshold issues which could be resolved in a more straightforward,
although perhaps in some instances an arbitrary manner.
Mr. HYDE. But they will never be resolved, Professor-if we sock
them for another 10 years, these jurisdictions, wherever they are in
the South, are still locked in and can never bail out. That'll be 27
years. How long is enough?
Mr. WHITE. Well, I would say that in these hearings, be it 5
years, 10 years, however long the Voting Rights Act has been
extended, that if you see a different record than the record you
have seen in the last 5 years on affected jurisdictions, then perhaps
you ought to consider this. But I think if you look at the number-
let's just take the fifth circuit. I believe in the period 1977-79,
there were nine cases in the fifth circuit dealing with voting rights,
dealing with very substantial issues. These are very live issues.
I think the Ambassador and I have pointed out a fairly pervasive
set of issues which still exist here in Texas, namely, the existence
of at-large electiOns and these school boards. So I think there might
be an appropriate time where the voting rights are no longer
affected. But I believe that ought to be considered here by Congress
and it ought to be considered explicitly in the statute, and I would
be a little bit wary to see it determined in court on a case-by-case
basis, in which hypothetical issues were being litigated, that fur-
ther tax the resources that are available to private litigants.
Mr. HYDE. I appreciate the courtesy you have given me, Mr.
Chairman, in going on.
Let me just say I am not proposing that this be considered
jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction. I am proposing that jurisdictions look at
their own record in the past 10 years and say:
Hey, we have lived up to the law. We haven't had a single objection. Moreover, we
haven't been guilty of any subtle schemes to deny people the right to register or
vote. We're entitled to be treated like Oklahoma and like Oregon, and by god, we
want to be treated like other jurisdictions in this country. And because we're in the
South, it doesn't mean we're second-class jurisdictions or citizens.
They then have the laboring oar to go in and prove all of this,
and if anybody can shoot it down, they have an opportunity and
notice to do it. It seems to me that's fair and at some point we have
got to start being fair to the other side as well as to the people who
have been tragically denied their rights to vote.
PAGENO="0048"
922
Anyway, this is all in the form of stages, and when we get it put
together; we'll send it down for your more-I won't say more
thoughtful comments because your comments have been thought-
ful-but more time to chew it over and make suggestions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Following up on Mr. Hyde's line of ques-
tioning, I would like to know, Professor White, what kind of legisla-
tive history could be drafted so that it would be clear how one
could determine whether the job has been accomplished and a
jurisdiction that has been coyered by the Voting Rights Act can get
out of the penalty box because they have made all the required
submissions and haven't attempted to either overtly or subtly dis-
criminate and having the right to vote denied or the right to have
one's vote effectively counted denied?
Mr. WHITE. Well, I think that is very difficult. You could
either-in any case, the possibility or probability that a particular
jurisdiction will discriminate in the future is necessarily a hypo-
thetical question. But I could not consider-aside from a provision
such as Mr. Hyde has suggested, allowing perhaps courts to deter-
mine on some ad hoc basis these admittedly fairly hypothetical
questions-I think that the only way to do that would be for the
committee to undertake further findings as to areas in which there
has or has not been discrimination and just simply to amend the
section dealing with covered jurisdictions.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Would it suffice if there would be a certifi-
cation by the U.S. Attorney General that all the required submis-
sions were made over a period of, say, 7 to 10 years, and that none
of them were found objectionable to get a jurisdiction being covered
by section 5?
Mr. WHITE. That would be, I suppose, a possibility. I hesitate for
a moment because I wonder whether that might do the.job, simply
because there may be some jurisdictions where there have not
been, within say the last 10 years-well, why say 10 years; 6 years
in the case of Texas. We have 254 counties in Texas, and each of
them is a covered jurisdiction. In many of these counties, the
practices which I'm concerned about, at-large systems of election
and the like, have been around for a long time and there might not
have been particular change in that jurisdiction which would trig-
ger the preclearance provision. So I think we might be losing,
especially in an area like Texas, in which you have, many sparsely-
populated covered jurisdictions, in which I suspect that some
abuses may occur, that you would lose some protection of the act.
But, in fairness, I have to say that is a procedure, jUst as you
described it, that is definitely a possibility.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Of course, I think we have to consider
Texas being somewhat of a unique animal, in that Lyndon John-
son, in his wisdom, did not include Texas under the Voting Rights
Act where he signed it, and it took 10 years to bring Texas under
the act, so we now only have 6 years of experience here.
I have one question in one other area. As you gentlemen may
know, title II of Mr. Rodino's bill changes section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act to strike out the words "to deny or abridge" and insert
in its place "in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement
of". We have received some legal analyses in this subcommittee
PAGENO="0049"
923
that this change might give a court the opportunity to impose a
quota system in the election of local officers, in that if, say, a 37-
percent minority community elects 40 percent of its city council of
minorities, the Anglo would have standing to sue, or if it was the
other way around and only 30 percent minorities, then the minor-
ity citizen would have standing to sue.
I fear that there has got to be a tightening up of this language or
the courts will be brought into a political thicket in a far greater
manner than I think anybody really intends them to be or wants
them to be.
Do you have any suggestions on how we can tighten up this
language so that it is quite clear the Congress is not calling for the
imposition of a quota system in elections?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, and to an extent, that is what I have tried to do
in my testimony.
I think that some revision in the wording of section 2 would be
quite helpful in telling courts that the language and rationale of
Mobile v. Bolden didn't sit well with Congress. -
On the other hand, I believe that a pure effects test is very
difficult. What do you mean by discriminary effect, right? I mean,
let's consider illustratively how that question of effect has been
handled under section 5. The Beer test is that there would be a
discriminatory effect, for example, found in a redistricting plan
which left a State or a jurisdiction with less minority Congressmen,
for example, or fewer districts which would be apt to elect a
minority Congressman, than existed before the redistricting. So, in
a sense, you have seen that the courts have used an expedient in
order to try to define an effects test under section 5.
We would both agree that any kind of a system that imposed
racial or ethnic quotas on elected officials, or had this possibility,
would be very bad. So to repeat, in direct answer to your question,
I would not use the result language. I would change the wording of
section 2-and it doesn't have to be an extremely substantial word-
ing change, and I regret I have not formulated at this time exactly
what that wording change would be. But it would not be result or
effect. It would be a wording change which would trigger courts to
say "something different has happened, and what different is
that."
Then I think it should be clear, in both this committee's report
and this committee's presentation of the bill to the House, and in
any report out of a conference committee, in specifically defining
the test that would be used. And in my testimony I suggested the
test that I think would be the most effective in strengthening the
act, while not going overboard.
Now, as to how to manipulate that and how to politically obtain
that kind of legislative history-I know you perhaps have some
differences with the other House, and whether this could be done
in conference committee or what position the House should take,
these are matters of legislative strategy which you gentlemen know
more about than I do.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I have nO further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. If you could prepare what you and Mr. Sensen-
brenner were talking about, it will be received for the record at
this point in the record.
83-679 0 - 82 - L~ P-t.2
PAGENO="0050"
924
[The information follows:]
SUSMAN & MCGOWAN,
Houston, Tex., June 17, 1981.
Re Extension of the Voting Rights Act.
Congressman DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, House Judiciary Com-
mittee, US. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN EDWARDS: I write as promised in my testimony before the Sub-
committee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on June 5, 1981. My testimony ad-
dressed changes in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As I noted for the Subcom-
mittee, I practice law in Houston and taught the law of the Voting Rights Act at
the University of Texas Law School.
Because of the Confusion following Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), a clear
legislative history on the extension of Section 2 would be welcome. My testimony
proposed~a clarification of the intent of this section. An amendment to the language
of the statute would be better still, and the Subcommittee solicited my recommenda-
tion on that.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should read as follows:
"No state or political subdivision shall impose or apply any qualification or
prerequisite to voting, or any standard, practice or procedure which results in
denial or abridgment of the right to vote of any citizen of the United States on
account of race, color, or ethnic origin, when such discrimination is intentional or is
not reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate and concrete public interest."
RATIONALE
1. `~ . . which results in denial or abridgement of the right to vote of any citizen
* . ." This language focuses on the effect of the practice. Minorities may be adversely
affected where their voting strength is submerged. In close cases they can also be
found to be adversely affected where there is evidence that the political process has
not been responsive to their community. The legislative history should make clear
that the "right to vote" referred to in the statute entails the right to equal voting
strength.1 Remember, however, that this is only a threshold test under the above
language. This test of illegality alone could cause some mischief, because proportion-
al representation may sometimes serve to divide our nation along racial and ethnic
lines rather than simply to protect against discrimination.
2. ". . . when such discrimination is intention . . ." This phrase simply restates
existing law as announced in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), and as correctly
interpreted in Lodge v. Buxton, 639 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir. 1981). Intent may be inferred
from circumstantial evidence of effect,2 but an appellate court apparently can
secondguess a reasoned inference of discriminatory intent.8 This test of intent gives
courts much flexibility, but it has little predictability.
3. ". . . or is not reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate and concrete public
interest. " Generally, practices that lessen the influence of the votes of particular
races or ethnic groups are bad public policy, regardless of subjective intent. Howev-
er, practices such as annexations and redistricting may have redeeming features
even when they may lessen the influence of minority votes. For example, annex-
ation of affluent white suburbs may decrease the voting strength of minorities in a
city, but may be necessary to serve the legitimate and concrete interest of preserv-
ing the tax base.Similarly, redistricting may reduce the influence of some minority
voters only to increase the influence of other minority voters, as in the case of a
redistricting that avoids packing minority votes in particular districts.4 Under the
above language, not every alleged beneficial effect justifies a practice that reduces
the influence of minority votes. The justification cannot be a makeshift; it must be
reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate public interest. A practice diluting
minority voting strength should not be tolerated where alternatives are available
`The notion that "right to vote" entails a right against voting dilution was implicitly ques-
tioned by the four justices in Justice Stewart's plurality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden. They
viewed the issue of at large elections as one of equal protection, not of a right to vote under the
Fifteenth Amendment. Two concurring and three dissenting justices did not agree with this
reasoning. However, the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act should buttress this inter-
pretation.
2 White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1972); Lodge v. Buxton, supra.
8Mobile v. Bolden, supra
4Though annexation and redistricting in covered jurisdictions are subject to preclearance
under an effects test, the Justice Department can exercise discretion and the courts apply a
retrogression test to prevent the harshness of a test of legality that focuses on only one effect.
PAGENO="0051"
925
that do not have adverse effect. Similarly, the justification cannot be purely hypo-
thetical; it must be concrete. Hence, multi-member districts which are proven to
adversely affect minorities should not be redeemed by some theoretical justification
of "good government."5
Congress can enact a statute with this proposed language under Section 5 of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM H. WHITE.
Mr. EDWARDS. I'm afraid that Mr. Hyde is more of an optimist
than I `am. I think that our legislative history should show in the
extension of this bill that in 1992 we'll look at a bailout provision,
because unfortunately I have heard no evidence of a cleaning up of
their act, as a matter of fact, by these covered jurisdictions. On the
contrary-and I'm sorry to have to say this-the evidence is the
opposite and the evidence is that the plight of minorities in the
* United States is worsening, not gaining and not becoming better.
Mr. HYDE. Would the chairman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes; I will yield.
Mr. HYDE. I would just submit that we haven't heard from every
jurisdiction covered by this act, and to say that every jurisdiction is
uniformly bad throughout the South and the Southwest is over-
broad. There may well be plenty of cities, towns, counties, districts
and areas that have a very good record; we haven't looked for them
and we certainly haven't heard from them all. Of course, you may
have more information than I have.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I wish in Texas to respond to my friend from
Illinois, that our invitations have been accepted by the people in
charge of Texas, in charge of the political processes in Texas, the
Governor and the attorney general and the secretary of state. I
wish they had come to this legislative body today, this subcommit-
tee of the House Judiciary Committee that historically has handled
all civil rights bills and testified to the intentions of the State of
Texas and of the establishment of Texas, to do a much better job,
so we don't have to read a report of the Civil Rights Commission of
the Committee of Texas, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to
the effect that the situation is the opposite of what we had hoped
to find. So that is my response, and I'm sorry to have to say that, I
really am.
I'll tell you, they were all invited to come.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER; Will the chairman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. Sure, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It's my understanding that the secretary of
state's office in Texas received a phone call last Friday inviting
them to come and appear at this hearing from the majority staff.
Now, I knew that this hearing was on the docket for at least 3
weeks, and I made my plans to come down here. I can't understand
why the invitation was issued at such a late date.
But be that as it may, I seem to recall that the Texas Legislature
~adjourned its session on redistricting on Monday of this week, and
that the people here at the State capital have been kept quite busy
with the legislative session, as well as considering the proposals
that are being considered there.
51t may always be claimed that multi-member districts beneficially result in election of
representatives of the overall community interest, rather than more localized interests. Just as
plausible is the possibility that multi-member districts result in representation of the dominant
faction, to the exclusion of others, by elites who can afford a more expensive campaign in a
large district.
PAGENO="0052"
926
I had hoped the people who are in charge of the State of Texas
would come, but I think, from what I've heard, the excuse is
adequate and perhaps the notice was not as long as it should have
been.
Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the gentleman's observations. I am
advised by counsel the invitation was extended 2 weeks ago. Of
course, we would invite the people from the legislature, from the
Governor's office, from the executive department, to testify at a
future date. We would look forward to their testimony.
Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
Mr. HYDE. I want to say that in all of these jurisdictions, public
officials who have a contrary story to tell us from what we've been
hearing, they had better come forward because if they think that
by doing nothing, nothing will happen, and that the preclearance
sections will automatically expire and, therefore, it is their choice
to not come forward and rebut, if, indeed, they can, the evidence
we have heard, I think they're making a very serious mistake. I,
for one, will take that into consideration on how I'm. going to view
this.
But at the same time, preparing for this testimony is arduous,
particularly for an elected State official, and I think we should
take into consideration their legislature's redistricting problems.
God knows my own legislature is immersed in it and other prob-
lems, too. But I do appreciate what you said and I agree. I hope
they do start coming forward or they will be the losers.
Mr. EDWARDS. They certainly have a warm invitation from both
sides of the aisle on this subcommittee.
Mr. KRUEGER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might just add
one thing.
The comment was made, I believe by Mr. Hyde earlier, about one
section of the country being perhaps considered somewhat as a
second-class section of the country if it came under the Voting
Rights Act. I don't view it that way myself. I'm a Texan and proud
to be a Texan. I do not view these protections being extended to the
citizens of Texas as making our citizens second class. I think it's a
* way of making them first class.
In 1975, I did, indeed, think of the problems in Chicago which
you mentioned earlier, Mr.. Hyde, and some of the voting problems
there. That was the~ very reason that I at that time said I also
looked forward to the day when the citizens of Chicago and Illinois
might receive such protections.
I simply believe that we should offer those protections V as fully
and responsibly as we realistically can, and if there were to be a
vast expansion in the Justice Department and the act could have
its provisions extended more widely, then I would like to see Illi-
nois enjoy the same first-class protections that the citizens of Texas
do. But I think we still require these protections in many instances.
The testimony that I have seen from areas with which I'm very
familiar, because there have been actions brought in my former
congressional district through the Voting Rights Act; indicate to
* me that this particular area of protection, the protection to vote, a
fundamental one to citizenship, is one that I would like to see
continue to be extended to this State, and I don't consider us being
PAGENO="0053"
927
second class by receiving this protection. It seems to me a way of
making us first class. I have all of that Texas pride that likes to
think that Texas is first class and we hope the same protections
will be extended elsewhere.
Mr. HYDE. May I comment, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. EDWARDS. Of course.
Mr. HYDE. I defer to no one in my devotion to insuring the right
to vote to every citizen in this country. I also think having your
vote counted is as important as getting to the polls and being able
to cast it.
But at the same time I have a little different view of the Federal
system perhaps than you do, Mr. Ambassador. I happen to think
sovereign States are important entities and that we ought to be
treated alike. At the same time I know that prior to 1965 there was
a pretty tragic, shabby record. My only point of view is that at
some point-and we obviously disagree on that point; the chairman
thinks we can take another look at it in 1992-I think certain
areas ought to get a chance to stand with the rest of the country
and the judicial process is important-if you were injured and
struck by a car, you can't get relief through the mail. There are
rules of evidence and at some point States and jurisdictions ought
to be able to stand with other States and jurisdictions and be
treated equally. But that's a philosophical--
Mr. KRUEGER. Mr. Congressman, I would agree. I would like to
see them treated equally. My notion of equality would be for those
same protections in due course to be extended to your State which
we have now, and that's the way I would view equality.
Mr. EDWARDS. Portions of California, including the congressional
district that I represent, are covered in part by the provisions of
the Voting Rights Act, and I have been severely criticized from
time to time for not objecting to the coverage. However, I don't
consider Californians second-class citizens in the family of States,
nor do I consider Texans as such. It is a nationwide bill, and if the
tests apply, then certain portions of the country are covered. But
it's basically a nationwide bill.
Mr. Krueger, I do want to ask you a short question about your
very interesting suggestion about the possible change in preclear-
ance proceedings. I might just say that we have no evidence that
the voting section of the Department of Justice is overworked. It's
a very small section, and from talking to them personally, they can
handle the burden without very much difficulty.
However, your proposal is that covered jurisdictions would still
submit all proposed changes to the DepartmentS of Justice; isn't
that correct?
Mr. KRUEGER. That is correct.
Mr. EDWARDS. But then there would have to be excellent notice
to an objecting party, and it seems to me that would be the prob-
lem. Because as you point out in your testimony, modern discrimi-
nation against racial and ethnic minorities is likely to be subtle
and unexpressed, rather than stated in the press and so forth.
I can see a large opportunity there for hiding the notice. This is
something that has been testified to. There will be advertisements
in a particular covered county on registration day, when the people
PAGENO="0054"
928
travel 100 miles or 50 miles and the plantation gets closed that day
with a small notice on the door.
Now, how are you. going to avoid the notice not getting to the
people that count?
Mr. KRUEGER. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it would be impor-
tant for interested groups such as MALDEF, LULAC and others to
receive information directly~ from the Department of Justice at the
point at which they receive information that. an election procedure
is changed or had been proposed. I think there could be local
information required as well, and if you were not satisfied that the
guarantees would be sufficent, then, of course, you cannot have
such changes.
I was candid1y~thinking, in part, of the fact that when the House
goes to meet with the other body on this bill, if the other body has
* a different attitude and there is some compromise required,. it
seems to me this would be a compromise that would sustain the
* principle without necessarily costing much. I don't wish to be a
defeatist about it at ~all, but I am looking, for a means of putting
some possible compromise `language in if that is going to be re-
quired because that is part of my political experience, that some-
times such a compromise proves necessary.
Mr. HYDE. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. But I dO want to add before I yield that I
think it's a very innovative and creative suggestion.
Mr. HYDE. To help it along, let's get a check list, as you get
waivers on construction jobs from various subcontractors, let's have
the ACLU, the NAACP and all of the other organizations. You
have proposed a change in the law and you get them to sign a
waiver of objection and there you are.
Mr. KRUEGER. No, I don't think that's what I would want to see,
Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Me, either. But it seems to be what~you're suggesting.
Mr. KRUEGER~ No. I'm sorry,, then. I must not have suggested it
as clearly as. I should have. What `I was suggesting simply is that
these groups be informed that changes had been proposed. If no
one had any objection to such a change, coming either from a local
or State or other level, then--
Mr. HYDE. `In what time frame?
Mr. KRUEGER. Well, you will have to decide what you think
would be an appropriate time frame. We now have a 60-day period
left in there.
But it seems to me a way of using staff that would probably be
more efficient,~ because if absolutely no one has any objection, it is I
think basically rather unlikely that the Department of Justice
would have any objection. It would be a way of giving them addi-
tional focus.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I would hope that the committee will be able
to report the' bill as it was introduced by Chairman Rodino and
that the compromises that we have to make, if' we do have to make
any, would `be down the road. But I certainly am going to look at
that' and *I know that Mr~ Hyde and other members of the subcom-
mittee, are going to look at that `suggestion and ~perhaps have it
ready.
PAGENO="0055"
929
But we do appreciate it, and we appreciate the testimony of both
you gentlemen. It's been very creative.
Mr. KRUEGER. Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. We now have a panel presentation of: Joaquin
Avila, associate counsel, Mexican-American Legal Defense and
Education Fund of San Antonio, Tex.; the Honorable Adolpho Al-
varez, Sr., county commissioner of Frio County, Tex.; Jesus Trini-
dad of Seguin, Tex.; and Aifredo Arriola of Alice, Tex.
We are pleased to have you here this morning. Without objec-
tion, your statements will be made a part of the record. Will you
introduce each other and tell us how you're going to proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JOAQUIN AVILA, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, MEXI-
CAN-AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND,
SAN ANTONIO, TEX.; HON. ADOLPHO ALVAREZ, SR., COUNTY
COMMISSIONER, FRIO COUNTY, TEX.; JESUS TRINIDAD,
SEGUIN, TEX.; AND ALFREDO ARRIOLA, ALICE, TEX.
Mr. Avii~. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Joaquin Avila and I am associate counsel for the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. To my far
right is Commissioner Adolpho Alvarez, a commissioner from Frio
County. To my immediate right is Mr. Jesus Trinidad, who is
affiliated with LULAC in the city of Seguin, Tex. To my left is Mr.
Aifredo Arriola, who is a very active community resident in the
town of Alice, Tex.
With the Chair's permission, I would like to use the easel to your
immediate right because I do have some maps and charts.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, it is approved.
Mr. AvILA. I would like to thank the subcommittee for this
opportunity to present evidence of voting discrimination here in
Texas, in order to support the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
I am presently the director of political access litigation for
MALDEF. I have been involved in voting rights litigation since
1975, and more importantly, I have been involved in voting rights
litigation here in Texas since 1976.
Initially I was a resident of California. I decided to move out to
Texas specifically because of the large number of voting problems
and voting discrimination complaints that we received from Texas.
So I made a career decision in my own personal life to come to
Texas to specifically address the voting rights problems that we
have here.
Our organization has been involved in a considerable number of
lawsuits since 1969 involving the denial and abridgement of voting
rights and discrimination in Texas. Apart from this litigation, I am
also an instructor at the University of Texas Law School, since
1977, teaching a course specifically on the issue of voting rights
problems and voting rights litigation here in Texas.
The basic message that I would like to convey to the subcommit-
tee today is that Section 5 in the Voting Rights Act is still needed
here in Texas. Discrimination here in Texas is both personal and
institutional. You will note in my rather exten~ive prepared writ-
ten comment and testimony that there is in the first attachment
an advertisement to the voters of Aransas County asking the voters
to vote for a person who had died in office while running for office.
PAGENO="0056"
930
In that particular instance-this is an example of discrimination
on a personal level. In that particular instance a Chicano in Aran-
sas-County decided to file for office, to run against the incumbent
Justice of the Peace in 1978. After the filing deadline had occurred,
had passed, there were only two candidates that were supposed to
be on the ballot for the May primary. That was the Chicano
candidate and the Anglo incumbent.
The Anglo incumbent, during this time period, but before the
election, succumbed to an illness. Therefore, you only had the
Chicano candidate who was the only living candidate to run for
office. One would normally expect the person to win that office if
he was the only live candidate.
In fact, a week before the election, the local Democratic Party
committee took out full-page ads in this Aransas-Rockport newspa-
per, urging the voters of that particular precinct to vote for the
dead candidate, because if the dead candidate was elected, then the
local Democratic Party committee could then~certify a nominee for
the general election.
Well, needless to say, the Chicano candidate lost. As a result of
that, there are no Chicanos serving as JP's in Aransas County.
With respect to institutional discrimination, this type of discrimi-
nation is very well documented in the testimony that is made a
part of this record. Specifically, there are many types of election
devices that have been used here in Texas, devices that have been
implemented after the 1975 extension of the Voting Rights Act
here to the State of Texas. Perhaps the most egregious and the
most significant are the obvious attempts to gerrymander the Chi-
cano community in many parts of Texas.
In order to combat this obvious attempt, these obvious, blatant
gerrymanders, we need Federal oversight. To give you examples of
the kinds ofproblems that ;we have here in Texas, our organization
conducted a survey of all the counties in Texas, and we found that
approximately 51 counties in Texas which contained Chicano popu-
lations ranging in precentage from the high 70's to 80's to as low as
the low 20's, 25 percent, did not contain a single Hispanic commis-
sioner on the county commissioners court, which is the governing
body for each of the counties.
This, in large part, is due to violations of the one-person, one-vote
principle which operates to discriminate against Mexican Ameri-
cans in many parts of Texas.
In addition to these 51 counties, we also conducted a survey of all
of the counties to determine how many counties had complied or
had not complied with the one-person, one-vote principle. In other
words, we wanted to find out how many counties had not redistrict-
ed since 1970.
We found in our survey-and this was just by telephone-that at
least 59 counties had not redistricted since 1970, and in many
instances there were several counties that had not redistricted and
had never redistricted since its creation. When you have situations
like that in Texas, what that amounts to is an overconcentration of
minorities in man~ of the overpopulated precincts which works to
the disadvantage of minority voting strength.
These instances of personal and institutional discrimination are
not just limited to the minority community or to the minority
PAGENO="0057"
931
residents. In doing investigations for some of our cases, in one
particular egregious instance which I have documented for the
committee, our staff was told to get out of town before sundown
because we were there to investigate why a particular city had
segregated cemeteries. In that particular instance we received a
personal threat, but yet we persisted in our efforts to redistrict
that particular county. So discrimination is alive and well here in
Texas.
Now, why do we need section 5? We need section 5 to curb the
discriminatory excesses of many of the county commissioners and
many of the city officials here in Texas. To give you a very promi-
nent example, in Edwards County, which is a rural county not too
far from here, the Hispanic population in that particular county
comprises close to 45 to 46 percent of that particular county. With
that large number of persons, you would anticipate that there
would be at least one or two Hispanics out of the four county
commissioners which are elected by commissioner precinct.
Well, in our investigation we found that the precincts are malap-
portioned. They violated the one-person, one-vote principle. The
violation of the one-person, one-vote principle operated to the detri-
ment of the Hispanic population. The county had close to 2,000
persons. If you had equal populations in each of the four county
commissioner precincts, you would have 500 persons in each com-
missioner precinct. Our investigation showed that one particular
precinct had close to 1,500 persons. Another precinct had about 108
persons. And guess where the Mexican Americans were concentrat-
ed? They were concentrated in the most overpopulated precinct.
Consequently, if you would get this particular population to go out
there and register and to go out and vote, they were a numerical
minority within that precinct and they would never have an oppor-
tunity to meaningfully participate in the local political process.
We brought that problem of malapportionment to the attention
of the county commissioners court, and they agreed to redistrict.
We offered our assistance in redistricting. They agreed to redistrict
because we had such a compelling case. The population deviation
between the most overpopulated and the least populated district
was close to 273 percent, which is well over the threshold level of
10 percent.
Well, the county ignored our invitation for assistance. The
county thought that they could redistrict the county without our
knowing about it and obtain section 5 preclearance without our
knowing about it. But because of our active monitoring project that
we have, not only here in San Antonio but in our Washington, D.C.
office, we were apprised of this election change.
Knowing that there were several organizations monitoring this
process, you would have thought the Edwards County commission-
ers court would have created at least one precinct that would have
had a substantial number of Mexican Americans in order to permit
that particular community to exercise its electoral choice. In sharp
contrast, however, they adopted a plan that obviously discriminat-
ed against the Mexican American population. I will show you that
plan now.
The red blocks are blocks that contain a majority of the minority
population. The green lines are their proposed districts back in
PAGENO="0058"
932
1977. That is an obvious case of gerrymandering. Their own popula-
tion analysis showed that the Chicano barrio was evenly divided
among the four county commissioner precincts. This is part of the
attachment which is included as part of the record. So this is a
very clear example of why section 5 is important.
This particular plan was submitted to the Department of Justice,
~ind we wrote an extensive comment urging that a letter of objec-
tion be issued. We were successful. As a result of that letter of
objection, the county had to revert back to its malapportionment
system. We subsequently filed a lawsuit and we now have a plan
which provides a meaningful opportunity for Hispanics to partici-
pate. And that was done as a result of section 5 and a Federal
court lawsuit.
Another example of why we need section 5 is in Medina County,
which contains close to a 50-percent Hispanic population. The pop-
ulation itself-the county seat lies about 50 or so miles from San
Antonio. Medina County contains a little over 20,000 persons. And
yet, even though it contains close to a 50-percent Hispanic popula-
tion, there is not a single Hispanic commissioner on the commis-
sioner's court. The reason for that was again because of malappor-
tionment. They had not redistricted for many years. When we
brought it to their attention, again they sought to avoid the lawsuit
that we anticipated filing by redistricting on their own. Instead of
providing ample opportunity for Mexican Americans to effectively
participate, they again sought to gerrymander the Mexican Ameri-
can community. That plan had to be submitted to the Department
of Justice~ The Department of Justice issued a letter of objection as
a result of comments that we submitted.
They came back and drew another plan. That second plan was
objected to by the Department of Justice. We had to file a lawsuit
here in Texas to prevent the county from using those plans in
upcoming elections. They intended to use those objectionable plans
in upcoming elections. But we had to file a lawsuit and get a
Federal court injunction to prevent them from doing so. So section
5 prevented the county from implementing those discriminatory
election districts here in Texas.
Finally, the county sought judicial preclearance in Washington,
D.C. We had to expend our resources and our staff and attorney
time to urge the district court in the District of Columbia not to
approve the two plans that had been objected to. The county,
realizing that it was not going to prevail in this particular endeav-
or, decided to change its plan. As a result of that change, they now
have a plan which provides Mexican Americans with a reasonable
opportunity to select. a Chicano for the first time in history to the
county commissioners court.
As a result of a recent election that was held just this Saturday
as a result of the new plan, we now have a Chicano and an Anglo
who are going to be running in a runoff to determine who is going
to be representing that particular commissioner precinct.
Another example of why we need section 5 is found in Jim Wells
County. Mr. Aifredo Arriola will be able to discuss some of the
details of that. But basically, section 5 has prevented Jim Wells
County to this very day, has prevented Jim Wells County from
implementing a discriminatory election plan. Three times the
PAGENO="0059"
933
county has sought preclearance, and three times the Department of
Justice has issued a letter of objection. There have been no elec-
tions in Jim Wells County since 1976. And it's not because of the
Voting Rights Act; it's not because of some Federal bureaucrats in
Washington, D.C.; it's because of the recalcitrance of the county
commissioners court in Alice, Tex.
Now, what would happen if the Voting Rights Act were suddenly
to expire? Would that mean that Mexican Americans and blacks
here in Texas would not suffer any voting discrimination? Of
course, not. I can cite you very specific examples where section 5
has served as a very particular deterrent to prevent a particular
political subdivision from enacting a given discriminatory election
change. Once the act is no longer there, they will adopt those
discriminatory election changes.
An example of that is documented in the written testimony
dealing with the city of Pecos, Tex. The city of Pecos had adopted a
numbered place system which was discriminatory. The Department
of Justice objected to it. The city went along with the letter of
objection and decided not to implement it. However, within 1
month, a month and 2 weeks of the Sheffield district court deci-
sion, which held that cities are not covered under the Voting
Rights Act, within that very limited time period the city of Pecos
ignored the letter of objection, did not even wait for the Supreme
Court to issue a decision, and started to assign numbered places to
each of the city council members. We had to file a lawsuit to
prevent them from doing that. So that's a very clear indication of
what the city of Pecos will do when the Voting Rights Act expires.
We also need section 5 for the present redistrictings which are
occurring here with respect to the congressiOnal, State senatorial
and State legislative districts. Our organization, along with the
Southwest Voter Registration project and the Texas Rural Legal
Aid, presented several alternative plans to various houses, to redis-
trict the congressional districts, the State senatorial districts, and
their State legislative districts. In many instances, these legislative
bodies chose to ignore the recommendations that we presented to
them. And in one particular instance, in the State senatorial seat,
they sought to preserve an imbumbent at the expense of minority
representation, or increased minority voting strength in a particu-
lar State senatorial district. They recommended the creation of a
"doughnut" district, a district that was going to surround complete-
ly other senatorial districts.
Now, I don't know of any other doughnut districts across the
country, but I'm sure if that plan was adopted by the State senate,
it will have to be precleared. We are certainly going to register our
opposition at the Department of Justice for that doughnut district
and any other such districts as may be found in the State senatori-
al, State congressional, and State legislative plans.
I just want to site one other example concerning why we need
the Voting Rights Act, why jurisdictions here in Texas are recalci-
trant in their Federal obligation to follow the law.
In Terrell County there was a redistricting plan in 1973 which
was considerably malapportioned and discriminated against the
Mexican American population. In 1975, when the act was passed,
we contacted that county, and in 1976 we contacted that county,
PAGENO="0060"
934
and we said, "Look, you have to submit." We waited. The 1976
election went by and then in 1977, we waited again. We had to file
a lawsuit in 1978 to prevent that particular county from imple-
menting that plan. To require it just to even submit that plan,
much less comply with it, just to submit that plan, we had to file a
lawsuit.
So I leave these examples with you to demonstrate why it's
important to have section 5.
Now, the Federal courts do not provide a realistic alternative.
Congress determined back in 1965 that the Federal court route was
time consuming, it was expensive, and it operated to the disadvan-
tage of the protected class. That is true today. In the city of Seguin,
which Mr. Trinidad is going to be speaking about, we filed a one-
person, one-vote lawsuit, seeking to equitably distribute the minor-
ity population and the entire city population among the city's four
ward systems. We prevailed in getting the court to declare that the
existing plan was unconstitutional. However, at the remedy stage,
the city proposed a plan that continued the overconcentratjon of
minorities in a given ward system, and that overconcentratjon of
minorities in the previous plan has served to discriminate against
the Mexican American population.
The city, instead of correcting that overconcentration, decided to
continue that overconcentration in its plan. MALDEF, along with
LULAC, presented an alternative plan to the court. This chart here
represents the two plans. These are the four wards. This is the
Mexican American, black, total minority, and the Anglo popula-
tion.
Under the city plan, in ward 1 the total minority population was
90 percent, an obvious overconcentration. In ward 2 the minority
population was 48 percent; in ward 3 it was 37 and in ward 4, 42
percent.
We presented a plan that would have provided an opportunity by
reducing the overconcentration in ward 1 for the election of at
least additional minority members from ward 2. The city of Seguin
is a very salient example, because the city of Seguin contains at
least a 54-percent minority population, and only two out of the
eight council members are minority. We had to file a lawsuit to get
that particular plan cleared by the Department of Justice. Initially
the district court decided that our complaint was frivolous and
insubstantial. But we had to go up to the fifth circuit level, the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, to get a ruling from them to require
the city of Seguin to submit the plan for section 5 preclearance.
In the meantime, elections were held under the city plan, and
the effects were obvious. There are still two minorities serving on
that city council. That's the present effects. That's why you still
need section 5.
With respect to the bilingual election provisions, for persons who
are not familiar with Texas and the Southwest and its linguistic
minority, it may be very difficult to appreciate the extent and the.
severity of the problem. This problem of nonparticipation, this
problem of not understanding English, is not our fault. It is the
fault of the Texas educational school system. We just don't share
that concern. A U.S. district court here in Texas has ruled that the
Texas educational system historically and presently has served to
PAGENO="0061"
935
deny an equal educational opportunity to Hispanics by failing to
provide them with adequate language instruction. So it's not our
fault because our parents can't understand English. It is not our
fault because our sons and daughters cannot effectively communi-
cate in the English language. It is the fault of the school system.
In conclusion, I would just like to leave this very brief message
with this subcommittee. Our written testimony has provided ample
documentation of why section 5 is still needed. It has provided
documentation as to why the bilingual election provisions are still
needed. Section 5 in the Voting Rights Act has been used very
effectively to prevent voting discrimination since 1975. If you elimi-
nate those provisions, you're going to have the city of Seguin
continue with its plan; you're going to have the city of Pecos adopt
a numbered place system; you're going to have Jim Wells County
adopt another discriminatory election plan. We ask this committee
to stop that.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Avila follows:]
PAGENO="0062"
936
MALDEF
Testimony of
The Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund
on the Voting Rights Act
*Presented By
Joaquin G. Avila
Associate Counsel
Before
The Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights
ofthe
Judiciary Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
June 5, 1981
National Office Re~Ionat Offices
28 Geary Street 250w. Fourteenth Avenue l63SWest Erghth Street 517 Petroteum Cornrrierce Bldg. 1411 K Street. NW
Sai Francisco, CA 94108 Suite 308 Suite 319 201 North St. Marys Street Suite 300
(415)981-5800 DeryverC080204 LosArrgeles.CA90017 SanArrtonio.TX 78205 Washingtort. 0C20005
(333)893-1893 (213)383-6952 (512)224-5476 (202) 393-5111
Contributions Are Deductibte for US lrrcorneTax Purposes
PAGENO="0063"
937
Voting discrimination against Hispanics still exists in
Texas. This discrimination is manifested in the gerrymandering
cf districts at the county coissioner court level, in the
adoption of discriminatory election devices such as nunbered
places for municipalities and. school districts, in the main-
tenance of at-large election schemes, and in voting abuses
designed to inhibit any effective Hispanic participation in the
political process. This discrimination results in under-
representation at all levels of government. According to the
1980 Census1 Texas has a population ~of 14,228,383 persons of
which 20.97. or 2~968,643 are of Spanish origin and 12.0% or
1,710,250 are Black. .~Y Yet despite this sizeable Hispanic
population, Chicanos' in 1980 constituted only 8.37. or 2 of the
2/
24. congressional seats, - 12.97. or 4 of the 31 state sena-
torial seats, ~ 127, or 18 of the 150 state legislative seats,-~
4.77. or' 12 of the 254 county judge seats, -.~J 7.07. or 71 of the
`1/ U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population
and Housing, Final Population and Housing Unit Counts, series
PHC8O-V (Advance Counts) at p. 4 (hereinafter cited as 1980 Census.).
2/ National Directory of Najor Hispanic Elected and Appointed
Officials, Congressional ~Hispanic Caucus' (Wash., D.C. 1979). As
a result of increased population growth 27 congressional seats
are now allotted to Texas.
5/ Texas--23 Edition--State Directory 1980: The C~nnpre-
hensive Guide to the Decision Nakers in Texas Government, Austin,
Texas, 1980.
PAGENO="0064"
938
iD1 county coi~snissioner seats, 4.5~ or 48 of the 1O~II
7/. . 8/
city )`.ayors, 5 .fl or 278 of the 4902 council aeznbers,~
9/
and only 6.7~ ot 4~6 of the 7428 school board uietnbers.~
To eliminate this ..nderrepresentation federal intervention ~ *
is r~cessary. Unless che&ed,these Instituticrial devices will tine to
deprive RIspanics of eny u~ifr,gful political participation. Por this
reason, )`IALDEF supports the oontinued application of the special
protections provided by the Voting Rights Act in Texas.
I. Voting Discrimination in Texas
Texas has a well documented history of votingdiscriininàtion.
This discrimination was extensively documented in the 1975 hearings
10/
to seek extension of the Voting Rights Act to the Southwest:
changes in polling places for the Bloomington Independent School
District which had a dramatic impact on voter participation
resulting in the loss of two Chicano candidates by seventeen
ill
votes apiece; voting machine failure in minority voting
12/ 13/
precincts; poll taxes; -. annual voter registration
14/
requirements; denial of assistance to non-English-.
~I ~. In Texas, counties are governed by a county corn-
missioners court comprised of 4 commissioners and a county judge.
7/ Id.
~/I_d.
9/ Texas School Directory 1979-1980; Texas Education
Agency, Austin, Texas. Oct. 1979.
10/ 42 U.S.C. Sl973etseq.
11/ Extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: ~eariflgS
on 8.~07, S. 903, S. 1297, S. 1409, and S. 1443 Before the Sub-
committee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, 94th Congress, 1st Session 804 (1975) (hereinafter
Senate Rea4~g~).
a/Id. l3/U.at 740 14/ Id.
PAGENO="0065"
939
speaking persons; harassment and intimidation of minority
16/
poll watchers; . harassment and intimidation by local law
17/.
enforcement agencies, inconvenient location of polling
18/
places away from minority areas, -. economic intimidation of
19/ 20/
voters; maintenance of legislative multi-member districts;
21/
maintenance of discriminatory at-large election schemes; -
22/
adoption of discriminatory election devices; gerrymandered
23/
county commissioner precincts, - and annexations with a dis-
24/
- criminatory effect. A few of these abuses have been cor-
rected through litigation and effective use of the Section 5
25/
preclearance provisions, 42 U.S.C. §1973 c. - For example,
as a result of litigation there are no multi-member districts
* 15/ Id. at 741. . -
16/ Id. at 741
17/ Id.
18/ Id. at 742.
19/ Id. -
20/ Id. at 474-476, 490-91, 497-514.
21/ Id. at 462.
22./ Id. at 469,489.
23/ Id. at 473
24/ Id. at 476.
25/ Section 5 requires political units in Texas to submit all
changes in the law affecting voting enacted or administered after
N~5vember 1, 1972 to the United States Attorney General or to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a
* determination that the proposed election change was not adopted
pursuant to a discriminatory purpose and does not discriminate
on the basis of color, race, or membership -in an applicable
language minority group.
83-679 0 - 82 - 5 Pt.2
PAGENO="0066"
940
utilized at the state legislative level. k~White v.
412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332 (1973); Craves V. Barnes j~~,446
P. Supp. 460 (W.b. `Tax. 1977). Also, the annual voter zegistra-
tion ii no longer ~ requirement. Beare v. Smith, 321 P. Supp.
1100 (W.D. Tex. 1971). Yet ~y of the discriminatory devices
end practices mentioned above are still in effect.
A recent izç~xy documented many of the abuses experienced
by Hispanics in Texas. This inquiry focused on persons
who voted both in the Republican end Democratic party primaries
contrary to state law to defeat Hispanic candidates, the falsi-
fication of election returns, tampering with voting ballots,
inadequate assistance at the polls, voter harassment, irregu-
larities in the absentee balloting process, ineffectiveness of
election contests, and the lack of prosecution of violations by
state officials. This inquiry clearly demonstrated the wide-
spread voting discrimination in Texas. Instances of voting
discrimination in Texas are plentiful.
A prime example of this voting discrimination was evident
in the !~ay, 1978 Democratic Party Primary for the Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 1, in Aransas County. According to
Article 5, S18 of the Texas Constitution, Justices of the
26/ Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, An
Inquii~into Voting Irregularities in Texas, October z2, 1980
(on file in San Antonio MPALDEF office.)
PAGENO="0067"
941
the Peace shall be elected from Justice of the Peace Precinct.
See also Vernon! s Ann. Civ.. St. Art. 2373. Justices of the Peace
preside over courts which have jurisdiction over certain civil
matters. Id. Art. 2384. Aransas County has a population of
14,260 persons,. according to the 1980 Census, of which 2722 or
27/
19.17. are Hispanic. There are no Hispanics on the County
28/
Commissioners' Court, the County governing body, nor `are there
any Hispanics serving on any of the four Justice of the Peace
29/
positions.
This complete absence of Chicano elected officials corn-
pelled Hr. Jose Pepe Zambrano to run for the office, of Justice
of the Peace for Precinct No. 1 for the Hay 6, 1978, Democratic
Party primary. The incumbent and the only other candidate
opposing Zambrano died after the. filing deadline had closed.
No other candidate could `file `for office. In order to prevent.
Mr. Zambrano from winning the election, the local County
Democratic Committee, through the.. deceased Judge's wife, took
out newspaper advertisements in the local newspaper urging
voters to"vote for the. dead candidate. See Attachment No. 1
and' 2. In ~this manner, the. local County Democratic Committee
* 27/ 1980 Census at 4.
28/ Each County in' Texas is governed by a County Com-
missioners' Court. The Court consists of one County Judge
`elected at-large and four county commissianers each elected
from a commissioner precinct. Art. 5, §18, Texas Constitution.
For a.. listing of Texas County officials see County Judges and
Commissioners Association. of Texas, Texas `County Directory at 11
(1981-1982).
29/ Telephone call with county clerk's office.
PAGENO="0068"
942
could convene arid certify a nominee to be placed on the
general election ballot in 1978. The dead candidate won
and there vas no Chicano elected or appointed to serve as
Justice of the Peace.
Nor is this discrimination limited to Chicanos residing
within a given county~ When our staff visited Edwards County
we encountered a `great deal of hostility and intimidation from
the Anglo power structure. Edwards County contains a population
of 2033 of which 967 or 47.6 are Hispanic. 1980 Census at 12.
There are no Hispanics elected to the County Commissioners
Court. Texas Directory at 27. We visited the County to do
an on-site field investigation. During our itivestigation we
came across a segregated cemetery: the Chicano plots were in
the back and the Anglo plots were in the front. I contacted
the President of the Rocksprings Cemetery Association to
determine the reasons for this segregation. The person became
very infuriated and agitated. He escorted me out of his office
and told me, "If you're here to stir up trouble, you'd better
get out of town before sundown." Attachment No. 3.
These instances of voting discrimination often occur within
the confines of discriminatory election structures. The most
prominent discriminatory election structures are at-large
election schemes and gerrymandered county commissioner precinct
boundaries. The discriminatory effects of at-large election
PAGENO="0069"
943
schemes have been extensively documented See White v
~g~ester 412 U S 755 (1973) (challenge to multi-member
legislative districts in Bexar and Dallas Counties) Graves
v. Barnes (II) 378 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Tex. 1974), judgment
vacated on other grounds, 95 5. Ct. 2670 (1975) (challenge
to multimetnber legislative districts in Tarrant, Jefferson,
McLennan,- Travis,- Lubbock, El Paso, Nueces, and Galveston
Counties); Like_comb v. Wise, 399 F. Supp~ 782 (M.D. Tex.
1975), reversed 551 F.2d 1043(5th Cir. 1977), reversed,
437U.S. 535, 98 S. Ct. 2493 (1978) (challenging the at-
large election structure for the City of Dallas). The
primary objection to at-large elections is that "
political access in terms of recruitment, nomination, election
and ultimately representation is effectively denied Mexican
American. and Black citizens in Texas:by. at-large election
_*301
schemes."
30/ Senate heari~g~ at 503. In Calderon v. Board of
Education, et al., Civ. Act. W-74-CA-2l and:Derrick v. Mathis,
Civ. Act. No. W-74-CA-2 (W.D. mx.) ~Memorandum Opinion and~
Order dated February 27, -1976), the District Court concluded
that " . . . Plaintiffs have~proved that the votes of black
and Mexican American cLtizens of the City of Waco are uncon-
stitutionally - di~luted and that blacks. and Mexican Americans
it Waco -are~ afforded ~significantly~ less opportunity than other-
residents -of the city to participate. in the political process
leading to~the election of- council members." With respectto
the Waco. Independent School- District, the Court noted that
"[t]he evidence revealed that the at-large election method, over-
laid, as it is, -upon the historic, cultural,- economic, and political
realities of the black and Mexican American community in Waco,
- results in a -marked dilution of black and Mexican~American votes.
Order- at 4, 1. See Attachment 4. See also LULAC V. Williams,
C.A. No. 74-C-95 (S.D. Texas) (Memo~~d~i~nd Order~ dated
October 2, 1979) (where Court found that the 1956 at-large by-
place election scheme was enacted by the: Corpus - Ch±isti Inde-
pendent School District for the purpose of diluting the voting
- - strength of Mexican Americans).
PAGENO="0070"
944
The discriminatory effects of these at-large election
structures are well documented. According to a study pre-
pared for the Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commis $ ~Ofl
on Civil Rights, Mexican Americans and Blacks were severely
underrepresented at both the school board and city council levels.
Although Chicanôs constitute 20.97. or 2,968,643 persons out of
a total state population of 14;228,383 and Blacks constitute 12.07.
or 1,710,250 persons, their representation on these governing
31/
bodies never approached parity. - Recent studies do not
Percent Representation on School Boards
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978
Chicanos less than
17. 4.77, 5.070 6.07. 6.07. 5.97.
Blacks less than less than less than 1.07. 1.07. less
(Male) 17. 1.07. 1.07. thaT~
1.07.
Percent Representation on City Councils
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978
Chicanos 2.777. 3.627. 4.047. 4.627. 4.62 4.97.
Blacks~ less than less than less than 1.117. 1.207. less
1.07, 1.07. 1.07, than
1.07.
.31/ Dr. Charles Cotrell, Status of Civil Rights, Vol. I:
A Report on the Participation of Mexican Americans, Blacks and
Females in the Political Institutions and Processes in Texas.
1968-1970, Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights at 89, 108 (1980) (hereinafter Commission Study).
PAGENO="0071"
945
improve thissevere underrepresentation. For school districts,
out of 7428' -school board ~members only 496 or 6.68% were Chicanos.
`Texas School-Directory 1979-1980, Texas Education Agency, Austin,
Texas (1979).. For city coui~cils, out of 4902 city `council mem-
bers only 278 or 4 677 were Chicanos Texas-23 Edition-State
Directory 1980; The Comprehensive Guide to the Decision Makers
in Texas ~Government, Austin, Texas (1980).~ When the individual
school districts are examined this underrepresentation becomes
event more egregious: `Beeville Independent. `School District (Bee
County) has at least 58 77 Chicano student enrollment yet there
~is~only one Chicano. on the seven person board;. Rocksprings
lndependent School District (Edwards County) has ~at least a
73.67, Chicano `student enrollment, yet there are no Chicanos
on `the seven personboard; 0' Donneil ~Independent Sc1~ool District
(Lynn County) has at least `a 64.57~ Chicano student enrollment,
yet there are no Chicanos. on the seven person board; Karnes
City Independent School District (Karnes County) has at least~
a 54.5% Chicano `student enrollment, yet there are no Chicanos
serving on th~ seven person schOol board. For additional
examples see Southwest'Voter Registration Education Project,
Survey of Chicano Representation in 163 Texas Public School
Boards-1970-1980 (1980) (on file at MALDEF office, San Antonio,
Texas).
This paucity of minority underrepresentation is caused by
- theY at-large election structures. With the exceptions of a few
PAGENO="0072"
946
metropolitan school districts, well over a thousand school
32/
districts conduct their elections on an at-large basis.~
Out of the 214 Home Rule Cities in Texas at least 179 use an
at-large election scheme, 156 reported using a numbered place
or post system, and 124 reported using a majority vote require-
ment . These discriminatory electoral devices operate to
systematically minimize the impact of minority voting strength
especially in the context of racially polarized voting.
Raéially polarized voting frustrates the electoral choice
expressed by Chicano comzmmities in Texas. Voting along ethnic
or racial lines has a tendency to minimize the impact of Chicano
voting strength when they are a numerical voting minority within
a given political subdivision. Such an effect is particularly
evident in the recent elections for the Corpus Christi City
council elections. The City Council consists of a mayor and
six council members elected every two years. The City Council
members run by place. The following table measures the degree
of racially polarized voting evident in these city council
elections . The numbers next to the candidate are called R
factors . These R
32/ Commission Stu~y1 at 107.
331 Commission Study at 93. This does not include the
remaining 865iñünicipalities which are not classified as Home
Rule Cities.
PAGENO="0073"
947
factors are correlations between the percent of Spanish-Surnamed
persons within a voting precinct and the margin of votes in the
precinct received by a given candidate~ A high positive R value
indicates a strong correlation between the votes received bya
candidate and Spanish Surname registration. A low or negative
R value indicates a weak correlation between the votes cast for
a given candidate and Spanish Surname registration. High positive
R factors indicate strong support in the Hispanic coamunity while
low or negative'factors indicate little support in the Hispanic
.341
community and -strong support in the Anglo coumiunity~ These
1981 Regular Election
Place 1 Place 2 Place 6
Schaffer `- .253 Conzalez + .819 Chapa .+ .635
Luna + .924 *Dijniphy - .819 Kennedy - .809
Gullèy - .889 Bolden - .068
Whitney - .451 . Roosth - .450
Cavazos + ~. 838.
*jndjcates winner
results indicate that in those places where Chicanos ran for
office, they received overwhelming.support from the Chicano
community while- the -Anglo. candidate received very little support.
34/ These correlations were provided by Dr. Fred Cervantes.,
Political Science Department, Corpus Christi State University.
PAGENO="0074"
948
In the runoff for places 1 and 6 the. patterns became even more
pronounced.
Place 1 Place 6
Lima + .950 *Kerinedy - .940
* Gulley - .950 Cavazos + .940~
* indicates winner
As a result of the at-large by-place election structure and severe
patterns of racially polarized voting all of the Chicano candidates
lost in the election. Corpus Christi has. a population of 231,915
persons of which 46.67~ or 108,175 are Hispanics, yet does not have
any Chicano representation on the city council. 1980 Census at 24.
This underrepresentation is particularly egregious since Corpus
Christi contains the largest concentration of Hispanics in any major
South Texas city.
Racially polarized voting is found in smaller political
subdivisions as well. Medina County has a population of 23,164
of which 43.47~ or 10,042 are of Spanish Origin. 1980 Census at
22. There are no Hispanics on the County Commissioners Court or
the Hondo City Council. Elections to the City Council are con-
ducted on an at-large basis. Election returns for city council
races show a very high correlation between the percentage of
Spanish Surnamed voters and the percent of votes cast for
Chicano candidates, thereby suggesting strong patterns of
racially polarized voting.
PAGENO="0075"
949
Spanish Surname Votes Cast for
Voters Chicano Candidate
April 1, 1978
Place 3 16.337. 18.587. (Attachment No. 5)
April 70 1979
Place 1 43.877~, 40.527. (Attachment No. 6)
April 2, 1980
Place 4 39.907. 39.437, (Attachment No. 7)
These patterns of racially polarized voting are also mani-
fested in county elections as well as for county returns
in other state elections. For example, in the June 5, 1976
runoff for county commissioner precinct 3, the Spanish-
surname registration rate for the commissioner precinct was
44.87.. The Chicano candidate received 45.570 of the vote. In
the May, 1980 Democratic Party Primary for. Associate Justice,
4th Supreme Judicial.. District, Court of Appeals, the Chicano
candidate received very little support from the predominantly
Angloprecincts. See Attachment No. 8. These examples should
provide ample evidence demonstrating the existence of racially
polarized voting patterns in Mexican American communities
Apart from at-large election schemes, gerrymandered county
commissioner precincts., also serve to' inhibit minority repre-
.sentation'on the county commissioners court. A recent study
.by.~MALD~F indicates that there are many counties in Texas
containing. significant Chicano populations yet little if
any representation on the commissioners court. As pre-.
viously mentioned, each of the.four commissioners is elected
PAGENO="0076"
950
from a commissioner precinct. If the commissioner precincts
are drawn in such a manner to either fragment or oversaturate
a minority community into one coimnissioner precinct, gerry-
35'
mandering occurs. This gerrymandering often results in
no Hispanic representation. Consequently, the absence of
Hispanic representation in counties containing significant Chicano
populations suggest the presence of gerrymandered commissioner
precincts. The following counties which contain over a 20%
Hispanic population contain no Hispanic representation on the
commissioners courts.
°L Chicano Population
Kenedy 82.9%
Atascosa 47.87~ (currer~tly in litigation - filed
by MALDEF)
Edwards 47-.6% (Recently redistricted as a result
of lawsuit filed by MALDEF)
Medina 43.4% (Recently redistricted as a result
of. a lawsuit filed by MALDEF)
Terrell 43.3% (Recently redistricted as. a result
of a lawsuit filed by MALDEF)
Karnes 43.07~
Deaf Smith 40.77~
35/; See Kirskey v. Bd. of Supervisors, 554 F.2d 139, 150
(5th Cir. T~77), cert. den. 434 U.S. 877 (can't fragment);.
Graves v. Barnes, (IV), supra, 446 F. Supp. at 563, 567-68
(can't oversaturate).
PAGENO="0077"
951
Castro 38.6%(Recentl.y redistricted - lawsuit
filed by Texas. Rural Legal Aid)
Refugio .38.3% (Currently in litigation-filed
by MA.LDEF)
Lynn 37~97~ (Recently redistricted - lawsuit
filed by S~W.V~R.P.)
Dawson 37.77. (Recently redistricted - lawsuit
filed by. S.W.V.R.P.)
Crosby 37.070 Recently redistricted - lawsuit
filed by S.W.V.R.P.)
Goliad 35.6%
Cochran 34.8% (Recently redistricted - lawsuit
- filed by MALDEF)
Martin 34.6% (Recently redistricted)
McMullen 34.570
Calhoun 34.07~
Terry 34.07~
Bailey 33.9% (Recently redistricted)
Floyd 33.97~
Hale 33.7% (Recently redistricted)
Caldwell . 33.0%
Partner . 32.7%
Live Oak 32.0%
Reagan 31.5%
Gaines 30.6%
Glasscock 28.87~
G:ônzales 28.8%
Menard 28.6%
PAGENO="0078"
952
Upton 28.07.
Yoakum 27.87.
Concho 27.77.
Swisher 27.57.
Hockley 27.07.
Ward .26.87.
Schleicher 26.07.
Winkler 25.87.
Guadalupe 25.4~
Mitchell 25.17.
Crane 24.57.
Comal 23.97,
Sterling 23.17.
Dewitt 23.17.
Real 22.47.
Wharton 21.87.
Andrews 21.87.
Ector 21.57.
To~i Green 21.27.
Howard 21.17.
Matagorda 21.17,
Fort Bend 20.47.
This list totals to 51 counties out of 254 counties. In addition
there are a number of other counties containing substantial
Chicano populations, yet are only represented by one Chicano
PAGENO="0079"
953
county commissioner: Jim Wells (67 ~ Chicano pop.), Culberson
<63.47a Chicano pop~), Hüdspeth ~(58.77~ Chicano pop.), Kinney
(57 57.' Chicano. pop .), Uvalde (55 .2% ~Chicano pop. - in litigation
lawsuit filed ~by NALDEF), Xlsberg'~(52 .27.~ Chicano pop. in
litigation - lawsuit filed by Texas Rural Legal Aid), Nueces
(46.5% Chicano pop.), Pecos (48.67, Chicano pop.), San Patricio
(46.3% Chicano pop. - .racently redistricted - lawsuit filed by
S .W.V. R.P.), ~;Bee (45. 87~ Chicano pop.), Sutton (40.4% Chicano
pop. redistricted), `WiLson (36.5% chicano pop.) To a
significant degree this. underrepresentation is due to the
failure to reapportion after the decennial census to comply
with the Cone-person one-vote principle.
The one-person one-vote principle requires that each
:person's vote should have the same impact in a districting
scheme. Consequently, each commissioner's precinct should
have approximately the~samenumber of persons. TheUnited
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in'Lister v.
Navarro County, 566 `F.2d 490, 492 (5th Cir. 1978) has
recognized' a clear, duty to redistrict `after every decennial
census. Yet `there are many counties in Texas which have
ignored this clear duty.
In a study of counties conducted by MA.LDEF extensive
evidence concerning the failure `of counties to redistrict was
~docuniented. In `some instances, counties "have not changed their
PAGENO="0080"
954
commissioner precincts since the turn of the century. The fol-
lowing is a list of counties and the date of their last redis-
tricting of commissioner precincts.
Counties Which Have Not Redistricted Since 1970
1. Zack never
2. Van Zandt never
3. Hamilton never
4~ Lee never
5. Bandera never*
6. Scurry 1876
7. Hartley 1891
8. Ellis Feb., 1903
9. Liberty Feb., 1903
10. Leon August 17, 1905
11. Zapata 1913
12. Lipscomb August 12, 1918
l3~ Briscoe November 13, 1934
14. Wood March 9, 1936
15. Comanche 1939
16. Dewitt 1940's
17. Foard 1941
18. Sterling August 10, 1943
19. Wise 1945
20. Lavaca 1950's
21. Blanco 1950's
PAGENO="0081"
955
22. Stephens 1951
23. Upton August 10, 1955
24. Floyd June 25, 1962
25. Loving August 13, 1962
26. Grayson May ., 1965
27. Yoakun July 15, 1965
28. Wilbarger August 5, 1965
29. Delta April 13, 1966
30. Maverick February 1, 1967
31. Collingsworth July 13, 1967
32. Crane August 14, 1967
33. Calhoun August 25, 1967
34. Chambers 1967
35. Red River January 1, 1968
36. Kenedy August 12, 1968
* 37. Coryell November 8, 1968
38. Tom Green November 12, 1968
~ Oldham 1968 *
40. ~hildress 1968
41. Menard 1968
42. Coleman 1968
Live Oak 1968
Jim Hogg 1968 * S
Nolan * January 1, 1969.
46. * Lampasas Janaury 13, 1969
83-679 0 - 82 - 6 Pt.2
PAGENO="0082"
47.
Trinity
January 13, 1969
..
48.
Fannin
January 13, 1969
*
49.
Hill
:cJanuary 17, 1969
50.
Reagan
February 1, 1969
51.
McCullough
August 27, 1969
52.
Montague
October 1969
53.
Donley
November 10, 1969
54. .~ LaSalle
November 10, .1969
55.
Kimble
January 13, 1969
56..
Montgomery
1969
57.
Karnes
1969
58.
McMullen
1969
59.
Brooks.
1969
This list of 59 counties includes those counties which have
not redistricted using the 1970 census.
In view of this widespread violation of the one-person
one-vote principle, MALDEF along with S.W.R.V.P. and TRLA
sought to redistrict counties containing significant minority
populations. In many instances a violation of the one-person
one-vote principle served to discriminate against minorities
by including them in the most overpopulated commissioner~
precincts where their vote would. be minimized. The results
of these efforts resulted in litigation against several
counties. MkLDEF filed lawsuits against those. counties
which had more than the permissible l07~ total population
956
PAGENO="0083"
957
deviation between the most overpopulated district and the
least populated district. See White v. Regester, supra.
These counties along with their total population deviations
are as follows: Atascosa, 60.4% population deviation;
Cochran, 31.6% population deviation; Edwards, 273% population
deviation; Nedina, 126.3% population deviation; Refugio, 176.27.
population deviation;, and TJvalde, 69.8% population deviation.
For more detailed information in these counties please see
Attachment No. 9.
The recent publication of the 1980 census will also demon-
strate the severe population disparities existing among county
commissioner precincts. For example,.Briscoe County, which
contains a 16.2% Hispanic' population and no Chicano County
Commissioners, has a total population `deviation of 99.28%;
Scurry County which has a 18.77. Hispanic population `and no
Chicano county commissioners', has .a total population deviation
of 104.67,; Yoakum County, which has a 27.87. Hispanic population and
no Chicano county commissioner, has a total population deviation
of 116.7%. `
These blatant violations of the one-person one-vote
principle clearly demonstrate the reluctance of political
subdivisions to follow federal law. The extensive `nature
of our documentation clearly indicates that these `violations
are not isolated instances. Rather, this documentation suggests
PAGENO="0084"
958
a pervasive pattern of failing to comply with applicable
federal precedent. Redistricting will occur as the result
of ;lawsuits filed by minority groups. Most of these plans
will have to'.be~subtnitted for Section 5 preclearance. Recently
the United States Supreme.Court in McDaniel v. Sanche,z~, No. 80-
180 (Decided June 1, 1981)., `held .that redistricting plans resulting
from federal court.. litigation are' subject to the Section 5 pre-
clearance provisions. Consequently, this federal monitoring
`will' be important in `assuring that these plans do not discriminate
`against .Hispanics.
`Removing these institutional discriminatory e'lection devices
`and preventing discriminatory voting abuses are important in
creating more responsive government. Elected officials will
be held more accountable `if' elected under a non-discriminatory
system. ` More minorities are appointed to government positions,,
city boards and commissions. Governmental funds arid services
`36/
are redistributed to minority areas. In sharp contrast,
where there has been a discriminatory election scheme in
effect, there is no responsiveness. In Nedina County, during
`the time period of 1954-1980, there were only 5 Chicano pre-
siding `election judges out of 351. In the same time period,
only 5 Chicano `election judges out of 508 were appointed. See
`Attachment No. 10. For a county which contains 43.4% Chicanos
such a severe underrepresentation of election officials who
can speak Spanish will only discourage Hispanic voter `participation.
36/ CommissiOn ~ at 189.
PAGENO="0085"
959
With respect to appointments by the county commissiners Court,
out of 1,057 persons from 1956 to 1980, Chicanos constituted
only 1.987. or 21 of these appointments. See Attachment No. 11.
Thus the elimination of discriminatory election devices has
the potential for electing persons who will be more sensitive.
to the particularized needs of the Hispanic communities.
This presentation of voting discrimination is not complete.
There are many other examples of discrimination which have yet
to be documented. Abuses and discriminatory practices still
occur. See, ~ The Texas Observer, "Hispanic Drive Falters,
p. 1, May 15. 1981 (Vol. 73 No. 10) (where Chicanos were being
videotaped by the incumbent Anglo mayor in McAllen, as they voted
absentee); The Texas Observer, "A little bitty dynasty", p. 2,
May 12, 1978 (Vol. 70, No. 9) (documents the control of the
Somerset Independent School District by an Anglo superintendent;
also discusses election fraud in this District which contains
at least a 507, Chicano student population and only one `Chicano
37/
Boardmember). This extensive voting discrimination will' not
37/ The Southwest Independent School District contains a
607, CEtcano student population. Prior to the April 1979 school
board elections, there was not a single Chicano on tha school
board. This absence of representationwas due `to the District's
decision to maintain only one polling place for the entire
school District. Chicanos would have a 22 mile trip to vote in
school board elections. Only after the threat of a lawsuit,
were additional polling places created. As a result of this
increased access, there is now one Chicano on the school board.
PAGENO="0086"
960
be eliminated by state authorities. The county commissioner
precinct gerrymanderings were brought to the attention of the
State Attorney General in the early part of 1979. The Attorney
General took no action. This inaction by state officials clearly
demonstrates the continued need for federal monitoring.
The federal monitoring provided by the Voting Rights Act
has been effective, both in preventing the implementation of
discriminatory election devices and in deterring officials from
adopting discriminatory election changes. The next section of
this testimony will document the results of Section 5 monitoring.
These results have an impact on a state and regional level.
Moreover,, the recalcitrance of political subdivisions in
Texas to comply with the Section 5 preclearance provisions
clearly justifies the continued application of the Voting
Rights Act until after the 1990 redistrictings.
II. Importance of Section 5
In Texas there have been at least 85 letters of objection
issued by the United States Attorney General encompassing
approximately 130 election changes. These adverse adminis-
trative deterninãtion~ have prevented the implementation of
discriminatory election changes both on a state and local level.
Yet even with these letters of objection MkLDEF in many instances
has ~toinstitute litigation to enforce the letter of objection.
In some cases, MkLDEF had to file lawsuits to compel political
subdivisions to submit election changes for preclearance.
PAGENO="0087"
961
For the record, the State of Texas has not assisted MALDEF
in any of these efforts. On the contrary, the State of Texas
was a defendant in three lawsuits. In addition, the State of
Texas sought a judicial exemption from the Section 5 preclearance
provisions by challenging the application of the triggering
mechanism in Section 4b (b). 42 U.S.C. §1973b(b). Briscoe v.
Bell, 97 S. Ct. 2428 (1977). Moreover, the current Attorney
General has often spoken out against the.'predlearance::providions
of the Act. In addition, then Secretary of State Mark White
wrote all the county clerks urging them to voice their opposition
to extension of the Voting Rights Act to Texas. See Attachment
No. 12. In such a hostile environment, minorities in Texas need
federal protection.
A. Statewide Letters of.Objection
1. Senate Bill 300
The efforts by the State `of Texas to adopt restrictive
38/
voter registration procedures have been extensively documented.
The most recent effort to disenfranchise minorities occurred with
the passage of Senate Bill 300. 64th Legislature, 1975 Legislative
Session. According to S.B. 300, the tax assessor-collector in
each county.was directed during the period between November 5,
1975, and December 15, 1975, to mail a notice to each registered voter. This
notice ~uld have infornmd the voter that his or her current registration
38/ Senate heari~g~ at 468. See also Bears v. Smith, 321
F. Supp. 1100 (S.D. Texas 1971).
PAGENO="0088"
962
would expire on March 1, 1976.. in order to remain reg~rStered,
the voter must have filed a new application to vote by January 31,
1976. Absent suc~h ?pplication the person would be purged from
the registration rolls. The effects of S.B. 300 on Hispanic
vo~r registration would have been devastating. A re-registration
requirement would in effect disenfranchise Hispanic registered
voters.
The United States Attorney General on October 22, 1975, advised
the Texas Attorney General to submit S.B. 300 for preclearance.
Since pre clearance could not be obtained prior to November 5,
1975, I4ALDEF instituted a lawsuit. Flowers v. Wiley, S-75-l03-CA
(E . D. Tex.). Plaintiffs were successful in preventing the imple-
mentation of the objectionable portions of S.B. 300. MALDEF
submitted a written co~ment documenting the difficulties minorities
would encounter in understanding and returning the required forms.
See Attachment No. 13. On December 10, 1975, a letter of
objection was entered by the United States Attorney General. The.
U.S. Attorney General concluded that the State bad not met its
burden: "With regard to cognizable minority groups in Texas,
namely, blacks and Mexican Americans, a study of their historical
voting problems and a review of statistical data, including
that relating to literacy, disclose that a total voter regis-
tration purge under existing circumstances may have a discriminatorY
effect on their voting rights . . . . Noreover, representations
have been made to this office that a requirement that everyone
PAGENO="0089"
963
register anew, on the heels of registration difficulties
experienced in the past, could cause significant frustration
and result in creating voter apathy among minority citizens,
thus, erasing the gains already* accomplished in registering
minority voters." See Attachment No. 14.
After the letter of objection was issued, the State of
Texas under federal court order could not implement the dis-
criminatory election features. The Flowers `case is illustrative
of the State's persistence in resisting the application of the
Voting Rights Act. A federal court order was required to prevent
a massive purging of minority registered voters. Clearly without
the Section 5 preclearance provisions, the evidentiary difficulties
in establishing a constitutional violation based upon a dis-
criminatory effect would have been insurmountable.
2. H.B. 1097
This letter of objection involved the districting of the
legislative districts for Nueces County. This letter of
objection was the culminatior~ of efforts commenced in White v.
Regester, supra, to eliminate the use of multi-member legislative
districts. After the Supreme Court in White affirmed the uncon-
stitutionality of such schemes in Bexar and Dallas counties, the
case was remanded for determining the constitutionality of the
remaining multi-member districts in eight other counties. The
District Court found the multi-member districting scheme uncon-
stitutional in Nueces County. Graves v. Barnes, (II), 378 F.
PAGENO="0090"
964
* Supp.. 640 (W.D. Tex. 1974). During appeal to the Supreme Court,
the Texas State Legislature enacted House Bill 1097, 1975 session
of the TexaS~ Legislature. Subsequently, the Supreme Court
remanded the ~case to determine, if the case should be dismissed.
White ~ Regester, 422 U.S. 935 (1975).
In the interim,' the United States Congress extended the
Voting Rights' Act to Texas. Consequently the district lines
for Nueces County incorporated in H .B. 1097 were submitted
for preclearance. The mest objectionable. feature of H.B. 1097
with respect to Nueces County.. was the intentional fragmentation
of a' geographically cohesive minority. community located in the
Corpus Christi "corridor" area. .~Thestate plan wasdesigned
to limit, minority representation to only one representative.
District 48A was the only. district in H.B.. 1097 containing
over a 507~ minority population. In sharp contrast the redis-
tricting plan submitted by the plaintiffs-intervenors in Graves
~ created'two.HisPaflic.diStt~ts each containing over a 507~
Mexican American population. The~state's plan was suspect
also because of the absence of any counity of interest.
MALDEF submitted a conmient urging the U.S. Attorney General
to interpose a letter of objection. See Attachment No. 15.
On January 26, 1976, the U.S. Attorney General issued
a letter of objection. * The Attorney General agreed with. MALDEF's
contention concerning the unnecessary fragmentation of the minority
* corridor area. `See Attacbment'No. 16. The....impact of the letter
PAGENO="0091"
965
of objection was immediate. Prior to the redistricting efforts
there had been one Hispanic legislator representing Nueces
County since 1964. Graves II, sj~p~, 378 F~ Supp. at 660. After
the letter of objection was issued an additional Chicano was
elected to the State Legislature from Nueces County. In con-
clusion the letter of objection was directly responsible for
preventing the implementation of a redistricting plan which
gerrymanderedthe minority community. Section 5 provided a
mechanism for curbing the discriminatory intent of the Texas
State Legislature.
3. S.B. 11
The efforts by the Texas Legislature to discriminate
are not limited to minority communities; these efforts also
encompass political parties. La Raza Unida Party presented a
challenge to the established Democratià Party. La Raza
Unida Party consisted primaiily of Chicano activists who were
disenchantedt with the continued indifference and neglect
exhibited by the Democratic Party toward the Mexican American
community. In 1972, the Party ran a candidate for Governor.
The 1972 elections were close. The Democratic candidate garnered
47.97. of the vote, while the Republican candidate received 45.07,
of the vote'. The Raza Unida candidate received a 6.37, of the
vote. This strong showing permitted the Party to receive state
financing of their primary elections. The Party received well
over the 27, threshold level established by state statute.
PAGENO="0092"
966
The Democratic Party controlled legislature vieweJ Erie
Raza Unida Party. as .a threat. Consequently, in 1973, the legis-
lature sought to eliminate the Party by removing the financing
of their primary elections. According to the terms of 5.3. 11, a
party must receive more than 2O~ of the votes cast for governor
in órderto be eligible for state financial backing. The dis-.
criminatory purpose of this statute is amply documented in the
submission by a Raza Unida Party County Chairperson. ~
Attachment No. 17. The U.S. Attorney General agreed and issued
a letter of objection on January 27, 1976. See Attachment No. 18.
However, I4ALDEF had to file a lawsuit to enforce the letter of
objection. LaRaza Unida v. White, A~76-CA-17 (W.D. `rex.).
Since the filing deadline for party primaries was February 2,
1976, an injunction was sought to extend the filing period to
permit persons to file for La Raza Unida Party primary. MALDEF
was successful in securing this Order.
Section 5 was responsible for checking once again the dis~
criminatory tendencies of the State Legislature. The letter
,of objection permitted La Raza Unida Party to field candidates
for primary elections who would then.be placed on the ballot
in the general elections, thereby permitting the Chicano
community to select a candidate other than from the two
established parties.
PAGENO="0093"
967
B. Edwards County: A Classic Case of
Gerrymandering
Edwards County presents a clear example of Section 5 pre-
venting county officials from blatantly gerrymanderring the
county commissioner precincts. Edwards County, according to
the 1980 Census, had 2,033 persons of which 47.6% are Chicano.
Yet despite this overwhelming number of Chicanos there is not
a single Chicano county commissioner. Our initial investigation
determined that the commissioner precincts were seriously malap-
portioned.. Commissioner Preci~nct 1 had 1,541 persons or 192%
more people than the ideal'conmiissioner precinct. Commissioner
Precinct 3 contained approximately 104 persons or 80% less than
the ideal district. The total population deviation was 272%
well over the permissible 10% threshold. Moreover, the Chicano
population was overconcentrated in Predinct 1. Although a sub-
stantial number of Chicanos were placedin Precinct 1, they did
not constitute a majority of the voters in Preàinct 1. Conse-
quently, even if they were all registered to vote they could
not elect a Chicano commissioner.
During the course of our investigation, we went to Edwards
County to the town of Rocksprings to conduct the initial politi-
cal profile. During the course of our investigation, we came
across a segregated cemetery. All of the Chicanos were buried
in the back in small plots. The Anglo plots were much larger.
When we surveyed the Mexican area of the Rocksprings cemetery,
we came across a plaque which commemorated the burning of a
Chicano at the stake for allegedly killing an Anglo woman. This
PAGENO="0094"
968
burning took place in the early part of the nineteen hundreds.
After inquiring about the segregated nature of the cemetery,
we were told to leave town before sundown. See Attachment no. 3.
* Having doc~umented the malapportionment, the Southwest
Voter Re.gistration Project and MALDEF made a presentation be-
fore the county commissioner's court urging themto voluntarily
redistrict the county commissioner precincts The organizations
offered to assist the county to change the commissioner precinct
boundaries. The commissioner's court decided to change the lines
without our participation. The lines were changed and the plan
was submitted to. the United States Attorney General for approval.
The Edwards County commissioner's court ~divided the Chicano
population among the four county commissioner precincts. This
division resulted in an even distribution of the Chicano po~iu-
*lation. Attachment No. 19 is. a map of Rocksprings clearly de-
monstrating the intentional gerrymandering of the Chicano commu-
nity. Consequently, théChicano. *population in Edwards County
would not be able to. electm Chicano cormnissioner. According to
their population estimates, Commissioner Precinct No. 1 had
4O.27~ Chicano ~population~ Precinct No.. 2 had 25.27~ Chicano po-
pulation~ Precinct No. 3 had 29.27~ Chicano population; Precinct
No. 4 had 35.770 ChicanopopulatiOn.
In the comment to U. S. Attorney General, NALDEF referred
to the extensive discrimination~eXPe~e~ed by the Chicano com-
munity. See Attachment No. 20, and urged the U.S. Attorney Gen-
eral to issue a letter of objection. As a result. of our comment
and community input, the Department of Justice on April 26, 1978
PAGENO="0095"
969
issued a letter of objection. See Attaclunent No. 21. Since~e
plan was not approved, the County decided to revert back to the
old county comrnissióne'r boundaries. Subsequently, I4ALDEF filed
a lawsu~ challenging the malapportioned plan. Cowsert v. Fred,
Civ. Aci-. No. DR-79-CA..26'(U.S.DC Western District of Texas).
After the comDlaint was filed the. county decided to negotiate
a redistricting plan. As a result of these negotiations, a new
plan providing for a Chacano precinct was adopted. Edwards Coun-
ty is a perfect case study for assessing the ixenediate impact
of a letter of objection. Without the letter of objection, the
Chicano community would be gerrymandered.
C. Medina County: Unsuccessful Attempts to
Limit Chicano Political Participation
Medina County represents an excellent example of the persia-
tent efforts of governmental officials to discriminate against
Chicanos. Medina County according to the 1980 census contains a.
43.47, Chicano population; yet, Chicanos have not been elected to
the county commissioner's court.
In 1978, a MALDEF analysis of the current redistricting
plan revealed a violation of the one persen one vote principle.
The total population deviation was 126%. Moreover, the Mexican
American communities in the cities of D'Hannis arid Rondo were
divided into two cozmnissioner precincts. The plan resulted in
the total absence of a Mexican American elected to the cotnrnis-
sioner's court in the county's history. NALDEF informed
the court of the malapportionment and the County chose to reap-
portion in 1978 rather than face a lawsuit.
PAGENO="0096"
970
The 1978 plan also fragmented the Chicano community in Me-
dma County. The geographically cohesive Mexican American coin-
munity within the county seat of Hondo was split between two
commissioner precincts. The Mexican American voting age popu-
lation in both of these two precincts was less than 507.. The
County submitted the 1978 plan for Section 5 preclearance. MALDEF
submitted a comment urging the issuance of a letter of~ objection.
The comment documented the obvious attempt to fragment a cohesive
community. The comment also documented the lack of Chicano pol-
itical access in other political entities located within Medina
County. See Attachment No. 22. The Department of Justice issued
a letter of objection on April 14, 1978, finding that "the effect
of the new plan is to perpetuate denial of access by Mexican
Americans to the political process in Medina County." See At-
tachment No. 23.
On October 12, 1979, another objectionable plan was submitted
to the Department of Justice. Thel979.planwas identical to the
1978 plan; the only difference being an increase of 1.477. in the
~Mexican American population of Precinct 3. MALDEF had to file a
Section 5 enforcement proceeding to enjoin any additional elec-
tions until a non-discriminatory plan was adopted and prec].eared.
Garcia v. Decker, Civ. Act. No. SA-79-CA 414 (W.D. Texas). MALDEF
was successful in securing such an Order. In the meantime MALDEF
submitted an additional comment urging the U.S. Attorney General
to object to the 1979 plan. See Attachment No. 24. The Depart-
ment of Justice objected to the 1979 plan on December 11, 1979,
finding "no justification for the continued substantial fragmen-
PAGENO="0097"
971
tation of the Mexican A¼nerican comonmity of the City of Hondo."
See Attachment No. 25.
On J~anuary 25, 1980, rather than formulate a nôn-discrimi-
natory redistricting plan Nedina County filed a declaratory
judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. Medina Co. v. U.S., Civ. Act. No. 80-0241
(D.C. `Dist. Colum.). Initially, the County sought preclearance
of either the 1978 or 1979 plan. However, after extensive dis-
covery was conducted, the County submitted ~ third redistricting
plan to the U.S. Attorney General for preclearance. Although
MALDEF objected to this 3rd plan, `See Attachment No. 26, the plan
represented a substantial. improvement over the 1978 and 1979
plans. On December 16, 1980, the Department of Justice issued
a letter `of no objection and aspecial election for Commissioners
of Precincts 1 and 3 is scheduled for May 30, 1981. This new
plan affords Mexican Americans in Medina County a greater oppor-
tunity for access to the county political system.
The Medina County case demonstrates the necessity to have
Section 5 preclearance. After two Section 5 lawsuits and two
letters of objection, Medina County finally acquiesced in giv-
ing Chicanos a meaningful opportunity to participate in the pol-
itical process. The process lasted well over two years. With-
out the safeguard provided by Section 5, the 1978 redistricting
plan would ` have been implemented.' The result would have
been to perpetuate the existing absence of minority representa-
tion on the county commissioner's court.
83-679 0 - 82 - 7 Pt.2
PAGENO="0098"
972
D. Frio County, San Antonio, Houston, and
Dallas: Present Effects of Section 5
Preclearance
The Section 5 preclearance provisions have been in effect
in Texas since 1975. Perhaps the most dramatic effects in terms
of increasing minority representation have, occurred in Frio Coun-
ty, San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. Frio County according to
the l9~0 Census has 13,785 persons of which 68.47~ are Mexican
American. Despite this large number of Chicanos, prior to 1980
there had only been one Chicano elected to the County Commission-
er's Court. The reason for this minority underrepresentation was
the gerrymandering of the Mexican American community in Pearsail,
Texas. See Senate Hearings at 737.
After the Voting Rights Act was extended to Texas, Frio
County was informed of its obligation to preclear a 1973 redis-
tricting plan. The County submitted the plan. Public comments
very clearly documented the extent of minority exclusion by the
overconcentration of tha thicanocotnmunity in one precinct. -In ad-
dition, comments provided instances of recent voting irregulari-
ties in Pearsall. As a result of these comments, the U.S. At-
torney General on April 16, 1976 objected to the redistricting
plan because of the overconcentration of minorities in commis-
sioner precinct 3. See Attachment No. 27 * The County disregard-
ed the letter of objection. Since the county intended to imple-
ment the redistricting plan in the May, 1976, primary elections,
MALDEF filed a lawsuit ,to prevent the use of this plan in any
future elections. Silva v. Fitch, Civil Action No. SA-76-CA-
126 (W.D. Tex.)..
PAGENO="0099"
973
MALDEF was successful in this litigation. MALDEF was able
to negotiate a plan providing for more minority participation.
Although the first election held under the new plan did not re-
sult many increased minority elected officials, the 1980 gen-
eral elections resulted in the election of two Chicanos to the
county commissioner's court. In addition, another commissioner
precinctwhich contains a substantial number of Chicanos will be
up for election in. 1982. The Mexican American population in
Pearsallexpects to win this seat as well. Consequently, by 1982,
for the first time inhistory, the Frio County Commissioner's
Court maybe governed by a majority of Chicano commissioners.
Section 5 is directly responsible for this increase in minority
representation.
Section .5 also had a significant impact in increasing minor-
ity representation in major metropolitan areas. In San Antonio
and Houston, this increase in minority representatives was ac-
complished by letters of Objecti~i to, the cities'::annexatjons. The
annexations in. San Antonio were massive and resulted in increas-
ing the Anglo ~population, thereby minimizing the Impact of Chi-
`cano voting strength in ~n at-large election scheme. ~When these
annexations were Cubmitted for preclearance the U.S. Attorney
General issued a letter of objection because of the discrimina-
tory effect of~these annexations in minority voting strength.
SeeCommission S~4~ at 180-190. Asa condition of withdrawing
the letter of objection, the city adopted a districting plan
consisting of ten single member districts and one at-large seat.
Prior to the redistricting plan, there were only two Mexican
PAGENO="0100"
974
Americans on the city council. With the 1977 election under the
10-1 plan, five Chicanos were elected. This in~eased Hispanic
representation resulted in more minority appointments as city
commissioners, and in the redistribution of city revenue and ser-
vices. Id.
A similar transformation occurred in Houston. As with San
Antonio, Houston submitted their annexations for Section 5 pre-
clearance. The Attorney General objected. .Se.e Attacbment No.
28. The result was the implementation of a districting scheme.
The plan ultimately approved by the Attorney General consisted
of 9 single member districts and 5 at-large seats~ Prior to the
implementation of the districting plan, only one Black and no
Chicanos had ever served on the eight person city council. After
the implementation of the districting plan, minority represen-
tation increased. There is now one Chicano and 3 Blacks serving
on the City Council.
Section 5 was also responsible for requiring the modifica-
tion of a redistricting plan which discriminated against the
Black and Mexican American communities in Dallas. The redistrict-
ing plan was the result of a suit challenging the at-large elec-
tion feature used to select members to the Dallas City Council.
Wise v. Lipscomb, 98 S. Ct. 2493 (1978). To replace the at-large
elections scheme, Dallas proposed a.plan consisting of eight sin-
gle member districts and three at- large seats. Dallas sought
judicial preclearance of the plan in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. Dallas v. U.S., Civ. Act.
No. 78-1666 (D.C. Dist. Colum.). MALDEF and Blacks inter-
vened in the lawsuit opposing preclearance of the 8-3 plan. Both
PAGENO="0101"
975
of the intervenors desired a straight single member district
plan. Although a straight single member district plan was not
adopted, the intervenors were able to require the city to modi-
fy the 8-3 plan in order to permit the election of at least
three minority council members. As a result of these efforts
there is now one Chicano and two Blacks on the city council.
Insummary, Section 5-was directlyresponsible for securing
minority representation in the three largest cities in
Texas. The increase in minority representation was substantial.
Also in rural areas, such as Frio County, Section 5 is in-
creasing minority representation at local governmental levels.
E. Terrell County, and the City of Lockhart:
Reluctance to Submit
MALDEF has also been involved in litigation seeking to re-
quire political subdivisions to comply with the preclearance pro-
visions. Terrell County and the -City of Lockhart are good ex-
amples demonstrating the reluctance of political subdivisions in
Texas to comply with Section 5. According to the 1980 Census,
Terrell County has a population of 1,595 persons of whiôh 43.3%
are Mexican Americans. Despite this overwhelming number of Chi-
canos, not a single Chicano has -ever been elected to the county com-
missioner's court. This lack of representation was due to the
substantial population deviation existing among the four-county
commissioner precincts. This violation of the one-person one-
vote principle operated to the detriment of the Mexican American
* population. Since the redistricting was enacted in 1973, the
County had-to submit the redistricting plan for preclearance.
PAGENO="0102"
976
MALDEF first notified the county in 1976 of the necessity to
preclear the redistricting plan. However, the county ignored
our requests. Consequently, MALDEF instituted a lawsuit seeking
to require submission of the redistricting plan for preclearance.
Escarnilla V. Staveley, No. DR-78-CA-23. (W.D. Tex.).
As a result of this lawsuit, the county finally submitted
the redistricting tlan for Section 5 approval. MALDEF submitted
comments on the plan urging the Department of Justice to issue
a letter of objection. The comment focused on the discriminatory
effect of the redistricting plan. The plan minimized the impact
of minority voting strength in a secondary minority district..
See Attachment No. 29.
The Attorney General issued a letter of objection. See
Attachment No. 30. The District Court prevented the county from
implementing the 1973 redistricting plan in the 1978 elections.
As a result of this order, Terrell County decided to negotiate
a new plan. The negotiated plan provides for a significant Chi-
cano district as well as a strong secondary district.
In the City of Lockhart, Caldwell County, MALDEF also had
to institute a lawsuit to require the political entity to submit
their adoption of a Home Rule Charter for Section 5 preclearance.
The City of Lockhart, according to the 1980 Census has 7,953
persons of which 56.1% or 4,458 are Chicanos and 10.9% or 869
are Black. Despite this combined minority percentage of 67.0%,
there is only one minority on the City Council. This paucity
of minority representation is due to the at-large by-place elec-
PAGENO="0103"
977
tion scheme. This~ city. adopted this system of government when
the city opted for a. Home Rule Charter. The City refused to sub-
mit the Home Rule Charter for preclearance MALDEF filed a law-
suit seeking an Order requiring the City to submit the pertinent
election changes. for preclearance. .Cano v. Chesser., Civ. Act.
No. A-79-CA-O032. MALDEF. succeeded.
The City submitted the Charter for preclearance. MALDEF
urged the"Attorney General to issue a letter ofobjection. The
Attorney General agreed with.our conmients and issued.a letter of
objection on September 14, 1979. See Attachment 31. Instead of
agreeing to.. implement. a .fairly drawn single member districting
..plan, the City. decided to seek judicial preclearance in Washing-
ton, D.C. City of Lockhart v. U.S., Civ. Act. No. 80-0364
* (D.C. Dist. Coluin.). MALDEF intervened, in the lawsuit. MALDEF
Dresented extensive .evidence documenting the discriminatory in-
pact of the Home Rule Charter. See Attachment No. 32. A decislàn
is awaited.
Both of these cases illustrate the recalcitrance of covered
jurisdictions, in Texas to even miniminally comply with the sub-
mission requirements of the Act. Private enforcement will conti-
nue to be necessary to effectively monitor compliance with the
Section 5 preclearance provisions.
F. Jim Wells County, City .of Pecos, City of
Seguin, and Frio County: Necessity for
Continued"Section 5..Nonitoring
There is a continuing need to have Section 5 preclearance
in Texas. Without such federal oversight; discriminatory elec-
PAGENO="0104"
978
tion devices would be immediately implemented. This continued
necessity is amply documented by the voting documentation evi-
dent in Jim Wells County, the City of Pecos, the City of Seguin,
and Frio County.
Jim Wells County illustrates how a county continues to dis-
criminate against the Chicano population. According to the 1980
Census Jim Wells County has 36,498 persons of which 67.2~ are
Chicano. Despite this overwhelming percentage, there has never
been more than one Chicano on the County Commissioner's Court.
Under a fairly drawn redistricting plan .for the County Commission-
er's precinct, Chicanos in Jim Wells County would be entitled to
three Hispanic districts. In 1975, the County redistricted the
commissioners' precincts.
Although Section 5 was in effect in Texas, the county com-
missioner's court ignored the federal government's request to
submit the plan for preclearance. Finally in 1977 the redistrict-
ing plan for 1975 was submitted for Section 5 approval. MALDEF
commented on the discriminatory feature of the proposed plan.
The proposed plan overconcentrated the Chicano population in
Precinct No. 1. See Attachment No. 33, 33a. The Attorney Gen-
eral as a result of MALDEF's comments issued a lette.r of objec-
tion. The redistricting plan not only violated the one-person
one-vote principle, the plan also minimized the impact of the
Mexican American voting strength. Since the county did not pro-
vide all of the information, a letter of objection was not issued
until July 3, 1978. See Attachment No. 34. The county ignored
PAGENO="0105"
979
the letter of objection and planned to conduct their general elec-
tions for 1978. As in previous instances, MALDEF hadto file a
lawsuit to prevent the~itnplementation of the unprecleared plan in
any future.electjon. Arriola v. Harville, Civil Action No. C-78-
87(S.D. Tex.). As aresultof this litigation the 1975 plan was not
implemented in any future elections. The commissioner's court
decided to implement another plan. This plan was submitted tO
the Attorney General for approval. MALDEF Opposed this. plAnas well.
See Attachment No. 35. On February 1, 1980 the Attorney General
issued a second letter of objection against the implementation of
the second plan. See Attachment No. 36: After the issuance of.
this new plan, the Commissioner's Court again attempted to draft
a third plan. In both of these instances, the Chicano community
did not have any input into the plan.whatsoever. The third plan
was submitted to the Attorney General by June 13, 1980. Again,
MALDEF opposed this latest attempt to discriminate against the
Chicano community. See Attachment No. 37. The third plan was
not an improvement over the .1979 redistricting plan. Accordingly,
the Attorney General issued a third letter of objection on August
12, 1980. According to the letter, the third plan continued to
dilute the voting strength of the minority population. The letter
also referred to the absence of any significant input from the
affected minority group. See Attachment No. 38.
In summary, there are three letters of objection issued
against the Jim Wells County Commissioner's Court. As a result
of litigation, no elections have been held since 1976. The Jim
PAGENO="0106"
980
Wells County Commissioner's Court has decided not to submit any
additional plans; consequently, there have been no elections. Jim
Wells offers a very clear example of a County Commissioner's Court
refusing to include the Mexican American population in their com-
munity deliberations on a proposed redistricting plan. In addition,
this, case history documents the efforts of the ootmnissioner' s court
to purposely exclude and minimize Mexican American voter participation.
Without the Voting Rights Act, the county commissioner' s court would
have been able to implement their first discriminatory election plan.
The City of Pecos, Reeves County, is another example do- V
cumenting a political subdivision's intent to adopt a discritaina-
tory election change once the Voting Rights Act is no longer in
effect. The City of Pecos according to the 1980 Census has 12,855
persons of which 61.87. or 7,939 are Hispanic. On May 22, 1975, V
the City Council adopted a numbered place system for the election V
of city councilmembers. Since there is racially polarized voting V
in local elections, V the Attorney General on March 23, 1976, issued V
a letter of objection against the implementation of the numbered
places. V The numbered place system was not implemented in the 1.976
or 1977 elections. V
V On March 31, 1977 a United States District Court in Alabama
ruled that municipalities were not subject to Section 5 of the V
Voting Rights Act. U.S. v. Bd. of Com'rs. of Sheffield, Ala~, 430
F. Supp. 786 (N.D. Ala. 1977). On May 12, 1977, the Mayor of Pecos
disregarded the previous letter of objection and assigned numbered
PAGENO="0107"
981
places to the various council members based upon the District
Court decision in Sheffield. The City Council did not wait until
the Supreme Court considered the case. Instead, the City Council
took advantage of the first opportunity to implement an election
change which was found to be objectionable by the Attorney General.
MALDEF instituted a lawsuit to prevent the implementation of the
objectionable election change in the April 1978 municipal elections.
Perea v. Pigman, Civ. Act. No. P-77-CA-23 (W.D. Tex.). The city
council rescinded the designation of the numbered places. Clearly,
if past experience is any guide, the City of Pecos will implement
the numbered place system as soon as the Act expires. Consequent-
ly, thedeterrent effect of Section 5 is needed in Pecos to prevent
the implementation of discriminatory election changes.
The City of Seguin, Texas is an example demonstrating the
continued need for the exclusive review provided by Section 5.
This exclusive review prohibits local federal district courts from
ruling on the constitutionality of a proposedredistricting plan
prior to Section 5 review. See McDaniel v. Sanchez, No. 80-180
(June 1, 1981) at n. 31.
1/
1/
1/
1/
I-
/I
II
PAGENO="0108"
982
* The City of Seguin, Texas is governed by a city council
consisting of a mayor and eight council members. The City Charter
empowers the city council to divide the city into four wards with
two council members elected from each city ward for a two year
term. On even-numbered years, the Mayor and one council member
from each ward is elected; on odd-numbered years, the other council
members from each ward are elected.
According to the 1980 census, the City of Seguin has
* approximately 17,854 persons, of which 7664 or 43.07. are Mexican
American and 2255 or 12.77, are Black for a combined minority
percentage of 55.77,. Although the minority population constitutes
over half of the city's population, there have been at most only
two minorities sitting on the city council at any given time.
Minorities contended that the malapportionment. of the city ward
system in existence since January 2, 1962, cctitributed to this minority underrep-
resentation by overccncentratiug the minority populathzi in Ward I ~ich was tl~
nost over-populated ward. To pxe~t tha ccntintEd iiplarentaticzi of a eml~porti~d
redistricting plan for the 1978 municipal elections, MA.LDEF
instituted a one-person one-vote challenge. Ra~os v. Koe~g,
Civ. Act No. SA-78-CA-.55 (W. D. Tex.).
Since the City of Seguin did not contest the tnalapportioriment,
the trial held on April 3, 1979, was limited to the adoption of
a redistricting plan which would replace the previously unconstitu-.
tional plan.
PAGENO="0109"
983
At the trial, the City of. Seguin presented their
plan. The.~racial and ethnic characteristics for each
under the City's plan were as follows:
Mexican
Ward American % _____ _____ ______
.1 65.2
2 34.8
3 30.5
4 29.4
In sharp contrast, `the redistricting plan submittedby the
minority community eliminated the overconcentration of minorities
in Ward 1. The ethnic and racial characteristics of the proposed
plan were as follows: . .
Mexican Total
* Ward American% `Black Mit.' . Anglo~
1 51.4 29.1 80.5 19.5
2 55.1 * 15.0. 70.1 * 29.9
3 36.8 * * 12.7 49.5 50.5
* 4 16.9 * 2.9 19.8 80.2
Minority representatives favored .this plan and disapproved
of the City's proposed plan. The City's plan.limited minority
representation to 2 members on the `city council, by continuing
theover-ôoncentratjon'of minorities in Ward 1. The City's
proposed plan discriminated against the Mexican American population
due to the presence of racially' polarized voting which minimized
the impact of the minority vote in Ward Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Recent
B1ack~
25. i
13.3
7.4
12.7
redistricting
of the wards
An~glo ~
9.7
51.9
.62.1
57.9
Total
Mm. ~
* 90.3
48.1
37.9
42.1
PAGENO="0110"
984.
elections in Seguin under the City's plan have resulted in the
election of only 2 minorities from Ward I. Under the MALDEF plan,
an additional two minorities could get elected from Ward 2.
The necessity for representatives responsive to the needs
of the minority community was made evident in testimony. Accord-
ing to this testimony, less road maintenance is performed in the
minority community, there is no curbing in the minority areas,
the drainage is better in the Anglo parts of Seguin, no minori-
ties are employed in high positions, there are insufficient mi-
nority aopointments to city commissioners, and there are no bi-
lingual oral assistants in municipal elections as required under
the Voting Rights Act, 41 Fed. Regis. 29998, 30001.
After evaluating the evidence presented, the District Court
adopted the City's plan. The plan, according to the Court's
findings was not the product of a racial gerrymander, did not
deprive minorities of fair access to the political process and
did not dilute the voting strength of any minority group.
The Rainos decision was appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Since the City of Seguin did
not intend to submit the plan adopted by the District Court in
Ramos for federal preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the Vot-
ing Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, MALDEF filed an action to re-
quire preclearance. Trinidad v. Koebig, Civ. Act. No. SA-79-CA-
179 (W.D. Tex.). The District Court in Trinidad dismissed the
complaint because the plan was exempt from Section 5 preclearance.
On appeal, the Trinidad and Ramos deicions were reversed. Tri-
nidad v. Koebi~g, 638 F.2d 846 (5th Cir. 1981); Ramos v. Koebig,
638 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1981.). The city's redistricting plan has
PAGENO="0111"
985
to be precleared.
The Citydoes not intendto submit the 1979 redistricting
plan because~a.new plan will be formulated based upon the 1980
Census. In the meantime, however,, the discriminatory effects
of the pfan are still present. Only two Hispanics serve on the
city council. This minority representation can only be remedi~d
by Section 5 review. The `District Court in Ramos certainly did
not remedy this' minority underrepresentation. Since Section 5
has stricter standards to protect minority voting strength, the
minority overconcentration in Ward I under the~City plan would
not have been approved.
The deterrent effect of Section 5 was recently evident in
Frio County.' A Mexican American candidate filed for county tax
assessor and collector in the May, 1980 Democratic Party prima-
ries. The Mexican American candidate won the election. After
this success, the county sought to transfer the critical voter
registration functions of the county-tax assessor's office to
the county clerk's office. The local Mexican American com-
munity voiced strong opposition to.this.transfer. Members of the
minority community informed the commissioner's court that they
would file a lawsuit to require preclearance of this transfer of
election duties. The `County subsequently. decided not to under-
take the transfer. Section 5 deterred ..the county. from adopting
this discriminatorily motivated transfer of election duties.
39/ Such a transfer is authorizedby Art. 5.09b,Texas Election Code.
PAGENO="0112"
986
C. Congressional, State Senatorial, and
State Legislative Districts: Necessity
for Continued Section 5 Review
Section 5 review is needed to curb the discriminatory ac-
tions of the Te~as State Legislature in their redistricting ef-
forts. Both the 1960 and 1970 reapportiotunents were challenged
in bath state and federal courts. The present redistricting
efforts will prove to be no different. The Texas'State Legis-
lature has adopted redistricting plans for the state, senatorial
seats and the 150 legislative seats. The Congressional plan has
yet to be adopted. The Congressional districts will be formu-
lated in a special session of the legislature,yet to be called
by the Governor.
To assist the House and `Senate committees in their redis-
tricting efforts, MALDEF, Texas R~iral Legal Aid, and S.W.V.R.P.
presented alternative plans which did not discriminate against
Mexican Americans. With respect to existing legislative dis-
tricts, according to data provided by the Lt. Governor's 0ffice,~
there are 16 districts containing more than sixty-five percent
Hispanic population.
The minority group organization plans have seventeen dis-
tricts containing six.ty-five percent or over Hispanic popula-'
40/ Steve Bickerstaff, Reapportionment by State and Local
Governments: A guide for the 1980's, (March 31, 1981) at 34-44.
41/ Dist. Nos. 48A, 49, 50, 51, 57, 57B, 571 573, 57K, 58,
59A, 3~B, 70, 72C, 72D, 87.
PAGENO="0113"
987
tion. However, the most important factor to note is that
these proposed plans maintain, and in some instance increase
minority representation on a regional basis.
In Bexar County, under the existing plan, there are six
minority representatives. Under the proposed house districts,
this minority representation is maintained. Proposed Districts
57K, 57J, 571, 57E and 57B all contain at least a 657. minority
population. As a result of population shifts and minority dis-
tribution, the minority population for District 57A was fixed at
54.247.. This is a slight decrease from the existing 1980 mi-
nority population estimate.
In Nueces County, under the existing plan, there are two
minority representatives. These two minority districts are main-
tained under the proposed plan. Proposed District Nos. 48A and
48B contain a 66.387, and 63.347. Hispanic population respectively.
With respect to the valley districts, Hispanic representation
is maintained in District Nos. 49 (69.19% Hispanic population),
and 59B(83.977, Hispanic population). In addition, the minority
voting strength is preserved in other districts: 58 (74.437.
Hispanic population), 57 (92.157, Hispanic population), 51 (73.297.
Hispanic population). Most importantly, however, two new His-
panic districts are created as a result of the population in-
creases: Maverick County and surrounding area (73.227. Hispanic
population); Hidalgo County (76.47% Hispanic population).
42/ Dist. Nos. 48A, 58, 57, (Maverick County new), 49, 50,
51, 5~, 59B, 59C, 57B, 571, 573, 57K, 72B, 72C, 72D.
83-679 0 - 82 - 8 Pt.2
PAGENO="0114"
988
In El Paso County, there are three minority districts under
the existing plan. Under the proposed plan, these three minor-
ity districts.~are maintained: District 72B (69.757. Hispanic
population), 72C (84.437. Hispanic population), and 72D (85.487.
Hispanic population). There ~are two minority representatives
under the existing plan. Under the proposed plan there would
be at leasttwa minority districts. In Harris County, the
existing minority, representative is maintained under the proposed
plan:. District 87 (58.27, Hispanic population). Inaddition, a
new Hispanic district is created with at least a 597. Hispanic
population. Withrespect.totheHiSpanic voting strength in
Lubbock and Travis Counties, under the proposed plans, this mi-
nority voting.strength is Dreserved.: District 75B (34.097. His-
panic population), 37A (39.67. Hispanic.population).
With respect to the congressional districts, the organiza-
tions proposed the following:
Spanish
Dist. No. Tot. Pop. Black Origin 7.'
15 526,803 1,270 .24 423,314 80.36
15A 526,891 14,904 2.83 318,783 60.50
16 527,008 18,640 3.54 324,356 61.55
20 527,004 44,978 8.53 358,103 67.95
23 528,288 27,301 3.27 240,545 45.53
According to data provided by the Lt. Governor's Office,
there are four congressional districts containing more than
43/ In addition, the proposed plan creates a new minority
distrT~t in the "trans-Pecos" area consisting of a 59.447, combined
minority population.
PAGENO="0115"
989
fifty percent Hispanic population. The ethnic composition for
each district as well as the M&LDEF proposed districts are as
follows:
Dist. Existing Districts MALDEF's District
15 77.37. :80.36%
16 56.57.. 61.557.
20. 67.87. 67.957.
23 53.1% . 45.537.
15A . 60.50%
In each instance there is an increase in minority voting
strength. With respect to District 15, the Hispanic percentage
increases even though the District must lose population. The in-
crease in District 16 is due to an increase in the Hispanic po-
pulation in El Paso County and also to including counties such
as Brewster, Presidio, and Pecos, instead of Ward, Winkler, Lov-
ing, and part of Ector County. District 20 remains for all prac-
tical purposes the same. District 23 is changed to include the
counties in South Texas. This modified District results in an
increase in Hispanic population. Clearly these four primary dis-
tricts do not violate the retrogression principle stated in Beer
v. U.s.., 425 U.S. 130 (1976).
There was only one existing congressional district which
approached a 40.0% Hispanic population. District 14 contains a
39.07. Hispanic population. Under the proposed District 23, the
* minority percentage increases to 45.537.. Thus, even this secon-
dary district satisfies the retrogression principle.
PAGENO="0116"
990
Efforts were undertaken to create districts with at least
657~ Hispanic population. iiowever, due to the Chicano population's
geographical distribution, only two districts in the NALDEF plan
contain over ~a 657~ Hispanic concentration (District 15, 20).
In simsnary, these proposed congressional districts would
prevent any reduction in current voting strengths. By increasing
the levels of~Hispanic voting strength in all five congressional
districts, the Beer retrogression principle is satisfied.
The proposed senatorial districts.also serve to provide Chi-
canos with an opportunity for greater access to ~the political pro-
cess. According to the proposed plan there are five senatorial
districts containing over a fifty percent Hispanic population.
The proposed districts are as follows:
Spanish
Dist. No. Tot. Pop. Black Origin 7~
20 461,097 15,490 3.36 244,445 53.01
21 457,974 3,976 : .87 310,403 67.78
26 463,877 14,292 3.08 323,180 69.67
27 456,043 1,243 .27 360,657 79.08
29 456,519 13,639 2.99 272,416 59.67
The ethnic compositd~on of the existing plan and the pro-
posed senatorial districts are as follows:
44/ Other plans will be presented to the special legisla-
tive session which improves this proposed plan.
PAGENO="0117"
991
Existing M~LDEF
Dist. No. District District
20 49.8% 53.01%
21 52.7 67.78.
26 56.0 69.67
27 78.8 79.08
29 . 61.9 59.67
With the exception of District 29, there is an increase in
minority voting strength. The minority percentage in Di~strict
20 increases because of the additions of neighboring predominant-
ly Chicano counties. These counties have to be surrendered by.
District 27 because of its overpopulation. The District 21 mi-
nority percentage increases because of the inclusion of counties
such as Val Verde, TJval4e and by the percentage increase of Chi-
canos in the included counties. The cumulative impact is to
create a district with a significant minority voting strength.
The Chicano percentage in District 26 also dramatically increases
when the. predominantly suburban Anglo areas outside Interstate
410 are separated from the urban areas within San Antonio. All
of District 26 is contained within the confines of Interstate
410. District No. 27 increases slightly as a result of Hispanic
population increases.. In summary, these five senatorial districts
do not result in a retrogression of Hispanic voting strength.
Although these proposed congressional, senatorial, and le-
gislative seats would have preserved existing minority seats, the
legislature chose not to adopt them. Their failure to incorporate
the proposed districts clearly suggests that preserving minority
PAGENO="0118"
992
voting strength will not be a priority for the Legislature. Such
indifference clearly demonstrates the continued need for maintain-
ing the Section 5 preclearance provisions in Texas.
H. Summary
This extensive ocumentation clearly justifies the continued
need for federal monitoring The examples of Jim Wells County,
City of Pecos, Frio County, Seguin, and Medina County amply
demonstrate the present discriminatory actions of political sub-
divisions. Without Section 5, our only remedy would be a constitu-
tional challenge or a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. As a result of Mobile .v. Bolden such an approach is
clearly unfeasible. The evidentiary hurdles imposed by a require-.
.ment of establishing a discriminatory intent will in many instances
be insurmountable.
As an example, a constitutional challenge in Jim Wells
County to the three redistricting plans would have been unfeasi-
ble. Determining the discriminatory intent in adopting the three
plans could only be directly ascertained by the commissioner's
court. Yet as:noted by theFifth Circuit Court of Appeals in
v. Buxton , 639 F.2d 1358, 1363, n. 8 (5th Cir. 1981), such
an evidentiary inquiry would be unsuccessfu):
"We think it can be stated unequivocably that,
assuming an electoral system is being maintain-
ed for the purpose of restricting minority ac-
cess thereto1 there will be no memorandum be-
tween the Defendants, or legislative history,
in which it is said, "We've got a good'thing
going with this system; let's keep it this way
so those Blacks won't get to participate."
Even those who might otherwise be inclined to
create such documentationhave~become sufficient-
ly- sensitive to~ the operation of our judicial
PAGENO="0119"
993
system that they would not do so. Quite simply,
there will be no `smoking gun. "
The Jim Wells County Commissioner's Court could always offer pre-
textual alternative justifications for adopting each of the three
redistricting plans. Under a constitutional approach such plans
would be approved even though the plans would have a clear dis-
critninatory effect. For these same reasons, Congress enacted
Section 5 to provide a more effective tool than the time and re-
source consuming process of a case-by-case approach. Section 5
is needed in Texas. Without Section 5, the significant advances
made within the last six years will be eliminated the moment the
Act expires.
III. The Necessity to Amend Section 2
Although Section 5 has been a powerful litigation tool in
Texas, Section 5 only covers changes in the law affecting voting
which have been implemented after November 1, 1972. Pre-existing
election changes and electoral schemes must be challenged by a
constitutional lawsuit. Beeville, Texas is a good illustration
of the necessity to amend Section 2 of the Act to provide a more
rigorous statutory protection for minorities. According to the
1980 Census, Beeville had a population of 14,574 of which over
56.87~ was Mexican American. The City of Beeville is governed by
a city council consisting of a Mayor~and four city council members.
*Prior to 1973, the City Council was elected pursuant to an at-large
election scheme. Utilizing single-shot voting, the Mexican Aster-
ican community was able to secure some. representation on the city
council.
PAGENO="0120"
994
In 1973, the city council adopted a modified redistricting
plan. Pursuant to this redistricting plan, Mexican American
participation on the city council was limited to 2 out of the' 5
city council members. After the Voting Rights Act was passed,
efforts were made to require the city to submit the redistricting
plan for Section 5 approval. The city refused to submit. Conse-
quently, MALDEF instituted a lawsuit to seek compliance with the
Voting Rights Act. Gomez v. Galloway, No. 76-C-146
(S.D. Tex.),
The lawsuit resulted in an order requiring the city council
to submit the election change for Section 5 preclearance. The
Department of Justice, after reviewing comments submitted by va-
rious community groups, issued a letter of objection.
This letter of objection prevented the city council from its-'
plementing the redistricting plan in future elections. The city
council had the option of either changing the district boundaries
to permit more equitable representation on the city council or to return
to the at-large election scheme. Instead of opting for a less
discriminatory election system, the city council voted to implement
`the at-largeelection scheme over the objection of the two minor-
ity city council members. In the following election all of the
5 city council members were up for election. The Anglo incumbents
and an additional Anglo all filed for office. No other Anglos
filed for office. Consequently, there were only 4 Anglos running
for office for five positions. They purposefully left one posi-
tion vacant so that at least one minority would be elected. This
action was taken in order to offset any claim that the at-large
PAGENO="0121"
995
election scheme had a discriminatory effect.
Minorities in Beeville can only challenge the at-large elec-
tion scheme by a constitutional attack or a challenge premised
upon Section 2. The constitutional standard will be difficult to
meet under City of Mobile. Only by amending Section 2 to incor-
porate a result evidentiary test will'minorities have a reason-
able opportunity of effectively challenging the maintenance of
at-large election schemes whose adoption pre-dates the November 11,
1972 preclearance deadline.
PAGENO="0122"
996
IV. The~Bilingual Election Process
Should be Continued
1~.WEF .si~ports the ixrpl~ne~itation of the bilingual election
* process mandated-by the Voting Rights Act. *. Under the Voting
* Rights Act, a bilingual election process is-required in covered
4W
* political subdivisiors~ The Act requires political subdivisions
to print bilingual ballots and to provide ~oral assistanc~ during
the registration and election processes. These requirements
have generated much criticism at the continued iu~lementatibn
* of these bilingual .election provisions. This criticism is un-
founded and provides a convenient scapegoat for ignoring the
necessity for making the political system more responsive to
the needs - of the Hispanic community. A non.~English speakIng
linguistic minority cannot be expected to participate in an
electoral process conducted in language they cannot' undei:stand,
A. Necessity for a .Bilingual~~Elsction Process
Currently, there is a large population of .Spanish.-Spe~king
persons who cannot understand English residing in the. United
States. According to. pre-publication.advance count~, there
are 8,7851717 persons listed *as Spanish Origin in the. 1980.
1,4/ Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42. U.S.C.
§l973~b(f) (4) a' bilingual, election process is required in
the states of Texas -and Arizona,. El Paso County, Colorado,
and four counties in California. ~A.bilingual election pro-
-- cess is required for other selected political, subdivisions
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1973 aa-la(b). * This latter provision
appUes to most of,..the Southwest. For a complete listing of
the political subdivisions covered under the Act see 42 Fed.
Reg. 1998, 30001.-30003, NO. 140 (July 20, 1976). -
PAGENO="0123"
997
census for the Southwest.'~ The final figures concerning
the number of persons who speak a language other than English
461
will not be available until sometime in 1982. However, in
l970.there.were 5,662,700 persons in-the, five Southwestern states
- *471
who were "of Spanish language."~
Hispanics have long suffered the consequences of not under-
standing the English language .` One immediate consequence `is the
failure to acquire any meaningful education The functional
illiteracy of Mexican Americans in the Southwest is due
to the lack of an educational system which provides instruction
in a language a non-Engligh speaking student can understand.
- 45/ The individual populations for each state- are `as
follows: . .
State Total P9p_ Sanish 0rig~ `1
Arizona 2,717,866 440,915 - 16.2
California 23,668,562 4,543,770 19.2
Colorado .2,888,834 .., . 339,300 .11.8
New Mexico :`, *l,299;968 - :476,089 . " - ` *` 36.6
Texas 14,228,383 2,985,643 " 21.0
Advance Counts, PHC 80-5, Proof Copies, U.S.,~Bur. of Census.
For the United States, there are 14,605,883 persons of Spanish
Origin, U.S. Dept. Commerce News, Wash., D.C. Feb. 23, 1981, p. 1.
4W The information will be taken from Census Question
No. lTo'f the long form. The information will be compiled in
Summary Tape File No. 3.
47/ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970
Gener~T Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC (1)-
C6 California, Texas, New Mexico. Arizona, Colorado. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ,. 1972.
48/ Extension of the Voting Rights Act: Hearings on H.R.
939, ~T48, 3247, 2501 Before the Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 846, n. 18 (1975)
(`~bre than a quarter of Mexican Americans (16 . 57~) over the age
of 25 have completed less than five years of School." [1974])
(hereinafter Hearings).
PAGENO="0124"
998
The pernicious effects of this educational system have been
extensively doctmanted by the U.S. Coission on Civil Rights.~
Recently,. a. federal `court- docunented this language and ethnic
ciiscrimitiation: . *- - .. -* ..* . . -. .
The tragic legacy.. of discrimination will not be
* swept away in the course of -a day. or a week or
* *.. a single school year. But these ~ldren dese~,
at the very least, an opportunity to achieve a
productive and fu1f~,fling place in American
society. Unless they receive instruction in a
language they can understand pending the timeS
when they are able to make the transition to
all English classrooms, hundreds of thousands
of Mexican American children in Texas. will re-
main educationally crippled for life, denied
the equal opportunity which most Americans
take for granted. These children have waited
long enough to reap the benefits of an --adequate
education. The more quickly the ethnic injus-
ticies of the past can be overcome, the sooner
this nation can- face, as one people, the challenges
of the future. ~ç~I -.
Similar denials. of an equal educational opportunity. exist
elsewhere. .5.1/ . -
Another consequence of not understanding English is de-
creased participation -in the political process. * Congress, -in
extending the Voting Rights Act in 1975 rec~ognized this correlation
-- betwee~ educational achievement -and participation in the-political
process in the congressional findings of voting discrimination
against -language minorities. 42 U.S.C. 51973b(f)(I). Presently
fj~I U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mexican American -
Education study, Vol. 1-VI.
54' U.S. v. Texas (Bilingual Education), -No. 5281 CE .D.
Tex; Jan.. 9, 1981) at p. 66-67.
51/ See, e.-g., Comite delos Padres v. Riles, No. 281824
* (Cal. Superior~~~ iaamento~Complaint filed).
PAGENO="0125"
999
language minorities have been denied equal educational oppor-
tunities resulting in severe disabilities and continued illi-
teracy in the English language. Thus, a substantial nunber of
non-English Speaking eligible* voters continu~ to exist;
This non-English Speaking population does not participate
in the political process to `a' deg~ee cbensuràte~wjth thefr
political voting strength. This lack of participation results
in fewer elected officials who will be responsive to the par-
ticularized needs of the Hispanic community. Asprevisusly tnEltioned,
according to the 1980 Census, Hispanics `constitute 21.0% of
the population in Texas. Yet in 1979 only 7.7% of the elected
congres,~oersons were Spanish surnamed. At the state level in
1979, only 12,2% of the'legislators were Spanish surnamed and
in 1980 only 6.99% of the county commissioners were Spanish
surnasied, This low level of representation is attributable in
part. to the failure of Hispanic eligIble voters to participate''
because of their inability to under~tand the English language.
Consequently, to remove this language barrier, `Congress required
a bilingual, election process, . . . `
* ` B. The Act
Civil rights organizations, minority elected offjcjal~
and cOamunityactiyistsrea~,tzéd the necessity for a bilingual
election process, `Various groups and persons testified'in favor
of a bilingual election process when the Act was extended to
the .!outhwest, ~`or example, in 1975 MA~LDEF related findings
by the U,S, Civil Rights Commissjon in Uvalde County, Texas,
PAGENO="0126"
1000
concerning voting discrimination against language minorities.
Minorities encountered election judges refusing to assist
non-English Speaking voters, refusals to appoint Spanish-
Speaking deputy registrars, and selective invalidation of
52/
ballots cast by minority voters.~ Even a former Secretary
of State of Texas -rscognized that~ "the question of language
among Mexican Americans . . . still prevents many from
53/
participating in the political process of this State."
As a result of this; testitnon~, the Actincorporated a bilingual
election process for :selected palitical subdivisions.
The Voting Rights Act bilingual.election provisions are
very straightforward. The Act simply provides that all materials
and assistance shall be provided in Spanish as well as in English.
`42 U.S.C. §l973b(f)(4); 42 U.S.C. §1973 aa-la(c). The purpose
of the law is.~ to assure participation of persons in the
election process who donot understand English. .With respect
to written materials ,~ the covered jurisdiction is not required
to print all documents relating to elections in Spanish. Only
those materials which are distributed to the public will be
* required to be printed in Spanish with a "clear, complete and
accurate" translation. 28 Fed. Rag. §55.19. These documents
52/ Hearings, supra, at 854.
53/ Ibid., p. 804.
PAGENO="0127"
1001
include such items as ballots, sample ballots, informational
materials, petitions. and registration materials. Ballots are
required in covered jurisdictions, to be both in Spanish and
English. Id. A jurisdiction should publicize the availability
of all Spanish materials. if all materials are not prOvided
bilingually, a jurisdiction can target the areas which will
receive bilingual election materials through the mail. This
*targetting method must assure that persons who need election
materials in Spanish will receive them. Some local govern-
inents may send out notices of availability o~ materials in
Spanish to Spanish-surnamed registered voters. Also, all
public notices ~or covered jurisdictions are required to be
in Spanish.
* Another important bilingual election requirement relates
to the use of oral assistants to assist Spanish spe~king persons,
A covered jurisdiction should consider the number o~ S~an~sb~-
surnamed registered voters and the number o~ persons n~t
proficient in English. end appoint an adequate ntui~iie.~ of
assistants. Finally, a bilingual registration process ~s
required. * *
C. ImplemeCtation of the.Bilingual
Election Provisions * -
There has been a bilingual eleCtion process utt]4~zád ~n the
Southwest since 19.75. During this time period, U~spanic voter
registration has increased dramatically. * Registration and voter
participation figures for Hispanics fOr th~ 1976 and l98Q
PAGENO="0128"
Comparison of Latino Voter Turnout
in the U.S. and the 5 Southwestern States
1976
1980
Increase
1002
Presidential electiorts~-~-' are as follows:
Comparison bf Latinci Voter Registration
in the U.S. and the 5 Southwestern States
7~
1976 1980
Increase
United States 2,646,090. 3,426,990
780,810
30.
Arizona 92,500 105,200
12,700
14..
California 715,600 988,131
272,531
38.
Colorado 81,000 114,201
33,201
41.
New Mexico 135,000 170,900
35,900
27.
*
Texas 488,000 798,563
310,563
64.
United States .
1,820,580
2,172,711
352,131
19.
Arizona.
58,300
.
72,588
14,288
25.
California
522,400
643,285
120,885
*
23.
Colorado
60,000
83,366
23,366
39.
New Mexico
97,300
116,212
.
18,912
19.
Texas
278,200
415,253
137,053
49.
Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, the
Latino Vote in the 1980 Presidential Electiop, p.16 (Jan. 1981).
PAGENO="0129"
1003
This increase in voter participation is due to several
factors. ForTexas, the increase is in part:attributable
to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act which
has prevented the implementation of discriminatory election,
changes. As'n~itioried before, the State of Texas sought to implement
a statute which would have purged the voter registration
rolls if the registered voter did not return a form by a
certain date to election'~officials. MALDEF along with other
civil rights organizations and activists urged the United
States Attorney General to issue a letter of objection
preventing the State of Texas from implementing the election
change. The implementation of this statute would have had a
disastrous effect on Hispanic voter registration. The Attorney
`55/
General agreed and issued the letter of óhj'ection.~ Yo~ the
rest of the, Southwest, the'~increase ~ voter registration and
participation has been caused bye .growing.awareness of the
importance of the right to vote by the 1ispan~'cothmunity.
This awareness, is due `to' *moré. Hispanic candidates xiirmtng
for office and more `neigbborheod registration drivás, ` These
`efforts have clearly been assisted. by the ~bilingual elections
process mandated by the Voting Rights"Act.
Research efforts have `documented the `continued neeeasitT
for a' bilingual. elections process. A' 19.76 `study ind~c~ted that
j.. See p. 25, supra.
83-679 0 - 82 - 9 Pt.2
PAGENO="0130"
1004
bilingual election materials have a positive effect in build-
ing confidence and encourages first-time voters to participate
~nthe political system. Recently, another survey in.
Texas determined that in Bexar County 877. of the voters surveyed
found the materials to be helpful, while 76.67. of the voters
in ~ueces.County~surveyed found the materials to be helpful.
Bexar and Nueces County represent two of the largest urban areas.*
in Texas wjth large ?lexican American populations, ~L1
A greater increase in Hispanic voter registration and par-
ticipation would have occurred if election officials would have
implemented the bilingual election provisions and the Department
of Justice would have made efforts to enforce compliance. The
failure of county officials to comply with the bilingual pro-
visions of the Act has been extensively documented by the Fed-
eral Elections Coup~S,ssion.' According to the Report, the area
of registration is the "key to minority voter participation for
non-voting language minority citizens.,,'!;. yet, it "appears to
be the area in which election administrators are the least will-
ing or least able to ~vest effort," With regard to
bilingual as~~stance the re~ort.coi~clud~d that;
56/ Charles Cotrell, Vol. I: A Report on the Participa-
* *tion ~ Mexican Americans, Blacks and Females in ~the Political
Institutions and Processes in. Texas, 1968-1978, Texas Advisory
Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights,.
January, 1980. Appendix E, p. 4..
j~/ Southwest Voter~ Registration and Education Pro 5ect,
San Antonio, Texas, survey conducted for the November, 1980
presidential election.
58/ Provision of Bilingual Registration and Election
Servi~s, Executive Summary by Alan Hudson-Edwards, Carlos
Astiz, David Lopez, presented to the Federal Election Cominis-
sion~ March, 1979, pp. l3~-l4.
PAGENO="0131"
1005
"deployment of bilingual polling place personnel
is all too often atnatter of chance rather than
careful design and that local administrators are
less scrupulous than they~ should be about the un-
* guistic coinpetencies of polling place personnel
whose function it is to provide bilingual oral
* assistance to non-English speaking voters. Until
more care is devoted to systematic and effective
* placement of bilingual precinct board members,
~and untiLthere is a proper insistence upon adequate
qualifications and training tor such personnel
* : - the ,obj ectives of the oraL assistance provisions of
the -Voting Rights Act are not ~iikely to be realized."
* 59/
Despite this noncomoliance and inaction by the-Department
of Justice, there have nevertheless been impressive gains in
Hispanic voter registration and participation. Without these
bilingual election provisions, Hispanic voter registration and
participation~will be ~adversely affected.
D. ~bj ections to the Bilingual El~ction Provisions
`Since the implenientation of the bilingual election pro-
visions, electionofficials and elected..representatiyes"hava'-
challenged the continued `enforcCmerit of these `provisions.
* These criticisms have focused on- several issues, First
opponents argue that bilingual ballots will fosteP a dependence
on. foreign language medta -and create a. separatist~inovesierit
among the Span2.sh-Speak1n~ populati.on Second, opponents argue
that unnecessary expenditures have `occurred bacause .]ii.ltngual
materials have not been used. Pinally, opponents argue that -
a bilingual election process is too costly. *
59/ Ibid., p. 17. *
PAGENO="0132"
1006
The concerns over a possible separatist movement are
exaggerated. The purpose of a bilingual election process
is to facilitate the participation of non-English speaking
persons into an English language political process. These
ron-English speaking persons are citizens and contribute to
the z~ountry' s federal and local tax base. By making the
political process understandable, these persons will be eu-
couraged to become more involved.with local political institu-
tions. Increase4 political participation will not lead to a
separatist movement or the formation of a "Quebec" in the
Southwest. Instead, this. increased participation will increase
the political integration of the Hispanic cónnmmity.
The primary issue raised by this cóncexn over the creation
of a separatist movenieüt is whet'he~ the state sháuld.he ohlt-
~at~d to facilitate this political integration by providing a
bilingual election process. ~iALDE~'s. position ~in this ,~iatter
is clear. The state shc~uld be oEligated to mai~ the political
process more accessi.ble to non-Engl~.sh Speaki.ng persons Thi~s
obligation is even more compelling when a state fails to provide
an educational system which results in non-English. 8pe~king
students being fluent in English. The state, ..by insisting on
an English-only election process, penalizes persons who Can't
speak English. This treatment is unfair especially since the-
states have failed to implement educational progr~axns designed
to teach English. fluency.
PAGENO="0133"
1007
The basic problem is that there is a significant number
of persons who do not understand English. The failure of
these persons to learn English is directly attributable to
a state' s educational system. Consequently, the' solution is
to make the school systems more responsive to the needs of
the Hispanic communities. `Until all citizens `become fluent in
English, the `State should, assure that persons `are not excluded
from the political process merely for ~their failure to speak
English.
A second'objection to. the' bilingual election processis
that bilingual' materials, are not used. "Clearly, if `covered
political subdivisions only make `minimal efforts to comply
with `the bilingual election provisions ~.as documented' by' the
Federal Election Coission.repórt, one can~necessarily expect
little if any participation. by non~English Speaking eligible
voters. Until effective' outreach into the minority communities
is achieved, the possibility of attaining the goals of increased
voter, participation by' language. `minority citizens wIll `be
diminished. ` ` `
A final concern involvei the b~gh `cost of bilingual elections.
Most of the documentation of these'costs `have focused' on bilingual
ballots. Yet the ~documex~tatjon accompanying.~~ these `costs have
not discussed whether the. political subdivision has isolated only
those areas in needof.bilingualelectionmlaterials. Also,
these figues"usually do" not differthtiate the additional expense
caused'by processing bilingual ballots. Consequently, the
PAGENO="0134"
1008
argument of higher costs for bilingual ballots cannot be
supported by the present documentation offered by covered
political subdivisions.
E. Summary
The presence of a large non-English speaking community
cannot be. denied. The key issue is whether the state should
provide equal treatment in the, execution of the electoral
process. Equal treatm5nt in the political access area would
consist of providing an electoral process in the language
understood by designated linguistic minorities. Such treat-
ment would result in increased voter participation and greater
political integration for the Hispanic cOmmunity. Without suck
treatment, Hispanics and other linguistic minorities willcon-
tinue to be excluded and denied access to the polit5~cal process.
V. Conclusion
MALDEF supports the retention of the Voting Rigths Act in
Texas. The Section 5 preclearance provisions are a powerful
tool to protect the voting rights of Mexican Americans. These
provisions are necessary to prevent the implementation, of gerry-
mandered districts and the adoption of other discriminatory
election devices. The bilingual election provisions are needed
to facilitate the political integration of a heretofore ex-
cluded linguistic minority. Without these special protections
officials who have in the past discriminated against Chicanos
will continue to do so in the future.
60/ In testimony presented by Polly Baca Barragan on
May 77l98l, before this subcommittee, for Los Angeles County
the costs of a bilingual election have decreased from $355,000
in the 1976 General Election to $135,200 in the 1980 General
Election.
PAGENO="0135"
1009
J ThJRSDAY AP}tIL 27 1978-THk .~IcpoR'r PILOT PAGE 11 -. -
TO THE VOTERS OF
ARANSAS COW~TY
PRECiNCTS 1 & 1~A
I ~ - I
THE NAME OF LAWRENCE MILLER, candidate
for Justice of the Peace, Precinct I will be on the
Democratic Ballot on May 6th. You are entitled to
vote for him even though he as now deceased.
If Judge Miller receives a majority of the votes
cast, the Aransas County Democratic Committee ~~a1l
convene and select a nommee whose name will be
certified to be placed on the General Election Ballot
for November.
We encourage you to vote for
LAWRENCE MILLER. -
.1
ATTACTiMENT 1 -
P~I t I Ad Paid fo~ by Mis.. Lawienc Miller
PAGENO="0136"
1010
Page 18 - - ATTACHMENT 2 - - - -
The Toad Of Th. Coost Hera!d, Apefi 26, 1978
1~T~EVOTI~L~S OF
A~A~SA5 C©UNTY
P~ECfl'~CT 1 & 1~A
Ef~A~EOF
LAf~Er~cE MIILL~, /
©~dkll~te for ~st~ce o~ the
~ ~ech~ct 1~wm E~e on
to Vote -
`~©~ll~ye~ t o~gll~ ll~e ~snow
~ ~u u'T ~i~tt~V ~ ~ ~
cast~ the,-- a~is~s ~
Democratuc. Corn mgttee:wll~
convene and sellect a nom~e~
whose namGw~llll be certi~
to be pilaced on the t~ene~ll
Ballot fo~ ~llovembe~~
We enco~~rage y~ to
vote for
LAW~~CE~ M~L~
PAGENO="0137"
1011
STATE OF TEXAS j
COUNTY OF BEXAR j
AFFIDAVIT
Before me, on this day personally JOAQUIN G. AVILA who after
*being first duly sworn deposes and says as follows:
1. I am the Associate Counsel for the MexicanAmerican Legal
Defense and Educational Fund. Apart from being the Associate Counsel,
I am also the Director of'Political Access Litigation..
2. As:Director of Political Access Litigation, I am in charge of
monitoring submissions;to the United States Attorney. General pursuant
to Section .5 of the. Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973c. On April 12,
1978, I was in Rocksprings,~ Edwards County, Texas gathering information
for a comment to be submitted to. the Department of Justice regarding
the 1977 reapportionment of the Edwards County Commissioners Court.
Accompanying me* on this trip~.vas Erlinda Walde~n,. our Voting. Rights
paralegal, and Armando Cruz, our workstudy paralegal.
3. As part of our investigation, we directedour attention to
the Rocksprings cemetery. Upon examining the cemetery, we found that
Mexican Americans were buried in separate areas. We could not find
any Mexican Americans who were buried in the Anglo area. In addition,
the Anglo `area was more properly maintained that the Mexican American
area. The difference in upkeep was very noticeable.
4. After examining thecemetery, we sought to contact the owners
of the cemetery. Upon further inquiries in Rocksprings, the name of
Mr. Ivan B. Smart, Sr., was given by a local resident asbeing in
charge of the Rocksprings Cemetery. Association. I contacted Hr. Smart
and spoke to him concerning the cemetery's apparent segregationof
Mexican Americans and Anglos. Mr. Smart became very defensive and
bellig.erent."~ He accused me of stirring up trouble and indicated that
* he had spoken to siut'ilar types of persons from organizations who only
stirred ~p trouble. He finally finished by stating, "If you're here
stir up trouble, you'd better getout of town before sundown." At
ATTACHMENT 3
PAGENO="0138"
1012
that point, Ithanked Mr. Smart for his cooperation and departed.
Although I was not physically intimidated by Mr. Smart's statement
since Mr. Smart appeared to be between the ages of 50 and 60 years,
his demeanor and tone of voice certainly caused me. to fear for my
well being and those of my fellow co-workers. He definitely gave
me the impression that if I persisted in our investigation of dis-
crimination in Rocksprings, we would be assaulted by Mr. Smart and
other persons not specifically mentioned by name.
5. Since our organization will continue to investigate dis-
crimination problems in Rocksprings, I am writing this affidavit for
future reference in the event that a member of our organization
suffers any harassments or bodily injury as a result of our involve-
ment.
Further in this matter affiant sayeth not.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this the 14th day of April,
1978.
ry Public i~'~~I for Bexar County,
Texas .
SYLVLk AUIACUFD S
Notary Pubil,,, ~ezar C'
My Commjssjo0 Expire, June 30,197g
PAGENO="0139"
1013
* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I rrn::.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS I `~
WACO DIVISION j CAN
JANE DERRICK, ET AL. I
VS. - I Civil Action No. * W-74-CA-2
NAROLD MATHIAS, ET AL. I
ERNEST CALDERON, ET AL. I
vs. Civil Action No. W-74-CA-2l1
D. KENNETH McGEE ET AL. I
MEMORANDUM OPIN~N AND ORDER
These cases raise~the question of the constitutionality
vel. non of the methods utilized to elect members of the city. council
(Civil Action No. W-74-CA--2) and the board of trustees of the school
district (Civil Action No. W-74-CA-2l) in the city of Waco, Texas.
Plaintiffs are black and Mexican-American residents of the City
of Waco and the-Waco Independent~School District (WISD). Plaintiffs
allege that black and Mexican-American residents of the City of
Waco ~and WISD~have been denied meaningful access to the process
of electing city council~members and school board members, and that
their votes as~blacks- and Mexican-Americans, are impermismibly
diluted under the existing methods of election. The Court heretofore
ordered these cases to beconsolidated and:jointly tried, pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). Having now heard and considered all
testimony, evidence and argument presented at trial by the parties,
the Court now enters thisMemorandum Opinion and Order constituting
its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Court finds the PlaintFffs*in both these cases have
* alleged "such a~ pers&sal stake in the outcome Of the controversy"
as to confer standing, Baker v. Carr,' 369 t1:S. 186, 204 (1962),
and that~a justiciable controversy is presented. Ed. These cases
are governed by the standards enunciated by the United States Supreme
Court in such leading cases as White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)
* * ATTACHHENT 4
PAGENO="0140"
1014
and Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971), and by the Fifth Circuit
Court of appeals in such cases as Wallace v. House, 515 F.2d 619
(5th Cit. 1975); Perry v. City of Opelousas, 515 F.2d 639 (5th Cir. 1975);
Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 508 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir. 1975);
Turner v. HcKeithen, 490 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1973); and Zim.'nerv.
McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973). To warrant a finding
that the present methods of election violate their constitutionally
protected interests under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment Plaintiffs must prove
that mu-ltirsember districts are being used.
invidiously to cancel out or minimize the voting
strength of racial groups. . . . To sustain such
claims, it is not enough that the racial group
allegedly discriminated against has not had
legislative seats in proportion to its voting
potential. The plaintiffs' burden is to produce
evidence to support findings that the political
processes leading to nomination and election
were not equally open to participation by the
group in question -- that its members had less
opportunity than did other residents in the
district to participate in the political processes
and to elect legislators of their choice.
White v. Regester, ~ at 765-66. With these principles in-- -
mind, we turn to the merits of the claims asserted.
I. THE CITY COUNCIL
The City of Waco is governed under a `council-manager'
form of government whereby voters of the city elect six members
of the city council who serve, without compensation, for two year
terms. Each member of the council is elected on an at-large basis,
by place, to represent one of the city's six wards (East, Northeast,
North Central, Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast). The council
member must reside-in the ward he is elected to represent but, as
previously noted, is elected by voters of the city as a whole.
Members are elected by receiving a pluriality of the votes in
their respective races. The six elected council members choose
the mayor from among their ranks and appoint the city manager, who
is charged with actual administrative supervision of the city's
business. - -
PAGENO="0141"
1015
According.to 1970 census figures the City of Waco is
populated by 95,326 inhabitants, of whom 19.9% are black and 8.5%
are Mexican-American. The black population of Waco is heavily
concentrated in the East Ward, where 11,947 of the.city's 18,955
black residents live. Blacks constitute 77.8% of the population
of the East Ward. Blacks are also concentrated in substantial
numbers in the Northeast Ward (18.5% of the ward's population)
and Southeast Ward (17.2% of the ward's population). Mexican-
Americans are most heavily concentrated in the Southeast Ward,
where they number 4228 (19.5% of the ward's population). A sub-
stantial portion of the Mexican-American population also resides
in the-Northeast Ward (1715 Mexican-American, 11.5% of the ward's
population), with the remainder of the Mexican-Americans in
Waco rather evenly distributedamong the remaining four wards.
During the entire electoral history of Waco only
two blacks have ever been elected to the city council. In 1966
Dr. *G. H.. Radford became the first black person ever elected to
the Waco City Council. Dr. Radford was re-elected in 1968 with-
out opposition, and was again elected in 1970 against a black
candidate by the name of Thurman Dorsey and Tucker Watson, a white
condidate.. In 1972 Dr. Radford did not run for re-election, and
was succeeded by Oscar DuConge, the second black ever to serve
on the Waco City Council. DuConge won election decisively, de-
feating a white opponent, and was re-elected without an opponent
in 1974. * Indeed, DuConge was elected mayor by his fellow council
members in 1974 and served one year in that position.
While black citizens of Waco were thus achieving some
- limited success in their efforts to;gain meaningful access to the
political processes of their community,. however, Mexican-American
residents of Waco achieved no such rewards. No Mexican-American
has yet been elected to the Waco. CitX Council. The first Mexican-
American tomake sucha race was Domingo Capetillo. In 1970
Capetillo entered the race to represent the old Southwest Ward on the
PAGENO="0142"
1016
council, running against two Anglo opponents. Although Capetillo
carried the Southwest Ward he lost the election. A similar situation
resulted in the two subsequent races by a Mexican-American
candidate. In 1972 Vidal DeLeon challenged the white incumbent
councilman for the Southwest Ward. Although he carried the ward,
DeLeon narrowly lost the election. In 1973 DeLeon ran again,
this time from the redistricted Southeast Ward. DeLeon again
carried his ward but lost the election.
Reviewing the evidence presented in light of the
teachings of White v. Regester, ~ and Zims~er v. McKeithen, ~
thIs Court is forced to conclude that Plaintiffs have proved that
the votes of black and Mexican-American citizens of the City of Waco
are unconstitutionally diluted and that blacks and Mexican-
Americans in WacO are affoided significantly less opportunity
than other residents of the city to participate in the political
processes leading to the election of council members. The `history
of official racial discrimination in Texas, which at times touched
on the right of Megroes to register and vote and to participate
in the democratic processes, * White v. Regester, supra at 766, is
no less a part of the heritage of Waco than it was of Dallas County
in White v. Regester. Moreover, Waco is akin to the City of Dallas
in that. the `mere existence of a definable minority area (of the
city) . . . is itself a lingering effect of past official race
discrimination.~ Lipscomb v. Wise, Civil Action No. CA3-477l-E
(M.D. Tex. March 25, 1975)
This history of past official discrimination must be
viewed in conjunction with the electoral history of black candidates
for the Waco City Council. The first black candidate appeared in
1950, running in the East Ward. At that time council members
were elected exclusively by voters within their respective wards.
The black candidate, Louis Stewart, received 233 votes, enough
to win an ordinary election, but lost. Shortly after this impressive
showing the Waco City Charter was amended to provide that all
council members thereafter be elected at-large. The parties
PAGENO="0143"
1017
hotly dispute the motivation for this change. Plaintiffs contend
that the change to at-large elections was a reaction to the threat
that a black council member might soon be elected from the East
Ward. Defendants contendthat the change was merely the completion
of a 1948 conversion from a mayor-council form of city government
to the present council-manager form. The council in 1950 stated
publicly no reasons for the conversion, and their motivations
cannot accurately-be determined at this point. Whatever may have
been the reasons for the change, -however, the effects on the op-
portunities of blacks-to participate meaningfully in the operation
-of their city's government were clear-- and devastating.
Biackcandidates unsuccessfully sought election, to the
council as representatives of the East Ward in 1952, 1958 and 1964.
Ineach of those~elections the black candidate carried the East
Waco Ward but lost ~the city-wide election. On each occasion the
black candidate was prominently identified by the Waco Tribune-
Herald as the ~Negro candidate' in the race who was expected to
receive powerful support from a minority bloc vote. These black.
candidates typically ran individually against slates of Anglo
candidates supported by the newspaper and powerful Anglo groups -
and individuals, amid warnings by the newspaper that "selective
- voting" by blacks might actually elect a black council member.
* The initial success of a black candidate in 1966 did not
end the history of the. minimization of minority voting strength by
the at-large election method, however. In 1970 the East Ward
- council position was hotly contested with the two leading candidates
(Radford and Dorsey) both being black Although Dorsey defeated
Radford in the East-Ward by a 3-1 margin, Redford won the city-
wide election by- some 500 votes. * -
- - The evidence indicates that since 1966 substantial
- progess has been made toward- ritigating the effects of racially
-polarized voting, at least insofar as the East Ward council race is
-concerned. Ho evidence was -presented -to indicate any concerted
PAGENO="0144"
1018
effort in recent years to prevent election of a black to represent
the East Ward. Nontheless, as the 1970 election made clear, the
selection of which black candidate will represent the East Ward
still remains largely outside the control of East Ward voters.
The success of blacks in electing candidates representative of the
black community depends upon their locating a candidate, such
as Oscar DuConge, who can appeal to a substantial portion of the
Anglo electorate while maintaining the support of his own community.
By contrast, blacks have no hand in selecting candidates in the
~red~minantly Anglo wards, and slate makers in those wards apparently
feel no compulsion to select cnadidatCs who can appeal to a sub-
stantial portion of the black and Mexican-American electorate.
Thesituation presents a case of dilution. Plaintiffs'
proof goes beyond showing a mere disparity between the number of
minority residents and the number of minority representatives.
Rather, the evidence shows a historic lack of access by minority
voters to the processes of slating candidates and electing can- -
didates reponsive to their interests, resulting from the existence
of past discrimination which has precluded effective participation
in the electoral system by minority candidates and voters.
Wereour decision to rest entirely upon the responsiveness
of the present Waco city council to black and Mexican-American
needs, or on the recent success of two black candidates, the
*result might well be different. We see nothing in the record to
question the good faith or responsiveness of the present city council.
Nontheless, the lack of equal access by blacks and Mexican-Americans
to the political processes leading to the election of city council
members in Waco remains as a hard fact of political life in that
community. Nor can the recent isolated success of black candidates
foreclose th1s finding of dilution, Simmer v. McEeithen, ~
~Meaningful participation in the political process must not be a
function of grace, but rather a matter of right. Lipscomb v. Wise,
at 16. The inescapable conclusion is that the present~
PAGENO="0145"
1019
at-large election of members of the Waco City Council violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
II. THE SCHOOL BOARD
The history of electoral participation by blacks and
Mexican-Americans in the election of trustees of the Waco Independent
School District is less complex than in the election of city council
members, and the success of minority participation can be concisely
summarized: No black or Mexican-American has ever been elected
to the school board in Waco. Accordingly to 1970 census figures
the population of the Waco Independent School District is 95,273
persons, of whom 19.4% are black and 8.7% are Mexican-American.
Trustees of the WISD are elected at large by place, with no re-
sidency requirements, for terms of six years.
The evidence revealed that the at-large election method,
overlaid, as it is, upon the historic, cultural, economic and
political realities of the black and Mexican-American communities
in Waco, results in a marked dilution of black and Mexican-American
votes. The WISD does not seriously contest this conclusion, and
agrees that single member districts could enhance the opportunities
for Mexican-Americans and blacks to be elected to the board of
trustees. As was the case with the city council, we see nothing
in the record to question the good faith or responsiveness of the
school trustees, and there was no evidence of any concerted effort
in recent years to block the election of black or Mexican-American
trustees. Nontheless, the lack of equal access by blacks and Mexican-
Americans to the political processes leading to the election of
school board trustees is an empirically obvious political reality.
This lack of equal access, resulting from past discrimination, compels
a finding that.the present at-large election of school board trustees -
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
83-679 0 - 82 - 10 Pt.2
PAGENO="0146"
-1020
:Tanifesting an intention to recognize and fulfill their
-:legal obligation, the board-has submitted to the Court a proposal
to modify the method of electing trustees by providing for the
- election, of four trustees from single member districts and three
trustees' at~lar-ge (herein referred to as the 4-3 Plan, or the
District's Plan).. This proposed-plan was submitted for consideration
at trial, and the parties were given an opportunity to present any
evidence, testimony and argument relative thereto. Upon con-
sideration of that evidence, testimony and argument, the. Court is
forced to~conclude that the District's Plan cannot eliminate, the
* present dilution of black and Hexican-American votes sufficiently
to- pass constitutional muster. - - - -
In considering proposed redistricting plans, the- Supreme
- Court:has observed that "apportionment is primarily a matter for
legislative consideration and determination, and judicial relief
* becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion
according -to federal constitutuional requisites . . . ." _________
v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 586 (-1964). In following this principle
the Fifth-Circuit Court of Appeals has recently announced the
rule that "where there is nothing in a given scheme that is re-
-pugnant to the Constitution, a federal court ought- not to sub-
*~stitute'~a plan %lhich might seem to it only to be more efficient
or more~just than a-plan preferred by the legislature concerned."
Wallace V. House, 515 F.2d-619, 634 (5th Cir. 1975).
- "Not~áithStaflding the sound-rule enunciated in Reynolds - -
- V. - Sims and Wallace v. House, the Court is unable to conclude that
the- proposed 4-3.-Plan will give blacks and Mexican-Americans "fair
representation" on the school- board, Perry v. City of Opelousas,
su~ at 642,-or that it will provide minorities meaningful
"access to the political process," Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police .7ur,
~pra'at 1112. The District's proposed 4-3 Plan provides for a single
- district ~with. a black majority, two districts with populations over
90% Anglo, and a-fourth District with a population of 61.3% Anglo
* -- residents.. ~The District argues that this plan will provide one
* "sure" minority representative and a second ~possible~ minority
PAGENO="0147"
1021
seat on the board. Nothing in the record suggests, hot4e*rer, that
the chances for success by a black or Mexican-American candidate
in the 61.3% Anglo District would be materially greater than in an
at large election with a 71.9% Anglo population. Thus, the probable
effect would be to create a single "permanent" minority seat on the
board of trustees, with black and Mexican-American voters receiving
virtually the same opportunity to elect the three at-large board
members and the `member from one additional' district that they now
have under the at-large election scheme.
While we are, cognizant that black and Mexican-American
voters have no right to elect-office holders in proportior. to their
number, we are equally cognizant that. any attempt to alleviate the
effects of dilution must avoid the institutionalization of chronic
underpresentation of blacks and Mexican-Americans. The District's
proposed 4-3 Plan would do exactly that. Minority representation
would be institutionalized at one member of the seven member board
(rEpresentation of approximately 14%, as opposed to the 28%
minority population of the WISD), with the opportunity for occasional
success outside the predominantly black district,
The Court is therefore, compelled to conclude that the
District's proposed 4-3 Plan is not constitutionally sufficient to
eliminate the present dilution of black and Mexican-American votes
in the election of school board trustees. The plan proposed by
the Plaintiffs, providing for the election of all seven trustess
from single-member districts, will not be considered at this time.
Rather, the Court will direct the submission of an alternative
plan by-WISD officials. Those officials have, clearly manifested
their intention to come forward with a plan to bring their operations
into compliance with the Constitution, just as they did in the school
desegregation case previously heard by this Court. Arvizu v. Waco
Independent School District, 373 F.Supp. 1264 (W.D. Tex. 1973), and
they will be given every reasonable opportunity to do so.
PAGENO="0148"
1022
III. THE MOTION TO DISMISS
* Shortly before trial of these cases was scheduled to
commence, the City Defendants in W-74-C~-2 submitted a. Ilotion to
Dismiss this action. That motion was-based upon the contention that
this case must be decided by a three-judge district court pursuant
. to 28 USC 92281, and, that this cause* presents a proper case for
- federal-abstention. The theory that a three judge district court -
is required to hear a challenge of this- nature was properly re-
jected by Judge Hahon in ~4pscomb v. Wise, - at 1, n.l. - See
also Hendrick v. Walder, 44U.S.L.W. 2303. (7th Cir. Dec. 16,1975).
- - Plaintiffs do not seek to-enjoin the enforcement of any State
statute. Defendants' argument that the courts of Texas have not
answered the question of.whether TEX. CONST. art. VI,. 93 requires
- the at-large election of city council members is incorrect. See
State v. McAllister, 88 Tex. 284, 31- S.W. 187 (1895). No case for
abstention is presented, and no three-judge court is required.
-The motion to dismiss will be DENIED. - - -
- IV. THE REMEDY -
Having found the present methods of election utilized
to select members of the Waco City Council-and the Board of Trustees
- of the waco-Independent School District to be-constitutionally
* deficient, the- Court must now direct the submission of proposed
- - - plans to remedy the situation. The Defendant City' officials
(W-74-CA-2) and-WISD officials (W-74-CA-21) shall prepare for sub-
-mission to the Court proposals -to bring their election, procedures
into compliance with the applicable constitutional requirements,
including the population variance standards enunciated in Mahan v.
Mowell~ 410 U.S. 315 (1973)., as well as the constitutional principles
discussed-herein. The proposals shall be submitted-to the Court
at -9:30 A.M., on Wednesday, March 10, 1976, in Waco, Texas. At that
time the Court will hear the proposed plans, -and will receive testimony,
evidence and argumentfrom the parties relative thereto. It is
accordingly' * -
PAGENO="0149"
1023
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants be, and
hereby are, directed to submit to the Court proposed plans to
alleviate the dilution of black and Mexican-knerican votes, and
to bring the methods of election utilized to select members of the
Waco City Council and the Board of Trustees of the Waco Independent
School District into compliance with the applicable constitutional
standards discussed herein; and that said proposed plans shall
be submitted to the Court at 9:30 A.M., on March 10, 1976, in
Waco, Texas, at which time the Court will conduct a hearing thereon.
This Memorandum Opinion and Order shall constitute findings of fact
and conclusiáns of law.
ENTERED at Austin, Texas, this 27th day of
February, 1976.
Unit.~ States District Judge
PAGENO="0150"
1024
RONDO, TEXAS. -- MEDINA COUNTY
APRIL 1, 1978 RACE FOR PLACE.3, CITY COUNCIL
(AT-LARGE, BY PLACE)
7*
81 18.58 355 81.42
7, of Spanish
Surname Voters
16.33
PERCENTAGE OF SPANISH-SURNAMED VOTERS COMPARED
TO PERCENTAGE OF VOTES CAST FOR SPANISH
SURNAME CANDIDATE
7, of Votes
Received by
Campos arid Arcos
18.58
PERCENTAGE OF NON-SPANISH SURNAMED VOTERS
COMPARED TO PERCENTAGE OF VOTES CAST FOR
NON-SPANISH SURNAMED CANDIDATES
`L of Non-Spanish
-. Surname Voters
83.67
7, of Votes
Received by Friole,
Lawrence and Bless
81.42
436
Total
No.
Cast
No. Cast
Votes
Cast
for Campos
& Arcos 7~
for
Lawrence
F.riole,
& Bless
ATTACIThIENT 5
PAGENO="0151"
7. of Non-Spanish
Surname Voters
56.13
1025
HONDO, ~TEXAS -- NEDINA COUNTY
APRIL 7, 1979 RACE FOR PLACE 1, CITY COUNCIL
(AT-LARGE, BY PLACE)
Total
Votes
Cast
No. Cast
for
Garcia
7.
No. Cast
for
Stange
1,530
620
40.52
908
7.
59.35
* PERCENTAGE OF SPANISH-SURNAMED VOTERS COMPARED
TO PERCENTAGE OF VOTES CAST FOR SPANISH
SURNAME CANDIDATE
7, of Spanish 7. of Votes
Surname Voters Received by Garcia
43.87 40.52
PERCENTAGE OF NON-SPANISH SURNAMED VOTERS
COMPARED TO PERCENTAGE OF. VOTES CAST FOR
* NON-SPANISH SURNAMED CANDIDATES
7. of Votes.
Received by Stange
59~35
ATTACHMENT 6
PAGENO="0152"
1026
RONDO, TEXAS -- MEDINA COUNTY
APRIL 2, 1980 RACE FOR PLACE 4, CITY COUNCIL
(CANDIDATES RUN AT-LARGE) /
Total No. Cast No. Cast
Votes for for
Cast Lopez 7~ Chapman 70
629 248 39.43 381* 60.57
*jncludes7 absentee votes
PERCENTAGE OF. SPANISH-SURNAME VOTERS COMPARED
TO ~PERCENTAGE OF VOTE CAST FOR SPANISHT
~ CANDIDATE
%of Spanish . . 7~ of Votes
Surname Voters Received by Lopez
.39.90 . 3943
PERCENTAGE OF NON-SPANISH SURNAME VOTERS
COMPARED TO. PERCENTAGE OF VOTE CAST FOR
NOff-SPANISIUSTJRNAME CANDIDATES~
70 of Non-Spanish 7, of Votes
Surname VOters Received by Chapman
~ 60.57
ATTACHMENT 7
PAGENO="0153"
1027
ATTACHMENT 8
* R.S. Esquivel - Percentage of Votes Received by Esquivel by
Precinct with Highest Spanish Surhame Voter Turn Our Percent-
age in Descending Order - May, 1980
70 SSA - 7. Votes
Election Precinct Voter Turnout Received in Pct.
* 17 59.09 53.81
10 46.32 43.61
1 44.12 50.44
12. 33.80 28.81
7 31.27 33.94
9 24.06 31.97
15: 20,81 30.51
11 19.08 26.06
19 16.98 20.90
* 21 10.~0 * 17.98
.8 - :7.93 18..84
5.15 18..]3
* 16 * 3.74
5 2.94 :~8...l6
* * .2,74
.3 .0 29..41 -
14 0 16.00
20 * 0 .13.51.
* Candidate for Associate Justice, 4th Supreme Judicial
District, Court of Appeals
PAGENO="0154"
ATTACHMENT 9
FACT SHEET FOR COUNTIES FOR ATASCOSA,
COCHRAN, EDWARDS, MCDIIIA, Rr.FUGIO, UVALDE
LYNN, DAWSON, CROSBY, VICTORIA, CASTRO
MALDEF;. SWVREP %RLA
~4arne of
Coun~L.
Total
.a~...
No. S.S.
%S.S.
No. & 7.
S.S.Cot~rnis.
Ideal Pop.
Per Precinct
(1970 Census)
Pop. & Deviation
of Over-pop. Precinct
Pop. 6 Deviation
of Under Precinct
Total Dcv,
Atascosa
18,792
9,603
51.0%
0 - 0%
4,674
~
5,939 -
(Pet.
27.7,
2)
3,117 - 33.37,
(Pet. 6)
60.4%
Coc~iran
:
5,326
1,514
28.4%
0 - 07.
~
1,331
1,576 -
(Pet.
18.4%
1)
1,155 - 13.2%
(Pet. 3)
31.67,
Edwards
1,922
,
922
43.07.
0 - 0%
526
~
1,541 -
(Pet.
1937.
1)
104 - 807.
(Pet. 3).
2737,
Medina
20249
9,822
43.57.
0 - 07.
5,062
`
8078 -
(Pet.
50.07.
4)
1,707 - 66.37.
(Pet. 3)
126.37.
Refugio
.
9,494
3,610
38.0'/.
0 - 07,
2,373 ~
~
4,798 -
. (Pet.
1Ô2%
1)
613 - 74.27.
(Pet. 3)
176.2%
*
Uvalde
.
17,348
~
8,802
.
50.77,
.
1 - 257.
,
4,337
~
6,243 -
(Pet.
44.07.
2)
3,217 - 25.8%
(Pet. 1)
63.3%
Lynn
9,107
2,763
30.3~
0 - 07.
2,277
3,408
(Pet.
49.77,
1)
1,311 - 20.47,
(Pet. 6)
70.17.
*
Dawson
.
16,604
5,242
32.6%
0 - 0%
4,151
5,140 -
(Pet.
23.8%
3)
2,966 - 28.67.
(Pet. 1)
52.47.
~
Crosby
9,035
2,763
.
30.4%
0 - 07.
.
.
2,271
2,669 -
(Pet.
17.57,
2)
2,096 - 7.77.
(Pet. 4)
25.27,
Victoria
. .
53,766
16,910
31.5%
0 - 0%
13,442
13,284 -
(Pet.
36.07~
1)
10,944 - 18.6%
(Pet. 2)
54.6%
Castro.
.
10,394
3,635
35.5'/.
0 - 07.
2,598
,
3,130 -
(Pet.
20.07.
2)
1,710 - 36%
(Pet. 6)
54.7.
..,-
-~,,
PAGENO="0155"
1029
MEDINA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT
APPOINTMENTS OF ELECTION
JUDGES OTHER THAN PRESIDING
JUDGES 1954-1980
NON-SPANISH $PANISH
TOTAL SURNAMED SURNAMED
YEAR APPTED APPTED Z A~PTED
1954 44 44 100 0 0
1955 48 48 100 0 0
1958 44 44 100 0 0
1960 44. 44 100 0 0
1961. 44. 44 100 0 0
1964 43 42 97.67 1 2.33
1966 43 43 100 0 0
1967 18. 18 100 0 0
1970 0 0. - 0 0
1971 18 -. 18 ioo 0 0 -
1972 18 18 100 0 0
1973 18 18 100 0 0
1974 18 18.. 100 0 0
1975 18 . 18 100 0 0
1976 18 100 0 0
1977 18 17 94.4 1 5.56
1978 18 17 94.44 . 1 5.56
1979 . 18. 17 94.44 1 5.56
1980 18 17 94.44 1 5.56
TOTAL 508 . 503 99.02% 5 .98%
ATTACHMENT 10
PAGENO="0156"
1030
MEDINA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
- COURT APPOINTMENTS OF
PRESIDING ELECTION JUDGES
1954-1930
TOTAL # OF NON-SPANISH SPANISH
PRESIDING~ JUDGES SURNAMED SURNAMED
YEAR APPTED. APPOINTEES APPTEES. Z
1954 20 19 95 1 5
1955 21 `20 95 1 4.76
1958 20 19 95 1 5
1960 20 19 95 1 5
1961 ~` : 20 19 95 1 5
1964 17 17 100 0 0
1966 17 17 100 0 0
1967 18 18 100 0 0
1970 18 ..18 --100 -- 0 --- 0
1971 18 18 100 0 0
1972 - 18 18 1Oo 0 0
1973 18 18 100 0 0
1974 18 18 100 0 0
1975 28 18 100 0 0
1976 18 18 100 - 0 0
1977 18 81 - 100 0 0
1978 18 18 100 0 0
1979 18 18 100 0 0
1980 18 13 100 0 0
TOTALS * 351 346 98.58% 5 1.42%
PAGENO="0157"
1031
ATTACHMENT 11
- SUMMARY OF ALL APPOINTMENTS BY
MEDINA CO. COMMISSIONERS COURT
1954 - January, 1980
* #SPANISH SURNAME
YEAR NO. OF APPTS. APPOINTED 7.
1954 76 * 1 1.32
1955 73 1 * 1.37
1956 2 . 0 0
1957 59 *~ 1 1.69
1958 69 1 1.45
1959 0 0 0
1960 . 64 1 * 1.56
* 1961 64 . 1 1.56
1962 2 0* 0
1963 1 0 0
1964 * 60 0 0
1965 9 0 0
1966 72 0 0
1967 40 0~ 0
1968 2 0 0
1969 4 * 0 * 0
1970 . 38 0 0
1971 41 - 0 0
1972 * 37 . 0 0
1973 41 * 0 2.44
19.74 39 0 * 0
1975 44 2 4.55
1976 39 1 . 2.56
1977 40 1 2.50
1978 53 . . 9.43
1979 45 . 2 4.44
1980 43 6.98
1,057 21 1.98
Personswith Spanish Surnames comprised 1.98Z of appointments made
by the Medina County Commissioners Court in the last 26 years~
PAGENO="0158"
1032
-
~2C
1'
SFA1N ( )l- I IXAS
01~ 1~lCk OF FJ~1i si~c:i~ !I\R `s OF s ii.iii
AUSIIN. FI:.\As7S71I
~
r lrucc Uughcs
July 7, I)J~ ASST.SFCMETASYOF5TATE
Dear County Clcrk:
I~arly la~ me:~lh ~J. S. -ice~e of i~e~;c c:::tc~ iv~s iu~ e icn->'~cr ext~.rzskn of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The US. Senate is expected to take action on this
in July. As pos~cd by the House, the Act would cppiy to every political subdMsion
in the State of Texas.-
In 1965 Texas was excluded from the Act because our Stnte had never used a `test
or device" to eliminate -minorityvoters from participating in the election process;
Now, ten years later, an attempt is being made to include Texas within the Act
based upon the premise that the lack of Spanish language ballot has denied Spanish-.
- speaking Texans an effective voice at the pdlling place.
The -records of this office conclusively prove that Mexiccn-Americans have not been
dciminated o~ainst ia our electons~ A survey of-the 1974 voter registration records
* o the Office of Secretary of State indicates that there is a minuscule difference
- between Mexiccn-American and-non Mexican-Americçn voter registrction in Texas.
In those counties with a population of less than 5% Spanish surname, 79~F~ of the -
*~`otin~ age population is registered,. as compared with those counties with more than
-. - 50%-Spanish surname `where 72'3'o of the voting agepopulation is registered. - Based
on census oata 7501o of the total voting age population is now registered in Tes'as as---
of 1974 -
A similar survey in those counties wth less than 5%Spcnish surname, shows 23.18%
- of the total voting age populaticn octuaiT~voted. In those counties with aver 5O'3'o
-`~ Spanish surncrne,22.73% of the total voting age popu!etian exercised their right. - -~ -
In brief there wa~1~iF~tn one-half of o-~" percent d f erence in vo er turnout
Tbdtween counties with large numbers of Spanish surnamed citizens as opposed to
counties with almost- none of its population of~Spanish surname. It is clear that
Texas h~s in the past, and-will in-the future,-protcct the right of each of her citizens
- - to fully participate in the political process. -
Tha inclusion of Texas v,ithin the Voting Rights Act will not enhance Ihe right to
vote of citizens; it viill only continua the tiend toward centralization of cuthority
in the Federal government. - -
- ATTACHMENT 12
PAGENO="0159"
1033
Theiimposition of the 1965 Voting Rights Act ~eans that no longer will elections
*l~1 regulated and conducted by local officials~ In tIe future, all matters relating
to elections will be subject to prior approval by the Civil Righ~Division of the.
U. S. Justice Department, Washington, D. C. Therefoic, when you as a duly
elected representative in your county relocate polling places, you cannot do so
without prior approval from Washington. When you change precinct lines, you
cannot do so without prior approval from Washington. Annexations will also
require cpproval from Washington and it will be your burden to prevail against
the presumption of invalidity. Federal voting registrars would be authorized to
register voters in your county notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State's
office has not redeivod a single complaint that a Spanish-speaking Texan has been
denied the right to reghter. Federal voting exciminer~ ~:.,uld be outl~orized to come
into any. election precinct or polling place, notwithstanding the fact that poll
watchers are available to any candidate or group of citizens by following the smple
procedures set out in the Election Code.
Please forgive this form letter, but I felt time is of the essence in getting this -
information to you.
If you feel as I do that this action by the Federal government is on unwarranted
intrusion into the affairs of local elected representatives, plecse advise your Senators
and your Congressmen of your thoughts.
Yours truly,
Mark White
Secretary of State
PAGENO="0160"
1034
COMMENT
S. B. 300 involves a drastic restructuring of voter registration in Texas.
Its elements include a complete purge of the all registered voters in the State;
procedures to reregister and then a provision for subsequent purges on a hi-.
annual basis. This comment will deal only with that part of S. B. 300 which
involves the complete purge and initial reregistration. M. A. L. D. E . F. re-
serves the right to make subsequent comments on the balance of the Act ~
question
a. Logistics
Under S. B. 300, Texas proposes to send out notices to all registered
voters in the State telling them they they must reregister. Included in this
mailing would be a new application for voter registration which a person must
fill out and return on or before January 31,1976.
Some initial logistical problems appear at once. First, the form for
reregistration will not have return postage on it (Almaguer affidavit). While
this might seem minor, it is axiomatic that the absence of return postage will
diminish the effectiveness of a response and severly reduce the percentage of
the return. Next the statute provides for only one mailing of the notice to
reregister. Without follow up mailings or intensive media campaigns the.
response from only one notice can only be describedas minimal. (Brischetto
affidavit). The state has indicated that it will take steps to create publicity
for the reregistration. While we do not doubt these promises, we do note
PAGENO="0161"
1035
that as of the end of October when the implementation of the statute was en~
~joined, no steps hadbeen taken in that direction. It seems clear that each
of these initial factors will weigh more heavily on the Black and Mexican
American population. (Brischetto affidavit).
b. Functional illiteracy and Functional Incompetancy Levels
Aside from logistics, the purge and reregistration, considered in the
context of Texas has serious racial implications. There is a vast difference
in literacy between the Anglo and minority populations in the State. The
testimony before the Senate Subcommittee considering the extension of the
Voting Rights Act demonstrated that according to U.S. Census figures
33.8% of the Spanish.surnamed ard 14. 6% of the Blacl~ Texans were lunctionally~
* illiterate while only 3.8% of Anglo Texans were found to be in that condition.
Senate Hearings at 477. An even greater underscore of this differential may
be demonstrated from a recent publication of the University of Texas entitled,
* "Adult Functional Competency in Texas." We include a copy of that study in
the data making up this comment. The adult population of this State was
surveyed to determine the ability to perform specific simple functions which
one experiences in every day life such as an application for social security,
making out a bank deposit slip and the reading of simple instructions. The
*study concludes that:
Because of inadequate or inappropriate schooling, low
incomes, limited job opportunities, and possibly
83~679 0 - 82 - 11 Pt.2
PAGENO="0162"
1036
language difficulties, about two thirds of adults in
Texas with Spanish surnames and one half of the
Black population are estimated to be functionally
incompetent. One fifth of the white population also
performs inadequately on requirement indicators.
Adult Functional Competancy in Texas at 148, hereinafter cited as Study.
SpecificaUythe Texas study is very helpful in making an assessnjen~of
the ability of Texans to respond to the specific items on the reregistration
form even if they overcome the initial logistical difficulty of no return postage
A copy of the registration form, in English as specified by the Texas Secretary
of State is as foUows
/
Co?1*fioa(. ~oho~ t1oct~c. Pct.
coo col~)
%OTEO OEC*STR.3TUIX M1t.lCYrlu~ ~ ~
lL~th *. r'.s. ~X~i* ioUo~..pp1.cticc *~ `too
- c~..*. T~ A.-C.u oo by1ao~y 3*. 1975 f., coI.og of `.lu.-h l~
537$. Tho ,.R..g,.-31,c. 1* 1Od~ Lao afl*r accofps.
I ~
P~AO~T ES7OE?~C~ ~OOa~& co-aa.oo7 Is cottz.o of tO. Voft.d Sta:.c~ ,s.
- -. - - .oot alt tojst 0..7ai.~coooM*. cod hold, ~
* 333tdoflc3 to 10,5 ccoc*z. I ssk-,,taad lOss
`0- co1co~***L~tco p.O. b.%~ - too ;*o*..~ of talc. t.f.utOo*tco tcpoooor.
to ,,~.tr coot cot, Li
- - - -- SIC7ATLRZ OF VOTt~MC~tT
`C________________
IIAILOC AD~0ESS IF D~FER!Vf FOOM ~tBOVE, - ~i.O.a,oto.&.-of Octot ao~~
-. 103.1Ff ICLaclo cc. scoU~.lOl.*
- - Hscbco.* Ocito 71o'.Osr Fa3..o S.. Dcc.htco
"°° fFA%ftd',. ho #SOI*~F. of ocoact scoo.tly
oc*octcgo oo1~. Ii oolfcit.4 h~ saaUcultt of
--
- - 305*04 ,att. 0. `l,~tf~4 officiaL. *0
0114 ic1.gs-fto of 01*
~coof5.
PAGENO="0163"
1037
c. Comparison of-Rere~is~tion Form With Study Results
~ Name: fhe Texas study demonstrates that only 45% of the
of the Mexican American and~9% of the Black population could
perform this task in the context of an application for a social
security number while in excess of 80% of the Anglo population
could do so. Study at 90. -
~pp~yjng The Maiden Name if Married~-~The Texas Study demonstrates
that only 50% of the Mexican American and 52% of the Black popula-
tion could supply. their mothers name in the context of an application
for a social security number while approximately 90% of the Anglo
population could do so. ~t~idy at 92.
njyjng the Addres~...Tlie Texa~ study demonstrates that 60% of the
Black and 62% of the Mexican American population were able to
perform the task of-addressing an envelope while 88% of the
Anglo population was able to do so. Stu~y at 51.
* §p~y~g Social Security Number: - The Texas study discloses that 35%
of the Black and 44~ of the Mexican erican pDpUlation ~nre able to state
whether they haçl ever applied for a social security number while
approximately `~% of the Anglo population was able to respond to
that question. Study at 94..~ * - - - _~-~ -
~t1.ppjyjpg Date of Birth~,Th'ëTexas study disclosed that 25% of the
Black and 35% of the Mexican American population were able
- - to correctly respond to the age question in the context of an
* -application for social security while 62% of the Anglo popula-
tionwas abj~tQ~do so. Study at 91~ - - -
~2naturef: Even the signature presents proøiems as the Texas study
- discloses that approximately 40% of the Mexican American and
50% of the Black population were able to perform the task of
making a signature on a note explaining an absence to a-teacher
while 70% of the Anglo population was able to do so. Study at 71. -
Comparison of the ability to complete other instruments which, in one way
- or another resemble the application for reregistration, is likewise helpful.
PAGENO="0164"
1038
Completing a Bank Deposit_p ~: The Texas study documents that
only 22% of the Black and 25% of the Mexican American popula-
tion were able to perform this task while 60% of the Anglo
population was able to do so. Study at 117.
orn letin an Em lo ment Corn laint: The Texas study documents
the fact that as few as 36 o of the Mexican American and 47% of
the Black population were able to perform. this task while as
many as 80% of the Anglos could do so. Study at 53-55.
ç~~pleting the Various Lines on an Ordinary Tax Return: The Texas
study documents the fact that Anglos are from three to seven
* times more likely to be able to complete a tax return as Mexican
Americans and Blacks. Study at 120-126.
In light of their overwhelming functional illiteracy~' and functional in-
2/
competency -` M. A. L.D. E. F. feels that a serious disproportionate burden
will be visited on Mexican American and Black Texans if the purge and re-.
registration provisions are utilized.
In this connection it is important to note, that the functional
illiteracy rate of Mexican Americans in Texas is considerably higher
than the functional illiteracy of Blacks in any of the states previously
covered by the Voting Rights Act and more than ~g~t tirn~ that of the
* white population nationwide. Senate Hearings at 477. .
2J In this connection it is important to~note that the functional incom-
petency level of Mexican Americans in Texas is 18% higher than the national
average for Mexican Americans and that the functional incompetency level
of Blacks in Texas is 13% higher than the national average for Blacks while
Texas Anglos are on a par with Anglos nationwide. *.
PAGENO="0165"
1039
* d. Gaston County v. U. S.
In Gaston, the'Supreme Court quoted from the testimony of Attorney
General `Katzenbach at the. original hearings on the.adoption of the'Voting
Rights Act:
:`` It might be suggested that this kind of [voting] dis-
crimination could be ended in a different way-by wiping
the registration books clear~ and requiring all voters,
white or Negro, to register anew `under a uniformly ap-
plied literacy test.
* * *[S]uch an approach would not solve, but would
compound our present problems.
"To subject every citizen to a higher literacy standard
would, inevit~bly, work unfairly against Negroes-Negroes
who have for decades been systematically denied educational
opportunity equal to that available.to the white population.
Although the discredited `separate but equal' `doctrine had
colorable constitutional legitimacy until 1954, the notorious
and tragic fact is that educational* opportunities were
* pathetically inferior for thousands of Negroes who want to
votetoday.
- ` *The impact' of a general reregistration would produce'
* a real irony.. Years' of~violation~ of;th,e 14th amendment,
* right of equal `protection through equal education, would'
`become the excuse for continuing-violation of the 15th
amendment, right, to vote." Hearings' on S.' 1564 before
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st
Sess., 22. * * `
`Gaston County v. United States, 395 U~S.:285, 289 (1969).
* ~*Texas, of course, has a history `of segregation and unequal educational
.3J
*~opportunity; ~fully the- equivalent of North Carolina.
3/
Although clearly one of the ~most wealthy'states in the Union, Texas
-ranks "among the lowest. in funds spent on education and its record of `minority
`educational achievement is more dismal than that found in any other.
PAGENO="0166"
1040
Footnote ~3 continued
As a federal court said in considering a Texas reapportionment case
in 1972:
There is no aspect of human endeavor, in general and of
American life in particular, in which the ability to read, write
and understand a language is more important than politics.
There can be no doubt that lack of political participation
by Texas Chicanos is affected by a cultural incompatability
which has been fostered by ~ defici~ent educational system. If
this court ignores the reason for the minimal impact of Mexican
Americans. . . "it will prove that Justice is both blind and deaf"
(Citations omitted)
Graves v. Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704-731 (W.D. Tex. 1972).
Another federal court, considering a subsequent case, challenging the
1971 Texas Legislative reapportionment, isolated "educational segregation
as a factor in political isolation" Graves v. Barnes, 378 F. Supp~ 640-648
(W. D. Tex. 1974). With the exception of El Paso, where litigation is
* currently in progress, unconstitutional segregation has been found against
against Mexican Americans or Blacks and in some cases against both in
nearly all of the State's major metropolitan areas in addition to many of its
smaller cities. See generally Project Report: DeJure Segregation of Chicanos
in Texas SchooJs, 7 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil LivertieS Law Review 307
(1972); Mexican Americans and the Desegregation of Schools in the Southwest,
* 8 Houston Law Review 921 (1971)
Indeed~ as late as 1962, the Attor~eyG~ne~al of Texas rul~d that any
tegration ivithouta referendum election would result in a loss of the State.
minimum foundation payments to the district. Only last year, a federal court
noted that the Beaumont Independent School District "continues to operate
seven all black schools and persists in busing black children past neighborhool
schools to attend all black schools on the other side of town." Graves v. Barnes,
* 378 F.Supp. 640,648 (W.D.Tex~ 1974).
For Mexican Americans the pattern is hardly better. Although formal
segregation was theoretically ended in 1948 by a federal court decision flelgado
v. Bastrop md. School P1st., Civ. No. 388 (W.D.Tex. June 15, 1948), the
U. S. Commission on Civil Rights found recently that 70% of all Mexican
* American elementary students attend one-race schools. U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights Ethnic Isolation of Mexican Americans in the Public Schools of the
Southwest Report 1 at 28. In terms of performance, the U. S. Commission
on Civil Rights further noted thatbefore graduation from high school 47% of the
state's Mexican Americans and 36% of the blacks have dropped out of school.
In probably more start terms, the Commission established that at least 44%
of those select few Mexican Americans who do graduate from high school suffer
PAGENO="0167"
1041
In light of the overwhelming levels of functional incompetency on the
4J
part of the State's minority population thereregistration form becomes
a mere lit.eracytest which though. equally applied will obviously have the same
vastly disproportionate. effects on minority Texans asthose resulting to
North Carolina Blacks from a literacy test.:so described in Gaston. In this
Footnote #3. continued .
"severe reading retardation." U. S. Commission on Civil Rights The Un-S
* Finished Education, Report 2 at 28-34. .
* Probably the effects of the long fight forpolitical access are best
* summed up with~the fact that the first Black was not the nominee of either
* the Democratic or Republican party in Texas for. any office, however,
rninimal~ until. 1966. And then only after the federal courts ordered re-
apportionments. .
* * Yet for Mexican Americans, as a whole, the picture is even more
bleak for, as the Supreme Court noted in 1972, the
cultural and language impediment, conjoined with the--- - - ---~ -*
* 0 poll tax and the most restrictive voter regintratioñ
:procédures in the nationhave operated to effectively
* 0 deny Mexican Americans access to the political pro-
cesses in Texas even longer than the Blacks were
* formally denied acéess by the white primary. .
White it. Regester, .412 U. S. 753, `169 (1972)..
Both the Senate and House Committees considering the expansion of
O the Voting Rights Act in 1975 found that the 0
high illiteracy rates are not the result of choice or
* mere happenstance. They are the product of failure
of state and local officials to afford equal educational
opportunity. .
House Report at 20; Senate Report at 28.
PAGENO="0168"
1042
regard it is important to note that functional illiteracy among Blacks in
North Carolina is in the range of 20% while Mexican Americans functional
illiteracy in Texas approaches 34%. House Hearings at 4T1.
The fact that the reregistration torms will be distributed in both English
and Spanish will not solve the problemfor few, if any Blacks will benefit
and the testimony before the House Committee considering the extension of
the Voting Rights Act establishes that many of the Mexican Americans who
are illiterate in English are likewise illiterate in Spanish. House Hearings
at 828
For the foregoing reasons M.A.L.D.E.F. objects to S.B. 300 and~
opposses its implementation as a viülatión of the Voting Rights Act.
Respectfully submitted,
IflL~S. MARTD~Z
SANFORD J. ROSEN
Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund
145 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 864-6000
ALBERT H. KAUFFMAN
* GEORGE J. KORBEL
* * Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund
* 501 Petroleum Commerce Building
201 N. St. Mary's Street
* * * San Antonio, Texas
(512) 224-5476 *
PAGENO="0169"
1043
ulruadnu~itt L1 1jt ice
J.i~h~rn~1uu. £it!. ~
*~"
,~, %I
Honorable Mark White
Secretary of State
State of Texas
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Secretary:
~.This is in reference to S.B. 300 of 1975, voter
registration procedures in the State of Texas, which
was submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended
in 1975. Your submission was received onOctober 31,
1975. Pursuant to your request we have given expedited
consideration to this submission in accordance with
Section 51.22 of our Section 5 guidelines (28 C.F.R.
51.22). -
We have reviewed carefully the information,
statistical data and other material, submitted by you
as well as.. information, comments and views provided
by other interestedpersons. Except `insofar as
S .B * 300 requires a purge of all currently registered*
voters inTexas, the Attorney General does not interpose
an objection to the changes involved. We feel a
responsibility to ~point out, however, that Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act expressly provides that our
failure to object does not bar any~subsequent judicial
action to enjoin the enforcement of these changes should
* such action become necessary.
ATTACHMENT 14
PAGENO="0170"
1044
Section 2 of S.B. 300 provides, among other
things, that registrants who fail to reregister shall
have their registration terminated on March 1, 1976.
We recognize the State's interest in enacting legis-
lation which promotes registration and, also, which
utilizes a reasonable means of maintaining accurate
registration records. However, our review of recent
registration laws in Texas, e.g., the poll tax, annual
registration, reregistration (S .B. 51 of 1971), in
conjunction with our evaluation of S.B. 300, illustrates
that the citizens of Texas have experienced several
registration procedures within a ten-year period.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act the
burden falls upon the submitting authOrity to demonstrate
that voting changes, such as those here under submission,
not only do not have a prohibited discriminatory purpose
but will not have such an effect. Thus, as set forth in
his Procedures For th&AdrniniStration of Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 51.19 (28 C.F.R.
51.19), the Attorney General will refrain from objecting
only if he is satisfied that the proposed change does
not have the prohibited purpose or effect. If he is
persuaded to the contrary or if he cannot satisfy
himself that the change is without discriminatory
purpose or effect, the guidelines state that the
Attorney General will object.
Our analysis has revealed nothing to suggest a
discriminatory purpose to the purge involved here. In
addition, the State's proposals for minimizing the
adverse effect of the reregistration are commendable.
However, we cannot conclude that the effect of the
total purge to initiate the reregistration program
will not be discriminatory in a prohibited way.
PAGENO="0171"
1045
With regard to cognizable minority groups in
Texas, namely, blacks. and Mexican-Americans, a study
of their historical voting problems and a review of
statistical data, including that relating to literacy,
disclose that a total voter-registration purge under
existing circumstances may have a discriminatory effect
on their voting rights. Comments from interested parties,
as well as our own investigation, indicate that a
substantial number of minority registrants may be
confused, unable to comply with the Statutory regis-
tration requirements of Section 2, or only able to
comply with substantial~ difficulty~ Moreover, repre-
sentations have been made to this office that a
requirement that everyone register anew, on the heels
of registration difficulties experienced in the past,
could cause significant frustration and result in
creating voter apathy- among minority., citizens, thus,
erasing the gains already accomplished in registering
minority voters. - `"
We have reviewed carefully thsjustifications
submitted by the. State- in an effort to satisfy the
State's burden of prOof that the purge in question
does not have the purpose or effect of denying or
abridging voting rights on the basis of race or language
minority status. We' also have closely scrutinized the
* nature of the State's interest in, implementing a state-
wide purge to determine whether it -is compelling `and
whether alternative means of accomplishing its purpose
are available. Dunn v.Blumstein, 405 U.s. 330 (1972).
Under all the circumstances involved, we are unable to
conclude that-. a. total purge is necessary to achieve the
State's purpose. Likewise, we are unable to conclude,
as--we must under the Voting -Rights Act, that implementation
PAGENO="0172"
1046
of such a purge in Texas will not have the effect of
discriminating on account of race or color and language
minority status. For that reason, I must, on behalf
of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to the
implementation of the purge requirement of Section 2
of S.B. 300.
Should you decide, however, to implement the
reregistration without the purge requirement and can
at a later date demonstrate that~ it did not have an
adverse effect on minority voting rights, we would
welcome a request for reconsideration with appropriate
supporting materials (see 28 C .F.R. 51.23).
Of course, as provided for by Section 5, you
have the alternative of instituting an action in the
United States District Court for the District of
Columbia for a declaratory judgment that the change
does not have the purpose and will not have the effect- - ~--- -
of denying or abridging the right to vote on account
of race or color. Should you decide to pursue such
a course of action my staff and I will cooperate to
expedite the matter in any way possible.
I am aware that there is now pending a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas with respect to the subject matter
of this submission. I am, therefore, taking the liberty
of forwarding a copy of this letter to the Court.
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0173"
1047
201 N. ST. MARYS ST./SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS 782051(512) 224-5476
VOTING RIGHTS ACT COMMENT
~TEXASH~pJq~7 AS IT
AFFECTS NUECES COUNTY
Generally
The three single member districts 48A, 48B and 48C are drawn from
* the multi-member district 48 which included a large part but not all of
Nueces County (Corpus Christi). On January 28, 1974, this multi-member
* district was declared unconstitutional. in Graves v. Barnes, 378 F. Supp.
640,658-661 (W.D.Tex. 1974). Thereafter hearings were held before a
* three judge court on the adoption of plans of apportionment to replace the
invalidated at large system. ,At those hearings, the State offered a pro-
posed plan which was very similar to the one now before the U. S. Depart-
* ment of Justice for preclearance and M. A. L.D. E. F. on behalf of its clients
offered an alternative scheme of apportionment which was adopted by the
Court. * *. *
We are fortunate to have the full transcript of the hearings before the
three judge court, as well as a Record of the Texas House debates which
led to the adoption of the plan currently before on submission. For the
assistance of the Department of Justice the Record of Debates is included
~3ATJONAL OFFICE * * ATTAcm~NT 15
PAGENO="0174"
1048
as Exhibit 1 and cited as'~Record of Debates:' The Supreme Court appendix
of the three judge hearing has been previously provided, to Justice and is
cited as"White Supreme Court Appendix.'.' A copy of the apportionment plan
adopted by the three judge court is attached as Exhibit 2 and referred to
variously as the M. A. L. D. E. F. or Truan plan~'AddiUonal exhibits in-
dude a copy of the Nueces County census analysis prepared and offered
as an exhibit to the three judge court which sat on question of the adoption
of plans (Exhibit 3) and a map setting out the Barrio area in Nueces. County
which is often referred to as the Corridor area (Exhibit 4). Generally
the census analysis considers the county~ tract by tract~, under the criteria
set out in both ite land iteji,. 343 F. Supp. 730-731; 412 U. S. 766,
777; 378 F. Supp. 658. It was used to prepare the- Truan/M. A:L~. E. F. -
plan and later to explain and advocate it before both the three judge court
and the Texas Legislature. The corridor area is the ghetto or barrio of
Corpus Christi. It is well known through out Texas for its depressing
health, educational, and, social conditions.
The ~ cases arose out of a series of litigation including two deci-
sions by the Texas Supreme Court, two decisions by the U. S. Supreme
Court and two full blown trials before three judge district courts at which
It is the M. A. L'. D. E. F. Plan in the White Appendix and the Truan
Plan on the floor of the House.
PAGENO="0175"
1049
2J
hi excess `of 10,000 pages of testimony and exhibits were compiled. The
.iuulti-mernber'district~.from which the single `membérdistricts on sub-
~inission~were ~drawn :camenot; fromdhe Legislaturebut from a Legislative
Redistricting Board created afterthe Te*as' Legislature refused to act con-
stitutionally. See generally Smith v. Craddick~ 471 S~w;2d 375 (Tex. Sup.
1971) and Mauzy v~ Legislative Redistricting Bôar~l, 471 S~W. 2d 570 (Tex.
Sup. 1971). * :
Asstated earlier;~ this multi-member~district along with several
others was invalidated in Graves v~ Barnes, 640:F. Supp. 378 (W. D. Tex.
1974) and a single member apportionment plan was adopted by the Court.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of all the plans until
it could:hear the argument on appeal. In. February of 1975 oral argument
* was heard but prior to an opinion, the Texas Legislature, seeing the hand..
writing on the wall acted to adopt'siñgle member districts. This they
thought would moot the Case and require the minoritygroups'to proceed
further under the more stringent standards of proof on gerrymanders as
* set out in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 334 (1960). The Supreme Court
2J
Smith v. Craddick, 471 S~W~ 2d 375 ~Tex. Sup. 1971); Mauzy~,
*~g~slative Redistricting Boar~ 471 S.W. 2d 570 (Tex. Sup. 1971); Graves
y:Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704 (W. D. Tex. 1972) aff'd as to multi-member dis-
* iiict sub nom Whitev.~Regester; 412 U.S. 755 (1973); White v. Reg~
ion remand) 378 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Tex. 1q73).
3J
That plan is attached as Exhibit 2. *
PAGENO="0176"
1050
did remand to the district COuit for a determination on the question of
mootnesS. White v. Regester, _u.s.~__, s. ct. (1975).
However, after the remand but before the district court could consider
the question of mootness, the President signed the Voting Rights Act which,
of course,occasioned this consideration by the Department of Justice..
Position on the Bill
- We have been iii touch with counsel for the parties in White and it is
the consensus that while there are some problems with the plans in Lubbock
and Hidalgo county, all are acceptable except Jefferson, Tarrant (Fort
Worth) and Nueces. This Comment ~vili be limited to Nueces and I under-
stand that Don Gladden of Fort Worth and David Richards of Austin will
deal with~ Tarrant and Jefferson counties respectively.
PAGENO="0177"
1051
V
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF NUECES COUNTY
1. The Graves/White ~prs
In Graves v. Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704 (W. D. Tex. 1972),
aff'd in relevant part sub nom White v.Regester, 412 U. S. 755 (1973)
certain educational, social and economic factors were considered as
crucial to a consideration of minority political activity and ability to
compete vis a vis Anglos 343 F. Supp. at 740; 412 U. S. at 776. In
application of these demographic factors from Graves to Nueces County
one finds:
Persons with No School Years
Of Nueces County's 115,135 persons 25 years of age or older, 6,492
(5. 64%) have not completed any years of school. On a comparative basis, -
45,903 (39. 87%) of the county's total persons 25 years of age or older live
in the Barrio area. Yet of this 45, 903k 5, 553 (12. 09%) have completed no
years of school. Expressed in ther terms, while the barrio ~ontains only
39. 87% of the persons 25 years of age or older, it includes 85. 54% of the
total persons in the county with no years of school completed. .
%of Population With No Education
Minority Tracts 12. 09%
Balance of County 1.35
(excluding minority tracts)
College Graduates
Of Nueces County's 115,135 persons 25 years of age or older, 11,826
(10. 27%) have a college degree. On a comparative basis, while 45,903 (39. 87%)
83-679 0 - 82 - 12 Pt.2
PAGENO="0178"
1052
of the total persons 25 years of age or older live in the Barrio area, only
~1,355 (2.95%~-are college graduates. Expressed in other terms, while the
Barrio contains almost40% of the county's persons 25 years of age or
older, it includes only 11.46% of the county's college graduates. Thus, it
may be-seen that while only 2.95% of the persons living in the Barrio are
college graduates, 15% of those living in tracts outside the Barrio area
have achieved that educational level.
* -. %of College Graduates -
Minority tracts ... 2. 95%
Balance of County 15.00 -
(excluding minority
- tracts) - -
Median Years of School Completed --
Of the county's population over 25; the median school 3~èars completed
is found to be 11.5. This may be contrasted with the average median years
completed for the Barrio of 8~ 0. -
Median School Years Completed 11.5
- Average Median for Barrio Tracts 8.0 -
Family Income Below Poverty Level - -
Of the- 57, 039 families living in Nueces County, 9,732 (17.06%) are
- found to be. existing on sub-poverty level incomes. On a comparative basis,
It may be seen that of the 21,751 families living, in the Barrio area 7,182
(33. 01%) are below the poverty level. Expressed in other terms, while the
Barrio area includes only 38. 13% of the-. county's families, it suffers from
73.80% of the county's poverty. Thus. it may be seen that while almost one-
third of the Barrio families exist On sub-poverty level income, only 7. 22%
PAGENO="0179"
1053
of the families living outside the Barrio are in the same situation.
%of Families Below Poverty Level
Minority Tracts 33.1%
Balance of County 7. 22
(excluding the minority
tracts)
Housing Facilities -
The Inferior condition of the Nueces County Barrio housing may probably
best be illustrated by the substantial percentage of its housing units which lack'
some or all plumbing units, Of the 74,695 housing units in the county 30,196
* (40.43%) are found in the `Barrio. ii. 17% (3, 374) of these Barrio housing units
lack plumbing, as contrasted with 1. 67% of the housing units outside the Barrio
which are in a similar situation. Expressed in other terms, the Barrio contains
only 40. 43% of the county's~ tatal housing- units but `81. 93% of the county's housing
units lacking plumbing.
% of Housing Units Lacking Plumbing
Minority Tracts'- 11.17% ,* * ` `
Balance of Nueces County 1.67
(excluding the Barrio)
Family Income * * * " `` -
The median family income for Nueces County is found to be $8,168
while the average of the median income of the minority tracts amounts to *
only $5, 239.
Minority Tracts $5, 239
Nueces County 8,168
(including minority tracts)
PAGENO="0180"
1054
2. Population by Ethnic Background
~The only reason given in the House floor debates for the passage
of the Nueces County action o1lO9? was that it:.:
truly reflected the.makeup of the entire county, and that
51%.of Nueces County is white or Anglo...
and so
[W]hat we did and what this plan did do it gave one
district~which is a Chicano district. There is no doubt
that they will be able to elect a Chicano from this dis-
trict. Also we had one district or we created a district
where an Anglo will be elected; There is no doubt about
that. And then we have one swing district which reflects
the general makeup of~the county where yoiihave 51%
white, or 43 percent Chicano in it, and then 1% other,
* and this one district trulyLreflects the entire makeup of
the county, as I said, white guaranteeing an Anglo and a
Chicano; if granted it doesn't do what: Repres entative
Truan's district does and that is guarant~e two ChicañOh
and only. one white, which is what his plan does.
Reapportioflment~debate at 24. * *
The Nueces County population breakdown is: *
Total * . Mexican . .* :
Population Black % American % ~Minority % * * Anglo * %
237,544 11,023 * 4.6 103,543 43.6 114,566 48.22 120,603 50.8
Thus the plan adopted by the State does represent the. overall county figures.
minimal number (approximately l~) of so called "others" also
live in Nueces County..
PAGENO="0181"
1055
This argument might lend merit and support to the plan before the
Department of Justice if the three districts which were drawn included
the whole of Nueces County. Of course, they don't. In fact the area,
formerly in the so called Nueces County multi-member district is less
* than the entire county and is over 50% minority according to the 1970
census.
District 48 .`
* Total Mexican
* Population* Black % American % Minority % * Anglo ~
220,056 11,466 5.2 99,059 45.0 110,525 50.2 107,331 48.7
Thus, when the facts are fully considered, the only argument in support of
the plan adopted by the Legislature is not only misstated but, in fact even
under 1970 census data supports the Truan Plan. The debates suggest
the real reason the Legislature acted to ignore the plan offered by Re-
* presentative Truan: * * * *
[I]t doesn't do what Rep. Tr.uan's `district does and that is
guarantee two. Chicano and only one white [district] which
is basically what his plan does. * * *
Record of Debates at 24. * *
A minimal number of so called "others~' also live in this area.
PAGENO="0182"
1056
The Truan plan had been adopted by the U. S. District Court in
White v. Regester, ~ (See White Supreme Court appendix at 1007,
989-995; Record of Debates at 19). We include a copy of it as ~Exhibit 2.
A Background Court A~roved~l~4~
In short the court approved Truan plan was an attempt to deal with
several racial and demographic. problems in Nueces County.
1. Racially Polarized Voting
In Nueces County, as in other areas in Texas we find racially
identifiable voting (W~i~e Supreme Court appendix at 522-525; 612-613).
Specifically the area south of Weber Roadwas pointed out as producing
consistently heavy vote ag~in~t Mexican American. candidates (id.~at 613- -
614; 997).
2. The Corridor Area and Problems Attendent Thereto
The corridor area was identified by the federal courts in. Cisneros
v.C9rp~ Ch~sti.~S.P., 324 F.Supp. 599 (S.D.Tex. 1970, at~ in part
modified in part andrernanded, 467 F. 2d 142 (5th Cir. 1972). Ithas a
high concentration of Mexican Americans and Blacks who live in conditions
of severe povei~ty, Graves v~ Bar~, 378 F. Supp. at 658. Thu; the persons
who are found in the area have very specific needs and problems. (Whj~e -
SupremeCourtAPpendix 990-993.)* The corridor area is set out generally
PAGENO="0183"
1057
in Exhibit 5.
~* ~ of Interest
As set out in this comment and documented in great detail in
Exhibit 3, Nueces County is a place of great social, economic, and*
educational contrasts which revolve in almost every instances around
race and national origin. . .
4; Racial Concentrations
The City of Corpus Christi, which represents the lion'sshare
of District 48 is a very segregated city in terms of housing patterns.
The Black population is fairly small and exceeds 50% of only two census
tracts (Exhibit 3). .The Mexican American populaiion is concentrated in
the corridor area and exceeds so% in sixteen census tracts. (Id.) The
Anglo population is found primarily in the area south of the corridor
and is especially concentrated south of Weber Road.. .
B. Analysis of the Truan Plan * . .
After extensive hearings and briefing on the question, the Texas
district court adopted the Truan plan. This apportionment was carefully*.
drawn to consider the special interests of these people. District 48A
contains nine census tracts of which seven are corridor. These areas~-
represent low voter registration and turnout but high correlation with
PAGENO="0184"
1058
Mexican American candidates. Based on projections drawn from. the last
seven state legislative racesitappears certain that a Mexican American
would be elected to serve from this district.
District 48B contains th~ only two Nueces County census tracts which
are majority Black. This Black area is combined with other urban populated
tracts with similar demographic and racial characteristics in both Corpus
Christi and neighboring Robstown (Tracts 56 and 57). The only rural area
found in 48, the old multi-member district, was included with District B:
Again the racial and other characteristics of the areas are quite similar
(for example, the rural area, tracts 54 and 60 are 60.7% and 64% Mexican
American respectively). Under the studies undertaken to try White II we
feel that this district will be'a close race betweeiraminority and an Anglo
since the overall turnout would favor the minority candidate in the area of
52-48. This, of course, is fairly representative of the population ofthe
old-multi member district.
District 48C is a very compact rectangular district located in the .
southeastern part of Nueces County. It includes the area south of Weber
Road where the highest incidence of racially identifiable Anglo voting is
found. The tracts have minimal minority percentages. In this area we
find little proverty, high family incomes, advanced educational backgrounds
and high incidence of Anglo population. Under our studies, we feel that
this area will be represented by an Anglo.
PAGENO="0185"
1059
C. Analysis of the Plan Adopted By the State for District 48 -
As stated earlier, even under the 1970 census, the area comprising
the multi-member district (48) from which 48A, 48B and 48C are drawn,
was over 50% minority. It is therefore curious to note that the way the
State structures the districts, only one of the three is over 50% minority.
It is even more suspect when one reads the debates on thé~ Texas House
floor and finds that the only justification offered for the plan was that it
seemed more fair because Anglos were in the majority. Race was, of
course, the motive. Exhibit 5, attached, is a copy of the State's plan.
It is a classic gerrymander. The corridor area is divided three ways.
The districts are long and slender, each reaching in and taking a substantial -
portion of the minority area. ~-The heavily Anglo area south of Weber Road*
in which racially polarized voting has been noted, was formed into two
areas, each controlling one of the three districts. It is true that the
Mexican Americans will elect one representative under this plan, but it
would be impossible to draw single member districts where such would
notbethe case. -
In the floor debates it was argued that a second district, 48B, would -
be a swing area - - That is to say, it is 47% minority. Again~thisis
hard to imagine because of the substantial differential in turnout and re-
gistration between Ariglos and minority persons combined with the high
incidence of racially polarized voting recorded in the Anglo areas.
PAGENO="0186"
1060
Indeed, thereis absolutely no community of Interest between the
census tracts in 48B. In terms of persons with no education for example,
the Mexican American~ tracts ~are up to 30 times higher in concentration
non schooled~ persons. In terms of . % of each tract that are college
graduates, the Anglo tracts are tento hventy timeshigher than the Mexican
American tracts in concentrations of college educated persons. In terms
of poverty level incomes, the Mexican American tracts contain up to
eighteen times the concentration of persons with poverty level incomes..
In terms.of median family incomeS,~ the Anglo tracts consistently have
families with 1/3 higher incomes. : -
* 6J
ç~~par~so_~n of Plans InTerms.~of Race
State Plan Truan Plan
A A
411 . 72~508
65.9 68.00
* 11.2 6.41
77.8 74.41.
22.2 24.59
B
`15,584
53.81
8.93
62.00
.38.00
73,661
45.0
2.7
47.7
52.3
Total Population
% Mexican American
% Black
% Minority
%Anglo
61 Note that there are a minimal number of so called "others" in-
*cluded in the Anglo percentages which does not appear to exceed.1%.
District 48
Total Population
*% Mexican American
% Black
% Minority
*%Anglo
PAGENO="0187"
1061
District 48 State Plan Truan Plan
Total Population 72,984 71,964
% Mexican American 24.4 12.71
%Black 0.9 0.86
% Minority 25~.3 13.49
% Anglo 5 5 74.7 86.51
CONCLUSION
The imposition of single member districts as set lip in the State plan
will unquestionably disadvantage minority persons in Nueces County. The**
debattes on thefloor of the Texas House of Representatives highlight race as~
a major if not the only issue in the drawing of these districts. The court ~
which was introduced and referred to as the Truan plan in the debates was
tabled over the votes of sei~é~teen (17) dtthe eigh~n (18) pre~ent minority
members. S S.
Respectfully submitted
S VILMA S. MARTINEZ
S Mexican American Legal Defense and
S. Educational Fund, Inc. S
* .S S * 145 Ninth Street - 2nd Floor
S San Francisco, California 94103
S * * * * (415) 864-6000 *
GEORGE J. KORBEL S
* ALBERT H. KAUFFMAN * *
Mexican American Legal Defense and
* * Educational Fund, Inc
501 Petroleum Commerce Building
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(512) 224-5476
PAGENO="0188"
1062
T. 1/26/76
JSP :BHW:mrk
DJ 166-012-3
x0614
Honorable Mark White
Secretary of State of Texas
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Secretary:
This is in reference to our letter of
January 23, 1976, and in further reply to your
submission of the subdistrictings of 9 multi-
member Texas House of Representatives districts
in House Bill 1097 of the 1975 Session of the
Texas Legislature, to the Attorney General
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965. Your submission was received on
November 26, 1975.
We responded to your submissionprior to
January 25, 1976, the last day of the 60-day period
as set out in Section 51.22 of our procedural guide-
lines for the administrationof Section 5, 28 C.R.F.
§51.22:
When a decision not to object is
made within the 60-~day period
following receipt of a submission
which satisfies the requirements
of §51.10(a), the Attorney General
may reexamine .Xhe submission if
additional information comes to
his attention during the remainder
of the~60~day period which would
require objectton in accordance
with §51.19.
cc; Records mv. File Luther Jones
Chrono Public File A.G. Hill
Turner Sappey *lJsas - San Antonio,
Weinberg/Cabel/Jones Tyler, Houston &
ATTACHMENT 16
PAGENO="0189"
1063
Such additional information has come to
our attention and we have reexamined the submission
of House Bill 1097 with regard to the effect of
new single-member districts defined in House Bill
1097 for Nueces County, District 48A through 48C
* The additional information in this regard
concerned the minority population within the single-
member districting plans for Nueces County presented
to the Court prior to its order of January 28, 1975,
in Graves v. Barnes. During our initial examination
of the district~jjt out in House Bill 1097 for
Nueces County we erroneously considered the population
statistics of the plan submitted to the Court by the
State as statistics relative to the plan which the Court
adopted. On that erroneous basis we had determined
that the plan set out in House Bill 1097 would not
dilute minority voting strength given the results
that would flow from fairly drawn alternative
districting plans.
Our evaluation of the new single-member districts
in House Bill 1097 for Nueces County indicated that the
district lines are drawn through a cogainable minority
residential area known as "the corridor" in Corpus
Christi resulting in an apportionment or fragmenting
of that area into each of the 3 districts, only in one
of which minorities represent a majority of the
population. It was our understanding that in
approaching the question of how to draw new single-
member districts for Nueces County, the legislature
utilized the theory that a fair districting of the
county, given the county's population, should be
designed to result in one "safe" Mexican-American
district, one safe Anglo district, and one "swing"
district with close to 5O7~ Anglo and Mexican-
American population.
PAGENO="0190"
1064
We had no objection to this districting
approach as long as it did not result in a dilution
of minority voting strength and, as I explained
above, given our erroneous understanding of available
districting alternative we found no such dilution
would result. However, we now realize that the
districting plan for Nueces County adopted by the
Court in Graves v. Barnes, which apportions the
corridor into only 2 districts, results in 2 districts
in which'minorities represent. a significant majority
of the population; Thus, on the basis of our previous
evaluation and in the light of population statistics
of the districting plan ordered by the Court in Graves
v. Barnes, it appears that fairly drawn alternative
di~tricUng plans which avoid fragmenting the corridor
into as many as 3 districts also would make a
significant difference in the ability of minority
residents. of Nueces County to ~elect representatives
of their choice. In addition, we have determined,
as we had determined previously, that the result in
House Bill 1097 for NuecesCounty does not appear to
be.necessary on the basis of natural boundaries or
overriding considerations of district compactness.
Therefore,.. the remaining question is whether
the Legislative approach for the districting of Nueces
County constitutes a compelling governmental justi-
fication for the results that it achieved in Nueces
County. I believe it does not. Although the theory
used in House Bill 1097 for apportioning the popu-
lation,of.Nueces County could, under other .~circumstances,
be considered.to. reflect a legitimate interest of the
state, under the standards for our Section 5 review
as enunciatedinmyletter of Janaury 23, 1976, and
given the facts as described above. I view the
apportionment approach used in House Bill 1097 for
PAGENO="0191"
1065
Nueces County as a miifiimization and thus a dilution
of minority voting strength since it unnecessarily
* and ~nfairly limits minorities to only one district
in which they would represent a majority of the
population. -
Accordingly, we are unable to conclude as we
must under Section 5 that implementation of the dis-
tricts 48A- -48C set out in House Bill 1097 for
Nueces County will not have a discriminatory effect.
Under these circumstances I must, on behalf of the
Attorney General, interpose an objection to the
implementation of the specified districts set out
in House Bill 1097 for Nueces County. So that
there be no misunderstanding, I should point out
that the objection interposed herein is in addition
to the objections interposed in my letter of
January 23, 1976, to the implementation of the
district 7A--7c and 32A--32I set out in House
Bill 1097 for Jefferson and Tarrant Counties.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, you have the right to seek a
declaratory judgment from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia that these districts
neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of
race or color or in contravention of the guarantees
set forth in Section 4(f) of the Act. However, until
and unless such a judgment is obtained, the provisions
objected to are unenforceable.
I apologize for any inconvenience that may
have been caused to you by our error in this matter.
Sincerely,
J. Stanley Pottinger
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0192"
1066
.9
RAZA UNDA PARTY
P. 0. BOX 711 PEARSALL, TEXAS 78061
*
* Submitting Aut~ng~y
The undersigned submitting authority is the duly elected and acting
Frio county chairman of the Raza lJnida Political Party - one of the
o three official parties in the state. As. the county chairman he is an
ex-office member of the county election board 2_," and is charged with
the duty of conducting party primary elections for nomination of can-
* dlidates for the various elected partisan posts. In such a role the
county political chairman functions as a state official and his or her
* action were early hnld by the Supreme Court to be state action.
Since the county political chairmen are charged with the conduct
of all duties in connection with the holding of primary elections, they
* ~Under Texas law an official political party is defined as a party
whose nominee for governor receivedmore than 2% of the total vote.
* C~irrently the Democrats, the Republicans and the Raza Unida are all
official parties.: Texas Election Code Art. 13.02.
* Texas Election Code Article 7.07.
3~J
Texas Election Code Article 13.01 FF.
* 4/
-~v.~o~O!1, 286U.S. 73 (1932)
In Texas the State takes no part in the holding of primary elections.
The county chairmanis required to take all steps necessary including the
designation of polling places, the printing and counting of ballots and the
declaration of a winner. Since 1971 however the State began to finance
* *. these elections. With the advent of funding no additional responsibility
was borne by the State.
ATTACHMENT 17
PAGENO="0193"
1067
clearly have an interest in all state statutes which deal with electoral
procedures which they by law are charged to carry out. This sub-
mission, then, is of the statute set out herein, only as it effects
*Frio County. It should not be considered as a total submission
of the law that duty resides by law in the Texas Attorney General or
Secretary of State. 6 It is only because those officials have refused
to act that this piece meal submission is necessary.
Information Required Pursuant to 28 C. F. R. 51.10
(1) A copy of any legislative or administrative enactment or
order embodying a change affecting voting, certified by an
appropriate officer of the submitting authority to be a true copy.
Submission: See Attached Exhibit "A"
(2) The date of final adoption of the change affecting voting.
Submission: Change adopted by 63rd Texas Legislature to be
effective August 27, 1973 but portion submitt~d by its terms does
not go into operation until "the year 1976."
(3) Identification of the authority responsible for the change and the
mode of decision, (e. g.) act of State legislature, ordinance of city
council, redistricting by election officials.
Under the Voting Rights Act the chief legal official has the
duty of submitting, however, it is the understanding of the county
chairman that he takes the position that under Texas law the duty is
found in the Secretary of State.
83-679 0 - 82 - 13 Pt.2
PAGENO="0194"
1068
Submission: The 63rd Texas State Legislature.
(4) An explanation of the difference between the submitted change
affecting voting and the existing law or practice, or explanatory
materials adequate to disclose to the Attorney General the
difference between the existing and proposed situation with res-
pect to voting. When the change will affect less than the whole
State or subdivision, such explanation should include a des-
cription of which subdivisions or parts thereof will be affected
and how each will be affected.
Submission: The submitted change, commonly known as "S. B. 11"
modifies the manner in which minority parties nominate their
candidates. Texas Political parties have traditionally held their
own primary elections. There is no question that this is due in
major part to an attempt to prehibit the minority groups from
participation in the political process. Nixon v. Herndop~, 273
U.S. 536(1926);Nixonv. Condon, 286U.S. 73 (1932); Smithy.
Allwright, 321 U.S. 657 (1944) and Terryv. Adams, 345 U.S.
461 (1953). The funding of these elections formerly came from
very large filing fees. In 1971 the Federal courts struck the
statute providing for these fees and the Texas Legislature passed
an emergency statute to pay for the 1972 primary elections.
The year 1972 saw the emergence of a new political party in
Texas Raza Unida whose candidate for governor received 214, 000
votes. In addition Raza Unida elected several county level political
PAGENO="0195"
1069
figures in certain areas in South Texas. During the election
there was a great concern on the part of the Democrats in
Texas that the Raza Unida Party would drain off sufficient
numbers of Mexican Americans to elect the first Republican
governor since reconstruction, and furthermore that our pri-.
manly Mexican American party would gain control of previously
Anglo dominated South Texas counties. In the next session of
the Texas Legislature, which met in 1973, the Democratic
Party leadership designed a device to destroy the new political
party.
S. B. 11 was the result of an effort by the State Democratic*
Party to inhibit the development of Raza Unida Party andlimit
the political activity of Mexican Americans. It requires in re-
levant part that in order to receive statefinancingofa primary
election, a party must nominate, a candidate for governor who
received 20% of the vote.
Pniox-to the change, a party whose candidate for governor re-
ceived either `more than 2% of the total vote or `200, 000 votes was an
official party and eligible for complete state financial support for its
primary election. After the change, aparties' candidate for go~a-nor
must receive more than 20%. ôfthe `vote for state financial b~king. If
PAGENO="0196"
1070
such party receives less than 20% but more than 2% it remains
an official party, but it is required to nominate its candithtes by
convention and may not utilize a primary. No state funds are
available to help defray the costs of this convention.
It is my feeling, as well as that of the other County Raza
linida Chairpersons that this statute will have a serious effect
on our ability to compete with the Democratic Party. In my
county, as well as in most of South Texas, there is no Republican
presence. The Democrats will hold, state financed primary elections
which assure a great deal of publicity. The Raza Tinida Party will
be forced to nominate candidates without this state aid. Further-
more, primary elections in Texas are the elections that most
Mexican Americans look to because before the advent of Raza
Unida, Democratic nominations meant election. We must now
teach the people not to vote in the primary and to attend our con-
ventions instead. This fact alone will put our organizational
efforts back several years.
S. B. 11 may make sense in sbme counties in Texas, where
our candidate for' Governor received few votes. But, in fact, we
do not hold primary elections there and it is doubtful we ever would.
The statute does not make sense however in South Texas counties
PAGENO="0197"
1071
such as Zavala, Frio and LaSalle when our candiate for Governor
either carried the county or ran far ahead of the Republican party
and Raza tJnida elected the County Judges, county commissioners
and many county positions. What the statute does in these areas
is to give a state Subsidy for the Democrats to run against us and
to change our nomination process so that our supporters wilibe
confused. We believe that this was the only purpose behind the
slatute. Without effective local organization, it is further clear
that our candidate for Governor will never again present the poten-
tial "drain off" of Mexican American voters to elect a Republican.
The racial effect of this is quite clear. Under the Raza Unida
ticket Mexican Americans have been elected to positions previously
controlled by Anglo Democrats in Zavala, Frio and LaSalle counties.
This statute will help to again put the Anglos in the position of con-
trol.*
(5) A statement certifying that the change affecting voting has not
yet been enforce or administered, or an explanation of which. such
a statement cannot be made.
Submission: I hereby certify that the change aff~ctingvoting has
not yet been enforced or admiis,t ~ /_____ . /
Date: ~ /~7~ ~ ~
/ Frio County R~zá Uruda Chairi~an
Subscribed and Sworn to before me by the said Modesto Rodrigu~z~
on this the 21st day of November* , 1975.
-~ k~ /-.-`--.-----~:.- - ~ ~
Notary Public in and for. Bexar
rnimty, Texas .. .
PAGENO="0198"
1072
(6) With respect to redistricting, annexation, and other complex
changes, other information which the Attorney General determines
is required to enable him to evaluate the purpose or effect of the
change. Such other information may include items listed under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(7) A statement of the reasons for the change affecting voting.
Submission: The official reason we expect that Texas would give
is that minority parties should not be allowed to hold primary
elections financed by state funds because it is a non-economic ex-
penditure of money. They would point out that Raza Unida got very
little support in some of thern State's 254 counties. What they will
try to ignore is that in many counties Raza Unida either carries
the county or is the only competition for the Democrats. The
records show that Raza Unida, like the Republican party does not
hold primary elections in all of the State's counties. Both the
Raza Unida and the Republicans stay out of regions where they
have little support.
The real reason for the passage of the statute I believe is two
fold: (1) The State Democratic Party wants to insure that the Raza
Unida does not split off traditional Mexican American straight ticket
voters increasing Republican changes for taking over the State offices
in Austin and (2) The Anglo dominated State Democratic Party wants
to assist the Anglo dominated County Democratic Party in several
South Texas counties to either retake the county offices or to stave
PAGENO="0199"
1073
off Mexican American challenge via the Raza Unida.
(8) A statement of. the anticipated effect of the change affecting
voting.
Submission: I believe that the enforcement of S. B. 11 will result
in a substantial adverse effect on the political fortunes of Raza
Unida as a party and of the Mexican Americans in my county.
(9) A statement identifying any past or pending litigation concerning
the change affecting voting or related prior voting practices.
Submission: A suit entitled Flowers v. Wiley has been filed. I
enclose a copy of the complaint.
(10) A copy of any other changes in law or administration re-
lating to the subject matter of the submitted change affecting
voting which have been put into effect since the time when
coverage under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act began and
the reasons for such prior changes. If such changes have
already been submitted the submitting authority may refer
to the date of prior submission and identify the previously
submitted changes.
Submission: I believe that only one of the many legislative enact-
ments subject to submission and preclearance under the Voting
Rights Act, has actually been submitted. Many of these statutes
will cover duties which I have as a county chairman in the conduct
of the nomination procedures. In most cases, however, the changes
will not be effective until the actualelections are held in May of
PAGENO="0200"
1074
1976. I feel that I must act to submit this statute as it affects
my county so that I can plan. The deadline for filing for
primary according to Texas law, is February 2, 1976.
Respectfully ubmit ed,
Modesto Rodriguez
Frio County Chairman
PAGENO="0201"
1075
Honorable Mark 1~hite.
Secretary of State of Texas
Capitbi Station -.
Austin, Texas 78711
D-ear?7r, Secretary: .. -
This is in reference to Senate Bill 11
(1973), which was submitted to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting
RIg'4ts Act. Your submissIon was received on
November 26, 1975. While we have noted your
request for expedited consideration, we have
been unable to give you an earlier response
to this matter.
The Attorney C-eneral does not interpose
an objectIon to th~a changes contained~in Senate
Bill 11 except as noted below. However, we feel
a responsibility to point out that Section 5 of
the Voting RIghts Act expressly provides that
the failure of the Attorney General to object: ~
does not~bar any subsequent judicial acv4~on to:~::
enjoin the enforcecer&t of such changes
Section 6 of Senate Bill 11 restricts the.~:
* ability of polItIcal parties in. Texas to hold
primary elections after 1974 by requiring tbat~..
a political party nominate Its candIdates only
* by convention if the party' s candidate for governor
in the last preceding general election received at.
least 27. but less than 2073 of the total votes cast.
ATTACHMENT 18
PAGENO="0202"
1076
for that office. Imaediately prior to Senate Bill Ii.
no such restriction was imposed upon any political
party whose candidate for governor in the last praced-
* ing election received at least 27. of the vote for that
-office. In fact, Section 6 of Senate Bill. 11 itself
allowed such a political party to conduct primaries Lit
* 1974. :~ . * * : -
Under present state law the costs* to political
parties of primary elections are reimbursed by. the State,
but the State does not reimburse political parties for
the costs of conducting party conventions. The reasàn
* advanced by the state for its limitation on the primary.
a~s a vehicle for nomination by politIcal parties in
* Texas is a lessening o~ the burdensoma~expense of :: : * -~
state-financed primary elections
* According to pu~ information, inthe 1974 guber-' --
natoriel election in Texas the Democratic Party's
candidate received approximately 62% of the vote, the
Republican Party's candidate received approximately
327., and approximately 67~ of the .vote was received by
the candidate of the Raze Unida Party~, a party composed
- ~predcminantly of ?~exican-Arnericans and devoted to.the
protection of Nexican-Atasricari interests. -The Raza -.
- ~Uaidá Pa~ty accounted for under $60,000 orieas the-~
3% of the state's -total ~xpenditure for, primary e1ec-~$:.
tions in 1974 and, therefore, under Senate Bill1l
the only parties able Vo conduct primary electiórfs in.-
* 1976 will be the two parties which combined toaccount
for over 977. of the cost-to the state of primary; -
elections in.1974. Thus, based on these results t~lie
effect of the Section 6's restriction in 1976 and
* thereafter necessarily wo~uld fall on only one party,
the Raze Unida~ and significantly limit the opportunity'~
for Nexican-Americans to nominate, on an equal basis
with others, a candidate of their choice. - `
PAGENO="0203"
1077
Under these circumstances we ar&unab1~ to
conclude that the stated purpose for the primary elec-.
tion restriction in Senate Bill 11 outweighs the effect
of the restriction on the racially identifiable La Raza
* trnida, and that beginning in 1976 the provisions of
Section 6 of Senate Bill 11 wifl riot have a prohibited~
discriminatory effect within the meaning of Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act.: Accordingly, on behalf: of
the Attorney General, I urtist object to the implenien~~
tation of those provisions of Section 6 of Senate Bill
11. *
Of c~ourse, as provided by.Section 5 of the Voting.
Rights Act you have the right to seek a; declaratory ~
judgment from the United States District~ Court for the:~e..
* District of Columbia that these previsions neither have.~
- the purpose nor will have the effect of denying.: or
abridging the right to vote on account of race, color,
or membership. in a language minority group. However,
until and unless such~a judgment is obtained, the
provisions objected to are unenforceable.:
Sincerely,
ft
3 Stanley Pottiriger
Assistant Attorney Generál~
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0204"
1078
ATTACHMENT NO. 19 is a map
of which there is only I copy.
It will be provided for the Committee.
[Committee note: Map is available in the committee files.]
ATTACHMENT 19
PAGENO="0205"
1079
* 2ONolhStMa!ySS're ~
and E~ucatuon~3 Fund SnA~onaTe.as 78204
April 17. 1978
Mr. Gerald Jones
Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
U. S. Department of :
Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
In re: Edwards County, Texas
File No. A 3723
Dear Hr. Jones:
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is requesting
the United States Attorney General to issue a letter of objection de-
claring the December 12, 1977 redistricting of the Edwards County
Commissioners Court, in Texas to be in violation of Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. According to the 1970 census, the Chicano popula-
tion comprises approximately 48% of the total county population. Des-
pite this overwhelming .nifsiber of Chicanos, there has nevef'been a
Chicano to serve on the County Commissioners Court in recent tines.
The redistricting by the County Commissioners Court only serves to per-
petuateminority lack of access to the local political process. In the
proposed redistricting, Precinct 1 Chicanos comprise only 40.2% of the
total population and 35.7% of the population in Precinct 4. This ob-
vious fragmentation of the Chicano population will only serve to furthe
dilute Chicano voting strength in Edwards County. For these reasons,
MALDEF strongly urges a letter of objection.
I. Background of Present Redistricting
In the sumner of 1977, NALDEF and the Southwest Voter Registration and
Education Project as a result of community complaints concerning gerry-
mandered Commissioner Precincts, focused on a series of counties for
potential voter discrimination investigations. Due to the high con-
centration of Chicanos in Edwards County and the complete absence of
Chicano county commissioners, Edwards County was high on our priority
list. The initialvoter registration investigation was conducted by
S~REP. Attachment No. 1. This survey suggested that Precinct No.. 1
was heavily overpopulated while Precincts 3 and 4 were underpopulated.
The inferences suggested by the registration survey were later confirms
by a split enumeration district study conducted by the Bureau of the
ATTACHMENT 20
PAGENO="0206"
1080
Census. Attachment No. 2. According to the census study, Precinct
1 contained 1541 persons and Precinct 3 contained 104 persons. This
substantial disparity amounted to a top to bottom deviation of 273%,
veil beyond the 10% figure allowed by the United States Supreme Court.
Connor v. Finch~ 97 S. Ct. 1828, 1835 (1977). This violation of the
one person one vote principle was compounded by the overconcentratjon
of Chicanos in Precinct No. 1. Thus even if all of the Chicanos were
registered to vote, they would still be a numerièsl minority within
Precinct 1 and unable to elect their own representative.
Armed with this information, representatives of MALDEF and SWREP at-
tended a meeting of the County Commissioners Court on August 31, 1977.
At this meeting we informed them that unless the Court reapportioned
their Precincts, a lawsuit would be filed. Within 30 minutes of our
presentation, the County Commissioners' Court voted to redistrict.
Attachment No. 3. Unfortunately the County Court chose not to utilize
our assistance in reapportioning their precincts. In addition the
County rejected a proposed redistricting offered by the Mayor of
Rocksprings (county seat) which would have provided Chicanos with
greater access to the political system.
II. Analysis of Plan
The new redistricting plan fragments the Chicano barrio into 4 pre-
cincts. As the attached map of Rocksprings indicates the precinct
boundaries cut across the barrio area in order to ". . . to have ap-
proximately the same number of eligible Mexican American voters in each
of the four precincts." Letter of County Judge Stovall to Department
of Justice, dated February 22, 1978. Attachment No. 4. The final
outcome of their reapportionment efforts is devastating:
No. of No. of Mexican
Precinct No. Anglos Americans (%) Total
1 288 194 (40.2%) 482
2 348 117 (25.2%) 465
3 334 138 (29.2%) 472
4 302 168 (35.7%) 470 -
1272 617 (32.7%) 1889
PAGENO="0207"
1081
If this plan is implemented, Chicanos will never be able to elect
their own representative. -L.1
Clearly the division of the minority population reflected in the new
redist~icting plan falls well below the standards noted in United
Jewish Organization v. Carey, 97 S.. Ct. 996 (1977) (65% minority die-
trict) and Beer v. United States, 96 S. Ct. 1357, 1368, at n. 7 (1976)
(64.1% minority district). Needless to s~y, the minority eligible
voter population and the actual number of minority registered voters
are lower :than the 52.67. registered Black voters approved in Beer,
supra.
Finally the proposed redistricting is unconstitutional when measured
against-the plan presented in Kirksey v. Bd. of Supr's. of Rinds Cty~,
Miss., .554 F. 2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977), cart. den., 46 U.S.L.W. 3357
(1977). In Kirksey, the twohighest minority districts contained
53.47. Black (District 2) with a 48% eligible minority voter population
and 54%Black(District 5) with a 48.6% eligible minority voter popula-
tion. The District Court focused on the population majorities and
concluded that the reappor.tionment plan-offered Blacks a- -realistic `op-
portunity to elect at least two supervisors. On appeal the Court of
Appeals sitting en.banc, reversed.
According to the Fifth Circuit, the District Court erroneously focused
on population majorities rather than on minority voting strength. Also
the District Court's approval of the plan resulted in the fragmentation
of a geographically concentrated minority voting community. These two
factors played a significant role in the appellate decision to reverse:
"Where the cohesive black voting strength is
fragmented among districts, the presence of
districts with bare black population majorities
- -ii The total count of Mexican Americans shows that they corn-
prise only 32.7% of the total population. Our review of the file
did not indicate where the county obtained these figures. Our infor- -
mation for the City of Rocksprings was obtained by an informal survey
conducted by the Mayor of Rocksprings. Itowever this survey did not in-
dude any outlying areas outside of the City. Consequentlythe total
population figures provided by the County are suspect since their figure
are well below the 48% Chicano population listed by the Bureau of the
Census. Even assuming the correctness of their population figures, the
plan adopted by the Commissioners Court stillhas a discriminatory effec
on Chicanos in Edwards County.
PAGENO="0208"
~1O82
not only does not necessarily preclude dilution
but, as a panel of this court pointed out, bare
population majorities nay actually enhance the
possibility of continued ninority political
impotence.
The supervisors' reapportionment plan, though
racially neutral, will perpetua'te the denial of
access. By fragmenting a geographically concentrated
but substantial black minority in a community where
block voting has been a way of political life the
plan will cancel or minimize the voting strength of
the black minority and will tend to submerge the
interests of the black communities. The plan denies
rights protected under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments."
554 F. 2d at 150-151
In a similar fashion, the proposed redistricting fragments the minority
community thereby unconsti~tutionally dividinga cohesive minority voting
strength. The Edwards County plan is even more pernicious since the proS
posed redistricting does not even create precincts with bare Chicano
majorities. In a county where there has never been a Chicano candidate
for County Commissioner~ since 1952, such a division of the Chicano com-
munity vil]~ only serve to perpetuate the lack of access to the political
system. -Li
This continued denial of equal access to Chicanos will occur
in view of the county's present and past history of discrimination. The
The lack of Chicano participation within the political
processes is-not confined--to the county. Out of-the six person city
council in Rocksprings only one is a Chicano. The municipal electoral
scheme consists of at-large elections, a numbered place system, coupled
with a majority vote runoff requirement. Out of the 7 person school
board for Rocksprings Independent School District,none is a Chicano.
PAGENO="0209"
1083
schools were not desegregated until the early `50s Chicanos
could not get haircuts in Rocksprings until 1964 when a Chicano
barber settled in Rocksprings. Local restaurants were segregated.
Community residents feel that there is unequal law enforcement.
Perhaps the most discriminatory action taken by residents in Edwards
County was the lynching of Antonio Rodriguez for allegedly killing an
Anglo woman in 1910. After Rodriguez wa~ apprehended for shooting the
person, a nob secured his release from ja'~tl and took him out to a pas-.
ture where Rodriguez was burned at the stake. Even today Chicanos
discuss this incident with deep resentment, since they contenf that
Rodriguez was an innocent victim who did not commit the crime.
Discrimination in Edwards County is not limited only to the living.
The Rocksprings Cemetery has separate sections for Anglos and Mexican
Americans. Although it is unclear whether the exclusion of Chicanos
from the Anglo section is still practiced, an on-site inspection re-
vealed that Anglos were buried in the more well maintained, area while
Chicanos were buried in the rear of the cemetery. When I attempted to
inquire about the segregated burial plots to Mr. Smart, secretary of the
Rockspringa Association, he became very agitated and told me if I was
there to stir up trouble, -that I should-leave--Rocksprings before sundown.
Attachment No. 5. This threat has caused our organization to be more
cautious in any future trips to Edwards County. ?a..f
With respect to minority hiring practices, only nine Chicanos or 21%
of the total county employment force (42) are currently employed by
Edwards County. This small number of minority employees clearly de-
monstrates the unresponsiveness of the county to the needs of the
Mexican American community. The necessity for specific governmental
action in the area of employment is evidenced by census data: median
The designation of "Mexican Public School" is still found in
the maps of Rocksprings, distributed by the city. See Attachment No.
4. *
A/ Another indication of the insensitivity of the Anglo com-
munity to Chicanos was the vote in 1962 defeating the state consti-
tutional amendment which would have abolished the poll tax as a pre-
requisite for voting.
83-679 0 - 82 - 1L~ Pt.2
PAGENO="0210"
1084
-school years completed by Chicano males (4.8 years) is lower tliar&
* the~county median (10.0. years); the median income for Chicano families
($3,466) is lower than themedian income for the rest of the county
($5,163); the percentage of Chicano families (63.6%) with income less
than the poverty level is significantly higher than for the rest of
the county (35.9%).
Conclusion
The attempt by the County Commissioners Court_to divide the Chicano
community evenly among all four precincts amounts to the fragmentation
of a .cohesive minority voting strength. This action clearly constitutes
dilution. The County was well aware of the location of the minority
population, the lack of access to the political processes experienced
by Chicanos in Edwards County,and the existence of past and present dis
crimination against Chicanos. To divide the Chicano barrio in the con~
text of theseaforenentioned factors demonstrates an intent toperpetuat
the past denial of equal access to the political processes. Washington
v.Davis, 96 S. Ct. 2040 (1976); Village of Arl~gton Ee~ghts v.Me-
~~politan.Housin5 Development Cor~.,97 S. Qt. 555 (1976); Kirksey,
~pra. The 40% minority population figure for Precinct No. 1 and the
35.7% minority population figure for Precinct No. 4 clearly will not gi~
* Chicanos a meaningful opportunity to. select their representatives to the
* Edwards County Commissioners Court. For these reasons, we urge the
Department of Justice to issue a letter of objection.
Sincerely,
Joaquin C. Avila
Associate Counsel
sa
At tachments
PAGENO="0211"
1085
Ironorahie Allan Stovall
County Judge
Edwards County
Post OZf Ice Eo~~ 348
Rockzprings, ~o::as 78880
I~ear Judge Stovall:
This is in reference to the redistrictIng of cor~is~Ion~r
prc~cincts in Edwards County, `~e~as, subrdtted to the rttornoy
C~i;cral pursuant to ~cction S of the Voting Alghts Act of
1965, as ar~ondcd.. Your submission was co~pletcd on t'ebruarv 27,
1978.
~o have given careful consideratic~n to the inforiantion
furnished by you as well as 3ureau of the C~n~us data and
information and covmtents from interested parties. Cur
analysis reveals that, according to the 1970 Ccn~us, ~cxIcan
?ntericans constitute approxia~ately 44~ of the po~ulation of
Idwards County and aro concentrated in the City of flocksprings.
~io tiexican Atioricans have been-- elected to the Conrtizsioners
Court under the prior districting plan. Under the suhmitted
redistricting, plan, the rK~ican A~orican population in the
county has been aln~ost evenly distributed among the four
commissioner precincts. The result of this division of a
highly concentrated minority group is to minimize and thus
dilute minority, voting strength since it assures, that flexican
Americans will not represent a majority of the population in
any one cor.w~issioner precinct. Soc i~irksey v. !3oardof
Sunervisors of Ii~~d~ County, 554 F. 2~T~15th ?~1r. 1977),
cert. dc~hied, 98 3.Ct. 512 (1977), and T~obInson v. Cor~c'issioners
coü~~ö~i F. 2d 674 (.th Cir. 1974). Our analysis further
rev~1s that rational and compact alternative districting
could achieve populatIon equality among the four co~ziissioner
Precincts while at the same time achieving a precinct system
that would more accurately reflcct V~onican ~icrican voting
strength in Edvards County.
ATTACHMENT 21
PAGENO="0212"
1086
Therefore, on the basis of our ana1y~is, we are unable
to conclude, as w~ must under th3 Voting ghtn Act, that the
submitted redistricting of cOL~i1iS5~OnGr precincts in r~c~ntards
County does not have the purpoco and will riot have the effect
of ~1~critiinating on account of ~hcrsbip in a languaçe
:`inority group. ACc0~~7, on !~ch~tlf of the Attorney
Gui~cral, I must interpose an objection to the rcdistric~.ing
plan for ~d%zards County.
Of course, as provided by S'~etioa S of the ~Joting
Rights Act, you have the right to st~ek a declaratory juc
Tent fron the United States Distr!ct Court for ihe District
of Columbia that this change has neither the purpose nor will
have the cff~ct of denying or abrIdging the right to vote on
account of race, color, or men1~ership in a language minority
group. In a~ition, the P~occdurcs for tho Administrat!on of
Section 5 (28 C.F.R. E1. 2(b), 51.23, and 51. 2~) permit you to
recluest the Attorney General to reconsider the objection.
however, until the objection is withdrawn or the judgi;ont frou
the District of Columbia Court obtained, the effect of the
* objection by the Attorney General is to nahe the redistricting
plan for E~wards County legally unenforceable.
Sincerely,
. brow S. Days III -
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: Joauin Avila /
Charlie Cotrell
Willie Velasq~z
David Lessard
PAGENO="0213"
1087
517(ieurnconrnerce Building
(512)224.5471
April 5, 1978
Mr. Gerald Jones, Chief .
Voting Section
U. S. Dept. of Justice . . -.
Main Justice Building
Washington, D.C. .
Dear Mr. Jones: RE: Medina County,Pile No.A 4881
On March 3, 1978, the Medina County Commissioner's Court submitted
a redistricting of the Commissioner's precincts. We have evaluated
the submitted plan and strongly urge the Depaxtment.of Justice to
issue a letter of objection. The Chicano population in tledina
* County according to 1970 Census comprises 48.5% of the total popu~
lation; yet, Chicanos have never been represented in Commissioner's
Court. The plan submitted by Medina County allows Chicanos only
55.41% in precinct 3 and 50.89% in precinct 4. This plan simply
does not allow Chicanos a sufficient majority in either precinct to
remedy the past effects of distrimination and lack of political
access.
* I.. Analysis Of Submitted Plan.
In Texas, each county is governed by a County Commissioner's Court.
Article V. U8 of the Texas Constitution. Commissioners are elected
from one of four precincts. Id. There is no question that the
County Commissioner's Court is subject to the one person one vote
principle articulated in ve~y~ v. Midland, 390 U.S. 474 (1967). A~
indicated in the submission, the pre-1978 precinct boundaries were
in violation of the one person one vote principle. According to
a Bureau of Census split enumeration district study purchased by
MALDEt', the populations was mot evenly distributed among the four
precincts: * . . - . . * ** S
Precinct No. No.of Persons No.of Persons above(+) * Z Deviation
or below (-`) Ideal
District of 20,249
1 6,590 1,528 (+) +30%
* 2 3,874 1,188 (-) -23%
.1,~ *, * 1,707 3,355 (-) -66%
* 4 * 8,078 3,016 (1') +60%
ATTACHMENT 22
National Office Regional Offices
2~ ~ S.c.. 250W fouree~'.tn Awn.e 5455 t.'3ht,~ 5I~4 F. `.h~Pl CO?.crllv.4 `iC.; 1028 Cct'lcclcu?von,,
5~ f3~ 30 CA 9"34 . Onnver. Co 802fi4 LosAn3ias.CA 94035 24; ~ 5~ ~ ~"-et `Pnd~ngm~ DC 20036
(303:8931893 (2,3:9355145 S.\.r.;~T5753.~ ~2O2]6555iss
;.`2 2~454?s
Co"ir~tutonc Ars DeducIble for US Income Tue Purposea
PAGENO="0214"
1088
The total top to bottom deviation was 126%, well beyond the~ 9.9%
recognized in Whi~ V. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) and even the
16.4% allowed in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973)
Apart from violating the one person one vote' principle, the
* Commissioner precincts divided the Chicano population located in
the cities of `D'Ranis and Rondo intotwo precincts.- According to
a voter registration survey conducted by }IALDRP staff on October 21.
* ~l977,' the Commissioner precincts contained the following Spanish
surname breakdown: . (
Precinct No. No.óf Regis.Voters Total Spanish Surnames
1 3301 1095 332%
* 2 `` `2,075' 309 14.9%
3 863 ~86. ` 44.8%'
* 4 `. 4,O69~ 968 23.8Z'
10,308 ` 2,758~(26.75%)
The city of Rondo was located in Commissioner Precinct No. 1 while
the city of D'Ranis was located' in Commissioner Precinct 2. Thus
if the Chicano barrios of' these two cities had been placed into one
precinct, the feasibility of electing one Chicano Commissioner would
have been increased. To ,date, tbere has not been a Chicano
Commissioner elected to the.Coumty Commissioners. Court. ` This paucity
"of minority, elected officials is especially significant since. Medina
* County contains a population consisting of 48% Chicano.
As a result of MALDEP's study of Chicano underrepresemtation at the
County Commissioner Court, the County decided to reapportion their
precinct lines rather than face a lawsuit. When the reapportionment
process was completed, the new plan did not provide Chicano greater
access to the County Commissioner's Court. MALDEF does not~ dispute
the census figures submitted by Medina County. Their own census.
`analysis demonstrates that the adopted redistricting is- even more
pernicious than under `the old reapportionment plan. The, 1978 plan
divides the Chicano community. in Rondo into two different: Commissioner
Precincts. `The Chicano barrio is located primarily in enumeration
districts 6 and 8. According to the census data, submitted by'the
county, `enumeration district No. 6 contains about a total of 1,007
*persons of which 91% are Chicanos, while enumeration district No.8
contains, 1,670 persons of which 98.9% are Chicano~ `The other enunera-~
tion districts located within the corporate limits of the City of,
Rondo do trot comtaià overwhelming concentrations of Chicanos: ` -
PAGENO="0215"
1089
(1) enumeration district No. 11 contains 157 persons of which
65.6% or 103 are Chicanos; (2) enumeration district No. 10
contains 1,475 persons of which 13.09% or 193 are Chicanos; (3)
enumeration district No. 9 contains 1114 persons of which 58.17%
or 648 are Chicanos.1 As the attached enumeration district map
indicates, the Chicanos in enumeration district No.6 are placed -
in Precinct No.1, while the Chicanos in enumeration district No..
8 are placed in Precinct No.3. Clearly this. division of the
Chicano. population will lessen the Impact of. the ninority commu-
nity on county politics. Attachment No.1
Apart from the intentional fragmentation of the Chicano community,
the bare Chicano population majorities in Precincts No.3 and 4
are also discriminatory. According to the County figures, Chicanos
comprise 55.41% of the population in Precinct No.3 and 50.89% of
the population in Precinct No.4. However the voting age population2
for these precincts present a dIfferent picture~
2 of Spanish Anéricans 21 Tears
Comnissioner Precinct No. & Over in 1970
1 *. 39.6%
2 . . 2~9~3%
3. . 49.oz
4 . . . . 47.oz
Thus chicanos will be relegated to a numerical minority in voting~
* participation. * . * * .
`Enumeration district No. 7 contains 64 persons and is thus .
inconsequential. - . . . .. . . - *
2The voting age population was obtained for each enumeration district
by applying fifth count percentage of Spanish Americans who were 21
years and -over in 1970 to the first count totals. See Attachments
2, 3, 4. Since only 50 persons were included in Precinct
proportion based upon the percentages found on Tables 1 and 2 was
applied. .
PAGENO="0216"
1090
The above analysis of the 1978 Medina County reapportionment
plan indicates that the covered jurisdiction did not take into
account the factor of minori~y voting strength expressed in terns
of eligible voter population . This absence of data on ninority
voting strength indicates that the covered jurisdiction seeks to
* focus on total population figures per district. Such a-focus is
misplaced and does not follow the criteria utilized by the United
States Attorney General.4 In United Jewish Organization v. Carey,
97 S. Ct. 996 (1977), The United States Attorney General focused
on the concentration of potential i~iinority voting strength within
each of the legislative districts under review. The.Supreme Court
approved of the importance attached to minority voting strength by
the Attorney General:
"Because, as the Court said in e, the inquiry
under §5 focuses ultimately on `the position of
racial minorities with respect to their effective
* . exercise of the electoral franchise,' 425 U.S., at
141, 96 S. Ct., at 1364, the percentage of eligible
voters by district is of great importance to that
* inquiry....We think it was reason~able for the
Attorney General to conclude in this case that C
substantial nonwhite population majority - in the.
vicinity of 651 - would be required to achieve a non-
white majority of eligible voters." :
97.S. Ct. at 1009 (Footnote omitted). . .*
3Part VI of the submission is entitled "Effect on Minority Voting
* Strength.". The only statistics presentedin the report involved
total population figures and not eligible voter population. See,
* e.~, pp 22 and 23 of the submission. This absence of voting
strength information does not follow the applicable federal regu-
lations which strongly urge the covered jurisdiction to include
"(v)oting-age population and the number of registered voters- before -
and after the change, by race, for the area to be affected by the *
* change." 2? C.F.R §51. 10(6)(6)ii) (1976). -* -
4cF. ICirksey v. Bd of Sup'rs of Hinds County, Miss~, 554 F.2d
139, .150 (5th Cit. 1977) citing Bradas V. Rapides Parish Police
Jury, 508 F. 2d 1109, 1112 (5th Cit. 1975) ("We have consistently
* recognized that `access to the political process and not population
(is) the barometer of dilution of voting strength.")
PAGENO="0217"
1091
Clearly the 1978 reapportionment plan does not meet the standards
established by the Attorney General and subsequently adopted by
the Supreme Court in Carey. According to the 1970 census,
* Mexican Americans who are eligible voters comprise only 49.07%
of the total eligible voter population in Precinct No.3 and 47%
of the total eligible voter population in Precinct No.4. These
minority voting strength percentages are well below the clear
* majority of registered voter percentage approved' by the Supreme
Court in Beer x* ~ 96 S.Ct. 1357, 1368 at m.7 (1976). (The
approved plan contained a minority'district of 64.1% Black and
52.6% registered Black voters). Moreover, the total minority
population figures per district are well below the 64.1% approved
in Beer and the 65% approved in Carey. The 55% minority figure
in Precinct 3 and the 50% minority figure in Precinct No. 4 of
the submitted redistricting plan simply will not provide minorities
with. an effective exercise of the electoral franchise.
* Apart from this infirmity, the 1978 reapportionment plan is
unconstitutional. The plan resembles very closely the reapportion-
ment plan declared unconstitutional in Kirks~ v. Board of Suyr's
of Hinds ~, Miss., 554 F.2d 139 (5th Cir 1977), cert den. 46
U.S.L.W. 3357 (1977). In Kirksey, the two highest minority distric~ts
contained 53.4% Black (District 2) with~a 48% eligible minority
voter population and 54% Black (District 5) with a 48.6% eligible
minority voter population. * The District Court focused on'the popu-
lation majorities and concluded that the reapportionment plan offered
Blacks a realistic opportunity to elect at least two supervisors~
On appeal the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, reversed.
According to the Fifth Circuit, the District Court erroneously
focused on population majorities rather than on minority voting
* strength. : Also the District Court's approval of the pram resulted
* in the fragmentation of a geographically concentrated minority
voting community. These two factors played a significant role in
the appellate decision to reverse: * * * .*
"Where the cohesive black voting ètrength is * *
* fragmented among di'stricts, the presence of
districts with bare black population majorities *
* * not only does not necessarily preclude dilution *
but, as a panel of this court pointed out, bare *
* population majorities may actually enhance the
possibility of continued minority political
impotence~. * * * :
PAGENO="0218"
1092
.The supervisors' reapportionment plan, though
* - racially neutral, will perpetuatethe denial of
access. By fragmenting a. geographically concentrated
but substantial black minority in a community where
block-voting has been a way of politic.al..life the
plan will-cancel or.minimize the voting strength of
the black minority and will tend- to submerge the -.
interests of the black communities. The plan denies
rights protected under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments." . . . .
554 F 2d at 150-151
The 1978. Medima County reappo;tiomment, in a similar fashion,
* .- fragments the Chicano community and creates bare population ma-
jorities in two ..precinc~s. The County. Commissioners Court was
well aware of the plan's. impact on the Chicano commun,ity.~ The
* reapportioning bbdy had access to census data describing the size
and location of the minority community.. In addition, the
Commissioners' Court was well aware of the lack of participation
`byChicamos `in-the political processes. ` .
Chicanos in-Medina County have simply not participated in local
politics.5 With respect to the county, there has never been a
Chicano CoumtyCommisSibmer in recent times. This lack of Chicano
represemtat'ion is evident throughout the county. ` For example the.
City of Rondo which.comtains about a 50% Mexican American population
:does not have -a single repres~ntative on the City Council.. The
-. remaining cities do not. have adequate Chicano representation: `
*Natalia - although58%.of the population is Chicano only33% (2)
of the. City Council is Chicano; Castrov.ille - 50% Mexican American
* population, only 33% (2) representation on the.City Council; and
Devime- 45% MexicanAmerican population, only. 33Z (2) represen-
Cation on the City Council.' See Attachment No. 5. A similar paucity
of Chicimo elected officials occurs at the school district level. See
Attachment No.6. This small number of Chicano elected officials is
also attributable to the low level of' Chicano voter registration.. As
of October 1, 1977, Chicanos ~constituted 26.75% of the total voter
registration.in the county. ` ` ` -
5This nonparticipation was even evident at the redistricting ` -
public meeting.'' Out of the 104 persons who signed in,' only 18 or
17.3% wereNexicam- American. See Submission Exhibit 27.
PAGENO="0219"
1093
The Court in Kirksey also focused on the existence of racially
polarized voting. As in Kirksey there are noticeable patterns
of polarized voting in Hedina County. For example in the May 1,
1976 Democratic primary, Santos received 50.9% of the votes
cast in Precinct No.12 which contained abàut 49.6% of Spanish
Surnamed registered voters. In the runoff elections in June 5,
1976 Santos received 62.7% of the votes cast in Precinct No.12
(49.6% Spanish Surnamed registered voters) and 38.8% of the
votes cast inPrecinct No. 7 (38.8(Spanish Surnamed registered
voters). These voting patterns definitely show a tendency among
Mexican. American voters to vote for Mexican American candidates.
A more conclusive pattern cannot be provided because this apparently
was the first time a Chicano ever ran for office in recent times.
The only other. candidate was a write-in candidate who picked up most
of his votes in the Chicano precincts. See Attachments Nos. 7-12.
The presence of racially polarized voting coupled with a paucity of
minority elected officials has created a sense of powerlessness in
electing Chicanos to public bodies. This sense of powerlessness is
also created by a history of discrimination. 6 An example of thetype
of intimidation and discrimination existing in Medina County can be
found in Fanilias Unidas v. Briscoe, 544 P. 2d. 182 (5th Cir 1976),
where a community organization sought to protect the responsiveness
of Hondo I.S.D: by conducting~a school boycott. The boycott resulted
in a request by County Judge Decker for the membership list of the
connunity organizationwho sought to protest the school's policies.
This resulted in a tremendous chilling of, First Amendment rig~its.
The most immediate impact was evident in other organizationa' efforts
in the Hondo Chicano community. .
6Craves v. Barnes, 378 F. Supp. 640, 647 (W.D.Tex 1974) ("History
and powerlessness create apathy and unresponsive representatives:
unresponsiveness breeds more apathy, apathy more powerlessness and
unresponsiveness. Not only those who do not learn from history,
but also whose who are trapped by history, are condemmed to repeat it~
Discrimination in Medina County is not confined to past history. An
idea of the attitudes presently shared by segments of the Anglo
community is discernible in an exchange between an Anglo citizen and
the moderator of the redistricting meeting. During this exchange
the Anglo citizen referred to the Chicano representative from NALDEF
as "this boy." See Transcript of Feb 10, 1978 meeting at psge 65.
In addition, an indication of Medina County's responsiveness to the
needs of its Mexican American community is evident from the failure
of the County to voluntarily reapportion the commissioner precincts to
provide Chicanos greater access to the political process. The 1978
reapportionment occurred only after MALDEF threatened to file a law-
suit against the County. See Transcript of Feb 10, 1978 meeting at
page 3.
PAGENO="0220"
1094
Mrs. Irma Torrez, who was the spokesperson for Familias Ijaidas,
indicated that the. Chicano community still remembers the `harrass-
meat suffered as a consequence of asserting their- First Amendment
rights: Chicanos suffered economic reprisals,.threats, and even
were denied employment for their participation in the school
boycott. A' more detailed discussion can be found in Plaintiffs'
Post Trial~Brief which is included as Attachment No. 13.
Apart from discrimination in the First Amendment area, the Chicano
community in Rondo suffers from a disparate rendition of municipal
services, low public employment, and high drop-out rates in local
schools. -- Statements of Ms. Irma Torrez, .Juana- Lopez, and Trinidad
A. Lopez. These observations by local residents clearly demon-
strate that the Chicano communitysuffers from the continuing
effects of past and recent discrimination. Census data merely
* confirms this powerlessness: mEdian school years completed by~
* Chicano `males (.5.2 years) is lower than their Anglo counterparts
(9.2'years); the median income for Mexican American families
* ($4,378) is lower ~than Anglo families ($6,362); the percentage of
Mexican American families (42.8%) with incomes less than the
poverty level is significantly higher than for Anglo families
* (24.7%). See Attachment No. 14: for *a more complete breakdown.
In summary, although the reapportioning body had information
`concerniüg the impact of the plan on the Chican.o barrio, the low
level of. Chicano elected officials at the county and local levels,
the low' rate of Spanish-Surname `registration, the existence of
racially polarized voting, the existence of a community characterized
by.poverty andlow educational achievements, the county nevertheless
chose to divide the barrio and provide bare population majorities in
two commissioner precincts. This, of course, dilutes the voting
strength of the Chicano community. Such actions clearly rise to
`the level:of discriminatory intent. Washington v. Davis, 96 s.ct.
`2040 (1976); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Rousing'
Development ~ 97 S. Ct.555 (1976). - - -
The Comixrissioners' actions `in adopting the-reapportionment plan
merely served to--perpetuate this demial of access, a course of
- action condemmed by the Fifth Circuit in Kirksey. These actions
--become even more pernicious when one examines the existence of
* * alternative plans which could have provided Chicanos with greater
-access to political, processes. -
PAGENO="0221"
1095
II. MALDEF PLAN
In sharp contrast the proposed plan by MALDEF did not divide the
Chicano barrio in Rondo and included the Chicano barrio a D'Hanis.
Contrary to the assertions made by the county., the MALDEF proposed
plan is contiguous. The following is a description of the MALDEP
plan: *.
* Total Population Anglo Mexican/American
PCT. No.1 4,725 ~3,597 1128 (23.87%)
PCT. No.2 5,006 3,217 1789 (35.74)
PCT. No.3 * 5,200 * 1,269 * 3890 (74.8%)
PCT. No.4 5,~3i8 2,520 2722 (51.2%)
The total top to bottom deviation in this proposed plan is 11.8%
(+5.1% in Precinct No.4 and - 6.7% in Precinct No.1), the same as
the Redina County plan (+ 6.1% in Precinct No4 and - 5.7% in
Precinct No.3), See Attachment No. 15.
With respect to the voting age population in the NALDEF proposed
plan, the most-significant improvement iSin Precinct No.3.
According to the analysis presented in Attachment No.16, the follow-
ing is a breakdown of the voting age population for each Precinct
under the MALDEP plan. . -
Precinct No. .% of Spanish Americans
21 Years & Over in 1970
1 20.17%
2 * . 29.26% . -
* 3-..... - - - 68.3%
4 4734%
There are other possible configurations which will. increase the
* percentage of Chicanos within a given commissioner precinct. These
* other alternatives are included as Attachments Nos. -17-20. The pur-
pose of these alternatives is to demonstrate that better plans pro-
viding Chicanos with greater access to the county political processes
existed. In fact the MALDEF proposed plan was formally rejected by
the Nedina County commissioners Court.
PAGENO="0222"
1096
CONCLUSION
In viewof the history of minimal participation within Medina
County politics, the 1978 reapportionment plan, which divides the
barrio into two commissioner precincts and provides a bare majority
of Chicanos in Precincts No. 3 and 4, simply is inadequate to pro-
vide Chicanos in Nedina County wit1~& equal access to the County
Commissioners Court. The 55Z minority figure in Precinct No. 3
does not allow Chicanos a majority of persons who are of voting
age population. Without a substantial majority of eligible voters,
Chicanos will continue, to be relegated to second class citizenship.
* For these reasons we urge the Department of Justice to issue a
letter of objection. *
R pectful y Submitted,
d!_ ~*:.
oaquin C. Avila
* * Associate Counsel *
JCA:elc
PAGENO="0223"
1097
APR14 1978
Mr. William T. Armstrong
Foater, Lewis, Langley, Gardner
& Banack
Attorn'~ys at Law
1655 Fr ost Bank Tower
San Ar~tortIo, Texas 78205
Dear Mr. Armstrongz
This is In reference to the ~pportJonment of commissioner
precincts In Medina County, Texs submitted to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of t~ Voting Rights Act of 1965, as
amended. Your submission was acelved on March 13, 1978. In
accordance with your request expedted consIderation has been gIven
this submission pursuant to thà procedural guidelines for the
administration of Section 5(28 C.F.E5l.22).
Vt have given careful ~iderat1on to the Information
furnished by you as well as Bureau c~the Census data and Information
and comments from other Interestef parties. On the basis of our
analysis, we are unable to concIuc~, as we must under the Voting
Rights Act, that the submitted enpportiorunent of comrrJsslor,er
precincts In Medina County will nathave a discriminatory effect on
the minority community of the court~.
Our analysis reveals that, according to~ the .1970 Census,
Mexican Americans constitute ap~mimateiy 479(~ of the population
of Medina County. Under the preset plan, the county's population is
disproportionately dLstrlbtrted amor~the four precincts, violating the
one person.one vote principle. Mezan Americans constitute 56.69%
of the population In Precinct 1 and4~.68% of Precinct 3. WhIle we
recognize that the proposed plan ~zbstantIalIy remedies the one
person-one vote problems In the exising plan, In our view the effect
of the new plan is to perpetua~ denial of access. by Mexican
Americans to the political process in&4edlna County.
cc: Public File
A4881
ATTACHMENT 23
PAGENO="0224"
1098
In spite of the Mexican AmerIcan 56.69i~ ?opulation rr.a}ority
in PrecInct I that group has been unable to achieve rep entation on
the County Commission. We are, therefore, unable to conclude that
the new plan's precincts havIng 55.66% and 50.89% Mexcan-~
American majorities would serve to remove the political ci1sadva.~:tage
currently suffered by the minority community In Medina Ccaunty.
See, e.g., K1rks~y v. Soard of SupervIsors of Hinds County, 554 F.2d
139 (1977). -
Under these circumstances, therefore, I must, on beha.if of
the Attorney General, Interpose an objection to the reapportioument
plan for Medina County here under submission.
Wehave noted that wIdespread publicity was given and public
Inputwas Invited In connection with the adoption of this plan. We
further note that at least two other plans were considered, ome of
which was offered by the Mexican American Legal Defense~ and
EducatIonal Fund (MALDEF). The MALDEF plan, ~
noncontiguous due to the inclusion In Precinct I of all of se~veraI
separate segments of Census enumeration district (ED) 7, contaiins a
precinct with a significant Mexican-American majority of 74~ and
could easily be modified to remove the contiguity problems whllte only
slightly increasing the deviation.
Sections 51.23 to 51.25 of the Attorney General's Secthon 5
guIdelines (28 C.F.R. 51.23-51.25) permIt reconsideration c~f the
objection should you have new information bearing on the matrer or
should the County Commission alter its plan so as to alleviate the
dilutive effects discussed above. We are aware of the upcmmlng
elections scheduled for May 6, 1978, and in view of that the Atrcorney
General will be happy to. expedite any such request for
recor.sideratlon. In any event please notify us lmmediatel'y, by
telephoning Voting Section Attorney David H. Hunter at 202.1739-
3849, of the action the CommissIoners Court plans to take.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RIghta Act,
you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the District
Court for the District of Columbia that this change has neltherr the
purpose nor the effect of abridging the right to vote on accoumt of
race, color or membership In a language zrJnority group. Howiever,
until such time as the objection may be withdrawn or a judr~ment
from the District of Columbia Court is obtained, the legal efferct of
the objection by the Attorney General is to render the change in
question unenforceable.
Sincerely,
Drew S. Days ill
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0225"
1099
~51~ ~ 1!~i tJL~~
December 6, 1979
Mr. Gerald Jones, Chief
Voting Section
U. S. Dept. of Justice
Main Justice Building
Washington, D. C.
Re: Nedina County, File No. A 4881
NALDEF No. SA-78-5
Dear Mr.. Jones:
After failing to secure Section 5 approval for the February 12,
1978, redistricting of the Medina County Commissioner Court
Precincts, county officials have submitted a new redistricting
plan which incorporates the objectic~nable features found in the
19Th redistricting plan. The onlynincrease. in minority represen-
tationis found in Commissioner Precinct No.3 which increased
the minority population from 55~4l7, to 56.88% - a difference of
only 1.4Th. County official contend that this small difference
is not retrogressive and therefore meets the standards established
in Beer v. U. S., 425 U. 5. 130 (l976j.
Apart from niscontruing the precedential effect of Beer, the
* county's latest submission amply demonstrates the county's dis-
criminatory attitude toward the Mexican American community in
* Medina County. The 1979 redistricting plan is a blatant attempt
to prevent minority representation on the Commissioner's Court.
By~ increasing the ninority representations by only 1.47%, the
county clearly demonstrates a discriminatory intent to limit
chicano political participation as well as documents the county's
callous disregard for the protection afforded by Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. For these reasons, NALDEF is urging a letter
of objection against the 1979 redistricting plan on the grounds that
the plan dilutes the voting strength of the minority community and*~
that the planwas adopted with a discriminatory intent. 1/
1/ MALDEF recently filed a Section 5 enforcement proceeding againont
Medina County. The purpose of the lawsuit is to enjoin any
additional elections until anon-discriminatory plan is adopted.
(Footnote continued)
ATTACHMENT 24
Ntt½enl CiLrte Rag)ono! Offices
250W Fourteenth Asenue .,~,, ~... ~ Petroinum Commerce 9)4g. 1411 K Street, NW
Cu 7r~ . Srtte2)5 Sut:e 319 201 llo'trtSt. Mm~sStreet Suite300
94 5iL)~ Dertuer. CO.00204 Los Angetes, CA 90017 San Aruno, TX 79205 Washington, DC 20005 A
(333i b1~-l693 (213) 3836952 (5121224.9476 (202(393'51 I
Cn'ors:tctnt ~~rr £ .)rt~trb(o for US Income.Tax Purposes
83-679 0 - 82 - 15 Pt.2
PAGENO="0226"
1100
I.
The 1979 Redistricting Plan Violates
the Substantive standards of Section 5
As previously mentioned, the plan violates Section 5 because the
plan dilutes the voting strength of the minority coanunity and
was adopted with a discriminatory intent. A review of the minor-
ity concentrations in each of the Gommissioner Precincts for the
1979 plan and previous reapportionments clearly demonstrates this
* dilutive impact.
Pct. No~ Pre-1978 Plan 1978 Plan 1979 Plan
7~Mex.Aser. 7~Mex.Amer. 7~Mex.Ainar.
1 56.69 46.31: 44.43
* 2 33.61 * 35.74 35.74
3 49.68 55.41 56.88
* 4 45.10 89 50.89
* As with their previous reapportionment plan, the minority coustu-
nity was distributed in such a manner so that no Coimnissioner Pre-
* cinct contained at least a 657, minority concentration, Moreover,
* the 1979 plan continues the division of the chicano barrio in
Hondo into two different Commissioner Precincts. 2/ This inten-
tional fragmentation of an active chicano barrio constitutes dilu-
tion.
As with the 1978 redistricting plan, chicanos do not constitute a
* majority of the eligible voter population in any of the Coniniissioner
* Precincts. (See page 3 of the previous NALDEF commenti, As with
their 1978 submission, the county has failed to provide a descrip-
tion of the minority eligible voter population in each of the
(Footnote 1/ cont3.nued)
* Garcia, III v. Decker, Civ. Act. No. SA-79 CA 414 (W.D.Texas
* complaint filed October 25, l979), The complaint is listed
asAttácbinent ~No. l'. - - ** * .**
2/ On April 5,1979, NALDEF submitted a comment urging a letter
of objection to the 1978 redistricting plan. Since the 1978
and 1979 redistricting plans are almost identical, we refer
you to the previous coun~ent for a detailed analysis of the
plan, for statistics on racially polarized voting, and for -
information on the discriminatory * treatment of Mexican Anericaris
in Medina County. * . * *
PAGENO="0227"
1101
Commissioner Precincts as suggested by 28 C.F.R, §51,10 ~b) (6)
(11). 3/
When measured against applicable `Supreme Court and 5th Circuit
decisions, the 1979 plan violates Section 5 as well as constitu-
tional standards: the plan does not provide' a commissioner Precinct
ôontaining minority population concentrations of 64.l7~ approved
in Beer, sup~, and 657~ ,approved in `lJ.J.O. v. Carey, 97 S.Ct. 996
(1977). - both.of these cases involved the application of Section
.5; the plan resembles the reapportionment declared unconstitutional
in Kirksey v. Bd. of Supr `s of Hindo' City, Miss., 554 F. 2d 139
(5th Cir.1977) (en banc),cert denied, 98.S.Ct.. 512 (1977) - the
"plan intentionally fragments a geographically cohesive minority
~voting comtnunity~ When the plan is superimposed on a county where
racially'polarized..voting exists, there will continue to be no
Mexican American representation on the County Commissioner's Court.
Clearly under these circumstances the 1979 plan di]utes the voting
strength of the Mexican American community in Medina County. To
prevent this obvious attempt to discriminate against the minority
community, the Department of Justice should issue a letter of ob-
jection. .
In their submission, the county `contends that the Department' of'
Justice has incorrently incorporated a constitutional ana1ysis~
into a Section `5 determination. As support for this proposition,
the county refers to the non-retrogressive standards stated in
Beer.. According to the county's interpretation, preci.earance should
be granted if the new `plan is not more discriminatory than the plan it
isreplacing. Thus.a plan' which violates applicable constitutional,
standards should be precleared if thenewly'adopted plan.merely
improves minority representation in a. given Commissioner Precinct.
Such a construction is not supported by Beer. In fact Beer cearly,,
stated that constitutional considerations would also govern a
Section 5 analysis
3/
On page 14 of the submission,' county. officials refer `to the
plan as giving minorities a majority of votes. However,' .
*there `are no statistics given to support this claim. The
county official confused population with, eligible voting .
populatiOn. . . . ` . ` `
PAGENO="0228"
1102
It is thus apparent that a legislative re-
apportionment that enhances the position of
racial minorities with respect to their ef-
fective exercise of the electoral franchise
can hardly have the "effect" of diluting or
abridging the right to vote on account of
race wIthIn the meaning of §5. We conclude,
threfore, that such an amelioratIve new le-
gislative apportionment cannot violate §5
unless the new apportionment itself so dis
criDiinates on the basis of race or color as
to violate the Constitution. 42~ U. S. at
141 cemphasis addedi.
In addition, the United States Attorney General in evaluating
S~ction 5 submissions has consistently applied dilution princi-
ples established by pertinent federal precedent. This adminis-
trative practice is entitled to judicial deference given the
central role of Attorney General in enforcingTthe preclearance
provisions. See Dougherty Cty., Ga. v. White, .99. S.Ct. 368
(1978). Thus the county s assertion tha~ constitutional corisi-
deration should not be Implemented in evaluating an election
submission is simply. in; error. It would indeed be anomalous if
a redistricting plan could be precleared pursuant to Section 5
* and yet be blatantly unconstitutional. Such a result was clearly
not envisioned by Congress when the Voting Rights Act was ex-
tended in 1975.
Even when measured against a pure ameliorative standard, the
1979 redistricting plan violates Section 5. Cousnissioner Pre-
* cinct No. 1 had a Mexican Mnerican concentration of 46.317, under
the 1978 plan. Under the 1979 plan this percentage dropped to
44.43%; In sun~ary, the 1979 redistricting plan is clearl~
* objectionable on the grounds that the plan dilutes the ~exican
American voting strength and. that the 1979 plan was not ameliora-
tive as defined in Beer,
* The 1979 redistricting plan Is also objectionable because the
plan w~s enacted witI~ a discriminatory intent. Clearly the County
was placed on notice that a redistricting plan-which did not pro-
vide a substantial majority of chicano eligible voters, would
not secure Section 5 preclearance. In the-instant case,, the
county was well aware of the minority community c.pposition to the
plan. See Attachment No. 2 (petition expreasing opposition to
the 1979 redistricting plan). MALDEF and other community repre-
sentatives expressed their oppositionto the 1979 plan. Yet, in
PAGENO="0229"
1103
complete disregard .of~ the letter of objection .to the 1978 plan
and community opposition, the County adopted a plan which in-.
creased minority rc.presentation by only 1.477,. Such actions
constitute an unmistakable intent to discriminate against the
chicano community in Medina County.
III. Conclusion
The .1979 redistricting plan is a blatant attempt to prevent Mexican
American representation on the NedLna County Commissioners' Court.
:.Apart from being adoptedwith a discriminatory intent, the plan.
unconstitutionally djlutes the voting strength of the minority
community. In view of the history of discrimination against Mexican
Americans in Medina County and the previous letter of objection
issued by the Department of Justice, we strongly urge the Departir~nt
of Justice to stop this obvious effort to disenfranchise the
minority community and issue a letter of objection. 4/ .
Sincerely
c/Joaquin C Avila
Associate Counsel
JGA/mg . . .
4/ ~n alternative redistricting plan will be. forwarded to your
office under ~eparate cover.. . . . .
PAGENO="0230"
1104
William T. Armstrong, Esq.
Foster, Lewis, Langley, 11 DEC 1979
Gardner & Banack
1655 Frost Bank Tower
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
This is in reference to the redistricting of county
commissioner precincts, justice of the peace precincts and
voting precincts in Medina County, Texas, submitted to the
Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, as amended. Yc~ur submission was received on
October 12, 1979.
We have given careful consideration to the information
you have provided as well as to that available from Bureau
of the Census data and from other interested parties. Our
analysis reveals that the proposed change in the line
dividing Commissioner Precincts 1 and 3 does little to change
the sitthti~n~ to which the Attorney Ger.eral interposed an
objection on April 14, 1978. A comparison of the 1979 plan
with the 1978 plan reveals an increase in the minority popu-
lation of 1.47 percent in proposed Preóinct 3. When compared
with the only legally enforceable plan (pro-l978), an increase
of 7.20 percent (49.68 to 56.88) is noted in Precinct 3,
while Precinct 1 has been reduced by 12.26 percent from
56.69 percent to 44.43 percent in minority population.
As we indicated in our letter of April 14, 1978,
Mexican Americans have been unable to achieve representa-
tion on the County Commission with a population majority
of 56.69 percent in existing Commissioner Precinct 1.
An increase of .19 percent as represented by the 56.88
percent total minority population in Precinct 3 would
hardly seem to change this situation. Although Mexican
Americans will have a population majority in Precinct 3,
they likely will be unable to elect a candidate of their
choice because of the fall-off in that percentage due to
a smaller voting age population and a lower registration
rate among Mexican Americans, and because of the racially
polarized voting pattern that seems to exist in Medina
County.
cc: Public File
ATTACHMENT 25
PAGENO="0231"
1105
In addition, as indicated in our letter of April 14,
1978, it has been demonstrated that the minority population
of ~edina County~ is concentrated~ in such a way as to make
it possible to develop a plan that would include a district
which would. include a minority percentage of the population
at alevel that would assure minority voters meaningful
access to thepolitical process. See, e.g., Mississippi v.
United States, C.A. No. 78-1425 (D. D.C. June 1, 1979) and
United Jewish Organizations°v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977).
Furthermore, we have been presented with no justification
for the continued substantial fragmentation of the Mexican
American community in the City of Hondo.
Under Section 5 the submitting authority has the
burden of proving that the change in question is neither
retrogressive nor unconstitutional with respect to protected
minorities. Beerv. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141-142
(1976). *Under the circumstances I must conclude that, for
the same reasons described in my letter of objection of
April 14, 1978, Medina County has again failed to sustain
its burden of proof. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney
General, I must object to the submitted reapportionment.
plan.
With regard to the changes in the justice of the peace
precincts and the voting precincts, no determination will
be made at this time pending resolution of the redistricting
issue since the realignments Of the justice of the peace
and voting precincts are dependent upon the change in
Commissioner precinct lines.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judg-
ment from the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia that this change has nefther the purpose nor will
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race, color, or membership in a language minority
group. In addition, the Procedures for the Administration of
Section 5 (28 C.F.R.' 51.21(b) and (c), 51.23, and 51.24)
permit you to request the Attorney Gen~ra1 to reconsider
~the objection. However, until the objection is withdrawn
or the judgment from the District of Columbia Court obtained,
the effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to
make the redistricting of the commissioner precincts legally
unenforceable.
PAGENO="0232"
1106
To enable this Department to meet its responsibility
to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us within
twenty days of your receipt of this letter what course of
action the County plans to take with respect to this matter.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please
feel free to call Ms. Donna Clarke (202--724-7440) of our
staff, who has been assigned to handle this submission.
Sincerely,
DREW S. DAYS, III
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0233"
1107
- ~rnd Edfraflofl~il Fond
December 4, 1980 . .
Mr. Gerald Jones . . .
Voting Section ; `
U.S. Dept. of Justice .
Main Justice Building .
* Washington, D.C. .20530 * .
Re: Meduna County. Redistricting .
D0J Pile No. A 4881
* Dear Mr. Jones:
Medina County recently submitted the latest in a series of
* redistricting plans for Sec~on 5 review. Although the plan
increases the minority population in district 3 to 6Th, MAIDEP
opposes the plan because/the submitting authority has failed
to meet its burden under. Section 5. Medina County has failed
to demonstrate the absence of a discriminatory purpose in a-
* dopting the plan. Moreover, the plan has a retrogressive
effect on minority voting strength in Medina County. MALDEF,
therefore, urges the Department of Justice to issue a letter
of objection in this case.
I. Section 5 Standards'
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance by
the Attorney General or the United `States District Court for
,the District of Colunbia of any changes in a "standard prac-
tice or procedure with respect to voting" made after November
* ` 1, 1972. 42 U.S.C. §l973(c)(l975),,_ A districting plan sub-
ject to Section 5 may not be precleared unless both discrioji-
natory purpose and effect are absent. ~4~y of Rome v. U.S.,
100 S. Ct. 1548, 1559 (1980). Moreover, the subtnitting~~
authority has the burden of proving both the lack of discri-
minatory purpose and effect. Beer. v. U.S., 96 S.. Ct. 1357,
1363 (1976).
ATTACHMENT 26
Natlona(OUIce . Reglonaloolces
28GearyStreet 250W. Fourteenth Avenue l63SWestEighth Streel 5l7Fvra!eumCommerce Bldg. 1411 ((Street. NW'
SanFrancisco. CA 941C8 Suite3O8 Suile3l9 231 t.:v:P, St Marys Street Suite300
(415)981-5801 Denver. C080204 LosAngeles. CA90017 Sal,S-trsioT)( 78205 Washington DC20005
(303)893-1893 (213)383-6952 (512~224-5476 (202)393-5111
Contributions Are DeductibleforUS IncorneTax Purposes
PAGENO="0234"
1108
The controlling factor in proving a lack of discriminatory
purpose is whether there are objectively verifiable, legi-
timate reasons for the election change: City of Richmond
Va. v. U~$., 95 S. Ct. ~296, 3206 (1975). 1[ Courts wifl
gauge the validity of the asserted justifi~ation by deter-
mining whether alternative options satisfy the asserted
Justification without having a discriminatory impact~
Wilkes County, C-a.. v. U.S., 450 F. Supp. 1168 (D.D.c. 1978).
The Court in Wilkes reviewed, pursuant to Section 5, a change
from single member districts to at-large elections of County
officials. According to county officials the election change
was necessary to comply with the one person one vote prin-
ciple. 450 P. Supp. at 1175. However, the Court examined
the asserted justification and did not find the reason to
be legitimate: .
The Plaintiffs do not satisfy the burden of proving
the absence of discriminatory purpose by merely
stating that the change from single member districts
to elections at-large was done to satisfy one person
one vote reqirenients. This is because the record
demonstrates that alternate options for satisfying
one person one vote standards were available and
the record does not dethonstrate the reason for se-
* lecting the at-large method over other options.
* Such is particularly true in this case since it ap-
pears that the at-large method would retain black
voting strength at a minim~ level while aiternate
options would.enhance black voting strength.
1/ Other factors which may shed light on the intent of
the submitting authority include:
: ~a)
b)
c)
the hi.storial background of the decision
the sequence of events leading to the decision;
the impact of the decision
d) the existence of a pattern inexplicable on
grounds other than race;
e) any departures in normal procedural sequence;
and,
f). any contemporary statements made by the decision
makers~
Vil. of Arlington Rts. v. }~etro Rousing Dev., 97 S. Ct. 555,
564-565 (1977).
PAGENO="0235"
1109
450 F. Supp. 1177-1178. (emphasis added).
Thus, alternative options satisfying the asserted jüstifi-
cation without a corresponding discriminatory impact can
offset apolitical entity's reasons for adopting an election
change having a discriminatory impact.
In guaging the discriminatory effect of an election change*
under Section 5, the submitting authority must show the `change
will not " . . . lead to a retrogression . . ." in minority voting
* strength. Beer, sup~. Regrogression is usually measured by
comparing tE~~ew election change with the pre-existing election
scheme. However, should the pre-existing election scheme be
* unconstitutional, the new election change must be compared with
a non-discriminatory election scheme. Wilkes, sup~a. The county
officials in Wilkes asserted the change had a raclilly neutral
effect because black. voters were not in a position to control
any of the previously malapportioned single member districts,
450 F. Supp. at 1176. The court nevertheless found the plan
retrogressive. 450 F. Supp. at 1178. The Court applied Beer,
supra, by measuring `the at-large election scheme against aE~Irly
dra~ single member district plan rather than the malapportioned
* prior plan. 450 F. Supp. at 1178. Such a comparison showed the
racially discriminatory effect of the at-large election scheme.
450 F. Sucp. at 1178.
* II. Application:of Standards to l4edina County.
A. Purpose
The Medina County Commissioners Cc~urt adopted the current plan
pursuant to a discriminatory purpose. The precedent established
by Wilkes, Richmond, and Arlington Heights compels this con-
c1u~ióñT' As in Wilkes, Nedina County ha~Omaintained that the'
purpose of the adopted redistricting plan was to satisfy one*
person one vote requirements. As in Wilkes, this rationale'
falls short in meeting the `County's burden under Section 5,
because: (1) the plans adopted consistently divided the Chicano
community in Hondo; (2) the county refused to adopt alternative
plans enhancing minority voting strength; and (3) other actions
of the. Commissioners indicate a racial motive in adopting the
present redistricting plan
In drawing their districting plans, the County has consistently
split the * Chicano coxmmmity in Hondo. The current plan is no *
exception. Although ED9 appears to have an even split in eth-
nic population, segregated housing patterns result in a pre-
dominantly Chicano barrio in the portion of ED9 north of High-
way 90. See Briscoe dep. pp. 23-24. Census data reveals that
PAGENO="0236"
1110
both EDs 6 and 8 are over 9O~ Chicano. The current plan draws
a line through the Chicano barrio in Hondo by placing ED9 into
the predominantlY Anglo district while putting EDs 8 and 6 in
a different district.
As in Wilkes, Nedina County has consistently resisted options ::
that w~ enhance minority voting strength 2/ while complying
with the one person one.vote px~inciple. Mor~over these plans
avoid splitting the Chicano barrio in Hondo. In suimnary,
clearly the county was aware of alternative options satisfying
the one parson one vote principle which did not have a dis-
crimiiatcry impact. Nevertheless the county adopted a redis-.
trictitig plan minimizing minority voting strength. Such ac..
tions amount to a discriminatory purpose~
The ~f of Vthe county to adopt a more satisfactory option
is even more suspect when several of the Viila~ factors, V
which surfaced during discovery in }ledina Count~r V. 13. S. are
considered. The record reveals, for instance, ~.nstruct~ons V
to Nedina County's hired consultaüt to draw.plans with~ut re- V
ducing minority populations in ~ of the districts, This,
of course, resulted V in no increases in minority populations
in any of the districts. ZuebuelerDep. pp. 46., 48; Decker
Dep. pp. 66, 92. In fact the commissioners admitted that any
* significant increase in ChicanO population in any of the dis-
tricts would be totally unacceptable. Decker .Dep, pp. 15, V
16, 39~ V Community imput has been maintained at minimum levels.
~ the County Judge admitted it would take him at least
ten (10) days to properiy analyze a districting plan, the.
Chicano corr~.inity was given less than .48 hOurs to analyze the
county's first plan, Decker Dap, pp. 41..43, 93..97,. ~`ina1ly,
the county's lawyers and consultant submitted ~, plan to the
V commissioners calling for a 697. district. The ~e~ctiox~ of ~ V
V the Commissioners was to reduce the minority population i.n
that district. In conclusion Nedixia County'a continued insis~-'
tence on dividing the Chicano barrio in Rondo coupled with
the County's re~usa1 to adopt fair -options suggest th~ ~presence
V of a discriminatory motive. Under these cixOun~stances `the.
cottrity has failed to meet the Section 5 burden of demonstrati,ng
2/ Both NALDEF and the Department of Justice have suggest..~
ed plans which could enhance minority voting strength while com-~
plying with the one person one vote principle. . K4LDEF's latest
alternative plan has twO districts where Chicanos would have*
significant impact on the election process. V One distrjct is
777. Chicano and the other is 597. Chicano while the top to b~tt~~
deviation is less than 17.. See Attachment No. 1.
PAGENO="0237"
1111
the lack of a discriminatory purpose. . .
The plan submitted by Medina County has a discriminatory effect
on minority voting strength. The retrogressive nature of the
plan is evident when measured against the MALDEF plan. Since
the pre-1978 plan is admittedly severly malapportioned retro-
gression should be measured by comparing the latest plan with
other options which fairly apportion the county. Wilkes,
supra. The MALDEF plan evenly distributes the tot~i. ~ó~uIation
of the county. `The total top to bottom deviation in the I4ALDEF
plan is less than* 1%. Under the* County plan the Chicano corn-
munity in Hondo is split. Under the MALDEF plan it is not.
Under the County plan the Chicanos have a good opportunity to
affect the outcome of the election in one district. Under the
MALDEF plan Chicanos can significantly impact elections in two
districts. 3/ Based on the application of Wilkes, therefore,'
the County's plan plainly has a discriminatory effect,
C Polar_zed Voting
Racially polarized voting exists in Medina County, NALDEF's'
election analysis as well as testimony given by the Commission-
ers during discovery in Medina `Co. V. U.S. üonfirms the exis-
tence of racial bloc voting. ... .. -
In a 1980 countywide .~ace where, a ~hicáno candidate was opposed
by an Anglo candjdate, there. is a high co±re1at~on between the.
percent of spanish surnamed voters and the perceüt ofyQtes
received by the Chicano candidate.. Attach. 2-4. )Ipreoyer,-*
in the City of Hondo, where Chicanos were :opposed by Anglo~ in
council races for 1978, 1979, and 1980, the percent o~ spanish:
surnamed voters is almost identical to the percent of yOtes re-
ceivedby the Chicano candidates Attach 5-7
The testimony given by the Commissioners during dej~o~~tions in
Nedina County v. U.S. also supports the existencè'of racially
~1arized `voting. When questioned on their reaction `tQ plans
calling..for significant minority districts,- the commissjone~
rejected these plans. The basis of the opposition to the plans
was the `reduced likelihood of success for Anglo candidates in
those districts. Briscoe Dep. pp. 35-37. Decker Dep, pp. 60~.
63. Zueberbueler Dep. pp... 42-43. In fact, Commissioner Brimcoe
3/ Although almost 50~. of'the population in Medina County
is Chicano, Chicanos have never been elected to the Cornmission.~.
er's Court. The submitted plan has only one district where
Chicanos compose over 507~ of the voting, age population. Under
the MALDEF plan precinct 3 has 7l7~ Chicano voting age population
and pct. 4 has a 557, Chicano voting age population.
B. Discriminatory Effect.
PAGENO="0238"
1112
acknowledges the existence of racial bloc Voting. Briscoe Dep.
pp. 42-44, 54-55. Considering the. foregoing, the existence of
racial bloc voting cannot be denied.
Ill. Conclusion
The presence of racial bloc voting coupled with a paucity of. -
minority elected officials and low voter registration rates 4/
creates a sense of powerlessness in electing Chicanos to public
office.. Gerrymandered districting plans aimed at maintaining
this harness on Chicano voter participation should not be sanc-
tioned through Section 5 approval.. The record of the county's
attempts to pur~osefully implement discriminatory dis~ricting
plans is obvious. The discriminatory effect of the latest
submissioii is easily discernable. ~ALDEP, therefore, resolute-
ly calls upon the Department of Justice to issue a letter of~
.obj ection to the latest submitted districting plan for Medina
County Co=issioners Precincts. .
Respectfully- submitted,
P
ose D. Garza . .
Staff Attorney ..
4/ See )~ALDEF comment dated April 5, 1978 on p~o~ ~iedina,
Count5 Submission at p. 6.
PAGENO="0239"
1113
ret. 4/15/76
JSP:GWJ:JMF:rm:peb
DJ 166-012-3
X3589-3590
April 16, 1976
WEEKLY REPORT
SUMMARY
Mr.~ James W. Smith, Jr.
County Attorney
Frio County
P. 0. Drawer V
Pearsall, Texas 78061
Dear Mr. Smith:
* CC: Records
~hron
Fallon
Turner
Wri~t
Public File
This is in response to your letter of January 19,
1976, in which you submitted to the Attorney General
resolutions of the Frio County Commissioners' Court of
July 13 and August 13, 1973, which redistricted the
four commissioner precincts and established new voting
precincts, respectively, pursuant to Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. Your letter and the
attached materials were received by this Department
on February 23, 1976.
We have considered the submitted changes and
supporting materials as well as information and comments
received from other interested parties. Our review and
analysis show that the commissioner precinct lines as
drawn unnecessarily dilute Mexican-American voting
strength in the county. According to the 1970 Census,
Frio County is 69.17~ Mexican-American, 29.87~ Anglo and
l.l7~ black. According to information available to us,
proposed Commissioner Precinct 3 is approximately 977~
Mexican-American and deviates from the norm of an ideal
(population) district of 2,790 by 499, thereby exceeding
the norm by 17.9%. Meanwhile, Commissioner Precinct 2,
approximately 607~ Anglq, is 674 (-242) people under the
norm. Thus, it would appear that the precinct with the
highest percentage of Mexican-Americans is the most under-
represented while the precinct with the highest percentage
of Anglos is the most overrepresented.
ATTACHMENT 27
PAGENO="0240"
1114
Our analysis further reveals that there is a
history of ethnic bloc voting in Frio County. There
is substantial evidence, including the absence of any
Mexican-American representation onthe 8-member
reapportionment committee responsible for the plan
under review, that Mexican-Americans are not afforded
access to the political process in Frio County. When
all of these considerations are noted, together with
the configuration of the plan, particularly the
elongated shape of Precinct 1 which emerges with only
a 48% Mexican-American population, we cannot conclude,
as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that this
reapportionment does not have the purpose or effect
of abridging the right to vote of the Mexican-American
citizenry.
Accordingly, in view of our analysis and recent
court decisions to which we feel obligated to give
great weight, e.g., White v. Regester, 412 U.s. 755
(1973); Robinson v. Commissioners' Court, Anderson
Co~~y, 505 F.2d 674 (1974), I must, on behalf of the
Attorney General, interpose an objection to the 1973
redistricting of Frio County. In addition, since it
is our understanding that state law requires that
voting precinct lines conform with commissioner
precinct lines, this objection also renders unenforce-
able any resulting changes in voting precincts.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, you have the alternative of institut-
ing an action in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment
that the present submission does not have the purpose
and will not have the effect of denying or abridging
the right to vote to members of a language minority
group in the county. However, until and unless such a
judgment is obtained, the 1973 Frio County redistricting
plan is legally uneziforceA'ble. Therefore, since it is our
PAGENO="0241"
1115
understanding that primary elections are scheduled for
two commissioner precincts on May 1, 1976, I would
appreciate your advising me by April 23, 1976, of the
steps you intend to take with respect to that election.
Sincerely,
J. Stanley Pottinger
- Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
83-679 0 - 82 - 16 P1.2
PAGENO="0242"
1116
RECEIVED
~.niteb ~tate~ ~epartnunt of ~u~tice JtR~ 1 5 1979
~W WAS}UNGTON, D.C. 20530
MALDEF
SAN ANTONIO
*AU~$t*NT *TTO~dY ClNI~&l.
JUN 11 ~g
Mr. Robert M. Collie, Jr.
City Attorney
City of Houston_
- Legal Department
Post Office Box 1562
Houston, Texas -77001
Dear Mr. Collie:
This is in reference to the annexations and disannexa-
tions by the City of Houston, Texas, submitted to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
as amended. Your submission was completed on April 12, 1979.
Although we have attempted to make our determination with
respect to this submission on an expedited basis, we have
been unable to respond~ until th~is time. - -
To determine that a change in the composition of a
city's population resulting from annexations does not have -~
the effect ~of abridging the right to vote on account of
race, color, or membership in a language minority group
the Attorney General must be satisfied either that the
percentage of members of a racial or* language minority
group in the city has not been appreciably reduced, that
voting is not polarized between racial or language groups,
or that,. nevertheless, the city's electoral system will
afford minority groups "representation reasonably equiva-.
lent to their political strength in the enlarged community.
City of Richmond V. United States, 422 U.s. 358, 370 (1975).
ATTACHMENT 28
PAGENO="0243"
1117
To apply this legal standard to this submission we
have carefully examined the information you have provided
with respect to this submission, information provided by
other interested persons,; information in our files with
respect to prior submissions by the City of Houston, and
information in the record in Greater Houston Civic Council v.
Mann, 440 F. Supp. 696 (S.D. Tex~I977), pendi.ng on appeal,
No. 77-2083 (5th Cir.).
---According--to-the statistics you have provided, the
submitted annexations have proportionally reduced the black
population in the City of Houston from 26.0 percent to 24.8
percent, a reduction of 1.2 percentage points, and have
reduced the Mexican American population from 14.0 percent
to 13.5 percent, a reduction of 0.5 percentage points.
Based on the relevant court decisions and in view of the
relevant characteristics of the City of Houston, we find
such reductions to be legally significant. See City of
Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. at 368-70; City ot~
Petersburg v. United States,. 354 F. Supp. 1021, 1028-29
TD.D.C. 1972), affirmed74i0 U.S. 962 (1973); g~y of
Rome V. United States, C.A. No. 77-0797 (D.D.C. l9iw~,
slip opinion at 63-64.-- ~. -- - -- -
Our analysis of the statistics you have provided
with respect to the voting patterns of different groups
in the City of HouSton and of precinct election returns
for City elections reveals the frequent occurrence of
polarized voting between blacks and whites and between
Mexican Americans and whites. For example, in the 1977
election for the council position for majority black
District D, 64.0 percent of the white voters but only 11.6
percent of the black voters voted for the white incumbent,
Homer Ford, instead of. for one of his three black challengers.
See city of Richmond V. United States 376 F. Supp. 1344, 1348,
1356 (D.D.C. l974T~reversed on other grounds, 422 U.S. 358
(1975); city of Petersbu~g~, 354 F. Supp. at 1025-26; Cit~~
Rome, slip opinion at 9-13, 64-66.
Although approximately two of every eight residents
of the City of Houston are black, and approximately one of
every eight residents is a Mexican-4merican, only one black,
and no Mexican-American, has ever served on the eight-member
City Council under the present electoral system.
PAGENO="0244"
1118
Finally, a consideration of elections in the City
of Houston, of the responsiveness of the City to the
concerns and needs of blacks and Mexican Americans, and
of the views of blacks and Mexican Americans and their
representatives, leads to the conclusion that the present
electoral system, under which all members of the City
Council are elected in citywide elections, will not afford
blacks and Mexican Americans "representation reasonably
equivalent to their, political strength in the enlarged
cotnmunity."~. City of Richmond, 422 U.S. at 370. See City
of Petersbu~q, 354 i. supp. at 1025-27; City of Rorne,~Trp
opinion at 7-9, 64-66.
Thus none of the three conclusions that would
support a determination that the annexations do not have
a discriminatorY effect can be reached. I am unable to
conclude, therefore, as I must under the Voting Rights
Act, that the submitted annexations will not have the
effect of abridgin~ the right to vote on account of race,,
color, or membership in a language minority group.
Nevertheless, the two deannexations (Ordinance
Hoe. 78-2671 and 77-219Th and one annexation (Ordinance--"-
No. 77-2402) do not involve populated areas, and two
annexations involve areas with substantial minority
populations (Ordinance Nos. 77-2354 and 78-2380). With
respect to the two deanneXatiOns and to these three annexa-
tions the Attorney General, accOrdingl~(, does not interpose
any objection. (We feel a responsibilitY to point out,
however, that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act expressly
provides that the faii~ure of the Attorney General to object
does not bar any subsequent judicial action to enjoin the
enforcement of such changes.)
with respect to the voting changes occasioned by the
remaining fourteen annexations (Ordinance Nos. 77-1668,
* 77-2353, 77-2355, 77-2356, 77-2357, 78-2378, 78~238l,
78-2382, 78-2383,78-2384, 78-2385, 78-2386, 78-23'87, and
78-2388), because of the conclusion' we have reached, I
must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an
objection pursuant to Section 5.
PAGENO="0245"
1119
Should the City of Houston adopt an electoral system
in which blacks and Mexican Americans are afforded "repre-
sentation reasonably equivalent to their political strength
in the enlarged community" the Attorney General will consider
withdrawal of this objection. Our analysis indicates that
one such system would include the election of some members
of the City Council from single-member districts, if the
districts are fairly drawn and i~ the number of districts
is sufficient to enable both blacks and Mexican Americans
to elect candidates of their choice. See City of Richmond,
422 "u.S. at 37G-13; City of Petersburg, 354 F. Supp. at 1027,
1031; City of Rome, slip opinion at 6~ff-70.
I wish to stress that this determination relates
only to the voting changes occasioned by the annexations in
question. The objection to the implementation of such
changes does not affect the validity of the annexations
themselves.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory
judgment from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia ~iat the changes aff~cting voting - -
resulting from these anñexation~shave neither the purpose
nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a
language minority group. However, until the such a judg-
ment ~s obtained from the District of Columbia Court, the
effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to make
the voting changes resulting from these annexations legally
unenforceable.
Sincerely,
\~M~ ~.\L~ztt
Drew S. Days III
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0246"
1120
~~Fund
Decether 6, 1978
)~ Gerald Jones
Voting Section
civ3a Rights iviaf on
U. S. Dept. of Justice
Wasb3rlgton D C 20530
Iii re Terrell C~mty Teras
DQI ~.1e ~b X 9129
Dear )~ Jones
Terrell County, Texas as the result of a Section 5 ~Iawsuit filed by ~ID~' baa
forwarded for preclearance tbe ~bvether 12, 1973 redisttictLng of the C~ty
* Cnrruissioner Precincts. Based on ~m evaluation of the plan, *1~dcan Anericans
* will contiruie to be t presented on the Cc*mty Cmrdssioners Court nuless the -
Um.ted States Attorney General objects t~ the chen~e. :
I. Background And Analysis
According totha 1970 census, Terreli C~rdy bad ataëal p tion~l~,9l6
persons of ~itich 834 or 43.5~ were C2zicath. Foreever, the special census ~
docted in Acgust, 1978 reflects a deerease in total polation. Based on the xiew
census, there are 1,544 persons of whith 648 c~ 42.01, are C2iicaco. 1/' y~
despite this substantial tth30rity population, there baa never been a1~dean..
~can elected to the post of onmty casissforier. :~
The basis for ~.sV.~1ete absence of udI30rLtyelected.Offfcials is due to the
* .. gerrynanderinig of the thic~ co'inir~{ty into several precincts and the accon-
panying low level of minority political participation. V.
The Ha'ctcanAn~rican population bs very little esperia~e in rtra~ing fo3~off~e.
£ccardix~gV to nz~infal survey, the first tiana )~dcan herrican ran for the post.
* In ~ analysis we ~ inc1rdit~* ~ on ~ ~
~Anerican category. Since there wes no explanation as to hew persons ~e detenxnfnecl-
to be aliens, we do not place ~iy great accuracy in these fig~ires. In arty event
this inclusion of aliens will not sigaificantly alter the percentages obtained ~n*
cx~ analysis: . -* -
V V ATTACHMENT 29
NationatOflice V RoglonatOttices
28 GearyStreet 25OW.udeenthAVe~~~C i63SWeStElQhth SIrSI 5flP~ ~U Ofltfl1~fC~ B1d5 1411 KStreel.NW
SanFrancisco CA94108 5u11e398 Suite3l9 201 North St MaeysStreet Suite300
(415)981-5800 ~80204. LCSAnQeeLC~~ ~ 78205 WasMsra58tDC2000S
(303)893.1893 * (2*3)383-6952 (912)224-5476 ** (2O2)3~3.5t11
* ~..~r1-.,thrnc Ar. fladuejibhsfortjS lncom.T8xPUTPO$8$
PAGENO="0247"
1121
of comty ccmnf~ssioner was in 1978. `LIds 1w level of political participation
* is reflected in a ~voter registration survey conducted by the Southwest Voter
Registration and Rcl~i~t4cn Project. Attacl it No. 1. `flu results of ~
~vey indicates that Neadcan An~4cana constituted only 28.57. of the actual.
regLstexed veters
site IntexvIn~s ulth s~bers of the ~ ~
* cazzn~ity is not successful in Increasing political participation because of the
* control exercised by several kigio f~imfli~s. This Anglo ~control has resulted in
a systen of goverunent ~ch is not conducive to the election of minàtity officials~
In the county's subnission, the previous reapportio~nt plan contained a precl.tut
~ 9(J7. of the county's p1a~u. Clearly such a gross violation
bad a drastic Inpact on mtnadty political participation. Siaply stated, thicanos
did not run for office. The'iupact of the pre-.1973 redistricting plan was ob-~
vious to the county canixissioner's court. Yet the county did not rcdistrjct~~
* 1973, well over 5 years after Aver~y v. NIdlsd, 390 U. S.. 474, 88 S. Ct. m'~
(1968) extended the one person one `vote principle to county goyernments.~
Rc,wever, the 1973 redistricting only ountinces this minority politicil tmder.
representation. According to the sulod.ssion, the following is a populatioz~ break-.
down of the current 2~ 1tt]Dg plsi. ..
Pct No ~ta1 Population - - 7. Ifexican American
3. 417 447.
.2 ~373 *. * 767. *..
3 432 107.
4 322 .. 397
An analysis of these figures reveals tuo constitutional objections. PIrst there~
is an inpenntssfole total deviation of 287.. Clearly such a plax~ ~5 in violation of
* the one person one votepriuciple. Second, the `voting strength of the Qiicano.:
* Population is dTh3tedsnxmg Precinct 1fO~. 1, 3, **
The basis of this dilation is the.distrthutlon of blocks containing a sfgnifj~
* Chicano population m~ng the tbree precincts. * Specif(cnlly in Precinct No. 1, Bloc~kj
35, 36, 39, 48, 106/37, ned 211 are separated fron the central core of the icano
connunity; Precinct No. 4 bad blocks 119, 120, 128, and 129; while Precinct No 2
has blocks 38, 49, 52, 112, 113, 121, and 114. Such a dIVISIOn of a cohesive geo-.
graphically concentrated canainity is clearly unconstitutional:
PAGENO="0248"
1122
"fl~ ~t cnndal ~i precise isstsua~t of the Cco~
~f.sst~rs' dental of [a]. . .adir~rtty's equal access -
to ` pol-itical pàrticipaticvn, Ici~ever, recstris the
gerry~er of prectx!ct lines ~ as to fra~cot ~mt..
* . - ccold otberr4se be a cohesive voth~g ~min.tty. ,
~.s di~e~nt of the . . .[sdrrxity] votLog cart
. -. .* .~ ~ ____ of d~lita~ ~
* ar~ntsetfrai ~ decreastag artletpaticm of blaclc
voters." . -
Robmson v Cam,issicmers ~urt Anderson C~unt~ 5~ F 2d 674 679 (5th Ctr 3374)
: ~The present r is~cthig plan only serves to cantthie the e~a'1usion of
* sentathm On the On~ty C m~i~sMonars' COurt. tklfortz5lately ~populatton figures.
* frr the pre-1973 redistricting plan are unavailable. ~sno neanirigful. ccença~j~
can be made betaeei d~ zi~1y enacted election change ard the previous reapport~
plan.. Consequently the plan's tapact mast be evaluated in teuns of its present effect
on Z~tican ~onriran political participation.. Clearly under the previous reapport~n..
* ~, 3ieaican Amaricans ~ver for office. ikider the 1973 plan, only one l~exican
Ai~rican has even attarrpted torus. Bis election ~~as unsucce~sfu1 arid ~
by patterns of ra~ta11y polari.ze&'votung ~iha following table will d~unst~a~ tins
p~ion:. .. **.
* .. .P~.)b. ThtarPgis. Span.Sur.7~ VotescastforSpan. VótesCast~
* * ** *-. &ir. ~ ~ Candidates
2 192 125653Z 71 (47Z) 81(537.) .11
This the only ~ttecpt by a Neidcarx~rerieari to rim for office wis chanactericed by
racially polarized `voting thic.h contributed to the defeat of the thicario car~jd~
Thd~ these cromistances, the i~t~y voting strength is diluted:
This election occurred in 3~ay, 1978 in the Ië~x,cratic Party ~
Alberto Escanifla was the unsuccessful candidate~. To the best of o~
thLs is the only instance a )~dcan ~onricari has run for county cormiissioner. mL~
information was riot obtained fron ~e county, since a cleark for the county indicated
that party primary results ~are riot available in the county clerk's office. The
- results of this party pritziary'were taken from the Saaderso~ Tires, a local newspaper.
PAGENO="0249"
1123
UPfl1~ supeavisors' plan fra~tI~s a g~apbica1ly.
onecentrated ndrority~votixtg cc~n~~ir~(ty in a ~~text
of bloc ~uotit~g,: ~ its face, such a plan has a pro-
dicteble taidency. Like a mzlt1~er plan, it tends
* to t T ~otIiig st~angth of the ~rtty. -
* By fr'th~g a geographically ~i~ated bit
* &UbS~ria~51 black minority in a cocnurrtty ~
bloc votingbas beea a wey of political life t5~
p1aZl ~4.ll cancel or "th~Tirr~e the ~~fi~g stren~
of the black minority arid ~dfl tend to suboerge
* the interests of tim black carixuriity. The plan
* denies rights protected under the Pourteenth arid
Eirksey v Bd of Sup'rs of Buds cty )~ss 5547 24139 149 & 151. (1977)
Another umtbod to determine the preseit iupactof a xeapportdermmn~ plan ~
vpting participation is to reviev other plans ~ihich ~nu]4 have provided the Mexican
* Annrican cczmunity with greater ess to the political processes. `The plan proposed.
* by MeIDEF, fri sharp contrast to the county's reapportloraxmit plan, does provide:
greater access to the minoritycc*mzmity. ~e to time coustraints, we ~ere able only
to draft tc~ districts for the nitnnity cccmunity. `The de~C4popola~ 1reái~
is provided in ~tthchaest Me. 2.. AccordIng toour plan, District A haS a 747. mi~rity
* population and a 44.77. devi~tion, whLle District B baa a 66.57. mtrmrity populatLo~
* arid a +.57. deviation. `The suin difference between the MAt~ plan and the county
reapportlornmntplan Is the conàentration of the mianrity cccanxnity into twe districjs,,
In cia' estimetion,~ if such a plan is adopted pursuant to court order, ndnorj~ wili.
start torus far of~ice. Mereover, In conji~tlon with our efforts the Soethmst.
Voter Begistratlon and B±icatlon Project will. sopport registration drives in
minority ccxaumity to inerease the~~mber of C2dcmm registered oters. :.: .~
~ Q,urtlitigethm
previously neoticried, .TerreU county is tim subject of littg~'tf on. Altbeu~ tim
Voting Rights. Act was extended to Texas on Septenber 23. 1975, Terreil County did not
subnit its reapportioruxent plan until cia' Section 5 enforcenerit proceeding wes filed
PAGENO="0250"
1124
`This lawsoft ~s i2ecessy the ~mty aparertlydidi iutend to subi~t
* ~s~p1ai for ~~ovel. As a result of our Ixxpiiries, ~ inEorued the Deparznmtt
of Justice of~~ foilame to ~i~t by ~ezreU Coxity~ ~he Dspartnm~t of Justice
*a~ Dece±er8, 1976, isfa~ t~ C~mty of its obligation to suheit the re~
aporticrrertplau. Att~~"~ No. 3. Noiaver tim onrxty i~x~rec1 the req~iest ~`:
~ ~ ~ly af~ d~ axplaint wee filed did the Cc~mty
* ~he necessity for thLs ~t action is fedicati've of the co~mty's responsiveness
* to ~the mixmrity Cri~niinity. The )~xLcan kEdcan c~s~ty is in dire need of as-
* aistance ~d.th well over i44~ of ti~ a~csm f~.lies belw the poverty level, as
* cazpaied to the ~mty wide average of 23.6~. `Iha ~ian income level for Qtleath -
families is $3,719 ~.le the c~ty~d~e sedian in~ fi~xre wes $6,577. ~
* respect to educational achiev~it Of persons wlm are aver 25 rears of age ~can
~rican us].es have a redian scimol year level of 6.4 years~le )leid.can ~mexican
fenales have a level, of 5.4 years theonmty wide level is 10.6 years. `j~~
statintics ixelicete that Terrell Co~mty mist deirinstrata amreresporisi-v~eès to the
~artie~ilarized needs of the )cp~iean ~nerican* comionity. tbfortmately'if history
is any indication of fubme perforni~rv~e, the Terrell Coimty Camiissioners' Court
* ~
in concbision the 1973 redistricting plan caz~t be viewed as an ameliorative
election change.solely. because tba~~omrant plan-now has one mix ority~connissio~
precinct ~*iereas before there were none. ~flm 1973 tedistricting plar~ cannot be
viewed as ~.lioratLve when the plan ixnpermLssibly dilutes the minority comamity
by dividing than into several precincts. `Ihe arcrent plan assures that half of
minority coxnairrtty will. have ~ ispacton ~-j~ ~uci~i ~ Clearly.
* ureler these circonstances, ti~ plan caramt be designated as a positive iinpravso~ent
* especially when there is a total population deviation of 287~. * *
Par these reasons, we strongly urge the ~partoent of Justice to issue a le~r~ Of
* - objection. With this letter of objection, the Nexdcan~Pnerican conxrzmity will, be
* able to pursue theongeing litigation and seo~e tim adoption of a plant whj~ will
provide ~eater access to the pobtinal processes. * * *~
~z~oaquin C. Avila * *
Associate Cotmsel. *
en
Attachaents
PAGENO="0251"
1125
I1r. Lucius D. Bunton
Shafer, Gilliland, Davis,
Bunton & NcCollwa
Attorneys at ~aw
First Uational tank Building ~
Post Office Drawer 1552 ~ftT~ ~ `t*
Odessa, Texas 79760
~
Dear Mr. Bunton:
This is in reference to the reapportionment of
commissioner precincts, polling place changes, addition
of voting precincts and additional locations for absentee
voting in 1975, in Terrell County, Texas, submitted to the
Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, as amended. Your submission was received on
October 28, 1978. In accordance with the request of the
Court in Escainilla v. Stavlqy C.A. L~o. DR-78--CA-~23 (W.D.
Texas), we have made every effort to expedite our considera-
tion of this submission pursuant to the procedural guidelines
for the administ3~ation of Section 5 ~(28 C.F.R. 51.22) but
have been unable to respond until this time.
We. have given careful consideration to the changes
involved end the supporting materials, as well as informaC
tion and comments from other interested parties. The
Attorney General does not interpose any objections toT the
polling place changes, addition of voting precincts and
additional locations for absentee voting in 1975. ~owever,~
we feel a responsibility to point out that Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act expressly provides that the failure of
the Attorney General to object. does not bar any subsequent
judicial action to enjoin the enforcement of such changes.
ATTACIiNENT 30
PAGENO="0252"
1126
In our review of districting plans we arc guided by
relevant judicial decisions. See Beer v. United States,
425 U.S. 130 (1976).; Zir~ç~ v. Hinds County Board of
pervi, 554 F. 2d~I)9 (5th .Cir.'), cert. denied,
~2~454 (1977); Wilkes County v. United States,
450 F. Supp. 1171 (D.D.C. 1978), affirmed, 47 U.S.L.W.
* 3391 (U.S. Dec. 4, 1978) (72-70)'. Under Section 5 the'
submitting jurisdiction has the burden of proving both
that the change in question was not adopted with a dis-
criminatory purpose and that its effect will not be dis-
criminatory. Procedures for the Adm1nistrat~on of
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of l965, 28 C.'F.R. 51.19;
Geor ia v.. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 538 (1973); City of
`c~.~ond v. United ~1~ät~s, 422 U.S. 358, 380-81 (1975}
(Brennan, ~7, dissenting). `
In regard to the 1973 reapportionment of commissicner
precincts in Terrell County, our analysis reveals that,
according to the population survey conducted by the county,
Iexican Americans constitute approximately 41 percent of the.
population of Terrell County. Under, the submitted reappor..
tionment plan, flexican Americans constitute 75.6 percent
of the population of Commiss~onor Precinct 2, ~43..6 percent
of the population of Cozmmissioner Precinct 1, and- 38.8
percent of the population of commissioner Precinct 4. In
our opinion, the effect of the- 1973 .reapportionment~plan . -.
is to dilute minority voting strength by unnecessarily
* dividing the Mexican American community in Sanderson among.
three commissioner precincts. As a result, it would seem
that Mexican American voters in Terrell County are afforded
lcss of an opportunity than other residents to participate
in the political processes and elect candidates of. their
choice. By splitting the Mexican American community with
Precinct 2 and dispersing the remainder of' that community
between commissioner precincts 1 and 4, the plan has the
* effect of minimizing the overall impact of the Mexican
American vote. Fairly drawn alternative reapportionment.
plans could easily avoid this result.
Under these circumstances, thereforeD we are un,1e
to conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that
the plan does no1~ discriminate against Mexican American.
voters. Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney General,
I must interpose an objection to the reapportionment plan
here under submission.
PAGENO="0253"
1127
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory
judgment from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia that this change has neither the
purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging
the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership
in a language minority group. In addition, the Procedures
for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.21(b) and
(c), 51.23, and 51.24) permit you to request the Attorney -*
General to reconsider the objection. flowever, until the
objection is withdrawn or the judgment from the District
of Columbia Court obtained, the effect of the objection
the Attorney General is to make the reapportionment plan
for commissioner precincts in Terrell County legally
unenforceable.
* As requested by the Court in the above cited litiga-'
tion, we are providing a copy of this letter to the Court
and to counsel for plaintiffs.
Sincerely,
Drew- S. Days III
Assistant 1~ttorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: United States Circuit Judge homer Thornberry
United States District Judge John ~owland ~7ood, Jr.
United States District Judge D. U. Suttle
Clerk, U.S. District Court
Uestern District of Texas
* Post Office Box 1349
Del Rio, Texas 75840
Joaquin G. Avila, lhsquire
201 N. St. itary's Street
Suite 517
San Antonio, Texas 782O5~
PAGENO="0254"
1128
Mr. Walter H. Mizell
City Attorney
City of Lockhart
Brown, Maroney, Rose,
Baker and Barber
1300 American Bank Tower
221 West Sixth Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Mr. Mizell:
This is in reference to the Home Rule Charter
adopted on February 20, 1973 for the City of Lockhart,
Texas, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.
Your submission was completed on July 16, 1979.
We have given careful consideration to the infor-
mation provided by you, as well as information and comments
from other interested parties. Our analysis reveals that
the Home Rule Charter for Lockhart provides for an at-large
election scheme, which includes the use of staggered terms
and numbered places. The new form of government also
nrovides for two additional representatives, and a council
with somewhat greater power than the prior form of govern-
ment. There are, in addition, indications that racial bloc-
voting exists in Lockhart elections, and that the city
government may not be as *responsive to its minority con-
stituents as to its Anglo constituents.
Recent court decisions suggest that an at-large
voting system which incorporates features such as numbered
posts and staggered terms may operate to minimize or dilute
the voting strength of minority groups and thus have an
invidious discriminatory effect. See White v. Regester,
412 U.S. 755 (1973); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971).
cc: Public File
ATTACHMENT 31
PAGENO="0255"
1129
In view of these court decisions, and on the basis
of all the available facts and circumstances, the Attorney
General is unable to conclude, as he must under the Voting
Rights Act, that the Home Rule Charter, in its present
form will not have a discriminatory effect on the voting
rights of racial or language minorities in the City of
Lockhart. On behalf of the Attorney General, I must
interpose an objection to the Home Rule Charter insofar
as it incorporates an at-large method of election, with
numbered posts and staggered terms.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judg-
ment from the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia that this change has neither the purpose nor
will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to
vote on account of race or color. In addition, the Proce-
dures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. ~l.2l(b)
and (c), 51.23, and 51.24) permit you to request the Attorney
General to reconsider the objection. However, until the
objection is withdrawn or the judgment from the District of
Columbia Court obtained, the effect of the objection by the
Attorney General is to make the Home Rule Charter legally
unenforceable with respect to the at-large method of elec-
tion, and the numbered post and staggered term features.
To enable this Department to meet its responsibility
to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us within
twenty days of your receipt of this letter of the course
of action the City of Lockhart plans to take with respect
to this matter. If you have any questions concerning this
letter, please feel free to call John MacCoon, the Director
of the Section 5 Unit, at 202-724-7439.
Sincerely,
Drew S. Days, III
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0256"
1130
IN ThE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ÔITY OF LOCKHART,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
I
~ CIVIL ACTION NO. 80-0364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I
Defendant, I
ALFRED E. CANO, -
Defendant-Interveflor j
DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR' S POST TRIAL BRIEF
I Introduction And Summa~ry
The minority comimmity in the City of Lockhart, Texas is
seeking to invalidate a discriminatory municipal election scheme.
This election scheme~has limited minority representation on the
city council to only one member out of five in a city where the
minority community comprises well over half the city's population.
The discriminatory featmires of this~ election scheme are before
this Court in this Voting Rights Act action.
The City of Lockhart initiated this action pursuant to
.1/
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42. U.S.C. §l973c. The
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that a 1973 Home Rule
Charter, altering the form of government and election structure,
was not: adopted purstiant to, a discriminatory purpose and does
not discriminate on the ~basis of raco~ color, or membership
2/
in an applicable language minority group. .
1/ This Court permitted on May 7, 1980 Alfred E. Cano, a
Mexican American, to intervene in this action as party defendant.
2/ Prior to the commencement of this action, i~i proceedings
initi~ted by private litigants, the United States District Court
for thc Western District of Texas determined that the adoption of
the Home Rule Charter was subject to the Section 5 preclearance
provisions of the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the city fro~
utilizing the unprecleared election change. Cano v. Chesser,
A-79-CA-0032 (W.D. Tex. March 2, 1979). Foll~ing the district
court's determination, the City of Lockhart submitted the Home
Rule Charter to the Attorney General for Section 5 review. The
Attorney General interposed a letter of objection to the Home
Rule Charter onSeptember 14, 1979.
PAGENO="0257"
1131
state statutes ~ddcr a COmm~.S~LOn form Of ~yerament connistin~
~ ~ an~ tWO CO ili Lssic ~ t 1 ~ rt quii c. i tlu
c ty elect the three t~er~her co i~sion at tar;~e Cont-r . :y to
state ia~', the City of Lockhart required candidates for ciccti.on~
to the'go~erning body to designate the `post', to which the
candidate sought election.
The None Rule Charter in 1973 expanded the authority of
the governing body, by. providing for a council-nanagec form of
governaent consisting àf a mayor and four council mee'.her:~. The
new election scheme provided for at1large election to' the council
with'a numbered' post provision for councilmanic candidates and
staggered . terms. ` . `
On September 10th and 11th, 1930 this case was heard on the
3/
merlts. At'the~ trial, the `Court ruled that the. at-large election
feature, in and of itself, was no~ subject to review under Section 5
since it did not constitute a voter qualification prerequisite to
vote standard practice or procedure with re~ect to voting dif-
ferent from.those in effect on November 1, 1973.' The Court further
decided that the circumstances of the ease and the nature of
Sectipn . ca~es nade bifurca ion of the nuruose sad effect issues
approp~iate Under cectio, 5 a poliicil subdivision has the
burden of demonstTating both the. absence of a discriminatory pur-
pose `and effect. If a~governmental entity cannot demonstrate
the `abse~:ce of a discriminatory effect there is no necessity to
proceed with `an additional trial on the issue of a discriminatory
purpose. The Court therefore ruled that it would hear only
evidence on the question of effect at tie initial state of the
trial. Should the City-of Loc~iart demonstrate the absence of
a discriminatory effect then the Court would address the issue
of a discriminatory uurpose The Co.~rt ñirther lirtitec its inquiry
to the effects of two of the provisions, the numbered post and
sta"pered terr provi'ionS of the electio'i sjsten adopteu as part of
tn'~ Cn~r~er
ihi Br~ef tiill discuss the cv de~c~ `rid 1er~'l is ues before
this Court as they relate to the nunbored post provision and i-ho
staggered term proVislOn
31 -~`Plaintiff's ~:equest for summary judgment was denied on July
83-679 0 - 82 - 17 Pt.2
PAGENO="0258"
1132
II. Issues
A. Whether the adoption of the numbered post provision
by the City of Lockhart in the 1973 Home Rule Charter constituted
a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard,
practice, or procedure with respect to votir.g different fro:~ that
in force or in effect on November 1, 1972.
B. Whether the Plaintiff has met its burden of denionstrat-.
ing that the numbered-post provision and the staggered term pro-
vision of the election scheme provided for in the 1973 Home Rule
Charter, adopted by the City of Lockhart, do not discriminate on
the basis of race, color, o~ membership in art applicable langiuige
minority group. .
C. Whether judgment against the Plaintiff on eithe~ the num-
bered post provision or the staggered term provision willnec-
cessarily result inthe tmimforceabiitr of the Home Rule Charter
and a reversion to general law status with reinstatement of the
commission- form of government.
III.~Evidc:e Presented -.
The evidence in this case consists of testimony and exhibits
at the trial held on September 10th and 11th, 1980 as well as
deposition testimony taken prior to trial.. The record includes
evidence on the lack of access to the polit.nal process in
Lockhart, the existence of racially polarized voting patterns and
segregated housing patterns, as well as evidence on the election -
structure of Lockhart, both before and after the adoption of the
Home Rule Charter. Reviewed in total, the evidence will assist
the Court to determine whether the Plaintiff has met its burden
in the case. The following is a sumrtary of that evidence.
In regard the election structure in Lockhart, prior to
February 20, 1973, the City of Lockhart, as a general law city, was
governed by a Commission form of government. Trial Recor~1 herein-
after T.R. pp. 30, 31, 33. A general law city in Texas has authori-
ty to undertake brily that wbich1b spec ~Eically authorized byTexás law or can
be necessarily innlied by such lará., Pepositions of Fletcher- t'. 8. The City.of
PAGENO="0259"
1133
Lockhart thus had no control over the size of its governing
body nor the method of electing that governing body. D~position
of Fletcher p. 13. Texas law requires that the commission consist
of three members, a mayor and two commissioners. Art. 1158 Te~.
Pev Civ Statutes lioreover there is no authorization for an
election scheme with election features such as single meicber
districts, numbered posts,residencydistriCt5~ staggered terms,
or ma3ority vote requirements Art 1158 .x Rev Civ Stat
With the adop~tion of the Home Rule Charter in 1973 the City of
Lockhart implemented an at-large with numbered post and staggered
term, election system. T R p 69 The City of Lockhart by
adopting the Home Pule Status had the opport~ity to chose any-
one of a niimbér'of election schemes including single member
district~. Deposition of Fletcher p. 18-19.
The record further reveals that voting patterns in the City
of Lockhart are consistent with racially polorized. voting, whereby
Chicano voters vote for Chicano candidates and ~nglo voters vote for
Anglo candidates T R ~pp 155-157 209 254-255 Deposition of
Serrato pp. 12, 18, 19, 20, 27-27, Burton p. 65, Alexander p. 25,
Garcia pp. 7-15, 38. and Buckley pp. .35-36; Defendant-Intervenor'S
* exhibits nos. .1, 2, 3, 3a, and 5-5d. It is important to note*
that along with racially polarized voting racially segregated
housing pàttern~ exist in Lockhart. T.R. pp.. 103, 207-208;
Deposition. of Burton pp. 27, 69 and Deposition of Buckley pp.23-24..
The evidence related to the effects of the particular election
changes in question shows that both the staggered term provi'ion
and the rumbered post provisio~t tend to target minority candidates
in Lockhart. T.R. pp. 81,. 83; 96, 141, 149 and 150. Staggered
terms have the added effect of creating lower voter turn-out
among the electorate (T.R. p. 78) which normally dispropor-~
~tionatelyand adversely imports minority voters. T.R. pp. 257-258.
The effect of lower voter turn-out on . the ininority community
appe~irs to be confirmed by the situation in the City of
PAGENO="0260"
1134
4/
Lockhart. -
Finally, the Court should view this evidence within thr~
contcxt of the situation in Lockhart. In Lockhart the minority
community composes over half of the population (Defendant-
Intervenor's exhibit no. 12) yet only one member of the
minority community has ever successfully run for. a position on
the. city governing board. T. R. p. 208; Defendant-Intervener's
exhibit no. 1.. ~. V
IV ~gpm t
A. The adoption of the numbered post provision by the
City of Lockhart in the 1973 Home Rule Charter con-
stituted a change in the law affecting voting and
is therefore reviewable pursuant to Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §1973c.
1. Adoption of the charter triggered Section
5 coverage. . -. V
The threshold issue that must be resolved by the Court is
whether the numbered post provision adopted in Section 3.01 of
the City of Lockhart Home Rule Charter isa change in the law
affecting voting whicJi~piu~t be precleared pursuant to-Section -
5 of the Voting Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. §1973c. Under Section
5, a covered political subdivision in Texas must submit to the
United States I~torney General or to the United States for the
District of Columbia all post November 1, 1972 election changes
for a determination that such election changes were not enacted
pursuant to a discriminatory purpose and do not discriminate on
the basis of race, color or membership in an applicable language
minority group. 42 U. ~ . C. §1973. Those changes in the law
affecting voting. enacted prior.toNovember 1, 1972 are exempt
from Section 5 preclearance. The numbered post provision is
not such a change exempt from Section 5 preclearance. V
4/ Defendant-Intervenor's exhibit Ho. 2 shows that in 1970
of 55V Spanish Surnamed registered voters 64 or l1.45~, turned
out to vote while of 2,041 non-Spanish Surnamed registeced voters
414 or 20.28~ turned out to vote. In 1977 of 974 SpaniahSurnamod
registered voters 233 or 23.927~turned out to vote while of~ 2,293 n~n-
Spanish Surnamed registered voters 834 or 36.37~ turned ~ut to votc.
PAGENO="0261"
1135
In Beer y~U. 425 U.s. 130, 138-139, 96 S. Ct. 1357,
1362 (1976) the Su'ierie Court clearly statcd the exemption
[D]iscriminatorY practices . . . instituted prior to Ethel
triggering date) . . . are not subject to the requirement of
preclearance (under §5]." In order to apply the rule of
law stated in ~ an examination of the facts is necessary.
In Ranz, the Court reviewed an ordinance adopting a districting
schetre for the City of New Orleans The ordinance did not refer
to the at-large districts established in the 1954 City Ch;~.:ter.
However the District Court did not grant Section 5 approval
because of the City Council s failure to eliminate the existing
at-large districts On appeal the Supreme Court reversed
The Supreme Court reversed because there was no election
change. The City ordinance did not refer to the at-large districts.
The city was without authority to alter or remove the at-large
districts absent:a èharter amendment approved by the city's
electorate. 425 U.S.C. at 138-139, 96 S. Ct. at. 1362. The
Court correctly concluded, "The at-large seats, having existed
without change since 1954 wert~ not sub3ect to review in this
proceeding under §5 See also no 10
Applying the factual underpinnings of the rule fo~rmulated
in Beer to the City of Lockhart, the adoption of the numbered
post provision cannot be characterized as a pre-existing election
feature exer't from Section 5 review First unlike the city
ordinance in Beer the City of Lockhart Home Rule Charter
specifically referred to the adoption of the numbered post
election feature in Section 3 01 Second in Beer there was
no change in the form of~ government. The city or4inance in
~qçy merely changed the election structure In sharp contrast
the City of Lockhart fundamentally altered the form of. government
and adopted a different election scheme Third the city of New
Orleans could not by ordinance change the at-large districts
required by the City Charter unless there was a public referendum.
In Lockhart, there was a new form of government which was approved
PAGENO="0262"
1136
by the public. This approval permitted the implementation of
the City Charter. Finally, the City of Lockhart had a choice
in selecting the method of electing city counqilinembers w~an
* the Charter was drafted. The City of Lockhart was not obligat~d
to include the numbered post provision as part of the election
* plan it chose. In summary, the adoption of the numbered post.
provision in the election structure selected as part of the
Charter constituted an election change for which Section 5 pre-.
clearance is required. -
Such an application of Section 5 is consistent with the
procedures and practices of the Attorney General in its adminis-
trative application of Section 5. The Department of Justice
in its:letter of objection of September 14, 1979, addressing
the City of Lockhart submission of the 1973 Home Rule Charter
(Def. Exhibit No. 12) clearly base Section 5 coverage on the
fact that by adopting the Charter, the City of Lockhart altered
its form of government and voluntarily adopted the entire
3L-- - *--
election scheme in the charter. l4oreover, Department~ of
Justice officials in reporting to Congress on the Attorney General's
construction of Section 5 in connection with the 1975 extension
* introduced an exhibit which indicates a policy of objection to
changes in governance where specific features adopted in the
change were.objectionable. See testimony of Assistant.Attorney~
General J. Stanley Pottinger at the Hearings on H.R. 939, et al.,
before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights the House
Committee on the Judiciary 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 166 (1975) (1975.
House Hearings), exhibit #5 to the testimony of Assistant Attorney
General J. Stanley Pottinger. -
5/ In the letter of objection, the basis for the objection
is th~at-large feature of the election. scheme. The Department of
Justice thus views the change-over in the form of government
(Commission to council-manager) through the adoption of the Charter
as the triggering devise for Section 5 coverage. The effect of such
an application is to create a "clean slate" whereby the individual
features of the election scheme become reviewable upon altering
the form of government. Sc~ also, T.R. p. 215.
6/ ExhibitNo. 5 indicates several instances of Section 5
cover~e and objection to the change in form of government as
well as specific features of the election change, i.e. Conyers City,
Ga.; Lancaster County, South Carolina; and Charleston Co., South
Carolina.
PAGENO="0263"
1137
i~ltnoup'i the Attorne~ General S appliciLion of Sc.ction 5 is in no
way binding on this Court the Sup~~ie Court has given great de-
ference to the interpretation of Section 5 made by the Attorney
General US vBoard of Commissioners of Sheffield Ala 435
U S 110 131 98 S Ct 965 979 (1978) Perkins v ~1atthe~ s 400
U.S. 379, 390-394, 91 S.Ct. 431, 437-439. It would, thus, ba
proper for this Court to likewise defer, in this matter of inter-
preting the Act, to the Attorney General's position.
.Fii~al1y, a review of the facts of the case of United Staten
v Board of Commissiorers of Sheffie1d Ala ~ would lend
support to the proposition of the. "clean slate" approach used by
the Department of. Justice. In Sheffield; the City of Sheffield,
Ala. altered its form 0r government from a Commission form of
government in ~hich three commissior~rs were elected by the City
at-large.. 98 S.Ct. at 970. In 1975, a referendum was held to
alter the form of government to a Mayor-Alderman form of government.
98 S.Ct. at 970. There were to be 8 aldermen an4 they were to be
elected at-large; and for. numbered posts. 98 S.Ct. at 971. . The
Attorney General then n6tffied the ~ity that while he did not
"interpose any objecton to the change to a
mayor-council . form of government. . to the
proposed district lines or to the at-large
election of the mayor and the president of
the council, he did object to the implemen-
tation of the proposed at-large method of
electing city councilman because he was un-
* able to conclude that the at-large election
of councilmenrequired to reside in districts
* . will not have~a racially discriminatory effect."
Id 98 S Ct at 971
The Supreme Court without passing on the issue before this Court
sustained the objection by the Attorney General The similarities
in the facts of the present case .and those in Sheffield are quite
striking. In both instances the triggerin.. device for Section 5
review was the change in governance. See,98 S.Ct. at 971 and. Def.
exhibit No 12 `U In both instances the Department of Justice
found the objectionable featui e to be the at-large nietnod of
election See 98 S Ct at 971 Def s cxhibit ~o 12 ¶3&4 Finally
i both inst~inces the at-large feature of the election scheme
existed both before and aftei the election chanpe 98 S Ct at
970, T.R. pp. 31 and 69.
PAGENO="0264"
1138
The ass1.~~ption of that decision is that adoption of a new
form of governance makes the election features chosen for that
governance subject to. review under Section 5. The "stare decisis"
significance is perhaps weakened because the issue was not. raise;
But see: Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 307,. 82
S. Ct. 1502, 1513 (1962). Yet the decision underscores the
fact that whether or not some~ of the spe~cific election features
existed prior to the change in the form of gOvernance, the
Congress could not have intended §5's dutiestobe limited in
application to exclude from review an item of the new election
structure simply because it was also an election feature of the
prior form of governance. In effect, such an exclusion would allow
an increase in the powers of city governing bodies, which have~
control over such things as distribution of jobs and services
and to make furtherdiscriminatory election changes, without review
under Section 5. This, in cities such as Lockhart, which have
shown a propensity to.~iscrimina~te~. in ttese areas, ~would indeed.
be devastating to the intent of the Act. If at.. the same time,
the election system chosen does not off-set the increase in pOwer
but in fact discriminates against minorities, such an increase in
power will of course ~háve an a terse effect on the voting strength
of minorities . Moreover, this Court has ruled that an enactment
involving a change in the functions and responsibilities of
elected officials, asis the case with the adopting *of the Hàme
Rule Chartérin Lockhart, must be precleared, Horry Cty. v, U.S.,.
449, F. Supp. 990, 995. The preclearance process would entail
subjecting the new methodof selecting the gàverning body to
Section 5 review, 449 F. Supp. 990, 995.
An analogous situation exists with respect to annexations.
An annexation in and of itself does not alter the election scheme
7/ The city did, in fact, subsequent to the adoption of the
Chart~, implement a majority vote requirement. Defendant Exhibit
No. 10. It is interesting to note that had the City of Lockhart
remained as a general law city, under a Commissiàn form of govern- -
ment it would not have had the authority to implement the majority
vote requirements.
PAGENO="0265"
1139
n p1 icc pu )r to and ~iftei the a c~ition \~t such action by
a covercd polit'ical subdivision is a chan~;e in the law
affecting, voting and subject to Section 5 scrutiny. Perkins
v~'atthews 400 U S 370 91 S Ct 431 (1971)
Based on the foregoing the numbered post provision adopted as
part of the Boise Rule Charter should be reviewed by this Court
as part of its inquiry into compliance with standards applicable
under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,42 U.S.C. §l973c.
2. The number~d post provision, not having
* been legally a part of the City of Lockhart `. "`
election scheme prior to the adoption of
.of the 1973 Home Rule Charter, became ~
change in the law affecting voting upon
the adoption of the Hone Rule Charter.
Should the Court not agree with the Defendant-IntervenOr'S
argument, put forth above, the Court may yet review the adoption
of `the numbered post provision pursuant to Section 5. .Under Section
5, a failure to' secure preclearance simply'leaves that change unen-
forceable, and the political subdivision must then revert back to
the former election scheme absent the election change. Neithe;
the A~orney General~n~r this Court have the authority, in the
context of a Section 5 review, to order'the political subdivision
to de~e1op alternate forr"s of election schemes which are contrary
to state law; ` Pitts v. Busbee, 511 F.2d 126, 128 (5th Cir., 1975).
A test, that may be `utilized to deterr:iine whether a change affecting
voting has been implemented therefore is to compaue the election
scheme with the proposed change to the e~.ection scheme that the
political subdivision would revert back to if preclearance is not
8/
obtained. - In the instant case the numbered post provisic.~
uas being used by the City of Lockhart prior to November 1 1972
*T.R. 31, 69. However, the City of Lockhart did not have any
authority to use the nunthered post provision. `Art. 1158 Tex.
Rev Civ Statutes Fletcher Deposition p 14 The use of the
8/ Such a test would be identical to the test used in
.sxkiu~, ~i~xa, but in reverse. Using this approach would pre-
vent political subdivisions covered by the act from benefitting
from their illegal conduct.
PAGENO="0266"
1140
numbered post system by the City of Lockhart was therefore not
in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. In the cane
at hand, failure to.secure preclearance of the election change
would require a reversion to an election scheme without the
number post provision. Under the test mentioned above, the
numbered post provision is a change in the law affecting
voting subject to Section 5 scrutiny.
Moreover, since the nuuibered post provision was being used
by the. city in violation of state law, the. Voting Rights Act.
should not be used. to permit the City of Lockhart to now benefit
from such illegal conduct. Because the Voting Rights Act was
meant to cover even the most minor of changes that affect voting,
the election change can be readily conceptualized as one in which
the Plaintiff has made a change which legalizes the numbered post
provision and is therefore subject to Section 5 review.
In suzmnary this Court should review pursuant to Section 5
the adoption by the City of Lockhart, of the numbered post provi-
sion. Although the pr~ovision. was adop ted. as part of -a-broader
more expansive election change, the change in governance makes
the numbered posts reviewáble. Furthermore, since the number~d
post provision was utilized illegally prior to its adoption as.
part of the charter, its legalization make the numbered post
91
provision reviewable pursuant to Section 5.
B. The Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demon-
stratingthat the numbered. post provision, and -.
the staggered term provision of the election .
scheme provided for in the 1973 Home Rule Charter . -
adopted by the Plaintiff, do not discriminate on
the basis of race, color, or membership in an .
applicable language minority group.
9/ There is no dispute that the staggered term provision
is an~lection change subject to Section 5 review. Perkins v.
Matthews, 400 U.S. 279, 91 S~ Ct. 431, 440 (1971).
PAGENO="0267"
1141
1. Polarizedvotiug along ethnic patterns,
where Ilexican American voters vote for
ilexican American candidates and Anglo
voters vote for Anglo candidates,
exists in elections in the City of
Lockhart.
Evidence before this Court on the existence of racially
polarized voting came in two forms. First, persons familiar
with the electoral process in the City of Lockhart and familiar.
with the way people vote in Lockhart testified about the exist-
ence of racial polarize4 voting. Second, two, expert witnesses.
Dr. Charles Cotrell and Dr. Frederick Cervantes testifie4
about the existence of raciallypolaii7ed voting based on their
analysis of recent political races in the City ~of Lockhart.
i4exican-American residents of the City of Lockhart who
had experience in the political process were unanimous that
their experiences in the political area revealed the existence
of polarized bloc voting whereby Mexican American voters voted
for Mexican American candidates and Anglo voters voted for
Anglo candidates See depositions of Carcia pp 7-15 38
Serrato pp. 12, 18. 19,20, 27-28; testimony of Bernardo
Rangel T R p 209 Testimony of members of the City of
Lockhart's Anglo Communilty, who were familiar ~ith the poi~
itical process of Lockhart, also reveals impressions that
would indicate and are consistent with the existence of ra-.
cially polarized voting See Depositions of Marie Burton
p. 65, Shuf ford Alexander p. 25 and, Buckley. pp. 35-36. . .,
`The data used by both Dr. Cotrell and Dr. Corvantes .
consisted of election reqults for city council and mayoral
races from 1973 to the present. The Plaintiff furnished,
for each such election, the number of Mexican American voters
participating. To determine the existence. of racially.pol-
arized voting the number of votes received by the ~
PAGENO="0268"
1142
* J~merican candidates was compared to the number of Mexican
American votes.. This analysis was used by both Dr. Cotr1l
and Dr. Cervantes. T.R. pp. 155, 254. The consistently
close correlation between the number of votes received by
Mexican American candidates and the number of Mexican American
voters at each election indicated to both experts the exist-
ence of racially p'tarized voting. T.R. pp. 155, 254.
in fact, Dr. Cervantes reviewed the data used to determine the
existence of racially polarized voting in Wilkes County, Ga.
v.U.S., 450 F.Supp. 1171 (D.D,C., l978)~ and concluded the
data available for Lockhart more strongly indicated racially
polarized voting. T.R. p. :255. The record also reveals
Mexican ~merican candidates have never opposed one another,
T.R. p. 209. Moreover, while anglo candidates have run tin-
opposed from time to time, even after the adoption of the
Charter, never has a Mexican American candidate been unop-
posed for a city office. T.R. p. 209.
Taken as a whole, the Court must conclude from the facts
in the record the existence of racially polarized voting in
* the City of Lockhart. This evidence is even more compelling
when one considers Plaintiff has not come forward with any
data to refute the existence of racially polarized voting.
* T.R. pp. 22-24, p~sim. *
2. In the context of racially polarized voting
the adoption of the numbered post provision
* *. * ~adversely impacts the voting strength of
* * minority voters in Lockhart.
* The record of this case reveals that generally a numbered
post provision has the effect of targeting minority candidates.
T.R. p. 96,. 141, 149, &l50. Within the context of racially
polarized voting, a numbered postsystetn causes a dramatic
* increase in turnout by anglo voters to defeat the minority
candidates~ A numbered post system also permits the anglo
community to place its strongest candidate against the minor-
PAGENO="0269"
1143
ity candidate to ensure a head on head race. Dcf. mt.
Exhibit No'. 5-5d; T.R. p. 245. The numbered post provision
thus has ai adverse impact on minority candidates
The reccrd reveals that racia)ly polari7ed voting e.aists
in Lockh...t. Moreover, Anglo turnout increases dramatically
when Mexican American' ct~ndidates run for office. Def. Int.'s
Exhibit No. 5-5d. Finally, the numbered post provision has
been used to target Mexican American candidates in Lockhart
and hasresulted in'thelstrongest anglo candidates running
against the minority.candidates. T.R. p. 245, 247-248. In
view of this evidence, the conclusion is inescapable that the
numbered post provision has an adverse impact on minorIty
voting strength. Since there is no stated justification for
the numbered post provision, Plaintiff has failed to meet its
burden that the adoption of the number `post provision does
not discriminate'on the `basis of race, color or membership in
an applicable language minority, group ,
3. Within th~:cOflteSt of -racially polarized'
voting the adop~on of the staggered term
provision., adversely impacts the voting
- strength-of minority voters in Lockhart,
Testimony from the Plaintiffs )expert witness, Dr. Dalbert
Taeble, revehlsthat the effect, generally, of staggered terms
is to decrease voter turnout. . `T,R. p. 99. According to
Dr Ceivantes testimony studies conducted on voter turnout
show the disproportionate effect on minority voters by :`a low
voter turnout 1' R p 257 Vhen voter turnott is low
generally turnout among minority voters is even lower Voter
- turnout data made, available by the'City of Lockhart supports
Dr. Cervantes' testimony. In the City `of Lockhart, low voter
turnout disproportionately affects minorities. See footnote
4 supra. `
Staggered terms also have an adverse impact on the voting
strength of minorities by ta~eting minority candidates. The
PAGENO="0270"
1144
h~ny at `trial revealed that et:a~~'crcd terris operate iu
~aui~ discriminatory fa.;tiion ae nuinb~rec1 post pro~iision
the &intext of racially polarized voting. *T.R. 81, 83,
1$, 149. In Lo.khart staggered terms have in fact had the
c: lect of targeting in5~nority candidates. T.R. p. 245.
The evidence before the Court shows the discrminatory
ct~iect of staggered terms in the context of the political
Situation in Lockhart. :
I:
I..
/ 1'
//
/,:
/ /
1/
/1
/1
11
11
1:7
I;
I;
* 1/
I;
I:
I,
1'
/
/*
PAGENO="0271"
1145
C. Ju,.1~:rzo!tL a'~airiSt the rl~i)iti..f.i 01 ei~or the
nun.bcred po:;t provL8io or the at -~eru~.1 tern
provision ~.1*i 11 result only 10 the (-i i.r'uat ion
of those features not proclearod.
A reraining issue in this action is whether the failure
to secure Section 5 ap~roval of the. nun.bercd place and staggered,
terms provtsions invalidates the entire Charter. The rule of
in.: as deternined by the Voting Rights Ac~t is that only changes
affect:ing voting are subject to the preclearance prci.'isions.
fleer v. u.s., 425 U.S. 130; 138-139, 96 S.Ct. 1357, 1362 (1967).
`foe Court in this case ruled that only the individual featurns
of the eLection scheme incorporated in the City Charter are *
election changes subject to Section 5 review. T.R. p. 134-198.
The remaining provisions of the Charter are. not election changes
requiring precl~rance. Should the Court continue to adhere
to this interpretation the issue. becomes whether Plaintiff
has r~et its. burden with respeet to these election ~eaturcs.
Since only the staggered term and numbered post provisions are
before the Court, and not the Charter as a whole, only tho~;e
features may be affecte~ by the Court's ~etemination~-Beer
425 U S 130 138-139 96 S Ct l3~7 1362 (1967)
Even if the Court should view the entire Charter as
subject to Section 5 review the~ failure to preclear the numbered
post or staggered tere~ provisions should not affect the r~uainder
of the Charter. As indicated in the charter, there is a
separability clause permitting the continued enforcement of
all Ciarter provisions which nave not been invalidated The
`.c'nirnbility clause also nerinits the continued enforcement of
parts of a Charter provision where otherportions have been
invalidated. The separability clause is as follows:
`If any section or part of section of this
charter shall be held invalid by a court of
cor~tcnt jurisdictica, such holding shall
not affect the reneinder ~f thIs chartc.r
nor the context In which such sect-ion or
part of section SO held invalid n:~y appear,
except to the extent that an entire sect:ion
or part of section nay `-c insep~rably
connected in moaning and effect with the
section or ~rn~t of section to which such
holding shall i~L'~ectly an~)ly
PAGENO="0272"
1146
Section ii 07, borte Rule Ch~rrer Def. Exh. ~1o. 7. Allowin:
the unaficeted portions of the City Cbarter to remain in f~ce
is con:;istent with the Court's holding in }b.~rry Cry, s~pra,
449 F. Supp. at 997. Although the District Court. in Horry~ enjo'ned
the use of an unprecleared enactment, the Court allowed vacancies
to be filled pursuant to the unprecleared Act. 449 F.Supp. at
997. Cf., Pitts v. Bushee, 511 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1975) (where
in the absence of a `separability clause the Court invalidated
an entire enactment). Consequently, in view of the separability
clause and Bor~y~, the change toa council-manager form of.
government and the increase in the size of the governingboard
as well as the other provisions `~hould remain in effect.
V. Conciusiou
In summary the Defendant-Intervenor urges the Court to
review the effect of the adoption of the numbered post provision
pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. 42 USC §1973c. Further, the Defondant-Intervenor urges
the Court to find that the Plaintiff has failed to meet its
burden of. showing that~the numbered post provision and/or
the staggered terms provision, adopted by the Plaintiff as
part of the 1973 Home Rule Charter do not discriminate on the
basis of race, color, or membership in an applicable language
minority group. Finally, the `Defendant-Intervettor urges the
Court to find that its ruling will not effect the remaining
portions of the Borne Rule Charter. . . `
Respectfully submitted;'
VILNA S. MARTINEZ
NORRIS J. BALLER `
Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund
28 Geary Street - 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
JOAQIJING. AVILA
JOSE GARZA
HORNA V. SOLIS
Nexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund
201 i~. St. Mary's Street
517 Petroleum Commerce Bldg.
San Antonio, TX 78235
PAGENO="0273"
1147
ajtducarionaiFund
May 12 1978
Mr Gerald Jones
Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
U S Department of Justice
Washington D C 20530
re: Jim Wells County, Texas - Redistricting
* Pile No. X 9051
Dear Mr Jones
* The Department of Justice is presently considering a redistricting
plan for Jim Wells County. The Mexican American Legal Def ease and
Educational Fund has analyzed the submitted plan and finds: 1) the
plan is malapportioned; 2) it gerrymanders the Mexican American
* community; and 3) it lacks equalization of road mileage and land -
area which affects the budgets of each of the precincts. For these
* reasons, we urge the Department of Justice to issue a letter of ob-~
jection. ** *
- I. Analysis of Plan
According to the county's submission,tlie following is the population*
breakdown of the commissioners precincts: * *.. - *
Precinct Population
1 9676
2 6694
* : 3 * * * * 10,018 * * * ~**
4 6690
Based upon the above figures, the ideal district should contain 8,269
total persons. Thus the deviations for the aubmitte4 plan are as *
follows:* * * --
83-679 0 - 82 - 18 Pt.2
PAGENO="0274"
1148
* - No. of Persons above (+) or -
Below (-) Ideal District of. :: : : -
Prec.# No. of Persons 33,O78~ - - Z Deviation
1 9 676 + 1 407 + 17.07
2 6,694 * - 1,575
* 3 10,018 + 1,749 : + 21~2~
* 4 6,690 - i,579~. *: 19.1~ -~
~The total top to bottom deviation is 40.32, well beyond the 9.9Zre-:
cognized in White v. Register, 412 U. S. 755 (1973). .
In addition to being in violation of the one person-one vote principle,
the submitted plan is a retrogression in the impact of the Chicano voti
strength when compared to the county's plan prior to the 1975 reapporti
ment. . . . - . . -
Old Plan * New P lan *
- Total No. Mex. *. Total No. )fex.
Pct. Pop. American Pop. American 2
1 7025 . 6456 . . 91.9 9676 8666 .89.6 . --
* 2 8050 - 2690 33.4 6694 3841 - 57.4
3 . 9371 . 6017 64.2 10018 * 4240 42.3
4 8632 5939 68.8 6690 . 4313 ~- 64.5
* In Beer v. U. 5,47 L. Ed. 2d 629, 639 (1976), the court addressed the
purpose of the federal approval provision of §5: * - - -
.[T]he purpose of ~5 has always been to : `- * :
* insure that no voting-procedure changes would- :- -
be made that would lead to a retrogression in - - * - . ** -
theposition of racial minorities with respect -
- to their effective exercise of the electoral * * * - * -
* franchise. * . * .- *
}lexicau Americans in Jim Wells County are 64% of the total popu1atjou~
The submitted plan dilutes the heavily concentrated Nexican American
community in the City of Alice (See Nap, Attachment 1) by overconcen-
trating Precinct 1 with 89.6% Chicano and by diluting the Nexican
PAGENO="0275"
1149
Americanmajority in Precincts 3 and 4 from 64.27. to 42.37. i~i Precjnct
3, and from 68.8Z to 64.57. in Precinct 4.
The 1975 Jim Wells reapportionment plan has yet another significant ~
impact on the Mexican American community, By drawing the lines affectis
the total, road maintenance afforded each precinct, the county has din-
tributed its budgets as such: Precinct,1, which has the only Chicana
* - commissioner,has-an annual operating budget of $110,000; Precinct 2 has
$250,000; Precinct 3 - $350,000; and Precinct 4 has $450,000. As the
Financial Comparison Chart (Attachment 2) indicates, Mexican Americans
* have higher unemployment, have a greater percentage of families below
poverty level, and have less education completed in comparison with the
* total county population. Sadly enough, the precinct which is in most
need, has the least funds to address these problems.
II. MALDEF Plans
In an effort to show that better lines could be drawn taking into con-
sideration the Mexican American voting strength and the distribution
of rural roads, MALDEF has drawn four alternate plans. The following
is a description of Plan I: *
Pct. No. Total Population Mexican American
1 8198 5855' * (71.47.)
2 * * 8316 .3235 * . (39.57.)
3 * * * 7938 * . 6308 . * (77.07.)
4 * * 8307 * 5398 * (65.97,)
* The total top tobottom deviation in this proposedplan is±4.67.
(-3.06 in Precinct 1 and +1.60 in Precinct 4). (See Attachment 3); -.
The ideal district for the MALDEF Plan is 8189 due to a
different population basis. The NALDEF Plan uses ED population
figures whereas the county used Voting Precinct totals.
PAGENO="0276"
1150
The Voting Age Population figures (based on Census 1st and 5th couiits:
See chart, Attachment 8) in the MALDEF proposed plan do not decrease.
* the Mexican American percentages below 601 in those precincts with a -
Mexican American majority. The following is a breakdown of the voting
age population for each precinct: . . . .
*Pct. No. .. - -. Total Population Mexican American -.
1 -.- 4304 . 3130 . (72.7%)
2 . 469.5 1451 (30.91)
3 4326 * 3136 (72.5%)-
4 * 4629 * 2779 (60.01)
(See Plan 1 - Voting Age Population Figures, Attachment 4.)
Other alternative plans are provided as Attachments 5-7.
Conclusion . - .
In view of the obvious retrogression of Chicano impact on the electoral
process in Jim Wells County brought about by the 1975 reapportionment
plan which overconcentrateS Chicanos in one precinct, then fragments
and dilutes Chicanos in the remaining precincts, we urge the Department
of Justice to issue a letter of objection. -* - -
- Sj.x~cerely, ,. - - * --
* ~ * :-- -. - .
oaquin C. Avila - * - - -
Associate Counsel - -* * * -
- sa *
Ends.
PAGENO="0277"
1151
Education Completed
* * 63.92 **
Total Population Mexican American
2 Completing Between
9-llYears 184 145
2 High School Gra-
duates 19 1 12 0
2 Completing 1-3
Years College 7 8 4 0
2 Completing 4 Or
More Years College * * 6.5 2.7
Financial Comparison
Total Population Mexican American
2 Earning Less than. * * * ** *. *~ **
$4000peryear 369 448
2 Earning $15 000 or
More 84 37
All Families Mexican American Families
2 Families Below
Poverty Level 26 6 40 9
* Labor * *
* * Total Workforce * Mexican American tJorkforce
Professional, Tech. &
Managers 19.1 * 9.9
Unemployed * 5.0 6.7
PAGENO="0278"
CCC C) ~I-s-~I-~ DCI C) C) C)
JOO3OC'4~ ~ °~o'~'~ ~ I . ~` I ~` I
0 . ~ (DO
CD CD DC CD DC CD
* ~j CD P1 CCC 1
DC * . CC) * CD C/C
~d
* P1 P1 * C/C P1 CC) P1
* CD * . CD CCI CD CC CD
* .. C) *-~~ C) *~ C) *. C)
* ~ `~~` :~
* S S * .0 C) .. C)
* . rP * rt * CCC rt
S CDC35 **
5,, (5,) . (5*5
o cr4 ip.~p.s ~d "-1i-"-~ `-`I-' I~ .
`0 M~G~') 0 ~ CO
~4t~t~L~ N. ~Co~O'O rn
r? O~Jfl-~ ` O~0\~P-~L4ODOC' *. S. ~,
o S S
S . .. ~
0 S S
rt *
CD I'
CC)
r
S *
S * S . * S
S U'.p * .. U) *
S * S
L~N~4 O~(5~4~O"J C/). LA)CC')C~ C/)
coO~~'t'~ .* . coc~L~ ,. . S
ui-~Jui~D.P' ~ . ~:`O~OUi~'CO ~ S 5 * S
5: .* * S **
**u1 **55555555 * * 55 ~50 * *
b.:
PAGENO="0279"
I.~.
U)
U)
0
CD
C)
C)
rD
0
U)
I
N C~) .I~.) LI r) LI. C~
~ Je ~ tJ~1WC'~)p-~ JL~)~flF-~C)O~
nOcC.NC~I-~.n 0
~1o4so0~-t~~ ..
* Ii..
CD
C)
* * * I.~.
* C)
CC
1.)
I~d ~` `~
~IO'O)J 10 ~.noi-~Jc~ 0
~ cc ~ ~ `c~ o t~ o i-~ ui ~
I.
cc * cc j * cc
* ~c'wLnLn)-~I-~ND U) * cc
J~-JC-~Ui~Ui *U1OO~O~0~A) t~COcDOC~a~J1-~C%
~ ~ ~ * c~O~)O ~JC~)
0 C',)
in * ** o *
PAGENO="0280"
1154
,~ ~as~ 517~mcm1m,rceBuadfl9 :t~~ ~
.~`id ~ducat,onaI Fun (512)224-5476 *
September 21, 1978 - -
~r. Gerald Jones - - -: -. - - : - - - -~ -. -:
Voting Section - :. ~. . - -
Civil Rights Division -- . -.
U. S. Department of Justice -- -. .- - -~
Washington, D.C. 20530
* 1n re: Jim Wells Coun.ty,. Texas - Redist~ricting * *. --.. . -
DOJ File No. X 905I--~. ~- *:
MALDEF File No 379
Dear Mr Jones
The Department of Justice is currently reconsidering whether
to withdraw the letter of objection issued on July 3, 1978 against
the Jim Wells County Connissioners' Court for failure to meet the -
obligations imposed by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in their
* July 11, 1975 redistricting of county commissioner precincts. The
new information submitted by the county does not warrant the with-
drawal of the Department of Justice's prior determination. Briefly,
the new population statistiqs will demonstrate an overwhelming con-
centration of Mexican Americans in Precinct No. 1 and the 55% Mexican
American cóncentratión 1n Precinct No. 3 under the prevIous 1.974 * - -
plan-has been reduced to 51% in Precinct No.. 2 under the 1975 plan.
-When this 1975 redistricting plan is superimposed in a county where
Mexican Americans. have suffered a long history of discrimination in
the areas of employment, economics, and education, the Mexican American
voting strength is clearly diluted. The discriminatory impact of the -
1975 redistricting plan is painfully evident - in a county where
Mexican Americans comprise 64% of the county's population, there is
only one representative on the County Commissioners' Court who is
Mexican American. These glaring facts lead us to: conclude that the
- .-: 1975 redistricting plan has discriminated in the past and will con-
tinue to discriminate in the future if the Department of Justice with- -
draws the letter of objection. For these reasons, we strongly urge
the Department of Justice not to withdraw the letter of objection.
11 This request for reconsideration was filed on September 5, * -
1978. This request by the county is directly attributable to a
Section 5 enforcement proceeding instituted by Mexican American resi-
dents in 3m Wells County. Arriola v. Barville, Civ. Act. No. C-78-87
(S.D. Texas) (Complaint filed on August 3, 1978).
P4ational 0:11cc Regional Offices ATTACH lENT 33a
a G-ary S-~e- 250W Ferleenth AneWe 5455 W'sh.re B'~ Pav4sem Conrmerce Bug lO23Connecbcs3Asent*
San~,ancscO CS 94108 Dewer.CO 40203 LosAnçe'eO CA 90336 201 lIe'S St liarysSleet WasSngto.. DC 20036
14153 93t-55~0 (303) 833-1893 (213)936 5145 (512,224-5476 78205 (252)659-5166
Conrnbu:-on Are Deduclb'e for US Income Tax Purposes * -
PAGENO="0281"
1155
I. The New Population Information - -
Does Not Alter the Discriminatory
Impact of The 1975 Redistricting
* Plan. - -
Before proceeding in our analysis of the new- populatioxt information,
a preliminary objection should be registered concerning the source
of the new data. According to well established case authority, re-
~apportionments should be based upon the preceeding decennial census.~ -
-In Lister v. Commissioners Cdurt, Navarro County, 566 F. 2d 490 (5th
.Cir. 1978), the Fifth Circuit considered a 1969 redistricting plan
that was not based upon the federal census: - . -
"Regardless of the merits or demerits of the
* 1969 plan the County Commission had a clear
- * duty to reapportion on the basis of. the 1970 -
- census, especially since its 1969 plan was not
* based on the 1960 census."
566 P. 2d at 492. - * .
In the county's new submission, there is-no indication that the 1970 - -
census data was in fact utilized. On the contrary, the county appears
to have utilized a formula based upon registered voters. Clearly such
an estimate is simply not reliable. * An indication of this-unreliabilit1
is evident in the County's own tabulations. -
The County's submission lists 33,078 as the total population for Jim -
* Wells County for both the 1974 and 1975 redistricting plans. How-
ever utilizing their figures, there is a decrease of approximately -
849 Anglos from one time period to the next and a corresponding in-
-* crease of Mexican Americans. Such a significant change in population -
-would not occur if the 1970 census had been used as a base. Moreover
the County's new figures shows the Mexican American concentration in
Precinct No. 1 as 89.5%. Tet using the 1970 census enumeration district
data, the Mexican American percentage increases to 92%. This significar
minority concentration is further corroborated by a registratidn survey
which lists the Spanish surname registered voters at 93.1%.
Irrespective of which figure is utilized for Precinct No. 1, there can
PAGENO="0282"
1156
be no question that the overconcentratiom of Mexican Americans Lu
Precinct No. 1 serves to unconstitutionally dilute the vote of
Mexican Americans. By:being overconcentrated in Precinct No.1, the
impact of the voting strengthof the Mexican American is minimized.
* in the other three precincts. - The County.ColnmissioTters were well.
aware of this concentt~ation -and dilution of the minority vote. Des-
- pite this awareness. the county continued to leave a substantial -.
number of Mexican Americans in Precinct 1~o. I. Such action clearly
indicates that the County perpetuated the continuing effects of past
- discrimination by adopting the present boundaries of Precinct No. 1.
Similar action amounted to adenial of equal access to the political~
- process in Kirksey v. Board of Sup'rs. of Hinds Cty., Miss. * 554 P.
2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 46 U.S.L.W. 3357
(1977). As iudicatedby the Court, * -
Where a plan, though itself raci'ally - *
neutral, carries forward intentional .
and purposeful discriminatory denial
of access that is already in effect,
it is not constitutional. Its benign
- - . - --- nature :cannOt insulate the redistricting - --
government entity from the ex~atent taint. - -. - - -
554 F. 2d at 147. *
* - For this reason, the 1975 redistricting plan has a discriminatory -
- - impact and should alone warrant the continuation of the letter of -
objection isaued by the Department of Justice. - However there are- - -
* additional reasons to support our contention.
In examining the impact of the minority vote from 1974 to 1976, one
notes that there is the type of retrogression condemned in Beer v.
United States, 96 S. Ct. 1357 (1976). As noted by the Supreme Court,
a violation of Section 5 occurs when the new election change is retro-
gresaive - *- - * -
[T)he purpose of 5 has always been to
- insure that no voting-procedure changes -
would be made that would lead to a retro-
gression in the position of racial minorities
with respect to their effective exercise of -
the electoral franchise." -
PAGENO="0283"
1157
* The following table constitutes the new information provided by the
County: - - . .. - . . .- .
1974 . 1976
* Total Total Total 1 Total. Total Total
* Pre. Pop. Anglos Itex.Amér. N.A. Pre. . Pop. Anglos Nex.Amer. N.
1 8673 . 617 8056 . 92.9 1 8832~-~ 928 . .7903 -89.
* 2 7653 6068.~ 1585. 20.7- 2. -. 7828 3775 4o54.::51.
3 9133 *4052'° 5081 .55.6 3 8799 5180 3619. 41.
4 7619 24921.~ 5127 67.3 4 7619i..'t 2492 5127 67.
Total 33078 13229 19849 60.0 33,078 12375 20703 62.
The retrogressive effect is evident upon examining the changes in-Precinc
Moe. .2 and 3. The impact of the new redistricting plan in changing the.
voting strength of Mexican Americans in Precinct Nos.~ 1 and 4 were ne-
glible. Precinct No. 1 still contained a very high concentration of
Mexican Americans while the percentage of minority persons in Precinct
No. 4 remained unchangedaccording to the-county's figures. Of there--
maiming two precincts under the 1974redistricting plan the Mexican
American community had a third majority precinct containing a 55.6%.
Mexican American concentration. (Precinct 3). After the election -
* change, the third majority distiict diminished to 51.8% Mexican American.
Such a decrease in the overall impact of the Mexican American community
in county politics constitutes -a retrogression in violation of the sub-
stantive requirements of Section 5. 2! The 1975 redistricting plan be-
comes even more pernicious when one motes that the Mexican American
community was not given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the
redistricting process. .-
Moreover, the division of the minority population in Precincts
Nos.2 and 3 serves to fragment a cohesive block of minority voting stren~
This division becomes even more pernicious since the Mexican American
population is left with a bare population majority in Precinct No. 2.
Such a redistricting is àlearly unconstitutional. As noted in Kirksey,
"Where the cohesive block voting strength is frag-
mented among districts, the presence of districts with
bare black population majorities not only does not ne-
cessarily preclude dilution but, as a panel of this court
pointed out, bare population majorities may actually en-
hance the possibility of continued minority political
* impotence. . . .The plan denies rights protected under
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
554 F. 2d at 150, 151.
PAGENO="0284"
1158
As noted by the County, thi ostensible purpose ofthe redistricting Plan
wee to bring the county ia coapliance with the one person one vote prin-
ciple. According to their figures the top to bottom deviation was 18,3Z.-
under the 197.4 redistricting plan and~~1~.7~ under the1975.plan. Such...:
C miniscule change cannot !erve. to cloak the redistricting with an air
of legitimacy, especially since tbe 14.7% figuresis.well-im excess ol -
the 9% figure approved in White v. Regeat~, 93 S~ Ct. 2332 (1973).
There are no natural boundaries; or other state rationales to justify
* such a large diviation. Their contention becomes even more suspect.
when one examines the 24ALDEP alternative plans which not only utilize -:
existing enunerationdistrict boundaries, thereby-insuring greater .
accuracy in estimating population diatributiofls, but also provide con-
siderably snaller.top:to bottom deviations than 14.7%. ., . -
* Apart from discrjmination in voting, the Chicano community in Jim Wells
County suffers from low employment and low educational achievement.
Census data.àonfirms this powerlessness: the median -income for Mexican
American families ($4,798) is.lower than Anglo faniIies.($6,745); the
percentage ofMexican American families (53.95%) with incomes less than
the poverty level is-significantly higher than for Anglo families (41.512
the percentage of MexicanAmericans completing four (4) -or more years of
college-is 2.65% as opposed to 6.55% for Anglos. .~ . .
In the Alice Independent School District, which is the largest school
* district inJim Wells Cdunty, Mexican Americans are still segregated
*.infonrschools: *Nayer Elementary, 91.6%; Garcia Elenentary, 99%;
Saenz Elementary, 92~2Z; and Salazar Elementary with.97.4% Mexican.
American students
Conclusion
The attempt by the~Commissioners Court to dilute the impact of the -
Mexican American vote in -Jim Wells County by the overconcentration in
Precinct 1 and the division in.Precincts 2 and 3 amounts to fragmen-
tation- of. a-cohesive ninority voting strength. To diminish the impact
of the Chicano barrio in the context of present and-past discrimination
demonstrates an ±ntent to perpetuate the past denial of equal access-
to the-political processes. -Washington v. Davis,- 96 S. Ct. 2040 (1976);
PAGENO="0285"
1159
Village of Arlington Heights v. ~ietropolitafl Housing Development Corp.,
97 S. Ct. 555 (1976); Kirksey, ~ Vor these reasons, we urge the
Department of Justice not to withdraw its letter of objection. -
Sincerely,
3 aqu~n G. Avila
sso(~ate Counsel -
sa : -.
xc: Ms. Rebecca White
Voting Section -
Civil Rights Division
* Room 7266 -
U. S. Dept. of Justice . *
Washington, D.C. 20530 *
PAGENO="0286"
1160
*`~U~. 31979
~ Romeo Plores
County Attorney -.
3m Wells County
P.O. Drawer 2080
Alice, Texas 78332
Dear I~ir. Elores
This Is Ir~ reference to the August II, 1975 redistrIcting of
the Commissioners Precincts of 3im Wells County, Texas, submitted
to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, as amended. Your submission was completed on
?Aay 5,1978. . . .
We have analyzed the Information contained in your submission,
comments of other Interested persens, and data obtained from the
Bureau of the Census in the light of relevant Judicial decisions.
See, ~ Klrksev v. Hinds County Board of &iper~c~, 554 F. 2c1
139(5th CIt. 19th, cert. ~ 46 U.S.L..W. 3357 (Nov. 18,1977);
Robinson v. CommIssiorinersCg~, 505 F.2d 674 (5th CIr. 1974).
Although Mexican~AmerIeans constitute 64 percent
of the population of 31m Wells County, only one of the four commissioners
Is a Mexican-.American. An analysis of election returns for 31m
Wells County reveals a clear pattern of racial bloc voting. We note
that a redistricting of the Commissioners Precincts was ordered
by a Federal district court on 3ariuary 18,1974. We have not been
provided information IndIcating why a second redistricting was
necessary only one and one half years after the first According
to the statisties you have provided the 1974 plan contained a total
deviation from equal population of 28.4 percentage points; the deviation
* under the 1975.plan is substantially greater..40 percentage points.
cc Public File
ATTACHMENT 34
PAGENO="0287"
1161
* Under the 1974 plan two of the four precincts had a Me~dcarp.Amer1can'
populaticn of greater than 65 percent, and a third preclnct'bad a
Mexican-American population of greater than 60 percent. Under
the submitted plan, the Mexican-American percentage Is above
65 percent In only one precinct and Is above 60 percent in one other.
Urder Soctio~ 5 the burden Is on the jurisdiction proposing
a voting change to show that the new practice or procedure Is not
discriminatory In purpose or effect. The burden of proof Is the same
*:ihcn a submission is made to the Attorney General as It would be
In a suit for a declaratory judgment under Sectiofl 5 brought in the
* United States District Court for the District of `Columbia. See Ceor~ia
v. United SW~, 411 U.S. 526(1973). The Procedures for the Administration..
* of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 28 C.F.R. 51.19, stater
If the evidence as to the purpose or effect of the change `*
* ~` ` Is conflicting, and the Attorney General is unable to resolve,
the confLict within the sixty-day period, he shall, consistent
with the above-mentioned burden of proof applicable In
the district court, enter an objection. ..
* Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that
the county has carried its burden of proving that the submitted redistricting
plan for 3irn Wells County does not have the purpose and will not
have the effect of diluting the vote of Mexican-Americans. Accordingly,
* * ` on behalf of the Attorney General, I must Interpose an objection
to this plan.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the *
* *: United States District Court for the District of Columbia that this. *
* change has neither the purpose nor will have the effect of denying
* or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership
* ` In a language minority group. In addition, the Procedures for the, `f
Administration of SectionS, 28 C.F.R. 51.2KW & (c), 51.23, and
5l.~4, persnit you to request the Attorney General tol reconsider, . *
* * the objection. However, until the objection Is withdrawn or the `.
juc'grrent from the District of Columbia Court obtained, the effect
* * of the objection by the Attorney General is to make the redistricting
* plan legally unenforceable. ` ** * *. * .
Slncerel},
Dre~ S Days III
* *. Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0288"
1162
d Bdg
January 14 1980
I
Mr Gerald Jones Chief
Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
U S Department of Justice
:~Washington, D.C. .. ,: ... - -: T -
RE Jim Wells County Texas - Redistrictitig
Dear Mr Jones
The Department of Justice is presently reviewing the December 12,
1979, proposed redistricting plan for the County Commissioners'
Precincts for Jim Wells County, Texas. - MALDEF strongly urges
that an objection be issued for the following reasons:
1. . The Mexican American population, according to . ..
* data submitted by the County, is gerrymandered S
into four separate commissioners' precincts. .
2. The 1979 plan violates standards set forth in - - .. *. * *. -
U.J.0. v. Carey, 97 S. Ct. 996 (1977) and * .0
Ki~ksey v. BCof Sup'rs. of Hinds Co., Miss., * *
* 554 F. 2d 139 (1977). . . . *-: . : .. *. . -... .5-
3 The statistical data submitted by the county
is unreliable and
4. The plan was designed with discriminatory . . .. ~. .T.
intent. - . . *.. ~-. .S
* .~ According to figures submitted by the County, the percentages of
Mexican Americans in each commissioner precinct will be 63.307.
in Precinct 1, 58.377. in Precinct 2, 56.387. in Precinct 3 and 64.8l7~
in Precinct 4. This is in a county where 60.727. of the population .- --
is Mexican American. The effect of such a plan is dilution of the
voting strength of the minority community. . . . .. .
When measured against applicable Supreme Court standards, the plan is defici
For instance the plan dbes not contain a coormissionec precinct containing 65'~ minority
population concentrations approved in U.J~0. v. Car~y, 97 S. Ct.
996 (1977). Obviously, this plan doesñ~t meet criteria necessary
ATTACIUIENT 35
________ National Ollice Regional Offices
23 G~sr-, 3'~ 250W Fou'tae~fl A,eWe - 1636 Was! Ei;~9 Strael 517 PW,c Cc1~ra1c4 8:3; 1411 KStreei. NW
Sa~Fra".SC) C941C9 Su~s3C3 Su1e319 201 Nc-1rS!vSS!ea Su'e300
41559.303) De'iC'.C08320 Los ArOa'es C4930f7 Sa~-o TX 78235 WasS!s;'o' DC20005
(333;893-1893 (213,333-6952 (5,2122-1-5476 - (202(393-5111
C~rtt~.3~3 A'e D3iL-cZbIe for US i~o~e Tx F~rposes .- -
PAGENO="0289"
1163
to maximize potential proportional representation. According to~
the data submitted, Jim Wells County has also failed to take into
account the factor of minority voting strength expressed. in terms
of eligible voter population. This absence of data on minority
voting strength indicates that the covered jurisdiction seeks to
focus on total population figures per district. Such a focus is
misplaced and does not follow the criteria utilized by the United
States Attorney General. 1/ Failing to take eligible voter
population into considera~Eron will only perpetuate the county' s..
longstanding denial of access. - -
It is difficult to analyze the precise discriminatory impact of
the county's plan because the data submitted to support the plan
outlined on maps included in the submission is unreliable. In
other words, the supporting data does not correspond to the maps
showing proposed boundaries. Within the City of Rondo, the splits
of enumeration districts 14, 16, 18, 19 and 21, as outlined on the
county'.s analysis do not correspond to the proposed boundariesas
drawn on the county's City of Rondo map. These discrepancies affect
all four precincts. The carelessness that is demonstrated in these
discrepancies is indicative of the insensitivity that has always
been manifested by the couhty with regard to minority voting rights.
The Jim Wells County proposed redistricting ~lan is also objectionable
because it was drawn with discriminatory intent, to purposefully in-
sure that minorities would not have a dominant voice in the .com-
missioners' precincts. The county has racial statistics concerning
the registered voter population, ethnic population, and the level
of Spanish surname registered voters in each precinct. Obviously,
the impact of the plan on minorities was known. . :
Discriminatory intent is also strongly suggested when the facts re-*f.
- garding the process used become known. The county's plan was
developed without any participation by the Mexican American Com-
missioner, Lucilla DeLeon. . A copy of her letter to the Department
of Justice is attached; it described the systematic exclusion of
the Chicano community from the redistricting process. Also, when
CF. Kirksey v. Bd. of Sup'rs. of Hinds County. Miss., 554
F.2d 139,T50 (5th Cir. 1977) citing Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police
Jury, 508 F. 2d 1109, 1112 (5th Cir. 1975) ("We have consistently ri~
cognized that `access to the political process and not population (is)
the barometer of dilution of voting strength.")
83-679 0 - 82 - 19 P1.2
PAGENO="0290"
Mexican Americans in Jim Wells County asked for copies of~a~s-
1. showing proposed precinct boundaries, they were told the only..
* maps had been sent to Washington, D.C. Reliable information :-
- indicates that maps were readily available but were deliberately .
withheld, in an attempt to keep the. community as uninformed as
; possible. .. * - :
As presented in this cotrsnent, the Jim Wells County plan does
* not meet administrative standards developed by the Attorney
- General and approved by the Supreme Court in Car~L The plan.
was purposefully designed to dilute tha potential voting strength
of the minority community by not assuring a viable nonwhite
* eligible voting populatioi in violation of the standards established
in Kirkse~. For these reasons, MALDEF- strongly urges the Departthent
of Justice to object to Jim Wells County's proposed redistricting S
plan for not providing the minority community with a meaningful
opportunity to effectively exercise their electoral franchise. :
* Sincerely, . S S
1164
Joaquin G~. Avila -
.:5s0~~ate Counsel.
sa
Attacrunent
xc: Elda Gordon, Analyst
VotingSectiort
* Civil Rights Division
* U. S. Department of Justice
* Washington, D.C. 20530
Willie Velasquez, Dir.
Southwest Voter Registration
and Education Project
Majestic Bldg.
San Antonio, TX. 78205
xc: - Ms. Choco Mesa * -
Southwest Voter Registration
5 and Education Proj cot
Majestic Bldg.
San Antonio, TX. 78205
* ~-: David Lessard, Paralega].
MALDEF *
* 1411 K Street, M.W.
Suite 300 * *
* Washington, D.C. * 20005 -.
* Alfred Arreola -
- 512 Chapparral Street
Alice, TX. 78332
PAGENO="0291"
1165
T. 1/28/80
DSD:JMC :ELG:r.j~
DJ 166-012-3
C8006
1 FEB 1930
Honorable T. L. Harville
Jim Wells County Judge*
Post Office Drawer 2080
Alice, Texas 78332
Dear Judge Harville:
This is in reference to the proposed redistricting plan
for Jim Wells County, Texas, submitted to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, as amended. Your submission was received on December 12,
1979 and additional information was received on January 2, 1980.
Although we were unable to complete our evaluation by
January 15, 1980 as you requested, we have expedited our
cons ideration of your~ submission to the extent possible
pursuant to the procedural guidelines for the administration
of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. Section 51.22).
We have analyzed carefully the material contained in
your submission, data obtained from the Bureau of the Census,
and coimnents from other interested persons. As explained to
Mrs. Villareal on January 15, 1980, and to. you. on January
18, 1980, we found discrepancies in the data furnished on
your suamary charts and on the maps for the City of Alice
with respect to the Census Enumeration Districts contained
within proposed Commissioner Precinct One. During her tele-
phone conversation with Elda Gordon of my staff. Mrs.
Villareal confirmed that, despite the incongruity reflected
in the summary charts, the*~County Commission is submitting
* the plan as depicted on the maps provided in the submission
to the Attorney General. We have,-therefore, reviewed your
submission with this understanding.
PAGENO="0292"
1166
In light of the inference of racial polorization among
voters that emerged from our review of the election returns
you provided, we find that the proposed plan has the potential
of diluting the minority voting strength that has only
recently begun to be realized in several largely Mexican-American
voting precincts, which have been distributed among all four
Commissioner-Precincts. Although the information you have
submitted is in large measure ambiguous and confusing, it
appears that the proposed plan realistically yields only
one district from which a Mexican-American may be selected
and distinguishes that district as one that is over-populated
and of little practical significance in view of the paucity of
road mileage and budget funds allocated to it. Also, several
members of the minority-community have expressed concern about
the conspicuous lack of input from interested members of the
minority community, including the current Mexican-American
commissioner, in the development of the plan and that Mexican-
Americans in Jim Wells County, and especially those wha reside
in the area known as Rancho Alegre, may be denied effective
and responsive representation on the Commissioners Court
through the implementation of a plan that places that area
within Commissioner Precinct Three. Thus the implementation
of this proposed--plan-would--appear--to be retrogressive under
the standard ofBeérif.UnitedStatès, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976).
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act the submitting
authority has the burden of proving that a submitted change
has no discriminatory purpose or effect. See, e.g., Georgia v.
United States. 411 U.S. 526 (1973), 28 C.F.R. 51.19. In
light of the considerations discussed above, I cannot conclude,
as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that the burden has
been sustained in this instance. Accordingly, on behalf of
the Attorney General, I must object to the proposed plan.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act you have the right -to seek a declaratory judgment from
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
that this change has neither the purpose nor will have the
effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account
of race, color or menibershlp in a language minority group.
PAGENO="0293"
1167
In addition, the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5
(28 C.F.R. 51.31(b) and (c). 51.23, and 51.24) permit you to
request the Attorney General to reconsider the objection.
However, until the objection is withdrawn or the judgment from
the District of Columbia Court obtained, the effect of the
objection by the Attorney General is to make the implementation
of the proposed redistricting plan for Jim Wells County
legally unenforceable.
To enable this Department to meet its responsibility to
enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us within twenty
days of your receipt of this letter of the course of action
that Jim Wells County Commissioners Court plans to take with
respect to this matter. If you have any questions concerning
this letter, please feel free to call Elda Gordon .(202--724-.
6675), of my staff, who has been assigned to handle this
submission.
Sincerely,
DREW S. DAYS, III
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0294"
1168
~ ~`~j' ~
r~ ¶.~ ,~. :rAFwid ~ ~ ~
S `~`:;~~~`Jj .., S
`.1 -~
April 8, 1980 V V
Mr. Gerald Jones, Chief * V~ V .~
* Voting Section V* * V V V V V
V Civil Rights Division V
U.S. Department of Justice V V
Washington, D.C. 20530 V V
* RE: Jim Wells County - Redistricting V
Dear Mr. Jones: V V V V V
The Department of Justice is currently reviewing the February 19 V
1980, proposed redistricting plan for the County Commissioners' V
V * of Jim Wells County. MALDEF strongly urges that an
objection be issued for the following reasons:
* V 1. This plan will not provide minorities with V
*V V greater access to the political system.. * V
V 2. The area of Alice that is most heavily pop-
V V V V ulated by Chicanos is gerrymandered into four V V
Separate commissioners' precincts. V
V 3 The Commissioners Court j~ unresponsive to the V
particularized needs of the minority community. V
4. The plan was designed with discrirninatàry. V V..
intent. V V ..
5. Th.e plan is incànsistent with Department of *V ** * V VV V
V V Justice policies and standards set forth in. V * V
V United Jewish Organization v. Carey,.430 U.S. V VV~ V
I46~97~S. Ct. 996 (1977). * V V
I. * V V
The proposed redistricting plan will not provide minorities V V
with greater access to the political system in Jim Wells County.
According to figures submitted by the County, the percentage V
of Mexican-Americans in each commissioner precinct will be 75.56~.
in Precinct 1. 57.40~ in Precinct 2, 56.12~, in Precinct 3 and
65.747~ in Precinct 4. The effect of this plan is no different
ATTACHMENT 37
PAGENO="0295"
1169
than otherpians'proposed by. the County; again only one -
commissioner precinct will, provide minorities with access
:ta, the Commissioners" Court. This is ~supported;not only by a
concensus of opinion :among~. the leaders of the 4exican-Aznerjcan
coimnunity but also by past events~ In the past. Precinct 4
* has had approximately:a'657. Mexican American concentration and"
yet it has notbeen possible to elect. aMexican-~merican'from
this precinct
Our community ,contacts-~ in Jim Wells County have explained
that the Mexican-American vote' in Precinct 4 is controlled in
the following manner: The `Precinct 4 Commissioner saves most
* of his budget during the first three arid a half years after
* his election. Then six months before he is to run for re- `
election "he: begins spending this rather large sum Of money.
As a result, hiring of Mexican-Americans in need of employment
increases during,this time;"it is not coincidental that hiring
is generally restricted to those `persons who are registered
* to vote. Political, patronage seems to be the key to the Anglo
* candidate's success in Precinct 4.
II. ` ` *.
The proposed plan gerrymanders the area most heavily populated.
* by Mexican-Americans--the barrio--into four separate couzinissioners'
precincts.' Commissioners in Precincts 2 and 3 are known to
be unresponsive and insensitive' to the particularlarized needs
of the community. `For~ example., there are `Mexican-Americans on
* ` Road 665 who are without running'water. This has been brought:
* "to `the attention of the Commissioners for Precinct 2, Dinky Price,
yet no concrete' steps have been taken to alleviate this problem. .11
-.1' Mr. Alfred Arreola'- home telephone number(5l2) 664-4850;:
work telephone 939-2102 and Mr. Joe Ramirez, work telephone."
(512) 664-3158. * . , ` , :~` * *~
* .~J Commissioner DeLeon: work telephone number 664-3588.
PAGENO="0296"
1170
To minimize the hartz caused by unresponsive commissioners the
Mexican American population should not be divided between Precincts
2 and 3. This division of the barrio constitutes a dilution of
minority voting strength. It is possible to formulate a plan
that does not have this effect; the MALDEF plan reflects a 737
minority population in Precinct 3. This is non-dilutive when
compared to dividing the barrio between Precincts 2 and 3 with
57. 47~ and 56.1270 Mexican-American concentrations respectively.*
It should be noted that because ~he barrio in Alice is large
* (the area south of Highway~ 44) division of this area is
inescapable. However, the dilutive effect of such division
should be minimized (as in the MALDEF plan). The Jim Wells
County proposed plan maximizes the dilutive impact by evenly
distributing the Chicanos not in Precinct I between Precincts 2
and3. .*
III.-
* The proposed plan was drawn with a discriminatory intent. The
Jim Wells County Commissioners stated that wide news media .
* coverage was given, along with notice in the newspaper, -when
the Commissioners.tnet to discuss the redistricting plan. This
gives one the illusion that there was significant opportunity~-
for community input. *This illusion is quickly dispelled when**
* one examines the facts. All of the plans proposed. at the meeting we
rejected by the Commissioners' court. The plan submitted to
the Department of Justice was drawn up by the county Judge's
secretary, in secrecy and behind closed doors. The three-
* Anglo commissioners each paid this person $300 to. draw up:~~
another plan more to their liking. .~/ There was no opportunity
for any input from the leaders of the Mexican-American commu-
nity. Any attempts by these leaders to gain information or maps
of this plan been thwarted. The Judge's secretary simply
"forgets time after time to provide requested material
- Iv. * -
Our community contacts--who are lifelong residents of Jim Wells
Ibid.
PAGENO="0297"
1171
County- -have said that there has never been a Mexican American
county Judge in the COUflt~*A/ It should be noted that candidates.
for this position run at large. Also, to the best of the th~ix
memory, prior to 1964 there had never been any Mexican Ame*j~ans
elected to the Commissioners Court. After 1964, there has
never been more than one Mexican American commissioner on the
Court at any given time. .. . . . .
Due to this long-term absence of significant representation of
minorities and because the Mexican American population is
significantly more than 507~ of the county's population, it
woul.d be appropirate for the minority community to be in the
majority of the population in three. commissioner's precincts.
Because of the standards set forth in United Jewish Organization..
v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144, 97 S. Ct. 996 T(W77) and, carried fort~i
by the Department of Justice, it would be appropriate for the.
minority population to be at least 657. in three precincts. 5,
Nothing less will address such a history of underrepresentation.-~
CONCLUSION
In view of the history of minimal access to the political, process,
coupled with a history of intentional discrimination against
Mexican-Americans., the ~effect of the Jim Wells County proposed
redistricing plan represçnts an attempt to sustain the existing
dilution of Mexican-American voting strength in Jim Wells County.
For these reasons we strongly urge the Department of Justice
to issue a letter of object~on
~.ncerely
I I'i ,
/ ~
~/Joaquin G. Avila ,. ... . . .. .. ...
Associate Counsel
JGA ml
4/ , . . ,. .
Mr. Alfred Arreola, Mr. Joe Ramirez, and Mr. .Antonio Lozano
(County Tax Assessor Collector) work telephona number 5l2-664..73l5.
5/ .
- MALDEF would like to request that the Department of Justice
not disclose the sources of our information to anyone outside of
the agency, in accordance with 28 CFR §51:12(c).
PAGENO="0298"
1172
AUG lB RE~O
Ic
T. 7/29/80
Ret~ 8/8/SO
DSD: JI-IC:ELG: elg
DJ 166-012--3
C9463 -
IZ pius 1986 .:.
~ic-norablo ~. L. Larvifle
Ji~- Wolls County Judge
200 North A3~nd Street
Alice, Texts 78332
~ar Judge 1~arvi1le:
This is in~ ref3renco to the February, 198O~. reils-
tricting plan for Jir~ Walls County, Texas, suheitted to the
Attorney Ceneral pursuant to Section 5 at the Voting I~ighte
Act ~ 1,965, as araende& sour sub~tiasion was co~plete~j on
June 13, L980.
T~'e have analyaecl carefully the materials contained in
your st!bniaaion, data obtained frori the Dureau of the Census
and co~ents fron other interested persons. Our analysis
reveals that while the proposed plan adequately deals with
s~-~e of t]i. concerns we had in the previously subr~itted plan,
the plan éontinues to dilute the voting strength of the *
sthc~rity concentration that exists in the southern portion
of the City of Alice by distributing those voters a~nq all
four co~tssioner precincts. On the other hand, it appears
that a ntmtber of plans were available to the Corr~iasioners
Court that would not have had that effect:. The adoption of
a plan that would maintain ~.exican-?~merican voting senc~r~
~t a mininun level, where alternative options would provide
a fairer chance for minority representation, is relevant to
the question of an inpcrr.issibie racial purpose in its
adoption (see Wilkes Coun v. United States, 450 F, S&ipp,
1171. (D.D.C. l97~'), à.ff d 39 U.S. ~99; see also, 28 C.)'.R..
51.19)), particularly where, as here, the plan was drawn
with no significant input frcz~ the affected minority group.
ATTACHMENT 38
PAGENO="0299"
1173
~Tnder Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act the su~itting
authority has the burden of proving that a sub~aitted change
has no diacrin.tnatory purpose or effect. See, e.q., Georcria V.
United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973); 28 C.~.R. SE1~. ~~il~ht
~~~con~1derattons discussed above, I cannot conclude, as
X must under the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has been
sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the
Attorney General, I must object to the submitted change.
Of course, as prcivided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgrent fran the
United States District Court for the District of Co1~rn~bia that
this change neither baa the purpose nor wifl have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color,
or membership in a language minority group. In addition, the
Procedures for the Mminiztration of Section 5 (28 C.~.R. 51.21(b)
and Cc), 51.23, and 51.24) parz~it you to request the Attorney
General to reconsider the objection. ITowever, until the objec-
tion is withdrawn or the judg!~eztt from the District of Co1ur1~ta
Court obtained, the effect of the objection by the Attorney
General is to make the redistricting plan for Jim Wells County,
Texas, legally unenforceable.
To enable this Department to inect its responsibility to
enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us vitbin twenty
days of your receipt of this letter of. the course of action
the Jim Wells County. C~issionera Court plans to take with .. -
respect to this matter. If you have any questions concerning
this letter, please feel free to call }is. Elda Cordon (202-
724-7403) of our ~taff, who has bean assigned to handle this
su1~ission. .
- Sincerely, .
~r~s P. Tu~~I~
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
PAGENO="0300"
1174
?~A1~31~'°
~
lir. Jerry Jecebs
Sup~r1ntcndota, Pay~i'~!viUó
C~& ~3I J~ict~rt~t
P.O. r.'.~: 429
Raymon~vil1o, Tc~:ns 7~5CO
Doer Mr. Jacobs:
This is in rcfere~ice to the polling place changes
for the I~ayrnoctdvil1e Indepondent School DistrIct, &ub~ittcd
to the Attorney Concrnl pursuant to Section ~ of the
`kting l~ights Act of 1965, as ceiendcd. Your cubraission
v~s received on February 15, 1917.
Your cubrai~~jon consists of the follcriing changes
M the location o~. polling places, ~po~l lug place for
1 (~Ti1lacy County Procinet~~fin&~ Irns been
r-~d froze the P .ioncivilje CIty I!,1T1:o the Auerjcan
The polling plr~ce -f~ tci~r~c~-~ v~r~_acy
Ccun~y Precincts 2, 8, and 11) ~is been r.~7c~ froze one
location to another ~zithiu tl:e n~ ji.j.l~ C~~~~unity
~nd Ulotorical Center,
~IiQ A(~torney ~ I 4~'s ~ .T.::. ..:~:;:e an~
objectIon to tilO p U4g pl~~rQ ~ t;T:~ C ~viity
and flint~frii Ceiit~ r, ~ ~ £~eI a rr*~i~thilit~y
to point out tt~tt C~ct~'a 5 .~ ~:`:a Vt~;:~.c~ ~hts Act
c~rocsly provides t~.- t ~` 4)et! I'u~ o~ the Attorney
General Co ob~cct `~ ~t b~v' a~ sequent judicial
action to enjoin the ea'n~t of a change.
it is our uaderctar~ciLng that since uc received
this cub~iiccion the school district, as required by order
of tt~o 107th Die trlct Cow:t, I*Tillacy Couttiy (I~Zarch 14,
1977), has dosigeated the ~iCh Elcuentary School as the
PAGENO="0301"
1175
polling pIJ!tCC for tho~o Procinot I votcra rociding in
Courtty Pxcinct 1, and tth~t tills polling place ~iill bG
u~cd in th~ elcetion ccIic~uicd for April 2, i~71, utilcss
the c1~Ctr1Ct court ruling is rcverccd on ap~cal prior to
f±3 dite 0 th~ election. 1~e niso ~ U~~t the
ctc~tion of t~ic~ ~ ~ __________________________
tO 1~i 3 ~~tC ~. ~Lc~_~~L r~tttt~rr~Zt ~`~r~5-
?li~ 5Ji(~L~ `~ ~t.&i iC&~)('Ct. tO 11)tg p~3 £)~.
it~a a'.p~i.i 2, 19i7 clc~.LJ..~t, ~cro, is ~iil ~
t~cveheicss, catn,e of your V ucot for the c~?~e
coasLdcr~t1oa of this cub~sion and b~cnu~~ of the need
of a rocolution o~ this t~attcr prior 1:0 t:ita election, ~:e
a~a responding at tlu.s tree.
tT&3 ~rL11 first considor the situction if only the
American Legion flail io used as a Precinct 1 polling place.
h~o have received unrobuttc!cl representations indicating
that the change in -the location of the- Precinct 1. polling
place fro~a Itho City flail to the ~`aerican LegIon flail may
have the purpoec or effect of denying or ringing the
right to vote on account of race, color, or mc~erchip
in a language minority. c~ou~. * ~poeifically, it cpjcarJ
thai~ this change trill result in a significant Inconvenience
for many haxican American voters residing in County
PrecInct 1. In addItion, the Amarlcen Legion flail appears
Co be .a place where many Ihc~ican A~erIccns feel unwaico~o.
~`h~s it is likely that the use of the &:ericen Legion IZalSL
trill, have th~ effect of date ir-ing p ticipitten by fle.xicoa
~rlc~n~i in the April 2, 1977 olec~:Iort. t~a nico note that
ott~r alternatIves trere available to the ce1~el dictrict
to ove~co~:a the prohiic~-:s cr .~.»=cL:~t :.;.b t'~e Co ~t~n:ad nec
o' tke City Lall as a p1 ~r1
Ca tee ixisis or t `bce f.t~t ~ I cIt~t t~t~nces, the
Attorecy Ceneral is unable Co conclude, as he i:~nst under
the Voting r~ightts Act, that the change to the use of the
PAGENO="0302"
1176
Morican Legion hail ao tho pohlin~ place for Precinct I
~ñi.l rtot h~e the effcct of diccr~ w~tin~ on account
of *~ce, color, or ~c7~p in a 1~age ri~no~ity grout.
~ore, on T~iif of the tor~ay Cei~ci~al, I ~..tet
iutc.'po~e an o~joctLoa to the ~i~le.~:.ntat5~n of thio
poiliug place ~
* Of cou~ce, r.~ p~~vSt .:~1 Ty ~c~t~on 5 of tt:~ Voting
~te ..~.ct, you b~vo the r7i~tt ~o coek a cl~i;~tory
j~~t frco~ the ~tric~ Court fa~ the D~s;dct of
Colu~bin tli~it this ct~ange k~s neither the pur~o~e nor
~iill hi~va the offoct of denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of race, color or ~e~bcrzhip in.a
an~uiga ulnority group. In a&Iition, Coctions 51.23 to
51.25 of the Attorney Ceacral `s Section 5 guidelines
(28 C.F.R. 5i.23~~5i.25) pexnitt con~ic1cratton of the
objection ~It~ulc1 you heva nc;~ inforcintion tearing on the
ratter. ITc/~13va~:, until such tfr~e as the objection tirty be
~Ji~a~.*rn o~: a ji 1gr~ctnt fron the District of CoIw~bia
Court is obtained, the logal c2fect of the objection by
the Attorney Gcincraris to ta~ka the change to the Aiiii~riàan
LegIon hell legally unenforceable.
It is our uncloratanding, houever, that the uce of
the Snith school as a polling place location would effectively
eliminate whatever proble~.s w~ay be created by the change
froe the City flaIl to the L'inrican Legion hell, TT~erofore,
the Attorney Ceneral do~~ not inter~oso any objnotIo~t to
the uco of the Amaric~u L~-Isn Ii~ll for voters ~ng
in County Precinct 7 if the Culth I~1e~:entary ~ehcoi is
If tT~e scheol district decidr~s riot to u~e the Cr~ith cehool
polling pLace for the &.1:i1 2, 1S11 eIect~oi, picia~e notify
1oLIu~ C~ct~ioa M~to~. / ~rid I unteL. "t i2 -72~3~t 9
As was pointed out. abav~, Section 5 of the Voting
tights Act erpre~ciy provides that the failure of the
Attorney General to object does not bar any subsequent
PAGENO="0303"
1177
ju&tei~t1 action to enjoin th~ en2orcea~ent of a cktn~.
~o ~1~ou1d fui~thcr point out tt~.~t tho Attorney Gcmeral
IL'io flO nut O3~1ty to ~:~iva thn ~O~&~y period lor th~
con ration o.~ a cu J.~iou and, ~c. cur i'!elin~
ind:tcatc (~c2 23 C if it. Ceetlna. 51.22), ye w~y rci1u~
our pcC:ition on y~.~'r u1::~ nrt cliould uo r~ive at~.2:ioniJ.
~nro~~tioe concoridti~ tt:e c~~o ~n v.~rt~ pro~:c~wx3 prLo~
to the e:~)irntiea o~ the GO.~c~ay peviocl. ~fli~-.tl'i ~i:ch
a CI~UCC itt thC ?.tLu~~aCy C~inrn1'o
dotc~aai~itioa, you ~iU be co a~vited.
Sincerely,
Drc~7 S. Dayc III
A&ciGtntit Attorney Cenerctl
Civil flights Division
PAGENO="0304"
1178
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Avila.
Mr. AVILA. At this point would you like to ask questions of
myself, or hear from the rest of the panelists?
Mr. EDWARDS. I think we would like to hear from the other
members of the panel.
Mr. AVILA. At this point I would like to ask Mr. Alfredo Arriola
to make some comments concerning the city of Alice and Jim
Wells County.
Mr. ARRIOLA. Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Alfredo Arriola. I am a resident of Jim Wells County,
Tex., and have lived there my entire life.
Growing up as a Mexican American in Jim Wells County, I
realized that we were treated differently from Anglos in many
ways. Mexican Americans were not allowed to go to the same
schools as white children, and as a child in school, I was not
allowed to speak Spanish. My three children also attended schools
that were all Mexican American. The teachers all spoke English.
Most of us were taught Spanish in our homes. All classes were in
English. As a result, the quality of education received by Mexican
Americans was very poor. Many more Mexican Americans than
Anglos left school during junior high and high school.
As I grew older, I realized that discrimination in Jim Wells
County occurs in other areas besides education. Mexican Ameri-
cans still live in one part of town, while Anglos live in another
part. Also, conditions in the Mexican American neighborhoods are
much different than those where Anglos live. We are especially
affected by problems of sewage, small water pipes, and an absence
of paved streets. In some areas, there is no running water available
to Mexican Americans.
I feel that if there was a possibility of getting more Mexican
Americans elected to office, we could have a better chance of
solving these problems. We don't have enough representation on
important governing boards such as the commissioners court of
Jim Wells. The county is run by four commissioners. As it stands
now, we have only one Mexican American county commissioner to
represent Jim Wells County's Mexican American population. We
need the possibility of electing more officials who understand the
needs of the Mexican American community. Unless the Voting
Rights Act is extended, we will never have this possibility in Jim
Wells County.
Since the Voting Rights Act was extended to cover Texas, Jim
Wells County has tried three times to adopt a county redistricting
plan which discriminates against Mexican Americans. Three times
the Voting Rights Act has been successful in preventing the county
from using these plans to weaken our voting strength.
To the best of my recollection, there has never been a Mexican
American county judge, and before 1964 there had never been a
Mexican American county commissioner. There has never been
more than one Mexican American commissioner, even though we
make up 67.2 percent of the population. The Chicano community
knew that underrepresentation was due to a gerrymandering of the
commissioner precincts. But we did not have the statistics to show
how our community was being gerrymandered.
PAGENO="0305"
1179
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has
assisted us in making sure the county does not violate the Voting
Rights Act. MALDEF attorneys explained the requirements of the
Voting Rights Act and we were shown population statistics that
demonstrated how the Mexican American community had been
gerrymandered.
I would like to give this committee background on Jim Wells
County and the Voting Rights Act. In 1975, the county commission-
er precincts in Jim Wells County were redistricted. However, the
county ignored the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and did
not inform the Department of Justice about the redistricting. In
1976, the Department of Justice wrote a letter to the county. The
county was told that it could not use a plan that had not been
approved through the Voting Rights Act. This 1975 plan was not
submitted to the Department of Justice until some 3 years later.
On July 3, 1978, the Department of Justice objected to the 1975
plan because it discriminated against Mexican Americans. In
August of 1978, I and other Mexican Americans filed suit in Feder-
al court to stop the county from using this plan in the upcoming
elections. We were represented by the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund. We were successful in our suit.
On December 2, 1979 another plan was given to the Department
of Justice for approval. The one Mexican American commissioner
was given no chance to have any input in this plan. Each of the
three Anglo commissioners paid the county judge's secretary to
come up with this plan. When Mexican Americans asked for maps
of this plan, we were told that the only maps had been sent to
Washington. The county did not want us to know how discrimina-
tory the plan really was.
On February 1, 1980, a second objection was issued under the
Voting Rights Act. The Department of Justice decided that this
plan also discriminated against Mexican Americans. In reality, this
plan was no different than the others. Under this plan only one
Mexican American could have been elected to a precinct that had
too much population and too little road mileage. Road mileage is
very important in Jim Wells County. The budget for the county is
divided according to the number of road miles in each precinct.
The one Mexican American commissioner is given less than 10
percent of the roads and has very little money to spend on improv-
ing conditions in her precinct, which is mostly Mexican American.
On February 19, 1980, the Jim Wells County commissioners tried
for a third time to get approval of a discriminatory redistricting
plan. Attempts were made to weaken the voting strength of Mexi-
can Americans by making it seem like we would have a chance of
electing a second commissioner in precinct 4. Precinct 4 was given
a 65-percent Mexican American population. This looks good on
paper, but because of the politics in precinct 4, there would be no
hope of representation in this precinct.. The way Mexican Ameri-
cans vote in precinct 4 is mainly controlled through economic
intimidation. The commissioner of precinct 4 saves most of his
budget until a few months before the election. Then, just before his
reelection, he spends his money to hire Mexican Americans who
need jobs. Usually those hired are registered voters. The key to the
83-67~9 0 - 82 - 20 Pt.2
PAGENO="0306"
1180
success of this commissioner seems to be the way he uses county
money to influence votes.
We believed that this third plan was deliberately drawn in a way
that would discriminate against Mexican Americans. All plans pre-
sented ~at a' public meeting were thrown out by the commissioners
court. Again, the countyT'judge's secretary was paid by the three
Anglo commissioners to draw up a redistricting plan that they
liked more. Mexican American leaders in the community were not
allowed to give opinions of the plan and time after time the judge's
secretary would forget to supply us with information we had asked
for on this plan.
In conclusion, these discriminatory plans would have been adopt-
ed without the Voting Rights Act. There is still no redistricting
plan in Jim Wells County. There have been no elections since 1976.
When a plan is drawn using the 1980 census, we will need the
protections of ~the Voting Rights Act. The county of Jim Wells
~~cannot be trusted ~to provide Mexican Americans with `equality in
the area of voting rights.
Thank you. -
[The complete statement follows:]
PAGENO="0307"
1181
STATENENT OF ALFREDO ARRIOLA
My name is Aifrédo Arriola. I am a resident of Jim Wells
County, Texas, and have lived there my entire life. I am a
Mexican American. - S
Growing up as a Mexican American in Jim Wells County, I
realized that we were treated differently than Anglos in many
ways. Mexican Americans were not allowed to go to the. same
schools as white children and as a child in school, I was. not
allowed to speak Spanish. My three children also attended schools
that were all Mexican American. The teachers all spoke English.
Most of us were taught Spanish in our homes. All classes were
in English. As. a result, the quality of education received by
Mexican Americans was very poor. Many more Mexican Americans
than Anglos left school during junior high and high school.
As I grew older, I reAlized that discrimination in Jim
Wells County occurs in other areAs besides education. Mexican
Americans still live in one part of town while Anglos live in
another part. Also, conditions in the Mexican American neighbor-
hoods are much different than tháse where Anglos live. We are
especially affected by problems of sewage, small water pipes and
an absence of paved streAts. In some areas, there is no running
water available to Mexican Americans.
I feel that if there wAs a possibility of getting more
Mexican Americans elected to office we could have a better chance
of solving these problems. don't hAve enough representation
PAGENO="0308"
1182
on important governing Boards such as the Commissioners Court of
Jim Wells. The County is run by the four Commissioners. As it
stands now, we have only one Mexican American County Commissioner
to represent Jim Wells County's Mexican American population. We
need the possibility of electing more officials who understand
the needs of the Mexican American community. Unless the Voting
Rights Act is extended, we will never have this possibility in
Jim Wells County.
Since the Voting Rights Act was extended to cover Texas,
Jim Wells County has tried three times to adopt a couñty
redistricting plan which discriminates against Mexican Americans.
Three. times the Voting Rights Act has been successful in preventing
the County from using these plans to weaken our voting strength.
To the best of my recollection, there has never been a
Mexican American County Judge and before 1964 there had never
been a Mexican American County Commissioner. There has never
been more than one Mexican American Commissioner even though we
make up 67.2% of the population. The Chicano community knew
that underrepresentation was due to a gerrymandering of the
Commissioner precincts. But we;. did not have the statistics to
show how our coinmuftity was being gerrymandered.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
has assisted us in making sure `the `County does~ not violate the
Voting Rights Act. MALDEF attorneys explained the requirements
of the Voting Rights Act and we were"shown population statistics
that demonstrated how the }~e~icanAmer.ican community had been
`gerrymandered.
PAGENO="0309"
1183
I would like to give this committee background on Jim Wells
County and the Voting Rights Act. In 1975, the County
Comniisssioner precincts in Jim Wells County were redistricted~
However, the County ignored the requirements of the
Voting Rights Act and did not inform the Department of Justice
about the redistricting. In 1976, the Department of Justice
wrote a letter to the County. The County was told that it could
not use a plan that had not been approved through the Voting
Rights Act. This 1975 plan was not submitted to the Department
of Justice until some three `years later.
On July 3, 1978, the `Department of Justice objected to
the 1975 plan because it discriminated against Mexican Americans.
In August of 1978, I and other Mexican Americans filed suit in
Federal Court to stop the County from using this plan in the
upcoming elections. We were represented by the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Fund. We were successful in our
suit.
On December 12, 1979 another plan was given to the
Department of Justice for approval. The one Mexican American
Commissioner. was given no chance to have any input in this plan.
Each of the three Anglo Commissioners paid the County judge's
secretary to come up with `this plan. When Mexican Americans
asked for maps of this plan, we were told that the only maps
,had been sent to Washington. The County did not want usto know
how discriminatory the `plan really was.
On February 1, 1980, a second objection was issued'under
the Voting Rights Act. The Department of Justice decided that
PAGENO="0310"
1184
this plan also discriminated against Mexican Americans. In
reality this plan was no different than the others. Under this
plan only one Mexican American could have been elected to a
precinct that had too much population and too little road mileage.
Road mileage is very important in Jim Wells County. The budget
for the County is divided according to the number of road miles
in each precinct. The one Mexican American Commissioner is
given less than l0~ of the roads and has very little money to
spend on improving conditions in her precinct, which is mostly
Mexican American.
On February 19, 1980, the Jim Wells County Commissioners
tried for a third time to get approval of a discriminatory
redistricting plan. Attempts were made to weaken the voting
strength of Mexican Americans by making it seem like we would
have ~a chance of electing a second Commissioner in Precinct 4.
Precinct 4 was given a 65~ Mexican American population. This
looks good on paper but because of the politics in precinct 4
there would be no hope of representation in this precinct. The
way Mexican Americans vote in Precinct 4 is mainly controlled
through economic intimidation. The Commissioner of Precinct 4
saves most of his budget until a few months before the election.
Then, just before his re-election he spends his money to hire
Mexican AmericanswhOneed jobs. Usually those hired are
registered voters. The key to the. success of this Commissioner
seems to be the way he ~uses County money to influence votes.
We believed that :thls thIrd plan was deliberately drawn
in a way that would discriminate Against Mexican Americans.
PAGENO="0311"
1185
All plans presented at a public meeting were thrown out by the
Commissioners Court. Again, the County judge's~ secretary was
paid by the three Anglo Commissioners to draw up a redistricting
plan that they liked more. Mexican American leaders in the
community were not allowed to give opinions of the plan and
time after time the judge's secretary would "forget" to supply
us with information we had asked for on this plan.
In conclusion, these discriminatory plans would have been
adopted without the Voting Rights Act. There is still no
redistricting plan in Jim Wells County. There have been no
elections since 1976: When a plan is drawn using the 1980
Census, we will need the protections of the Voting Rights Act.
The County of Jim Wells cannot be trusted to provide Mexican
Americans with equality in the area of Voting Rights.
PAGENO="0312"
1186
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much.
Mr. AvnA. At this point I would like to have Mr. Trinidad read
his statement.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Trinidad.
Mr. TRINIDAD. Good morning, Chairman Edwards, Mr. Hyde.
My name is Jesus Trinidad, Jr. I am 30 years old and have lived
in Seguin for most of my life. I have a degree in mechanical
engineering from Texas A. & M. University and I am currently a
mechanical engineer in civil service in San Antonio, Tex.
I have been a member of LULAC since 1975, and prior to that I
belonged to a local organization which was the forerunner of
LULAC in Seguin. I am currently district director of district II of
LULAC, which encompasses the cities of Seguin, San Marcos,
Luling, Lockhart, Gonzalez, and Floresville. I am here to speak to
you today and convey my feelings on the importance of keeping the
Voting Rights Act, especially here in Texas. Without this vital
legislation, the only thing left for minorities is Federal court litiga-
tion.
Joaquin mentioned the problems in Seguin, and let me give you
some more details on that.
The city of Seguin, Tex., is governed by a city council consisting
of a mayor and eight council members. Although the minority
population constitutes over half of the city's population, there have
been at most only two minorities sitting on the city council at any
given time. This minority underrepresentation was due to the over-
concentration of minorities in ward 1, as was pointed out on the
chart here. A fairly drawn districting plan would result in the
election of possibly four minorities.
To prevent the continued implementation of this unconstitution-
al redistricting plan for the 1978 municipal elections, I, along with
several other minorities, filed a lawsuit. We were successful in
declaring the old plan unconstitutional.
The city proposed a plan which would have continued the over-
concentration of minorities in ward 1. The city purposefully sought
to prevent an increase in minority representation. None of the
other three wards permitted minorities a realistic opportunity to
get elected. The MALDEF plan, the plaintiffs plan, on the other
hand, provided two wards which contained substantial minority
populations. Under this plan, minorities would have a realistic
opportunity to elect four minorities. The court, however, adopted
the city's plan.
To prevent the implementation of this plan, we requested the
city to submit the plan to the Department of Justice for approval
pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. We were confident that the
Department of Justice would agree that the plan was discrimina-
tory. However, the city refused to submit the plan to the Depart-
ment of Justice. We then filed a second lawsuit. In the meantime,
elections were conducted under the city's plan. The results: only
two minorities in the city council. On appeal, we finally succeeded
in requiring the city to submit its plan to the Department of
Justice. At this date, however, the city will formulate a new plan
based on the 1980 census.
Without review by the Voting Rights Act, the city will adopt
another plan which overconcentrates the minority population in
PAGENO="0313"
1187
ward 1. We need section 5 to prevent this blatant attempt to limit
minority political participation. I urge the distinguished members
of this committee to continue coverage of the Voting Rights Act in
Texas.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Trinidad.
Commissioner Alvarez.
Mr. ALVAREZ. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
My name is Adolfo Alvarez. I am the commissioner for precinct 3
in Frio County, Tex. I have lived in Frio County for the past 18
years. I am Mexican American.
If not for the Voting Rights Act, I would not be a commissioner
today. Only until recently has it been possible for Mexican Ameri-
cans to be elected to office in Frio County. Although Frio County is
68.2 percent Mexican American, there had never been a Mexican
American elected as county commissioner until 1974. For the most
part, Chicanos were reluctant to run candidates for the county
positions that were elected by precinct. We knew that the precinct
boundaries were gerrymandered and that in almost every precinct
the Anglo population was a majority. We felt pretty hopeless about
the situation.
To give this committee a little background on the history of Frio
County and the Voting Rights Act, I would like to begin by saying
that a very discriminatory redistricting plan for county commis-
sioner precincts was adopted in 1973. This plan gerrymandered
almost the entire Mexican American population into one precinct.
Even though all election changes enacted since November of 1972
were to have been approved by the Department of Justice, Frio
County chose to ignore the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.
In August of 1975, the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund informed Frio County of the need to meet the
requirements of the Voting Rights Act. In November of 1975, the
Department of Justice sent a similar letter. It was not until 1976
that Frio County's 1973 plan was sent to the Department of Justice
for review.
In April of 1976 the Department of Justice objected to this redis-
tricting plan because it discriminated against Mexican Americans.
Even though the Department of Justice decided that this plan was
discriminatory, Frio County decided to go ahead with their elec-
tions anyway. It was necessary to file a lawsuit in Federal court to
require the county to follow the law with respect to the Voting
Rights Act. We were represented by the Mexican-American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund.
It is only because of the Voting Rights Act that Chicanos in Frio
County have representation. The county still would like to weaken
our voting strength, and if not for the Voting Rights Act, they
would get away with it. The Chicano community in Frio County
does not earn a great deal of money and we cannot afford the time
and money it takes to ask the courts for help each time the county
tries to do something to weaken us. Only recently, in May of 1980,
a Mexican American won in the Democratic primary in the race
for tax assessor-collector. In Texas, the tax assessor-collector's
office is very important. This office provides people with voter
registration cards. After the Mexican American candidate won in
PAGENO="0314"
1188
the 1980 primary, the county attempted to transfer the voter regis-
tration duties over to the county clerk, an Anglo. I feel that if not
for the Voting Rights Act, the county would not have hesitated to
take this action. But when the county was~ told that. Mexican
Americans were opposed to this change and that it would have to
be submitted to the Department of Justice under the Voting~ Rights
Act, the county decided not to make this change.
Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, a plan was adopted for county
commissioner precincts which gave Mexican Americans a chance
for equal representation. For the first time in Frio County, we felt
hopeful. Through massive voter registration drives, Mexican
Americans were registered to. vote. The Chicano community was
excited over the new realities of community involvement.. Gone was
the apathy that resulted from the futility of trying to work within
the confines of a gerrymandered plan. Because of the existence of
the Voting Rights Act and our work in the community, we now
have two Mexican American county commissioners and three
Mexican American justices of the peace out of four.
We have also been able to increase minority representation on
the school board and city council. We feel that we now have a good
chance of electing a Mexican American county judge for the first
time in 130 years.
In conclusion, the Voting Rights Act has made a big difference in
Frio County, Tex. Without it, we know that the voting rights of
Mexican Americans would not be protected. Because of the past
history of discrimination, and because of the progress that has been
made in Frio County, I strongly recommend that the Voting Rights
Act be extended for at least 10 more years.
Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, and thanks to all the
witnesses for very helpful statements.
Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. I share the sentiments of the chairman. It has been
most illuminating. I have no questions, but thank the panel for
their very good testimony.
Mr. EDWARDS. I might have a couple of modest questions here.
As the four of you testified-and in all of the testimony, each
supports the other-do you have personally, and members of your
family have, and people that you associate with, Hispanics, a feel-
ing of deep resentment that this goes on, even of rage, that this
discrimination has gone on and continues to this day, and that you
cannot look forward to any real amelioration of it in the future?
Mr. TRINIDAD. I would like to answer that.
I definitely feel rage and hostility, but I always look to divine
guidance, whatever you want to call it, to keep me from taking any
drastic action that I know would not be proper.
The way that I look at it, it's a lot of the old people that are used
to it, that were around when blatant discrimination was occurring,
that have perpetuated this, and I think it's only a matter of time-
I hate to say this, you know-before they die off, and I see a new
generation of Anglos, Mexican Americans, and blacks and any
other ethnic group working. together in a peaceful society.
PAGENO="0315"
1189
Mr. EDWARDS. But when you see that the Voting Rights Act
extension does have a very promising future-at least according to
what we all read in the papers-how do you feel about it?
Mr. Avir~. I, for one, in my travels throughout the State of
Texas, with the voting complaints and abuses that we receive in
our office, we have very few tools to use to prevent political subdi-
visions from adopting blatantly discriminatory actions. We have to
make the best of those tools. Unfortunately, if you, didn't have the
Voting Rights Act, under the present interpretation of the Su-
preme Court of the 14th and 15th amendments, we would have
very few tools, if any, to combat the kinds of institutional discrimi-
nation that we are referring to.
The fifth circuit has indicated repeatedly-and I believe Profes-
sor White referred to it-the difficulty of establishing the requisite
intent in order to declare a given election scheme unconstitutional.
There is simply no "smoking gun" that is going to be documented
in contemporary city council minutes.
So what is the alternative? The alternative is that you're going
to have frustration, you're going to have lower voter participation
because people do not see a meaningful opportunity to participate
in the system unless they can effectively change it, so that it's
nondiscriminatory. So if you don't have the Voting Rights Act,
you're going to have, in Jim Wells County, the adoption of a
discriminatory election plan which will discourage Mexican Ameri-
can political participation; in the city of Seguin you're going to
have the continued overconcentration of minorities; in the city of
Pecos you will have the adoption of a numbered place system. So
you are going to have that increased frustration, and you're going
to have lower voter participation, and you're going to have less
input by Mexican `Americans and blacks into .the political process.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, in Texas are there jurisdictions and local
governments and Anglos in positions of power that are making real
efforts to cooperate with you and trying to bring more minority
participation in the electoral process and trying to help you do
your job, so that you can look forward to the future with' hope?
Mr. Avii~. I'm afraid not. Texas needs the Federal presence. The
only person or the only office that can effectively assist us in
preventing these voting abuses is the State attorney general's
office. The State attorney general has been remiss in enforcing or
filing any lawsuits to prevent any kind of voting discrimination.
We informed the attorney general's office several years ago of
the need to inform the counties to redistrict their lines, because
they were in blatant violation of the one-person, one-vote principle.
There hasn't been a single lawsuit filed by the State attorney
general's office. Nonprofit corporations, private attorneys, had to
institute these lawsuits.
When you have that kind of response or nonresponse by State
officials who can do something about it, you need Federal over-
sight, because we can't rely on the State to enforce our rights. In
fact, we are often litigating against the State because of the denial
of those rights. `
A good example of that is the bilingual education lawsuit, where
the State has consistently opposed the implementation of bilingual
education beyond certain grades. The State was a defendant in the
PAGENO="0316"
1190
White v. Register case, in terms of dismantling the discriminatory
election practice, the multimember districting scheme for the State
legislature.
The State was a defendant in Flowers v. Wiley, where a State
statute which would have required a purging of all the voters,
would have clearly had a discriminatory impact. They. were a
defendant. So we can't rely on the State to come forward and
protect our rights.
The record speaks for itself. There has been well over, close to 50
lawsuits filed jn the State of Texas since 1976 dealing with issues of
voting discrimination. I would like to see the State come forward
and say "we filed" or "we assisted the minority community in
challenging this. particular election practice," not just by calling up
on the phone but by ffling a lawsuit.
Mr. EDWARDS. Could an Anglo in a congressional race, or a race
for a statewide office, or in a race for the State assembly or the
State senate, win if the Anglo came out for the Voting Rights Act
and for the programs that you espouse and support?
Mr. Avu~. I think, in response to your question, it has been my
experience that in many of the areas we have visited it really
doesn't matter who gets elected. What we want is a responsive
government official, someone who is going to be accountable to that
particular group, irrespective of the person's color, race, or nation-
al origin. So if the person is going to be responsive to the particu-
.larized needs of a given community, then they have the choice of
exercising their right of franchise and determine whether a given
candidate is going to represent the particularized needs.
So the thrust of all our litigation is not necessarily to create a
proportional minority representation. It is to eliminate any obsta-
cles which frustrate the electoral choices of the voting strength of
the minority community. That is the crux of our entire litigation
efforts. So you can have persons who are non-Mexicans, who are
nonminority, who can represent the interests of . the Mexican
American community.
I would cite you. a very good example, Representative Glossbren-
ner, who is a legislator in south Texas. You have other Anglo
representatives from those areas which have been responsive to the
particularized needs of the Mexican American community.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to comment that I really think it's unfortunately
premature to. assume that the future of .the preclearance sections of
the Voting Rights Act, as distinguished from the Voting Rights Act
which is permanent law, including, all of the prohibitions and the
penalties and the Federal registrars and all . of that, is going to
expire; it's not, we're just talking about a process called preclear-
ance.
We are also talking about bilingual sections which don't exire
until 1985. We're talking about extending those another 7 years.
But I don't think it's really fair to say that the future of the
preclearance section is dismal. Senator Thurmond is obviously the
ogre in everybody's mind, the unspoken ogre. But I would remind
anybody who cares to remember that Senator Thurmond voted to
give the District of Columbia, the city-state of the District of Co-
PAGENO="0317"
1191
lumbia, two Senators, something I would never do and didn't do.
But I just think it's very premature to assume that the preclear-
ance sections are going to go down.
I think, unless a better record is made for why they should go
down, they won't go down, because if things haven't changed sig-
nificantly, if people aren't being permitted to register, vote, and
have their votes effectively count, through gerrymandering and
that sort of thing, I don't see how reasonable people can say the job
is done. I am one who very much wants to see some changes made
in the law, but not just because I want them, but because some
record somewhere is going to demonstrate that it's appropriate
that that happen. I wouldn't be as pessimistic as my dear friend,
the chairman, that the future is dismal for this. A lot depends on
the record that we're making, that you're helping make here today
and as others have.
My own views are certainly not locked in concrete. But I do
know that some of the things you indicate as discriminatory or
discouraging aren't necessarily due to much more than human
nature. We thought the 18-year-olds, when they got the right to
vote-my Lord, this was going to be great. They just don't care, as
a group, that much about it. There are people who just don't care
as passionately as you or as I do or as the chairman does, because
we're involved in politics. But I wouldn't be as pessimistic as the
chairman's remarks indicated. I think there's a future for guaran-
teeing everybody the right to vote effectively. I hope there is.
Mr. AVILA. I think that future can be guaranteed by adopting
the Rodino bill.
Mr. HYDE. I wouldn't say it would be guaranteed, but it probably
would help. I would say that these hearings are moving in the
direction of providing a basis for some judgments on that.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Counsel?
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really have only two questions. One is, as you may know there
are three bills before the subcommittee to delete the minority
language provisions of the act, not sponsored by anybody here, but
there are three bills before the subcommittee. They would also
delete section 5 as they pertain to Texas and the Southwest.
With regard at least to the minority language provisions, I think
the concern that has been expressed by some of those sponsors is
that by allowing or encouraging bilingual ballot, what you're doing
is really kind of creating a separate identity, a' cultural isolation.
How would you respond to that?
Mr. AVILA. Well, I think, on the contrary, that a bilingual elec-
tion process would permit persons who have not participated before
and who won't participate unless they can just basically under-
stand the .process-because it's not conducted in a language which
they can understand-I think it will serve to politically integrate
these persons who are linguistically excluded from the political
process. We're not talking about creating a Quebec. It's not like
this phenomenon that just grows overnight. We have been here for
several centuries and our common language is Spanish. And when
the system of English is imposed, it doesn't necessarily mean we're
not going to learn English; it's that we want to be exposed to an
PAGENO="0318"
1192
educational system that will afford us some form of education in
which we can acquire the English language. Therefore, if we have
that kind of bilingual election process which affords that kind of
access, I think it will not serve to separate people but will serve to
politically integrate them.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
The other question I have relates to a discussion-I believe-with
Mr. White. To your knowledge, have the Federal courts ever adopt-
ed or indicated that racial quotas are, in fact, what is required
under the Voting Rights Act?
Mr. Avu~&. No. On the contrary, the focus has not been on the
election of particular candidates. The focus has been on minimizing
or maximizing the voting strength of a given community. An ef-
fects standard does not equate to a proportional representation
standard because an effects standard is being used right now by
the Department of Justice and is being used by the U.S. District
Court in the District of Columbia to review election changes, and
they certainly do not adopt a standard that we are going to guaran-
tee proportional racial representation. So no, it does not.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With regard to the court interpretation of the effects test in
section 2, you would agree, would you not, that that court interpre-
tation applies to existing law, not to the amendments which Mr.
Rodino's bill would make to existing law?
Mr. Avii~. The Mobile decision only applied to section 2 as it
existed prior to 1975. It did not apply to the amendments to section
2 as a result of the addition of the language "minority provisions."
So that interpretation is still open. The fifth circuit just recently
decided a case which left that particular question open and it may
be litigated at the Supreme Court level, so it's not completely over.
Mr. BOYD. But the effects definition that we're discussing, and
the one to which you made reference in regard to section 5, is
worded substantially different than title II of H.R. 3112; is it not?
Mr. Avii~. Yes; it is. The language in that particular statute
speaks in terms of results instead of effects. To me, or in terms of
judicial interpretation, I am not aware of any Federal appellate
court decision or district court decision, for that matter, which has
equated "results" or a section 5 court in Washington, D.C., which
has equated "effects" with proportional representation.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. We thank the panel very much for your excellent
testimony.
The last witness this morning before we have a short luncheon
break is the Honorable Al Edwards, who is a Texas State repre-
sentative, a Democrat from the great city of Houston.
Representative Edwards, we welcome you and you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF AL EDWARDS, TEXAS STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. AL EDWARDS. Thank you very much. Let me say that I am
very honored to be able to come before you and speak as to our
PAGENO="0319"
1193
feelings on the continuation of the Voting Rights Act and all of
those sections dealing with the act. I'm not going to be repetitive.
I'll be as brief as I can and will be open for any questions if there
are some.
Let me just say that I do agree with those who have testified
earlier in terms of the need and the problems that have arisen
even with having the law, the fact that there has still been and the
struggle of having to litigate in most parts of the State for those
rights that we are just due and haven't had in terms of the politi-
cal process. In many cases we are underrepresented in terms of the
elected officials in most capacities across the State of Texas, even
with the law. Without the law, I think we all know what it would
be like.
In fact, if we look at what happened from 1876 up until just
recent years, we could easily answer the question, the question that
I heard addressed to this panel: What would happen or what has
happened until the law was put into effect. We didn't have the
numbers of elected officials in our city, county, or State level. So
we know what it would be like, and I don't see where a regression
of the law would improve the situation at all. In fact, I would be
most optimistic in saying it would surely hinder it.
I think if we look at the effects of what has happened socially
and educationally in this country by having the law on the books
and by having the kind of input that we've had from those that we
hadn't had input from directly prior to this time, we can see that
many programs have been implemented and we have been much
more effective in our labor organizations and educational institu-
tions, in our communities, and we have been able to address those
issues directly ourselves and then provide the kind of input that we
know was needed. And we can continue to do that.
Let me just cite an example that happened just recently here in
Texas duing the redistricting of the senate seats and, of course,
particularly in the house seats. We have eight members of the
house that's going to be paired, and we know, without the Voting
Rights Act, that probably wouldn't have been that many because
none of those happened to be minorities, and we know that our
communities would have been cut up in little apple shaped or pie
shaped pieces like they were prior to the act. Many of us would
have been packing our bags and going back home at this time. We
know that to be a fact.
What we did do was sacrifice some numbers for the minorities
concerned to maintain and hold some of the incumbents that were
there. But needless to say, in spite of the good relationships, be-
cause of the friendships, we know those individuals wouldn't have
cut themselves out of their legislative seats. As a result of that, I
feel, re~ardless of what some others have said, the representation
wouldn t be as positive and effective, not having representation like
we have today. In fact, we are very far underrepresented. Anyway,
I thought I would just make mention of that.
I also know that when Congresswoman Jordan in Washington
represented us in the congressional seat, the numbers being there
to have a congressional seat in Harris County, and yet not having a
senatoriá1~ seat, it should tell you something. Because if the num-
bers are there for a congressional seat, then surely the numbers
PAGENO="0320"
1194
were there for a senatorial seat in the State of Texas. Because of
the act, we will have a predominantly black senatorial seat, senate
seat 9, if all goes well, that would be represented by a black. Of
course, we have the third largest population for blacks around the
country nearly; especially here in the State of Texas we know what
we represent, and we'll have one black senator from Harris
County. We know we are approaching vastly far above the half-a-
million mark. So I think we can see, even with the law, it isn't
close to be justified like it should be.
Let me say that the question about whether or not we are being
helped and supported from those who are supposed to help us. You
know, we have heard this and have seen it, and I think it's not
being rude or taken out of context that token help and token
favors is not what we're interested in. We prefer the law, because
that help we have gotten in many cases is not the help that's
needed, to give us a piece of something you don't want or help us
in an area just to show that you might be OK, that's not what is
needed to address the issues around this country.
I answered that because I'm a part of many organizations that I
see in this room. I was there before I ever came to the legislature
and I'll be there when I leave. I know what we have seen in the
past. I know what we're seeing now. So I just thought I would
touch upon that since I heard that question asked.
Lastly, I am one who firmly believes that this country, being in
the predicament that it's in, even though we're a very prosperous
country, we are also seeing that we're being attacked from many
small countries around the world, that we're losing on many fronts
economically, that this issue of racism has caused this country
billions and billions of dollars, and it has caused us to weaken in
some areas. And I know if it's a costly situation it's a timely
situation, and that time that we're spending on these racial issues
that we create or allow to be continued in this country is costing
us. I think we could spend more of that time and effort with a
collective input from everybody on a positive level, or even if it's a
negative level, but going down the road together rather than trying
to go down the road with one pulling from the other one. It's going
to eventually catch up with us. It's catching up with us. We can see
it.
Being an American, I am interested in the growth and continu-
ing growth of this country, and I would say we should do whatever
it takes to make sure that we can continue to have the kind of
input that we do have and represent those areas that we can.
I could go on and on in some other areas, but I know there will
be other testimony later that will address some other issues. But
I'll stop there and say thanks again for allowing us to be here. I
will be here for any questions now or later on in the evening. But I
appreciate the time.
Mr. EDWARDS. We appreciate your testimony, Mr. Edwards. It
was very eloquent.
Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. No. I just appreciate what you said.
You said there was enough for Barbara Jordan to get elected to
Congress but not for a State senator. How many senators did run
or were elected from Barbara Jordan's congressional district?
PAGENO="0321"
1195
Mr. AL EDWARDS. Well, it was cut up, and the way it was cut up,
we had from that particular area five senators--
Mr. HYDE. In that congressional district?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. No, as a part of that congressional district. But
in that congressional district, we're saying that if the blacks and
minorities made up enough numbers for a congressional seat, then
surely the numbers were there for a senatorial seat.
Mr. HYDE. Were any of those Senators black?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. No.
Mr. HYDE. I see. In other words, there were enough Black votes
to elect Barbara to Congress, but not to elect a senator in any of
the senatorial districts that comprise--
Mr. AL EDWARDS. Because of the way the senatorial seats were
cut.
Mr. HYDE. I see. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Edwards, let me go back to part of the state-
ment made by the Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commis-
sion on Civil Rights. I bring this up because if the extension of the
Voting Rights Act is not approved by Congress and signed by the
President, then the State legislature, of which you are a member,
will have a very important part in enforcing voting rights for
Texans.
The Commission said: "It should be observed that never has the
Texas Legislature acted to encourage minority political participa-
tion in the absence of a Federal court order to do so, or where such
an order was inevitable."
Is that a true statement?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. Well, I think if we look at what happened
before, it would indicate clearly that that's the case, for the most
part. Of course, we can always find little bits of pieces here, but in
terms of the real move, in terms of the real input where it's
effective, they're right.
Mr. EDWARDS. What you're saying, then, is that blacks and His-
panics in Texas are not going to be able to count on help from the
Texas Legislature. in the absence of the extension of the Voting
Rights Act?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. Well, I would say this: That we have now four
Mexican Americans who are senators, we have 12 blacks in the
house now, and I think 17 browns. No blacks in the senate. We will
get some help. I'm optimistic that we'll get some help. I would
think that Texans will get some help from the legislature. I would
hate to think I was serving in a body that I wouldn't get any help.
But I can guarantee, in my own mind, that we wouldn't have
come out with what we're coming out with now, because of what's
on the books. The numbers are not there. Collectively they're not
there, in the house or the senate. So we will be able to politic our
way into some things, and I'm sure we're going to get some help
from some of our house members. But I am realistic also.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Counsel?
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One question.
Professor Charles Catrell testified before our subcommittee in
Washington, D.C., that it was his belief the existence of section 5
preclearance had added a new dimension to politics; basically that
83-679 0 - 82 - 21 P1.2
PAGENO="0322"
1196
the local or State election officials now not only considered the
economic impact of different plans, but flow considered the political
ramifications, particular minority access and the voting strength of
different programs.
Based on your own experiences, would you agree that that's
true?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. Sure. I'm sure it would. I can see, and I have
seen, the input that has been there since we have had more elected
officials, not only directly but from the communities themselves,
the input that we have in the education process. For example, we
had several bills dealing with bilingual education from certain
grades to certain grades, how it would be treated, and other pro-
grams dealing with the real need of social programs.
The point is, since we have had what we've got now, then in all
areas we are seeing a positive movement. There has been no com-
parison if we look at where we are now versus where we were
before the law.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, the bill as presently drafted contains a bailout
provision, and that bailout effectively cannot be operative to juris-
dictions such as Texas, which have discriminatingly utilized tests
or devices. In fact, in 1965, or in the case of Texas, 1975, sugges-
tions have been made by Members of Congress, including members
of this panel, that some sort of amendments should be considered
with regard to bailout, which can have the effect of inducing juris-
dictions, not just States, but also cities and counties, to become
more affirmatively active with regard to their minority popula-
tions, with the potential result that they will be able to get out
from under the preclearance provisions, even though their escape
may be subject to being monitored by a court for some number of
years.
Do you think that would be beneficial, and if so, how would you
outline it?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. I think I would rather take the whole thing
and look at that, because I would sure hate to think that-if you
come up with an amendment where we would remove something
on the one hand, and yet open up a bad situation on the other, I
think if the bottom line is in addition to what we have, then yes.
But without being able to see that amendment and fully under-
stand what the long-range impact would be, I would hate to take a
position on that unless the bottom line of that amendment is going
to--
Mr. BOYD. Most of the suggestions which have been raised in-
volve the demonstration of jurisdictions, subject to a particular
type of showing, that they have, let's say, affirmatively incorporat-
ed minority communities into their electorate, into the electoral
process, in order to escape preclearance. It doesn't necessarily
mean they will escape coverage under the act, because section 3(c)
of the act is permanent law and would permit anyone to go into
Federal court and impose preclearance, by way of a judicial order.
PAGENO="0323"
1197
Secondarily, any suggestion of effective bailout would also in-
volve monitoring the jurisdiction to make sure things don't go back
to the way they used to be.
Mr. AL EDWARDS. That sounds to me, the more you explain it, it
sounds. to me, that we're still in for a good deal of litigation in
courts. The monitoring part, the escape on the preclearance part,
and yet giving certain permissions on the other part-here again,
not having read that amendment, I can't take a real position.
But from just listening to it, the way you explain it, sounds like
we may be doing something on one hand but opening up a lot of
problems on the other, because I can see having to do a great deal
of what we're having to do already.
Mr. BOYD. Don't you think permanent coverage, though, under
administration preclearance serves as a disincentive for improve-
ment in some jurisdictions?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. I didn't quite understand.
Mr. BOYD. Don't you think that permanent coverage under the
preclearance provisions of the act serves as a disincentive in some
jurisdictions to improve, to incorporate minorities into the elector-
ate?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. Absolutely; I agree.
Mr. BOYD. So if you encourage them by way of a bailout provi-
sion, jurisdictions would probably take appropriate action to incor-
porate those minority communities into the electorate. Wouldn't
that be an improvement of the situation?
Mr. AL EDWARDS. That would be an improvement. Here again, I
want to be sure that that wouldn't be an improvement today and
down the road it faded away. That's what is crucial.
Absolutely, I agree, that--
Mr. BOYD. That's why a court would retain jurisdiction for pur-
poses of revoking bailout, and reinstituting administrative preclear-
ance in the event someone decides to return to business as usual.
The purpose is simply to try to encourage people to improve their
systems rather than maintain an inequitable status quo. Because
under the act, as you know, as long as there's no dilution of
minority participation, there is no affirmative requirement that
there be an increase in minority participation.
Mr. AL EDWARDS. I would say again, from listening to it, it
sounds right and it sounds good, because that's absolutely true. We
maintain the status quo here in Texas, but there is absolutely no
move to improve upon the situation.
Mr. BOYD. Without the incentive, there is likely to be none in the
future.
Mr. AL EDWARDS. That's right.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Representative. Edwards,
for your very helpful testimony.
The subcommittee will recess now until about 1:30, at which time
we will have the pleasure of hearing from Douglas Caddy, who is
the former director of the elections commission here in this great
State.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed for lunch.]
PAGENO="0324"
1198
AFrERNOON SESSION
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
This afternoon's session will begin with testimony from Mr.
Douglas Caddy, who is a former director of the elections division of
the office of the Texas secretary of state. Without objection, Mr.
Caddy's full statement will be made a part of the record.
We welcome you and you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS CAI~DY, FORMER DIRECTOR, ELEC..
TIONS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF
STATE
Mr. CADDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Douglas Caddy. I reside in Houston, Tex. I am a
member of the Texas and District of Columbia Bars and served as
director of the elections division, office of the Texas secretary of
state, from March of 1980 to March 1981. My statement today is
my own personal statement and does not reflect the views of any
other person or office.
It is my privilege to testify before your committee today in favor
of extending the Federal Voting Rights Act. I believe the many
beneficial effects of the act far outweigh the burdens imposed on
local public officials in complying with the act's requirements.
I shall not attempt today to duplicate the statistical evidence
brought forth in prior testimony concerning the impact the act has
had in Texas. Rather, my comments are confined to the impres-
sions I received while serving as director of the elections division.
The Texas secretary of state is the State's chief election officer.
The Honorable George L. Strake, Jr. is the present secretary of
state. As such, he is responsible for solving the day-to-day problems
arising from elections held throughout the State, utilizing his elec-
tions division to do most of this work, which never seems to abate.
There are at least 37 different types of elections in Texas, rang-
ing from primaries to general elections, from local option liquor to
school districts, from bond to weather modification. Texas has 6.6
million registered voters out of a total population of 14.1 million.
On a general election day, approximately 5,746 polling places are
open throughout the State. We use four types of voting devices,
paper ballots still being used in two-thirds of our 254 counties.
By the way, I just might add that the populations of our counties
vary from a number of 96 registered voters in Loving County to
about 1.4 million registered voters in Harris County. So you have a
big disparity there in the number of registered voters in the differ-
ent counties.
Texas is unique, in that the number of its counties, 254, far
exceeds any other State. California has 58, and New York has 62.
Our large number of political subdivisions-counties, cities, towns,
school districts-mean that numerically the total that must comply
with the Voting Rights Act is extremely large. This accounts for
the large number of filings and objections from Texas arising
under the act.
In my opinion, the Voting Rights Act has had two primary
beneficial effects in the Lone Star State. One, it has helped to
inhibit the ever-present discrimination that exists in some commu-
nities against minority groups which has resulted in these minority
PAGENO="0325"
1199
groups being frozen out of participation in local government, and
two, it has served as a great psychological tool in bringing honesty
to Texas elections.
During my tenure as director of the elections division, under the
express direction of secretary of state Strake, our office embarked
on a concerted plan to fight dishonesty in local elections. Many
Texans are quite cynical about their elections because they are
well aware of the dishonesty that goes on behind the scenes-and
sometimes out in the open-in some of these. W. C. Fields was once
asked whether he read the Bible, to which he replied, "Only to find
the loopholes." Some local Texas politicians religiously read the
complex Texas Election Code for the same reason-only to find the
loopholes.
I have prepared a summary of our election process, of our elec-
tion problems, and of current election fraud cases titled "Confes-
sions of the State's Elections Director: Wherein He Admits Nobody
Really Knows How the Whole System Works," which I have at-
tached to this statement and request it be entered into the record.
I would like to conclude my remarks on a personal note. I accept-
ed the offer to be director of the elections division because I wanted
to contribute my service to the elections process during the critical
1980 Presidential year. During my tenure I oversaw five statewide
election dates. As a conservative whose credentials include, among
others, being the first executive director of Young Americans for
Freedom and the incorporating attorney for the National Conserv-
ative Political Action Committee, as well as the author of two
books on the national election process, I was initially hostile to the
concept of Federal intrusion by means of the Voting Rights Act.
I now recognize that without the Voting Rights Act and other
Federal statutes protecting voting, Texas could revert back to a
Box 13 mentality, a condition symbolized by the rigging of an
election in an obscure south Texas county-and, by the way, I am
reliably informed it was Jim Wells County and not Duval County,
Jim Wells having figured in the testimony this morning in this
room-which launched a politician on his career that carried him
eventually to the White House, where his actions had global
impact, whose consequences continue to be felt by those of us who
survive today. I. am citing this past Texas election history to em-
phasize that the legislation being discussed today has profound
ramifications, some that might impact even outside Texas or the
United States.
I urge this Committee and the Congress to extend the Voting
Rights Act to help end discrimination against minority groups and
to help maintain honesty in elections.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caddy follows:]
PAGENO="0326"
1200
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS CADDY
FORMER DIRECTOR, ELECTIONS DIVISION
OFFICE OF TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE U.S. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AUSTIN, TEXAS, JUNE 5, 1981
My name is Douglas Caddy. I reside in Houston, Texas.
I am a member of the Texas and District of Columbia Bars
and served as Director, Elections Division, Office of the
Texas Secretary of State from March 1980 to March 1981.
It is my privilege to testify before your Committee
today in favor of extending the Federal Voting Rights Act.
I believe the many beneficial effects of the Act far out-
weigh the .e~ imposed on local public officials
in complying with the Act's requirements.
I shall not attempt today to duplicate the statistical
evidence brought forth in prior testimony concerning the
impact the Act has had in Texas. Rather my remarks are
confined to the impressions I received while serving as
Director of the Elections Division.
The Texas Secretary of State is the state's chief
election officer. The Honorable George L. Strake, Jr. is
the present Secretary of State. As such, he is responsible
for solving the day-to-day problems arising from elections
held throughout the state, utilizing his Elections Division
to do most of this work which never seems to abate. There
are at least 37 different types of elections in Texas rang-
ing from primaries to general elections, from local option
liquor to school districts, from bond to weather modifica-
tion. Texas has 6.6 million registered voters out of a
total population of 14.1 million. On a general election
day approximately 5,746 polling places are open throughout
the state. We use four types of voting devices, paper ballots
still being used in two-thirds of our 254 counties.
Texas is unique in that the number of its counties - 254 -
far exceeds any other state. California has 58 and New York
62. Our large number of political subdivisions -- counties,
cities, towns, school districts -- mean that numerically the
total that must comply with the Voting Rights Act is extremely
large. This accounts for the large number of filings and
objections from Texas arising under the. Act.
In my opinion, the Voting Rights Act has had two primary
beneficial effects in the Lone Star State: (1) It has helped
t( inhibit the ever-present discrimination that exists in some
communities against minority groups which has resulted in these
minority groups being frozen out of participation in local
government; and (2) It has served as a great psychological tool
in bringing honesty to Texas elections.
During my tenure as Director of the Elections Division,
under the express direction of Secretary of State Strake, our
office embarked on a concerted plan to fight dishonesty in
local elections. Many Texans are quite cynical about their
elections because they are well aware of the dishonesty that
goes on behind the scenes (and sometimes out in the open) in
some of these. W. C. Fields was once asked whether he read
the Bible, to which he replied, "Only to find the loopholes."
SOme local Texas politicians religiously read the complex Texas
Election Code for the same reason -- only to find the loopholes.
I have prepared a summary of our election process, of our
election problems and of current election fraud cases titled
PAGENO="0327"
/
1201
"Confessions of the State's Elections Director: Wherein
He Admits Nobody Really Knows How the Whole System Works"
which I have attached to this statement and request it be
entered into the record,
I would like to conclude my remarks on a personal
note. I accepted the offer to be Director. of the Elections
Division because 1 wanted to contribute my service to the
elections process during the critical 1980 presidential
year. During my tenure I oversaw five statewide election
dates. As a conservative whose credentials include, among
others, being the first executive director of Young Americans
for Freedom and the imcorporatin~ attorney for the National
Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC), as well as
the author of two books on the national election process, I
was initially hostile to the concept of federal intrusion by
means of the Voting Rights Act. I now recognize that without
the Voting Rights Act and other federal statutes protecting
voting, Texas could revert back to a Box 13 mentality, a
condition symbolized by the rigging of an election in an
obscure south Texas county which launched a politician
on his career that carried him eventually to the White House
where his actions had global impact whose consequences con-
tinue to be felt by those who survive today. I am citing
this past Texas election history to emphasize that the
legislation being discussed today has profound ramifications,
some that might impact even outside Texas or the United States.
I urge this committee and the Congress to extend the
Voting Rights Act to help end discrimination against minority
groups and to help maintain honesty in elections.
PAGENO="0328"
1202
c~ssia~ OF I1~ STAlE'S ~r~ria~s DIRECIOR
Wherein He ~rnits ~Dbody Reafly Kz~s
Hc~ the Whole Systen Works
by
txxiglas Caddy
Register today. Your vote counts. Be sure to vote on election
day. You probably thought with the Presidential race behind us these
shibboleths ware n~ in hibernation, awaiting awakening for use in next
year's gubernatorial and congressional elections. Well, think again.
In Texas, they are rarely out of sight or hearing.
Elections here are a bisiness, rrore accurately a full-tine multi-
million dollar industry. They are held year round under the state's
election code which sets four uniform election days: in January, 1~pril,
August and ~venber. For example, on April 4, over 2000 cities and
school districts will have elections. In even~numnbered years the four
days are su~lanented by the May and June primaries. The Governor can
proclaim special elections if the circumstances warrant, which they
O.~Gk1.VFV~(~
frequently do. Bond,,~ local option liguDr elections can be held anytime.
Like everything else in Texas, elections are big, so big and
ocirplex that so single imxlividual possesses an encarpassing kn~~ledge
a~out 1~i they s~ork. This is why native Texans, sot only nec~cxmers,
find it difficult to keep track of elections canings and goings, sot to
mention what they are for or the rules governing their conduct.
Consider these facts:
*Texas has 254 counties, all elections entities. (In contrast,
California has 58 counties and N~i York 62.) ¶Lbousands of additional
political subdivisions - such as rannicipalities and water districts --
Mr. Caddy is Director of the Elections Division of the,~Secretary of
State's office. A ma~er of the Texas and District of Columbia ~rs, he
te~ books on election laws. +A~s ~.vanmu~ p~ipai.ec( i,v'
PAGENO="0329"
1203
2
also beld elections.
~kWe have at least 37 different types of elections, ranging fran
primary to general, fran localffl ~1c,j?ti to scheol districts, fran
rtxious v~ed to weather nxxlification. With the recent passage of the
constitutional amandmant permitting local bingo, a new type has been
added -- one which has the potential of farenting theusands of local
bingo elections.
* 6.6 million voters are registered out of a state population of
14.1 million. 4.5 minion actually voted last Novether 4. The registration
by county varies greatly, fran Loving County with 93 registered voters
to Harris County with 1,045,042.
* On a statewide election day 5,746 polling places are open through-
out the state. Over 25,000 persons are &nployed to run these polling
places fran 7 a.m. to closing at 7 p.m. and until the votes are ta1~ilated,
which can be in the early irorning bours.
* Not one bet four types of voting devices certified by the Secretary
of State are being used: paper ballot (206 counties), autanatic
voting machine (15 counties), punch card, where the voter punches a
bole in his ballot which is carputer counted (31 counties) and optical
tabelator, which counts the voter's "sense marks" on the ballot (2
counties - Webb arid Ft. Bend). Generally rural counties use paper
CGr14~,.r C I;,',r+,
ballot while large cities such as Dallas, Houston, and San Antpnio use
autanatic voting machines. (HcMever, Waco still uses paper ballots and
El Paso, Austin, Lubbock arid Amarillo use punch cards). In the 1980
(1
elections a~roxirrately 48% voters used voting machines, 27% paper
ballot, 24% punch cards and less than 1% optical tubulator. The major problen
PAGENO="0330"
1204
3
in having different devices is an inconsistency has existod since 1972
on hoc~ votes are countod on these devices. For example, punch card
votes are countod differently when a voter votes a straight party ticket
and then proceods to vote also for sone individual candidates in ancther
party. (Sone observers believe that Jodge Garc~xxx1 might have actually
been the victor in his recent close Suprare Court race if. punch card
votes cast in this manner had been ~~ntod the same way as on the other
voting devices.)
* Texas Election laws, a cat~ilation by a private publisher which
annually sells 12,000 copies, runs 472 pages in length in what is univer-
sally agreod upon as the rrost convolutad and turgid statutory language
found anywhere. Indeami same believe the statute has been purposely
designod this way. laralo attorney Honore Ligarde, an articulate
t~tocrat who served five texmns in the state legislature, once told ma,
while I was supervising the Laredo School District election recount,
that soon after he arrival in Austin to take his seat he discovered his
colleagues `1ware quite cynical about the election code. Thay openly
admitted they kept it camplex to keep out the `riff-raff.'" By "rif f-
Raff" his legislative peers meant blacks, hispanics, liberals and ~publicans.
Nevertheless, indications abound that the protective walls around the
legislature and other public offices are beginning to crtznble as more
citizens educate themselves in the intricacies of the election code.
* ~roxiirately 10,000 public officials are elected on statewide,
county, district or dther political subdivision bases. `Ihe job
of the Federal Elections Carraission in overseeing federal elections
is undoubtedly easier than that of the Secretary of State, the
state's chief elections officer, in overseeing Texas elections: in
PAGENO="0331"
1205
4
jj~~0
number, about federal offices vs. 10,000 here. Size: 50 states
vs. 254 counties. Regularity: every t~ years vs. year round. Scope:
pr~n~rily. a filing and disclosure agency for federal candidates vs.
scheduling state elections, accepting certain caitliclate filings, conducting
election scbools for election ~orkers, certifying the ballot, inspecting
polling places, canvassing returns, investigating election fraud, to
mention only a few functions. Staff: 250 FB2 ~rp1oyees vs. 24 state
e~ployees.
Decentralized Government
TO get a handle on the election systan you sust first realize that
government in Texas is decentralized. The bi]Jc of the pc~r lies on the
county and district level - not in the state legislature, Governor, Lieutenant-
Governor, Attorney-General, State Caiptroller, Supr~ Court -- or any other
person or agency in Austin. This pc~er was p~rposely decentralized by Wise Old
Ones after the Reconstruction Era to forestall consolidation of pc~r by any
new wave of Yankee intruders. In each of the 254 counties the real pa~er lies.
in your ccxrrnissioners court, cci~rised of four crtreissioners and by the county
judge wha heads it, which runs the county's affairs. ~ county carrnissioners
court will determine the number of election precincts and their new boundaries
this year once census figures are made available.
The other principal county officers are county clerk, tax assessor-
collector, sheriff, county attorney, district clerk, county treasurer.
- In ~naUer counties, sane of
these offices are cathined.
After the county level cares the district with its layer of pc~ierful
offices: state senator, state representative, justice of the court of
civil appeals, district judge and district attorney.
A ccxwnly heard saying in the county courthauses is that if you
have your county sheriff and district judge on your side you can get
away with alnost anything in Texas. This is, of course, an exaggeration.
PAGENO="0332"
1206
5
In the past year as elections director I have travelled 30,000
niiles by autarthile through rrost of our counties. (Senator ¶t~~r is
probably undisputed in his claim of being the only person to have
visited all 254 counties.) The county courthouse, invariably an
frposing structure that looks as if it could survive a nuclear holo-
caust, is each area' s focal point. Fran my travels I have learned that
for a quick education into local governrrent and politics, you need spend
only a few hours in your local courthouse.
Primaries
- A unique aspect is that the state pays for the primaries of our t~-.v
major private political parties. Daiocratic and ~epublican county
chairman counducting primaries file expense reports with the Secretary
of State for reiithirs~nt. In 1980 the~aTocrats held primaries ~ all
254 counties, the ~pablicans in 232 counties, a record number for the
GDP which lacks a party structure in sate counties.
In the ~rocrats' non-binding presidential preference primary last
May, Carter got approximately 766,000 votes, Kennedy 310,000 Br~n
35,000 and 256,000 refused to indicate a preference. These figures are
approximate because alt~ugh the state pays for the primaries, the law
does not reuire their vote totals be reported to a central authority.
In the May ~publican primary Reagan got approximately 263,000,
Bush 237,000 and 8,000 refused to indicate a preference.
on the surface, it appears that by a 3-1 margin Lone Star State
voters continue to choose to vote in theT~rocratic rather than the
PAGENO="0333"
1207
6
~epublican primary, although the GOP vote might have been significantly
higher if John Connally had renamed in the presidential race. Nonetheless,
the pattern suggests voters believe to make your vote meaningful you
mast still cast your ballot in the)eoncratic primary since the deixxrats
control mast local and county offices. This also affords the voter the
optional luxury of voting ~epublican in Novenber for federal and state
candidates, leading to the saying that a county may be)aiocratic in Nay
but ~epublican in Novenber.
On primary election day, a voter in his party's primary can attend
his precinct convention held after the polls close. The vote~ ` s regi-
stration card is stanped with the party's name when he votes in the
primary; this gains him entry into his precinct convention. The
precinct convention elects delegates to the county convention which
elects delegates to the state convention where delegates are chosen for
the party' s national convention. Minutes of the county convention,
listing delegates selected to the state convention, filed with the
Secretary of State, illuminate 1u~ the systen ~rks. In his minutes
o.. ~c1~e .~ ,,v Cotulla crisply reported:
"A county convention was held in LaSalle County at which I was the
only one ~present. Therefore, I have elected rrrjself as a delegate to the
1980 Republican State Convention."
Even though the GOP set a record by holding primaries in 232 counties,
it experienced great difficulty in conducting these because they vere
first-time experiences for many county chairmen. Conducting a county
primary is no easy task, even for a veteran)eiocratic cIiairman. It
takes an especially publicly spirited person. County chairmen mast
accept candidate filings, prepare and print the ballot, set up polling
places, find, polling place judges and clerks, get the list of the county's
`registered voters,~ distribite to the polling places the ballots, boxes
PAGENO="0334"
1208
7
and other materials, canvass the returns, keep track of expenses --in
shert, an awesare task which w~ild test the managerial skills of even a
corporate executive.
For this work the chairman are re~it~rsnd for the primary's
expenses, plus a snail axtount for their own labor. For exarr~le, the
cost of conducting the ~atocratic primaries in Bexar County was $355,229
and in Scurry County $2,475; the cost of the ~`epublican primary in
Dallas County was $152, 991 and in Carreron County $8,055.
The 1980 primaries cost the state $4.2 million.
The party chairrren in 14 counties were so thrifty and independent
that they refusad to accept state funds to pay for their primaries,
preferring instead to rely solely on candidate filing fees.
The precir~t problarns on prixrary election day by both parties were
virtually the sane in all parts of the state. The Secretary of State
receiveS a letter listing sure typical problens shertly after t.he May
t~ocratic primary fran. a justifiably angry and upset voter
- :- T in Henderson County:
"Registration cards were not being stanped. . .Judge did not kr~,i
what to do with the certificate of a~pointsent of poll watchers.. .Judge
was openly aggravateS that poll watchers were there... several persons
(scine whe could not read) asked the judge and clerks whe to vote for and
they did tell these psople wbo to vote for.. .Ballots were laid on the
table face up and were not mixed up by the judge.. .Voters came witbout
registration cards (s~xren didn't even bring in handbags or wallets, as
if they were accustcnnd to voting witbout having such a thing as a
card) and were allc~5 to vote wit1~it being c1~ked against the
registered voters lists, purge list and there was no absentee vote
list.. .Several ballots had been rrerkef in each race by n~re than one
PAGENO="0335"
1209
candidate's narre. The counter went ahead and picked one of the narres in
each category himself to be counted. . .me judge said they had until
?~bnday to turn the ballot boxes in and he was going to a rodec that
election night and ~x~uld turn his in after the rodec."
Even -though the state pays, ntst county prirraries on the whole are
loosely run amateur~affairs.:. This upsets many voters who recognize the
potential for -fraud and abese. These defects beccrre especially irritating
to rreny when runination ina primary is tantanx~nt to victory in the
general election for many local offices.
1980 General Election
The big news here was the record turnout: 68 percent of the
registered voters -- 4,541,637 out of 6,639,661 who were registered.
Reagan got 2,510,705 vote (55%), Carter 1,881,147 (4~%), I~nderson
111,613 (2%), Libertarian Clark 37,643 (1%), and 529 declared write-in
votes for president.
me decisive outcare in Novenber overshndcx~'ed the prior intense
maneuvering concerning which presidential candidates ~uld appear on the
baflot. Carter and Reagan were certified by their parties) fit 1980
was also the year when the Libertarian Party finally made it on the
ballot after years of failing to neet the ballot reguireients of a third
party. This tine it collected the necessary valid voter signatures on
its petitions representing one percent (or about 24, 000) of the number
of voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. For independent
candidate John anderson the task was nost difficult: He had to get the
necessary valid signatures on his petitions representing one percent
(about 4$, 000) of the number who voted in the last presidential election.
PAGENO="0336"
1210
9
Both the Libertarians and An3erscn forces turned in signatures s~l1 in
excess of the required nlirLber and, after checking their validty,
Secretary of State Gsorge Strake certified then to the ballot. Up to
the last nurent Attorney General Mark White and the Deiocratic party
threatened to challenge in court Strake' s certification of Anderson on
the ground that sore voters in the Dem~cratic primary subsequently nay
have signed his petitions. This legal threat evaporated after ouch
Ixinbast and thunder, mare believe because the DeTccrats had concluded
Anderson on the ballot ~uld hurt Reagan nore than Carter. Ultimately,
the vote for Anderson on Novenber 4 proved insignificant.
The rub cane, 1u.~ever, fran the Socialist Workers Party which had
been on the ballot since 1972. As a third party, the SWP had to turn in
the sane number of valid voter signatures (about 24-, 000) as the Liberatarians.
They exceeded this ntrüer bit s.then the validity of these ~re tested, at
the sane tine with these of the Libertarians and Anderson signatures,
they ~.re found lacking. t~nied certification, the S~P ixrrrediately ~nt
into federal court seeking an order placing then on the ballot. After
three days of hearings in San Antonio, Federal District Judge Fred
Shannon ruled against the SWP, a victory for the requirerent that third
party arid independent presidential candidates irust neet a mininum standard
set by law to qualify for a ballot position.
Once all the candidates had been certified to the ballot, the
responsibility for conducting the Navather election shifted to the
county clerks (and to the election administrators in the eight counties
that have set up full thre elections units.) The county clerks have
a love-hate relationship tc~ards running elections. They love the
PAGENO="0337"
1211
10
exciteient ar~ the J~ñget~5 staff that go with the task but they hate
the miud-boggling detail ~rk invo1v~1 which makes t1-~n the scapegoats
when samething goes wrong. They knc~.i fran experience that Murphy' s Law
is especially applicable to running elections.
While the county clerks aud election administrators are responsible
for the election, the cairnissioners court has the pc~r to appoint the
presiding judges for the county's election precincts. ¶the cxxrrnissioners
use this to dispense patronage. Since a]rost all cczirnissioners courts
are contrôlLal by~s~ocrats the presiding judges appointal are usually
also~eiocrats. Of the 5,746 presiding judges appointed in the 1980
election, it is estirrat&1 all but 1,000 were~enocrats. This was high-
lightal in an article "Politics Shape Polling Places, I~yson Says" in the
Decenber 22 Dallas Norning News which declareS: "UntraineS election
judges, whe alloweS people to vote twice and igsore5 other election laws
Nov. 4, were selected because politics has been allowed to daninate
election appointmants, Dallas County Carrnissioner Jim Tyson said."
Ironically, Tyson, himself, was responsible for appointing judges in four
precincts where a News survey s1u~jed at least 21 people in South Dallas
were allowed to vote irore than once.
The liepublicans can have at least one of their own appointed a
clerk to assist the presiding judge in a precinct if they subnit at
least tw narres to him. This, coupled with the right to have poll
watchers, rreans that ~ej~J~Licans have the potential, if they can fulfill
it, of off-setting the unusually high nunber of,Pen~crats appoint&1
presiding judges and clerks.
Based on my own observations and experiences around ~he state
I es1~irnate that 95 % of all judges and clerks, whether )eroôrat or
~epublican, attespt to be scrupi~lously fair in carrying
83-679 0 - 82 - 22 Pt.2
PAGENO="0338"
1212
U
cot their duties. Their faithful:ef forts are ~ ~ 5% ~
aixise their positions.
Preventing aheses
Because the election code is so ca~1ex and conducting elections so
difficult, counties, cities, scheol~ districts and other election entities
are encouraged to sponsor election sclxx)ls to train judges and clerks.
Last year Secretary of State staff irenbers taught 350 of these scl-xols.
Secretary Strake also distrilxited large quantities of handbooks for use
by presiding judges and clerks.
The key to core efficient and fraud-free elections is increased
education of polling place warkers. Attendance at elections scheols
is ixw voluntary. In Dallas) five training sessions for the presidential
election ~re held Ixit only 30 percent of the 369 elections judges sh~e1
up. Mandatory attendance wuld irrprove the quality of cx)nducting elections.
TO assure fair elections, the Secretary of State appointed over 150
election inspectors whe s~ere dispatched on Nov. 4 to all parts of the
State. Many ~re fran Secretary Strake' s ~n staff; sate s~~re recruited
fran young lawyers associations, league of Wanen Voters, and other groups.
Each inspector was trained and provided with a checklist of problens
he ~u]ñ encounter. Here fran tiet checklist are the 14 cost co~rron
problecs for ycor use to see on t~.i s~l1 your local polling place
is being run on election day:
1. DISTANCE WBKEPS. Placed 100 feet fran polling place entrance
and being enforced. Sound trucks rot c~erating within 100
feet of polling place.
2. EL~X~~IC~ SUPPLIES. All forms bilirxiual, adnguate supplies,
instruction cards and/or saisple ballot posted.
3. ACEPFAN~ OF VOIERS. Certificates presented, list of registered
voters checked, "voted" designation placed on list of registered
voters, affidavits being signed when applicable, assistance by
alx)ther voter being noted on poll list, rotation "s~xrn" noteS
PAGENO="0339"
1213
12
on poll list if applicable, notation "challenged" and nane
of other voter swaaring to qualifications when appropriate on
poll list. All voters in line at 7 p.m. allowed to vote.
4. SECRB3~ OF B7~LLOr. If paper ballots used, ballots signed by
jndge, shuffled, face dc~in on table. Adequate distande between
voters marking ballots and psople waiting to vote or election
officials.
5. INFUJENCING VOTER. Instructions given when requested, are not
stated in a way to influence hcM the voter should vote.
6. ASSISTANCE ¶10 VOTER. Given only to those who are entitled to
assistance. If assistance by another voter, that person s~rn
and noted on poll list, no other persons present when votes.
If by election officials,' t~o officials to assist, watchers
permitted to observe.
7. SBURITY OF VOTED BALW~S (PAPER BALLCIP). Ballot box locked, not
opened for counting until 8 a.m. and at least 10 ballots in the
box. Must always be at least 10 ballots in box before opened.
8. BALLCTP COUNTING (PAPER BAlLOT). Counting done whore no voters
may hear counting. Each vote is called and tallied individually
by counting team of one caller and at least ts~.o tally clerks. Counting
rules fra~~han3book being followed; staths of count may be announced
by judg~'after polls close.
* ~. $.~4trJ~% ~ ~
9. SECURTTY OF VCYIED BALLOIS (PUNCH CARD). Equiprent secured against
voting when polls close. If presealed boxes not provided, ballots
raToved fran box, separate valid and invalid ballots, place voted
ballots in container and seal. Account for unvoted ballots,
tv~ officers and watchers deliver ballots to counting station.
10. BAIIC1T COUNTING (PUNCH CARD). Ballots tabulated by precinct,
valid portion of partially invalid ballot nay be duplicated for
tab.ilation or counted manually, duplicates must be marked,
.write-ins added after tabulation, ballots nay be counted manually,
if necessary.
11. SECURITY OF VOTING MACHINE. After polls close, machine locked
against voting, numbers entered, counting ccrcparthents opened to
view, results called, returns ccrrpleted, representatives of
candidates or press allcMed to check numbers, presiding judge
deliver returns and nachine keys to proper authority.
12. DELIVERY OF RETURNS AND VOTED BALIDIS (PAPER BALTJYT). Returns
prepared after count catplete, returns and voted ballots delivered
to appropriate efficers (Box No. 3 containing voted ballots,
1 copy of returns, 1 copy of poll list, and 1 copy of tally
list delivered to county clerk), returns to be delivered imiediately
after ca~letion of count and not later than 24 hours after close of
polls, keys to Box No. 3 delivered to ,~heriff.
13.. POLL WATCHERS. Poll watchers must be allowed to observe all
PAGENO="0340"
1214
13
functions in the polling place, including: the acceptance of
voters, assistance by officials, counting of voted ballots,
making an~ delivery of returns ar~ voted ballots.
14. SPD~ThL CANV~~SS]N~ B~~RD PF~JCEDURES (COtJ~PING ~ 1~BSEN1EE B~LIJY1S).
Not to begin before 7 a.m. ncr later than 7 p.m. Nail ballots:
open jacket envelope, determine voter is qualified, signature on
application an~ carrier envelope match, aM ccsplies with
reguirerents, i.e., if reason is absence fran county, post-
marked outside county). Rejected ballots marked "Rejected,"
aM retained. By mail voters entered on poll list. Ballot
envelope placed in box with voted ballots by personal appearance.
Carrier envelope aM application placed in jacket envelope aM
retained as record of election. Nail aM personal appearance
ballots counted together. Returns made after polls close.
County Clerks Report
Following the Novenber election, the Secretary of State asked
the county clerks aM election administrators to report on lxxi the
election had gone in their counties aM what iinprovenents could be made
in the systen. Their responses reveal a wide range of problens troubling
then.
Elidia Segura, Atascosa County: "I believe the larger voter
turncut contrinited to the delays. Hc~ver, the rrain factor s~vuld be
the 10 [Justice Deparbnent) Federal Observers that I uederstaed hirx3ered
the election clerks fran cznducting the election in the usual manner.
I uederstaM these observers~ conversed with the election clerks fre-
quently, aM the voters also, which held up the voting process.. .1
believe there is too such flexibility allowed after a law is passed.
:First of all, a person is supposed to be a registered voter in order
to vote; Iu~ver, there are various affidavits, etc., that allow
ore. to vote without being registered. There is tcortuch deviation
fran the law~ aM I ~ththk that the legislature should either reguire
voter registration or do a~ay with it altogether aM allow everyone to
vote."
PAGENO="0341"
1215
14
Tencha de la Pena, Caneron County: I am, in the process now,
of turning over approxinately 150 nanes of persons whe ware sot on
our voter registration rolls, tot wix) insisted that they had a right
to vote -- they were Airerican citizens, paid taxes, etc., to our
District Attorney. I understand that this carries a penalty of 2 to
10 years (3rd degree felony) .
~ Nurdoch, Dallas County: "Precincts in nany cases too large.
The ten largest precincts in this county have over 5900 plus qualified
voters.. . our county has too few voting devices (Dallas County uses AVM
nachines in all precincts) .. .the najority of our voting is done in shout
five hour period (early rrorning and evening) .. .550,000 registered voters
when we started allocating equiprent and personnel. 750,000 voters on
election day [due to increased registered voters]."
Helen Jamison, El Paso County: "There was sarewhat of a delay in
the larger voting precincts due to the unexpected voter turnout.
There ware approximately 13,000 new registrants before the October 5
voter deadline. I assigned the machines per precinct before the deadline;
at that tine I did not know what area of town the new registrants ~uld
be voting in. The only way to prevent the voters fran any delay ~uld be
to hire nore clerks and assign nore machines."
Pearl Ellett, Fort Bend County: Our greatest probleri was with our
Electronic Voting [Optical Tatolator] Systan. This is being investigated
by our County Judge, with the Car~any, hoping to seek a solution to this
problan.. .1 feel that the deadline for voter registration is too close
to the election, not giving the person in charge of the voter registration
anple time to report to the clerk the accurate anount or nunber of ballots
to be ordered for that particular election."
PAGENO="0342"
1216
15
Asita ~deheaver, Harris County: "In the large precincts it was
sixr~ly an excessive turn-ait at certain tines of the day, i.e., early
irorning and after werk. In the minority precincts, it was poll watchers.
`These poll watchers were furnished a list of convicted felons by the
Bapthlican Party which they used instead of the official list furnished
by the Tax Assessor. With this there was considerable confusion resulting
in conversation between the p011 watchers and voters rather than conversation
with the judge as required by statute. It is my belief that the elimination
of over zealous poll watchers s~uld have eased what tension did occur in
a few of our precints. . .Punch Cards ~re used in Harris County for
absentee voting only, both in person and by mail. `Ite total ordered was
75,000 (of these 45,000 were used). There were 345 voting devices used
in U branch offices and the main office dc~wntc~n.. .Sboup voting machines
available - 3206; Slrxxp machines used -~ 3030; Of the 176 unused, iiost
were already prograrrrred and ready for local election.. .Aflocation of
voting machines is based on a formula taking the follcMing facts into
consideration:
(1) nurther of reqistered voters
(2) Predictability of turn-out
(3) capacity Of voters in each voting machine per bour each voting
day
(4) turr~ut in last presidential election
(5) Square footage of polling place to accarKx3ate voting machine.
As the County Clerk I felt ~ conducted a very sreoth election with
few problans. Our only real probl~n cane out of the tedious trethed by
which pinch cards are processed by the canvassing board. With 14,533
nail ballots, each having 3 separate envelcçes, the follcMing procedure
was utilized: signatures were cczrpared, doctor's certificates were verified,
PAGENO="0343"
1217
16
write-ins were checked for validity. All of these steps were done prior
to categorizing ballots. ~ny heurs were used. These mail ballots,
together with 26,911 in-person, totaled 41,444 absentee ballots --
which then bad to be separated into the 96 ballot categories. When the
ballots were fed into the ballot tabilator we were then facing approximately
5 1/2 heurs running time. As you can see this was a very time consuming
operation With 519 election precincts in Harris Cc*inty, our last precinct
returns were delivered a few minutes past 1:00 a.m. We were finished
tabilating all returns before 3:30 a.m., including absentee voting."
* B. M. "Buck" Birdsong, ~ County: "The last three days of
absentee voting there were lines fran the tine we opened until we
closed.. .The county has 90 voting machines.. .We try to serx~ enough
machines to each precinct so that no machine will turn over 999 on the
public counter because the public counter starts over at 1000."
~ Graham, Kaufman County: "I think the only way we will ever
straighten out voter registration is to have everyone register every
year. That s~uld get the deceased out of our list, the people that have
noved out of our county aM the people that are registered in the wrong
precinct."
flirnie Muenker, Kerr County: "We seen to have quite a few registered
voters whe sl-XDW their permanent address as the Kerrville State Hospital.
We do not know IXM they got registered, prior to this year. We received
quite a number of applications for ballots this Nov. 4th election, aM
in checking on whether they sheuld be allo~5 to vote or not, seereS to
be an eixlless job, aM we did not have the tine nor the personnel to go
back to the old records to see if their permanent address prior to
being cxxrrnitted to KSH was Kerr County, or another county.
PAGENO="0344"
1218
17
~ election cxxle states the residence of said patient is the county
of his former residence, unless he has anguired a residence while he
is an inmate, at the place where the institution is locateS. Also the
type of carinitment n~ed to be checked. We realize many are volunary
patients arid sheuld be aflc~eS to vote, tot this still took tine to
check. We called several clerks whe have State Mantal Hospitals
in their counties and they said they did not have the tine nor the
personnel to spend to check back into the records of ~patients, arid if
they ware listed on the current voter registration list, they all~~~S
them to vote. We ~sorkeS very nicely with the Kerrvifle State Hospital
on this, and they are very aware of patients' rights as we are voters'
rights. This was a big problem, tot we let then vote if they ware on
the current list of registered voters."
~ra Mae ¶i~yler, LaSalle County: "It is too easy to vote absentee
by nail. The county clerk has ~p way of determining if the request
actually cares fran the voter or if sareone is requesting the ballot
illegally. For example: I)~iring the absentee voting period a request
cane fran a voter, a ballot was mailed to this particular voter. Several
days later the voter (over 65) cane to my office arid told me she ~uld
appreciate it if I weuld stop serxiing her ballots, that this was the
second tine and that she had not requested it arid did not care whe
the election. I checked her application arid an "x" had been made and
an assistant had signed the application. apparently she had never seen
the application before. This is just one instance. Many ballots
ware not counted by the absentee canvassing board as the signature on
the application did not correspond with the signature on the carrier
envelc~e. This is a problem we have in this county every election.
Applications are taken he-use to heuse to the elderly. They vote
because sareaie pressures then into voting."
PAGENO="0345"
1219
18
~senel1e Ch~~ry, Midlàrxl County: "I feel that elections have
becane a full time job and ~uld like to see the law changed to make it
mandatory that each county have an Elections ~drninistrator. `Ito
~Z~dministrator could handle all elections such as city, college, scheol,
bospital, water districts, absentee voting and voter registration."
H~ Ski~er, Nacodoches County: "We need a longer cut-off date
for new registrants and transfers. We had deputy registrars at the
university registering students as they ~~ere registering for college.
The students put their P 0 Box instead of their dorm name and these
students did not qualify as these cards ~.ere turned in to the tax office
on Friday, Oct. 3rd. On Friday before the election a suit was filed
against the tax collector by the East Texas legal Services on behalf of
sane college students. The District Judge ordered the Tax Collector to
qualify these applicants. Could students be encouraged to vote absentee
at their 1~xne address instead of re-registering at college? There is no
way wa can estimate what the voter turn-out will be in Precinct 2
because we don't know how many of the students are still here. Many
attend for one se~ester and then go back June."
Mabel M~Larty, Ochiltree County: "We oppose the printing of the
ballot in both spanish and english. Many cczrnents were made by the
voting public that they opposed the printing of the ballot for the
spanish and not other nationalities.. .1 ~uld like to have a special
judge appointed to handle absentee voting. I do not think it fair for
this to be handled by a person whese name will be on the ballot."
PAGENO="0346"
1220
19
.Sua Daniel, Potter County: "Our main problan was that in absentee
voting by persc*~ial apearance, s~ had~our separate ballot co~nbinations
when voters caie in b.it. the actual ballot card itself failed to carry a
-precinct number. This, of course, created a situation in which the
ca~p~ter did not know~ which D~crat or Repthlican to give a st.raight
party panch to. This affected these races such as Carrnissioner and
State Representative (Potter County has tw~) which change fran precinct
to precinct. ..We receivei ouch criticisn over the procedure used
regarding the counting of individulized pinches for candidates when a
straight party pinch was also made. Our ocirpiter was setup acocrding to
your directive - that is, to count individual p.mches and then count
the straight party pinch for these left cm the ballot. Many felt these
ballots sheuld not be counted at all. They insisted the voter sheuld
not be able to do both and clairre~ it was unconstitutional."
Catherine Ashley, Reeves County: "Get legislation passe:1 doing
away .`.iith declared write-in candidacy and go to a step further -- `no
write-ins to be counted.""
Rebekah Scott, Refugio County: "I an cçposed to allc~.zing write-in
votes for anyone or office, except after the death, illness or withirawal
of a carxlidate whe has filed for the office and paid his filing fee at
the proper tinE. This county had 7 write-in candidates (for local
offices) besides the presidential candidate write-ins. ~ne of the
local candidates. declared for an office which did not already have a
candidate on the ballot; 2 had run in the Primary and lost, one had also
lost in the run-off. . I believe if anyone is serious about serving the governrreht
and people in his county, he will think ahead and file at the proper tire
and pay his fee, which is only fair. If he loses in ~ 1st and second
PAGENO="0347"
1221
20
primaries, I feel he sheuld riot be allowed to run as a write-in in the
general election."
Doris Shropshire, Travis County: "Delays caused because many of
our election precints are too large. Many in excess of 3,000 and several
over 5,000. Also, inexperienced election judges and high voter turnout.
The County Clerk or Elections Zidrninistrator slu.ild have exclusive control
of appointnent of presiding and alternate judges.. .225,000 ballot cards
ordered for this election. 1,400 voting devices prepared for use in
absentee voting and on election day.. .The cost significant problen faced
by this office is attaxpting to ~ the number of registered voters
there will be on election day. As an exairple: For the May 3, 1980
General Primary there were 178,094 registered voters. On verber 4,
1980 that number had increased to 226,683. An increase of 48,589~ In
order to tinEly receive su~lies (ballots) it is necessary to advertise
for bids at an early date. This was done based upon prior experience.
.There is always a large percentage turnout of voters during the
General Election when the President and Vice-President is to be elected.
Constitutional Anerx3rrents probably sheuld not be included at this tire
since the average voter is unfamiliar with the arrendrrents and spends an
excessive anount of tine in the voting booth."
Pat Finley, Ward County: "Perhaps the biggest overall problen was
absentee voting in the county clerk's office. This took sO mach of our
tine away fran our regular duties, such as having to let our recording
get behind because we did rot have tire to do it. Our space for setting
up the voting devices in this office is limited. - - I ~ould liJce to see
elections taken out of the county clerk's office and an election office
set up to do the entire thing."
PAGENO="0348"
1222
21
Ib.ith Godwin, Winkler ~~`: "No person likes the idea of having
an election official re-p~h a (punch card) ballot for then, even
thengh they still want the privilege of voting as they please. . .It is
air belief that straight-party voting shcxild nct be allowed in general
elections, as fewer than 5% of the pec~le acthally voteS a straight
party ticket, bit these voters still wanted to vote for write-in carxlidates,
or cross-over."
A different bit useful perspective was provided by an official
of the Stafford-Loc~5on Ccxpany whe wrote to Secretary Strake:
"1 have received your ~rorarxhan that you sent to all County Clerks as
a questionnaire for General Election Problans Survey. I s~uld like to put
sane input into this, in that, we probably print 30% to 35% of all of the
election ballots for the General Election, anS also for the Primaries. CXir
chief ~t~laint fran the producer's stanSpoint is that we need a little
n~re time in receiving copies for printing of the General Election material,
aixi we wauld like to see the dates backed up to where we ~ould have a
possible 10 working days rrore than what we are ix~~i receiving prior to the
printing of the General Election Ballot. Specifically, the General Election
copy is never ever a~roved for the General Election until sar~ihere arourxl
Septanber 25 to Crtober 1, ard then Absentee Voting carrrences scxnewhere arouixl
PAGENO="0349"
1223
22
October 15. This only leaves approximately 10 to 12 s.~rking days for
all of this material to be printed. Many of the local printers do not
have presses large enough to run Machine Voting Strips in continous
strips; Also, they do not have facilities to print a ballot that is 17 x
23 inches, such as the General Election ballot. Therefore, we do a lot
of the printing. This throws a tremardous berden on us, as far as
running overthne, axil then having to ship the supplies by bus. It s.xuld
cut down on the counties' costs if we could ship through normal freight
channels, ard by receiving the copy in tire that it can be printed
witheut overtine heurs included into it ard bring the overall cost down
to the custarer ard a such better delivery tine.. .If we could ~rk
toward sate legislation to trove the date back, as far as releasing the
ballot the the printer, this ~ould certainly help the total printing
irdustry arrl we could do a such better job for the counties ard the
political parties."
Election Inspectors
Equally informative as the County Clerks carrrents were reports
filed by election inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State.
Highlights fran these reveal sate of the practical problans which cropped
up on election day in various counties:
Bexar County~ "Voter carplained of poll watchers harassing voters...
League of Waren Voters reported there was no ballot security or proper
supervision in obtaining punch card ballots.. .Voter reported the precinct
was not open at 7 a.m. (due to rrechanical failure of voting machines.)"
Bexar Coun~y (Another inspector's report): "The League of Waren
Voters did a study of voting devices a few years ago. We reached the
conclusion then that voting machines were preferable to the punch card systan.
My experience during this ard previous elections reinforces that conclusion. There
PAGENO="0350"
1224
23
are too~nany~problaiis encountered using parich cards - bath pecple and
irecbanical proble~s. There are also too reny c~ortunties for error."
Cameron County: "The local elections official ccrrplained that he
was i.~rking. under adverse conditions and that he was rot familiar with
the elections law. *He explained that the presiding judge was present
at the opening of the polls and left for her regular teaching job
after swearing in the poll watchers and clerks."
~ County: "Precincts 4,5 and 7 ran out of ballots. Psople
were asked to renain while the county clerk xeroxed ballots and took
than to preciix~ts."
Dallas County: "Incorrect voter verification procedures used by
officials.. .hestility tc~ard poll watchers and election inspectors...
poll watchers providing general instructions to voters.. .unre~uested
aid given to voters by election clerks.. .in!proper handling of absentee
voter list.. .partisan carrpaign literature brought into the polling place
by voters... .marginal electioneering by election officials in the polling
place.. .unautherized visitors to the polling places..."
D.ival County: "Upon nry arrival in t~ival County, I was assured by
several county officials (the county clerk, county judge and the district
judge) that there ~xild be ro problens in Duval County and that they
ware vitally concerned in conducting the elections `by the Look.'
I found these stataients to be accurate. . .all facets of the election,
with a single exception, ware exquisitely conducted in accordance
with the Election Code."
El Paso County: "1 trenaged to visit 8 precincts. At these pre-
cincts everything se~ to go quite well and I roticed ro particular
problEns. The judges sea~i to be well informed.. .the only real problen
sea~d to be a shertage of ballots and elections materials and respective
PAGENO="0351"
1225
24
precinct judges could not contact the county elections deparbient because
the phene lines were always lxLsy."
Galveston County: "Voters were instructed to stand in alphabetical
order to vote."
Harris County: "The election judge distribeted to residents of
precinct 472 preferred candidate `renirider sheets.' Note that the
`reninfer sheet' states that it can be taken into the voting booth..
Lubbock County: "The problens I encountered in Lubbock were mainly
due to overcro~1ed conditions and judges responding to this in a casual
manner.. .Inadequate distance between voter~)~rking ballots and these
whe were waiting to cast ballots was also a problan."
M~Lennan County: "At box 9A I found a line at 6 p.m., over a
block long. Election judge was cooperative about splitting poll list
to make t~x) lines and we finished the voting by 8 p.m."
M~Lennan County (1~nother inspector' s report): "Ballot box
cannot be locked because of broken hinge. Voters at tables not separated.
Judge noves chairs. apart but voters nove then back. Judge states boxes too
&nall for the number of ballots expected.. .they did not get sufficient
ballots and called for rrore which were prarptly delivered. Part of
these delivered were printed properly and part for another district.
Judge and clerks altered ballots to make then conform. They ran out of
ballots twice and at 7 p.m., 56 voters were waiting bet again had no
ballots. Again irrproperly printed ballots were delivered. . .At about
10 p.m., voting was ccirpleted. A pc~er failure cut off the lights
for about 30 mintues at 1 a.m..."
Nueces County: "Precinct 80. Election judge u~'.ed four poll watchers
as election clerks. One poll watcher was sitting beside the election judge
at the table alongside the list of registered voters with an open bible!"
PAGENO="0352"
* 1226
25
Tarrant County: "The election ji.~ge asked ire 1~i one voter cc~.ild
vote as a Detocratic voter for all candidates except the 12th Congressional
district and was advised to use the ~all black levers to vote for each
candidate separately. I find it herd to believe an election jtxlge was
nct aware of hc~i to vote for individual candidates."
Webb Coui~y: "The election ocntroversy in Webb centered arc~nd the
testing and use of the Optical Taixilator... [it was alleged] nc test was
perfozirnd~ that all the machines were nct tested, that the machines
-marked sporadically and they appeared to be red-lining an extrerely
large number of ballots. A cxxrpranise was reached.. .The absentee vote
count was postponed for an bour so that clerks could be located.
Tc~o poll watchers agreed to act as election clerks. Disorganization
prevailed.. .It was discovered that the county clerk had nailed many
absentee ballots in cases where ballots sheuld nct have been mailed...
In precinct 3 the oniplaint received was that assistance was being given
to voters. I cautioned the jndge about marking ballots for the voters.
The polling place was located at the senior citizens lure and was a
-conducive athosphere for the giving of assistance."
Williamson County: "We were sent to precinct 2. Nobody was watching
the ballot box and unused ballots were nct being watched.. .In precinct
17, nc secrecy of voting, people were voting on a big open table and the
ballots were nct being watched."
PAGENO="0353"
1227
26
Prosecuting Violations
I fi~ nost Texans fall into tvx groups: these whe rank as the
itost serious crirres treason, murder, elections fraud, and then other
crimes and these whe list treason, murder and place election fraud
way down near the bottan, viewing election violations as fun and games
and "good old boy" stiff. I fall in the first category: to my way of
thinking, derocracy is reduced to a farce when parity of the ballot is
violated.
rxiring the past year the Secretary of State inaugurated an aggres-
sive program of investigating election violations and referring these,
when appropriate, to local district attorneys. The results are beginning
to show.
In Bexar County, an investigation into absentee vote fraud in San
2~ntonio in the May~ cratic prinery has resulted in criminal charges
being filed against t~ campaign s~rkers for a candidate for county
cxz~rnissioner. The district attorney says nore persons may also be
charged.
In Walicer County~, a Huntsville grand jury indicted t~x persons
for absentee vote fraud in the Nay~erocratic primary in a county camnis-
sioner' s race. Both have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing.
In Fannin County)the ~ attorney is investigating possible
tampering with ballots cast in the)~rocratic primary for state repre-
sentative. Over 600 outraged citizens of Loonard signed a petition
calling for an investigation.
83-679 0 - 82 - 23 Pt.2
PAGENO="0354"
1228
27
In liDving County1the district attorney is investigating cases of
illegal office holding, failure to rerc've a convicted felon fran the
voter registration rolls ar'.d fran public office, and the rreking of a
false election canvass.
A pending case in Titus County, based on allegations raised by the
county judge, involvi&~1 possible ixregularities in applications for
absentee ballots received fran a Mt. Pleasant nursing hare in the May
primary bcs 1~~ciV cjuSt~.
In Dallas1 II. ~ jury investigating
extensive vote fraud uncovered in the Novenber 4 election
After the Presidential election the Secretary of State referred
additional cases to the district attorneys in Travis County involving
absentee vote fraud, in aival County regarding illegal voting, in Nueces
County regarding illegal assistance given Corpus Christi voters by
precinct officials and in Rust County regarding illegal voting.
There are ts~o other pending cases, perhaps the cost interesting.
A federal grand jury in Beauront last June indicted the county
clerk of Hardin County for absentee vote fraud in the 1978 ~&rocratic
primary. It alleged that he delivered over 100 absentee ballots to
another individual instead of mailing these to voters. The basis of the
indicthent was mail fraud because the 100 illegally cast ballots had
been sent back to the county clerk through the U.S. mails. In Septather
a federal jury found the county clerk guilty and in October he was
sentenced to t~o years. He is nov appealing this sentence. Assistant
U.S. Attorney David Baugh, who prosecuted the case, declared in court at
the thre of sentencing that there are pe~le in Hardin County who are
~mberrassed that the case had to be handled on the federal level when it
should have gone through state district court. He said that perhaps a
PAGENO="0355"
1229
28
strict sentence wDuld "ccxrpel" Hardin County Officials to begin har~1ling
cases for thenselves.
The iitportance of the Hardin County Case is that the federal
governrrent has s~in it may step in ar~ prosecute a Texas election
violation case when the local prosecuting authorities refuse or sIu~r
reluctance to do so. -
The secxnd interesting case involves a ~xican-Amarican in Frio
County, J.P. Navarro of Pearsall, who clairrud his absentee ballot in the
~y ~rocratic primary had been altered after he bad placed it in the
ballot box. He clairred other ballots also slu&ed tampering. ~n investigation
by the Texas Rangers, the state Attorney General arxf the local district
attorney resulted in the im3ictrrent of Mr. Navarro on aggravated perjury
charges. Sore persons ~rry this may be interpreted by those ~ might
uncdver vote fraud (especially ~kecican-Auericans) that the safest ax~
wisest course is to renain quiet about this subject, which traditionally
has been swept under the rug in the Lone Star State.
San Antonio
criminal attorney Gerald Goldstein, who represents Navarro, is confident
his client will ultimately go free. The Justice Departrrent in Washington
is closely watching the case which has national implications.
Nov that it is nc longer taboo for the state to prosecute voting
fraud,it is unlikely the subject can be permanently resealed. Teo many
citizens are aroused over the violations, many of then blatant transgressions.
~.breover, the federal governrrent stands ready to rr~ve in. Title 18 of
the U.S. Code contains a nunber of applicable laws: conspiracy against
rights of citizens, deprivation of rights under color of law, mail fraud,
PAGENO="0356"
1230
29
false information in registering or voting, voting mare than once,
expeediture to influence voting, intimidaW'~f voters, federally
protected activities ani pranise of a~ointr~nt by candidates.
Legislation N~1ed
The test route to clean elections in Texas does not lie through
prosecutions lint reform legislation. ~d bills on election law are
introduced into the legislatur~ ~~ew hera-re
law. Here are sate proposals which, if enacted, ~sOUld iirprove the
cx)nduct of elections:
* Eliminate obsolete language fran the election code such as the
reguiretent of owning property, poll tax payments, and ~ year terms
for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. These have been kept in tIe
statute to confuse and mislead citizens.
* E~r~x~er the Secretary of State to call election violations to
attention of grand juries as ~ell as to the Attorney General and prosecuting
attorney.
* Eliminate fran the ballot candidates who are uno~osed in
prinary elections.
* Reguire person assisting a voter in a~lying for and in
filling out an absentee ballot by mail to sign as having assisted as
~ll as withessed the a~lication for the ballot.
* Give courts in primary contests the sane power to order a nec~
election as they have in other election contests.
* Prescribe standards by which the miniirnin ntznbers of voting
devices, ballots, and clerks per county and per precinct are to be
* uniformly determined.
* p~~jj~ irer~atory procedures for counting of ballots when a
straight party vote is cast and other specific votes are indicated~
PAGENO="0357"
1231
30
* In?let~nt sate form of statewide uniform identification to
enhance the accuracy and validity of voter registration lists.
* Provide criminal penalty for failure on the part of volunteer
deputy registrars to deliver applications received by thEn in tire to
register the voteis for the upcaning election.
* Require voting booths at each precinct in all political
sulxlivisions having 1,000 inhabitants or xrore and prescribe requireaents
for-these booths to ensure voter's privacy in order to preserve secrecy
of the ballot.
* Provide for nonpartisan election of the judiciary.
* Raise the criminal penalty fran Class C to Class A misde~anor
for failure to file, by the deadline, a candidate' s s~rn state~ent of
contributions and expexxlitures.
* Reqpire under criminal penalty for failure to do so that any
contributions which are not accepted by the ensuing filing deadline Irn~nst
be returned to the contributor within 7 days fran that deadline.
Texas is one of the few states entirely covered by the Federal
Voting Rights Act which protects against discrimination of minorities.
New legislation enacted or any change in election procedures by the
state, cpunties or any political sundivisions IrList be suhnitted to the
Justice DepartnEnt for approval.
Reform legislation will take care of neny of the existing election
problens. Since nost fraud takes place in absentee voting, a new statue
could eliminate this accelerating abuse. The harden of voter registration
sbould)perhaps, be lifted fran the county tax-assessor by increasing the
central role of the state in registering voters. A good deal of criticien
is levelled at the punch card voting systen. Actually, all four voting
systens need to be re-examined since each has its deficiencies. It may
PAGENO="0358"
1232
31
be disx~verei the deficiencies lie sot so such in the systans thanselves
as in the untrainal or poorly trainod election personnel using than.
Increasaf oducation of persons involval in conducting elections such as
city secretaries, scheol board and ~ater district officials, ~inty
clerks, polling place judges and clerks and also poll ~tchers will pay
handsare dividends on election day.
The election code allcMs each county to a~oint a professional
election administrator to handle elections fran start to finish -- from
voter registration through the steps after an election is held. Eight
counties r~ have professional election administrators. We neod nDre.
Even after these corrective steps have been taken, our elections may
still sot function as ~U as they shauld. The reason for this Tray be
unique to Texas: there may s~ll be too many counties in the state. 254
counties maan 254 election entities and a rniniuum of 900 election officials
(county clerks as election officers and tax assessors as voter registrars).
These large nunbers increase the chances of errors and breakdcMns. In
the end it may ~ll be conclud&1 that there are just too many counties
and other election entities to assure uniformly s~ll-'run elections.
This does not mean ..~ shauld not give it a try.
PAGENO="0359"
1233
[Box] [Box]
ECTIC1~S IN ~LEXAS: A~ .FUIL-Tfl fl~DUSTRY
PrilTary, general, and rrost special elections
Scbool District
Water Control and Isprov~Ent Districts
tbdergrourxl Water Conservation Districts
Fresh Water Supply Districts
M~nicipal Utility Districts
Water Isprovarent Districts
Drainage Districts
Levee IsprovErent Districts
Navigation Districts
I~cal option liquor
Minicipal Elections
Consolidation
Jmnexation by lxxne rule city
Incorporation
Referendum
~opt or abolish city manager plan
Bond issuance elections of all kinds (involving n~rous types of
political subdivisions)
Constitutional aiterx~rents
Stock law
Noxious ~od districts
Pink boll~rm
Discontinuance of soil conservation district
Electric cooperative corporation
Fish market referenda
Land-use regulation
MDsquito control district
Qtional County Road Law of 1947
Parks
Hospital districts
i~ral fire prevention districts
Clean air financing
Consolidation of governrrental functions and offices in political
subdivisions within counties
Cooperative associations referenda *
Firenen' s relief and retiresent fund trustee
Rapid transit authority
Regional transporation authority
I~rgicultura1 products referenda
Urban renewal projects
~ather rmodification (bail surmpression)
C.ke4~(tc4*i* I~ O~(~4.~1(~ ,4~t
PAGENO="0360"
1234
[Box] [Box]
Order of offices ant nanes of cax4tes
- - - - ~never
there are to a~ear on the ballot for any general, special, or prinery
election, tv~ or irore office titles of offices which are regularly
fillef at the general election they shall be listef on the ballot in the
following relative order:
Feferal Offices:
President ant Vice President
Unitel States Senator
Congressnan-at-Large
Unitef States Representative (district office)
State Offices:
(1) Stat~ide offices
(~verr~r
Lieutenant Goverr~r
Attorney General
Car~tro1ler of Public Accounts
State Treasurer
Carinissioner of General Lant Office
Carrnissioner of Agriculture
Railroad Carrnissioner
Chief Justice, Suprane Court
Associate Justice, Suprare Court
Presiding Jix~ge, Court of Criminal Appeals
(2) District offices ¶~- 7~ckc~ ~, C~t~ (~-~1 ~pv~I 4p~A/S
State Senator
State Representative
?~nber, State Board of E~1ucaticri
Chief Justice, Court of Civil Ajpeals
Associate Justice, Court of Civil A~peals
District Jtzfge
Criminal District Jixige
~ iLi1-s-cf~ ",-.-f-
District Attorney
Criminal District Attorney
(3) County offices
County Jixlge
Jixige, County Court-at-law
Jtxige, County Criminal Court
Jefge, County Probate Court
County Attorney
District Clerk
District ant County Clerk
County Clerk
Sheriff
Sheriff ant Tax Assessor-Collector
County Treasurer
County Scheol Superintenfer~ent
Camty Surveyor
Inspector of Hides ant Anizrals
(4) Precir~t offices
County Cc!rrnissioner
Justice of the Peace
Constable
Public Weigher.
PAGENO="0361"
1235
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Caddy. I'm sorry that
my two colleagues, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Sensenbrenner, aren't here,
because it is very refreshing to hear your testimony, and I am sure
they would be very interested, especially with regard to your back-
ground. I would hope that you might be able to influence the
Young Americans for Freedom and the National Conservative Po-
litical Action Committee to endorse the extension of the bill.
Mr. CADDY. Well, one purpose of my testifying today, and the
reason I agreed to do so, was to issue an open appeal to my fellow
conservatives to honestly study this legislation. If they do so, I do
not believe they could oppose it. I think they would come out in
favor of it.
I think, quite frankly, they see the word "Federal," you know,
before the Voting Rights Act, as it's used in the media, and they
are immediately against it just because it means more Federal
intervention and so forth. But I appeal to my fellow conservatives
because voting is at the very basis of our democracy and they
should understand that more than anyone. I appeal to them to
study the act, to study how it has been in effect, and to support its
extension.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. I appreciate that. The Constitution is
Federal, toO, and really all we're asking for in the Voting Rights
Act is for the Constitution to be respected.
Mr. CADDY. I agree.
Mr. EDWARDS. I just think it's great that you have this particular
view that you have, and I really welcome it because I think if we're
going to have a peaceful and a decent and fair America, the princi-
pies of the Voting Rights Act have to be respected.
It's a very modest bill. All we're asking for is that people be
allowed to register and to vote and not to be done out of political
influence by these devices such as gerrymandering and other loop-
holes, because let's face it, annexations, gerrymandering and some
of the devices are loopholes, aren't they?
Mr. CADDY. That's correct.
Mr. EDWARDS. In paragraph 2 you did mention some of the
burdens imposed on local public officials. We have tried to ask
about that of the various witnesses and we have not received very
much evidence to the effect that there is very much of a burden.
One or two witnesses described the burden, that you write a letter
and put on a 15- or 20-cent stamp, whatever the post office is
charging these days, and send it to Washington. There might be a
phone call after that and a legitimate submission and there's no
problem.
Do you agree with that?~
Mr. CADDY. I do agree. I think it's really, basically a false issue
that has been raised. I can't think in my own experience of some-
one coming forward to our office in the elections division and
complaining about-a political entity in Texas-complaining about
the burden. But I do think it's used by the opponents of the
Federal Voting Rights Act as an issue.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, we have some complaints in California in
the areas that are subject to the bilingual voting provisions that it
is a burden, and I think it might be. But a lot of it might have to
PAGENO="0362"
1236
do with the, way the law is being interpreted by some of the
registrars.
You don't have that problem in Texas, I think, because you don't
have the printing requirements that we have in California. We
have absolutely ridiculous printing requirements, sending out book-
lets in advance of every election, explaining both sides of each
issue, written by very prejudiced people.
Mr. CADDY. Well, we do have the' requirement in Texas where
propositions appear on the ballot, constitutional propositions, that
approximately 250 newspapers throughout the State must carry
explanatory language concerning the proposed propositions. These
must be carried in both English and Spanish.
Mr. EDWARDS. Are the newspapers subsidized by the State?
Mr. CADDY. No, they are not.
Well, in a sense the State legislature appropriates money for the
payment of the advertising, yes.
Mr. EDWARDS. I think my last question, Mr. Caddy, is this:
On page 1, paragraph 6 of your statement, you point out that
some minority groups have been frozen out of participation in local
government.' Are there areas in Texas, important areas, where
minorities are encouraged by the white establishment to partici-
pate and to be a part of the redistricting, of the revision of the
election laws, so that they are encouraged to be an appropriate
part of the process?
Mr. CADDY. I'm sure that goes on, just as I'm sure there are areas
where there are conflicts, so to speak. One of the problems we have
in Texas-and it's spelled out in `my 33-page analysis which is
attached to this statement-is that we have so many counties in
Texas, 254, that no one really knows what is going on in each
county. There is no single State official or individual who knows
the makeup and the problems and the complexities of each county.
So I really can't answer your question because-I'm sure that in
some areas what you just mentioned probably is true, but in others
we obviously have great problems where minority groups are dis-
criminated against.
Mr. EDWARDS. There must be a historical reason why you have so
many counties. Why do you have so many counties?
Mr. CADDY. Well, as I understand it, one of the reasons is that it
was a decision by those who were in government in Texas after
Reconstruction, that this was the best way to decentralize Texas, to
make 254 counties. In that way you would keep local government
very local. That's why we have a weak State executive. We have a
weak Governor in Texas under the Constitution. Much of the
power in Texas for government resides at the local level, at the
county level.
Quite frankly, I think many of the problems that occur in Texas,
the political problems as well as the governmental problems, occur
because there are just too many counties. There are just too many
counties for effective government.
Mr. EDWARDS. That's a very interesting concept.
`Mr. Boyd?
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PAGENO="0363"
1237
Mr. Caddy, do you think there is a stigma attached to jurisdic-
tions which are covered by the Voting Rights Act, a stigma that
they discriminate and that they are, as a consequence, racist?
Mr. CADDY. Yes, I think that's true.
Mr. BOYD. Do you think it's reasonable to resent that sort of
stigma?
Mr. CADDY. If the stigma is not justified, yes, I think it should be
resented.
Mr. BOYD. Do you think it is appropriate then to consider some
sort of bailout program which permits jurisdictions which don't
believe they should bear such a stigma to get out from under
mandatory preclearance under section 5?
Mr. CADDY. That's the most interesting concept that has come
out at the hearings I have attended here today in this room. I,
frankly, think that the bailout-and my testimony here is confined
to Texas because I don't know what goes on in other States-I
think it would be an incentive in Texas to have the bailout. That
is, those political entities that did a good job, who have built a good
record in this area, should be given a "gold star" so to speak,
publicly recognized that they have built such a record and be
bailed out from under coverage of the act.
The impact of this would be, when the county officials at what-
ever level, whether it's a county judge or county commissioners or
tax assessors or county clerks and so forth, whenever they gather
at their meetings, which they meet quite frequently, then there
would be those present at the meetings who were from entities that
had done a good job and publicly recognized as doing a good job
and then bailed out, those, for whatever reason, who still bore the
stigma of discrimination at the local level. I think it would cause
these communities that do discriminate to clean up their act, so to
speak. I think the peer pressure would be tremendous and I think
it would be most beneficial.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you.
The bilingual preclearance provisions of section 5-and I think
this is a perception which is somewhat misunderstood-don't
expire until August 6, 1985, while the préclearance provisions with
regard to race expire on August 6, 1982.
Do you think that these particular issues are severable? Do you
think it is appropriate for the subcommittee to address the racial
minority provisions with more earnest and energy now than the
language minority provisions which don't expire for 4 years?
Mr. CADDY. Yes, I would say it's very appropriate.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Caddy. You have been
very helpful in your testimony.
Our next witness is the Honorable Ben Reyes, who is a member
of the Houston City Council.
[No response.]
We are pleased to be able to welcome our next witness, Mr.
Ruben Bonilla, who is the national president of LULAC.
Mr. Bonilla, we welcome you. Will you identify your colleague
and, without objection, your~ full statement will be made a part of
the record.
PAGENO="0364"
1238
TESTIMONY OF RUBEN BONILLA, NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS [LULAC];
ACCOMPANIED BY ROLANDO RIOS, COUNSEL, SOUTHWEST
VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT
Mr. BONILLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleague is Mr. Rolando Rios, associated with the Southwest
Voter Registration Education project. Mr. Rios has served as gener-
al counsel for LULAC and other Hispanic organizations in a
number of suits which have been filed under the Voting Rights
Act. He will be here to serve as counsel and to answer any ques-
tions pertaining to specific litigation or specific provisions of the
act being discussed.
For the record, I would like to introduce, with the committee's
permission, a letter signed by the four Mexican American State
senators of the Texas Senate, Senator Tati Santiesteban, Senator
Carlos Truan, Senator Bob Vale, and Senator Hector Uribe, in
which they urge an extension of the Voting Rights Act because of
its having had a dramatic and beneficial impact on minorities and
helping in many respects to rectify the otherwise underrepresenta-
tion of minorities.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, the letter will be made a part
of the record.
[The letter follows:]
PAGENO="0365"
June 4, 1981
The Honorable Con Edwards, thairman
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcammittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights
Washington, D.C.
tear Mr. thairman.
By this letter, the four Mrxican-2\merican members of the Texas Senate wish to
repectfully record our strong support for extension of the U.S. Voting Rights
Act of 1965. 1~nple evidence exists to prove both the dramatic impact of the
~Xting Rights Act in Texas and the continued need f or this worthy federal
legislation.
The January, 1980 report of the Texas Pñvisory Ctstmittee to the United States
Qznmission on Civil Rights, titled "A Report on the Participation of
t~exican-Americans, Blacks and Females in the Political Institutions and
Processes in Texas," includes this succinct summary
"In off ice after office, in position after position, there has been
little or no change during 1968-1978 in Mrxican-American and black
representational proportions. The general exception to this
conclusion can be found among those institutions and jurisdictions
wherein federal law, such as the Voting Rights Act, or federal courts
have intervened as the `court and legislature of last resort' for
minority citizens."
As State Senators, wa are most familiar with the improvements in the legislative
process that have been brought about by the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
In 1968, only one Fexican-American was a member of the Texas Senate, though cor
nuther has since quadrupled. In 1968, the Texas House pf Representatives was
95.2% Anglo, though over 30 percent of the state's population is black or
Spanish-surnamed. By 1978, the Texas House of Representatives included slightly
over 11% Spanish-surnamed officials and almost 9% black representatives, an
important increase but still indicative that minorities are, even today,
under-represented. Minority representation at the city and county level is
still disproportionately low, as is membership on state boards and commissions.
Ebr Texas, the most beneficial provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been the
bilingual ballot and the preclearance provisions. In a state where 18 percent
of the population is of Spanish-surname, bilingual ballots have finally
enfranchised thousands of voters who could not cczrtprehend English ballots. The
bilingual ballot provisions are of even greater importance in sections of the
state where I~exican-Americans constitute over 50 percent of the population and
sanetimes as much as 80 or 90 percent of the constituency.
1239
I)
PAGENO="0366"
1240
Provisions of the Votings Rights ~t requiring Thxas and other states lx) obtain
Justice t~partment preclearance of election and annexation changes are also
vital. In the period 1975 to mid-1978, 55 objections s~re sustained against
¶Daxas. This figure equals or exceeds the number of objections sustained against
any one state in the thirteen ~ars bet~en 1965 and 1978.
Pa the previously-cited 1980 report by the Thxas £~dvisory Cbrsnittee to the
United States Oemission on Civil Rights notes, given this record, "could anyone
seriously claim little or no iupact on the electoral system?"
There simply is no deubt but that the Voting Rights Pet has had a dramatic and
beneficial irr~act on lOaxas. Hos~ver, under-representation of minorities
continues to be a serious problem in cor state. Dy continuing the Voting Rights
Pet, minorities can achieve adequate representation in the legislative process,
in local government, on executive boards and agencies, and in party politics.
The Voting Rights Act provides hope that ~ can override the lingering legacy of
political discrimination against minorities. If Congress fails to extend the
Voting Rights Pet, it will erase the hope for future progress and erode the
gains of the past.
Please convey to Congress o~ir strong support for the continued application and
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in our state.
Sincerely,
Tati tiesteban ~rlos F. Thuan
Senatorial District 29 Senatorial District 20
El Paso, ¶E~xas Chr ti, ¶D~ as
Hector Uribe al
Senatorial District 27 Senatorial District 26
Brownsville, Thxas San Antonio, Thxas
PAGENO="0367"
1241
Mr. BONILLA. I also would like to submit for the record: There
are many working people, of course, who cannot be here because of
the restraints of time and financial lack of opportunity. On their
behalf, I am submitting over 200 signatures from citizens in Ray-
mondville, Tex. who successfully fought some electoral boundary
changes and who feel that because of their success it is essential
that. the Voting Rights Act be extended.
[The information follows:]
PAGENO="0368"
1242
p~ 4~vL~Q~ 1,~
~, fr~3
i~~L:~ ~/~e~f ~ e
(//"~ (~&1~/
/~L\~rn )LL~4M~
~ C
,1
~d~-A.
~LL-
PAGENO="0369"
1243
(J
~
~Z4~
)~t2~ 44'~,
a~c~ ~
~
~
83-679 0 - 82 - 2'~ Pt.2
PAGENO="0370"
1244
3cr~ó4o-ifO -
-
PAGENO="0371"
1245
s~&LJ ~
* I
PAGENO="0372"
1246
~-
t~A
A 0'
PAGENO="0373"
1247
PAGENO="0374"
1248
~4'~/~ ,6~ ~
C C
Mj~~ ~
/&L~J ~ ~
,~.
`.~, ~
C~A~
~z~44)
PAGENO="0375"
1249
PAGENO="0376"
1250
~2i ~ 0
4~4~7~( -`
L~L~ TVLL~JLt
~ t;?*~c
/?`w?~L
(Jci~~~' Y~j~
~
~
PAGENO="0377"
tfl~'~j. ~
/31A~\rA \~~\~\
!~h~14~C7 ~
~
/flCL~a&~ ~
~ ~
~
~; 7/tL~
1251
PAGENO="0378"
1252
Mr. B0NILIA. Finally, I also have over 100 letters which have
been submitted to the White House and~ various Members of Con-
gress. The parties who have forwarded these letters ask that it also
be made a part of the committee's permanent record.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, they will be made a part of the
record.
[The information~ follows today's hearing record.]
Mr. BoNILI~. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I would like to use
the forum which I am fortunate enough to have as national presi-
dent of the Nation's oldest and largest Hispanic organization,
LULAC, to. make a few comments regarding the importance of the
Voting Rights Act and its relation to the Hispanic community.
We feel. that the Voting Rights Act is the singular most critical
issue affecting Mexican Americans in the State of Texas. I believe
it is important to understand the makeup of Mexican Americans.
We in the Mexican-American community are the fastest growing
population group in American society, and that holds true for
Texas. We have a lower median age of about 20 in comparison to
30 for the Nation as a whole. There is a higher birth rate among
Hispanics. There is a larger average family size. All this growth
among American citizens is augmented by an increasing Hispanic
immigration pattern from across Latin America. This problem will
become even more acute if we move forward with the administra-
tion's advocacy and implementation of a "guest worker" program,
bringing in over a million workers into America, as is being dis-
cussed at the White House.
An example of the results of this phenomenal growth is that if
we take all first-graders in the State of Texas and place them in
one large auditorium-and this is information submitted by the
Texas education agency-slightly over 50 percent of those first-
graders are minorities, Mexican Americans and blacks, who have
historically, unfortunately, in Texas been undereducated, underem-
ployed, and underutilized politically. The result in Texas, as a
result of this growing population, is that Hispanics now make up
20 percent of the population and blacks and Mexican Americans
together comprise 33 percent, utilizing the most recent Census
data.
Regretfully, the State of Texas, through its various political sub-
divisions, has generally failed to address and meet the needs of the
Mexican American community. As a result, Mexican Americans
have a higher unemployment rate than non-Hispanics; we have an
unemployment rate among youth that is parallel to anything expe-
rienced by the black community; we have the lowest level of educa-
tional achievement because of the schools as well as the State's
failure to address the needs of non-English speaking children.
We have a median income, therefore, that is $6,000 below the
national average, and finally, we have a dirth of political represen-
tation, a terrible degree of political underrepresentation, which
reflects that, in spite of our 20 percent population figure, one out of
every five Texans being Mexican American, we have less than 12
~p~rcent of the State elected officials. We have less than 6 percent
of county commissioners and judges. We have less than 5 percent
of municipal elected officials, and we have approximately 5 percent
of school board officials. I believe, therefore, that the record speaks
PAGENO="0379"
1253
for itself in terms of insensitivity and the lack of opportunity for
Hispanic Americans having equal accessibility to the political poll-
ing place.
I think, therefore, we need to consider the Hispanic agenda in
the larger context of the direction in which our country is heading.
It is enough for us to offer testimony on specific examples of the
progress of the Voting Rights Act, but we are concerned with the
rapid shift to the right of the ideological poll in this country. We
have had a resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazis,
the moral majority, the NICPAC's of America. There seems to be a
new age of enlightenment, the gradual development of a myth that
all is well. We are seeing the utilization of powerful persuasion
through the electronic and print media as well as in the halls of
Congress that would lead us in the minority community, and in
America as well, to believe that the bigots of America have died
away and that racism was but a dark chapter in our Nation's past,
that it exists no more; that our public officials are imbued with a
genuine benevolence, a sense of altruism, which will repell any
effort to thwart or to deny minority political participation. In a
sense, we have the mental construction of a "Fantasy Island,"
where our minorities are guaranteed full access and are being
given every consideration at the voting place.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I
am here just to tell you that it isn't that way at all, that Texas
remains a hotbed of simmering prejudice, racial and economic,
where Mexican Americans have had to use every avenue available
through the Voting Rights Act to redress political grievances.
Experience tells us the startling truth, and that is that exclusion-
ary politics remains the rule. Let me give you a few examples-and
you've heard some already.
In Rockport, Tex., near the area where I reside, in 1978, Pepe
Sombrano ran for the justice of the peace. His opponent was an
Anglo incumbent. During the primary campaign the Anglo incum-
bent died. So there was initial "hoopla" in the Hispanic communi-
ty, that at last, for the first time in that county's history, a Mexi-
can American would, indeed, be elected.
But then the Anglo community began running full page ads
telling people to vote for the dead man, that there was an opportu-
nity to prevent the election of a Mexican-American justice of the
peace. Sure enough, the Anglos turned out in large numbers and
voted for the dead man. In fact, Mr. Sombrano holds the dubious
distinction now of perhaps being the only political figure to lose to
a deceased candidate.
Shortly after that the Democratic Party met in executive session
and they elected an Anglo through special process. I think that just
reflects the Anglo mentality in that area, that being permitting a
Mexican American to hold a public position was odious.
In Crockett County we have had absentee ballots marked in
different colors. We have had county clerks color one set of absen-
tee ballots white for the Americans, and we have had the other
absentee ballots colored red for those Mexicans. I think it's a
matter of public record, offered through sworn testimony in hear-
ings held by the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project,
in conjunction with other Hispanic organizations, a matter of
PAGENO="0380"
1254
public record that these events did take place in Crockett County,
where color coding was utilized to deny the vote to Mexican Ameri-
cans-not in 1935, but in the late 1970's. Fortunately, that case was
challenged in court and we now have two Mexican American
county commissioners in Crockett County.
In a recent mayoral election in McAllen, Tex., held this spring,
not in 1938, the Anglo incumbent, Otho Brand, who recently was
rejected by the Texas Senate to a State board to which he had been
appointed by the Governor, he had a Mexican-American opponent,
Dr. Ramido Caso. Otho Brand ran full page ads in the local news-
paper, printed in red ink, accusing Dr. Caso of binding with radical
communist elements-most notably, the United Farm Workers.
There were photographs. in full page being pictured with United
Farm Worker leadership. The picture went on to say that this was
an example of the collusion and conspiracy that was meant to
represent a Mexican takeover in the valley.
When one began investigating and determining the origin of the
photograph, one learned that the photograph reflected a ceremony
at which Dr. Caso had been given an award by the United Farm
Workers for his charitable medical work among the poor in the
valley. But it is this type of campaign tactic that was utilized, and
this same mayor, Otho Brand, on the first primary, had photo-
graphs taken of voters as they were going to the polls, intimida-
tion, in that Mr. Brand is one of the largest employers in the
valley. It is this type of economic reprisal which represents a form
of intimidation that we find reprehensible.
In my own home town of Corpus Christi, we have seven city
council members, a Mexican-American community representing
509 percent of the population, but with an at-large election scheme
that has prevented the election of any Mexican-American candi-
dates in this last election.
We have local officials who adopt a stubborn resistance to the
concept of equitable representation and refuse to call for charter
elections to address the possibility of implementing single-member
districts.
We have the attorney general of Texas, having stated before the
Dallas Chamber of Commerce, that the best thing the Federal
Government could do would be to fire all civil rights attorneys. I
think it's this type of attitude at the State level that makes it
essential that we look to the Federal Government for relief when
our own State officials are looking down their noses at us with
outright impugnity.
The most recent legislative session is a further reflection of
Hispanic dilution. A redistricting plan was not adopted and there-
fore a special session has been called for July.
Since 1970, the State of Texas has grown tremendously. We are
entitled now to three new Congressmen. In 1970 Hispanics had
what amounts to four safe districts in which we would be assured
accessibility to a congressional seat. In 1980, in spite of the fact
that Hispanic population growth largely attributed, was largely
responsible for the population growth in Texas, under the last plan
discussed, Hispanic voting strength would remain the same. That is
to say, at the most we could have four Hispanic congressional
districts instead of the five to which we should be entitled. That is
PAGENO="0381"
1255
not to say that Hispanics would be guaranteed a seat, but that they
would have a good opportunity to run and be elected.
Likewise, Mexican Americans have been paired against Mexican
Americans, and Mexican Americans who did not show allegiance to
the speaker have been paired against other progressives, further
diluting and failing to maximize the voting strength of Mexican
Americans. Therefore, it seems to me that these deplorable, occa-
sionally repugnant instances of institutionalized bias reaffirm the
importance and justification for extension of the Voting Rights Act
for a minimum of 10 years. The Voting Rights Act has become
synonymous with an open, more participatory democracy. Hispanic
political presence is, indeed, gradually being felt, but it is not being
felt because we received any gifts in our laps; it is being felt
because we have had to fight legal battles in order to expand our
degree of political success.
The most phenomenal success perhaps is the story of San Anto-
nio, Tex., where the city of San Antonio a few years back filed a
protest under the Voting Rights Act which resulted in single-
member districts being implemented. We saw a more active regis-
tration among Mexican Americans; we saw more vigorous voting
patterns among Mexican Americans; and we saw, too, the election
of a young man through the single-member district system by the
name of Dr. Henry Cisneros. That was in 1977 or so. Just recently
we saw the election of Dr. Henry Cisneros as mayor which cata-
pulted him as a national leader in urban politics-not as a His-
panic, but as an American who was offered the opportunity to run
and be elected. Had it not been for the Voting Rights Act, Dr.
Cisneros would probably still be just another professor on a college
campus where he was before he began his political drive.
I think, therefore, we have to express some degree of concern
with the proposed changes as articulated by the Reagan adminis-
tration, and I wish to just highlight these in concluding my testi-
mony.
According to White House officials, as well as news reports sub-
mitted and distributed through the New York Times news service,
the administration is recommending that pre-clearance be limited
to those changes that have elicited the most objections from the
Department of Justice-reapportionment, for example, the change
from single-member to at-large district elections, and the annex-
ation issue. But what we have in many parts of South Texas and in
West Texas is the abuse of the absentee ballot, for example, but
more significantly, we have the abuse of polling places where poll-
ing places are moved from election to election to confuse the Mexi-
can American voter, where we have polling places consolidated,
with people going to the usual polling place and it will be closed.
So we need the preclearance for maneuvers of this type which are
underhanded in an effort to abridge the right to vote of minorities.
The administration also recommends changing the formula for
coverage, and it suggests that there be a bailout provision and that
those cities and counties with a clean record in recent years might
be allowed to be exempt from the coverage.
We would only ask, what constitutes a "clean record"? Who
determines the criteria? Who determines what cities and counties?
It most likely will not be Hispanics making the decision. It most
PAGENO="0382"
1256
likely will not be friends who are aware of the climate in Texas.
Therefore, that provision is very objectionable.
A third major area is where the administration proposes replac-
ing the preclearance requirement with a mandatory notice provi-
sion. It states that the Attorney General would have to seek a
court injunction if you wanted to prevent a change from taking
effect. In other words, it would eliminate the administrative veto
which we now utilize.
We have dealt not only in political matters but we have dealt as
Hispanics with the issue of police abuse, where our citizens have
been beaten, they have been assaulted, they have been killed by
law enforcement officials. We have literally crawled to the desk of
the Attorney General and asked him to file suit to protect and
safeguard the rights of American citizens who happen to be of
Mexican origin or who happen to be black citizens.
I would say the Attorney General and the Department of Justice
have not been totally responsive in initiating litigation where nec-
essary. So not only does this proposal encourage litigation by re-
quiring court injunctions to be filed, but it also will result in a
greater cost to the taxpayers. Instead of doing these things admin-
istratively, we are now going to have to take another trip to the
courthouse, and as testimony has already shown today, the trip
will probably have to be taken by a nonprofit corporation, by
community-based organizations, because we don't have the confi-
dence that the Attorney General is going to take this initiative,
particularly when it's their very office calling for the dilution and
the weakening of the Voting Rights Act that has protected us these
past years.
These are critical issues in today's world. The Attorney General
recently traveled to San Diego, Calif., to learn more about the
immigration problems first hand. We would like to invite him to
Texas to learn about the problems of blacks and Mexican Ameri-
cans in this State, to learn about the prejudicial attitude that still
exists, that caused the problems in Crockett County in the Valley,
in the coastal bin area, and all across this great State. So we are
simply imploring the committee members, imploring Congress, not
to desert us and not to desert and abandon Hispanic Americans.
We are losing on the economic front today. To lose on another
issue will represent an irreparable loss on the political front.
Therefore, with the loss of the Voting Rights Act extension, I'm
afraid that there would be a tremendous retrogression of Hispanic
voting strength. It would be a throwback to the 1950's, when
Americans who happened to be of Hispanic origin were ostracized
in their own country.
Mr. Chairman, we would urge you to support the extension and
we would urge the Congress to follow your lead in adopting a
meaningful bill that will result in a reenactment of the Voting
Rights Act as we know it today with an extension through 1982.
Thank you very much. We would be happy to answer any ques-
tions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Bonilla.
Does your colleague have a statement?
Mr. Rios. No, I have no statement.
PAGENO="0383"
1257
Mr. EDWARDS. I believe that the statement of the administra-
tion's position that you referred to was in an article in the New
York Times the day before yesterday, and I hope and I believe that
it is the result of private conversations with some people in the
Department of Justice by Mr. Robert Pear, a very responsible
reporter. As far as the subcommittee is concerned, we hope that
this will not be the views of the Department of Justice and the
White House when it comes time for the administration to express
its views. Because as you well pointed out, the suggestions they
allegedly have in mind in the newspaper article would make it
unnecessary for us to be here. They're so bad that we would rather
have the Constitution and the permanent provisions of the Voting
Rights Act rather than the provisions that you mentioned.
So we are looking down the road. We think we can prove the
civil rights bills in this country have always been the product of
both Republicans and Democrats, supported by Presidents like Ei-
senhower, President Ford, President Nixon, and we expect this
administration to act responsibly also in the true tradition of the
Republican Party. And that to turn its back on the minorities of
America, the Hispanics, the blacks and others, would be such a
massive step backwards, not only giving a signal to the country,
but to the world, to South Africa, to the Third World, to our allies
in Europe and elsewhere, that it really could not be acceptable. So
that is what this subcommittee, at least a majority of this subcom-
mittee, expects from the administration. We have asked them to
testify and we hope they won't come out with anything-and we
don't expect them to come out with anything like the article that
you referred to. I agree with you, it would be absolutely and totally
devastating.
Mr. Bonilla, we are going to have the pleasure and the honor
shortly, I believe, of hearing from the distinguished attorney gener-
al of the State of Texas, Mark White. In the Congressional Quarter-
ly, a responsible magazine that reports on congressional matters, in
the edition of April 11, 1981, page 4, Attorney General White is
quoted as saying "If Texas once discriminated against minorities,
that period has ended." He allegedly said to the reporter at Con-
gressional Quarterly that "Texas now has progressive election
laws" and he cited the State's registration system which he termed
"the best voter registration law in the Nation." The attorney gen-
eral said that a person can register by mail, on a postcard provided
by the State, the first day he comes to Texas and be eligible to vote
in Texas within 30 days.
How do you respond to that?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the attorney general is a fine and
honorable man. I consider him a friend. I supported him in previ-
ous elections. But I feel that he has not met his commitment to
Mexican Americans in this State. I feel that he has been a substan-
tial disappointment in the past couple of years in his role as
attorney general. He has appealed numerous decisions, particularly
the critical case of bilingual education, which Judge Justice has
ruled upon favorably. The State of Texas continues to appeal those
favorable decisions, those opinions favorable to our community.
The attorney general has also appealed the Federal court deci-
sion which permitted free public school education for the children
PAGENO="0384"
1258
of undocumented workers, in spite of case language to the con-
trary.
The attorney general also testified against the Voting Rights Act
in the initial phase some years ago. The attorney general's staff
has also admitted in Federal court, as a matter of open admissions
in court by way of request for admissions, that the State of Texas
has maintained a de jure system of discrimination and segregation
against Mexican Americans. These are a series of requests for
admissions which were admitted in open court and which are a
matter of public record. Perhaps the attorney general would like to
explain that and try to reconcile those admissions with the state-
ments made before the other public officials.
I would say that in spite of those requests for admissions having
been entered in court by staff attorney Susan Dasher, the attorney
general then directed other attorneys to appeal those findings,
those admissions, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
So we are very confused as to exactly where the State attorney
general stands. We are not convinced at this point that he is
vigorously pursuing a more open political system that will allow
Mexican American representation that is proportionate and equita-
ble.
Mr. EDWARDS. The attorney general has also stated, according to
this Congressional Quarterly, that it makes no sense to him to
require Texas to have bilingual ballots for every election when
there were no Hispanics in some of the State's 254 counties, and
that they should not have to submit these law changes no matter
how minute they might be.
Do you have any observations on that?
Mr. BoNIu~A. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. One of our observations
has been that sometimes these statements are made without any
followup fiscal responsibility. In other words, the blame is placed
on our shoulders.
There are many instances where the bilingual ballot has, indeed,
been printed by the State officials and placed in jurisdictions where
there is no Hispanic constituency, thereby increasing the cost of
running an election. We have never objected to the bilingual ballot
being streamlined and provided only in those jurisdictions which
would meet the general requisites set out by the Voting Rights Act.
So that if there are counties in Texas where there is no Mexican
American registration rolls, then I think the county officials, at
least in local elections, should be instructed to take proper meas-
ures.
But on the other hand, I think that that is merely an attempt to
subvert the real issue, and that is, complying with the Voting
Rights Act so as to encourage more participation by non-English
speaking people who are American citizens. I think that the right
to vote should not have a price tag placed on it.
I would like Mr. White to accompany Mr. Rios and I into any
number of Chicano precincts that have over a 90 percent Chicano
population and learn first hand how these people must rely on the
Spanish ballot, must rely on bilingual assistance at the voting poll.
So hopefully, that will not be an issue raised to confuse the overall
effort to provide a ballot that maximizes voter participation.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
PAGENO="0385"
1259
Mr Rios Could I add something to that, Mr Chairman7
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, of course. Move the mike over, please.
Mr. Rios. The Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
conducted an informal survey on exit polls of people who were
voting in the 1980 Presidential election. The results showed that 80
percent of those people asked, whether they thought the bilingual
materials were useful responded that they did think they were
useful. We have that study available for the committee.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. It will be admitted, without objection,
if you will forward that to us. (See app. - at p. -.)
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Gonzales.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following up on this bilingual ballot issue, this is a question I
asked an earlier panelist that I would like to get your views on.
That is, one of the claims that people have raised about the prob-
lems that they have with the bilingual ballot is that, in fact, it
encourages separatism possibly similar to that in Quebec, and a
separate cultural identity.
How would you respond to that?
Mr. BONILLA. I would say, if you may excuse the expression-and
not in reference to your raising it-but for those critics, that's
absolutely asinine. Because we are already a separated nation,
black and white, and in Texas brown and white. Our Mexican
Americans live in communities that are unpaved, that have poor
sanitation, that don't have adequate sewer facilities. We have al-
ready been segregated in our public schools. So don't talk to us,
anyone, about separatism and about isolation or about Quebec,
because we have been placed in that position by denying us the
very right that we're seeking to expand today, and that is the right
to yote.
By placing that ballot in English and Spanish-my mother, who
is now 73 and has limited English ability, will vote in every elec-
tion. By doing that in all cities in this State, we will encourage and
increase voter participation so that we can have public officials
who don't treat Mexican Americans and blacks with indignity and
disrespect, so that they become sensitive and that they pave those
streets and make our citizens more productive by offering them
better jobs-in effect, addressing the tough, economic gut issues
that affect the poor. So on the contrary, and consistent with the
statements of earlier witnesses, the bilingual ballot encourages
greater patriotism, a greater belief in the American spirit and
Constitution, by encouraging and allowing people to vote in greater
numbers.
Ms. GONZALES. Maybe you can explain also-one of the issues
that was raised earlier was the fact that for some people it's very
hard to understand why it is that some people need to vote in
Spanish when, in fact, they've either been born here or have.
become U.S. citizens, where there's a requirement that~ English be
spoken.
How would you respond to those kinds of concerns?
Mr. BONILLA. Well, Mr. White, of course, through his admissions
in open court-or the State of Texas, through the admissions in
open court-have admitted that the State of Texas has discriminat-
ed against Mexican Americans, that this is a generation of abuse
83-679 0 - 82 - .25 P6.2
PAGENO="0386"
1260
and neglect, that we have been undereducated or not educated at
all, and the result is we have not had the abundance of economic
opportunity that would enable us to become proficient in English
as well as we would like.
We also have to understand that we have a proximity to Mexico
that other immigrants do not have. We also have to understand
that our immigration problems are far from resolved, and we need
to understand that this problem is going to become more acute. A
recent commission headed by Willie Brandt of West Germany
stated that Latin America poses the greatest threat to world peace,
and I think that poses problems of immigration that will continue
to result in a flow of Spanish-speaking people into America, and
those people are going to come into the border States, bringing
their language and their culture, so that the problem of Spanish
and English will always be with us and it's time that we recognize
that bilingualism is a real asset and we need to utilize and maxi-
mize the potential that these Spanish-speaking people have to
offer.
Our Spanish-speaking community is rich in vitality and produc-
tivity and we simply want to be given the same opportunity to
which other Americans are entitled.
Ms. GONZALES. I have one last question.
in earlier testimony it was indicated that, in fact, some progress
has been made in terms of increased registration and an increase
in the number of Hispanics and blacks elected in Texas under the
Voting Rights Act.
To your knowledge, how much of this prOgress has,~ in fact, come
about because of the voluntary, positive steps taken by local or
State government officials-for example, in voluntarily changing
from at-large to single member district elections because of the fact
they realize that would bring in and involve more minorities in the
political system?
Mr. BONILLA. Not a single one. Local and State officials have not
moved vigorously to protect and enforce voting and political rights.
We have a "takeover syndrome" ,that affects the Anglo population
of this State, and those of us who are activists in trying to focus
upon the positive nature of a participatory democracy are con-
demned and attacked as being shrill and as being undemocratic.
The fact is that our State has not moved expeditiously to protect
our rights. In almost every instance-and probably in every in-
stance where there has been an increase in Hispanic participation,
whether in San Antonio or in Frio County, or in Seguin, or in
Houston, or in Lubbock-it has been either through letters of
objections issued by the Department of Justice or through litigation
initiated by MALDEF or the Southwest Voter Registration Project.
We also have to keep in mind, as was offered in the testimony in
Washington, D.C., on this issue, that there have been more letters
of objections filed by the Department of Justice against the State of
Texas in these short 6 years than there have been against any
other State since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. I
think that tells you a great deal about the temperament, the
mentality, and the distaste of our efforts to gain economic and
political parity in this State.
PAGENO="0387"
1261
Ms. GONZALES. I take it YOU would then not agree with the goal
of three of the bills that have been introduced before the subcom-
mittee that would delete both the bilingual provisions and section 5
as it relates to Texas? You're statement then is that you feel that
kind of legislation would not be warranted at this time?
Mr. BONILLA. Absolutely. It's a return to a State's right mental-
ity that left minorities on an island of economic dispair in the
forties and fifties.
We talk a great deal about the burdens on local and State
officials. Perhaps that's what the Attorney General will tell you
today, that it's a great burden. Well, it's also a great burden on
Mexican Americans and blacks and other poor people not to be
offered good jobs, be given a good education, because they don't
have responsive public officials. The whole effort here is not to
take over; it's to make our people more productive, to make them
enjoy the good American life. They are being denied this opportuni-
ty today and have been for the generations of Texas political
history because we have had nonresponsive, unresponsive political
leadership at the top.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
I would just clarify for the record that the bills that I referred to
were by Congressmen McClory, McCloskey, and Mr. Thomas.
Thank you,
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, if I could add one point, we do have
a meeting with Attorney General Smith on Monday at 2:30 at the
Department of Justice. It will be interesting to determine whether
or not his position corresponds with the information in the New
York Times.
I would like to know if it would be possible for us to submit some
memorandum or some other data that we may learn from those
meetings to this committee to be included with the testimony you
have heard today?
Mr. EDWARDS. It certainly would be accepted for the record.
Mr. Boyd.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bonilla, I would like to go back to your representation of the
administration's position for a moment if I might.
Was the chairman correct, that your representation was gleaned
from Robert Pear's article in the New York Times?
Mr. BONILLA. Yes, sir.
Mr. BOYD. Well, I talked with Mr. Pear before he wrote that
article, and the minority on the subcommittee has been in pretty
consistent contact with the Department of Justice and the White
House throughout these proceedings. Mr. Pear's article was intend-
ed to reflect a range of issues, a range of alternatives, which were
presented by certain members of the civil rights community when
they met with the Attorney General. The Attorney General has
made a commitment to listen to all points of view with regard to
this issue, and you have just represented that you are one more
link of that chain of representations who are scheduled to appear
before the Department of Justice next week.
So far as I know, and so far as the minority membership of this
subcommittee knows, no official position has been taken by the
PAGENO="0388"
1262
administration, and it would be premature on your part to suggest
that there has been.
I have no further comments to make. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BONILLA. Interpreting this article as a matter of public infor-
mation and as a matter of public knowledge, I would rather react
and bring this to the attention of the committee than to have to
say I'm sorry I didn't bring it up later.
Also, you will recall in a meeting with President Reagan held
earlier this spring that the President stated he had not taken a
stand on the Voting Rights Act, but that he did feel that it was
objectionable that one region of the country be penalized and,
therefore, he thought it should be applied nationally.
That is an argument being advanced in certain quarters in Con-
gress, which is a very weak argument, and is merely an effort to
insure defeat of the Voting Rights Act because it will not be
enforceable on a national level and would not be economically
feasible to expand it to that level.
Mr. BOYD. Well, that presumes, Mr. Bonilla, that the national
coverage you're contemplating is national preclearance. That is not
necessarily the case. As you probably know, the Voting Rights Act
can legitimately be applied nationally. In fact, to some degree, it
already is. It can be applied both by means of nationwide preclear-
ance, which admittedly would raise severe constitutional questions;
it could be applied by the use of a trigger percentage population in
certain portions of the country which could enact nationwide cover-
age; it could be applied by the transferral of administrative proce-
dures to section 3(c) of the act, thereby incorporating the judicial
procedures now present under the act. That, too, would be nation-
wide. So I think it would be inappropriate again for you to suggest
that anyone who abstractly alludes to the Voting Rights Act as
having nationwide coverage is implicitly trying to kill the provi-
sions of that act.
Mr. B0NILLA. I certainly hope I'm wrong on that point, sir.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Bonilla, I wish you bon voyage in that meet-
ing with the Attorney General on Monday, and I hope in the great
traditions of the Republican Party, which is, after all, the party
that first was a leader in civil rights legislation more than 100
years ago, that your meeting will be immensely successful and the
message will be that this administration will support an extension
of the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. B0NJLIA. I'm hopeful it will be, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. We thank both of you for your testimony today.
Mr. B0NILLA. Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. I believe now that we will have the honor of
receiving testimony from the attorney general of the State of
Texas, Mr. Mark White.
Mr. White, it's nice to see you again. You have testified before
this subcommittee in 1975. I was privileged at that time to be the
chairman. We are certainly glad to have you here.
PAGENO="0389"
1263
TESTIMONY OF MARK WHITE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to be here
before this subcommittee. I regret that you have come this far and
I'm not in a position to give you a more extensive statement today,
but I did not wish for your appearance in Texas and my absence
from this hearing to indicate that we were less than concerned
about the problems brought about. by these hearings. To the con-
trary, I could not be more concerned.
The reason that I have not been able to prepare extensive re-
marks at this time is because I have spent the last few days of our
legislative session working for the passage of what I believe to be a
very effective bilingual education bill to. afford that education that
my predecessor on this podium referred to. I have spent many
hours trying to make certain that Texas does address the issues
associated with those who have some language other than English
as their first language. That bill has now passed the legislature in
Texas by overwhelming numbers and I hope we will see the signa-
turé of the Governor placed upon it within the next few days.
Also, my absence, or my lack of ability to give a more complete
statement is partly due to the fact that I spent the past several
weeks reviewing evidence in association with our lawsuit filed
yesterday against the Klu Klux Klan for activities involving para-
military training which is in contradiction to the civil laws of
Texas. For those two reasons and others, I would ask for the
opportunity to present a more extensive statement after I have had
a chance to review the record made before the committee and also
to review the record in Texas experienced in the last 5 years.
At the passage of the Voting Rights Act that included the State
of Texas under the bilingual requirements, the State legislature
happened to be in session at that time, and I think this committee
should realize that we are not holding hearings today in our State,
and our legislature did not have to reconsider the effect of renew-
ing laws that had been passed in 1975 in Texas to do just exactly
what the Voting Rights Act is intended to do;. and that is, to
protect the right to vote for each citizen.
We have a permanent law which outlaws discrimination, intimi-
dation, or coercion in the exercise of the right to vote. It's a
permanent law that provides stronger punishment than the Feder-
al law, and it is also a permanent law. I believe those sections
providing the protections of the Voting Rights Act at the Federal
level should be made permanent law, and I think they should be
made to extend nationwide; that discrimination, coercion, or in-
timidation in exercising the right to vote should be just as great a
crime in Michigan as anywhere else, Texas, Florida, or California.
That is a permanent part that I would like to see made permanent
in the law.
In reference to remarks made by my predecessor on the podium,
I think it's only fair to bring to this committee's attention that I
believe-and I would refer back to the record as being a more
accurate reflection-that Texas, during the five. years under the
Act, all of its political subdivisions have submitted in excess of
15,000 submissions. Texas has more political subdivisions and more
voting entities than all the Old South put together. And because of
PAGENO="0390"
1264
that, I think you will find the burden associated with preclearance
is one which has been brought to the attention of the previous
sponsors of this legislation.
I have tried to make constructive criticism and suggestions on
how we might improve the Voting Rights Act and how it would
apply to the State of Texas in the future. Two suggestions I have
made-and I think one of those has been adopted today by Con-
gressman Krueger-and that is; based on the fact that out of
15,000-plus submissions, I believe-and here again, let the record
be accurate; the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department
can give the precise number, but somewhere in the neighborhood
of 130 objections out of 15,000 submissions. I would suggest to the
committee that it would be a more appropriate use of the very
valuable time of those individuals in charge of pre-clearance, that
they be focusing all of their attentions in the areas where there are
objections and thus not be wasting efforts on those 14,000-plus
times when there was no objection, in which there was no objection
lodged or submitted. I think this can be done by adequate notice
provisions prior to any change in the election procedures so that an
individual citizen can make known his objection to those changes
and how it would affect him in the voting process.
That, to me, makes a great deal of sense. I think it would also
relieve this bill of the criticism that it is wasteful in the efforts of
those people who are in charge of protecting the right to vote.
The other suggestion I have made would be one to follow very
closely the Texas law on bilingual bills, bilingual ballots. The Texas
statute passed in 1975 requires bilingual ballots in our State, and if
the Voting Rights Act today were not extended, the people would
Texas would have the following protections built into State law:
Protections against coercion, intimidation or discrimination in the
exercise of the right~ to vote. It's a felony in the State of Texas.
The protections of a bilingual ballot are permanent law in Texas
today. That bilingual ballot law I think is effective because of the
following reasons: No. 1, much of the resentment which is being
cast about this statute is because of the fact that the Texas submis-
sion of the Voting Rights Act is statewide~ We are required to have
a bilingual ballot in every voting precinct statewide, so we run into
the incongruity of having many counties in our State where there
are no Spanish surnamed citizens and, thus, we are required to
print at some expense and a great deal of consternation on the part
of local citizens a Spanish ballot. That type of expenditure is waste-
ful, I think, and is also counterproductive of our efforts of trying to
eliminate discrimination among our people.
It has been a point of concern of many citizens who think why do
we have Spanish ballots when there are no people in this county
who have any ability to speak or read Spanish.
The Texas approach to the bilingual ballot has been to provide
Spanish ballots where there are Spanish-speaking people and there
may be an apparent need for a Spanish ballot. I think that's
thoughtful and I think it's also effective.
Also, in Texas' we have a very lengthy publication on many
issues involved in the elections process, on constitutional issues and
on bond issues, where there is a great amount of verbiage involved
in the publication of those issues so the people will be aware of
PAGENO="0391"
1265
what they are voting upon. In those counties where we have no
Spanish surnamed population, we are still required to print those
publications in Spanish. That is a great expense to the taxpayer
and I think gives absolutely no protection to the Spanish-speaking
person who is sought to be protected by the law.
Those are two points which I would submit to this committee
that I feel should be reviewed. I would urge this committee to vote
for the permanent emplacement of those proscriptions against coer-
cion, against discrimination, in the exercise of. the right to vote.
I would be pleased to submit to this committee a statement of
facts concerning prosecution of alleged violations under the Voting
Rights Act. I will submit that to this committee under oath. I will
also be available at subsequent hearings, if the committee pleases,
to respond to questions arising from that submission.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General.
Do I understand that you do not want to have any questions
today?
Mr. WHITE. Well, I would rather limit my questions to the state-
ments I made, and I would also, if I could, before I conclude,
mention a couple of points that I think have not been stressed.
It seems we have had much negative comment today about Texas
and the voting rights of Texans. You did refer to the voter registra-
tibn law in Texas and I am very pleased to inform the committee
that should you choose to become a resident of Texas, you can do so
today by your presence in the State and your intention of remain-
ing here as a citizen. Upon those coincidental events, Mr. Edwards,
we would be pleased to register you today as a voting citizen within
our State and 30 days from now you could participate in the
elections in our State.
We have moved a long way in Texas from the days of the poll
tax, and I'm very proud of the fact that we have made that move
because those days were not our State's greatest. Our voter regis-
tration law today is a positive law which has an outreach feature
to it. We asked the Federal Government to give us postage-free
registration. The Federal Government refused to do that, but the
Texas Legislature has now provided funds to pay for the postage
for our voter registration applications. We can do that by mail, and
as I said before, on your first day in our State you are eligible to
register to vote in the State.
I think hopefully that will typify the Texas response to the need
to protect the right to vote.
I would be pleased to answer questions concerning the statement
that I made, and if you would give me any idea of what questions
you might have that I might not be able to respond directly to
today, I would also try to obtain answers for you at a later date.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General.
I might point out that with regard to your statement about
making the provisions regarding coercion and so forth permanent,
they already are permanent under section 11 of the Voting Rights
Act. So that type of activity is criminal and forbidden by Federal
law in every State of the Union.
You also mentioned the tough Texas laws that proscribe discrim-
ination against minorities in voting; is that correct?
PAGENO="0392"
1266
Mr. WHITE. Actually, what we have, if there is any intimidation
or coercion in the exercise of the right to vote, that is proscribed by
law. You do not have to prove it was racially oriented.
Mr. EDWARDS. And has your office been active in enforcing that
law? Do you have--
Mr. WHITE. In the State of Texas, prosecutorial authority resides
with the district attorney for felonies. I think--
Mr. EDWARDS. Have they been active?
Mr. WHITE. I have not made a survey of any of their prosecuto-
rial efforts in this regard. I have made a survey of the Federal
Government's prosecutorial efforts in regard to their statute and
found that they have never filed criminal charges against, anyone
in Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. So it's very possible that none of the district
attorneys have filed, either, right?
Mr. WHITE. None of the Federal district attorneys have.
Mr. EDWARDS. No, I meant the district attorneys in the counties
of Texas.
Mr. WHITE. As I said, I have not made a survey and I am not
prepared to-I will be pleased to try and find out--
Mr. EDWARDS. I think we would be pleased to receive that for the
record. For the moment, let's get back to the bilingual ballots.
which are not the heart of the Voting Rights Act--
Mr. WHITE. Right. It's an important feature.
Mr. EDWARDS. The evidence Is very clear and the testimony is
very clear throughout the country that section 5 is really the heart
of the bill. That's the "nitty-gritty" of this bill.
For a lot of Californians, including the area that I represent,
there is the requirement for bilingual ballots. However, the attor-
ney general's guidelines would not require, at least in California,
and I presume in Texas, printing of more than 50 or 100 bilingual
ballots in Spanish, say, where there are only 50 or 100 residents
who would be appropriately using ballots in Spanish. The attorney
general's guidelines say that it's up to the county registrars to
target, to identify where these particular minorities live who would
require and could use the ballots.
Why isn't that done in Texas?
Mr. WHITE. Well, I believe there's a misconception about those
guidelines, and I think in all fairness the fact that the Attorney
General may have issued a guideline, the fact that we have over
5,000 voting precincts in the State, those people in charge of hold-
ing the elections are seldom ever lawyers; the fact that we have a
difficult time of getting people even to work in the elections proc-
ess-we have recently raised the pay for those individuals to $3 an
hour and that's below the minimum wage, these are some of the
difficulties involved.
I don't think that those guidelines, if they do apply-We have
been informed at one time that Texas was obligated statewide to
have a bilingual ballot in every polling place. Now, I do know that
because that was told to me when I was secretary of state. That
was the obligation that was extended to the State when this bill
was passed.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I think that if you have a registrar of voters
who is cooperative and who understands the problem will do like
PAGENO="0393"
1267
the registrar, of voters in one of our great counties 500 miles from
where I live in San Diego, where he addresses the law by putting
up within the polling place a ballot on the wall in Spanish that has
been enlarged. That takes care of the act.
Mr. WHITE. That's precisely what our State law would permit. At
the time we were becoming initiated under the Voting Rights Act,
they did not say that our State law would be satisfactory. I' think
our State law reflects accurately the needs. If there has been some
intervening change, I certainly would hope that our State election
officials would make that fact known to all those people who print
the ballots.
Mr. EDWARDS. I would hope so, too, because it can be a source of
irritation and misunderstanding by people. It fans the flames of
racism to unnecessarily print anything that people don't necessar-
ily like. We've had that experience in California and I would hope
we can do better in both of our States.
The last question I have-and I have limited my questions to
your testimony as it's the only fair thing to do-but I wonder if you
could just describe briefly how the Voting Rights Act has worked
in Texas for the last 5 years. Hasn't it really done an awful lot of
good things, registering people and a larger participation of Blacks
and Hispanics in the political process in the true American spirit?
Mr. WHITE. One of the things that I was disappointed in was the
report from Mr. Caddy, that apparently we have not done quite as
well in voter registration as I would have hoped. Back when I was
secretary of state, our voter registration rolls were 6.3 million
citizens and we had a population of approximately 12 million
people. We have increased almost 2 million in population in that
intervening time and we have not increased but 300,000 on our
voter registration rolls.
I would suggest that there needs to be more emphasis on the
part of the State to extend, as we did in 1976, a voter registration
program which proved to be the most effective in the Nation,, a
voluntary program. It was without expense to the taxpayers of
Texas, other than the printing of applications for voter registra-
tion. We secured the support of most every major' supermarket,
most convenience stores, and we were able to put together a
statewide voter registration campaign, including bilingual materi-
als, public service statements, all of which was designed to enhance
the opportunity for registration in our State.
I think you have seen rather dramatic increases in the numbers
of people who are today registered to vote as contrasted to the
1971-72 era. I think we need to continually maintain an outreach
program, in a sense, to see that every citizen that comes to this
State is offered an opportunity to register.
I don't think the Voting Rights Act really does that work for us.
It is going to require public officials who are willing to get out and
do that work.
The law is a static device. People working within the law make
that law work. I believe that what we need to make certain of is
our public officials continue to maintain an aggressive approach
toward voter registration. That means starting at the high school
level, where they become 17 years and 11 months of age and are
PAGENO="0394"
1268
eligible to register. They should be contacted statewide and we
have made efforts to do that.
I am no longer secretary of state and I have other responsibilities
that are not quite so directly attuned to the elections process, but
certainly that is one area which the State should take an affirma-
tive role.
Mr. EDWARDS. You mentioned Ambassador Krueger's suggestion,
which is roughly that section 5 be extended and that the covered
jurisdictions must still send in any change, but that there would
have to be Federal provision for notice so that people in the cov-
ered jurisdictions and organizations would know that there is in
the mill a change in voter procedures and that then the Federal
action in Washington would be triggered by a complaint or a letter
of protest from the local people.
I believe your testimony is that you liked Ambassador Krueger's
idea.
Mr. WHITE. I think the biggest criticism of the Voting Rights Act
has been the unnecessary amount of paperwork flowing to Wash-
ington over matters which, by actual count, of some 15,000 submis-
sions, some 1,309 objections, tends to be more oriented towards
submission and less objection.
if we can turn this around and focus on the problem areas, then
certainly we have done two things-we have permitted the Federal
Government to focus on areas where they have some concern, and
we have also eliminated waste, which makes a world of sense, I
think.
I have not heard Congressman Krueger's statement. I have been
advised that it was along the lines that you suggest, and I certainly
would support anything that would eliminate the 14,000 submis-
sions that were not objected to.
But at the same time I want to stress that any individual citizen
would have the right to make an objection, that there be notice
before a change is made. Most of Texas law requires notice today. I
think that it is feasible to work within that framework and to
make certain we're really focusing our attentions on the problem
areas.
Many of the things that are referred to by some of the people I
have heard testify were brought about by federal court action as*
opposed to the Voting Rights Act section of the Justice Depart-
ment. So it is important for this committee to differentiate between
the source of that remedial relief.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I want to be fair about it, Mr. Attorney
General. Mr. Krueger's suggestion is that the submissions in all
cases would still have to be made, but that the Justice Department
would only look at them in the event, after publication back home,
some local person or local group would pose an objection.
Mr. WHITE. I would like to offer a plan along these lines. It may
not be four square with what he suggested, but one which I would
submit in writing which would maintain that right to object and
maintain those protections, at the same time eliminating any possi-
ble wasteful effort on the part of local officials in preparation or on
the reviewing agency's point.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
PAGENO="0395"
1269
I might add that we have had no evidence to the effect that the
submission is any burden to speak of on the local jurisdictions.
Mr. WHITE. Let me say that you may not have heard that but I
have, that the effort in putting together some of these submissions
is rather significant. I don't know if you had any local officials
testify or not, but through the years they have made remarks
about how much paperwork and effort went into the submission,
and much of the time there is rather little if any comment upon it.
Most of that comment I think arises from objections made locally
anyway, and I would like to eliminate the wasteful paperwork
effort if we could and at the same time maintain protection.
Mr. EDWARDS. Counsel?
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our understanding has been that basically, for most of the sub-
missions that are made, all that is required is-and we hope to
hear from the Department of Justice on this later-all that is
required is really the mailing of a letter that attaches the particu-
lar change that has been suggested with a paragraph or two de-
scribing what the impact of that change would be.
Is that what you're referring to in terms of being burdensome?
Mr. WHITE. Well, as I said before, I haven't been Secretary of
State since 1977, and at that time there was a great volume of
materials that were being flowed through to Washington. What the
current situation is, I frankly am not aware.
Ms. GONZALES. I do have a question on a point that you made,
and that is, you indicated there had only been 130 objections-and
that's what it is from the Department of Justice figures that we
have-about 130 objections to changes made over the last 5 years.
We have heard testimony that indicated each of those objections
is a possible lawsuit had there not been the administrative process
in place, that in fact each of those may in fact equal a lawsuit. If
that's the case, wouldn't 130 lawsuits in the voting rights area over
a period of 5 years be very significant?
Mr. WHITE. I have 17,000 lawsuits pending in my office today, so
130 looks like a real deal.
Ms. GONZALES. OK. Even if it impacts--
Mr. WHITE. No, I don't mean that lightly. The significance of the
protection of the right to vote is the primary point underlying our
whole democratic system. On that, I don't think there's any dis-
agreement. The 130 lawsuits may very well be extremely signifi-
cant. The Voting Rights Act may have played some role in it. In
some cases I happen to know the Voting Rights Act had nothing to
do with the litigation involved.
It would be a guess on my part to make any direct response to
your question without having a chance to review each of those 130-
some-odd lawsuits. But certainly, if they're able to work out their
differences, that is a beneficial thing, I think, and avoids litigation
if it can be done. Oftentimes that has not been the case and we
have involved ourselves in litigation anyway.
I am not here today to defend or to support those people who
were in the wrong in the way they went about redistricting or
whatever they may have done. I am fixing to have to defend, if
litigation arises, the redistricting plans of the Legislature.
PAGENO="0396"
1270
One of the misconceptions I think on the part of my predecessor
in this chair is that the attorney general gets to be whimsical
about which lawsuits he gets to defend and which ones he gets to
surrender. I am sworn to defend them all. I think the people of this
State are entitled to know that their lawyer is going to try to
uphold the laws that are passed and to use the strength of the
office to do so.
If they're wrong in passing the laws, then certainly the court
ought. to set those laws aside and they haven't had any hesitency to
do so.
Ms. GONZALES. One last question. If, in fact, it was required that
there be an objection interposed by a local community prior to the
Department of Justice really reviewing a particular change,
wouldn't that be a particularly heavy burden on the few resources
that existed in local communities, through organizations such as
MALDEF and the Southwest Voter Education Project, that deal
not only with one specific issue but the whole range of issues, so
that with those few resources, what they would be forced to do is
really pay much more attention to every single voting change that
came to their attention, because otherwise the sense would be that
if they didn't really pay attention and object, that nobody else may
and, thus, that kind of change may go through.
Mr. WHITE. Well, let's take, for instance, a change in the precinct
polling place. If the persons affected by that, the voters in that
precinct, feel like it's not inconvenient for them to accept that
change, then I don't know what greater concern anyone would
have than they would have. If they are given notice of the change
and given an opportunity to say, "Hey, wait a minute-" and one
person; I'm not talking about an organization has to be formed to
make an objection. I'm talking about one person can make that
objection. I think that's the important feature, that every citizen in
this State, or in this Nation for that matter, be given all those
protections. It doesn't have to be an organization to respond. Any
citizen can respond, to make their objection known and let that
trigger, as to whether or not that change was made in a discrimi-
natory purpose of effect.
To me, that would do a great deal toward solving our problems of
14,000 of these submissions, which really we focus all of our atten-
tion on 120 or 130 problems.
Ms. GONZALES. I would just make one suggestion. You mentioned
you would be writing us more about this, and that one issue to
keep in mind is that currently the Department of Justice has 60
days from the time the change is submitted to it to in fact either
preclear it or object to it, so that one issue that would have to be
addressed is when does that 60 day period start running; does it
start running from the time they get the objection or from the time
that they find out about a change, just when--
Mr. WHITE. The mechanics that we're talking about is certainly
important and we'll try to keep that in mind when we make our
suggestion.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PAGENO="0397"
1271
Mr Attorney General, I take it from your remarks that you do
not favor the extension of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in its
present form; is that a fair impression?
Mr. WHITE. What I have tried to do is to give suggestions, and I
have not made any statement concerning its extension or other-
wise. I find that the Congress makes those decisions. The attorney
general in Texas has very little to say about that.
Mr. BOYD. But I think the chairman made reference earlier to
some statement you allegedly had made along those lines.
Mr. WHITE. I did, back in 1975, make remarks about how we
supported the protection but we were concerned about the pre-
clearance section. We never did object to the protections that were
built into that act.
Mr. BOYD. Just the procedures.
Mr. WHITE. Some of the procedures we were concerned about,
and I have expressed my concern today about those procedures. I
have offered constructive remarks on how they can be improved.
Mr. BOYD. Do you think that the language minority prOvisions of
the act, which expire on August 6, 1985, are because of their
history somewhat severable from the racial minority provisions
which expire earlier, August 6, 1982?
Mr. WHITE. Well, no matter what you do in 1982, it has no effect
upon the State of Texas. We have the Voting Rights Act extended
through 1985.
Mr. BOYD. Only for the language minority provisions. The racial
minority provisions expire on August 6, 1982 in Texas.
Mr. WHITE. I don't believe that's correct.
Mr. BOYD. I stand corrected, then.
But you don't think, then, that either one of those two provisions
are severable?
Mr. WHITE. I never have viewed the protection of the right to
vote as a severable issue. I think it's a unified issue and applies to
every citizen of the State, without regard to their ethnic origin.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. We
look forward to hearing further from you. We do appreciate your
coming here today~
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS,
Austin, Tex., August 11, 1981.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: Enclosed is the written, statement on the Voting
Rights Act which you requested from me following my testimony at your Subcom-
mittee hearing.
I hope my statement will be useful for the hearing record, despite the current
date being past the July 31 deadline.
Sincerely,
MARK WHITE.
Enclosure.
VOTING RIGHTS STATEMENT
(By Mark White, Attorney General of Texas)
I would like to take this opportunity, first, to outline the positive steps which
Texas has taken with its own Voting Rights Act passed in 1975 to protect the right to
PAGENO="0398"
1272
vote for each citizen in our State. Secondly, I want to clear up any misconceptions
which may have occurred about my support of any law, federal or state, which
increases and enhances one of the most fundamental liberties in our country, the
right of every qualified individual to vote for those people who make, administer
and, in some cases, interpret the laws which govern our nation.
Senat Bills 1046 and 1047, introduced by former Senator Raul Longoria of the
South Texas city of Edinburg, became the core of the Texas Voting Rights Act
which was signed into law by former Governor Dolph Briscoe on June 20, 1975.
These bills sought to amend a number of statutes to increase the penalties for
officials for failing to perform their duty under the law or for misusing the power
given them by the statutes. Earlier, on May 16, 1975, Governor Briscoe signed into
law S.B. 165, introduced be Senator Jack Ogg from Houston, mandating the use of
Spanish language election materials. The Texas Voting Rights Act, together with
our bilingual requirements, is a permanent law, a positive law with outreach, which
outlaw discrimination, intimidation or coercion in the exercise of the right to vote.
Not only is our State law a permanent law, but it provides stronger punishments
than the federal law.
Article 1.03 of the Texas Election Code was amended by S.B~ 1046. It gives the
Secretary of State, who is the chief elections officer of the State, the authority to
appoint upon his initiative election inspectors to "observe all functions, activities, or
procedures conducted pursuant to the election laws of this State." Should he fail to
act, such appointments are mandated upon the written request of fifteen or more
residents of a county.
Under S.B. 1046, the duties of poil watchers were expanded to provide that
watchers could "be" conveniently near the presiding judge rather than requiring
that they "sit" conveniently near, thereby ending some unfortunate applications of
previous law. Additionally, any person who prevented a watcher from observing
election activities could be tried for a Class A misdemeanor. Finally, the Texas
Secretary of State may now refer any violations observed by these observers to the
Attorney General to a prosecuting attorney for appropriate action.
Article 2.01 was amended to eliminate the opening of the polls as late as 8 a.m. in
some small counties because of the inhibiting effect upon voters who must report to
their jobs before that hour. The Election Code permits all persons within the polling
place and those waiting to enter to vote.
Other amendments provided for stiffer penalties for violations of the Election
Code. S.B. 1046 made it a third degree felony for any poll official, inspector or
watcher to divulge how a person had voted; and a third degree felony to vote
illegally or to instigate illegal voting, to swear falsely as to one's qualifications as a
voter, and to willfully alter or destroy ballots. It is a Class A misdemeanor to vote
or attempt to vote more than once in any election. It is a third degree felony for a
messenger to tamper with ballots or to allow them to be tampered with, for an
official to fail to keep the ballot box secure, for anyone to use physical or economic
intimidation on a person for having voted for or against a proposition, or to force
that person to reveal how he voted, and for anyone to induce a person to make false
statements on a voter registration application. A section was added to the Texas
Election Code to encourge the participation of Spanish-speaking voters by having
presiding judges in appropriate areas make reasonable efforts to appoint clerks
fluent in English and Spanish. Most of the penalties that were changed became
stiffer under this statute, from providing for small fines or time in jail, to two to ten
years in the State prison and larger fines.
The Texas Voting Rights Act cannot be considered as a separate entity out of
context with our liberal system of voter registration in Texas, and the provision for
bilingual election and registration materials, also adopted by the 64th Legislative
Session.
Texas has a permanent voter registration system, and in 1977 the law was
amended to provide postage-free registration. The State decided to institute postage-
free registration when an attempt to persuade the federal government to provide
this service failed. With postage-free registration, every mail box became a deputy
registrar.
When I served as Texas Secretary of State, in line with my belief that the right to
vote is not just the right of some but the right of all citizens, I launched a massive
voter information campaign designed to encourage Texans to register. This exten-
sive media program which was conducted in English and Spanish, included informa-
tion regarding qualifications to register, places to register, and deadlines for regis-
tration.
Registration applications were distributed to grocery and convenience stores, state
agencies, high schools, utility companies, political parties, and other participating
groups. Changes in the registration law made these applications available by statute
PAGENO="0399"
1273
to "organizations, businesses and political subdivisions," which made it easier to
conduct registration~ programs. Additionally, we provided in our office a toll-free
number, or voter "hotline," which was staffed by bilingual personnel to provide
registration and application information to any citizen who called in requesting
such information. We were able to put together an entire statewide campaign,
including bilingual material and public service statements; which was designed to
enhance the opportunity for registration within our State.
Generally speaking, any person who is 18 years old, a United States citizen and a
resident of Texas can vote in Texas. To vote, a person must be registered, and an
individual can register when he or she is 17 years and 11 months old in order to
vote at age 18. Registration is effective on the 30th day after the application is
received by the county Voter Registrar, who usually is the County Tax Assessor-
Collector. Once a person has registered under Texas voter registration law, he or
she remains registered to vote for life provided he notifies the County Tax Assessor-
Collector of any change of address. The husband, wife, father, mother, son or
daughter of any Texan entitled to register to vote may act as an agent for such
person in applying for registration, provided the agent is a registered voter of the
county.
I think we have seem dramatic increases in the numbers of people who today are
registered to vote in Texas in contrast to 1971-1972. We need not only to maintain
but to increase our efforts toward an outreach program to see that every citizen who
comes to our State is offered the opportunity to register. I do not believe the Voting
Rights Act alone in its current form does that work for us. The law is a static
device. It is the people working within the law that make the law work. We need to
make certain that our public officials continue to work with the law to maintain an
aggressive approach toward voter registration.
The Texas Voting Rights Act requires that election materials and ballots be
printed in both English and Spanish in all elections conducted in counties or
political subdivisions in which five percent or more of the inhabitants are "persons
of Spanish origin or descent." However, the Federal Voting Rights Act on its face
appears to require our State to have a bilingual ballot in every voting precinct
statewide. Thus, unless we are willing to rely upon some questionable Justice
Department policies which in effect permit exemption for some areas of Texas, we
run into the incongruity of being required to print, at considerable expense, a ballot
in both English and Spanish in counties where there are no Spanish surnamed
citizens. This expenditure is not only wasteful, it is a point of concern to many
citizens who do not understand why we have Spanish ballots in a county where
there are no people with the ability to speak and read Spanish. Texas' approach has
been to provide ballots in Spanish where there are Spanish-speaking people, where
there is a need for Spanish ballots. We issue lengthy publications on issues involving
the election process, and on constitutional issues and bond issues on which the
public must be informed in order to vote intelligently. Federal law appears to
require that these publications be printed in Spanish even in counties where there
are no Spanish-speaking citizens.
My first suggestion, therefore, would be that you review these requirements with
the idea that federal law would be amended in this area to track the Texas Voting
Rights Act, which is both more thoughtful and more effective, and certainly more
efficient and more economical than the federal law.
Today the State of Texas finds itself in the apparently contradictory position of
wholeheartedly supporting the goals of those who favor the extension of the Federal
Voting Rights Act and opposing certain unnecessary and counterproductive aspects
of that Act. We support the goals because the right to vote is the keystone of our
Democratic system. We oppose certain parts of the Act for several reasons.
The Federal Voting Rights Act does not recognize the progress that Texas has
made in the past ten years in eliminating any vestiges of discrimination in the
election process which may have been present. Under Section 5 of the Act, the pre-
clearance section, in the last five years all of the political subdivisions of Texas have
submitted in excess of 15,000 submissions. Texas has more political subdivisions and
more voting entities than all of the Old South put together. Out of those 15,000
submissions, some 130 have been objected to by the Department of Justice. The
submissions alone involve a tremendous amount of unnecessary paperwork flowing
to Washington over matters which prove not to be relevant to the election process. I
would suggest that it would be a more appropriate use of the valuable time of those
individuals in charge of pre-clearance that they focus their attention on those areas
where there are alleged objections by individual voters. If adequate notice is pro-
vided prior to any change in the election procedure, any individual citizen can make
* known his or her objections to those changes and how such a change would affect
him or her in the voting process. Such objections would then be forwarded to the
PAGENO="0400"
1274
Justice Department for review, and the proposed changes would be cleared or
objected to by federal officials. Preferably, differences could be negotiated and
worked out without litigation; if not, the matter would be settled in court. For
example, if there is a proposed change in the location of the precinct polling place,
the voters in that precinct should be given adequate notice of such a change. If any
voter feels that the change would be unfair or inconvenient, that individual could
make his objection known and an inquiry could be initiated to determine if the
change would be discriminatory in any way. I feel that this process would achieve
the same goals that we are all striving for in the election process, and would
eliminate waste on the part of preparation of papers filed by local officials and on
the part of the reviewing agency as well.
I have never objected to the protections that develop from the Federal Voting
Rights Act, just the procedures. Our Legislature, with my active support, passed the
Texas Voting Rights Act and bilingual requirements in 1975 in order to insure each
citizen a meaningful participation in the decisions that will affect his life. Texas will
continue to respond to recognized needs for election reform. I would ask that the
federal government recognize the progress that Texas had made and be willing to
amend its own laws to be consistent legally with those areas in the Texas election
process which experience has shown are better organized to give each Texas citizen
a true voice in the governing process.
Mr. EDWARDS. Is the Honorable Ben Reyes of the Houston City
Council here?
[No response.]
Mr. EDWARDS. Our next witness is Hon. Bernardo Eureste, who is
a member of the San Antonio City Council.
Councilman Eureste, we are delighted to have you here. You
may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. BERNARDO EURESTE, MEMBER, SAN
ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL
Mr. EURESTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to read a statement that has been submitted to this
committee, for it to be made a part of the record, and then--
Mr. EDWARDS. It will be made a part of the record, and you may
proceed.
Mr. EURESTE. Then I would like to make .a few remarks after
that.
I am Bernardo Eureste. I am a city council member from the city
of San Antonio, and I have served on the city council since 1977. I
am now in my third term as councilman from District No. 5. I am
employed by Our Lady of the Lake University, at the Wharton
School of Social Service, having worked there since 1972, and am
currently an associate professor and teach two courses, one called
community organization and the other one social welfare policy.
I was elected to the city council because of single-member dis-
tricts, and the Voting Rights Act made possible the creation of
single-member districts for San Antonio.
San Antonio's population is ethnically divided, approximately 54
percent Mexican American, 39 percent Anglo, and 7 percent black.
San Antonio's representational system was changed following a
section 5 objection to annexation made during the period 1972-74,
and the local political impact is clearly seen in this case.
Prior to single-member districts, a council manager system was
in effect, in which the nine-member council was elected at large.
On April 2, 1976, the Attorney General entered a controversial
objection against 13 annexations that were made by the city of San
Antonio during the period 1972-74. The letter went on to suggest a
remedy to the objections by proposing the adoption of single-
PAGENO="0401"
1275
member wards. The city council put a single-member district plan
to a referendum and on January 15, 1977, the voters accepted the
remedy and adopted a 10-member district council with a mayor
elected at large.
The council districts under this plan were composed of five ma-
jority Mexican American districts, one near majority black district,
and four majority Anglo districts. The effect of the letter of objec-
tion was felt in the April 1977 city election. Five Mexican Ameri-
cans were elected to city council, myself included. Seven members
came from areas of the city which had experienced little or no
representation during the previous decades. With five Mexican
Americans and one black, minorities composed a majority on the
council for the first time ever.
The 1977 city council was more responsive to the particular
needs of the minority communities. The city council was more
aggressive in improving the hiring of minorities in muncipal em-
ployment, monitoring the actions of the agencies, and redistribut-
ing revenues and services that heretofore excluded areas such as
minority areas of the west side, the east side, and the south side of
San Antonio.
The new council has also changed the procedures for personnel
appointments to city boards and commissions. This new policy for
appointments consists basically of three approaches: We appoint
people to our boards, committees and commissions either by dis-
trict that we represent, by geographical area, or by ethnic repre-
sentation. Any board, commission or committee that is controlled
by city ordinance and whose membership is controlled by that
ordinance is kept at a maximum of 11 members. Each council
member then makes one appointment, usually a member of that
particular district, to serve on the board.
If the number of members is controlled by State or Federal law,
we then aim toward achieving geographical representation. Gener-
ally we're talking here about boards, committees or commissions
that are established by State statute or governed by Federal law
that would have a representation, say, of 79, we would then try to
strive for geographical representation, since we could not have a
member from each of the 10 council districts that we have.
If the committee is small, like the municipal civil service com-
mission and the fire and police civil service commission, where the
membership generally is made up of about three individuals, we
then work toward ethnic representation. In 1977, when we came on
the council and had more minorities on the council, we appointed
two Mexican Americans and one black. The mayor, who was Anglo,
complained and said we needed to have a balance in the ethnic
composition of the committee. In a few months, with another op-
portunity to appoint a person who was leaving that commission, we
appointed an Anglo and for the three-member commissions we
then attempt to balance it out with proper ethnic representation.
An equitable representation of these committees cannot be over-
emphasized, given the importance of the responsibilities. These
committees play very key roles in policy formation and recommen-
dations. Of the policies submitted to the city manager and then to
the council, 95 to 98 percent are accepted as is, leaving the remain-
der, 2 to 5 percent, that are rejected or modified by the city council.
83-679 0 - 82 - 26 Pt.2
PAGENO="0402"
1276
These various committee members ~therefore play very important
roles in how policies are actually shaped.
You, as members of this committee, would understand the impor-
tance of committee work. Committee work generally involves the
formation of policy. You go back and you recommend. In many
cases, what you have recommended would be accepted because you
have been.entrusted to have done all that was necessaryto prepare
the good policy that your colleagues expected you to put together.
Thus, section 5 played a very critical role in assuring this equita-
ble representation in these committees. Although the scope and
effect of section 5 objections will not always equal the San Antonio
example, it demonstrates how the section 5 process can be em-
ployed as a powerful intervenor ~on behalf of minority voting rights.
Just to cite for the record to this committee the importance of
our committees, commissions and boards that we have in San
Antonio, as you would have them in almost every municipality, in
this country, and what perhaps we have been denied by not being
properly represented on the city council, we would then be denied.
proper representation on every board, committee and commission
of the city.
We have over 70 boards, committees, and commissions. The city
public service board, which is a gas and electrical distributor to
over 950,000 people in .the metropolitan area of San Antonio, with
a budget of over $450 million, with a potential to hire and to
employ and provide good services or bad services, depending on
where those services are being provided, a utility company that is
managed by a board, that although not fully responsible for the
appointment of that board, the city council has a lot to do with the
actual composition and through the political process, through the
give and take of politics, we do approve all rates and all bond
issues of that utility board. So there is a political exchange, mem-
bership for rates and bonds. We were denied adequate representa-
tion on that board.
The city water board, which is the purveyor of water in the San
Antonio metropolitan area, this one appointed by the city council,
another board on which we were denied adequate representation.
The zoning board, which is the board that deals with land use in
the San Antonio city limits, and within our ETJ, it deals with land
use and how land is utilized, whether it is utilized for commercial
purposes, whether it's utilized for residential or what not.
The planning commission, which lays out the master plan for all
of the services that the city of San Antonio is involved in, from
major transportation planning to parks and recreation planning, to
libraries, to residential street construction, almost anything that
deals with human beings and human beings' existence in the met-
ropolitan area comes through the planning commission-even from
dealing with the master plan for water and master plan for elec-
tricity, those policies have to be processed through the planning.
commission. We were denied adequate representation.
The San Antonio development agency, which is the urban renew-
al agency for the city, an agency that is very important to the
inner city of any major community, we were denied adequate rep-
resentation prior to the Voting Rights Act.
PAGENO="0403"
1277
The parks and recreatjon advisory commission, the animal con-
trol board-and you're going to ask, what's so important about
animal control? Well, dogs bite blacks, browns, and whites. They do
not discriminate. We have problems in our communities, and with-
out proper representation from people who come from the barrios
and the ghettos, you're not going to get any sensitivity with re-
gards to the policies that are recommended on those boards to the
city council for enactment.
The metropolitan health board, this is the board that deals with
preventive health care. We were denied adequate representation.
I could go on and on and cite any number of boards-the library
board, where we were again denied adequate representation.
With the districts, we now have good representation on the coun-
cil. I think that one point that has perhaps not been fully empha-
sized-and I think the State official who was here a little while
ago, Mr. Mark White, failed to comprehend-is that the right to
vote is one thing; the right to good representation has got to have
equal importance. I don't think that the American public would
accept a situation where as Americans they have a right to vote,
but all of their Congressmen came from the land that is situated
west of the Mississippi. I don't think that they could tolerate a
situation where you had a Senate that had all of the representa-
tion from the area west of the Mississippi or solely from the area
east of the Mississippi. That is the problem with voting and voting
rights in the State of Texas.
Yes, we do have more of an opportunity today to vote. We have a
greater opportunity today to vote. But the problem of good repre-
sentation is still the problem that plagues us all. The reason that I
became very emotional as I started this is because I sit there at
city hall and look at the old, old documents of how the city of San
Antonio was founded, and I look back to the 1830's when San
Antonio freed itself from Mexican Government dominance, it
became an independent republic and later joined the United States,
and history would record the later developments of the State of
Texas.
But what happened with the Voting Rights Act is that not since
the 1830's, when at that time San Antonio was governed by
Mexico, not since then had we had the number of Mexican Ameri-
cans on the city council. We have a population of Mexican Ameri-
cans that can support that kind of representation. But for 140
years we were denied good representation, and that has got to be
the saddest story for anybody growing up in the State of Texas. I
am 38 years old. I do not want my children, my grandchildren, to
have to live through a period where they do not have the right to
elect people that can truly represent them.
In the case of the city of San Antonio, all board, committee, and
commission members, at least a majority of them, came from the
Anglo part of town. All of the city councils under the system that
we had came from the Anglo part of town. The Mexican-American
community was underrepresented. The black community, until the
1950's, when a token effort was made to bring in one black that
would be controlled by the Anglo establishment, the black commu-
nity didn't have a right to select who their black representative
was going to be.
PAGENO="0404"
1278
The Mexican-American community didn't have a right to elect
who their Mexican-American representative was going to be. The
Anglo establishment determined that for us. We should not be
forced to live under those conditions again.
All I can say is that I have lived through the sixties, I have lived
through the seventies, and I don't want to take my case to the
streets; I don't want my children to take their case to the streets; I
don't want their children to take their case to the streets. What we
are really talking about is democracy. That's all we're talking
about, and that's all that I have ever asked of our society, that it
be truly the democracy that we talk about, and democracy is all
about, No. 1, the right to vote, and No. 2, the right to proper
representation.
Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. It was very impressive
testimony, councilman.
I think the longer I'm here-I haven't been here very long-the
more ~.I realize that yes, it is important to make it easy to register
andvote, but if at the same time there is widespread gerrymander-
ing,. then the right to vote isn't worth much because the same
crowd will control who's going to get elected; isn't that correct?
Mr. EURESTE. That's correct.
Mr. EDWARDS. Whatever particular part of society that particular
elected official will come from.
Mr. EURESTE. That's correct, sir.
;Mr. EDWARDS. I guess that probably the testimony today is to the
effect that before the Voting Rights Act was passed insofar as
Texas was concerned, that this gerrymandering kept blacks and
Hispanics from being elected in any large percentage at all, any
effective percentage; is that correct?
Mr. EURESTE. That's true, sir. What was happening basically was
that those in power were doing to the American colonists what the
British-you know, to us, what the British Government was doing
to the American colonists back before--
Mr. EDWARDS. That's right, gerrymandering, plus to a certain
extent, annexation and at-large voting, which all is sort of part of
the same pattern.
You say the setup in San Antonio today is largely the result of
the operation of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; is that your
testimony?
Mr. EURESTE. The setup today is 100 percent as a result of the
Voting Rights Act.
Mr. EDWARDS. And it's a better city?
Mr. EURESTE. It's a fabulous city, and it's going to get even
greater down the road.
Mr. EDWARDS. And if the Voting Rights Act is not extended,
especially section 5, by 1982, you feel that the rights of Hispanics
and blacks at least in San Antonio, and I guess Texas at large, will
not be defended and protected by local district attorneys and by the
State government; is that also your testimony?
Mr. EURESTE.. Sir, I heard the eloquent Mr. Ruben Bonilla from
Corpus Christi. I was talking to an individual from Corpus Christi
just this week, and I will be making a visit to Corpus Christi, and
he is telling me the sad story about Corpus Christi, where still the
PAGENO="0405"
1279
city of Corpus has not been able to guarantee the residents of that
community the kind of representation that we have in San Anto-
nio, a city that has over 50 percent Mexican Americans, and has
not one Mexican American on that city council. And as a result,
everything that happens that is done by government in that com-
munity, by local government, is basically shortchanging the minor-
ity community of Corpus Christi.
I am concerned about San Antonio, sir, but I am at the same
time a resident of the State and I am concerned about~any inequi-
ties that might exist in the State of Texas, and I would also be
concerned about inequities that exist in other parts of the country
where the Voting Rights Act is applicable at this point.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Counsel?
Ms. GONZALES. I have no questions, thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd?
Mr. BOYD. No questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, councilman.
Mr. EURESTE. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our next witness is Hon. Paul Ragsdale, who is a
State representative from Dallas, and he's a Democrat.
It's nice to have you here. Without objection, your statement will
be made a part of the record.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PAUL RAGSDALE, TEXAS STATE
REPRESENTATIVE, DALLAS
Mr. RAGSDALE. Thank you.
In my opinion, extension of the Voting Rights Act is very much
needed in Texas to assist minorities to obtain their rightful voting
strength at the ballot box. This is particularly true since in 1976
and again in 1980 the Supreme Court asserted the need to prove
racially motivated intent in the 14th and 15th amendment cases
alleging discrimination.
In Bolden v. Mobile, the Court found that in 1901 blacks in
Alabama were disenfranchised by State law; consequently, the jus-
tices found no racially motivated intent to disenfranchise Mobile's
black population by the city's creation of the at-large city commis-
sion scheme in 1911.
I, for one, am concerned with the state of mind of Mobile's white
political leaders in 1911. I am gravely concerned with laws which
effectively prohibit black people from ever being represented in
government at the local level-the level most highly regarded by
conservatives. The high court has presented us with a burden that
is insurmountable in the vast majority of cases, leaving no legal
remedy to the victims of political exclusion except the Voting
Rights Act where it can be applied.
No longer is it practicable for minorities to go to court challeng-
ing an at-large system of voting as invidiously discriminatory.
Almost all of Texas' cities and school districts still elect officials by
at-large voting schemes. And while cities have the local authority
to decide their method of electing their council members, school
districts do not. With the exception of three of the largest Texas
school districts, all of the nearly 1,000 Texas public school districts
PAGENO="0406"
1280
elect their trustees via at-large voting systems, in accordance with
State law.
For three consecutive legislative sessions the Texas legislature
has refused to pass my bill which would allow local school districts,
having in excess of 2,500 scholastics, to decide the method of elect-
ing trustees. This bill, mind you, is strictly a local option bill, and
the Texas Legislature refuses to pass it.
In November 1973, as a freshman State representative, I initiat-
ed what I call my East Texas project with the filing of six lawsuits
against county commissioner courts. The project involves attempts
to reapportion 50 counties and bust up the at-large system of
voting in cities and school districts so that blacks can obtain their
proportionate share of political power. These targeted political sub-
divisions contain black populations ranging from 17 percent to 53
percent.
I might add I have handed over a copy of some material that I
thought might be valuable in terms of providing some insight into
the voting rights problems over the last decade or so.
Significantly, before 1974, of the 254 Texas counties, one black
had been elected as a county commissioner since Reconstruction-
and his election was made possible because of one of the East
Texas project lawsuits-despite the fact that Texas has 1,016
county commissioners and a black population of 12 percent. Prior
to 1967 no black had served in the Texas Legislature since Recon-
struction, when a series of Texas laws, from literacy tests to the
poll tax, disenfranchised blacks. In fact, Texas has spawned more
voting rights litigation than any other State. Since extension of the
Voting Rights Act to Texas in 1975, Texas has further distin-
guished itself by receiving more section 5 objections than any other
State.
The Voting Rights Act has been helpful in several respects as it
interacts with my East Texas project. In 1975,~ after I sued the cities
of Tyler and Palestine, the Justice Department intervened and
forced both cities into out-of-court settlements. All during my earli-
er legislative career, I had fought and supported efforts to obtain
voting rights for the black students~ at Prairie View A. & M.
University. These students were the only ones in the United States
who could not register to vote in the county where they attended
school. Throughout the early 1970's in a case styled Balas v.
Symns, the Waller County tax assessor-collector had been taken to
Federal court in an effort to invalidate a questionnaire used by the
tax assessor-collector used primarily to determine residency. If a
student's home was outside the county, then the student was re-
quired to sign a sworn statement indicating that he/she planned to
reside in Waller. County permanently.
I don't know how you feel about it, but when I was at that
college age, if anybody presented me with something official indi-
cating that I would have to live in a place the rest of my natural
life before I would become a registered voter, I probably wouldn't
sign.
Failure to do so resulted in refusal to register the student. In a
county which was 52.8 percent black-the only black majority
county in Texas-the potential political impact of 4,000-5,000 stu-
dent voters in a county of only 14,250 is apparent. Symn's continu-
PAGENO="0407"
1281
ing efforts to disenfranchise black students has obvious racial over-
tones.
Such an unconstitutional and unconscionable position by an elec-
tion official prevailed until I finally persuaded the Justice Depart-
ment to file suit in October of 1976 under the Voting Rights Act. A
Houston Federal judge invalidated the questionnaire early in 1977.
It is ironic that the Voting Rights Act is being actively reconsid-
ered at this point in time. During our recent efforts to reapportion
the Texas Legislature and Congressional districts, the primary
focus of the legislature became the numbers and locations of the
State's minority citizens. In fact, Governor Clements must now call
us into special session to deal with congressional redistricting,
which the legislature failed to accomplish for one reason and one
reason only: Republicans in Texas want to use the Voting Rights
Act to consolidate minority voters in Dallas where they are cur-
rently the backbone of two Democratic congressional districts. The
effect of this will be to increase the likelihood of electing a minor-
ity in one district and to create an additional Republican district in
Dallas County. This same strategy is being pursued by the Republi-
can Party in other metropolitan areas of Texas, utilizing the heavy
Mexican-American population. I point this strategy out, not neces-
sarily to reflect my point of view but rather as my assessment of
Texas politics at the moment.
Whether we consider this use of `the act an attempt to fairly
represent minorities, or an attack by Republicans on Democrats, or
Conservatives versus Liberals, it would be the supreme act of politi-
cal hypocrisy to passionately argue the merits of this law in 1981
and casually discard or emasculate it in 1982. To do so would
reveal a dangerously cynical attitude toward the legal protection of
one of our most fundamental civil rights, especially in light of
recent Supreme Court attacks on voting rights. Voting rights is no
place for a display, in my opinion, of raw political expediency.
Seven years is hardly time enough for a political culture appre-
ciative of minority participation to develop in a State which for
generations has excluded blacks and Mexican Americans. Resist-
ance to participation continues as evidenced by the cases of my
east Texas project and the resistance of the Texas Legislature to
my local option, single-member district school board bill into law.
Voter involvement is abysmally low among Texas minorities but
has grown steadily in recent years and will continue to grow for as
long as their right to participate is protected.
I urge you, members of this committee and Congress, to reenact
the Voting Rights Act in its current form. The act is the only
remaining protection minority people have as they attempt to con-
tinue tIieir movement into the mainstream of American politics.
I noticed a few minutes ago that the Attorney General talked
rather extensively about laws regarding voter registration here in
Texas, with emphasis being placed on the ease at which one could
register to vote. I think the central issue here, not only in Texas
but elsewhere, is much greater than that of voter registration. I
believe the central issue should be centered around those obstacles
which precludes or inhibits proportionate or adequate political rep-
resentation by minority groups.
PAGENO="0408"
1282
For one thing, we have the at-large method of electing officials,
and attendant resistance to change such methods in most of our
political subdivisions. For another thing, we have a refusal in
Texas, in many rural counties-in fact, most of them are reappor-
tionment and individual county commissioner precincts. For exam-
ple, Bastrop County, which is a county just adjacent and east of
Travis County, where we're situated now, until I filed a lawsuit in
1976 and 1977 to reapportion the county commissioners court,
there was a 108.8 percent total population deviation between the
county commissioner precincts.
Madison County, another county in East Texas, had and perhaps
still does 164 percent total population deviation. This sort of situa-
tion still exists and existed at the time in defiance of the one-
person, one-vote Supreme Court decision as enunciated in the mid-
1960s. To this date, to my knowledge, there are still some counties
which have not reapportioned their populations in several decades,
in blatant disregard for the Federal law or the Federal court deci-
sions.
We in Texas have perhaps some peculiar problems that maybe
some other States don't have, with the exception maybe of Califor-
nia, in that we've got two large minority groups which are protect-
ed under the Voting Rights Act, and we think that 7 years is
certainly not enough time for us to get a toehold on the political
process in Texas.
I intend to continue my efforts to persuade the State to do such
things as pass or at least eliminate a State law which prohibits
school districts from electing their trustees from anything other
than an at-large system of voting. It has been a real struggle all
the way, fighting in the last few years not only local elected offi-
cials in this State but Texas elected officials.
In 1975, as I recall-and you have some information in your
packet-not only did the Governor but the Secretary of State, now
the Attorney General, Mark White, as well as the Attorney Gener-
al at the time, all opposed the extension of the Voting Rights Act
to Texas. As far as I'm concerned, the minority population in Texas
had tremendous obstacles placed before us during the last decade
and before that in an attempt to gain political power anywhere
near in proportion to our numbers.
That is my presentation. Thank you.
[The information provided by Mr. Ragsdale follows:]
PAGENO="0409"
1283
The East Texas Project is a six year old litigation effort
designed to increase Black East Texans representation in local
government. Conceived of in 1973 by State Rep. Paul Ragsdale
of Dallas, the target area of the project now includes 48 HXst
Texas counties ranging from 17.7 percent Black to 52.6 percent Black.
Through rëapportionnentlawsuit~unded by the project, counties,
cities and school boards across East Texas are being forced
to redistrict and, for the first time in history, provide Blacks
with an opportunity to have a real voice in local government.
Rep. Ragsdale conceived of the project in 1973, not
long after he was elected to the State Legislature. He credited
his election largely to a reapportionment suit which led to
the demise of the at large method of electing state representatives
in Dallas County. As a native of East Texas,(hewas born and raised
in Jacksonville) Rep. Ragsdale believed that the same constitutional
principles which aided his election could also help to politically
empower Black East Texans, who prior to that time had played
only an insignificant role in local government. After conferring
with reapportionment expert Dan Weiser and civil rights attorney
David Richards, Ragsdale sought seed money from the TExas AFL-CIO
to fund seven initial law suits against seven counties, challenging
their county commissioner precinct plans as constitutionally unsound.
As a result of these suits,ABl~ack/ounty,éommissioner precincts
were drawn in Anderson, Houston and Nacogdoches Counties. And in
1974, the fi4~ Black County Commissioner since Reconstruction was
elected in Nacogdoches County.
PAGENO="0410"
1284
The project was soon expanded to cover a 48 County target area,
including virtually every county in Texas with a Black population
in the range of 20 percent. As a result of the litigation it has
~spawned, nine East Texas counties now have Black county commissioner
precincts where before there were none. They are Angelina County,
Bastrop County, Falls County, Navarro County, Robertson County
and Waller County in addition to the three counties previously
mentioned, Anderson, Houston and Nacogdoches. Now Black County
the
Commissioners sit on Commissioners Courts of five counties --
~ Anderson, Angelina, Falls, Nacogdoches and
Waller.
But the battle is not only for the county courthouses of East
Texas. The project has also been initiated and supported
single member districting suits against city councils and school
boards in the target area, with the goal of incre4ng Black
representation at these levels. Today, largely due to legal pres-
bear through the East Texas Project
sure broughttc A the Black communities of Longview, Jackson-
ville, Palestine and Tyler have now elected city councilmembers
to fight for their rights in city hail.
The problem is that it is quite costly to fund these lawsuits.
After some initial help from labor, Rep. Ragsdale has been forced
to raise money on his own to support the project. He has also
coordinate the project and
provided the services of his legislative staff,/\to perform
the demographic analysis required to sustain these suits.
As a result, the attornies who have been involved have had to
largely look' to an uncertain award of attorney'sfees if the
litigation is successful in order to cover their expenses.
PAGENO="0411"
1285
If the project is to truly realize the potential it rePresents}
more money must be provided to locate plaintiffs, organize locol
communities in support of these lawsuits and to pay for
expenses of the attornies and redistricting experts involved.
For this reason, the East Texas Project is appealing to progressive
groups across the state forfinancial support of its goal of
politically empowering the Black citizens of East Texas.
PAGENO="0412"
1286
EAST TEXAS PROJECT: Target Counties, Cities and School Districts
Priority Counties
1. Bowie ft~~j ~4cu~-c)
2. Camp t~SO~\ /
3. Grimes ~ fvt~,c)c~~
4. Morri*~s FI~i~cL, ~
5. Newton Te~~D~- ~(~-
6. Pol*~ ~ ~
7. San Augustine t~j~1Q1 13tc~L~
8. San Jacinto - ~"~~coiQ
9. Washington k~L~1
Cities Under S4y
(All~ith 10,000 in population
and above)
1. Athens
2. Bay City
3. Beaumont
4. Bryan
5. Conroe
6. Corsicana
7. Ennis
8. Henderson
9. Huntsville
10. Kilgore
11. Marshall
12. Sherman
13. Terrell
14. Texarkana
15. Texas City
16. Waxahachie
Counties Under Study
1. ~4~on ~ fr\~~
2 .~-~ass ~~it~e
3. Jefferson ~r; ~j
4. ? Kaufman i-1L(to~Q(( ~13(at~-
5. -~jj~ W~i fr
6. ~/~Tson -. t~e~2~~-) Mc
U
1*
PAGENO="0416"
1290
THE DAILY TEXAN
Narch 29, 1974
Ragsdaie To Continue
Racial Politics' Fight
By BILL.TROTT said Ragsdale, "we could educate the black community
Texan Staff Writer have the first black county in campaign methods, voter
While expressing pleasure commissioner in Texas, thank registration and other aspects
with a recent federal court goodness." of politics.
ruling that will open up Texas Ragsdale plans to pursue "Since these people have
politics to blacks, Rep. Paul similar suits in Shelby, Rusk, been excluded for so long,
Ragsdale, D-Dallas, said Houston and Cherokee Corns- they don't have the political
Thursday he plans to continue ties, and is working on suits in experience and don't know
lawsuits against as many as 32 28 others. how to carry on a campaign,"
Texas counties in an effort to "The purpose of all this is to Ragsdale said.
create more black political include a group of people that Ragsdale's project is
awareness. - always have been excluded in financed primarily by the A.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Texas politics," Ragsdale. Phillip Randolph Institute, a
Appeals in New Orleans up- said. "We want to get more branch of the AFL-CIO, and is
held an earlier decision which blacks in the mainstream of represented by Austin at-
had rejected a request to stay politics, and there certainly torney David Richards.
an order creating new county will be more suits. We've Just Ragsdale, who drew con-
commissioner districts in barely dented the project. ` siderable publicity when he
Anderson and Nacogdoches Blacks have filed for com- filed for food stamps to
Counties in East Texas. missioner seats in both coun- supplement his $4,800 annual
Au a result of the new com- ties, with Frank Robinson fil- legislative salary, is a native
missioner district lines, both ing for Precinct 2 of Anderson of Jacksonville, Cherokee
counties will have one district County and Elder Amos County, one of the counties
composed of approxithately 54 Henderson filing in that will soon be brought to
percent blacks. The new lines Nacogdoches County. court.
will be in effect for the May Ragsdale said he conceived "This can bring on a
primaries, his "East Texas Project" ins- definite increase in black par-
The suit was initiated by mediately following his elec- ticipation, locally and in other
Anderson County at tar U.S. tion in 1972, after being con- state races, too," Ragsdale
Dist. Judge Wayne Justice of vinced of racialgerrymander- said. "It's bringing on some
Tyler found that the county ing in East Texas counties. He positive changes, and I'm go-
commissioner district lines began filing suits in ing to try like hell to keep
were unconstitutional in'botb December, 1972. making these changes."
counties. He also plans to bring
"What we have to look blacks into the Texas political
forward to is a landmark," scene with programs to
PAGENO="0417"
1291
<~
Wailer voter directive blasted:.
Poet Stats captosi ~oea~ The state lawmaker and other black "After refraining from any real action
leaden have charged the questionnaire whatsoever during his five years as
AUSTIN - State Rep. Paul t Rags- discriminates against studentsat pre- secretas~ of state his action in-this rdst-
dale, D-Dallas, Friday accused Texas dominantly black Prairie View A&M tsr Immediately prinr in his expected an-
Secretary of State Mark W. White Jr. nf University in that county. About 5,800 nouncement mr attorney general reeks
- "intally meaningless" moves in end students attend classes there. with political considerations," He s~id
voter discrimination against blacks in-- "A simiiaz' White should Join with federal Justice
WaIler County and sf engaging in poilti- BullOck his Department lawyers next Thursday and
- calopportuniszn~ *- as ~~me ?, support a motion for a summary Judg-
~ ya y . meat against WallerCounty inavoting
Ragsdale criticised an order White ~s- ltagsdale said, adding White should have ~hta ~tion suit
sued Thursday directing LeRoy 0. threatened to cut off state voter hors- "If we are ever to have an immediate
55mm, the Wailer County ~ lion funds to the county as a move that impact on Texas' miniature Rhodesia.
collector, to abandon use of a controver. would have !~t5~ar effect Wailer County, our state's chief election
alal questionnaire as a prerequisite in The directive, Ragsdale's statement offIcer must Join the battle rather than
becoming a regisfered voter in that continued raised "some serious ques- continue to consort with the enemy;"
county lions regarding Mr. White's motives. Ragsdsle concluded.
83-679 0 - 82 - 27 P-t.2
PAGENO="0418"
1292
During MOSCOW blaze
Embassy looting claimed
MtSCOW (DPI) - ILl. Ambassador Address books, tape csssetta nibber stint Integrity of the 10-story embsasy,
Malcolm Toon said Friday Soviet fire stamps used to mark documents as Toon said.
fighters who battled a blaze at the "classified" or "secret," a videotape Repairs to the building, which are
embaSsy last week apparently stole from film of tee of the segments of "Room," estimated to coat $5 million, will take ap-
some-offices, taking among other things and a sterling silver medallion from his proximately three to four months, he
chapter of the television movie own office are missing, he said. said.
`Roota" The preswnptloo is that "a deçee of Teen said embassy employee had been
However, Teen told reporters ha did looting tmkptace," he said. told they could request a transfer not of
lot believe the security of the embassy There was a period of about 20 Moscow "without prejudice to their ca-
ssdibeeo compromised when the fire minutes duriog early last Saturday reers." He said two had requested such
ighters entered the upper Cors of the morning when Soviet fire fighters were transfers because it fesra about the han.
PAGENO="0419"
1293
tI( ~
~ ~?-;~
PAUL B. RAGSDALE
5710 E.ThORNT3~ FWY. - COMMITTEES
DISTRICT 335
DALLASTEXAS 75201 P119* PE Th,4,u.*sttatitta9 BuS20ESs&:N0uST~
education
Voting Suit Appealed To 413c~
Supreme Court ~ /2~-7~7~
students .~to vote in
WASHINGTON, D.C. Collector LeRoy Symin totbe predominately Black Wailer
1~ton cmvii rights attoniey, U.S. Supreme Court County.
00ichaei Anthony Maneas, Sysnm was sued by Prairie $YMM SAID HE BEUEVED
Augtut 30, appealed the student View A&M University 8hulaoa, most PV students did not intend
voting rights suit brought Charles R. Ballas after the tax to remain In the county after
against Wailer County Tax collector reftued to register PV graduation and therefore were
_________________________________________________ out ~bonafide residents" of the
?RAIRIE VIEW BEa)MING dump for $1000 ~ ~ionth. county.
DUMPING GROUNDS? &oekshlie laiD miles south ~ Bailas dlsagreed~ referring to
By Ed Weadt Prairie View. ~`i~ cumuli state and federal laws that
temporarily rejecled Smith's require only 30 days residency
PRAIRIE VIEW-A large proposal. so a qualification for voting.
~~bero(citizens in thiamostty The 5th Us. circuit Court of
Black,- rural communIty, 35 PraIrie View citizens -are Appeals ruled that the tax
* mile~ we of Houston, are ~ed at ~ ~ collector was justified Hi
*cryIi~ suE in anger at the peoposition aM declare that requiring PV students to submit
* ~toposal tv-create a second land they"dooutwaatto bebeciedin to lengthy residency question-
:Jlld~p~~theout5kirt5dtown sumemo ~, ., *naires before corsidering their
wdba~evowed to do everything ~ * . : voter registration applications.
Intheirpowertobiockit. *~ S CHAR-LIE ALThOUGH IRE SIR CUB
.d The dump-Is a pet project of ~ - CUlT did not rule that students
Jack Smith of Wailer, Thosa, ty, DO we re~y went could not register to vote in
andwouldbeusedbycltiea other ~ enmity to be the dumping Wailer, Maness says by sane-
~* -~ralrle View. A similar ~ ~f0E Cth& tO~I~ and -tioning the tue of the question-
~flP is already located ` counties. - osire the court did In fact allow
than mile from the city limits ~,- - Symni to deny the students the
*4 aei~ -SW nosr.by city ~g ~ View Is the most :~ -
- Waiies~'- . - - popolated city In Wailer County. Maness says "that Symm
- - - --*11Th IRESENTED A sales _________________________ - -
~for the dump to the city
neencil of Brookahire, Texas
* t'i to dispose of the city's
* garbgge at the Prairie View
PAGENO="0420"
1294
Ihr ~zIUaa ~nrniug ?~rtto5 Saturday, November 22. i9~i `~~$ T~ - (J,1r4ic!es
Austin Wire
Rate powers
~ ruliuig issued
AUSTIN-A ~ CURE in a state prison.
give up its utility `egulatsry The chspte~ is designed to
power when it grants auto- get prisoners' views on var-
stalk rate increases based rectinns retorts dissemi-
en vasta dictaled bY "the ~ to ~1 ~ ~is0net re-
itoversocat forces of the habituation, and to give
nnarketptace," ~Atty. Ges. prisoners a chance to cxci-
John }IP1 said Friday. cisc their constitutional
Hill thus ruted that ~ rights.
practices an allowing public REP. PAUL RAGSDALE
utilities to raise their prices otThillis saida Has
when fuel costs increase do County redistricting suit at-
not viotate the principte ready has proved how the
that Cities Cannot delegate federat voting rights act
their rate-regulation powers, helps btacks exercise politi-
The attorney general's cat power. Ragsdale wed.
opinton. in response to a re- the case, involving commis-
quest from Sen. Ron Ctower sinners precinct linen, shows
of Garland, added that auto- that federal courts will op
matic rate adjustments are ply the voting rights act to
permissible if there is `an - -
adequate objective formula" local governments as well
by which increases in as to the state by requiring
"readily ascertainable Justice Department ap-
casts" can be applied to the provat before any political
rates. subdiciotOrt district lines can
In another opinion, mu be changed.
ruled that the 1876 Cen~itu. Ragsdate said he will pro-
tins makeo it illegal for a lest a series of boundary
private cantracor to matte and districting plans in the
money by selling by-prod- East Texas "target area"
ucts of a waste disposal where he has been lighting
system that was financed for black political power
with public bonds. during the last two years
HOUSE SPEAKER Billy AMONG DOZENS of other
Clayton named a 9-member appointments. Gov. Dotph
committee to study possible Briscoe named Dr. W. A.
new ways for local districts Criswetl of Dallas, pastor of
to finance public schasta the First Baptist Chur.h, m
other than through preiperty the policy board fo-' serv-
taxatiott and alternatives to ices to the visualy han~i'
Using local taxable property capjsed.
values as a basis for divid-
ing stAte school aid. Rep. DALLAS COUNTY Jove-
Fred Agnich of Dallas Is a nile Department will receive
member of the panet, wl~ a Texas Youth Cout~cl
Is headed by Reo. `torn grant of $170,199 tO assign
Massey of San Anreit. up to 600 delInquent chit-
dies so footer homes, or
CITIZENS UNITED for find them jobs and yive
Rehabilitation of Errants, a *medital or emotional care
corrections reform lobby, ~ to their needs. Dat-
said it will seek signatures las I County Ycaith Services
on a statewide petition sup- Copwnissoott, sponsored bs'
porting Use group's request the Cortatnicaity Council of
to forts a pilot chapter of Greater Dallas, will get up
- . . to $94,850 for a 2-year-old
program to reduce deltA-
ouemcv.
PAGENO="0421"
So 05 5 1975 See 2 pnt~sttttt~rrath ~lrt'sø
Con thi~i6rn~i~ Court Plows
Through Lengthy Session
The Anderson County exceeding these budgets can't Franksf~n has been the county
Commissioners Court labored be tolerated. depository-the last tw
all' day Thursday on a heavy In executive session, the Good Friday, March 20, was
spate of agenda items is 1t5 commissioners and judge designated an additional
first 1975 meetmg and ran UP discussed wills Jerry Calhoon, Courthouse holiday. Others
against a late-afternoon knot attorney for the court in the approved areJan 1 Me al
that couldnot becut through In federal litigation over corn- Day, July 4, Labor Day (Sept.
time. missionera' precinct bosn- 1), Veterans Day (Oct. 4),
The court ended Its. darlea, what action further to Thanksgiving (Nov. 27and 20),
marathon with a recess untIl take if any. The Circuit Court and Christmas (Dec. 24 and
p.m. today, at which time ~ of-Appeals at New Orleans has 25).
snarl over road-and-bridge upheld the federal district Reappointed to the Anderson
department appointment will court decioion at Tyler County Mem I I H It I
be tackled anew. changing (be boundary lines. board were Ecta Walters~(the
- A tint of proposed R&B 5l~- After the executive session, It new chairman) of Elkhart
pointmeotn which County was announced that the matter Frank Carroll of Tennesaee
Judge NiL Link said had been is being taken under ad- Colony and HA. Northciitt of
handed in by the~ county viaement for a decision within Franknton. The reap-
auditor's office ran into the nest few days whether to poistments are for two years
challenges by the county seek a rehearing of the ap- Jan. 1, 1975, in include Dec. 31,
commisaloners. pellate decision, undertake ion
* Judge, Link reminded the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Bids were authroized, to be
commissioners of a letter they Court, or do nothing more. openedFeb. 3,foranew car for
hadbeess sent, requesting them The commissioners ap- use by the Sheriff's Depart-
to turn in lists of county road prsvedreappointmentoia long mont. -
crews and other precinct work list of county employees other In addition to approval of
taffsHehadasnumedth ~e than the commissioners work cou ty
made from recommesd'iuss Twonewfsll4imedeputies in ~pproved for pay purpose the
of the commissioners. `which - the Sheriff's Department were list of county officials.
was denied. authorized. Appointed to fill The county commission took
Commissioner JVi - offos~d these poaitions were Ricky underadvisementaprnpi~j to
adamantly declared he would Allen Bostick and John nook legislative action to add
not work men- in his dep63t' Thomas Eady at salaries Melvin Whitaker 173rd
.mentwhomhecoUldsottiseor' tentatively set at $632 a month. District Attorney' to the
`fire. * `Orders of the three district County Juvenile Board. Action
The commi5siO~em ~6reed judges reappointing Lacy wan deferred on the grounds
theyhadnotexpeciedtotiavea Kendrick county auditor for that the county would have to
list acted upon before theY had - two years and Mrs. Hazel pay the fee. -
submitted it. - - Unger Wessos and Mrs Mary County Attorney Bill Green's
Thecourtbadlsixtatithorlzed E. Con as assisiasto in the request for the purchase of law
letters to the variosp C055ity asdiinr'soffice were approved, books forhin office was tabled.
department heads, em- - it was announced that Judge A representative of theSlate
phasixing the imxs-taoce 0f Link will advertise, as Department of Public Welfare
each departrneni operating provided by law at the proper was on the agenda to discus~
thin yearwithns its bUdget 55511 -time,for bids for depsaitory of needforadditionaloffice space
stating that erpesditures `county funds. The ,~nk at did not appear.
*i* ~
~ iAijijiãT &aTed
Of Court Ruling
- - - Judge Link and members of
The Anderson County the Commitsionern Court said
Commissioners' Court will not that they coouider themselves
pursue further appeal of a U.S. law abiding citizens.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals "We acted in good faith in
decision upholding a ruling by attempting to realign our
FederalDistrictJsdge William precincts in a workable
Wayne Justice of Tyler manner," (be Coesminsioses's
regarding Commissioner Court said.1 `However, if the
precinct lines of this county. decision of tat courts is the
Commissioners announced law, we will abide by it."
the decision, which was The Commissioners Court
unanimous, following a brief said itis Ito unanimous opinion
executive session Friday af- Ithat to further pursue the
ternons. Jmatter by appeal to the
"The Commissioners Court Supreme Court `would only
is of the unanimous opinion `;-`cosl the taxpayers of our
that It would be in the best ~cousty additional money and
interest of all concerned if It further divide our local
does not pursue the lawsuit community. Tisis we wish to
processed through the Fifth havoid.
Circuit Court further," Judge The lawsuit referred to by
N.R. Link said on behalf of the ~tise Commivaisoers Court was
entire Court * brought -in Federal District
"We are convinced that the Court at Tyler by Frank J.
actions of the US. District Robinson, Timothy Smith and
Court in Tyler and unanimous R~d~ Howard of Palestine
confirmation of It by tlsree who contended IbM the way
judges sitting in New Orleans, Commimioner precinct linee
that the decision of Judge were drawn in * Anderson
Justice in the law of theland as County tended tódilulethe vote
being presentiy interpreted by ~ black residents., -
the Federal courts."-
cit
PAGENO="0422"
~.ooc
~tzz>
m
n
U
1*
C,
PAGENO="0423"
.1297
C
PAUL B. RAGSDALE . COMMITTEES:
DISTRICT 33N . BUSINESS & INDUSTRY
5710 E. THORNTON FWY. ~j1~fl~4f *if 3~rg**,itb*.tihc~ REAPPORTIONMENT
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
214/827-1750
~&nsbn ,Z1,xs.
EAST TEXAS PROJECT
Status Report: October 2, 1975
Original County Suits
Anderson
Status:' Settled through federal suit.
Austin
Status: All materials obtained.
Plans: Prepare analysis. Formulate Black district.
Bastrop
Status: 108.8% current total deviation. Attempt to formulate
Black district unsuccessful.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Burleson
Status: All materials obtained except for county commissioner
precinct map. Received letter from County Judge asking
for $10.00 for copy of precinct map. Sent response
in June affirming our right to map under the Open
Records Act. Received second rejection.
Plans: Request Attorney General's opinion. Attempt to formu-
late Black district.
Bowie
Status: All materials obtained except for tract map of
Texarkana.
Plans: Obtain tract map. Prepare analysis. Formulate Black
district.
Caldwell
Status: All materials obtained. 35.6% current total deviation.
Plans: Formulate Black district. Prepare to file suit.
PAGENO="0424"
1298
Status: 151.0% current total deviation. 66% Black district
formulated with 7% deviation.
Plans: Attenpt to reduce deviation. Complete districting
plan. Proceed to file suit.
Cass
Status: 63.5% current total deviation. Attempt to formulate
Black district unsuccessful.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Chambers
Status: All materials obtained except for precinct map.
Response from County Judge indicated that one is on
the way.
Plans: Formulate Black district. Prepare analysis when pre-
cinct map arrives.
Cherokee
Status: All materials obtained except for county commissioner
precinct map. 42% Black district defined by Pat
Holdaway.
Plans: Obtain county commissioner precinct nap. Complete
analysis. Attempt to formulate stronger Black dis-
trict.
Colorado
Stati~: All materials obtained except for precinct map. No
response to the first letter.
Plans: Formulate Black district. Send registered letter
requesting precinct map.
Falls
Status: 11.0% current total deviation. 76% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Check for possible racial gerrymandering. If no
gerrymandering, deviation doesn't appear to justify
suit.
Freestone
Status: 61.8% current total deviation. 53.9% Black district
formulated which splits insignificant part of. one ED.
51.9% Black district possible without splitting ED's.
Plans: Complete districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
PAGENO="0425"
1299
Grimes
Status: 84.7% current total deviation. 49.3% Black district
devised.
Plans: Need to consult with local residents to formulate
Black district.
Gregg
Status: All materials obtained except for place maps.
Plans: Obtain place maps. Complete analysis. Attempt to
define Black district.
Harrison
Status: Suit filed. Original plan showed 90.0% current total
deviation. Plan revised by County Commissioners in
response to suit; deviation cut to 19.9%. 61.6% Black
district defined.
Plans: Complete districting plan. Attempt to obtain more
money for Bayes.
Houston
Status: Settled through cooperative redistricting plan.
Jasper
Status: All materials obtained except precinct map; response
by County Judge indicated that only one map is avail-
able. Attempt to draw Black district unsuccessful (No
response to registered letter).
Plans: Obtain precinct map; perhaps this will necessitate a
trip to the county.
Jefferson
Status: Population data on hand. Still need precinct map and
tract map.
Plans: Send registered letter requesting precinct map. Obtain
tract map from library.
Kaufman ~
Status: 70.6% current total deviation. 63.9% Black district
defined.
Plans: Complete districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
PAGENO="0426"
1300
Leon
Status: All materials obtained. Attempt to define Black
district unsuccessful.
Plans: Complete analysis.
Lee
Status: All materials available except for precinct map. County
Judge indicated in his response that one is on the way.
Plans: Formulate Black district.
Liberty
Status: Attempt to draw up Black district unsuccessful. I
understand County has recently redistricted.
Plans: Obtain present county precinct nap.
Limestone
Status: 39.1% current total deviation. 54.1% Black district
defined.
Plans: Complete districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
Madison
Status: 164.3% current total deviation. Formulation of Black
district will necessitate splitting ED's.
Plans: Draw up Black district splitting as few ED's as
possible.
~1~irion
Status: All materials obtained except for County Commissioner
precinct map. 64.3% Black district formulated.
Plans: Obtain County Commissioner precinct map. Complete
analysis.
Matagorda
Stetus: All materials available except for precinct map. No
response to the first letter.
Plans: Send registered letter requesting precinct map. Formu-
late Black district.
Morris
Status: All materials obtained. 54.2% Black district formulated.
(78.4% current total deviation).
Plans: Prepare to file suit.
PAGENO="0427"
1301
Navarro
Status: 43.2% current total deviation. 66.2% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Complete districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
Newton
Status: 17.3% current total deviation 56.5% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Complete District plan. Proceed `to file suit.
Panola
Status: All materials obtained except for county commissioner
precinct map. Response indicated that a map will be
supplied. Attempt to formulate Black district unsuc-
cessful. .
Plans: . `Write again for county commissioner precinct map. Com-
plete analysis. Consult with residents to formulate
Black district by splitting ED's.
`Red River
Status:. 45.2% current total deviation. Attempt to formulate
Black district unsuccessful.
Plans: Hold for more work after other counties.
Polk
Status: 157.0% current total deviation. Attempt to draw
Black district unsuccessful.
Plans: Consult with residents to formulate Black district
by splitting ED's.
Robertson
Status: l38~8% current total deviation. 56.4% Black district
and 43.8% swing district formulated.
Plans: Complete districting plan.. Proceed to file suit.
Rusk
Status: 35.9% current total deviation. 45.6% Black district
formulated by Pat Holdaway. The County's lawyer came
up with a plan with smaller deviation than Pat's and
no significant Black plurality precinct. Our attempt
to formulate majority Black district unsuccessful.
Plans: Hold.until other counties finished.
PAGENO="0428"
1302
Sabine
Status: All materials obtained except for precinct map. No
response to first letter.
Plans: Formulate Black district. Send registered letter
requesting precinct map.
San Augustine
Status: 91.3% current total deviation. 72.3% Black district
fbrmulàted.
Plans: Complete districting plans. Proceed to file suit.
San Jacinto
Status: 61.2% current total deviation. Two Black districts
formulated through splitting lED, 57.9%, 51.2%.
Note: Present plan includes one Black district.
Plans: Check over districting plan to see if Black population
can be distributed more advantageously. Complete
districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
S1~y~
Status: 37.4% current total deviation. 49.8% Black district
fornulated.
Plans: Consult with residents to formulate Black district by
splitting ED's.
Smith
Status: Districting plan with 57% Black district submitted
to County CorruT~issioner5 Court. Plan revised to include
Republican precinct. Analysis on estimated precinct
lines complete.
Plans: Obtain exact present precinct lines and prepare analysis.
Trinity
Status: 98.0% current total deviation. 55.1% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Complete districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
tJpshur
Status: All materials obtained.
Plans: Prepare analysis. Formulate Black district.
PAGENO="0429"
1303
Walker
Status: Need map of county commissioners precincts within
Huntsville for accurate analysis. 55.0% Black
district formulated.
Plans: Obtain in city of Huntsville map of county cornmis-
sioners precinct. Complete analysis.
Washington
Status: 31.1% current total deviation. 56.0% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Complete districting plan. -Proceed to file suit.
Waller
Status: Suit filed. 107% current total deviation.
Plans: Formulate Black district.
Wharton
Status: 81.5% current total deviation. Attempt to formulate
Black district was unsuccessful.
Plans: Hold for more work after other counties finished.
C4~y Council Suits -
Palestine
Status: 5-2 and 6-1 plans submitted to plaintiffs. 5-2 plan
provides for one strong majority Black precinct. 5-2
and 6-1 plans provides for a 53.5% Black precinct and
a 54.6% Black precinct. Neither plan has been adjusted
to account for annexations.
Plans: Adopt plan to include annexed territory.
Tyler
Status: 5-2 plan with 56% Black district and 36% Black district
submitted to council and plaintiffs based on ED data.
City Council has tentatively accepted a plan with 69%
Black district and 34% Black district based on block
data. Black population figures possibly inflated.
Plans: Obtain breakdown of City Council's plan by blocks for
analysis. Check for inflation of Black population. If.
data is valid we should advise to set up an approximately
57% district and a very strong swing district. Revise
our plan in accordance with block data and to include
annexed territory.
PAGENO="0430"
1304
R.agsdale
Announces
r~\ew. Säit
.DALLAS - Rep. Paul B..
~tspdale is continuing in his fight
- achieve the political
~npowerment of Blacks in East
~ evidenced by his recent
~announcement of nother suit
~.challepging the apportionment of
county commissioner districts in
~Navarro County.
In a printed statement,
Ragsdale said, "I am extremely
pleased to announce the filing of a
suit challenging the
apportionment of the county
commissioner precincts in Navarro
County. This suit asks the federal
-~w-t to declare the present lines
invalid and to order the adoption
of anew plan which will equalize
population in the precincts and
*~.`provide reasonable representation
~i:4or the Black community.Jn
~NavarroCounty." .
This is. one of aeveral federal
t:~~its which have been. filed as a
~rt of Ragsdale's East Texas
~Project..To date, three of the suits
~.bve been settled and the first
Black ever to hold the position of
~county commimioner ~ elected
~a Nacogdoches County - .Elder
~Amos Henderson.
PAGENO="0431"
1305
`F~~1~'~' Cç~j' Cited
In Voter Suit t)n County
County Judge Billy William- missioners; Louise Boulter fewer and Precinct 4 about 2.5
son said Tuesday the "failureof Jones, chairwoman of the court- per cent fewer people than they
the (commissioners) court to ty's Democratic Executive aresupposedtohaveinthem.
correct a reapportionment plan Committee; and Bill Lust, "With this much disparity,"
in 1975 is the reason we'll be chairman of the county's he said, "we have a serious
going to court." Republican Executive Commit- problem with violating the one
Williamson was speaking of a ton. rctn, one vote concept, not to
suit filed recently in the federal . . . mention any problem we have
court of U.S. District Judge The .p!aintiffs filed ~ ~ witi~ minority representation."
William Wayne Justice. to enjoin the defendants from Judge Williamson said on the
conducting or holding elections last day of his predecessor's
Plaintiffs in~ the case are for positionS as county com- (Kenneth Barron) term of of-
Dorothy Lee, John Westbrooks missioners until such time as fice the commissioners created
and SE. Palmer, who filed the the present apportionment plan ` *
suit against'Judge Williamson; of the commissioners court be -
the Smith County. com- approved by theJustice Depart-
-~ - ment.
The case is based on the
- Voting Rights Act of 1965, which
stipulates that any change in
voting laws made since 1972
must be approved by the
Justice Department or results
of any election held under such
voting laws are invalid.
* The apportionment plan
I referred to is one approved by
the commissioners court in late
1974 that shifted Voting Bo~r 21,
at Andy Woods school, from
commissioner Roy Stanley's
`.1 precinct to that of Corn-
`missioner Hugh Anderson and
Box 23 at Gary Elementary,
~I from Roland Chamblee's
precinct to Lee Horton's.
"The apparent question
* `raised (in the suit)," Judge
Williamson said, "is based on
r' minority representation, but
there is also another question,
just as prominent if not more
so, and that's the violation of
* theone man, onevote concept.
"Precinct 1," he said. "has
a approximately 6.65 per cent
more people than it's supposed
to have in it; Precinct 2 has 11
a per cent more people than it's
`t supposed to have in it; and
Precinct 3 has about 15 per mast
SUIT
(Coot. From Page 1, Sec. 1)
the precincts being challenged
inthe suit.
"It's obvious to me," he said,
"that the precincts are not
properly balanced. The com-
missioners did not give proper
notice that the changes were to
be brought and after the
changes were made, the court,
and particularly Roy Stanley,
never brought any figures to
substantiate and justify the
changes they made.
"I figured sooner or later he
* (Stanley) would have to come
up with them (the figures). 1
would have preferred that he
come up with them before the
commissioners court rather
than the federal court."
*Judge Justice has
disqualified himself from
trying the case, which will be
assigned to Judge William M.
Steger, who will hold court in
Tyler in April.
PAGENO="0432"
1306
12 ~Ja1rnli,ir ~(rrali~i-~rrsn Thwiday, January 1, 1979
OFFICIAL STAFF - of the Anderson Connty IA.. ~p Forum for 11
planned apd carried out a program this week to raise a diense fund. Shown here,
front, left to right, are the Rev. Edward F. Boyd, secretary; Frank J. Robinson,
director of public relations and research; and Timothy S. Smith, chairman of the
* AdvisoryBoard. Inback are, left to right, the Rev. J. F. Wade, president; the Rev. T.
L Dilworth, treasurer; the Rev. S. N. Hobta, chairman of the research committee;
md E. E. Brown, vice president
Volunteers Organized
* To Raise Defense Fund
A capacity crowd at the represented at the decision
Masonic Hall Tuesday night making leveL"
beard the Rev. T. L Dllworth Rep. Ragsdale, a
outline plans that have been Jacksonville native said, "In
developed by the Anderson spite of efforts of many to
County Leadership -Far~ ~o identify Texas with the
raise a defense fund. Southwest,Tezaslssouth In Its
A corps of volunteer workers ideology, and much needs to be
were organized, pledges were done to secure political
* made and a substantial freedom for all citizens."
was collected. Also appearing on Tuesday
Frank J. Robinson, director night's program was the Rev.
of public relations and field V. L. Bell of Wichita Falls and
coordinator of the East Texas formerly of Palestine,
* Leadership Forum, secretary of the East Texas
commended the ministers for Leadership Forum. In his
the leadership they are remarks, the Rev. Mr. Bell
providing in the fund raising traced the history of the
effort. "You are setting an organization.
example for other ministers in Foley Wynn of Corslcana,
East Texas counties," he said. chairman of the Navarro
In explaining the East Texas CountyUnit, presented a check
Project which he organized, for $100 to Rep. Ragsdale for
Rep. Paul B. Ragsdale of the East Texas Project.
Dallas declared that* "politica Rodney Howard explained
is the most pervasive force in the status of efforts to create
the lives of all Americans, and single member districts In the
every citizen needs - to be city of Palestine.
PAGENO="0433"
PAUL B. FIAGSDALE
DISTRICT 33N
AU3TIN OFFICE
STATE CAPITOL
BOX 2910
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
512/475 5023
All materials obtained. 37% Black district formulated
Hold until other counties finished.
108.87~ current total deviation. 46.771 Blach district
formulated. Formulation of a majority SSA-Black precinct
probable. Plaintiffs identified
Define majority minority district. File Suit,
All materials obtained except for county commissioner
precinct map. Received letter for County Judge asking
for $10.00 for copy of precinct map. Sent response in
June affirming our right to map under the Open Records
Act. Received second rejection. 48.471 Black districc
formulated. Formulation of a majority SSA-Black precinct
probable.
Plans: A. G's. office says we have no chance for a good opinion
on Open Records Question. Send check for map. Prepare
analysis.
All materials obtained.
Prepare analysis.. Formulate Black district.
All ma~erials obtained. 35.6% current total deviation
39.97~ Black district formulated.
Hold until other counties finished.
1307
ul ~L~rprrii~ntatiur~i
Auslin. ~ftxus
EAST TEXAS PROJECT
Status Report: September, 1976
Original County Suits
Settled through federal suit.
DISTRICT OFFICE
5710 EAST R.L. THONNTON FWV
DALLAS. TEXAS
214/8271750
Anderson
Status:
Austin
Status:
Plans:
Bas trop
Status:
Plans:
Burleson
Status:
Bowie
Status:
Plans:
Caidwell
Status:
Plans:
83-679 0 - 82 - 28 Pt.2
PAGENO="0434"
1308
Status: 42.5% current~total deviation. 66% Black district
formulated with 7% deviation. Suit filed
Plans: Attempt to reduce deviation. Complete districting
plan.
Cass
Status: 63.5% current total deviation. 47.l7~ Black district
formulated
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Chambers
Status: Allmaterials ohtained except for precinct map.
Response from County Judge indicatedthatone is on
the way. 45.7% Blackdistrict formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Cherokee
Status: Suit dismissed due to ]ack of evidence.
Colorado
Status: All materials obtained except £orprecinct map. No
response to the first letter. 45.9% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Hold until~other counties finished.
Falls
Status: 11.0% current total deviation. 76% Black district
formulated. Evidence of racial gerrumandering within
Marlin.
Plans: Complete districting plan.
Freestone
Status: 61.9% current total deviation. 53.9% Black district
formulated which splits insignificant part of one ED.
51.9% Black district.possible without splitting ED's.
Suit filed.
Plans: Complete distrjcting plan.
Grimes S S
Status: 84.7% current total deviation. 49.3% Black district
devised. Formulation of a majority Black-SSA precinct
probable.
Plans: Define majority minority precinct. File suit.
PAGENO="0435"
1309
EAST TEX~~ PROJECT
Settled through Federal Suit
108.3% current total deviation
Analysis not yet completed
151.0% current total dcviation
63.5% current total deviation
Analysis not yet completed
11.07, current total. deviation
61.SZ current total deviation
* Analysis not yet completed
Analysis not yet completed
current i;9tal dey~at~r~
Setd~d through cooperative redistricting plan
Analysis not yet completed
70.6% current total deviation
Analysis not yet completed
* 39.1% current total deviation
Analysis not yet available
Analysis not yet available
Analysis not yet available
Analysis not yet available
Settled through Federal Suit
43.2 current total deviation
22.2 current total deviation
Analysis not yet completed
157.0% current total deviation
Analysis not yet completed
/~z~lysjs nQt yet ccmtle.ted
35.9~ current total ?eviation
9l.37~ current total deviation
61.2% current total deviation
37.4% current total deviation
Analysis not yet available
* Analysis not yet available
Analysis not yet available
Analysis not yet available
81.5% current total deviation
107.3% current total deviation
Status
Count~y
Ar.dcrson
Bas trop
Burleson
Camp
Cass
Cherokee
Falls
Freestone
Critses
Gregg
harrison
Houston
Jasper
Kaufman
Liberty
Limestone
Leon
Madison
Marion
Norris
Nacogdoches
Navarro
Newton
Panola
Polk
Red River
- RQbcr.t~Qn.
Rusk
San Auguetine
San Jacinto
Shelby
Smith
Trinity
Walker
Washington
Wharton
Waller
PAGENO="0436"
1310
COMM ITT Sf S
BUSINtSS & i'i'YJStRV
REAPPO°1 i'~NMi.NT
o( ~
~ iietin ,~tXta9
Lawsuit P1a~rned
Over Vote Li~ç~
Ausfin Bu~ean uS The NeWs in Harrison County is ,:J pcr
AUS [iN-A chit-s action cent, he said.
lawsuit is being filed his The Wailer Countycnse a
week to force non county in federal district court at
~onsnhissioner precinct Houston. Plaintiffs are Ens-
boundaries in Wailer tus Sanis Slayer of Prairie
County, and another s,iit is View, and Ctaudis Busby, a
king prepared against Han- Water Coanty resident.
risen County, aite;tng ~C Austin attorney David R.
Cinct tines consotnle racist Richards prepared the class
discrimination, State Rep, action lawsuit.
Pant Raesdale of Dalias re
ported. RAGSDALE SAID c
The black Dallas law launched the "East ies:as
unat:er said the coons are project' in Decemaer, ISa,
part of his "East Texas after being asiced by blaci.
project' to encourage constituents who origionib
county commissioner pre. moved to Dallas from East
cinct lines v.hich provide Texas. Ragsdaie himself
n,eaningfut representation caine to Dallas from near
for black citizens of Texas. Jacksonville in Cerohee
County.
RAGSDALE CHARGED He taid commissioners
that precinct tines in ~ precincts have been re-
Counties are serryn'anCered drawn in Narogdaches, An'
to prevent biacet domination dnrscn and Itsuslea Cone-
61 a commissioners pro- ties as a result of the
cinct and the i-titan. I-vote project, and voluntary ratEs-
concept laid down by the tricting is being considered
United Slates Surrcme in Smith County and other
Court is ignored tty most of counties.
the counties in the project. Ranodale said Waiter
`Wailer County, for :n- Ceun'~s' suffers from
stance, has a population de- "plantation politics' where
viation of 107.3 per cent black residcnts haven't had
from its precinct with a real voice in county gay
smallest poputatioii in iS ertirnent for nearly it con-
largest precinct. Rassdale turv.
said. Wailer County is over lIe said reap'mrtionmeitt
52 prr cent hIm-i'. rsnntisg of county prcrivcts is just
the students at Prairie \`ICiV us neneasury a part of the
A&M Ueiverstty. proaress of the state as
The population deviation gargantuan airports, super-
ports and skvscrapc:s.
"Joot an these manifesto
tior.o 01 ecOnomic progress
are inevitable, t believe
that these needed social
changes are inevitable,'
Ragsdaie said,
PAGENO="0437"
1311
C0MMITTI~S.
BUSINeSS & INDUSTRY
PAUL B. RAGSDALE * REAPP001IONMLNT
57101 THORNION fWY. . LIE 3~nrprstt~ttLft~
DALLAS. TFOAS 7520S
214/827.1750 ,~.uøtzn ,~cxo~
r
}IOUSTON CIIIIONICLE Thursday, June 12, 1975
Peigc 12, Section 1
Ec~t Texas Coun~s Dsc~1minc~
A~c~ns~ Bk~ck~, L~~k~or S,~ys
Austin (UP!) - A black "I am certain that in light the last century," he said. U.S. Supreme Court's one
legislator says East Texas of the overwhelming evidence "Rallier than providing its mass - one vote rule.
ccesties are gerrymandering in oar favor, the court swill black citizens with the oppor- Litigation against three
precincts to discriminate oece and for all strike down tunity to have an impact en ether counties (Cherokee,
against black voters and to the plantation politics of ~Val- county government. Wailer Rosk sod Shelby) is pending.
preserve plantatisn politics. icr County and at long last county lois enobarked on a Similar soils already forced
Rep. Paul Ragsdale. D, provide each of ito cilizena cnoree of invidious gerryman- reapeirtionnoent in' Naco"-
Dallas, announced p 1 ~ with an equol voice in county dering to preclude any black doches, Ilouslon and Andersen
Wednesday to sue Wailer gevernment," he oaid. citizen from effectively seek- counties, sad, in the latter
County commissioners. He Ragsdale said Walter Coon- tug the post of county corn- case led to the etectiwn last
said a similar suit will be filed ty is the osiy causty in the missioner." year of the first block csxstv
scan against harrison coutnv. stale with a black majority, Ragsdale said the 107 per commissioner in Texas since
Ragsd~1e raid he is corr~tl- 52.0 per cent of the pepolnlion. cent devialion in potiulalion Rccosslructioa.
in" files on 37 East Texas `Bu~ notably, in spite o tais between ti e largest a n d Plajistiffs in the sail o"aiest
counlies with block popula- fact, no black has beeis elect- smallest precinct in the cons- wailer County include the
lions of 20 per cent or more us ed to county office there in ty is a glaring violation of the black mayor of Prairie View,
a project aimed at providing Eristus Sams. and Claudia
- meaningful representation for, Busby of Prairie View.
blacks. Other caustics liag"ota!e
"East Texas is. in many anid he is investi"alie" in'
ways, a time ssasp," he said. ci u d e Bastrop Borleson.
It has refused to step into
the 20th cenlurv. Is East Camp, Cass, halls, Freestone, -
Texas. the black citizen is still Grimes, G r e g g, Jasper,
fnr the must part disenfran- Kaufasan, Liberty, Lime'
chised." stone, leon, Madison, Maciso,
Ragsdale said the silt to Morris, Navarro, Newton,
force ~ Panala Path, lied River, San
ducts in Wailer County will Aogustine, San Jaeinlo. South,
be filed in U.S. district' court Trinity, Walker, Washington
in houston this neck. and Whartun. -
PAGENO="0438"
1312
East Texas Project: (cj~77
Summary Sheet
Counties under suit
a. Now filed or soon to be filed
Gregg Larry Davés, Attorney
Morris
Marion
San Augustine
Falls James Johnston, Attorney
Freestone
Limestone
Robertson
Maragorda Carnegie Minis, Attorney
San Jacinto
Trinity
Washington
b. Under Analysis
Jefferson
Walker
Bowie
Colorado
Bastrop *
Burleson*
Grimes * (* indicates probability of SSA-Black Pct)
Counties with `IRA Status
Kaufman @
Smith *
Harrison *
Wailer *
Rusk *
Polk :(@ indicates formulation of Black Pct)
Wharton (* indicates receipt of Submission -
Liberty * by Justice Dept.)
Counties on Appeal
Navarro
Counties with settled suits
Anderson
Houston
NacogdocheS
Counties on Hold
Cass
Chambers
Leon
Cherokee
PAGENO="0439"
1313
Counties on Hold (cont.)
Jasper'
Panola
Red River
Shelby
Lee
Austin
Newton
Madison
Caldwell
Camp
Upshur
Sahine
Cities under suit
Palestine
Cities under analysis (all Cities in Target Area with pop. of app.lO,000 and above)
Longview
Texarkana
Marshall
Jacksonville
Corsicana
Terrell
Texas City
Port Arthur
Bay City
Huntsville
Cities settled
Tyler
School Districts under analysis
Longview I.S.D.
PAGENO="0440"
1314
PAUL B. RAGSDALE DISTRICT OFFICE
mSTR~T33N 5710 EAST RLTHORNTON FWV
BOX 2910 )sUBttU, ~PXaB 214/827-1750
AUSTIN. TEXAS 70769
512/475-5923
Suit Against ~
Gregg Settiecj
I~ECEIVED ,.~?R 1 k 1971
By WILL HUNDLEY Longvlew attorney Fred Eriarnan, ap
Staff Writer pointed-by commissioners to defend the
~Aauit alleging Gregg CO1UilY county, skid in his answer to1se original
lines discriminated ~aInst black ,` - ~ -
voters-and asking for redistricting- -~ `We're veryDleased with The ~soper.
-was settled out of court Monday. &tIbn of the plaintiffs,' County Judge
The agreement signed before UJ~ Reary Atkln98n said Tuesday.
District Judge William Steger means 9n their depositions, t~ey agreed that
the county comm1ssionwa~Ieg~ will Dot th, commissioners courtisad done noth.
have to redistrict-at least' *1W *at~ fag lateatlbnally).jfaerimmtnate
* 1980. 4 agaInst a~e. -~ .
The class action gulF was filed 1as~ "Slate law -r~qu1res~sat ads cotusty
OcL 15 by Clarence Bsfley and Beonld in the State of Texas review and redefine
- Jackson of Longview~ei~çb&1f of - - - ito commission~rs precinct lines each 10
themselves and others"-ln f~étai yearn -and since I've been county -
Evict court In Tyler. It~d4lmed.~kcka - Judge we have dose this and will con-
comprise more than 2~- per ~nt of - "~lIiue lode se," - -
county population and, that beceass of - - Alklrisonw~ aervedwith thesslltNov.
* precinct line demarcation, denied~ ~lr' - - ~. It named him and CountyCdlwnis-
reprçsentatlon and diluted b1ic*~vot1ng. - looners Bill Satterwhite, Bill lYwena, -
rIghts. - :. -. Jack B~ao and the now late Hugh Camp
The order Monday withdrew the suit, asdefeñdantL- . - -
stipulating commissioners, after the -s~~ conaeth decs'ee that was agreed
1980 censuS, will hold public hearings on to lIp ths~county and the plaintiffs réaf.
precinct boundaries and adopt -any firm'h ~5tthe commissioners will-
changes ordered bylaw! - after the 1980 census-Comply with that
Bailey and Jackson had-songbt a law as we jta-es dens In the past," the
declaratory judgment agan$ the coun- judge aaid. -
ty-ruling the line deinarcitlon din-: "We will have public hearings 14 de~
criminatory and - seekli~ a~pnlirnl' terrrttrie the interest of any citizen 1fl~tis
I~aIy injunction to stop voting there. regard and we weald urge anyone hat
- "The particular area comprising woUld be interested - or having a ~g-
Gregg County is as free of race gedlon - to attend the public hearIngs -
prejudices as is possible to achieve," in 1980."-
- -RECEWED ~? ~
~
COMMITTEES: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY REGIONS, COMPACTS & DISTRICTS
PAGENO="0441"
1315
Thursday, February 23, 1978
Austin American-Statesman,
By ROSEMARY BEALES
American-Statesman Staff
The Temple school board may have its first
minority members after its next election, as a
result of a ruling Wednesday by U.S. District
Judge Jack Roberts of Austin.
Roberts ordered the Temple Independent
School District to use single-member voting
districts in the election, scheduled for April 1.
Candidates for the two positions to be filled
in the election wIllcome from districts with
minority concentrations, according to Rob-
erts' order.
The school district, which has used an at-
large election system since it was formed in
1962, was brought to federal court Wednesday
by the U.S. Justice Department. The Justice
Department charged that at-large elections
diluted the votes of Temple's black and Mexi-
can-American citizens.
Some of those minority citizens were in
court Wednesday, and reacted with jubilation
when Roberts granted the government's re-
quest for a preliminary injunction.
The injunction prohibits the district from
School board districts ordered
holding the April 1 election under the at-large
system, but attorneys for both the school
board and the Justice Department said the el-
ection probably will not have to be postponed.
Jack Prescott, the Temple attorney repre-
senting the seven-memfr~r school board, and
John MacCoon, a lawyer with the Justice De-
partment's Civil Rights Division, said they
will meet today with school district staff to
work on a plan for seven single-member dis-
tricts in Temple.
Whatever plan is devised, it will have to be
approved by Roberts before an election can be
held.
If the election is postponed, it would not be
delayed for more than a month, MacCoon
said.
In arguing for the injunction Wednesday,
MacCoon noted that five blacks and five Mexi-
can-Americans have run for school board pos-
itions since 1964, but none has been elected.
Minority candidates have done well in the mi-
nority neighborhoods, he said, but "never are
sufficient votes gotten from the white com-
munity."
PAGENO="0442"
1316
~
-
113: JP I
I1Vøtii~gsuft
S
* 4 counties
rr~.
Officials of four Central Texas counties have~~.
been sued in Austin federal ~court.by minorities ~
* seeking reapportionment of their copnty voting
distriCts. ~ yre-ri~ ~ ~ :
The suits against c~oiinty commissionet~tot Bai-
trop, Williamson, ~Falls and:Robertson counties
contend that commissionersCOurtS~Iave1ttPOliti
cal district boundaries that serve to divide and di-
Iutetheethnicvoteinçoqnty.eie(OflS.4~~ .
The plai iffs~.rhoinclildebOthblaC~S and Mex
ican-Americans, are asking US. District Court
Judge Jack Roberts to declare existing dis1ricts'~
unconstitutional arid draw up new boundaries be-
fore the nextelection. *
are set for 2 p.m. Thursday on r~-
quests for injunctions against use of the current -
countyboundaries., . ~..
:. In a brief supporting the injunction motion, San
Antonio attorney Luis Segura argues that "plenty
of time remains"Iorthe court to drawnew bound-
aries before the upcoming May primary and Nov--~
ember general election. -~ G
But the courtalsohas power~he notes, to extend
the Feb. 6 election filing deadline and to delay the
primaxjr election for county commissioner posts, -~
if necessary. : ~ -. .~ .~ -:: ~. -
"Obviously, we don't want the elections to take:.
place under the reapportionment that we don't
feel is legal," Segura said Monday. -
"I, personally, think they're way off" in their
argument, said Williamson County Commissioner
Wesley Foust of Liberty HilL"We haven't tried to `~
exclude anyone." ~ * *~ : * `-~
:~:%~
PAGENO="0443"
1317
EAST TEXAS PROJECT
Status Report: July 1, 1979
Original County Suits
Anderson
Status: Settled through federal suit.
Angelina
Status: Settled through federal suit.
Austin
Status: All materials obtained. 37% Black district formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Ba strop
Status: 108.8% current total deviation. 46.7% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished. ~1~4 t~kr~)L~i ~ ~
Burleson
Status: All materials obtained except for county commissioner
precinct map. Received letter from County Judge asking
for $10.00 for copy of precinct map. Sent response
affirming our right to map under the Open
Records Act. Received second rejection. 48.4% Black
district formulated.
Plans: Request Attorney General's opinion.
Bowie
Status: All materials obtained.
Plans: Obtain tract map from library. Prepare analysis.
Formulate Black district. Contact ETLS to see if they
want to litigate.
Caldwell
Status: All materials obtained. 36.5% current total deviation.
39.9% Black district formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
PAGENO="0444"
1318
Status: 151.0% current total deviation. 66% Black district
formulated with 7% deviation. 52% Black district
under present plan.
-Plans: Attempt to reduce deviation. Complete districting
plan. Proceed to file suit.
Cass
Status: 63.5% current total deviation. 47.1% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Chambers
Status: All materials obtained except for precinct map.
Response from County Judge indicated that one is on
the way. 45.7% Black district formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Cherokee
Status: Suit dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Colorado
Status: All materials obtained except for precinct map. No
response tothe first letter.. 45.9% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Falls .
Status: Settled through federal suit.
Freestone
Status: Settlement agreement signed requiring redistricting
and approval..by Justice Department.
Plans: Monitor redistricting process.
Grimes
Status: 84.7% current total deviation. 49.3% Black district
devised.
Plans: Need to consult with local residents to formulate
Black district.
PAGENO="0445"
1319
Gregg
Status: Under court order requiring redistricting after
80 census. No appeal taken.
Harrison
Status: Under court order requiring redistricting after 80
census. Appealed.
Plans: Contact to Larry Daves to get up date.
Houstor.
Status: Settled through federal suit.
Jasper
Status: All materials obtained except precinct map; response
by County Judge indicated that only one map is
available. 43.4% Black district formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Jefferson
Status: Population data on hand. Still need precinct map.
60+% Black district possible.
Plans: Send registered letter requesting precinct map.
Obtain tract map from library.
Kaufman
Status: 70.6% current total deviation. 63.9% Black district
defined. Justice Department refused to object.
Plans: Complete districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
Leon
Status: All materials obtained. 48.7% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Lee
Status: All materials available except for precinct map.
County Judge indicated in his response that one is
on the way. 46.8% Black district formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
PAGENO="0446"
1320
Liberty
Status: 41.2% Black district formulated. I understand
County has recently redistricted.
Plans: Obtain present county precinct map.
Limestone
Status: 39.1% current total deviation. 54.1% Black district
defined. Suit filed. Previous suit nay require
dismissal.
Plans: Check with David Richards re: interrogatories to
confirm deviation. If constitutionally acceptable,
may have to dismiss.
Madison
Status: 164.3% current total deviation.
Plans: Check population of prison farm in Southeast quadrant
of County. Formulate Black district.
Marion
Status: 64.3% Black~district formulated. °7~ -~` ~
~ 1~et/ ID ~L ff~ c~(O4Ji~ /~Oi Sc~J based o~ ta ~Q Iiq ~
Matagordal) I `~ V ~j
Status: Settlement agreement signed requiring redistricting.
Black district formulated.
Plans: Monitor redistricting process.
Morris
Status: All materials obtained. 54.2% Black district
:formulated. 74.8% current total deviation.
Plans: Prepare to file suit.
Navarro
Status: Settled through federal suit.
Newton
Status: 17.3% current total devja.iion 56.5% Black district
formulated. ID + ~ZC4V~Ck ~fs
Plans: - Complete District plan. Proceed to file suit.
Panola
Status: Suit dismissed due to withdrawal of Plaintiff.
PAGENO="0447"
1321
Red River
Status: 45.2% current total deviation. 40.3% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Hold for more work after other counties.
Polk
Status: 157.0% current total deviation. Attempt to draw Black
district unsuccessful.
Plans: Consult with residents to formulate Black District by
splitting ED's. Ne'4~- ~ ~ ~
Robertson
Status: Settled through federal suit.
Rusk
Status: 35.9% current total deviation. 45.6% Black district
formulated by Pat Holdaway. The County's lawyer came
up with a plan with smaller deviation than Pat's and
no significant Black plurality precinct. Our attempt
to formulate majority Black district unsuccessful.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
Sabine
Status: All materials obtained except for precinct map. No
response to first letter. 47.0% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Hold until other counties finished.
San Augustine
Status: 91.3% current total deviation. 72.3% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Complete districting plans. Proceed to file suit.
San Jacinto
Status: 61.2% current total deviation. Two Black districts
formulated through splitting lED, 57.9%, 51.2%.
Note: Present plan includes one Black district.
Plans: Check over districting plan to see if Black population
can be distributed more advantageously. Complete
districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
Shelby
Status: Suit dismissed due to lack of evidence.
PAGENO="0448"
1322
Page 6
Smith
Status: 7.5% current total deviation. Justice Department
did not object.
Trinity
Status: 98.0% current total deviation. 55.1% Black district
formulated. Suit filed.
Plans: Present plan to county commissioners.
Upshur
Status: All materials obtained.
Plans: Prepare analysis. Formulate Black district.
Walker
Status: Need map .of county commissioners precincts within
Huntsville for accurate analysis.
Plans: Complete analysis. Phone County Clerk to delineate
precincts within Huntsville. Check for impact of
inmates on population data.
Washington
Status: 31.1% current total deviation. 56.0% Black district
formulated.
Plans: Complete districting plan. Proceed to file suit.
Wal ler
Status: Suit filed. We have offered to settle for two Black
districts of 62.6% and 75.6% formulated. County
Commissioner submitted revised districint plan.
We have copy.
Plans: Wait for reply to settlement offer.
Wharton
Status: 81.5% current total deviation. Attempt to formulate
Black district was unsuccessful.
Plans: Hold for more work after other counties finished.
PAGENO="0449"
4 A ~br ~a11aø lnrntng ~ -
Texan Lobbying
Aainst E~tpansion
oT Voting La~r
`.`y CAROLYN RAEKE time when the Senate is in
~rA~lNGFON - The recess-for the Fourth of
- - July-he said he was talk-
House-passed legislation lag `with staff aisles to both
bringing Texas under the Texas senators and hoped
1965 Voting Rights Act is to speak to aides to ness-
scheduled for Senate consid- tors from other totes.
eration it the next few HE CONCEDED he isa.,
weeks, so Trexas ietary no commitment at support
of State Mark White was for his position from either
here Wednesday seeking ~eri. John Tower, R-Texas,
Senate support to keep or Sen. Uoyd Bestsen, D-
Texas out of the act's COV Texas but anticipates their
erage. opposition to Texas' being
Although While chose a covered
White, who has previously
testified against broadening
-n the act's coverage to Texas
bases Mu case on his belief
that "in the past two and a~
half yearn since sty ap-
pointment as chief elections _____________________________
officer, there has been no
substantial claim or charge ties having five per cost or
of the denial of the right to more of its population of
vote due to TacO, color, Spanish-speaking origin or
creed or national origin." descent; reduction Ic pro-
The Rouse passed the ieg- cinct sizea in certain areas
islation last month, both to eliminate driving long
extending the act, which cx- distances to vote; state in-
pires Atig. 6, for another 10 speclsrs to stWereloe Texas
yearn and broadening Its elections, and establishing
coverage to establish a ciew new procedures and stiffer
"test or device" that would penalties to prevent cr0-
trigger coverage of a stale nomic or physical coercion
or jurisdiction. on anyone seeking to vole,
That test or device is that Gov. Briscoe noted in a let-
in 1972 a state or jurisdic. ter he tent so all U.S. Sena-
lien used Engtish-only elec- tors.
tion materials whes it had "WE HAVE proven that
a five per cent "language we have made-and will
minority" whose lurnout is continue to make-a good
the federal election was faith effort to solve any vot-
lowerthan 50 per cent. ing rights problems that
THE LEGISLATIVE sleD- may exist in Texas," Bris-
nition of a language minor- coo `wrote the senators.
ity citizen includes ~anisls A House Judicary Corn-
heritage, no Texas would be rnitlee report explaining the
covered by the act unless it need to broaden the act,
can show `that for the past was hard on Texas, saying:
gO years It Iwo not used "Texas has a long history
English-only election mater- of discriminting agsinul
ials. members of both minority
Only recently did the grups (Mexican-Americais
Texas Legislature pass and and blacks) in ways similar
Gov Doiph Briscoe sign into - to the myriad forms of dis-
law three bills which Bris- crimination practiced
cue and White believe are against blacka in the
s.fflcient to how the stale's South."
good faith efforts in getting White aid: "As the man
out the Mexican.iAznericun- most responsible for voting
vote, in Texas, I want -to tell you
R The bills provide bilingual that the alleged violationo
~ election and registration jot don't exist."
materials in all Texas cows- If Texas were covsr.dby
1323
the act, It would be re-
quired to use bilingual clot-
rion procedures for the. next
10 years, but it would also
have to get clearance from
of its proposed changes in
election procedures and fed-
eral examiners would be
designated to oversee the
elections,
OPPQNENTS consider the
cleronce aspect the most
onerous and White said
Wednesday the ustice De-
partment would have to
clear every voting change
mode since 1972. "1 think
the task imposed is ossi-
nous," he said,
White also noted that
Texas has 3,287 units of
government which would
have to be monitored by the
Justice IDepurtment "While
they're monitoring all of
this who is going to be
available to handle the real
voting rights violations?" he
asked.
83679 0 - 82 - 29 Pt.2
PAGENO="0450"
1324
~%Tote Bill `Repugnant'
~7)f~J
Briscoe Cites Federal Controls.
By CARL FREUND When the federal governmentaends Angeles and other distant cities. He
Guy, Dotph Briscoe asserted here tax funds back to states to the form orted proposed air pollution control
Wednesday that a federal voting of grants, Briscoe said, these bureau- meas~~ as as example.
rights bill would require Dallas and ~ ~ "The government closest to the
other Texas cities Co get U.S. Justice the use of elines" people to most responsive towisbesof
Department approval before they en- the people," Britcoe commented.
__ THE GOVERNOR charged also Briscoe told a' press conference
Brlscoe termed the bill, which the that federal officials put needless iv- later that he has reservations about
House has passed, "one of the ~ atnclaotte on Texans while to to federal revnue sharing "since It Is
pieces of legislation ever consitiered solve the problems of New York, Los actually deficit sharing"
by Congress" The governor said he _________________________________________
aent Secretary of State Mark White to
Washington this week as pars of an
emit to persuade the Serrate to kill It,
"11115 BILL w~~ld let the Justice
Department veto any change in
boundaries," 3riscoe said. "This
would apply to any aneexation by a
Texas Secretary of State Mark
~. White lobbies to keep state from
helngcoveredbytheleesvoting
Bights Act, Page 4A.
it would apply to redistricting plans."
These provisions are retroactive to
1972, Briscoe said.
"I think It is nepugneist to apply
these provisions to our state," Briscee
said. "The people of Texas do not
need to have a Washington official
telling them wbgre they must draw
boundaries,"
ADVOCATES OF the legislation
- contend there has been harassment of
Mexican-American voters tosome sec-
hens of Texas. They say the Justice
Department would quickly approve en-'
nexations end other boundary changes
- which did not dilute the political effec-
tiveness of Negroes and Mexican-
Americans,
Critics say Texas has strong laws
to protect the voting rights of minori-
ties. they argue also that `political
considerations" could affect Justice
Department decisions.
~riacoe said the bill would also Jet
the federal government supervise the
* registration of voters end elections.
Brlscoe drew applause during a
*S~e Junior Bar luncheon when he
called for Texans to fight efforts by
federal bureaucrats to iake overpow-
ers which belong to the state end lo-
cal governments,
PAGENO="0451"
~ly Tc?*~
Ra9sdcIe Attacks
Brisco&s Views
~On Voting Rights
~ By ROSANNE MOGAVERO White about voting problems
Texan Staff Writer in Wailer County.
~ Gov. Doiph Briscoe's stance WHITE RESPONDED
~ against extending the federal Monday that he had "per-
~votingrightsacttoTexasmet sonally inspected the
~ with opposition Mon.lay from situation" and found affairs to
State Rep. Paul Ragsdale of be in accordance with thelaw.
Dallas. "One case was tried in a
federal court, and it (the
"Minorities must still over- voting registration
come significant barriers, in procedure) was upheld," he
the field of voting rights," said.
Ragsdale said, adding that
* "unless the federal govern- Another complaint conner-
ment steps in, the minority fling voter registration prac-
citizens in many sectons of. tices was reported by the
Texas will remain politically Mexican American Legal
disenfranchised." Defense and Educational
Fund. ma court case filed last
The bill, scheduled to come month against White,
before the U.S. Senate on July MALDEF asked a three-judge
14, would require the U.S. federal court permanently to
Department of Justice to do away with the ballot stub
monitor elections in Texas. signing requirement of the
Texas Election Cede.
Briscoe. said in ,a recent
letter sent to every member. "Mexican-Americans in
- of the Senate that extension of South Texas have bees in-
the act would be "totally on- timidated from exercising
necessary" and it `~reflects their right to vote," by this
unfairly on the people of Tex- voting method, MALDEF
as" because Congress is try- claimed.
tug "to usurp our authority, to
dictate our electIon PRESENT EI,IECTION
procedures to us. and to pic- laws require a voter to sign
tureusasracists." - his or her name on a
RAGSDALE claims that numbered ballot stub. This
stub contains a number iden-
*Mexican-Americans and tical to the one on the ballot
blacks have been traditionally- signed by the voter. A per-
"disenfranchised by Texas' son's vote therefore can
discriminatory voter registra- possibly be determined by
tlon practices and matching the ballot with the
procedures." stub.
An example cited by `i don't think any other
-. Ragsdale concerns Prairie state has a ballot stub signing
-View A&M University in procedure like it," said
Waller County. Students there MALDEF representative Al
"remain the only students in Kauffman.
Texas who are not allowed to
`register to vote where they at- Other discriminatory voting
tend school," Ragsdale said. practices claimed by
-Out of approximately 4,000 tO Ragsdale are:
`5,000 students, only about 100
,.are registered to vote, he add- * In 47 counties in EastTex-
ed as ranging from 19 to 53 per-
"Coincidentally, Wailer - cent black population, blacks
County is -the only majority are excluded from total par-
black county in Texas," he ticipation in the political
said. process.
Secretary - of State. Mark * Jefferson County, in the
-White. recently said "there Port Arthur-Beaumont area,
- hasbeen no substantial claim . was "blatantly ger-
qr charge of ~he denial of the rymandered" by recent
right to vote," to minorities. `-redistricting of the 64th
Ragadale said he has talked to Ugialature.
1325
OQ
C
PAGENO="0452"
`4
C
1326
vii
N
V
C
S
-C
V
S
PAGENO="0453"
THE SAN ANTONIO LIGHT
-. ~
Tueodav,JUIY8, 1975 7-A
~PAU~X~ Z~~ULULIWV " .
(~i !S Minorities Need Voting Rights: Là~V~
AUSTI iy extending the taw to cover Texas. Secretary of State discriminatory poticies of "For example, in Watler Ragsdate said he ban in. rangIng from 19 to'53 per
groups )t Texas Mark White, a Briscoe recatcitrant tocat offictats. County, thebtackstudentsal fornted Whtte of the Watter cent," Rogsdale said. "As a
Texas x 1 "This state's record in the appointee, said there has Un less the federal Pra ne Vt ew A& M County sttuattnfl several resolt of gerrymandenng
voting ri ii field of voting rights has been no substantiat ctaimof government steps in, the (University) remaintheonly ttmes butWhttesatdhecould and other tacttcs used bb
intervent ,~ been dismal," Ragsda(e denial of voting rights to minority citizens in many students in Texas whe are donnthtngabeut it. local offtctats, blacks are
black I `, s a i d ` ` B u t h minnritiesdaringhisternt sections nfTesaswitltemain not allowed to register to "I have tdvnttkial 47 excluded from total parttci-
heading . it Mesican-Amertcans and "Gun. Briscue's posittnn politically disenfranchised vote where they , in the pollttcal
raciatdiv .ast blacks have traditionally simply denies palitteat forsomettmetocnme." school. The tax as
Texas been disenfranchised by reality for many black and Ragsdale, spenvor itf the collector of WaIler
Texas' discriminatory voter brown citizens of Texas," `Fast Texas Project" whtch has generally tried
Rep: Paul Ragsdale, .0' regislratinn `practices and Ragsdalesaid.' his filed several suits trick tn the book to
Dallas. said Monday blacks procedares." "ft is for this reason that challenging districttag of students away from
cans Gon Dnlph Bnscne wrote the Federal Voting Rights county commissiont courts polls," Ragsdal
the pmtectiun of the congressmen and federal Acn must be extended to and city councils, saidhehas "Cotncident
Voting Rights Ac;.. `officials in June saying he Texas. Our state leadership numerous records of vottng County ts the
is considering opposed extending head to has refased to eliminate the rtghlsdiscnminatton. blackc
PAGENO="0454"
1328
PAUL B. RAGSDALE CO~U.I 7 EE~:
cr ~ 8uSINE~.0. 0. ND7STF1Y
5710 E.THORNTON ~ 3!i~,n%~j' *~f 3~1r~',c/u.tntfttLe REA1PORT1UNML~4T
DALLAS. TEXAS 75751
214/827.1750
.~ n~t.zn ,~ex1.
August 4, 1975
Nr. Sam Wood
Editor, Austin-American Statesman
Dear 1'~r. Wood,
Your editorial of 31 July indictIng the extension of the
Voting Rights Act to Texas is based more on fear than fact. You
focus exclusively on the alleged problems of implementing the
act and completely ignore the very real reasons why it is neec~ed.
Traditionally, Texas voting laws have been as blatantly discri-
minatory as those in the other southern states which are prs-
sently covered by the Voting Rights Act. And while the provi-
sions of the act cleaned up most of the voting irregularities
in these states, voting practices in Texas never recieved the
kind of comprehensive scrutiny necessary to bring them in line
with the requirements of the U. S. Constitution. In short, the
minority citizens of Texas remain legally discouraged from par~
ticipating in the political process.
Just to cite one example, the Black students of Prairie View
A & H University in Waller County are the only students in the
State who cannot vote in the county in which they attend school.
Notably, the ability of these students to vote in Wailer County
\Eould significantly alter the political balance of the county.
But due to outright opposition from the local ~`hite establish-
ment and complete inaction on the part of state officials, tlic
students of Waller County remain politically disenfranchised and
its citizens remain domir~ated by ~ small power elite controlh~d
by the ideology of "plantation politics".
Clearly, then, it has been state inaction which has ailo~ed
this overt violation of the basic constitutional rights of thc
mii~rity citizens of Texas to continue. For this reason, I an
deeply disturbed by your kneejerk rejection of this needed ex-
tension of federal authority. I am sure that your minority read-
ership is equally disturbed.
- Sincerely,
Paul B. Ragsdale
PBR:mrm
PAGENO="0455"
;~`heAusiin Statesn~an-Established July 26, 1871
Th. Ohb~s .ifs~rnoon N~w~pap~r in T.'xnn
1w Americut-Eatablished May 31, 1914
-
RICHARD F. BRO~~-PURLISHl.R
Dlii. tIun,~s;~ ~ ~. ~OIJD EVERETT BUSIIELL
(.or,~l ~i*gr Editor Ad~rrtiring Director
1011 EASTER 101 BRO~ GEQRGE V. SPAULDING
C,rculniion Drrecior Produclion Director Classified Managrr
Editorials I Comment
r.rs~lrrperss*h;orof to Aoo.oooao `oil. Wc~rojry
PAGENO="0456"
1330
PAUL 8. R4G~f~ALE COMMiTTEES:
~3 ~ BL'SINEES ~ ~DusTqy
5710 Hfl~NTON cwv. 33~pu91~. ~f 34 r3tt~ j,i~o RCJ~PFORTION'4ENT
DALLAS.TFXA~ 75201
214/5271 7M
September 2.4, 1975
The Honorable Dolph Briscoe
Governor of the State of Texas
State Capitol
Austin, Texas
Dear Governor Briscoe:
Let me again urge you to order Attorney General Hill
to drop the State's appeal of Judge Gisell's order
regarding the extension of the Voting Rights Act to
Texas.
It is now time for all sides involved to cease the
protracted debate over this issue. I fear that this
controversy has already cost our state enough, both
in terms of tax dollars and in terms of emotional
expense.
I implore you to exercise your leadership and sea to
it that this debate is laid to rest, once and for all.
Sincerely.,
d~M
Paul B. Ragsdale
cc! Secretary of State Mark White
Attorney General John Hill
PAGENO="0457"
PAGENO="0458"
1332
* ~ !~11a~ ~arnjn~ ~efua
Friday, May l4~ 1976
Discrimination
claim disputed
*uzun RarnuofTh~ ~*
AUSTIN - State Rep. Paul Ragsdale
of Dallas disputed Thursday Secretary
V of StalL Mark White's claim That dis-
crimuintion does not exist in Texas
elections.
White tilts week demanded an apol-
V ogy from the u.S. Department of Jus-
tice, which sdid i-its-lion supervisors
would be sent to Texas May 1, unless
that agency furnished some evidence
they found discrimination here.
pep. Ragsdale said black students at
Prairie View A&M have been systemati-
cally excluded trom voting by Wailer
County officials. The university is in
V Wailer County. although most students
come from other counties.
The legislator charged White with
V registered to vote.
Ragsdale added he is unfamiliar
with conditions in four South Texas
counties named by the Justice Depart-
inent as potential discrimination trou-
ble spots.
In Wailer County, Ragsdale objected
to use of a residency questionaire for
voters, asking the applicant where his
*caijs registered and other questions.
PAGENO="0459"
1333
-. .Wedne~'y; Mirth 3t~1~16.
~a~# .M-"Aust'n, Texas -~-thrM&st15 ~aei~cuSt~~
Court dilutes
Otlflg act
~ -~ `~~? ~
WuhingtonP~t
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it
~. easier tFuesday for states and~eealitIesc~vered.by -
the fed~ral Voting Rights ~
:` of proying that their reappo~lok~1~t'pla!~s are
free ofraclal discrimination. :
By a~5-to-3 vote the court ruI~cttbat reapportion-
`. ment plans that improve black voHngitrength do
not viQ1ate the federal law, even whert:thsyieave
blacksiar short of the voting strength ol their share
of the ~pulation.
The Jaw, often called the most effeetive civil
~ rights `legislation ever passed, `ordinarily puts a
heavy ~burdeIl on st~ate and local governments,
mostly~ii~ the South, to justify anychange In their e1-
I ection~aws.
~ By removing some, jurisdictions trorn. th~ Jew's
~ coyer~e, Tuesday's decision shifted to the chal*
lengers - black voters, civil rights lawyers and
somet~nes the Justice Department -the burdens
.~ of proving that the proposed reapportionment
~ would~iscrim1nate against blacks. -
The burden of proof is a critical ,feati~re.of the~
~ landm~rk civil rights law,. which. was designed to~
`~ put teeth into the 15th Amerldment's ban on racial
* ~ discrilination in voting. Covered jurisdictions
~, rarely.have met their burden when challenged un-
~ der the law, while ehallengers have never persuad-
~ ed the high coU4'~that any legislative reapportion-
~ inent v~olatedthe15th Amepdmei~t. -
~ The decision~"a victory' for a districting plan
drawn~up by theNew Orleans City Council, was the
~: latest ~i a serIe~pf setbackS for civil tights la~yera'*
on the~p~ arfLectiveness,~f~,~~
PAGENO="0460"
1334
BARBARAJORDAN . 1534 ~SWO~ H3830 O~,cr Thfl~ING
1838 DIITRICr. T20AZ . % J f~. ~ WA$l3NGT~ D.C. 20515
T~H~E: (202) 225-3816
GOVERNMENTOPERATIONS Con~te~ of t~j~ ~Anitcb ~`tate~ H~02
DEMOcRATIC STEERING ~OU~t ot ~cptt~entatibt~ T~5724
I&asbfngton, ~ 20515 T0:r~3)674-8465
March 31, 1975
The Honorable Paul B. Ragsdale
House of Representatives
State Capitol
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Paul:
I have recently introduced, along with Congressman Badillo
of New York and Congressman Roybal of California, legislation
which would expand the Voting Rights Act to cover Texas and
other areas where Mexican-Americans reside. Because of your
interest in protecting the voting rights of both blacks and
Mexican-Americans I thought you should have the enclosed
material which explains the bill.
The right to vote is a basic American right protected by the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The Congress has the authority to enforce these Amendments
by the passage of appropriate legislation. This bill merely
implements the guarantees expressed in our Constitution.
The Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the
House Judiciary Committee has heard extensive testimony
about the degree to which the voting rights of minorities
are not adequately protected inTexas. The need for this
bill has been clearly and dramatically established. When
the Subcommittee meets -in mid April to consider amendments
to the Voting Rights Act I am hopeful this bill will be
favorably reported.
The bill has been carefully drafted in order that. efforts
to include areas where Mexican-Americans reside does not
jeopardize the Act's continued applicability to the South.
It is important that the life of the Voting Rights Act be
extended beyond its current August, 1975, expiration date.
Nothing should deter us from that goal. Title I of this
bill fulfills that pledge.
Should you have any comments or suggestions please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
BARBA ORDAN
Member of ngress
BJ/ba
enc.
PAGENO="0461"
1335
~SEFH H. MCFHSC* ~C HCH. JCHCH
CV. DEHECICI. C. UCH. ~JCniteb ~fatcz ,.~encdc
H. *AEEV MEYE~, CHIEF CHUH5D. CEO CHIEF H.EEC COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WO~KS
AII.Ey CUAEO~ MINONITY HEEO WASHINGTON. D.C. 2O5~O
August 3, 1975
Honorable Paul B. P.aesdale
State Representative
House of Representatives
7. (1. Pox 2913
Austin, Texas 73767
Pear ReprLsentative Ragsdale:
In voting for the Votino Rinhts Act, ny primary concern was for tie peoria o~
Texas, for.I believe our goal should be to rake sure that no citizen of our
state has any reason to feel that he has been hindered in any t'av in exercisir.3
the most cherished right of citizenshir -- the richt to cast an effective
ballot.
I compliment the members of the Texas Le~islature and our state officials for
their diliqent work and significant prorress in their efforts to ruarentee all
citizens full participation in the electoral rocess. In fact, we are in
compliance with all sections of t!ie new Votino P.iohts Act except the rart
doalinn with procedural channes in the electoral process.
We have cone alone way, hut there is strono feelinc that there is still wore to
be done to guarantee the right to vote of every citizen in our state.
it is this new "oreclearance" reouirenent that has caused the most concern a~'on~
Texans who question what they consider interference by the federal oovernnent
in state and local election matters. They are disturbed by the prosoect of
having to submit to the Justice Department plans for any changes that could, in
any way, affect the electoral process.
I could understand their concern over this provision if this were a case of a
new federal infringement into the activities of the states. However, it is not.
There is nothino new about this. We have had to have federal arproval in the
-- but it had to be souoht in the courts, in costly, orotracted liti'ation,
after the fact.
The new provision would replace the cumbersome existine process with a nore
swift administrative review by the Justice Denartment to determine in a~vence
whether or not proposed changes are in compliance with the Supreme Court rulin~
or "one nan, one vote'. This procedure is far more certain, quite exoeditious
and considerably less costly than ex post facto judicial review.
PAGENO="0462"
1336
Various court rulings showing voter discrimination in Texas were cited in
hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary subcommittees and in floor deb~ta
in both chambers. ~e have only to look at the White vs. Penester case to ohserv~
the disadvantages of the old system. These issues remained unsettled durino
protracted litigation. Speeding the process of resolving these ouestinns t'ill
h~lp to achieve the result all of us want: equal representation for equal
numbers of people in a truly democratic system.
This procedure removes the burden prom individuals or nroups ~`hose only avenue
of redress has been to bring suit in the courts to establish proof of iniustic~s
in the electoral process. I believe it is only rinht that the burden be shifted
to the government to insure the right of every person in Texas to vote.
There were the compelling reasons that convinced me to vote in favor 0t the
Voting Rights Act. I an convinced that the vast majority of Texans ~`ifl a'~roo
with ny position.
I would like to add that in vie~! of the broad and unlimited interoretation n~ten
given the "preclearance" provision, I have received assurances from the chair2.~
of both the Senate and House Judiciary subcommittees to hold hearincs in thn n~r
future in an effort to define and clarify the- annlicahiliti of this nrovision.
Furthermore, I an also requestinc from the Attorney Oenerel a full revie~ of
administrative procedures on "preclearance' in light of the anticipated increcse~
burden to assure the minimum of delay in the processing of such apolications.
Sincerely, --
~ /~;~
-. -~ A ~- ~
` Lloyd Bentsen
PAGENO="0463"
1337
CHARLES WILSON ~ ii co~rrr~s.
2~ Diss~icr. TN~SS ~I~4 ) Jj~ FOREIGN AFFAIRS
V - VETERANS AFFAIRS
Con~rc~ of the ~Aniteb &tate~
~ou~e ot ~epre~entatitit~
&~a~~ington, ~ 20515
August 1, 1975
Honorable Paul B. Ragsdale
State Representative
P. 0. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78767
Dear Paul:
I am very pleased to report that I had the honor to be
Barbara's only co-sponsor on the Voting Rights Act. I am
sure you know that we adopted the conference report over-
whelmingly earlier this week.
incerely,
r es Wilson
CW:ls
PAGENO="0464"
1338
JOHN G. TOWER COMMITTEES:
TEXAS AROED SERDICES
BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
`~Cnffeb .~tat.z .~ena1e
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
July 15, 1975
The Honorable Paul B. Ragsdale
State Representative
State Capitol
Box 910
Austin, Texas
Dear Mr. Ragsdale:
The Senate will shortly be concider~ng legislation to expand
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and I appreciate having the
benefit of your thinking on this issue.
The House has already passed a bill, H.R. 6219, to extend the
VRA through 1985. That bill also places a permanent nation-
wide ban on the use of literacy tests and extends coverage to
areas with a language minority population of 5% or greater.
Language minorities are defined in the bill as "Asian American,
American Indian, Alaskan Native and Spanish heritage". It is
this latter provision--the language minorities title--which
will for the first tine bring the State of Texas under coverage
of the VRA.
Here in the Senate, it is anticipated that the Judiciary Con-
mittee will report a bill shortly, and that Senate Floor debate
will take place around mid-July. I expect there will be a nur.iber
of amendments offered at that time (the House considered 23
amendments to its bill) before we reach final passage of the
bill.
I firmly believe that no one should be denied the right to vote
on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and I have
stated my intention to support extension of the VPA. It is
difficult for me to say how I will vote on specific provisions
or amendments until I see what those provisions are, and what
effect they will have on the total Act, but I shall certainly
give this issue my undivided attention when it does cone to the
Senate Floor.
Sincerely yours,
John Tower
JT:cr
PAGENO="0465"
By ANN McDANIEL ~)
Washington Bureau JUN 2 ~
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Su-
preme Court Monday ruled that Me-
berg County and other areas covered
by the Voting Rights Act must have
all changes so election laws or pt-ac.
tees precleared by the federal gov.
eminent unless the plan is designed
by a federal judge
In a statement of strong support for
the eonteos'cesial Law, which Congress
is currently considering whether so
renew, seven of the justices said
court urdered changes in which the
judgt does not design the plan, but
merely accepts it, must be precleared
by the Justice Department or the US.
District Court for the District of
Columbia
`Because a large number of voting
changes must necessarily undergo she
peeclearanee process, centralized re
siew .nhances the lsklihood the re-
rurrtng problems will be resolved it a
cetisistcat and expeditious nay, " Jus-
tice John Paul Stes'ens wrote for the
majority. `Moreover if covered juris-
dictions could avoid the normal pce-
clearance procedure by awaiting liti-
gation challenging a refusal to
* redistrict after a census is completed,
the statute might have the unintend-
ed effect of actually encouraging de-
lay in making obviously needed
changes in district boundries.'
The decision will be used by lossice
court' so determine which plays must
be preeleared as Congrcss and state
legislatures continue reappoetiosxnrst
baaed on 1980 census figures.
In other action which could affect
election practices in Texas, the ja.s.
tires agreed to deleensne whethee the
"cesigr-to.ruri rule-." shirk cc-
q.eees certain elected ofiieials to auto-
nsatii'alis' quit their jobs if they run
for a higher office, is constitutional
Tue question stems from a lawsuit
tiled by Jicho Fishing, a county judge
ix El Paso Under the state Law,
adop:cd in 1958. Fashing was forced
to resign his pvsi afire serving only
i,ill of his four-year 1cm in order to
t.ii for a district judgeship. Other
jedges seeking a higher office
aiao joined the luwauit.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
chimed a lower court division favor-
ing Fushing, which said the state law
seas "isvidiously discriminatory" and
`:.eled to serve any proper govern.
tic stair law requires moss office-
hclsici's to resign so run for a higher
office if they have more tlsan one
yc'ar left in their term Officials who
must resign isclade district clerks,
county judges, county treasurers,
county commissioners, county and dis-
trict attorneys, sheriffs and tiso asses-
uses ar.d collectors.
The law does not force some of fi.
rids so resign bcl.,er seeking a higher
office, including the governor, lieu.
tenant gos-ernor, rail road commission.
er and attorney general
The isate contends the law is need-
ed because it compels officials so give
thrie undivided attention to their of.
fire and eliminates any appearance of
Impropriety or conflict of interest,
to the Voting Rights case, Kle&rg
County ensoanissiosees sneer ordered
by a federal district judge to redeaw
the cocatoty's pceeines bousdeirs as a
result of a court ruling thai existing
boundries violated the one-person,
one-vote pnnciple.
The commissioners submitted
plan, that was accepted by the court
despite objections from area Mexican.
Americans who argued that the plan
diiuted their voting strength in one of
the county's four precincts. The plan
had been prepared by Robert Nash,
deas of the business school at Texas
A&t Univeesisy.
The federal district judge allowed
the county to bypac.a pes-clearunce by
the Justice Department, saying `the
Kiebreg County Commissioner's
Court did net reayportiox the com-
enissoinre's court precincts on their
own authority, but snutrad did so in
response to a court order.'
The 5th Cieruit Court of Appeals
overturned the district judge's ruhng
and ordered the plan submitted for
peselearaner.
The high court upheld the appeals
Porlioss of the Voting Rights Act
expire next yrar and members of
Congtius are currently holding hear.
sngs to determine whether the act
should be renewed and whether any
changes in thr law should be made.
Many critics of the law contend `he
provision culling for preclcarance
should be eliminated. Instead, the
critics say, changes in election pear.
tires could be challenged in court if
they appeared to bediscriesinalory.
1339
Court: Voting Rights
Act areas must get
~deral preclearancè
tins TestEs
[~ilingual education
sur~jyes final rush
Aso.ooiatcdPreaa ts.tt v `fil able totalieadvaxtageof themony
AL'STIN - The legislature up. xht.~0oS~hlatTetta5Itasboof
pi~td a proposal Moi~day to cx- `The funding provision is un-
trod bilingual education tn Tcxas fortunate," Sen Curios Truan, D
schools through the elementary Corpus Chrssti, said about the
- ,g id ` - - 956.85 per student allocated for
tb -l each xtudest it-, the bilingual pro
The C-tnate adopted a confer- gram. lIe ori000lly askcd foe 8150
cicce committee report ox bdin. pe lx ent.
goal rdttcattnx, 22-f, and the HE SAID TIlE program would
Huuseapproviid the rct'ort,92-5i1. affect about 350 school dittricts
Rep. fit lIon Fou, R'Huoston, a out of the 1,100 in the slate It
member of the committee that would apply to districts in s-hick
sorbed out the hoot version. said at least 28l~eeuoiiu isa grade has-v
he hat refused tosign the report, limited English.npeaking ability.
"lhdcii'atorc fc'cl that esistisig blunt people hitch lIce bill ofe
bilingual programs by und large plies only to Spanish.speu'etol
haec fatlcd."Fox said. children, Fox said, but in his din'
"Bilitigual education as we truct 17 langatc~ec are spoben it'i
have been practicing it in Texas the home.
ps'cpcirates segregation, and I fear c5flcr about to toinntes of dix.
it will perpetrate segregation itt cossion in confercncc committee,
oorsucicty,"hcsaid. Rep. lamp Atkinson, DRew Box.
H E SAID HE load gotten `very
oep,utusc feedbacb from teachers' nearnessof the end of thesession.
un bihittgitalpriagruinx. - . One cliatige s-oitld have said
Atty. Ceo. Mark White praised none of the $00 million uppropri-
the Logisia un. S acts ti ping. aced for the expatided bilingual
d thtT g ~ kb d pgti 1db p 1
iictheetoresols'ethvirowneilaca. `1 do not oppose pilot pro.
,ioxal problenis lisa Ic cral grams," said Rcp blots Garcia, 0-
U.SD J dg toll mWy Se A Is ~t fIb if
Justice han said Texan mont pro. - x ~t a- ossible on actual
side bilingual education for all b' `~ do atm
pxblicschool students who need it g -
through the 12th gr.ide, if neces- The other change removed b~'
sary. the conferees said any child not
"In addition to enhancing our proficient ix English after four
appeal, this legislation will allow years of bilitugual leaching would
our nun.Engltth speaking dill. be transferred so "an alternative
dccx so learn English qoicker so transitional language program.
that they can compete equally such as English as a second Ian.
with other children, and thus be gnagc.
83-679 0 - 82 - 30 Pt.2
PAGENO="0466"
0
(D
(l)~
-I
C),
U,
PAGENO="0467"
1341
Too Much Government
Small Businesses
Now Crippled
We rightty credit much of our nations prosperitytothe
continued prosperity of smatt businesses - - the famity.
owned grocery store in Alpine, the dry-goods business in
Mount Pleasant and the fresh fruit market in'the Vattey.
Such smatt businesses account for 97 percent of att
American bttsinesses.
They ar- responsibte for one-third of the Gross Na-
tionat Prodcc. And, eupeciatly important during these
times of recession, smatt businesses emptoy roughty hatf of
the peopte working in the United States.
AtI this is now in jeopardy. During Senate hearings I
recently conducted we examined the ptight of these small
businesses, and discovered an alarming dectine.
Census bureau statistics show that from 1948 to 1972
the number of setf.employed businessmen shrank from 10.7
million 107.1 miltion.
tn 1960. small and medium-sized businesses hetd 50
percent of this country's manafac.'ring assets and earned
41 percent of the profits. By 1972, this had dropped to 30
percent of th assets and only 29 percent of the profits.
A major reason for this is that they are paying a higher
tan rate than big corporations. A Congressional study shows
that 143 large corporations had an average tax rate of 23.6
percent, compared to a tax level for alt corporations of
about 33.4 percent. I supported an additionat tan cut for
stud! huvieesv in the `75 Tax Act and wilt work to make it a
permanent reduction.
Small businesses are also more crippled by excessive
government regulation involving mountains of red tape.
Too often, they cannot afford to hire lawyers and accoun-
tants to take care of these matters.
The Federal Paperwork Commission, created from a
bill I authored, is now slodying the problem, and for-
mulating ways to relieve small businesses from the burden
of massive government paperwork. Bat much more must be
done and I cue hopeful my hearings will help provide addi-
tional relief through tax reform and release from needless
trfrebygmt
~ ~. -. !` .,c'J~
SHARING AMOMENT' `Allison Kay Sonanun,a4-ynar-oldtollnnTsn.
ns,bnabnsnsrngtngaplnchy ltghtngntnat $ boendlinay disosso $hntstkru
hrnathtn~,dlgosttnnnnd Ilfentnno.h. nssbnrn.Insssnpoctnty proud that
Allison, dsngbtee all Carolyn nod Run Seasons at Houston, ban bonn
chosen Ia rspessrnt the Cyatic Ftbmnts Funndattns no the 1975 Nntinnnt
PsntarCbOd.
Education Suffering
First Senate `Bill
Barring Busing
I have consistently opposed the compulsory busing of
school-children since coming to the Senate. And for good
I've voted against it 37 times. And, today, as the issue
is disrupting the educational process in northern and
southern communities alike, lam more convinced lb an ever
that it simply does nol work.
Others are nov~ coming to that conctusion. This month.
for the first time, the Senate approved antibusing legtslzttzn
as an amendntent to the Health, Education and Wcllarc ap.
propriations bill.
I co-sponsored this measure and I am pleased that 1
passed. It is not a final solution. It will not affect court-
ordered busing plans in Texas cities. But it is a very encour-
aging sign of the change in attitude by the Senate.
I intend to take nra' legislative initiatives in the com-
ing weeks and months to stop the compulsory busing of
school-children to achieve racial balance. I will support
either statutory changes or a constitutional amendment
directed at that end. And I am hopeful that, nov. we can
persuade the solid majority in Congress xho previously de-
feated every effort to prohibit forced hosing that it is xrong.
Oar goal should be to provide quality education for all
young Americans, regardless of color.-rich and poor. while
and black and brown. But busing has proved counter-
productive to the overall goat of quality education. It has
created bitterness. And caught in the middle of the, v'sife
are those very students we are supposedly trying to help.
The time has clearly come to stop chasing after some
mythical ratio of black to white through compulsory busing.
The time has come to realize that although the end is still
the same--a quality education for all oar children--the
means have got to change.
Senator
LLOYD BENTSEN REPORTS
FROM
,,,,~ WASHINGTON
~IaIar~Jda~ hOST n~ - -~
~ "~ti~jJm
SEPTEMBER, 1975
Soviet Aid Mocked Helsinki
Nearly two weeks before the United States joined
Russia and twenty-eight other nations in signing the
Helsinki communique, I learned from the Central
tnletligence Agency that the Russian aid to Pot
tugoese Communists might well exceed $10 million a
month.
Despite the mockery this made of the Helsinki
Summit Conference, Presidenl Ford went ahead and
participated. A key provision, in fact, of the agree.
ment he signed there reaffirmed that no country
should intervene in the internal affairs of another na
Later, two x'reks after the Helsinki Conference.
Secretary' of State Henry Kissinger joined me in cor
demning Soviet involvement in Portugal.
It is gratifying that the Administration has nov
taken a moral stand against Russian interference in
the affairs of this NATO ally, but it would have been
far more effective stand had it been taken before
Helsinki.
PAGENO="0468"
1342
Atom Bombs Mushroom
This spring sixty-five nations met in Geneva to review
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970. There was
much tal1~ about the need to limit the spread of atomic
i~'s.'s.
`am-id learned that while the con-
ference tig place; secret negotiations htsti made
three more countries capable ofprodurii5atoz~:~'s'-4'~
West Germany had void full-scale nuclear technology
to Brazil. France had als been working behind the scenes,
negotiating similar sates to both Pakistan and South Korea.
So. despite all the talk in Geneva. the ziusnbee of coun-
tries that wiji someday be capable of exploding thcir own
atomic bombs is steadily growing. By 1980, it is estimated
that the nur.iber of countries which will have nuckar reac-
toes operating or under construction will double, from the
present 26 to 52.
There is an urgent need for a new international agree-
ment governing the sale or transfer of nuclear technology to
foreign countries.
I have urged the Secretary of State, the President and
my fellow Congressmen to begin seeking a truly workable
international agreement that will stop the mushrooming of
atom bombs. Only in this way can we ease the expanding
threat of nuclear war.
Letters to the Senator
Aboreandbeyood,,,,
~0 Dcccrrtlts't 2!. 1973. en hnsbtattd roshed h~ life itt hearst-as.
sciahoat toni: avdnithont life-lint, to resent-a rsatt ataea. Please
tot-gist- it,: pcrsonalpeith-. hot I/i'd h. d..st-,r.es aorrrettjfieial eecogni'
rot- th.- art-tic,- ht' pr-eforrnr-d as a mr-rrtbs-t' of rh. Coast Gnot-d a:
rllcPotr Isab,-1 Statiot:.'
- Mrs. Kenneth 3. SnIder, South Padre bland
EDITORS NOTE: 1~ late sprivg. I contacted Coast Gnard officials
here in Washington aboisr Kerrnr'th Soidet-'s heroic actioos. lain pleas-
ed to report that SN Snider has since been aoarded the Catot Goard
Medal jordistirtgiti.rhed service. an honor he cleathdearrves.
the call of dory
`My recent prr.nrotior: toCol:srs'Irerrtinds rut-that. had it not bet-sr
for too it, at:' first plact'. it it ottlikelt that I o'oold ho:'. pot-toed a
ii, the rt,ilitor-t trot- hart-achieved the ancet-as I hat-c ettjot-td.
ThottI too ?~:.` hr cortiid:'t,ct' aod trait `on bestooed ott etc aon:e
to, Ii.'t'trss.g... Jo:!! alas:': b: ittdctt,'d t-tvo for that horror.
- - Colonel W.G. Bacon, Dlmesaraf lustructlon, Fan Bltsa
E!fllOR'S NOTE: As a L'S. Representative. I apptrirrtt'd Citlonel
R,o'oo t:t th Mi/tt~r't A:adcott 10 lb/U. I are pt-sod that he has aitrcs'
,~ i:.,:. t... ~n.. ass os ossatfl' 21 sears of dist:rrgoiahed trrilitars aer-
5'::',, it:clothtt..toeescat roots io Spain, and its Vietttarr.
The `toting Right, Art: Pee....
`Throogh one pvsiti:',- positiot, ott the Voting Rights .4c:, Texas
cat: loot /ot-o'at'dto the es'tnros'a!ot'allt'cstiges of irthibi:ioe ootitrg prac-
tiers tt'hcre:'erth:'t ccitt
Representathe Paul BRagsdale, Auntie
....And Con
a.:!. ;,. sat., cart and does. 54~ do trot need
art:- mart-feds-rn! cotttrols,"
- Mrs. EL Belchor,Auotln
BLUEBONNETS FROM TEXAS - `Toehe high school senIors from
throughout our atata spent a seek In Washington this summer smiting
legislators. Cabinet members and other goternmenr officials as pact of the
annual Bensoen Bioebannrt Intern Progrum.
Deter Criminals
Texans from the biggest city to the smallest too-n are
worried about the ever-growing crime rate, and with good
reason.
Last yea? alone, crime across the country jumped 17
percent over the year before. Violent crimes are up 11 per.
cent. And FBI statistics show that over half of those charg-
/ ml with majo crimes are either acquitted at trial, or releas-
ed before trial with all charges dropped.
An adult burglar knows that he has only one chance in
412 of going to jail for any single burglary he commits. The
robber arrested in England is more than three times as like-
lyto go to jail as the robber arrested in New York.
This has got to change. We must take steps to fashion a
system of law enforcement that insures those who commit
crimes will be punished.
First, we must deal more severely with chronic
criminals. There should be mandatory sentences for repeat
offenders and the sentences shouia become harsher with
each offense,
I have aiso introduced a bill changing federal !aw to
impose mandatory criminal penalties for the possession of a
hand.gun by anyone who was convicted of using a hand-gun
in an earlier crime.
We must alto work to better train and equip our police
forces, make more effective use ofjudges and attorneys, and
shape a truly workable approach to rehabilitation.
Certainly the very least Texans and other Americans
should expect from their government is that they can walk
the slreets of their own neighborhoods in safety.
- White House Seeks Aides
The White House is looking for 20 young Americans.
ages 23 to 35, to serve as special assistants to Cabinet
members for one year.
Any Texans interested in further information on this
fellooship program should either contact my office or write:
President's Commission on White House Fellowships.
Washington, D.C. 20415.
°~Tnifc~ ..~tc~fcz ..~cna1e
u.s.S.
PAGENO="0469"
~3~Th(~1 ~-3-~:7
Ragsdale blasts
White's motives
AUS'l'IN (UP!) - A Dallas legislator
`said Friday Secretary of State Mark
Whlte's directive concerning voter
*registration of Prairie View A&M stu-
dents in Walter County Is "too little too
late."
White issued a directive Thursday
ordering Walter County Tax Assessor-
Collector Leroy Symni to immediately
stop using questionnaires as a pro-
requisite for registering voters in the
county.
The secretary of stale said he would
ask the attorney general to file suit if
Symni failed to comply with the order.
Rep. Paul Ragsdale, D-Dallas, said
Friday White's order Is "window dress
log' and will have no effect.
"In fact, it raises some serious qoes-
tions regarding Mr. White's motives"
.Ragsdale said. "After refraining front
any real action whatsovever during his
five years as secretary of state, his ac-
* lion on this matter Immediatly prior to
,his expected announcement for attor-
ney general reeks with politics.
"I certainly hope that he doesn't ox-
* `pect this to bring him the support of
* the black citizens of this state who
I watched him fight tooth and nail
against the extension of the voting
rightssct of Texas."
thst Ict took affect In Texas
that Ragadalefinatly succeed
ed in geitingtheJusticeDept.
to take actIon to obtain vat-
tag rights for Prairie View
students -- currently the
001' students in Texas who
are deriied the right to vote
where they attend srhnol.
The Justice Dept. chose to
fIle suit on constItutional
grounds instead of sendirgin
federal registrars as Rags-
dale bad requested and as-
sisted in that effort.
Ragsdale went on to coo-
don the Secretary of State
hat callous attempt to bait
Texas out of thevotlngrigtttS
act will be met with full
full resistance oa the part
if black and brown citizens
and many of their elected
representatives In various
parts of this state. Texas
has found more federal lit-
igation in the area of voting
rights violations than any
other state in the Union Ar
for my part, this office tar
accumulated a wealth of data
on the massive stabtttzini
effects of present voting as~i
election procedures as wet.
as chances in sttch, that wIll
be prepared to refute tb
state's chief electIon stzcet
In court tfflecessary.
zBri4 £t-l~i-1M
`~Voter ruling
~ under fire
by Ragsdale
Times Herald Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Dallas Rep. Paui
Ragsdale said Thursday he is
dismayed that "a legal techni-
cality' will prevent ninny alit-
dents at predominantly black
Prairie View A&M University
from voting,
Ragsdale apoke after federal'
District Judge Wayne Justice
ruled he did not have jurisdic-
tins to reopen voter registra-
tics in Wailer County.
Ragsdale said Walter County
officlala have systematIcally'
blocked black atudents from
voting In a county which has a
black population of 52.6 per
cent.
Blacks hold no stgsificant
political offices in Wailer
County, Ragadale said.
R.agsdale also charged Secre-
tary of State Mark White with
tack of leadership Ian fighting
discriminatory practices there.
"i'he attitude appears to be
a completely passive one," tie
isa
1343
fr~"77
Ra~sda1e Attacks PrOposal To Bail
Texas Out Of VRA
Austin -- lit a statemest
issued recently, State Rep.
Paul B. Itagsdale blasted
Secretary of Stat Mr,ik -
Wttlte for consideretion of a
proposal to bait Te~xs outof
the Federat Voting RIGHTS
Act (V'~A), And thus, must
of ,,tsttce department ap
,urior to anychangein,
voting or election procedur-
In a decision thatwashand
ad down unanimously by the
hi. S. Supreme Court,Justice
Thurgood Marshall wrote
that the VRA applies toTen-
as andthatguestlooscOstcero
trig jurIsdiction covered by
the act can nc be received
in court and that "the only
procedure nvailahletoTeta.s
to seek termination of the
noting rights act coverage is
a bail out suit."
"The Secretary of Slate
appears obsessed with the
notion that black and brown
Texas citizens do not de-
serve protection as the net
no'e requires, Ragsdale sla-
ted," From the day Mark
White heard of Congress'
proposal to a'ttesd the 1965
VRA to Texas he has waged
a continuous baitte ioensure
dIsenfranchIsement of black
and browu citlzeas, There
are still many areas partic-
ularly in East and South
Texas where blacks and -
brown are deprived of full
participation in theelectoral
process vIa such insidious
methods such as at large
voting, gerrymandering and
in the case of the Prairie
View A&M studentsoutrlgtat
dietlal of the right to vote
In Walter County.
In 1915 Ragsdale lead the
charge In combating the
states political leadershiti
contention thai the VR.A was
not needed in Texas. it was
last October, a year after
PAGENO="0470"
1344
Representative Ragsdale
Applauds Voting Suif
Rep. PaulB.Rags- mains that Texas
dale made the fol- has had every opp-
lowing statement in urtuntiy to move cx-
regard to the sign- peditiously toward
ing of the Voting Ri~ seeing that the ri-
ghtsAct extension ghts offairand e-
by President Ford. qual representation
"I am glad that thr.ugh the ballot
the Voting Rights ~ are acheived for all
now a law that will its citizens.
be extended to Tex- In Wailer Coun-
as. Iwantlo corn- ~ty the~ students at
mend President Prairie View A&~M
ForC for his appro- are still not allow-
~ val of the bill. It ed to exercise their
has been my positior constitutional franch-
~ that Texas' election ise. It is a farce for
`~ practices have not reforms In voting
had the close scru- procedures to be he-
~L) tin7 tha~tb~~7 ~ idupas the n-teas-
erve. It will only be ure of Texas' pro-
~ through the imnple- gress in civil rights
~.. mentaton of the Vo. wit ~out realizing
~ ~ ting Rights Act that that the right to eqi
this can finally be ual representation
ç~ acheived. must follow. How fu-
I am ~.ware that tile it must be for the
-. Governor Briscoe Black citizens of
along with others in East Texas who cast
our state have been a bollot reluctantly
offended by the ideat only because they
that Texas should understand that their
come under the sa- vote is nullified by
me Federal super- districting plans that
vision that has char are gerrymandered
acterized other to keep tl-tetn off the
states whose voting ballot. This is ap=
practices have cx- palling when consid-
cluded people on the ering tin' a signifi-
basis of color. In cant number of Bla-
spite of these feel- cks makeup the po-
ings the fact me- (See voting suit,pg.6)
(Voting suit, from pg. 3) East Texas Project
has been subject to
the same fierce op-
position form the lo
cal elite.
putation in East Te-
xas.
The Voting Ri-
ghts Ac twill help to
legitirnze the right
tovote. Inmny East
Texas Project, I
have continually stru.
ggled to acheived the
same goal. As has
been the case with
the Voting Rights
Act extension, my
Black citizens as
well.
I know that the
extension of the Vo-
ting Rights Act to
Texas will help to
move our state to-
ward the goal of e-
qual representation
for all."
We are now in
the process of anal-
yzing the bill, to see
how it will not only
~help the Mexican-
Americnas who des-
perately need it, but
PAGENO="0471"
1345
Minority legislators
challeng~vo~i~5act
Times Herald Austin Bureau s thwarting nunorities basic
AUSTIN-Six minority leg~s- voting rights.
lators, including Dallas Rep Ragsdale characterized Bris-
Paul Ragsdale, took legal ~ opposition to the law as
steps today to challenge the `almost m a n c' * a n d
state leadership s opposition to
the federal Voting Rights Act.
Ragsdale and Reps. Gonzalo
Barrientos of Austin, Paul
Moreno o~ El Paso, and
George "Mickey" Leland, and
Ben T. Reyes, both of Houston,
filed a motion to become co-
defendants in a suit filed by
Gov. Deolph Briscoe and
Secretary of State Mark WhILe.
The suit, lodged by Atty.
Gen. John Hill, asks a Wash-
ington district court to prevent
Texas' inclusion under punitive
provisions of the newly ex-
tended federal law.
A hearing has been set for
10 am. Friday in District
Judge Gerhard A. Gesell's
coup
In annc*incing their motion
to intervene, Ragsdale, Barn-
entos ai~d Reyes sharply
criticized Briscoe, claiming he
"senseless.".
"These actions make me
wonder how close the governor
and his advisers are to the
black and brown citizens of
this state, who have been
systethatically denied effective
access to the political proc-
ess," Ragsdale asserted.
PAGENO="0472"
1846
Mr. EDWARDS. It was an excellent presentation.
It seems to me the minority population of Texas has some built-
in disadvantages that will exist even if the voting rights bill is
extended in its present form, such as bloc voting and the estab-
lished at-large jurisdictions, where people have been elected at
large for a long time, like in school districts, which the Voting
Rights Act can't touch.
Is it also true that what the Attorney General has referred to
with regard to registration has largely been cured by new laws, so
that a Symns case couldn't take place today; is that correct?
Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I would hope not,~ Mr. Chairman. That
situation was only cured in early 1977, which is not that long ago.
It happened to be a unique situation. It was the only situation of
that nature which existed in the United States. It was certainly a
sore spot on this State.
But the fact is that the only remedy which took place under the
Voting Rights Act, after about a year-and-a-half of attempts to
persuade the Justice Department to intervene. Finally a suit was
filed against the county tax assessor-collector in October of 1976.
The State government had nothing to do with the elimination of
that problem.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Counsel?
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of
questions.
Would you share the testimony of the previous witness, Council-
man Eureste, that the Voting Rights Act has not only helped to
open up the process in terms of the city council and the State
representative positions, but also that it has a ripple effect in
terms of the people who were appointed to the different commis-
sions and boards?
Mr. RAGSDALE. There's no question about it. The fact is that
when blacks and browns have been able to get elected to places
where they have never been elected, there have been tangible
benefits in terms of additional funds to come down in our commu-
nities, which have been deprived communities. There has also been
certainly a greater representation on various city and county
boards and commissions than previously was the case. So the bene-
fits are not only tangible but there are social and psychological
benefits where people feel like they're no longer impotent, that
they can, in fact, affect the political process and derive some bene-
fits from it.
Ms. GONZALES. The other question I would ask is whether you
would also share the testimony that was presented to the subcom-
mittee in Washington, D.C., that section 5 has also had the effect of
requiring, or at least has had the effect of having local and State
officials consider the political impact upon minorities in terms of
vote dilution and the like, access, where before they might only
consider the economic or strictly personal gains or losses that
would be made by a particular change.
Mr. RAGSDALE. Well, I totally agree. In fact, I think if it were not
for this law the blacks and browns in this State would be in much
worse shape than we are now.
PAGENO="0473"
1347
The fact is, also the submission process-I am on the submissions
list, and I have over the various years tried to monitor that list,
particularly in my area of concern, mainly the eastern part of the
State, and where blacks are not even aware of the Voting Rights
Act and are not aware of much at all politically, I have taken it
upon myself to work with people in these various communities so
that when a change is submitted to the Justice Department, if it's
going to have a negative effect on the black population, then I will
work with that population in order to try to get the situation
altered.
Without that sort of monitoring device, in many instances blacks
and browns would be left without any way to determine what the
local officials in any given area are doing.
I regret that the black population is not more organized in a
group action in this State than it is. That's one reason that I, as a
State representative-and I appreciate the fact that I was referred
to as Senator; I'm thinking about that next year. [Laughter.]
That is one reason I have taken it upon myself individually, out
of conscience and a sense of need on the part of a deprived people,
to help in any way I could, even though my staff is certainly not a
huge staff.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Representative Ragsdale.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd?
Mr. BOYD. No questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Ragsdale.
Our next witness is Hon. Paul Moreno, who is a State repre-
sentative from El Paso. Mr. Moreno, we're delighted to have you
here. Without objection, any statement that you might have will be
made a part of the record in full, and you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL MORENO, TEXAS STATE
* REPRESENTATIVE, EL PASO
Mr. MORENO. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a written statement.
As the committee knows, I am a member of the Texas Legisla-
ture, and I also chair the Mexican-American House Legislative
Caucus, which consists of 21 members. I speak for the Mexican-
American Legislative Caucus in toto.
We met just before the legislature adjourned in a formal meeting
of the caucus, and at that time the cauêus voted that we appear
before the committee, and I am very appreciative that the commit-
tee invited me to come here .and tell this committee the need, the
urgent need, the dire need-I cannot stress enough to explain the
need for the extension of the Voting Rights Act~
We have just experienced a redistricting session, as you call it. I
call it a session where the rights of Mexican Americans were
diminished, in spite of the Voting Rights Act. I am here to tell you,
members of this committee, that whatever the State officials tell
you about this great State of Texas, that discrimination exists.
Don't let nobody kid you. It does exist. It's just like a black cloud
hanging over you. You don't. know when it's going to hit you. It hit
us here in the legislature.
If it wasn't for the Voting Rights Act, I don't know what they
would be up to right now. In my county, for example, we are going
to pursue the redistricting that was supposedly done in the House
PAGENO="0474"
1348
of Representatives. We are waiting for the Governor to sign it. I
don't know if he signed the bill today or what have you.
But let me just give you an example of what happened in El Paso
County. El Paso County has a percentage of 64-65 percent minor-
ity, 65 percent. It's 61.9 Mexican American and 3 point something
black. We are-haggling and asking for three predominant Mexican-
American districts out of a 64-, 65-percent minority population. I
think that is graceful on our part, we the members of the House, to
go up there and, in essence, beg the house of representatives to
permit us thi~ee seats from El Paso County, three out of five. The
house of representatives, led by Speaker Clayton and the chairman
of the Compacts and Regions Committee, did a marvelous job in
obstructing what we thought was going to be good representation
for El Paso County. We were able to convince the committee-and
I'm sure you understand the committee process-that the plan that
we proposed, two minority members, myself and Representative
Viaz, was a good, equitable plan. In fact, the committee voted to
adopt our plan.
Overnight, the speaker of the house and Mr. Von Dolan, the
chairman of the Compacts and Regions Committee, decided not to
take the committee's recommendation and, without holding a com-
mittee hearing, without doing anything, they went ahead and sub-
mitted their plan.
Their plan, on its face, looks marvelous. It looks tremendous. It
gives a numerical percentage in four Mexican-American districts.
But what happened is that they did not go into detail and find out
exactly what these percentages did. For example, one district, the
west side district, has 57 percent Mexican-American representa-
tion. They don't realize, and they didn't take it into account, that
that particular district represents the richest part of town, the two
richest country clubs, and then goes all the way down south and
takes what used to be the old Chamisol [phonetic] area, which used
to be part of Mexico until recently.
Now, out of that 57 percent, our figures indicated that perhaps at
the most 30 percent were eligible to participate in the political
process. The other districts were the same, too. To summarize, El
Paso was only awarded or given one district out of five that were
predominantly Mexican American~
Without the Voting Rights Act, it is just going to be insurmount-
able for us to go to court. And let me tell you, I echo the comments
of my good friend Paul Ragsdale. Paul Ragsdale has done a tre-
mendous job in the field of redistricting. I echo the remarks of my
good friend Bernardo Eureste. We have to have this quasi-judicial
factor that we can depend on, without going through the great
expense of going to court. We have to tell these people in Texas,
yes, there is discrimination, yes, we have been denied access to the
political process; we have to tell them that there are many lan-
guage barriers, cultural barriers; we have to remind these people
that there is a poll tax that existed in 1966. We have to tell them
that there were segregated schools in the State. We have to tell
them there's a great disparity of income levels. We have to tell
them that there is polarized voting in the State. W~ h~we to tell
them about 1he Iimi~ecl level of voting population.
PAGENO="0475"
1349
So the State officials must understand, even if they're not doing
it consciously, even if they are not discriminating against us con-
sciously, it is a fact that what they have done has completely
negated us the right to proper representation. Again, I echo the
comments of Mr. Eureste. Yes, the right to vote and the right to
representation. He analyzed it so beautifully when he said just a
* few minutes ago that the United States of America would certainly
not like the whole Congress of the United States to be elected west
of the Mississippi or east of the Mississippi, as the case may be.
This is exactly our problem. This is a problem that we have in
Texas and we cannot convince the State officials that we have a
deep concern for this.
You know, in El Paso my city council redistricted 4 years ago,
and the district plan was so good that it even fooled the Justice
Department because it gave numerical majorities but did not take
into account the other factors. As a consequence, El Paso has six
city council people, and so far we have been able to elect two. One,
in my district where I live, has a majority Mexican Americans.
Again, my district is tied into the country club and what have you.
We have had some well-meaning, well-recognized Mexican-Ameri-
can individuals run and they have been unable to get as far as a
runoff. So all these things have to be taken into account, and I am
just here to plead to you to use all your efforts in extending the
Voting Rights Act for Texas.
I might just end my comments by saying I was here in 1975
when Texas was going to be included, in the Voting Rights Act, and
every State official, including Mark White that was here, testified
against it. Everyone. So don't fall for that, that they're for equal
representation or what have you.
So, with that, I would just close my remarks and answer any
questions you might have. Again, I'm sorry that I did not have a
written statement, but we just adjourned and I got home the other
day and had to come back down here.
Mr. EDWARDS. I think you gave us a very good statement, Mr.
Moreno, an excellent statement.
Do you think that very many white people in Texas would vote
for a Mexican American?
Mr. MORENO. No. No, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. So that's what you meant by "polarized" voting.
Mr. MORENO. We have a polarized voting system in Texas. I
think it hurts the Mexican American more because of our level of
education, because of our economic situation. Let's face it; we never
had candidates to vote for. El Paso is 400 years old. We've had two
Mexican-American mayors. We have had in the house of repre-
sentatives in the legislature five people serve since El Paso became
an entity. Three of those people are serving right now; three Mexi-
can Americans are serving right now. One was defeated because he
voted to abolish the poll tax. So you have an' indication of what
kind of obstacles we have in Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. What about the Mexican-American people in
Texas; would they vote for a white candidate rather than a Mexi-
can-American candidate if they thought the white candidate was a
better candidate? *
PAGENO="0476"
1350
Mr. MORENO. I think-I know I have, and I'm sure you know
that other people have. But again, the mere fact that we see a
Gonzalez, a Garcia, a Eureste, a Moreno on the ballot, the average
person that does not realize what the person stands for and what
have you is going to punch the Moreno, the Eureste and so on.
I think that a great number of my Anglo friends-and some of
my best friends are Anglos-[laughter] vote against the Moreno.
It's that simple.
Mr. EDWARDS. You have expressed a certain amount of emotion
and have been candid about what your feelings are on this issue,
that it effects you personally and internally. What will be the
mental state~ of Hispanics in Texas if Congress doesn't extend the
Voting Rights Act?
Mr. MORENO. Oh, my god. Street politics.
Mr. EDWARDS. Would it be a serious blow?
Mr. MORENO. Street politics, I can guarantee you that. As it is
right now, we are tense about what has happened in redistricting.
You know, the congressional redistricting plan was not adopted
simply because the Mexican Americans in Corpus Christi were
attempted to be diluted. The house is rubberstamped by the senate,
and we rubberstamp the senate version. So that's the only reason
there was no conference committee on those two plans.
I hate to say this, but unless we get our proper representation, I
know the people I represent, the people I talk to, are very uneasy. I
know it's going to create another problem as far as street politics is
concerned. I don't want to see this again. I already went through it
once and I think once is enough in anybody's lifetime.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, we don't want to see it again, either. The
message ought to get out to all the people of the United States that
the consequences are bound to be very serious if we turn our backs
on the best civil rights law that has ever been enacted in the
United States.
Mr. MORENO. I agree.
Mr. EDWARDS. I agree with you there.
Counsel?
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Moreno, we have heard testimony in the past
where comments have been made to the effect that the bilingual
ballots really are too costly and that they discourage people and
are a disincentive for Chicanos to take part in or become a part of
the .political mainstream.
How would you respond to those concerns.
Mr. MORENO. I think that's', incorrect. I think that's incorrect
because I have personal knowledge of a lot of people that just can't
read English, you know, and they're voting people. I think that
statement is totally hogwash.
They use that term in Texas, "hogwash". It means no good.
[Laughter.]
Ms. GONZALES. You would not agree, then, with the thrust of the
three bills that have been introduced before the subcommittee, that
* would not only delete section 5 with regard to Texas, but also
would delete the minority language provisions.
Mr. MORENO. That's correct.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd?
PAGENO="0477"
1351
Mr. BOYD. No questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Moreno.
Mr. MORENO. Mr. Chairman, one more thing. If you would deliv-
er this message to Congressman Pickle, being a double minority is
very rough. It took me a half-an-hour to get into this building, a
U.S. Federal courthouse, because they have no ramps here. Can
you imagine that?
Mr. EDWARDS. I think it's against the law.
Mr. MORENO. It is against the law, and I think the good Con-
gressman from Austin should be chastized for it.
Mr. EDWARDS. I will tell Jake Monday morning that we're not
going to stand for it.
Mr. MORENO. Tell him that we're going to have another lawsuit
on not only the Voting Rights. Act but on a violation of the rights
of the handicapped.
Mr. EDWARDS. I understand that, sir.
Mr. MORENO. Thank you, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our next witness is Olivia Walker. Miss Walker is
a staff representative of the Black Caucus of the State Legislature.
It's very nice to have you here.
TESTIMONY OF OLIVIA WALKER, STAFF REPRESENTATIVE,
BLACK CAUCUS, TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE
Ms. WALKER. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members, today I would like to present a
resolution to you on behalf of the members of the Texas Legislative
Black Caucus.
Mr. EDWARDS. It will be accepted for the record, without objec-
tion.
Ms. WALKER. Thank you.
The text of the resolution reads as follows:
Whereas, for United States citizens, the right to vote is fundamental; it provides a
means for representation of public opinion and is preservative of all other rights
inherent in a democratic form of government; and
Whereas, it is widely recognized that certain states in this country have practiced
systematic discrimination in voting requirements and procedures that for decades
resulted in the effective disenfranchisement of a large majority of Southern blacks;
and
Whereas, the United States Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in an
attempt to ensure equal voting opportunities; as part of its provisions, the Act
requires Southern state and local officials to demonstrate that changes in the
election laws have neither the purpose nor the effect of discriminating on the basis
hereas, one especially important section of the Act requires certain states with
ry of discrimination to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department
il court for any change in election rules, and this section, like each
~e Act, was included in the measure because of specific and repeated
~en by the states; and
the Voting Rights Act has resulted in greatly increased political partici-
`i and other minority groups, and it is vital that the progress made in
.~i area .~. lost. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, `~. .~tt the Texas Legislative Black Caucus hereby recognizes the over-
whelming importance of the changes resulting from the successful implementation
of the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 and express strong support for the
continuation of all provisions of the Act.
As is stated in the Resolution, the Black Caucus members believe
that continuation of the provisions of the Act is necessary to ensure a
fair political future for all Texans.
I would like to leave a copy of this resolution with you, and I would
like to thank you for your time and interest.
[The resolution follows:]
PAGENO="0478"
1352
`~ E S ~ r Li T 1 0 N
WHEREAS, For United States citizens, the right to vote is
fundamental; it provides a means for representation of. public
Opinion and is preservative of all other rights inherent in a
democratic form of government; and
WHEREAS, It is widely recognized that certain states in this
country have practiced systematic discrimination in voting
requirements and procedures that for decades resulted in the
effective disenfranchisement of a large majority of Southern
blacks; and.
WHEREAS, The United States Congress passed the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 in an.attempt to ensure equal voting opportunities; as
,i~
part of its provisions, the Act requires Southern state and local
officials to demonstrate that changes in election laws have neither
the purpose nor the effect of discriminating on the basis of race;
and
WHEREAS, One especially important section of the Act requires
certain states with ahistory. of discrimination to obtain advance
approval from the Justice Department or from a ~ for
any change in election rules, and this section, like each part of
the Act, was included~ in the measure because of specific and
repeated actions taken by the~states; and
WHEREAS, ~The Voting Rights Act has, resulted in greatly
increased political participation by blacks and other minori~
4
groups, . and it is vital that the progress made in this area
lost; now, therefore, be it .
RESOLVED, That the Texas Legislative Black Caucu?~
recognizes the overwhelming importance of the changes
~the successful implementati.onof the federalVoting.Righ~'~
1965. and expressis strong support for the continuation'~
provisions of the Act.
PAGENO="0479"
1353
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Miss Walker, and thank the members
of the black caucus of the State Legislature.
How many are there?
Ms. WALKER. There are 12 members of the caucus, and 13 black
members of the legislature.
Mr. EDWARDS. You can advise them that if the Voting Rights Act
is not extended, there might be a lot fewer than 12 in a couple of
years.
Ms. WALKER. Definitely.
I also would like to extend the apologies of the chairperson who
was not able to be here because of obligations that he had in
Houston. That's Representative Washington.
Mr. EDWARDS. The apologies are accepted and the best wishes of
the subcommittee go to the chairperson.
Mr. Boyd?
Mr. BOYD. No questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much..
Ms. WALKER. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our last witness, last and certainly perhaps the
best, is Mr. George Korbel. He represents the Texas Rural Legal
Assistance. We're glad to have you here and we apologize for
keeping you waiting all day, but it has been interesting, hasn't it?
Mr. KORBEL. It certainly has, Mr. Chairman.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KORBEL, ESQ., REPRESENTING TEXAS
RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. KORBEL. Mr. Chairman, my name is George Korbel. I am an
attorney. I was formerly a staff attorney and regional director of
the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. I testi-
fied before the Congress 6 years ago on the Voting Rights Act, and
I really welcome the opportunity to appear again.
Mr. EDWARDS. It's nice to see you again.
Mr. KORBEL. I also would like to point out that it is very appro-
priate that these hearings are being held in this courtroom. This is
a very historic place. I don't know if anybody has told you that,
Mr. Chairman.
These courtroom walls `have played a backdrop to many lawsuits
which were central to the civil rights movement, not only in this
State but in the entire country. Sweat v. Painter, the first break-
through in school desegregation in the' United States, took place in
this courtroom.
The poll tax was held unconstitutional in this courtroom. Even
the more limited annual voter registration laws were voided in this
courtroom. The excessive filing fees case up to several thousand
dollars just for file for election in Texas was knocked out in this
courtroom. The requirement that a voter in Texas sign his or her
ballot was heard in this courtroom.
The Austin school desegregation case was held in this courtroom.
The Waco school desegregation case was heard in this courtroom.
The Waco single-member district case was heard in this,courtroom.
About 12 other school desegregation cases were heard in this court-
room. This is really a historic place.
If these walls could tell you the story, I think this is the story of
the civil rights movement in Texas, in a sense the story of the civil
PAGENO="0480"
1354
rights movement in the United States. So I'm really happy that
you're here and I hope you can feel what this courtroom means to
us in Texas.
I was asked to testify at these hearings only a few days ago and,
therefore-I have been deeply involved in the reapportionment
session, so I don't really have a prepared statement. I would like to
tender one to you, if I may have that opportunity.
Mr. EDWARDS. It will be received at the proper time.
Mr. KORBEL. At this time I would like to tender a study that I
have done, which is forthcoming in the Journal on Politics. It's a
joint venture between myself and Chandler Davidson, who is the
chairman of the Department of Sociology at Rice University on the
effects of at-large elections in Texas.
What we did, we did a survey of before and after, of how many
people were elected before we got single-member districts and how
many people were elected after, immediately before and after. It
shows that about three times as many minority people, blacks and
Mexican-Americans, were elected after the imposition of single-
member districts than before the imposition of single-member dis-
tricts.
Now, we did this in such a way that I think that we were able to
wipe out almost all other ecological factors, so that you can really
see a tremendous change. Just like you have to be in this court-
room and know about this courtroom to feel the change, if you
lived in those cities like I have in San Antonio, and you spend as
much time as I do in Houston, you can feel the change that single-
member districts accomplish. In any event, I would ask the Com-
mittee if they would take a look at that paper.
Mr. EDWARDS. It will be made a part of the record, without
objection.
[Committee Note: Study is available in the Committee's files.]
Mr. KORBEL. There are a couple of things I will touch on and go
into greater detail on in my prepared statement when I send it to
you.
First of all, on bilingual elections I want to say three things:
"Con nosotros, estamos de acuerdo, and P.T. Barnum." I can ex-
plain those.
"Con nosotros" was the slogan of John Tower; "estamos de
acuerdo" was the slogan of Bill Clements; and P.T. Barnum, when
Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus came to Texas, all of
their ads were in Spanish, because P.T. Barnum was the greatest
promoter of all times and the Ringling Brothers Circus, which was
the descendant of the greatest promoter of all times knew, that if
you want to appeal to the people, you appeal to them in the
language that they're the most comfortable. Maybe they -speak
English, but they're the most comfortable in Spanish.
I want to underline the fact of something that was mentioned
when Mark White testified, and that is that in Texas the State and
the counties could do more targeting of the bilingual ballot. They
could do more targeting in the counties and in the precincts, but
they don't do it. I don't know why they don't do it. Mark White
claims that some unspecified person from the Justice Department
says that they couldn't. But it's true that7 in fact, they can1
Mr. EDWARDS. That is certainly true, and expenses can go down
for a county, and in a county where there are very few Spanish-
PAGENO="0481"
1355
speaking people and the targeting can be very limited and cost a
very little amount of money. I think in some cases the registrars
haven't really wanted to do it.
Mr. KORBEL. I'm a member of the Federal Election Commission's
panel on bilingual elections, and we did a study on that. We found
that in Texas there was a great deal of hostility being expressed
very openly by voter registrars and by people who were in charge
of preparing the ballots to print in Spanish. Even when we ex-
plained to them that it would be easy for them to get around some
of these requirements that they complained about, they still
showed hostility. They just didn't believe in the concept of bilin-
gual elections.
In. fact,~ we have done some studies-and I'll tender those to the
committee, also-which shows that the bilingual elections are not
only. not a problem, but they really encourage turnout in voter
registration.
Another thing I wanted to point out, it was mentioned about
school boards, something to the effect that maybe if you elect
people from single-member districts on school boards they wouldn't
have the interest of the entire community at heart.
Well, first of all, I want to point out that we only have, I think,
six Texas school boards out of 1,148 which are elected by single-
member districts, so we really can't tell from that. I, myself, was
involved in litigation against one of them, against the Waco Inde-
.pendent School District, back about 2 years ago. They had a drop-
out:rate among Mexican Americans and blacks which came close to
80 percent, with no Mexican Americans or blacks on that school
board.
Now, it just seems to me that the interest of all of the communi-
ty in that school board were not being taken into consideration by
those people who were being elected. In fact, they sat right in that
witness chair over there and they had a .heck of a time explaining
why they had an 80 percent dropout rate. They were embarrassed.
The superintendent of the schools became visibly embarrassed and
couldn't deal with those statistics.
I might say, since we have elected some minorities to that school
board after the addition of single-member districts, the dropout
rate has gone down remarkably and that children are staying in
school and doing a good job.
The other thing I wanted to say was the quotation that you make
from the Civil Rights Commission, about Texas never having
passed an affirmative piece of election litigation without being
under Federal court order, I am proud to say that I think the Civil
Rights Commission copied that from my statement before this com-
mittee 7 years ago-at least I like to think that they did. I said
that 7 years ago, and after I said it Mark White came up and
testified, the secretary of state, testified before the Senate. He had
every opportunity to refute that statement. In fact, he brought
along a document which was around 700 pages long, bound in
green-I'll never forget, buckram green-in which he had put to-
gether all the attorney general's opinions which showed that Texas
was doing this tremendous job of encouraging minority political
participation. Right there, bound in green. We looked at that thing,
and one after another-it didn't say so, but we knew they were the
83-679 0 - 82 - 31 Pt.~
PAGENO="0482"
1356
result of a court opinion. There had been a court opinion, for
example, on the requirement there be bilingual assistance provided
in the polling places. We knew that. I knew that because I was
involved in the litigation myself. So the attorney general, after the
court opinion comes out, puts out a statement directing all the
voter registrars in the State that they have to provide bilingual
assistance.
So it's a positive thing, no question, but it's the direct result of
court action. There wa~ example after example after example in
this very long, buckram bound submission. He admitted finally, at
the end of all his testimony, after they went through all of those
things, that yes, that was true. I think, having looked at Texas in
the 7 years that have ensued, that there has been a change. And I
hate to differ with my good friend, Representative Edwards from
Houston, but I think that when a man is a State Representative
and participating as a State Representative, he kind of hates to
think that what he's doing is not accomplishing as much as he
would like to.
I want to say a couple of other things, too, and I don't want to
take a cheap shot at Attorney General White, but my father-in-law
is a south Texas politician-I'm kind of proud of that. He's a
county commissioner in south Texas, so I have had an opportunity
to speak to both sides of the issue. I have spoken to the people who
are on the inside, who actually have to make these voting rights
submissions, and I have yet to run into anybody who actually
complains about the volume of work that a Voting Rights Act
submission entails. It just doesn't happen. In fact, they kind of joke
about it.
In fact, my father-in-law says-and I quote him here-that the
only problem he has seen with the Voting Rights Act are these
terribly boring speeches that Texas politicians give at the commis-
sioners court meetings when they meet around the State. They
come in and try and rile people up against the Voting Rights Act.
He says that's the only problem he sees with the Voting Rights
Act.
But if you have to change it, I want to say to you, if you have to
change the doggoned Voting Rights Act, think about the ability
that we have to deal with the change; give us some thought here.
Think about the cost it is to litigate these cases. If there are 18,000
changes in Texas, just think what it would take for us to have to
look, at all 18,000 changes to decide what it was that was going to
have to be precleared or what should be considered by the Justice
Department. It would really switch the burden of the Voting
Rights Act and, frankly, as you know, Legal Services is in trouble
and I know the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund is very
short of funds and the private bar is really strapped in the State on
civil rights issues. So that if you were to change the Voting Rights
Act, even as little as what Ambassador Krueger suggests, I think
you would do a great deal to emasculate the law.
One other thing I wanted to say, and I just wanted you to think
about this, and that is what has happened since 1975, how much
progress have we made. There has been a lot of progress. We have
single-member districts in San Antonio as you have heard; we have
single-member districts in the city of Houston, electing the first
PAGENO="0483"
1357
Mexican American in the city of Houston. Those are all the result
of the Voting Rights Act.
There has been some talk about Crockett County and Carroll
County and all these counties around the State, all the result of'
the Voting Rights Act. And yet, in the 6 or 7 years that have
ensued since the Voting Rights Act, I have not seen one county'
voluntarily `apportion itself and create a district that a Mexican
American or a black could win. I haven't seen one, except if they
have been forced to `do it by litigation. Not one.
I realize, maybe they don't have a ~responsibility to maximize
minority `political participation. But they do have a responsibility
to recognize minority political strength. `That's clear under the
Voting Rights Act. None of them have done that. I don't see one
city which actually voluntarily moved to single-member districts.
~All of them were done by prodding through litigation. That's only
the way it has happened.
I also want to point out that at least 14 suits have been filed
against Texas jurisdictions to enforce the Voting Rights Act. These
were jurisdictions who refused to obey Federal law. We had to sue
them, at least 14 times.
Finally, I want to mention. a couple' of other things about what
Attorney General "White said. He says ~that Texas has really good
laws on `coercion and discrimination. I'm sure that they do, but the
problem that they have is the problem that you pointed out, Mr.
Chairman, and that is that nobody enforces ,those laws. There is
some testimony in a hearing which was held by the Southwest
Voter `Registration Project-and I think you have a copy of this; it
was tendered into, the record-and there is example after example
after~ example of election fraud in Texas, which has been given to
the attorney general and the local prosecuting attorneys, and noth-
ing is done to prosecute ` those. Even situations where' representa-
`~tives of. the attorney general have been present when the fraud,
took place, nothing is done to deal with those.
Again, I can't help stressing the ~size of Texas. I always like to
talk about how big Texas is. I remember 7 years. ago I told you if
you flew from Houston to Los Angeles, you were over half way
when you landed in El Paso,. and when you drive from Brownsville
to the Canadian border, you're 67 miles short of half way when you
cross the Texas line.
I have another~one I want to `tell you. about. Did you know, if you
took just the Mexican Americans and the black .people out of
Houston. and made a separate city out of them, it would be the
ninth largest city in the United States. Now, that's a tremendous
size.
.1 want to tell you how many Mexican-American State repre-
sentatives there are going to be from Houston under this recent
reapportionment plan that was just adopted by the legislature
that's going to be' signed by the Governor. There's going to be one.
There .are 385,000 Mexican Americans in Houston, and they gerry-
`mandered, that in such a way so there will only be one Mexican-
American State representative. You tell me whether `that's prog-
ress.
Representative Edwards talked about there was' finally going to
be, a black Senator from Houston. There's 485,000 blacks ,in Hous-
PAGENO="0484"
1358
ton. There's going to be one black Senator. There ought to be two
black Senators. There's going to be one black Congressman; there
ought to be two black Congressmen.
I think the State has begrudgingly given up as little as possible
in terms of this last reapportionment, and I expect several voting
rights objections from this last reapportionment.
Maybe I can say one more thing, and that is, if the Mexican-
American population in Houston were a separate city, they would
be the 33d largest city in the United States, larger than Minneapo-
lis or St. Paul or Miami, any of those cities. A tremendous size,
with tremendous amounts of ability to participate in the political
process that has just been totally shut off.
I ask you to extend the Voting Rights Act. Let's get about the
business of making it fair for everybody.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Korbel. As I said earlier, it's very
nice to have you here again. I think so far you and the attorney
general are the only two witnesses who appeared before the com-
mittee in 1975.
Don't you think we ought to get this issue behind us and get on
to some of the other important issues facing America? In other
words, we ought to agree, as a people of this country, that we're
going to encourage everybody to participate; we're going to have
fair districts and get about some other major problems we have.
Mr. KORBEL. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if there isn't a
possibility that when you hold more hearings on this in Washing~
ton, so that the full committee could hear him, if you could bring
Doug Caddy over to testify, because he knows more about the
functioning of the Texas political system than just about anybody
does, because he was on the inside. I think that nobody can accuse
him of being politically biased. He understands what is going on
and I sure wish that everybody in Washington could hear his
testimony. He makes a lot of sense, as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. EDWARDS. That's a very good suggestion. Thank you.
Counsel?
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
Mr. Korbel, one of the complaints that has been voiced about the
section 5 preclearance is that it allows an administrative agency,
the Department of Justice, to unilaterally force a local jurisdiction
to change its electoral scheme, to change from at-large to a district
election, and that it seems an unfair situation to be in.
How would you respond to that?
Mr. KORBEL. All it does is recognize certain changes, changes in
reapportionment, changes in terms of annexations. All those
changes can in some ways so affect the political structure, that if
the city or the subdivison really wants those changes, that it has to
adopt some progressive additional change so that things will not be
materially different than what they were before.
I don't think there's a unilateral forcing. If the city didn't want
the annexation, let's say, they wouldn't have to make the annex-
ation.
In terms of those annexations, too, I want to make sure this is
real clear. For example, when Houston annexes, Houston doesn't
annex a couple of blocks. Houston annexed 128 square miles. What
PAGENO="0485"
1359
is that, 10 times the size of San Francisco? You know, in 1 year. So
they do these things in a big way. You add 128 square miles to a
city, you really affect the ability of someone to campaign. Golly,
Houston is now almost 600 square miles.
Do you know that 3 of the 10 largest cities in the United States
could fit within the boundaries of the city of Houston, with room
for Minneapolis, St. Paul, and San* Francisco in there, and you
could get Austin in. These -are tremendous changes when they
make annexations.
Ms. GONZALES., Let me also clarify one other point.
Is it your sense,~ based on your experience, that the Justice
Department does act unilaterally, or do they try to take into con-
sideration maybe counterproposals that the local jurisdiction may
make? How much do they take into consideration the concerns of
local governments?
`Mr. KORBEL; My experience has been that the Justice Depart-
ment just bends over backward, and I am highly critical of them
because they do that. They just bend over backward to give every
consideration to local units of government. In fact, we say there
have been 130 objections in Texas. In my opinion, there probably
should have been at least twice that many. I think they miss quite
a number of objections. In some ways, I think they almost switch
the burden on us. Sometimes we have to show that the thing is
going to be discriminatory rather than the local unit of govern-
ment having to show it's being nondiscriminatory.
- The Justice Department is not really hard on these local jurisdic-
tions, and I think if you ~talked to local officials they'll tell you
that. They have, certainly told me that.
In fact, the Justice Department,' of all governmental agencies,
seems to be the easiest one to deal with. The people in the schools
say try to deal with HEW. -
Ms.~ GONZALES. One final question, and again, I want to take
advantage of your background and your experience in this area.
Another issue that has been raised, and you may have heard it
raised earlier today, is that the courts might approve, under the
Rodino bill, which talks about the results test, that they might
approve racial quotas.
To your knowledge, have the courts ever either approved or
implied' that racial quotas might be acceptable?
Mr. KORBEL. As far as I know, there has been no approval of
racial quotas. In fact, they say just the opposite. It seems to me it's
the way it ought to be. Everybody ought to have an equal opportu-
nity to participate. That is to say, you look at Houston, for exam-
ple, there are 385,000 Mexican Americans in Houston and you
would' imagine a randomly drawn reapportionment plan would
produce at least 3 legislators in 100,000-seat legislators, you see. I
think what the courts would do in a situation like that would be to
say, "Well, what would you expect a random plan to produce?" Or
the Justice Department would say, "What would you expect a
random plan to produce," and then would suggest that's what the
responsibility of the local unit of government when it reappor-
tioned.
Ms. GONZALES. So that basically you're saying that if, in fact, the
language is changed, at least based on information that was put
PAGENO="0486"
1360
into the record when the Senate bill was introduced, which was the
same as the Rodino bill, the intent of the language that was put
into the bill was really to return the law to where it was prior to
Mobile.
Under the case law prior to the Mobile decision, is there any
reason why people should fear that, in fact, racial quotas might be
imposed?
Mr. KORBEL. Absolutely none. I think that I was involved in
trying at least half the single-member district cases that were tried
before Mobile, and I never ran into a judge that ever held that
opinion. In fact, I myself would be hostile to that kind of a concept.
It's not right, but everybody ought to have an equal opportunity.
If you're 385,000, you ought not be divided in such a way that
you can only elect one. That's just so wrong, it's just antithetical to
everything, it seems to me, that this courtroom and this country
stands for.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd?
Mr~ BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Korbel, what counsel was referring to when she references
section 2 and case law that existed prior to the Mobile case was, of
course, with regard to section 2 as it now exists. Mobile was a
response to the interpretation of section 2 as being really a statu-
tory codification, if you will, of the fifteenth amendment.
H.R. 3112 is not, I am sure you would admit, consistent necessary
with what section 2 said before. It is at least possible, according to
Professor White of the Texas Law School, who appeared earlier
today, and other witnesses, including the Congressional Research
Service, that the court could reasonably interpret that the lan-
guage of title II of H.R. 3112 to require proportional representation
because of the use of the language in H.R. 3112 with regard to the
effects test.
Do you think that's a possible, reasonable potential with regard
to a court decision?
Mr. KORBEL. Well, I just practice constitutional law; I don't teach
it. So in my opinion as a practitioner, that is absolute hogwash-to
quote Representative Moreno. Maybe if I was a teacher I would see
things differently. Somehow they're able to understand things
quite differently than we practitioners. -
You see, I qualify as a country lawyer myself because I work for
Texas Rural Legal Aid.
Mr~ BOYD. Representative Moreno said "asinine," I think.
Mr. KORBEL. Yeah. OK. Well, I'll quote him, too.
Mr. BOYD. But the use of H.R. 3112, it uses the language "in a
manner which results in the denial or abridgement of." If you
interpret that and incoporate it into section 2, it could have a
wholly different meaning than what a number of people suggest
they would like it to have.
Mr~ KORBEL. I have a hard time seeing that interpretation, and I
have a hard time thinking any Federal judge would interpret it
that way.
Mr. EDWARDS. Couldn't we make that very clear in the report
and on the floor of the House, the committee, and every place else,
that that's not our intention? Do you think that would help?
PAGENO="0487"
1361
Mr. KORBEL. Absolutely.
Mr. BOYD. ~And in the statute.
Mr. KORBEL. Can I also ask you to make another thing clear?
That is, it used to be under the Voting Rights Act that when a
change was submitted, the Justice Department looked not only at
retrogression, but it also looked at what it did to the minority
community, what the change. actually did to the minority commu-
nity. I. believe it was in the Beer. case that it indicated that maybe
the Justice Department is only supposed to look at intent or pretty
clear fourteenth amendment violations.
I hope, for example, when the Texas Legislature adopts a plan
which' so severely underrepresents blacks and Mexican Americans,
that even~ though there are. as~ many minority representatives after
the plan as before the plan, that by golly, when minorities get only
half as many as one would expect a randomly.~ drawn plan would
produce, that that is a clear voting rights objection. I hope that
that's clear. I think ~that was your intent when yOu passed the law
* in 1975, and I think the Justice Department, the courts, miscon-
strued your intent clearly. I hope you look at that and make a good
record on it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Korbel.
And our thanks to all of the witnesses. They were a most impres-
sive group of- experts. We have built a very important record here
today. And our thanks also go to the people of Austin and the
officials for their warm hospitality in welcoming the subcommittee
here today.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
PAGENO="0488"
PAGENO="0489"
1363
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
BY. RUBEN BONILLA
Juan Paz Pena, Chairpersor
LULAC Council #04353
5408 Parliament
Arlington, TX 76017
Representative JiB: Wrig~it
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Wright:
This letter is jo urge your support of the ~xtensjon of the Voting Rights Act.
ma Voting Rights Act (Vu) has been caUed the most in~portant and successful piece
of civil rights ~eq4platicg~ ever pa~e~3, Thare i~ po question in my mind that this
stetement iscorrest, Q~3tregeous abu~ss ~galflstour ow~ citizens and their right to
vote hive been reme4~ed through the appiicp~4onof this law. It's effect is profound
becaus, it actu4).y gives eve~yopa ~ch~nps to ps*ticipte in our electoral process,
just like the Constj~utio~ Randates.
Under the V~.impir~ant progress has been ma4e, hqw~ver, there is much to be done.
Minorities need continue~ protection frap~ the man~pulaqon of local voting laws directed
at diluting their VOtiflp.5t5~epgth. ir~ those prpaswher~ the VRA has been in effect
there has been an increaa~ in the number of mir3p*ities participating in the electoral
process and runging for pc4it4cal Pf flop
I understa &~1~ez~ is ~1novement to have the VRA ppply nationally. This would be
unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act ~1ready apply nationally. The application
of Section 5 of the VRA tg limited pa4p o~ the nation js necessary because those juris-
dictions, have ~iisto~icplly ~iscrieinsted sg~4pstipLnorities in voting practices. Applying
Section 5 natiozpqi4e wogI~ ;ez~c5er thp Act jnaff~ot4ve
Further ~ ~rqa yng ~ sgppor~: ~he 3T~A amep4pmnts edded in 1975 directed at protecting
language nsinoritle~ -Mws~g~~ Ameriopjse F~e~to Ricaps cuban American Amer c n Indians
and~Aelan Amertö~n~,'~-~.'
If the VBA i~ no~ reegthorized, !nuch of ~4~p progress made by minorities in the
South snd Sout~pqpsp ~i1~ he *~4mtppte4 ~ ov~r t~engcrapy s to rem n val d and respons vs
to the ~seds of the ~4t~;enry~ we ngs~ pilow ~3 isiporities full participation in the
electoral proces5 ~4thogt fparing fra~ulpp~ *~ec~ipn proc dures
I w~ge:you~to pop~~4e~ sy commsnt~ in your ~elibeçations, and Iwould appreciate
knowing your posit.io~ on this most' vita issup.
Sincqrs~y,
Juan Paz Papa
`Leage of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Arlington, Texas
PAGENO="0490"
1364
Juan Paz Pena, Chairperson
LULAC Council #04353
5408 Parliament
Arlington, TX 76016
Senator Jdhn Tower
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C, 20515
Dear Sena4.or Tower:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Right; Ant (VRA) has beer c4 ed't~e'most important and successful Diece
of civil rights legislet3~n ever passedL, There is no question in my mind that this
statement is correct. Outrageous abuse; against our own citizens and their right to
vote have been remedied through the application of this law. It's effect is profound
because it actually gives everyone a chance to participate in our electoral process,
just like the Constitution mandates.
Under the VRA-impo~iant progress has been made, however, there is much to be done.
Minorities nee4 continued protectign from the manipulation of local voting laws directed
at diluting their voting strength. In those areas where the VRA has been in effect
ther. has been an increase in the number ~f ipinptities participating in the electoral
process and rurp)tnp for political office
I understan&thexe jø~ movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This would be
unnecessary since ceTtS$,n provisions of t])e Act already apply nationally. The application
of Section 5 of the VRA ~g limited parts of the n~t.ion is necessary because those juris-
dictions have historically discriminated against pinorit.iès in voting practices. Applying
Section-5 nationwide woul4 render the Act ineffect4ve. -
?urther I -urge you to sup~xrt the .VRAemendments added in 1975 directed at protecting
language isinoritims-..flezlcsn Ameijcans,Pgerto Ricarts, cuban Americans, American Indians, -
and~Asian Americans~.
If the VRA is ~ot reauthorized, much of the progress made by minorities in the
South and Southwest will be elimipated. ~f our 4egucracy is to remain valid and responsive
to the ~eeds-of~the cit4z~nry, we mustallowall minorities full participation in the
electoral process without icaping frau4ulent election procedures. -
X urge ~yog -~o gon;i4er my coument~ i~ your deliberations, and I .~uld appreciate
knowing your position or this ~nost vital iss~#
,~~c~rely,
Juan Paz Pe~a
League of united Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Arlington, Texas
PAGENO="0491"
c~,L~P aF ~4~ci
ir~ 3-2~--~/
~S~T1s,~ / L~p ~i- ~
iL~ ~
£~ e~-~-, ~
e-7 &~-`-~ ~1,i~Y~4 ~
~J C-C~?''--S-'
.A~. ~e, `~ 1
p /~ ~
_,4fl
This letter i~ to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) bps ~e~n cal,led the most inportant and successful oiece
of civil rights leg~slatfb#* ~er passe4. 1~ere Is no question in my mind that this
statement is correct, Outrageous abuses against our own citizens and their right to
vote have been remedied through the application of this law. It's effect is profound
because it actu~ly gives everyone a chance to participate in our electoral process,
just like the Constitution mandates.
Under the VA.impor%ar~t progresehas been madg, hpwe'ier, there is much to be done.
Minorities need continued protection from tile ma~ipulatjon of local voting laws directed
at diluting their voting strength. In those areas where the VRA has been in effect
there has been ~p increase in the number of minp~ities participating in the electoral
process and runging for political office.
I understap&-tj~ey~ is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This would be
unnecessary- since ce~t~in provisions of tile Act already apply nationally. The application
of Section 5 of the VR7s to l~.mited parts of the nation is necessary because those juris-
dictions have Istetorically discriminated against minorities in voting practices. Applying
Section55 nationwide would render the Act ineffective. -
Further I -~rge you to suoport the JJRA amendments added in 1975 directed at protecting
language Teinorities--Me,cjqan Axsericans,-puefto Ricans, Cuban Americans, American Indians,-
and-Asian Americ~na,--
If the VR~ is not rasuthorized, much of the progress made by minorities in the
South and Southwest .vi3,t be eliminated, If our democracy is to remain valid and responsive -
to the needs-of th~ citizenry, we must allow all minorities full participation in the*
electoral procCss without fearing fraudulent election procedures.
I utge -you -to consider my comments in your deliberations, and I would appreciate
knowirsg yourpo~iti-on op ~I4s most vital issue.
Sincerelyr
-` - -- - - - Juan Paz Pena -
- League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Arlington, Texas
1365
Juan Paz Pena, Chairperson
LULAC Council #04353
5408 Parliament
- Arlington, TX 76017
President Reagan
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear President Reagan:
PAGENO="0492"
1366
"7?wt.3g, 196'!
RECE1VE~;: ,
~&2~2L z~
~ ~,1~e&/' /e.e~fir~
/ alt
,~ a'~ 3', -~ g~ e~.
I,
PAGENO="0493"
1367
`Sc"
2~5 Regina Street
Bay City, Texas 77414
March 26, 1981
Dear Senator
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights
Act (VRA). The Voting Rights Act is needed because it actually gives
everyone a chance to take part in our electoral process, as done in the
Constitution mandates.
This has to be the most successful piece of Civil Rights Legislation ever
passed. Through the application of this law, abuses of our own citizens and
their rights to vote have been remedied.
Progress-has been made under VRA, but much is there to be done. The protection
is much needed by the minorities from manipulation of local voting laws, in
which their voting strength is diluted. Wherean increase of the number of
minorities participating in running for political office, you will find to
be an area in which VRA has been in effect.
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This would
-be unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act already apply nationally.
The application of Section 5 of the VRA to limited parts of the nation is
necessary because those jurisdictions have historically discriminated against
minorities in~voting practices. Applying Section 5 nationwide would render
the Act ineffective.
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments addedin 1975 directed at
protecting language minorities--Mexican Americans, -Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
Minorities have progressed with VRA. The South and Southwest work done for
minorities will be eliminated, the need of citizens to go to vote without
fear of fraudulent election procedUres will again appear. If democracy is
to remain ~`esponsive to the citizens of this nation, we mustallow minorities
full participation in the electoral process, which at time the VRA provides.
In your deliberations, I urge you to consider these comments, and I would
- appreciate knowing your position on this mostvital issue.
Sincerely,
Genevieve Cisneros, President
* LULAC Council 610
Bay City, Texas
GC:m
PAGENO="0494"
1368
March 26, 1981
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the
Voting Rights Act (VRA).
As citizens of this nation and knowing the needs of the
minorities, I feel the (VRA) is the most sucessful pièce of
Civil Rights Legislation ever passed. The need is there for
the manipulation of local voting laws directed at diluting their
voting strength.
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments added in 1975
directed at protecting language minorities--Mexican Americans,
Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, American Indians, and Asian
Americans.
The VRA should be reauthorized for the progress made by minor-
ities in the South and Southwest not be eliminated. For our
democracy to. remain valid to the citizens participating in
electoral prOcess without fearing fraudulent procedures.
I urge you tO support the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
Sincerely,
:m
PAGENO="0495"
1369
~ 7 3/-8~
~
, League of CUniled ~ Apsarfcøa (~Wzesa
SanlaAaaCouncilNo. 147
P.O. Box 1810 * ` Ar~C~b~or1ae O27t~ 0
Represoutative Pete MoCiosky ~
U.S. Rouse of Representatives ` ~ \~`
Vashington, D.C. 20515
Dear Sirs
This letter is to urge your support tsr the eztsmsi.n of the Voting
Rights Act (VRA), The VRA is one of the most important and successful
pieces of civil rights legislation everpassed. At you ar. aware, out-
rageous abuses against our citizens right to vote hay, been remedied
through the application of: this law. It~s enforcement- has given every
American a chance to-participat. in the electoral process as mandated
by the Constitution.
Under the YRA important progress has been mad., however much remains
to be done. Minorities need continued proteotjon from the manipulation
of local voting laws directed at diluting their voting strength. In
those. areas where the VRA has been in effect ther. has been an inoreas.
in the, number of minorities participating in the electoral process and
running for political office. . This is essential to: the success and con-
tinued acceptance of the American political process.
Now, I- understand there is a movement" to have the VRA apply nation-
ally. .This would be unnecessary since those portions of the Act for
which nationwide applicability would be most useful already have such
applicability required in the law. On the other hand, the application
of Section 5 of the VRA to limited parts of the country is necessary
because those jurisdictions have historically discriMinated against
minorities-, in voting practices. Applying Section 5 `nationwide would,
in effect, render the Act ineffective.
I also strongly urge you to support the `IRA amendments added in
1973 which were directed-Sat protecting America's language minorities,
These minorities, the MexicanAmericans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans,
American Indians, and Asian Amerlcans have all achieved greater politi..
cal participation as a result of the 1975 amendments. The strength of
our political system, as you well know, depends upon the maximum accept-
ance of it, and participation in it, rather than upon the disenfranchise-
ment of its citizens,
If the `IRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress made by mm-
oritiea in the South and Southwest will be eliminated, If our democracy
is -to remain vital and responsive we must guarantee all of our citizens
full access to the electoral process.
Your support for extending the YEA will be greatly appreciated by
- millions of Americans-- now, and in the future. I seriously urge you
to consider my cosmaents in your deliberations over this important matter.
I woul4 also. appreciate knowing what your position is on this vital issue,
Very sincerely,
M74iuel A. Rede, president -
PAGENO="0496"
1370
L~a~u~ of ~LhvL&IJ~athz ~4m~thaiz diliw2~
COUNCIL No. 360 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
~4ttfos 19n,-.Oag fan~~f!
April 8, 1981
13
Honorable President Ronald Reagan
The White house
Washington, o. C. 20510
Estimado President Ronald Reagan:
I am taking this opportunity to speak out on and in
support of the Voting Rights Act as amonded in 1975. There
has been shameful abuses towards our citizenry and their
right to&ote has been assisted through the positive appli-
cation of this Act. Our constitution guarantees the right
of our citizens to participate in our electoral process and
is assisted through the application of the VRII.
It has also been brought to my attention that there is
a movement to have VP/I applied on a Nit lanai basis Cer ta in
p rovi s ions a f the Act add ross t hems I yes to Na I: i ann 1 concerns
there fore, i t would be unnecessary. There are Sections of
the United States that have historically discriminated
against, minority voting practices and Section 5 of VRA
affects them. To have Section 5 appiied on a National basis
would render it ineffective.
Important progress has been made under this Act and
there is much remaining to be done. Continued protection
from the manipulation of local voting laws directed Tht
diluting the voting strength of minorities must be done.
VR/1 has beeii c?ffecti ye in increils inj the number of minorities
participating in our electoral process and seeking out
Political office.
If reauthorization is not met, much of the progress
made by our folks in the South and Southwest will be
eliminated. We must make our Democracri responsive and valid
to meet the needs of our citizens. Therefore, we must allow
and guarantee all minorities full participation in the
electoral process free from the fear of fraudulent election
procedures.
PAGENO="0497"
1371
Please consider my comments in your deliverations, and
advise me of your position in this issue.
Sinceramente,
JamesJ7. Sedillo
President
LULAC Council 360
JJS : cg
cc: Don Edwards, CA
Robert W. Kastenmeier, WI
Patricia Schroeder, CO
harold Washington, IL
Henry J. Hyde, IL
Dan Lungren, CA
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., WI
Robert t4cClory, Ii
Pete McClosky, CA
George E. Danielson, CA
Robert Michel
Tip O'Neill
Jim Wright,'TX
Bob Stump, AZ
Fidon Rudd, AZ
Harry M.~ Goldwater, AZ
Dennis DeConcini, AZ
Strom Thurmond
Robert Byard
Alan Cranston
John Tower
83-679 0 - 82 - 32 Pt.2
PAGENO="0498"
1372
April 17, 1981
3320 S. MacGregor Way
Houston, Texas 77021
Senator Lloyd Bentsen
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Bentsen:
In 1975 I had the privilege of testifying before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on the need to extend the coverage of the Voting
Rights Act.
This letter is to once again urge your support of the extensiofi
of the Voting Rights Act. Many outrageous abuses against our own
citizens and their right to vote have been remedied through the
application of this law. It's effect has beenprofound in Hispanic
communities in the So~ithwest. Doors once shut tight have been
partially opened.
While important progress has been made, there is still much to
be done. Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation
of localvoting laws directed at diluting their voting strength. In
those areas where the VRA has been in effect there has been a positive
increase in the number of minorities participating in the electoral
process and running for political office.
If the VRA is not continued the progress made by minorities in
the South and Southwest will be slowed. If our democracy is to remain
valid and responsive to the needs of the citizenry, we must allow all
minorities full participation in the electoral process without fearing
fraudulent election procedures.
I urge you to vote to wipe out the last vestiges of racism and
prejudice.
Sincerely, -
PAGENO="0499"
1373
April 17, 1981
3320 5. MacGregor Way
Houston, Texas 77021
Senator John Tower
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Tower:
In 1975 I had the privilege of testifying before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on the need to extend the coverage of the Voting
Rights Act.
This letter is to once again urge your support of the extension
of the Voting Rights Act. Many outrageous abuses againt our own
citizens and their right to vote have been remedied through the
application of this law. It's effect has'been profound in Hispanic
communities in the Southwest. Doors once shut tight have been
partially opened.
While important progress has been made, there is still much to
be done. Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation
of local voting laws directed at diluting their voting strength. In
those areas where the VRA has been in effect there has been a positive
increase in the number of minorities participating in the electoral
process and running for political office.
If the VRA is not continued the progress made by minorities in
the South and Southwest will be slowed. If our democracy is to remain
valid and responsive to the needs of the citizenry, we must allow all
minorities full participation in the electoral process without fearing
fraudulent election procedures.
I urge you to vote to wipe out the last vestiges of racism and
prejudice.
Sincerely,
Leonel J.. Cas illo
~ ~ ~:~j
~) )
~/. J:j
PAGENO="0500"
1374
April 21, 1981
William C. Velasquez
Executive Director
SVREP
201 N. St. Mary's St., Suite 501
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Dear Mr. Velasquez:
Please find enclosed a copy of the letters sent to
Washington.
As always your information and assistance is vital to
our community. Nevertheless, we seem to be fighting a
losing battle. We've had voter registration drives,
had good candidates run for public office and yet our
voters don't come out and vote! We do have the numbers
to win elections.
For the upcoming year we have a plan to organized an
"information center". One of our fellow concerned
citizen has a home computor and we are planning to
computerize all county registered voters (mainly his-
panic voters). Our plan is to arouse and interest the
citizens on vital local issues.
Although the afore-mentioned plan is still in the
drawing board any technical assistance from SVREP
will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Eliodoro Martinez
LULAC Council 682
P.O. Box 707
Seguin, Texas 78155
512-379- 8106
End.
PAGENO="0501"
1375
ApHl 21, 1981
Honorable Representative Tip O'Neill
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative O'Neill:
Your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Acts
(VRA) is of paramount importance. Our civil r)~ghts were
tremendously upgraded when this ~g~1ation 7'as passed.
I further stress that while important i~r~~rjss has been
made, applying Section 5 of the VRA nationä~~would
make the Act ineffective.
The 1975 amendments protecting langu~e minorit~s
needs your support and ba~king. )
All the progress made in v\\ing rig~s over the last
decade will take steps back~rds if~VRA is not reautho-~,
rized. .
Please forward your position on'~his vital issue. \
Sincerely, N
04,
Eliodoro Martinez
233 River Road
Ln, Texas
79-8106
PAGENO="0502"
1376
BILLY A. MIMES MURRAY H. FINLEY JACK SHEINEMAN
kIumat~.~.I ~ P~d~t ~ ~ S.?-T~e.~e?
RAFAEL BUIZ
~ R~d M~~g.?
EL PASO JOINT BOARD
/1m4é~4m4td e&~, aNd `7e~ate 1O~e~ ~1~c~oa LC1~J
AFL-CIO, dC
MAY 5, 1981
SENATOR JOHN TOWER
U. S. SENATE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20515
DEAR SENATOR TOWER:
FEW PIECES OF LEGISLATION HAVE FAVORABLY AFFECTED
YOUR VERY LARGE CONSTITUENSCY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THROUGH-
OUT THE UNITED STATES, AS HAS THE VOTING REGISTRATION ACT. IT
IS NO REVELATION TO YOU THAT RIFE ABUSES AGAINST OUR OWN CITIZENS
AND THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE HAVE BEEN AMELIORATED THROUGH THE APPLI-
CATION OF THIS LAW. OUR COUNTRY WILL BE STRONG ONLY IN PRO-
PORTION TO THE NUMBER OF ITS CITIZENS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS. THIS, I THINK, IS WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION
INDICATES.
THE PROGRESS MADE BY MINORITIES TN THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS -IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST IS MOST EVIDENT. THIS PROGRESS
WILL STOP IF THE VOTING REGISTRATION ACT IS NOT REAUTHORIZED.
I'M ASKING THAT YOU SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MY COMMENTS IN
DEALING WITH THIS MATTER. I AM ALSO VERY INTERESTED IN KNOWING
YOUR POSITION IN THIS MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.
SINCERELY YOURS,
R ~ RUIZ, MANAGE~J
EL PASO JOINT BOARD
- ACTWU, AFL-CIO, CLC
RR/MAF -
PAGENO="0503"
1377
BILLY A. MIMES MUEftAY H. FINLEY JACK SHEINKMAN
Int.matlo.~aI Vice Pc,sldent G.,.~.I p.c Gcwcei Secc,tacc-Tc.cec,,
~AFAEL kUIZ
1.1.1 8o.rd ?Mcagec
EL PASO JOINT BOARD
,lma4àmaeed 64e~e~~9 cz'ec~ 7e~4 ~ 1(e~ LCrW!j
AFL-CIO, CLC -
.~. 7
MAY 5, 1981
SENATOR LLOYD BENTSON
U. S. SENATE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20515
DEAR SENATOR BENTSEN:
FEW PIECES OF LEGISLATION HAVE FAVORABLY AFFECTED
YOUR VERY LARGE CONSTITUENCY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THROUGH-
OUT THE UNITED STATES, AS HAS THE VOTING REGISTRATION ACT. IT
IS NO REVELATION TO YOU THAT RIFE ABUSES AGAINST OUR OWN CITIZENS
AND THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE HAVE BEEN AMELIORATED THROUGH THE APPLI-
CATION OF THIS LAW. OUR COUNTRY WILL BE STRONG ONLY IN PRO-
PORTION TO THE NUMBER OF ITS CITIZENS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS. THIS, I THINK, IS WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION
INDICATES.
THE PROGRESS MADE BY MINORITIES IN THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST IS MOST EVIDENT. THIS PROGRESS
WILL STOP IF THE VOTING REGISTRATION ACT IS NOT REAUTHORIZED.
I'M ASKING THAT YOU SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MY COMMENTS IN
DEALING WITH THIS MATTER. I AM ALSO VERY INTERESTED IN KNOWING
YOUR POSITION IN THIS MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.
SINCERELY YOURS,
RNAG
EL PASO JOINT BOARD
ACTWU, AFL-CIO, CLC
RRINAF
PAGENO="0504"
1378
ELLY A. HIMES MUUAY H. FINLEY JACK SHEINKMAH
etematiceal Vice Pcceidec? ~e~i Neeidect Gec*cel 5.c~tJ~y-T~eec%,?
*AFAEL IUIZ
JOM1 øce'd Meccee~
EL PASO JOINT BOARD
~1m4l94ffmted ee6e~e4C, a~i 7ezei4 1~o~e~u ~i~&iot ACI~j!J
AFL-CIO, CLC
~.. 7
MAY 5, 1981
REPRESENTATIVE JIM WRIGHT
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WA$HINGTON, D. C. 20515
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT:
FEW PIECES OF LEGISLATION HAVE FAVORABLY AFFECTED
YOUR VERY LARGE CONSTITUENCY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THROUGH-
OUT THE UNITED STATES, AS HAS THE VOTING REGISTRATION ACT. IT
IS NO REVELATION TO YOU THAT RIFE ABUSES AGAINST OUR OWN CITIZENS
AND THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE HAVE BEEN AMELIORATED THROUGH THE APPLI-
CATION OF THIS LAW. OUR COUNTRY WILL BE STRONG ONLY IN PRO-
PORTION TO THE NUMBER OF ITS CITIZENS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS. THIS, I THINK, IS WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION
INDICATES.
THE PROGRESS MADE BY MINORITIES IN THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST IS MOST EVIDENT. THIS PROGRESS
WILL STOP IF THE VOTING REGISTRATION ACT IS NOT REAUTHORIZED.
I'M ASKING THAT YOU SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MY COMMENTS IN
DEALING WITH THIS MATTER. I AM ALSO VERY INTERESTED IN KNOWING
YOUR POSITION IN THIS MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.
SINCERELY YOURS;
RA A RUIZ, MANAGER
EL PASO JOINT BOARD
ACTWU, AFL-CIO, CLC
RR/MAF
PAGENO="0505"
1379
lILLY A. HIMES MUUAY H. FINLEY JACK SHEINEMAN
Intimatice.t Vie, Pre.ide.t ~.e.e.t P..,Ide.t Gee.e, SIC~Stay-T~eR1Ue.?
MFAEL EUIZ
1.1.1 8.a,d Mae.g.e
EL PASO JOINT BOARD
~1ma19a.,ated ée~e~e~ a~d 7en~de ~`4~4e~ ~t~a~t LC1)ij!J
AFL-CIO, dC
.~. 7
MAY 5, 1981
PRESIDENT REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510
DEAR PRESIDENT REAGAN:
FEW PIECES OF LEGISLATION HAVE FAVORABLY AFFECTED
YOUR VERY LARGE CONSTITUENCY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THROUGH~-
OUT THE UNITED STATES AS HAS THE VOTING REGISTRATION ACT. IT
IS NO REVELATION TO YOU THAT RIFE ABUSES AGAINST OUR OWN CITIZENS
AND THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE HAVE BEEN AMELIORATED THROUGH THE APPLI-
CATION OF THIS LAW. OUR COUNTRY WILL BE STRONG ONLY IN PRO.-
PORTION TO THE NUMBER OF ITS CITIZENS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS. THIS, I THINK, IS WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION
INDICATES.
THE PROGRESS MADE BY MINORITIES IN THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST IS MOST EVIDENT. THIS PROGRESS
WILL STOP IF THE VOTING REGISTRATION ACT IS NOT REAUTHORIZED.
I'M ASKING THAT YOU SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MY COMMENTS IN
DEALING WITH THiS MATTER. I AM ALSO VERY INTERESTED IN KNOWING
YOUR POSITION IN THIS MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.
SINCERELY YOURS,
RAF E RUIZ, MANAGER
EL PASO JOINT BOARD
ACTWU, AFL-CIO, CLC
RR/MAF
PAGENO="0506"
1380
State Representative Member of:
BOB MARTINEZ Education Comminee
Commerc: City Colorado 80022 Transportation and Eneray
Home phone: 287e11t Capitol phone: 866-2909
COLORADO
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE CAPITOL
DENVER
May 5, 1981
Rolando L. Rios
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
201 N. St. Mary's Street, Suite 501
San Antonio, TX 78205
Dear Mr. Rios:
As per your request of March 10, 1981, a letter was sent out
concerning the Voting Rights Act. Enclosed you will find a list
of the Legislators it was sent to and a copy of the letter sent.
Sincerely,
Bob Martinez
State Representative
President Ronald Reagan
Senators
Strom Thtñ-mond
Robert ~yrd
Alan Cranston
John Tower
Gary Hart
William L. Armstrong
~presentati yes
Patricia Schroeder
Tim Wirth
Ray Kogovsek
Hank Brown
Kenneth Kramer
Don Edwards
Robert W. Kastenmeier
Harold Washington
Henry J. Hyde
Dan Lungren
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
Robert McClory
Pete McClosky
George E. Danielson
Robert Michel
Tip O'Neill
Jim Wright
PAGENO="0507"
1381
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights
Act (VRA). It is my contention that the VRA has played a very significant
role in increasing the political participation of minorities in the South-
western United States. Although some important progress has been made,
there still exists a great deal to be done. Minorities need protection
from the use of local voting laws to dilute their voting strength.
In those areas where the VRA has been in effect there has been a noticeable
Increase in the number of minorities voting and running for political of-
fice. It has afforded minorities at the local level an opportunity to
have representation on school boards, city councils, county commissions and
in state legislatures.
It is my understanding that there are some who would have the VRA apply na-
tionally. This is an unnecessary act since certain provisions of the Act
already apply to the Nation. Section 5 of the VRA is necessary to limited
parts of the Nation because those jurisdictions have historically discrim-
inated against minorities in voting practices. Applying it nationwide
would render the Act ineffective.
In addition, I urge you to support the VRA amendments of 1975 directed at
protecting language minorities -- Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is not extended, much of the proqress made by minorities in the
south and southwest will be eliminated. If our democracy is to remain a
democracy, for all the people, it must include all groups of people at
all levels of government.
in conclusion, I urge you to carefully consider the repercussions that
would ensue should the VRA not be extended.
Sincerely,
* Bob Martinez
State Representative
BM/blu
PAGENO="0508"
1382
R~YES Nay 5, 1981
&
BARRERA, INC.
A~orneyc Senator Lloyd Bentsen
& Counse °~ U. S. Senate
usLuw Washington, D.C. 20515
mu~icwc~o ~uws. ~ Dear Senator Bentsen:
ELLIS ~AQ~R?~, JP.
CI~TPODOGUEZ The Voting Rights Act has been one, if not, the most
effective tool in.providir~g for Chicanos in this
ROLANDOGAQCIA country access to a. more equitable participation in
JUAN I1.AIDAPN the political process, and therefore providing for
MARIA LUPE D,LEON Chicanos of this country a more representative share
of the "pie" in this country.
The Constitution of our country (and note, how I say
"our country", for I too, am an American.) mandates
that everyone have am equal chance to participate in
our.eledtorai process, and the Voting Rights Act, has
provided for Chicanos the right to vote through the
application of law.
For too long minorities, specially Chicanos, have been
denied their. right to participation in the political
process by various methods, all of which are unconsti-
tutional or have been declared suspect by our federal
courts, and where these rights have not been denied the
local voting laws have been manipulated in such a way
as to dilute the Chicanos voting strength. In those
areas where the Voting Rights Act has been in effect
there has been an increase in the number of Chicanos
participating and getting elected. Examples: Houston
and San Antonio, Texas.
It has cone to my attention that there exists a certain
movement to have the Voting Rights Act apply nationally.
I am opposed to it. Certain provisions of the act al-
ready apply nationally, and the application of Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act to limited parts of the nation
is necessary because those jurisdictions have historically
discriminated against Chicanos and other minorities.
do not contend that voting discrimination on a nation-
~ IIYA
PAGENO="0509"
1383
Page Two RE: Voting Rights Act
wide basis exists against Chicanos. I contend that
voting discrimination exists where large populations
of Chicanos live; i.e. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico,
Colorado, and California; and certain pockets in
Chicago and other midwestern cities. Allowing the
Voting Rights Act, Section 5, to be applicable nation-
* wide, would render such provision totally ineffective
and would be contrary to the spirit in which the Voting
Rights Act as draft, passed, and applied.
I, further urge you, to support the Voting Rights Act
Amendments of 1975, which directly protect language
minorities, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
The 1980's is supposed to be the "Decade of the Hispanics".
However, without the Voting Rights Act, the small progress
which Hispanics have made in this country will be elimin-
ated. And, if our democracy is to remain valid and
responsive to the needs of our people, it must remain
relevant to our needs. We need access to the political
process to fully share in all the good things this coutitry
provides for the rest of its citizens,representatjon in
the governing bodies from City Halls to the U.S. Congress.
I urge you to consider my comments inyour deliberations,
and if you should need additional information regarding
this matter, write me, call me, or request that I come
see you personally. I am available. I would appreciate
knowing your ~o~~tion to this vital issue.
Sincerely, ( `~
REYES & BARRERA, NC.
~N~~EYES, \iP
FR~/v1z at Law \
PAGENO="0510"
1384
May 5, 1981
BA~ERA, i';.
Pre:~~deoL Rooald Reagan
ti. ito i;ouse
Was ngton, D.C. 20510
Deer Pecoident Reagan:
Voting Riqhts Act has been one, if not, the nest
~ective tool in providing for Chicanos in this country
acre; to a more equitable participation in the political
em; :m:r:u;, and therefore providing for Chicanos of this
-o~;nLry a more representative share of the "pie" in this
coin try
The Core eltution of our country (and note, how I say
`our co;.ut:-y', for I too, am an American.) mandates that
c~'cryonc have an equal chance to participate in our
ctcctorcl process, and the Voting Rights Act, has pro-
~dei for Chicai~os the right to vote through the appli-
ce Lien of Liiw.
* Per too lorg minorities, specially Chicanos, have been
`drniou their right to participation in the political
by various methods, all of which are unconsti-
tut~onal or have been declared suspect by our federal
coarto, and where these rights have not been denied the
local ~`oting laws have been manipulated in such a way
as to dilute the Chicanos voting strength. In those
croon where the Voting Rights Act has been in effect
throc has been an increase in the number of Chicanos
paeticipatiocr and getting elected. Examples: Houston
and aOfl Antonio, Texas.
It has come to my attention that there exists a certain
movcceat to have the Voting Rights Act apply nationally.
I am opponrd to it. Certain provisions of the act already
apor nationally, and the application of Section 5 of
the Votiecj Rights Act to limited parts of the nation is
nocesnary because those jursidictions have historically
discriminated against Chicanos and other minorities. I
do not contend that voting discrimination on a nation-
PAGENO="0511"
1385
Page Two RE: Voting Rights Act
wide basis exists against Chicanos. I contend that
voting discrimination exists where large populations
of Chicanos live; i.e. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico,
Colorado, and California; and certain pockets in
Chicago and other midwestern cities. Allowing the
Voting Rights Act, Section 5, .to be applicable nation..
wide, would render such provision totally ineffective
and would be contrary to the spirit in which the Voting
Rights Act as draft, passed, and applied.
I, further urge you, to support the Voting Rights Act
Amendments of 1975, which directly protect language
minorities, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
The 1980's is supposed to be the "Decade of the Hispanics".
However, without the Voting Rights Act, the small progress
which Hispanics have made in this country will be elitnin-.
ated. And, if our democracy is to remain valid and
responsive to the needs of our people, it must remain
relevant to our needs. We need access to the political
process to fully share in all the good things this country
provides for the rest of its citizens,representation in
the governing bodies from City Halls to the U.S. Congress.
I urge you to consider my comments inyour deliberations,.
and if you should need additional information regarding
this matter, write me, call me, or request that I come
see you personally. I am available. I would appreciate
knowing your po,~tion to this vital issue.
Sincerely, ( `~
REYES & BARRERA, NC.
~EN~tb\EYES .\~1~\
A torney at Law
FR~/ viz
PAGENO="0512"
1386
REVES May 5, 1981
C..
BARRERA, INC.
Attorneys Senator John Tower
& Counse!o~s U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
FPUM~NCIO tc~rns, jo. Dear Senator Tower:
NLUS BAPRCPA, JP.
VSCtNrRODRIGUEZ The Voting Rights Act has been one, if not, the most
MImG.HERNANDEZ effective tool in providing for Chicanos in this
POLANDO GARCIA country access to a more equitable participation in
JUAN M.ALDAPR the political process, and therefore providing for
MARIA WAR D,LNON Chicanos of this country a more representative share
of the "pie" in this country.
The Constitution of our country (and note, how I say
"our country", for I too, am an American.) mandates
that everyone have an equal chance to participate in
our electoral process, and the Voting Rights Act, has
provided for Chicanos the right to vote through the
application of law.
For too long minorities, specially Chicanos, have been
denied their right to participation in the political
process by various methods, all of which are unconsti-
tutional or have been declared suspect by our federal
courts, and where these rights have not been denied the
local voting laws have been manipulated in such a way
as to dilute the Chicanos voting strength. In those
areas where the Voting Rights Act has been in effect
there has been an increase in the number of Chicanos
participating and getting elected. Examples: Houston
and San Antonio, Texas.
It has come to my attention that there exists a certain
movement to have the Voting Rights Act apply nationally.
I am opposed to it. Certain provisions of the act already
apply nationally, and the application of Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act to limited parts of the nation is
necessary because those jurisdictions have historically
discriminated against Chicanos and other minorities.
do not contend that voting discrimination on a nation-
3702 N. MAIN ST.
TAt. 7131009.597T.
4OLJSTON. TOXAS 77OT~ -
PAGENO="0513"
1387
Page. T~o RE: Voting Rights Act
wide basis exists against Chicanos. I contend that
voting discrimination exists where large populations
of Ci-ticanos live; i.e. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico,
Colorado, and California; and certain pockets in
Chicago and other midwestern cities. Allowing the
Voting Rights Act, Section 5, to be applicable nation-
wide, would render such provision totally ineffective
and would be cc'ntraryto the spirit inwhich the Voting
Rights Act as c~raft, passed, and applied.
I, further urge you, to support the Voting Rights Act
Amendments of 1975, which directly protect language
minorities, Mexican. Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, -and Asian Americans.
The 1980's is supposed to be the "Decade of the Hispanics'.'.
However, without the Voting Rights Act, the small progress
which Hispanics have made in this country will be elimin-
ated. And, if our democracy is to remain valid and
responsive to the needs of. our people, it must remain
relevant, to our needs. We need access to the political
process to fully share in"al1~the good things this country
~provides for .the rest of its citizens,representation in
the governing bodies from City Halls to the U.S. Congress.
I'urge you to consider.my comments inyour.deliberatiorts,
and if you should need additional information regarding
this matter, write me,. call me, or request that I' come
see you personally. I am available. I would appreciate
knowing your position to this vital issue.
Sincerely, ffl
\ REYES & BARRERA, NC.
FR/v at Law
83-679 0 - 82 - 33 Pt.2
PAGENO="0514"
1888
R~YES May 5, 1981
&
BARRERA, ~c.
Attorneys Representative Jim Wright
&Couri~dorc U.S. House of Representatives
it LRw Washington, D.C. 20515
FRUNIENCO ev~s. ~ Dear Representative Wright:
aits BARRFRA, JR.
VINCFNTROORIGUFZ The Voting Rights Act has been one, if not, the most
effective tool in providing for Chicanos in this country
ROLANDO GARCIA access to a more equitable participation in the political
JUAN H. ALDAPE process, and therefore providing for Chicanos of this
MAIAAWPED,LF6N country a more representative share of the "pie" in this
country.
The Constitution of our country (and note, how I say
"our country", for I too, an an American.) mandates that
everyone have an equal chance to participate in our
electoral process, and the Voting Rights Act, has pro-
vided for Chicanos the right to vote through the appli-
cation of law.
For too long minorities, specially Chicanos, have been
denied their right to participation in the political
process by various methods, all of which are unconsti-
tutional or have been declared suspect by our federal
courts, and where these rights have not been denied the
local voting laws have been mamipulated in such a way
as to dilute the Chicanos voting strength. In those
areas where the Voting Rights Act has been in effect
there has been an increase in the number of Chicanos
participating and getting elected. Examples: Houston
and San Antonio, Texas.
It has cone to my attention that there exists a certain
movement to have the Voting Rights Act apply nationally.
I am Oppose to it. Certain provisions of the act already
apply nationally, and the application of Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act to limited parts of the nation is
necessary because those jurisdicitoms have historically
discriminated against Chicanos and other minorities. I
do not. contend that voting discrimination on a nation-
1702 N. MAIN Si.
HOUSTON. TFXAS 77001
PAGENO="0515"
1389
Page Two RE: Voting Rights Act
wide basis exists against Chicanos. I contend that
voting discrimination exists where large populations
of Chicanos live; i~;e. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico,
Colorado, and California; and certain pocketsin
`~Chicago and other midwestern cities. Allowing the
Voting Rights Act, Section5, to be applicable nation-
wide,would render such provision totally ineffective
and would be contrary to the'ispirit in which the Voting
Rights Act' as draft, passed, and applied.
I, further urge you, to support the Voting Rights Act
`Amendments, of 1975, which directly protect language
minorities, Mexican Americans, `Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
The 1980's is supposed to be the "Decade of the Hispanics".
However, without the' Voting Rights Act, the- small progress
which `Hispanics~. have made in this country `will be elimin-
ated.. `And, if.,our democracy isto remain valid and
responsive to~,the'needs~ Of our'peopl.e, it must remain
`relevant to our. needs. We `need~acces's to the. political
process to fully share in all the good-things this country
provides for the rest of its citizens,representation.in
`the governing bodies from City Halls to the U.S. Congress.
I urge'you to~consider my comments' inyour deliberations,
and if you"should need additional information regarding
this matter, write me, call me, or request that I come
see you personally. `1 "am available. -I would appreciate
knowing your Po~~ti'on to' this vital issue.
Sincerely, ( `~
\ RE~ES & BARRERA, JkNC.
/\\~ç\\\~\ )~~\~\) \~~\ ~
JMEhCTO 1~EYES, .
A~torney at Law
FR\~/v1z
PAGENO="0516"
1390
R~YES May 6, 1981
(P
BARRGRA, INC.
Attorneys
Senator Lloyd Bentsen
& oun~e O~ U. S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
cRUMRNC,o RRY~3, JR. Dear Senator Bentsen:
ELUS BARRERA JR.
VINCENT RODRIGUEZ I write you today to urge you to keep the Voting
MIKE G.IIRRNANDEZ Rights Act alive. The Voting Rights Act is certainly
ROI.ANDO GARCIA a most important piece of legislation for us minor-
JUAN H. ALTAPE ities and it should become a part of the law of the
MARIA LURE United States permanently. The protection it affords
minorities is equally beneficial to non-minorities as
it allows us all to work together in the electoral
processes of this country.
Further, the extension of the Act nationwide would
likewise be detrimental to the people it is intend-
ed to protect. Only limited national application
of Section 5 is necessary in those areas which have
historically discriminated in their voting practices.
I would strongly urge, though the 1975 amendments,
as they strengthen the act and make it more effective
for the many people who are to benefit from it.
I urge you to heed the needs of many of the people
you represent by reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
Sincerely,
REYES & BARBERA, INC.
~.IARIA LUPE DE LEON
Attorney at Law
MLDL/vlz
3702 N. MAIN ST.
TEL 7131869.5975
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77009
PAGENO="0517"
1391
REYES May 6, .1981
&
BARRERA, INC.
Attorny~
President Ronald Reagan
The White House
washington, D.C. 20510
RRUM~NCIO p~y~c, jq Dear President Reagan:
aits BARRRRA, JR.
VtNC~NT PODPIGURZ I .1 write you today to urge you to keep the~ Voting
I1IKEC.HERNAND~Z - Rights. Act alive.~ The--Voting Rights Act is certainly
ROLAN000ARCIA a most important piece of legislation for us minor-
JUAN N. ALOAPR ities and it should become a part of the law of the
NARIALUPRD,LRON . . United States permanently. The protection it affords
.minorities is~equal1y. beneficial -to non-minorities as
I. it allows us allto-work together in the electoral
processes. of this country.
Further, ~the extension of the Act nationwide would
likewise be detrimental to the people it is intend-
edta protect. - Only limited national application
of -Section.~5 -is -necessary in those areas which have
historically discriminated in their voting practices.
* I would strongly urge, though the 1975 amendments,
as.they strengthen the-act and make it more effective
- ~f or-the many people who are to benefit from it.
.1 urge you to heed the, needs of many of the people
you represent by reauthorizing, the Voting Rights Act.
Sincerely,
REYES & -BARRERA, INC.
MARIA LUPE DE LEON
Attorney at Law
- NLDL/vlz
3702 N. MAIN ST.
ITL. 713/RLQ.5975
HOUSTON, TIXAS 7mO~
PAGENO="0518"
1392
REYES Nay 6, 1981
BARRERA, INC.
Auorneys
Representative Jim Wright
&~CounseIors U.S. House of Representatives
ot Law Washington, D.C. 20515
~RUM~NCIO RRY~S, JR. Dear Representative Wright:
RLLIS BARRSRA, JR.
V~4CENT RODRIGUEZ I write you today to urge you to keep the Voting
MIKEG.HERNANDEZ Rights Act alive. The Voting Rights Act is certainly
ROLANDOGARCIA a most important piece of legislation for us minor-
JUAN M.ALDAPE ities and it should become a part of the law of the
MAIALUpED,LE6N United States permanently. The protection it affords
minorities is equally beneficial to non..xninorities as
it allows us all to work together in the electoral
processes of this country. S
Further, the extension of the Act nationwidewould.
likewise be detrimental to the people it is intend.~
ed to protect. Only limited national application
of Section 5 is necessary in those areas which have
historically discriminated in their voting practices.
I would strongly urge, though the l975:amendinents9
as they strengthen the act and make it more effective
for the many people who are to benefit from it.
`I urge you to heed the needs of many of the people
you represent by reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
Sincerely,
REYES & BARRERA, INC.
NM~IA LUPE DE LEON
Attorney at Law
NLDL/vlz
3702 N. MAtH SI.
TEL. 713/660.5975
HOUSTON. TEXAS 7705"
PAGENO="0519"
1393
Senator Lloyd Bentsen
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Bentsen:
This letter is to request your profound support for
the extension of the Voting Rights Act. For instance
VRA has been regarded themost vital and integral piece
of legislation where Civil.Rights have been effected.
regarde4 it as the most important and successful piece
-of~legislation, due to the fact that it affects our
basic rights of participation in our electoral process
Throught this piece of legislation, the abuses against
our citizenry and their right to vote have been protected
`to `a great extent. Our constitution is very specific in
displaying thisbasic right to vote, and the same has
been taken -away by the outrageous misuse of power and
has severed our citizens from the participation in our
electoral process. This severance has been demised by
the implementation of the Voting Rights Act.
Although progress has been made, however, there is much
to be met simply because citizens of Mexican American
Extraction are still being questioned regarding their
citizenship in different local elections it1 areas where
an election can be decided by a small margin of votes
The citizenry of other minorities has confronted this
problem inlarge and small' communities as well. The
citizenry- of these counnunities have to continue to re-
ceive- this-protection from the maninulatien of local
voting-procedures by local and entrench politicians who
have' no other' purpose but to `dilute the public voting
stream. V~ has been very effective in increasing the
number of minori~ies participating in the electoral
process. -.
Further. I urge you to support the VRA Amendments added
in 1975 directed at protecting language minorities- -
Mexican Americans, ~Puerto Ricans, Cubda Americans,
American Indians, and Asian Americans.
-If our democracy is to-remainvalid and responsive to the
need of the citizenry, we must allow the town, cull par-
ticipation on--the electoral process without being inti-
midated.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations,
and .1 would appreciate knowing your position in this vital
issue. - -
Respectfully submitted,
-` REYES B , INC.
B ,JR.
ttarney at Law
May 7, 1981
WI
REYES
&
BARRERA, INC.
Attorr~c-5s
& Counsahrs
al Law
FAUMENCIO RRYES JR.
ELUS 3ARISRRA JR.
vINcuNr RODRIGUEZ -
MIKR C. HERIIANDRZ
ROLANDO GARCIA
JUAN N. ALDAPE
MARIA LUPR DiLEON - -
HOUStON, tEXAS 7/00-.
EBJ/eaz
PAGENO="0520"
1394
May 7, 1981
REYES
&
BARRERA, INC. Representative Jim Wright
Attoroe U. S. House of Representatives
&Cours~o~~ Washington, D.C. 20515
otLaw Dear Representative Wright:
~RUM0NCIO RErIS, JO
~LLiSRAR0CRA,J~ This letter is to request your profound support for
VINCENT RODRIGUEZ *the extension of the Voting Rights Act. For instance,
HIKRG.HERNANDEZ VRA has been regarded the most vital and integral piece
ROtANDOGARCIA of legislation where Civil Rights have beca effected. I
JUAN M.ALDAPE regarded it as the most important and successful, piece
NASA WPR D,IR6N of legislation, due td the fact thai~ it affects our
basic rights of participation in our electoral process
Throught this piece of legislation, the abuses against
our citizenry and their right to vote have been protected
to a great extent. Our constitution is very specific in
displaying this basic right to vote, and the sane has
been taken away by the outrageous misuse of power and
has severed our citizens from the participation in our
electoral process. This severance has been demised by
the implementation of the Voting Rights Act.
Although progress has been made, however, there is much
to be met simply because citizens of Mexican American
Extraction are still being questioned regarding their
citizenship in different local elections in areas where
an election can be decided by a small margin of votes
`The citizenry of other minorities has confronted this
problem in large and small conmiunities as well. The
citizenry of these comuunities have to contLnue to re-
ceive this protection -from the manipulation of ocal
voting procedures by local and entrench pol~t~cians who
have no other purpose but to dilute the public voting
stream. VRA has been very effective in increasing the
number of minorities Participating in the e.ectoral
process.
Further I urge you to support the VRA Amendments added
in 1975 directed at protecting language minorities--
Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans,
American Indians, and Asian Americans.
3702 N. MRS Si. If our democracy is to remain valid and responsive to the
TO.. 73'8~E~97~ need of the citizenry, we must allow the town, full par-
HOU000N, TEXAS 77OO~ ticipation on the electoral process without being inti-
midated.
I urge you to consider my consnents in your delI',~erations
and I would appreciate knowing your posItion in this vital
issue. -
Respectfully submitted,
REYE & BAEBEP~, INC. -
Attorney at Law
EBJ/eaz
PAGENO="0521"
1395
Nay 7, 1981
REYES
Senator John Tøwer
Ti. S. Senate
`Washington, C. 20515
Dear Senator Tower:
This letter is to request yourprofound support for
the extension of the Voting Ric'~-cs Act. For in~;rance,
VRA has been regarded .the most vi,tal ard integra. piece
* of legislation' where Civil Rights have bean effected.
regarded it as the most important and succcssful piece
of legislation, due to the fact that it aff:cts our
basic rights of participation in our electoral process
`Throught this piece of legislation, the abuses against
our citizenry and their right to vote have been protected
to a great extent. Our constitution is vorv specific in
displaying this basic right to vote, and the same has
been taken away by the outrageous misuse of power and
has severed our citizens from the participation in our
electoral process. This severance has been demised by
the implementation'of the Voting i~ights Act.
Although progress has been made, however, there is much
to be met simply because citizens of Mexican American
Extraction are still being questioned regarding their
citizenship in different local elections in areas where
an election can be decided by a small margin of votes
The citizenry of other minorities has confronted this
problem in large and small communities as well. The
citizenry of these communities have to continue to re-
ceive this protection from the manipulation of local
~voting procedures by local and entrench politicians who
have no other purpose but to dilute the pu~lic voting
stream. VRA has been very effective in increasing the
number of minorities participating in the electoral
process.
Further I urge you to support the VRA Amendments added
in 1975 directed at protecting language minorities- -
~exican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans,
rAmerican Indians, and Asian Americans.
If our democracy is to remain valid and responsive to the
~ieed of the citizenry, we must allow the town, full par-
ticipation on the electoral process without being inti-
~iidated.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations
and I would appreciate knowing your position in this vital
issue.
Respectfully submitted,
REYE & BARRE , INC.
Attorney at Law
BARRERA, sc.
AttonI\s
& Coansek~t
at Law
ETTuIENCIO OILS, ja.
ELLIS BARITETTA, JR.
VINCENT RODGOUEZ
MIKE C. HERNANDEZ
ROLANDO GARCIA
JUAN B. ALDAPE
MARIA LUPE D~LEON
3702 N. MAIN ST.
HOUSTON, TEXAS 7700'
EBJ/eaz
PAGENO="0522"
1396
May 7, 1981
R~Y~S
& I
BARRERA, INC. President Ronald Reagan
The White House
Attornc~s Washington, D.C. 20510
Counsek~
~t L~
Dear President Reagan:
U~1IT~CIO R~'~S, J~.
~LLS~AQ~uA.JQ This letter is to request your profound support for
VN~NT~ODRIGUu the extension of the Voting Rights Act. For instance,
NIKEG.I4~PNANO~Z VRA has been regarded the nost vital and integral piece
ROLANDOGARCIA of legislation where Civil Rights have ~een effected.
JUAN MALDAPE regarded it as the most important and successful piece
MARS LUPE D,LEON of legislation, due to the fact that it affects our
basic rights of participation in our e.~eczora1 process
Throught this piece of legislation, the abuses against
our citizenry and their right to vote have been protected
to a great extent. Our constitution is ;ery specific in
displaying this basic right to vote, and the sa'ne has
been taken away by the outrageous misuse of power and
has severed our citizens from the participation in our
electoral process. This severance has been demised by
the implementation of the Voting Rights Act.
Although progress has been made, however, there is much
to be met simply beàause citizens of Mexican American
Extraction are still being questioned regarding their
citizenship in different local elections in areas where
an election can be decided by a small margin of votes
The citizenry of other minorities haU confronted this
problem in large and small communities~as well. The
citizenry of these communities have to continue to re-
ceive this protection from the manipulation of local
voting procedures by local and entrench politicians who
have no other purpose but to dilute the public voting
stream. VRA has been very effective in increasing the
number of minorities participating in the electoral
I process.
Further I urge you to support the VRA Amendments added
in 1975 directed at protecting language minorities- -
Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricams, Cuban Americans,
American Indians, and Asian Americans.
If our democracy is to. remain valid and responsive to the
t~y~3, ~:97 need of the citizenry, we must allow the town, full par-
AOUS1ON~XAS77o~ ticipation on the electoral process without being inti-
midated.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations,
and I would appreciate knowing your position in this vital
issue.
Respectfully submitted,
REYES B , INC.
B ,JR. /
ttorney at Law
EBJ/eaz
PAGENO="0523"
1397
£`~&y 7, 1981
President i~eagan
The hite ñouse
.ashington, D.C. 20510
Lear. President heagan:
The Voting hights i~ct (Vhi~) has been called the most sig~
nificant and achieved piece of civil rights legislation ever
passed. There is no doubt in my mind that this is correct.
£:p~llifl~ abuses against our own citizens and their equity to
vote have been remedied through application of this law.
Under the ,Via~ significant progress has been made, however,
there is much to. be done. hinorities need continued protection
from manipulation of local voting laws .diiected at weakening
their voting strength.
I feel that you should support the V~ amendments added in
1975 directed at protecting language minori.ties-~hexican ~meri~
cans, Puerto hicans, Cuban americans, american Indians, and .~sian
~mericans.
If the Vi~ is not reautborized, much of the progress made by
minorities in the south nd Southwest will be negated.
I urge you to take my comments into consideration in your
deliberations. I would appreciate knowing your position on this
most crucial issue,
Ve~ry truly sours,
/~
,~ /. j / -,; / ...-.,
/~rtUro T~, Gomez, Jr.
Constable Pct. 2
1200 . C. C. St.
iieeville, Texas 78102
CC: en. Lloyd i3~nt~en
UU: .u.~. ~en. John lower
LC:. a.t~.te Sen. Curbs x. Truan
~ U.s. Lep. Jim ~right
PAGENO="0524"
1398
Esther A. Zepeda
7946 Clenscot
Houston, Texas 77061
May 7, 1981
Senator John Tower
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: The Voting Rights Act
Dear Senator Tower:
This letter is to urge your sup~ort of the extension
of the Voting Rights Act. Because of it, there has been
an increased interest in our electoral process within the
minority groups. All are becoming more conscious of their
common interests and their national identity.
Elimination of the VRA would be selfish ~n that the
interests of others are not being considered. The poor,
therefore, should have a say in government so as to be
able to protect themselves against those who would ex-
ploit their individual weaknesses. Without the VBJ~, we
would surely verge to anarchy and confusion.
If our democracy is to remain valid and responsive
to the needs of the citizenry we must allow all minorities
full participation in the electoral process without fear
of fraudulent election procedures. Even in 369, the
15th Amendment was passed, which forbids all states to -
deny the vote to anyone "on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude".
Are we to regress instead of advance in our
government and its procedures?
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliber-
ations, and I would appreciate knowing your position on
this most crucial and vital issue.
Sincerely,
Esther A. Zepeda
PAGENO="0525"
1399
Esther A. Ze'Deda
7946 Glenscot
Houston, Texas 77061
May 7, 1981
Senator Lloyd Bentsen
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: The Voting RIghts Act
Dear Senator Bentsen:
This letter. is to urge your support of the extension
of the Voting Rights Act. Because of it, there has been
an increased interest in our electoral process within the
minority groups. All are becoming more conscious of their
conmlon:interests and their national identity..
Elimination of the VRA would be selfish in that the
interests of others are not being considered. The poor,
therefore, should have a say in government ~o as to be
able to protect themselves against these who would ex-
ploit. their individual weaknesses. Without the VRA, we
would surely verge to anarchy and confusion.
If our democracy is to remain valid and responsive
to the needs of the citizenry we must allow ~1 minorities
full participation in the electoral process without fear
of fraudulent election procedures. Even in 1869, the
15th Amendment was passed, which forbids all states to
deny thevote to anyone "on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude".
Are we to regress instead of advance in our
* government and its procedures?
.1 urge you to consider my comments in yo~:r deliber-
ations, and I:would appreciateknowng your position on
this most crucialand vital issue.
Sincerely,
Esther L. Zepeda
PAGENO="0526"
1400
Esther A. Zeoeda
746 Glenscot
Houston, Texas 77061
May 7, 1981
Representative Jim Wright
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: The Voting Rights Act
Dear Representative Wright:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension
*of the Voting Rights Act. Because of it, there has been
an increased interest in our electora~ process within the
minority groups. All are becoming more conscious of their
common interests and their national idenci:y.
Elimination of the VRA would be selfish in that the
interests of others are not being considered. The poor,
therefore, should have a say in government so as to be
able to protect themselves against thc~e who would ex-
ploit their individual weaknesses. Without the VRA, we
would surely verge to anarchy and confusion.
If our democracy is to remain valid and responsive
to the needs of the citizenry we mus.t allow all minorities
full participation in the electoral process without fear
of fraudulent election procedures. Even in 1869, the
15th Amendment was passed, which forbids all states to
deny the vote to anyone "on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude".
Are we to regress instead of advance in o~ir
government and its procedures? *
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliber-
ations, and I would appreciate knowing your position on
this most crucial and vital issue.
Sincerely,
Esther A. Zepeda
PAGENO="0527"
1401
Esther A. Zepd;~
7946 Clonscot
Houston, `fcx~~ 77061
May 7, l9S~.
President Reagan
The White youse
Washington, D.C. 20510
RE: The Voting Rights Act
Dear President Reagan:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension
of the Voting Rights Act. Because of it, there has been
an increased interest in our electoral process within the
minority groups. All are becoming more cocscious of their
cotmnon interests and their national idcnticv.
Elimination of the yEA would be sslf5..sh r that the
interests of others are not being cons.der~d. Th~ poor,
therefore, should have a say in government sc' as an be
able to protect themselves against those who would ex-
ploit. their. individual weaknesses. Without the VEA, we
would surely verge to anarchy and confusThn.
If our democracy is toremain valid and responsive
to the needs of the citizenry We itiust allow all minorities
full participation in the electoral process without fear
of fraudulent electionprocedures. Eve: in L869, the
15th. Amendment was passed, which forbids a.l states to
deny the vote to anyone "on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude".
Are we to regress instead of advance in our
government and its procedures?
I urge you to consider my comments In your deliber-
ations, and I would aporeciace knowing your position on
this most crucial and vital issue.
Sincerely,
Esther A. Zepeda
PAGENO="0528"
1402
Lii East 24th St.
Houston, Texas 77008
May 8, 1981
President Reagan
The Waite J;Ous(~
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Prr~iderit Reagan:
As a concerted American, I strongly urge you to support
the extension of the Voting Rights Act, in the minority
lanqua~e provisions. I also urge you to oppose nation-
wide coverage and any other efforts to dilute the effec-
tiveress of this legislation. Many of my community have
takrn the opportunity to vote and participate in our
political process since 1975 when the Act began to apply
to our entire community.
Though the Act has increased participation by minorities,
there is St.ji I a long way to go before minorities will
be represented adequately at all levels of government.
Minorities continue to be gerrymandered and continue to
be victims of violations of the one-person/one-vote
principal. The Voting Rights Act has been successful
in preventing many of these violations from taking place
in the South and Southwest where Section 5 applies.
Section 5 applies primarily in the South and Southwest
because that is where voting violations against minorities
have been documented by Congress, the courts and the
Department of Justice.
If Congress fails to renew the Voting Rights Act, we will
see a sharp curtailment in minority voter participation.
Many of the gains made by blacks, Hispanics and other
minorities could easily be undone if the Voting Rights
Act is not renewed.
PAGENO="0529"
1403
111 East 24th St.
Houston, Texas 77008
May 8, 1981
Representative Jim Wright
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Wright:
As a concerned American, I strongly urge you to support
the extension of the Voting Rights Act, in the minority
language provisions. I also urge you to oppose nation-
wide coverage and any other efforts to dilute the effec-
tiveness of this legislation. Many of my community have
taken the opportunity to vote and participate in our
political process since 1975 when the Act began to apply
to our entire community.
Though the Act has increased participation by minorities,
there is still a long way to go before minorities will
be represented adequately at all levels of government.
Minorities continue to be gerrymandered and continue to
be victims of violations of the one-person/one-vote
principal. The Voting Rights Act has been successful
in preventing many of these violations from taking place
in the South and Southwest where Section 5 applies.
Section 5 applies primarily im~ the South and Southwest
because that is where voting violations against minorities
have been documented by Congress, the courts and the.
Department of Justice.
If Congress fails to renew the Voting Rights Act, we will
see a sharp curtailment in minority voter participation.
Many of the gains made by blacks, Hispanics and other
minorities could easily be undone if the Voting R±ghts
Act is not renewed.
Sin ~rely,
83-679 0 - 82 - 3[~ Pt.2
PAGENO="0530"
1404
111 East 24th St.
Houston, Texas 77008
May 8, 1981
Senator Lloyd Bentsen
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Bentsen;
As a concerned American, I strongly urge you to support
the exten3ion of the Voting Rights Act, in the minority
language provisions. I also urge youto oppose nation-
wide coverage and any other efforts to dilute the effec-
tiveness of this legislation. Many of:my community have
taken the opportunity to vote and participate in our
political process since 1975 when the Act began to apply
to our entire community.
Though the Act has increased participation by minorities,
there is still a long way to go before minorities will
be represented adequately at all levels of government.
Minorities continue to be gerrymandered and continue to
be victims of violations of the one-person/one-vote
principal. The Voting Rights Act has been successful
in preventing many of these violations from taking place
in the~ South and Southwest where Section 5 applies.
Section 5 applies primarily in the South and Southwest
because that is where voting violations against minorities
have been documented by Congress, the courts and the
Department of Justice.
If Congress fails to renew the Voting Rights Act, we will
see a sharp curtailment in minority voter participation.
Many of the gains made by blacks, Hispanics and other
minorities could easily be undone if the Voting Rights
Act is now renewed.
Sin rely,
VERA L. ZEPF~~A
PAGENO="0531"
1405
May 8, 198)
President Reagan
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500 S
Dear Mr. President:
1 urg. you to support a ten-year extension of the Voting Righrs Act,
Including the language minority provisions which provide bilingual
assistance to American citizens who are not totally literate in English.
I also urge you to ppose efforts tovard "nationwide coverage" of the
Voting Rights Act which have rec.ntly been publicized. The Voting Rights
Act was designed to target specific areas of the country where voting
discrimination against minority citizens exists. In the past, efforts
to make the Voting Rights Act nationwide were advocated by those who
wanted to dilute the original purpose of the Act. Though nationwide
coverage is in many ways an eppealing concept, it ~uld create federal
involvement in state and local matters in areas not currently covered by
the Voting Rights Act.
The VotIng Rights Act has significantly increased voter participation
for blacks, Hispanics and other language minority citizens. it has
prevented hundreds of discrIminatory election changes from taking place.
in short, it has begun to bring America's minorities into the mainstreas
of the American political process.
I urge you to support thIs critically ieportant legislation.
Sincerely,
Rev. Edward Saiazar, S.J.
Pastor
ES/sk
PAGENO="0532"
1406
May 19,1981
Senator John Tower
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Tower,
We have recently found out that the Voting Rights Act runs out in 1982.
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights
Act. This act has been called the most important and successful piece of
civil rights-legislation ever passed. *There is.no.doubt in our minds that
this statement is true. Political abuses to minorities, especially
Mexican Americans, have been remedied through the application of this law.
It's effect is profound because it actually gives everyone a chance to
participate in our electoral process, as the Constitution mandates.
Under the VRA important progress has been made, however, there is much
to be done. Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation
and discrimination of local voting laws directed at diluting their voting
strength. In.those areas where the VRA has been in effect there has been
an increase in the number of minorities participatin in the electoral process
and running for office.
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This
would be unnecessary since certainprovisions of the Act. already apply nationally.
The appl ication of Section 5.of the VRA to limited parts of the nation is necessary
because those jurisdictions have historically discriminated against minorities in
voting practices. Applying Section 5-nationwide would render the Act ineffective.
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments added in 1975 directed
at protecting language minoritites--Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is. not reauthorized, mcuh of the progress made by minorities in
the South and-Southwest will be eliminated, If our democracy is to remain valid
and responsible to the needs of the citizenry, we must allow all minoritites full
participation in the electoral process without fearing fraudulent elect ion
procedures.
I urge you to consider mycoments in your deliberation, and.I would appreciate
knowing your position on this most vital issue.
S~e~
Richard and Christine Flores
z615 W. French
San Antonio, TX 715201
PAGENO="0533"
1407
1981 PADRES NATIONAL CONGRESS
Resolution: Voting Rights Act Extension
WHEREAS:
There is an effort in Congress to eliminate the Voting Rights
Acts or to so expand its coverage as to render the Act ineffective;
Congressional Committees will soon be holding hearings to determine
whether or not extension is necessary;
The elimination of the Vote Right Acts would eliminate the most
important piece of civil rights legislation ever created for the
protection of minority rights;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That PADRES supports the extension of the 1964 Votings Rights
Act-and auxiliary statutes and voting codes.
2. PADRES members will send letters to Senators and Congressmen
in their respective areas urging passage of the extension of the
Voting Rights Act of 1964. ~
(Please send copies of your letters to:)
Mr. Willie Velesquez
S.W. Voter Registration Project
San Antonio, Texas
PAGENO="0534"
1408
~ ~ OF
~ -~rrc~ ~rrl~r'1r fliT ilflflfl c~r3r~' c~r~
.L L~ ~ bL~h~L~ I~LL~i\uiU~. ~
May 29, 1981
Senator Strom' Thurmond, Chairman
Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Senator Thurmond:
-This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting
Rights Act. Abuses against our own citizens and their right to vote
-have been remedied through the application of this law.
I think youwill agree-minorities need protection from-weakening of
their voting strength. I am told in those areas where the VRA has
been in effect there has been an increase in the number of minorities
participating in the electoral process and running for political
- office.
I- `understand there is--a movement to have, the VRA apply nationally.
This, I an told, would be unnecessary since certain provisions of
the Act already apply nationally. The application of Section 5 of
the VPA to -limited parts of the nation is necessary-because those
jurisdictions have historically discriminated against:minorities
in voting practices. Applying Section 5 `nationwide would render
the Act ineffective.
Further, I urge you to~ support the VRA amendments added in 1975
directed at protecting language minorities--Mexican -Americans,
Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, American Indians, and-Asian Americans.
If the yEA is not reauthorized, much of the progress made by minorities
`--in the South and -Southwest will be eliminated.
.~I wouldappreciate your support~in this issue.
- - Sincerely yours,
- - - Edward-A. McCarthy
- ~Archbishop of~Miami
EAM:mm -
- - bcc: Mr. willie~Velasquez -
6301 -B~SCAYNE. BOULEVARD * MIAMI, FLORIDA 33138 * TELEPHONE (305) 757-6241
PAGENO="0535"
1409
7~E A~C~D~OC~SE O~ M1AM~'\
~3T STi~C ~Th[ Sffl~ ~S1~E IWviE OF 1I1[ EflR!J 10 ~i PR4's:c
Nay 29, 1981
Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman
Judiciary Conimittee
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Representative Rodino:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting
Rights Act. Abuses against our own citizens and their right to vote
have been remedied through the application of this law.
I think you will agree minorities need protection from weakening of
their voting strength. I am told in those areas where the VRA has
been in effect there has been an increase in the number of minorities
participating in the electoral process and running for political
office.
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally.
This, I am told, would be unnecessary since certain provisions of
the Act already apply nationally. The application of Section 5 of
the VRA to limited parts of the nation is necessary because those
jurisdictions have historically discriminated against minorities
in voting practices. Applying Section 5 nationwide would render
the Act ineffective.
Further, I urge you to support the VRA amendments added in 1975
directed at protecting language minorities--Hexican Americans,
Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, American In4ians, and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress made by minorities
in the South and Southwest will be eliminated.
I would appreciate your support in this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Edward A. McCarthy
Archbishop of Miami
EAM:inzn
bcc: Mr. Willie Velasquez
6301 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD * MIAMI, FLORIDA 33138 * TELEPIION~ (305) 757-6241
PAGENO="0536"
1410
Date 05-2Q-~81
Congressman Kika de la Garza
US. House of Representatives.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative de la Garza:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act. (VRA) has been called the most important and successful piece
of civil rights legislation ever passed. There is no question in my mind that this
statement is correct. Outrageous abuses against our own citizens and their right to
vote have been remedied through the application of this law. It's effect is profound
because it actually gives everyone a chance to participate in our electoral process,
just like the Constitution mandates.
Underthe VRA important progress has been made, however, there is much to be done,
Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation of local voting laws directed
at diluting their, voting, strength. In those areas where the VRA has been in effect
there. has been an increase in the number of minorities participating in the electoral
process and running for political office.
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This would be
unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act already apply.nationally, The application
of Section 5 of the VRA to limited parts of the nation is necessary because those juris-
dictions have historically discriminated against minorities in voting practices, Applying
Section 5 nationwide would render the Act ineffective,
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments .added in 1975 directed at protecting
language minorities~--Nex1can Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, American Indians~
and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress. made by minorities in the
South and Southwest will be eliminated, If our democracy. is to remain valid and responsiye
to the needs of the citizenry, we must allow all minorities full participation. .in the
electoral process without fearing fraudulent election procedures
I urge you to consider my colmaents in~yeur deliberations, and I would appreciate
knowing your position on this most vital issue,
Sincerely,
Juan 3, Maldonado
Demqcr.atjc National Committee
213 W, 2nd St,
San Juan7 Texas 78589
PAGENO="0537"
1411
Date 05-20-81
President Reagan
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear President Reagan:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act,
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been called the most important and successful piece
of civil rights legislation ever passed. There is no question in my mind that this
statement is correct. Outrageous abuses against our own citizens and their right:to
vote have been remedied through the application of this law. It's effect is profound
because it actually gives everyone a chance to participate in our electoral process,
lust like this Constitution mandates.
Under the VRA important progress has been made, however, there is much to be done.
Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation of local voting laws directed
at diluting their voting strength. In those areas where the VRA has been in effect
there has been an increase in the number of minorites participating in the electoral
process and running for political office,
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally, This would be
unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act already apply nationally. The application
of Section 5 of the VRA to limited parts of the nation is necessary because those juris-
dictions have historically discriminated against minorities in voting practices. Applying
Section 5 nationvide::would render the Act ineffective.
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments added in 1975 directed at protecting
language minorities--Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, American Indians,
and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress made by minorities in the
South and Southwest will be eliminated. If our democracy is to remain valid and responsive
to the needs of the citizenry, we must allow all minorities full participation in the
electoral process without fearing fraudulent election procedures!
I urge you to consider my commints in your deliberations, and I would appreciate
knowing your position on this most vitual issue.
Sincerely,
Juan J, MaldonadQ
Democratic National Committee
213 W, 2nd St,
San Juan~ Texas 78589
PAGENO="0538"
1412
Date 05-20-81
Senator Lloyd Benson -~
U.S. Senate - `~ 8 a3~7
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Benson:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act,
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been called the most important and successful piece
of civil rights legislation ever passed. There is no question in my mind that this
statement is correct. Outrageous abuses against our own citizens and their right to
vote have been remedied through the application of this law. It's effect is profound
because it actually gives everyone a chance to participate in our electoral process,
just like the Constitution mandates.
Under the VBA important progress has been made, howerver, there is much to be done,
Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation of local voting laws directed
at. diluting their voting strength. In those areas where the VRA has been in effect
there has been an increase in the number of minorities participating in the electoral
process and running for political office.
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This would be
unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act already apply nationally, The application
of Section 5 of the VRA to limited parts of the nation is necessary because those juris-
dictions have historically discriminated against minorities in voting practices, Applying
Section 5 nationwide would render the Act ineffective.
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments added in 1975 directed at protecting
language minorities--Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, American Indians,
and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress made by minorities in the
South and Southwest will be eliminated, If our democracy is to remain valid and responsive
to the needs of the citizenry, we must a-low all minorities full participating in the
electoral process without fearing fraudulent election procedures.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations, and I would appreciate
knowing your position on this most Vitual issue.
Sincerely,
Juan 3. Maldqnado
Democratic National Committee
213 W, 2nd St,
San Juan, Texas 78589
PAGENO="0539"
1413
ARCHD~OCESE OF NEW YORK AUXIUAR~ B~S~35
Th A EpOCOpaI V~ar
q for SparsxI~ P..ro~
1~)O Crotoria Parkway ~ntfopnortt rot
Bronx. N. Y. 10460 Arcbdrocnr of
Noso York
2f7~5o°-5235
Most Rrs'erend Francisco Carmesdia. D.C. May 17, 1981
\ ~C~.*-~'
Senator Strom Thurmond
U.S. Senate
i~aehington, D.C.
Dear Senator Thurmond,
This letter is to urge your sopport of the exteneion of the Voting
Righte Act.
Under the VRA i~portant ~rogrese has been made, however there is
much to be done. Minorities need continued rrctectior. from the
manipulation o~ local voting laws'direc:e~ at ~i1utitg their
votin~ strenrth.
I woold also urge you to support the V~i amenthracts ahhed in 1975
directed at protecting language minorities--Mexican Americans,
Puerto R~cans, Cuban Americans, American Indians and Asian Americans.
I request you consider my comments in your deliberatiths, and I
would appreciate knowing your position on this rnobt vital issue.
Sincerely yours,
+FranciscoGaidia
PG/cc Auxiliary Bishop of New York
PAGENO="0540"
1414
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK AUXIUARY at~
St. Thomas Aqutrtas
1Q00 Cro,orta Patirwav
~Bronz. N. Y. 1060 A4oo~ ,f
N~s Yo~k
212-5!'-52~5
Most Reorrend Fraoctsco Carmeodta. DD ~ay 17, 19E~
Senator John Tower
U.S. Senate
Jasnnngton, D.C.
Dear Senator Tower,
This letter is to urge your support of the extenaicn of
the Voting ~ights Act.
Umder the V~A im~or:ant ~rogrezs has been made, however
there~ is ouch to. be .:~e. iinorities need continued pro-
tection fron rsn±golatior. of local voting laws directed
at dilucino tneir vo:±ng ~trength.
- :~ :: e.-~.:rt :r~e ..;. nn~ni-ents added
in l9~° d:rec:e~ a: -r::ec::no 1a-~a~o ~ori:ies--}exccan
Anericano, ~ertc ~:icans, Cuban Acer: c~na, Anericer. Indians
and Asian Anra.ar.a.
I request ~ c:noider m~ connenta in ::o.~r detoerati.:ns,
and : ~-:.:i arnr~ciace hnoain~ ycnr ~n!:1:n this most
; ~
c
+Frtnciscc ~ren~ia
Auniiary Steno: of Sew !ork
PAGENO="0541"
1415
ARCHD~OCE5E OF NEW YORK
_____
St. Thomas Aquinas
~ ~QOO Cromona Pansmay ~ ~. ~
ii. ~-4 J. Brona. N. Y. I~ AOKd~O~ ~i
2I2-559-523~ N~ork
Rrnd~ra~' c~c~ Carrneodia. D.D. ~ ~, 1981
Dear Preei~r~ :..
your support of :~e ~e~riori of
~he V~A ira~orta~t ~ro~ress :~as -s~e, however
to be cone. ~:triori:iea r.ee~ ct~e. p~-
~ar~ipu1atio~ of :~cal v~: luws dtrected
votino strE?n~~n.
:.:000s, Cuoan ~..eo:o;n
r~nest yoo consider rr~ correnno in :~:~r
:`
PAGENO="0542"
1416
ARCHDLOCE~5E NE\% YORK
A~J ~ -~
k ~ A ~ :~ ~:
Bronx; N A~thd~
Mc,s Rmrrnd Fra~rsco Ca~reetha. DD l~, 19S1
* -
oOuSe o: ~
~his letter ic tc urge yo'~r support o~ the exterisioc of
VoiL~ ?ra:E ftc:.
Tn~r the V~A imrortaot or~~reSS ~aC hee~ za~e, h~:ever
there is ouch tc be dr~e. hinorities need crrt:nue~ pro-
tecti:n £rom the oanipula~icn o~ locs vn:in~ ia-ca ~:rected
at' diluting their voting atren~th.
i:~ l9'~ irectei rrrte~-~~r crie~--~
Antericana, ?ue-to icons, Cuban iz~Z, ~oer:cao
and Asian ~cer~nans
I re~ueat you consider my consents in your deliberations,
and I wruld apprecsate ~now~ng ~zur PositlOS on tn~s cost
nssue.
Sincerely yours,
xil~ar~ 3ishcp or. !ew York
PAGENO="0543"
1417
SO~~W~ST VO~E~
E~UCA'~O~ O~E~T
201 N. ST. MARY'S ST., SUITE 501
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205
AC/512.222.0224
May 19, 1981
Mr. and Mrs. Jose B. Torres
202 Plestex
Pleasanton, TX 78064
Thank you for notifying an of your coninunication (by Mailgram) to
President Ièagan, ODngressnan Wright, and Senator Tower urging their
support on the VW~ extension effort. Your cxx,peration in this
letter writing canpaign is extrenely appreciated.
As I nentioned in our telephone conversation earlier today, I am
enclosing a list of other anribers of the Judiciary Camiittee. You
and Mrs. Torres nay write to any or all imanbers listed. Also,
please mail us a copy of any letters you write so that we nay
maintain an up~.to-date file on letters supporting the VR~.
Again, thanks to both of you for your cxzrmitinent. If I nay be
of further service to you as a source of information, please do
rxt hesitate to contact ire.
ODrdially,
G~9~
Paralegal
~hc.
CC: William C. Velasgnez
PAGENO="0544"
IRMA RANGEL
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78769
(512)475-4732
May 15, 1981
Mr. William C. Velasquez
Southwest Voter Registration
Education Project
201 N. St. Mary's St.
Suite 501
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Dear Mr. Velasquez:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the letter
our office sent to all the Texas Congressmen
and Senators.
If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call our office.
Sincerely,
Maria Arellano
Adm. Secretary to
Representative Rangel
1418 : - `- - ~-~` -
Texas - -
~House of 1tepreseiitative~ -
REC~i~'~
- -
`~7 221 E. Kkbe,z
Kingoville, Texas 78363
(512) 592-5142
Committees: Judiciary and Transportation
PAGENO="0545"
1419
Texas
¶House of Ii~,epresei~tative~
IRMA RANGEL District Office:
Austin Texas 78769 Kingsvill~ Texas 78363
(512) 5925142
May 14, 1981 RECE~\L~L
The Honorable Eligio de la Garza
House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. de la Garza:
I understand that thereis an effort inCongress to eliminate the.Voting Rights
Act, or to expand its coverage so drastically that it will render the Act
ineffective. `Eliminating the Voting Rights Act is eliminating the most
effective civil rights laws ever passed.
Outrageous abuses against our own citizens and their right to vote have been
remedied through the application of this law. Its effect is profound because
it actually gives everyone a chance to participate in our electoral process, just
like the Constitution mandates.
If the VRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress mad~ by minorities in the
South and Southwest will be eliminated. If `our democracy is to remain valid and
responsive to the needs of citizenry, we must allow all~minorities full partici-
pation in the electoral process without fearing fraudulent election procedures.
It is also my understanding that there is a movement to have the VRA apply
- nationally. This would be unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act
already apply nationally. The application of Section `5 of the VRA to limited
parts of the nation is necessary because those jurisdictions have historically
discriminated against minorities in voting practices. Applying Section 5
nationwide would render the Act ineffective.
I urge you to strongly support the extension of the Voting Rights Act and to give
my comments your full consideration.
Sincerely,
Irma Rangel
State Representative
Diatrict 49
lB/ma
Committees: Judiciasy and Transportation
83-679 0 - 82 - 35 Pt.2
PAGENO="0546"
1420
SPANISH SPEAKING CATHOLIC COMMISSION
\4j~ COMISION CATOLICA DE HABLA HISPANA
( r! NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS REGIONS VI & VII
P.O. BOX 703
NOTRE DAME, IN 46556
(219) 283-4369
May 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan
The White House
Washington, DC 205T0
Dear President Reagan:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been called .the most important and successful
piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. There is no question in my
mind that this statement is correct. Outrageous abuses against our own citi-
zens and their right to vote have been remedied through the application of
this law. Its effect is profound because it actually gives everyone a chance
to participate in our electoral process, just as the Constitution mandates.
Under the VRA important progress has been made. However, there is much to be
done. Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation of local
voting laws directed at diluting their voting strength. In those areas where
the VRA has been in effect there has been an increase in the number of minor-
ities participating in the electoral process and running for political office.
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This is
unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act already apply nationally. The
application of Section 5 of the VRA to limited parts of the nation is neces-
sary because those jurisdictions have historically discriminated against
minorities in voting practices. Applying Section 5 nationwide would render
the Act ineffective.
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments added in 1975 directed at
protecting language minorities -- Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress made by minorities in the
South and Southwest will be eliminated. If our democracy is to remain valid
and responsive to the needs of the citizenry, we must allow all minorities
full participation in the electoral process without fearing fraudulent elec-
tion procedures.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations, and I would appre-
ciate knowing your position on thismost vital issue.
Sincerely,
~ //,~. ,~
Rogelio Manrique
Executive Director
RM:eh
PAGENO="0547"
1421
* SPANISH SPEAKING CATHOLIC COMMISSION
COMISION CATOLICA DE HABLA HISPANA
* NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS REGIONS VI & VII
P.O. BOX 703
NOTRE DAME, IN 46556
(219) 283-4369
May 15, 1981
Representative John Hiler
U.S. House of Repr~esentatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Hiler:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting
Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act (VRA). has been called the most im-
portant and successful piece of civil rights legislation ever passed.
There is no question in my mind that this statement is correct. Out-
rageous abuses against our own citizens and their right to vote have
been remedied through the application of this law. Its effect is pro-
found because it actually gives everyone a chance to participate in our
electoral process, just as the Constitution mandates.
Under the VRA important progress has been made. However, there is much
to be done. Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation
of local voting laws directed at diluting their voting strength. In
those areas where the VRA has been in effect there has been an increase
in the number of minorities participating in the electoral process and
running for political office.
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This
is unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act already apply nation-
ally. The application of Section 5 of the VRA to limited parts of the
nation is necessary because those jurisdictions havehistorically dis-
criminated against minorities in voting practices. Applying Section 5
nationwide would render the Act ineffective.
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments added in 1975 directed
at protecting language minorities -- Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans,
Cuban Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress made by minorities
in the South and Southwest will be eliminated. If our democracy is to
remain valid and responsive tothe needs of the citizenry, we must allow
all minorities full participation in the electoral process without
fearing fraudulent election procedures.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations, and I would
appreciate knowing your `position on this most vital issue.
~in~cerely, ,, *
~ ~
Roge~io Manrique ,
Executive Director
RM: eh
PAGENO="0548"
1422
* SPANISH SPEAKING CATHOLIC COMMISSION
COMISION CATOLICA DE HABLA HISPANA
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS REG1ONS VI & VII *
P.O. BOX 703
NOTRE DAME, IN 46556 (C ~
(219) 283-4369 `~// I) ~
May 15, 1981
Senator Daniel Quayle
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 2O5~6
Dear Senator Quayle:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been called the most important and successful
piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. There is no question in my
mind that this statement is correct. Outrageous abuses against our own citi-
zens and their right to vote have been remedied through the application of
this law. Its effect is profound because it actually gives everyone a chance
* to participate in our electoral process, just as the Constitution mandates.
* Under the VRA important progress has been made. However, there is much to be
done. Minorities need continued protection from the manipulation of local
* voting laws directed at diluting their voting strength. In those areas where
the VRA has been in effect there has been an increase in the number of minor-
ities participating in the electoral process and running for political office.
I understand there is a movement to have the VRA apply nationally. This is
unnecessary since certain provisions of the Act already apply nationally. The
application of Section 5 of the VRA to limited parts of the nation is neces-
sary because those jurisdictions have historically discriminated against
minorities in voting practices. Applying Section 5 nationwide would render
the Act ineffective.
Further I urge you to support the VRA amendments added in 1975 directed at
protecting language minorities -- Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban
Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.
If the VRA is not reauthorized, much of the progress made by minorities in
the South and Southwest will be eliminated. If our democracy is to remain
valid and responsive to the needs of the citizenry, we must allow all mino-
rities full participation in the electoral process without fearing fraudulent
election procedures.
I urge you to consider my coniiients in your deliberations, and I would appre-
ciate knowing your.position on this most vital issue.
Sincerely,
IIII~.
Roget1io Manrique ( S
Executive Director
RM:eh
PAGENO="0549"
.1423
P IMEXK2IN
~I AMERK~1N
` CULTUR'lL
CENTER
May 14,1981
Senator Lloyd Bentsen
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Bentsen:
The Voting Rights Act has. brought d~iiocracy to the Mexican American in
the. urban barrios and in the rural areas. It is the watchdog of our society.
We at the Mexican American. Cultural Center strongly- reconinend that you
support the extension of-the Act and vote in favor of it. Thank-you and God
bless you. -
Sincerely,
Leonard R. Anguiano
First Vice President
LRA:jld
3019 WEST FRENCH P~4CE - P.O. BOX 28185 SAN AMONIO. TEX4S 78228 512 732-2156
PAGENO="0550"
1424
P A'IEXIGIN
/ M~~MEE~QhlN
` CULTUR'lL
CENTER
May 14, 1981
Senator John Tower
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Tower:
The Voting Rights Act has brought dmnocracy to the Mexican American in
the urban barrios and in the rural areas. It is the watchdog of our society.
We at the Mexican American Cultural Center strongly reconinend that you
*support the extension of the Act and vote in favor of it. Thank you and God
bless you.
Sincerely,
Leonard R. Angui ano
First Vice President
LRA:jld
3O~9 WEST FRENCH PlAcE P.O. BOX 28~B5 SAN ~I~)NlO. TEX4S 78228 512 132-2156
PAGENO="0551"
1425
CAMERON COUNTY
608 E. HARRISON
HARLINGEN, TEXAS 78550
JOE G. VILLARREAL (512) 423-1878
Commisaloner Pct. No.4 (512) 423-1316
May 12, 1981
Senator John Tower
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Tower:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension
of the Voting° Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has
been called the most important and successful piece of civil
rights legislation ever passed. There is no question in
my mind that this statement is.correct. Outrageous abuses
against our own citizens and their right to vote have been
remedied. through the application of this law. It's effect
is profound because it actually gives everyone a chance to
participate in our electoral process, just like the Con-
stitution mandates.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations,
and I would appreciate knowing your position on this most
vital issued.
Sincerely,
oe G. Villarreal
JGV/DM
PAGENO="0552"
1426
CAMERON COUNTY
608 E. HARRISON
HARLINGEN, TEXAS 78550
JOE G. VILLARREAI. (512) 423-1878
Commla&onerPct. No.4 (512) 423-1316
May 12, 1981
Senator Lloyd Bentsen
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Bentsen:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension
of. the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has
been called the most important and successful piece of civil
rights legislation ever passed. There is no question in
my mind that this statement is correct. Outrageous abuses
against our own citizens and their right to vote have been
remedied through the application of this law. It's effect
is profound because it actually gives everyone a chance to
participate in our electoral process, just like the Con-
stitution mandates.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations,
and I would appreciate knowing your position on this most
vital issue.
Senator Bentsen, when you get ready to rum for re-
election, be sure to contact me.
Sincerely,
/
oe G. Villarreal
JGV/DM
PAGENO="0553"
1427
CAMERON COUNTY
608 E. HARRISON
HARLINGEN, TEXAS 78550
(512) 423-1878
JOE G. VILLARREAL (512) 423-1316
Commissioner Pot. No. 4
May 12,1981
President Reagan
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear President Reagan:
This letter is to urge your support of the extension
of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) has
been called the most important and successful piece of civil
rights legislation ever passed. There is no question in
my mind that this statement is correct. Outrageous abuses
against our own citizens and their right to vote have been
remedied through the application of this law. It's effect
is profound because it actually gives everyone a chance to
participate in our electoral process, just like the Con-
stitution mandates.
I urge you to consider my comments in your deliberations,
and I would appreciate knowing your position on this most
vital issue.
Sincerely,
_J ~
oe C. Villarreal
JGV/DM
PAGENO="0554"
In
U)
F-3
`-3
~0
`-3
H)
o~
rt
OrP~
rt I-'~3
1-3 rt
PAGENO="0555"
1429
Application of the Voting Rights Act where an alleged
minority voting block exists, but where without the voter
discrimination the election results would not change,
would tend to dilute and direct the effort of the Justice
Department in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act as
presently applied.
It is for the above reasons that I urge you consider my
views and to support the extension of thc Voting Rights
Act and to oppose any effort to have the Act applied
nationally.
Sincerely,
REYES & BARRERA, INC.
VINCENT RODRIGUEZ
Attorney at Law
VR/eaz
PAGENO="0556"
REY~S
BARRERA, INC.
Attorneys
&` Counselors
,t L,w
FRUMENCIO ?ETES, ,s.
ELLIS BARRERA, JR.
VINCENT RODRiGUEZ
PIIKR 0. 4ERNANDEZ
ROLANDO GARCIA
JUAN 1. ALDAPE
MARIA LUPE D~LEON
3702 N. MAIN ST.
TEL 713/859.5975
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77009
May 11, 1981
1430
Representative Jim Wright
U'. S House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Wright:
The purpose of this letter is two-fold:
1. To urge your support of the extension of the
Voting Rights Act, and in particular, the amcndments
added in 1975 directed at protecting language minorities,
including Hispanics;
2. To urge your support in opposing any movement
to have the Voting Rights Act applied nationally.
The Voting Rights Act, since enacted in 1965, has been
called the most important and successful piece of civil
rights legislation ever passed. The protection afforded
Blacks against voter discrimination in the South has
aided the advancement of Blacks in the political process.
Now, these same results are becoming evident in Texas
where the Voting Rights Act has been applied to protect
the Hispanics.
According to the Southwest Voter Registration Project, voter
participation by Hispanics in Texas in the last presidential
election increased by approximately 667,, compared to the
number of Hispanics voting in the 1976 presidential elec-
tion. The number of Hispanics elected to public office
between 1976 and 1979, increased by 29Z.
Although the above gains are significant, I believe that
voting discrimination against Hispanics in Texas is still
widespread and will continue and/or increase if the Voting
Rights Aôt is permitted to expire.
Regarding the movement to have the Voting Rights Act ap-
plied nationally, it is my belief that the underlying
purpose of such a movement is to dilute the effect of the
Voting Rights Act as presently applied. Voter discrimina-
tion is more profound in areas where substantial numbers
of minorities exist, and where protection from voter
discrimination through the Voting Rights Act would have a
significant effect on the outcome of an election.
PAGENO="0557"
1431
App1ication~ of the Voting Rights Act where an alleged
minority voting block exists, but wherewithout the voter
discrimination the election results would not change,
would tend to dilute and direct. the effort of the Justice
Department in enforcement of the..Voting.Rights Act as
presently applied.
It is for the above.~ reasons that I urge you consider my
views.and to support the extension of the Voting Rights
Act and.to oppose anyeffort to have the Act applied
nationally.
Sincerely,
REYES `& BARRERA, INC.
`VINCENT.. RODRIGUEZ
Attorney at Law
VR/eaz
PAGENO="0558"
1432
REYES May 11, 1981
BARRERA, INC.
Att Senator Lloyd Bentsen
U.S. Senate
&CounseIo~ Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Senator Bentsen:
ELLISRARRERA,JR The purpose of this letter is two-fold:
VINCENT RODRIGUEZ
MIKEG.NERNANDEZ 1. To urge your support of the extension of the
RO~NDO GARCIA Voting Rights Act, and in particular, the amendments
JUAN M.ALTAPE added in 1975 directed at protecting language mfnorities,
MARIA LUTE D~LEON including Hispanics;
2. To urge your support in opposing any movement
to have the Voting Rights Act applied nationally.
The Voting Rights Act, since enacted in 1965, has been
called the most important and success~u. piece of civil
rights legislation ever passed. The nrotectfon afforded
Blacks against voter discrimination in the south has
aided the advancement of Blacks in the polit~cnl process.
Now, these same results are becoming evident in Texas
where the Voting Rights Act has been applied to protect
the Hispanics.
According to the Southwest Voter Registration Project, voter
participation by Hispanics in Texas in the last presidential
election increased by approximately 66~, compared to the
number of Hispanics voting in the 1976 presidential elec-
tion. The number of Hispanics elected to public office
between 1976 and 1979, increased by 297~.
Although the above gains are significant, I believe that
voting discrimination against Hispanics :n Texas is still
widespread and will continue and/or increase if the Voting
Rights Act is permitted to expire.
Regarding the movement to have the Voting Rights Act ap-
plied nationally, it is my belief that the underlying
purpose of such a movement is to dilute the effect of the
Voting Rights Act as presently applied. Voter discrimina-
tion is more profound in areas where substantial numbers
DDRDS MAN ST of minorities exist, and where protection from voter
TEL.713:MRT5975 discrimination through the Voting Rights Act would have a
AOUSTON.TERAS7RODA significant effect on the outcome of an election.
PAGENO="0559"
1433
Application of the Voting Rights Act where an alleged
minority voting block exists, but where without.the voter
discrimination the election results would not change,
wouldtend to di1ut~and direct the effort of the Justice
Department in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act as
presently applied.
It is for the above reasons that I urge you consider my
views and to support the extension of the Voting Rights
Act and to oppose any effort to have the Act applied
nationally.
Sincerely,
REYES & BARRERA, INC.
VINCENT RODRIGUEZ
Attorney at Law
VR/eaz
PAGENO="0560"
1434
REY~S May 11, 1981
BARRERA, INC.
Attorne ~ President Ronald Reagan
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear President Reagan:
ERUMENCIO P~ts, IR.
ELUSBARRERAIR. The purpose of this letter is two-fold:
VINCENT ~OD0IGUEZ
MIKE G.HERNANDEZ 1. To urge your support of the extension of the
ROLANDO GARCIA Voting Rights Act, and in particular, the amendments
JUANM.AWAPE added in 1975 directed at protecting language minorities,
MARIA LUPE D~LEON including Hispanics;
2. To urge your support in opposing any movement
to have the Voting Rights Act applied nationally.
The Voting Rights Act, since enacted in 1965, has been
called the most important and successful piece of civil
rights legislation ever passed. The protection afforded
Blacks against voter discrimination in the South has
aided the advancement of Blacks in the political process.
Now, these sane results are becoming evident in Texas
where the Voting Rights Act has been applied to protect
the Hispanics. *
According to the Southwest Voter Registration Project, voter
participation by Hispanics in Texas in the last presidential
election increased by approximately 66%, compared to the
number of Hispanics voting in the 1976 presidential elec-
tion. The number of Hispanics elected to public office
between 1976 and 1979, increased by 29%.
Although the above gains are significant, I believe that
voting discrimination against Hispanics in Texas is still
widespread and will continue and/or increase if the Voting
Rights Act is permitted to expire.
Regarding the movement to have the Voting Rights Act ap-
plied nationally, it is my belief that the underlying
purpose of such a movement is to dilute the effect of the
Voting Rights Act as presently applied. Voter discrimina-
tion is more profound in areas where substantial numbers
3702 N MMN ST. of minorities exist, and where protection from voter
TEL 7I3IBAR5975 discrimination through the Voting Rights Act would have a
WOUSTONTEXAS7700R * significant effect on the outcome of an election.
PAGENO="0561"
1435
Application of the Voting Rights Act where an alleged
minority voting block exists, but where without the voter
discrimination the election results would not change,
would tend to dilute and direct the effort of the Justice
Department in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act as
presently applied.
It is for the above reasons that 1 urge you consider ny
views and to support the extension of the Voting Rights
Act and to oppose any effort to have the Act applied
nationally.
Sincerely,
REYES & BARRERA, INC.
VINCENT RODRIGUEZ
Attorney at Law
VR/eaz
83-679 0 - 82 - 36 Pt.2
PAGENO="0562"
1436
TO i2o1a..~4 /2u'~.s A I 4
FROM !Mc~ (~ ~ `~"~` `~`
DATE
p,\. .p
~
S Representative Conzalo Barrientos
PAGENO="0563"
1437
~ ~ ~tatt~ iif
?~nrnt~ uf nu?tltatturø
GONZALO BARRIENTOS P.O. BOX 2910 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78769 (512) 475-3072
May 7, 1981
The Honorable Ronald Reagan
Presi dent
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Reagan:
I am writing to urge your support for the extension of the Voting
Rights Act. Its effectiveness in involving minorities in the
electoral process has been profound. But to decide it is no longer
necessary, or to dilute its strength would be an assumption that the
rationale for abuse which required enactment of the Voting Rights
Act in the first place, no longer exists.
In Texas, the number of registered Hispanic voters grew from 484,000
in 1976 to 798,000 in 1980 and is directly attributable to their
expanded access to the political process. -Bilingual provisions and
a more responsive slate of candidates have helped to elect more
minorities, but their representation is still disproportionate to
their percentage of the population. Gerrymandering, at-large
districts, and suburban white annexation are tactics still being
used to dilute minority strength.
When abuses still exist, there is no plausibility to the argument
that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed. Section 5 was -
specifically addressed to those states which have historically been
the worst offenders. Diluting the strength of this provision would
be an unfair, unrealistic assumption that these states have now made
a permanent social and political commitment to equal, non-discrim-
inatory voting rights.
Let's not throw away the medicine before the patient is cured.
Extension of the Voting Rights Act would be a reaffirmation of
America's commitment to her constitutional Ideals in the ongoing
struggle for a democracy in word and deed.
I would appreciate your cons~ideration of these concerns in your -
deliberations regarding the merits and need for the Voting Rights
Act.
Gonzalo Barrientos
State Representative
GB/bfh
PAGENO="0564"
PAGENO="0565"
EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1981
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Don Edwards
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Edwards, Kastenmeier, Washington,
Hyde, and Lungren.
Also present: Catherine A. Leroy, counsel; Ivy L. Davis, and
Helen C. Gonzales, assistant counsel, and Thomas M. Boyd, asso-
ciate counsel.
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
The gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the subcommittee permit coverage of this hearing in whole or in
part by television broadcasting, radio broadcast or still photogra-
phy, in accordance with committee rule 5.
Mr. EDWARDS. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none.
It is so ordered.
Today the subcommittee will commence the 10th in our continu-
ing series of hearings on legislation to extend and amend the
Voting Rights Act.
The focus of our hearing this afternoon is twofold: First, we will
hear testimony regarding the administration of section 5, from the
perspective of State officials.
Second, witnesses will address the implementation of the 1975
minority language provisions of the act.
The subcommittee has four bills before it which address these
provisions. One is H.R. 3112 which would extend these provisions
so that they would expire concurrently with the other speci'al pro-
visions of the act in 1992, as was Congress' intent in 1975. The
other three bills would delete section 203 which provides language
assistance throughout various States in the Nation. They also
would delete from section 5 coverage, States such as Texas, and
strike reference to language minorities wherever it appears in the
act, thereby raising doubts about the ability of language minorities
to utilize other remedies provided in the act.
We are delighted to have with us today as our first witness our
colleague from Tennessee, the Honorable Harold Ford, who is here,
I am sure, to lend his general support for the extension of the act.
(1439)
PAGENO="0566"
1440
Mr. Ford, we are delighted to have you here and, you may
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. HAROLD E. FORD, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. FORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am very delighted to appear before the committee today and to
come before this very distinguished and able chairman of the sub-
committee as well as with my other colleagues, especially my col-
league from Illinois, Mr. Washington.
Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today as one of the two black
Representatives from the South currently serving in the Congress.
While Tennessee was one of the Southern States not covered by
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the momentum of the legislation
swept through my home State like a forest fire., and the number of
black voters in Tennessee increased significantly.
Had not the Voting Rights Act been passed, I seriously doubt
that 1 would be. appearing before you as the elected Representative
of the 8th District of Tennessee. Although I was only 20 years old
and. a college student when the Voting Rights Act was passed, it
had a very, very special meaning to me.
When the landmark Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 by the
Congress, it was~ viewed by many citizens, black and white, as one
of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation passed in
the history of the United States.
The year 1965 was almost 100 years after the Civil War ended
and: the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abra-
ham Lincoln. Yet, it took that long for voting privileges of black
Americans in this country to be fully guaranteed and enforced
under the law.
During the Reconstruction Era, after the Civil War, black Ameri-
cans in the Southern States did exercise their new voting rights,
and they elected 20 black members to the Congress of the United
States, including two black Senators.
As you know, at the end of the Reconstruction Era, black Ameri-
cans were quickly disenfranchised through gerrymandering, poii
taxes, literacy tests, and violence and intimidation by various white
supremacy organizations which were sanctioned by local and State
government officials.
In the 1960's, black Americans became adamant about exercising
their voting rights, despite specific legal language that neither the
Federal Government nor any State could deny the right to vote
because of race.
If we look, Mr. Chairman, the 15th amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, ratified in 1890, had not been successful in insuring
that black Americans could vote.
When the~ Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 it, in effect,
utilized an ~administrative . remedy for ending voter discrimination
based on. race. The judicial~ process had been slow and had not
worked effectively.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965,. as amended in 1970 and 1975,
prohibited literacy tests and other devices used to qualify individ-
uals for election, provided for Federal examiners~ to supervise the
voting process when neces~ry, required approval by the Federal
PAGENO="0567"
1441
Government before changes could be made in voting registration
laws or procedures in the affected States, and provided for lan-
guage requirements other than English in affected States to protect
the rights of non-English-speaking groUps.
As a result of the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
black voter registration and participation increased dramatically.
For example, in the 7 years, from 1965 to 1972, the percentage of
blacks who registered to vote in 7 Southern States increased from
29.3 percent to 56.6 percent.
Furthermore, in these States, black elected officials increased
from less than 100 prior to 1965 to more than 1,100 in 1974. These
numbers have continued to increase.
For example, in Mississippi, almost 70 percent of black citizens
are registered and there are approximately 400 black elected offi-
cials.
Even given these impressive statistics, there are some who say
that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has outlived its usefulness and
should not be extended when it expires in August 1982 or shouldbe
modified. There are those who say times have changed, and that
this is 1981, not 1965.
I should note that those who focus their attention on ending or
modifying the Voting Rights Act tend to look at only a few of the
aspects of the act, the increased number of registered black voters
and the elimination of literacy tests.
I remind you that while black voters certainly have increased in
the affected States that I previously mentioned, their registration
percentage generally trails that of white voters, 56.8 percent for
black voters compared to approximately 70 percent for white.
As proposed in H.R. 3112, I believe that it is necessary to extend
the Voting Rights Act for 10 years, until 1992, in order to protect
the impressive gains that have been made. To not extend the act,
or to significantly water it down, Mr. Chairman, would seriously
erode these gains.
One of the most important factors of the Voting Rights Act is
section 5, which forbids any State or political subdivision to put
into effect any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or
standard, practice, or procedure, unless submitted to the Justice
Department for prior approval to insure that the proposed change
does not discriminate on the basis of race or language.
Without the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act,
States and localities would again be free to resort to more sophisti-
cated and subtle methods of disenfranchising and discriminating
against black voters.
No, I don't think there will ever be poli taxes or literacy tests
again in this country, but I do think that the following methods
could easily be utilized as they are being used by some localities at
this- very moment:
Changes by redistricting to dilute the voting power of concentra-
tions of black voters by adding more white voters or by concentrat-
ing blacks into one district rather than several.
Annexing surrounding areas which almost always tend to be
predominantly white. Again, the effect is to dilute the voting power
of black voters.
PAGENO="0568"
1442
Changing key public offices to appointed rather than elected
offices.
Switching poll locations outside of black areas to discourage
black voter turnout.
Changing single-member districts to at-large voting districts to
dilute the political power of black voters.
Eliminating minority language requirements on ballots.
To say that all voting discrimination based on race and language
has been. eliminated is an overstatement. We have made significant
progress, abut we ~still have a long way to go. As I have previously
said, the gains can easily, without oversight from the Federal Gov-
ernment, be wiped out overnight.
Does anyone here today believe that without the Voting Rights
Act progress will continue and we will be protected? If you do, then
I have some - costume jewelry that you might be interested in
buying after my testimony.
It is not the question of whether the Old Confederacy has been in
the "penalty box for the past 17 years," as I have heard. - It is a
matter of having done what was right, and continuing to do so in
the future.
I should note that some people tend to point to the South as
being the victim of the Voting Rights Act. All Southern States are
not involved in the preclearance provision. I hardly consider States
such as Oregon, Arizona, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and New
York as Southern States. They are included in the section 5 pre-
clearance provision. Without scrutiny by the Federal Government,
there could be a relapse in disenfranchising black voters similar to
when the Federal troops were ordered out of the South during
reconstruction.
I need not remind you of what happened.
Blacks, again, were totally disenfranchised until the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 was enacted.
I would also like to remind you that the Voting Rights Act
covers not only black Americans, but also persons of Spanish heri-
tage, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asian Americans, and
other minority groups as well.
For example, as a result of the amended Voting Rights Act,
Hispanic voter registration, from 1975 to 1980, increased 29.5 per-
cent nationwide, and 44 percent in the Southwest.
It would seem to me that if States and localities have actually
stopped discriminating based on race, and have no plans to do so in
the future, then preclearance or Federal approval of proposed
voting law changes should not bother them.
Why should the burden of proof be shifted to the complaining
party? How do you prove that a change in voting procedures or a
change in precinct boundaries or poll location was intended to
discriminate unless you participated in the process? You know,
folks just don't sit out on the public square and invite the whole
town when they are making plans to circumvent the law.
In 1978, the city of Jackson, Miss., moved 38 polling places locat-
ed in predominantly black areas to white areas and announced the
changes 1 day before the election was held.
PAGENO="0569"
1443
ShoUld black voters, as proposed by opponents of the Voting
Rights Act, have to prove that discrimination was intended in that
particular case? *
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended in 1970 and 1975 has
worked well for the past 17 years. I don't think that we are totally
ready to say that it is no longer needed, that. preclearance is no
longer necessary, or the burden or proof of discrimination should
be on the complaining party. This is not the time to retreat.
The act should be extended for 10 additional years. During this
period, Mr. Chairman, the country will go through another census
and reapportionment process.
The extension will give us the chance to see whether we truly
need to eliminate the Voting Rights Act. The redistricting plans
will speak for themselves at that time.
In 1992, I hope that I can come before this subcommittee again
and advocate that the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I close my testimony and will be
happy to make myself available for any questions from members of
the committee.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Ford.
That is a most impressive and hard-hitting statement and it will
be a great help to the committee.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I also want to commend my colleague from the
Black Congressional Caucus for .a very cogent and tremendous
statement.
Congressman, you made a very unique statement on page 1, one
which I think most people are not quite familiar with.
Even though you come from a State not covered by the Voting
Rights Act, you attribute your election to that act by saying that
the Voting Rights Act was a catalyst and gave momentum to the
enfranchisement and registration and concern and just sheer inter-
est in the whole electoral process on the part of a lot of black and
Latin peoples.
That is a beautiful statement and one I think needs to be just
emblazoned across the sky.
Would you want to embellish on it?
Mr. FORD. Let me say, Mr. Washington, in 1974, when I offered
myself as a candidate for the Congress of the United States, I
looked at the previous years and the makeup of the voter participa-
tion in our State, and I am almost certain that the 1965 act, passed
by the Congress, made it possible for black participation in voter
registration in~that city.
Yes, Mississippi is adjacent to the State of Tennessee, which is
covered under the Voting Rights Act This made it easier for us in
Tennessee to register under the leadership of certain organizations*
and groups, and it's obvious that we had people who spearheaded
the voter registration campaigns throughout the South, which were
headed at that time under the leadership of Dr Martin Luther
King and others.
I would have to say . the. protection of the Federal Government
guaranteed the black citizens in the South an opportunity not only
PAGENO="0570"
1444
* to register but to exercise their right and their privilege which was
given them, the right `to vote.
Mr. WASHINGTON. In short, it gave credibility to the whole proc-
ess because blacks knew they were protected or that there was a
shield which would protect them from attitudes in the South and
some border States, for example, that made it difficult for them to
be involved in the process prior to that.
In other words, it gave them credibility in that process.
Mr. FORD.. Being from the South, I can. attest to" the importance
of the Federal Government providing that type protection for those
who so long did not share in that ~privilege, nor that right to
participate in the electoral process. When the Voting Rights Act
* was enacted in the Congress, it gave us the feeling that we could,
in fact, participate and feel confident that we were protected at the
same time.
Mr. WASHINGTON. It's one of those intangibles that is hard to put
your finger. on. But -we know ~there on page 5 you lay out very
clearly, and I don't see how anyone can possibly challenge it, the
various shenanigans and methods and procedures that have been
used by the controlling interests of certain, Southern States to
frustrate, not just registration, but to frustrate the effects of regis-
* tration and voting by certain people.
We have had. testimony to this effect before~ I have never seen it
brought together in such a cogent fashion. It.just seems to be very
difficult to penetrate the impediment or shield that those would
put up who want to destroy this act.
I cannot imagine anyone reading this'~kind of thing, buttressed
by the kind of on-site testimony you have had, and which on-site
observations which you have had and have been talking about, I
just don't see how anyone can' possibly legitimately `and honestly
fight the reauthorization of this. act. I just don't see it.
Also, on page 7, another' very good observation in terms of the
burden of proof. Paragraph 2 should be. etched in stone, Congress-
man, it should be etched in stone, because' you are saying very
* clearly unless you are `involved in' the negotiation, the legislative
and administrative process you simply cannot determine intent
unless `it ` is' obviously and manifestly clear and if for no other
`reason than that the burden of proof should'stay `exactly where it
is.
You `are to be commended for that and I want to thank you.
Mr. `FORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Washington.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
`Mr. Ford, would you like Tennessee brought in under the Voting
~Rights Act?
Mr.' FORD. I. certainly would not have a problem with that at all.
- I `am~satisfied with it,' including- the States presently covered under
~~the Voting `Rights'Act now, but "I would not have a problem with
that at all.
Mr.. HYDE. In other words, you' are indifferent as to whether or
not it would be brought in; you wouldn't have a `problem with it
but you don't advocate it; is that correct?
Mr~ FORD. No; let me' put it this way: I am here to support the
extension of the Voting Rights Act that was passed in 1965. I would
PAGENO="0571"
1445
have no problem if this committee wanted to send to the House
legislation that would cover all of the 50 States in the Nation. I
would not have a problem with that law, Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Is Tennessee that much better than Mississippi in
terms of the spirit of compliance with helping minorities vote and
get registered?
Mr. FORD. I would not want to put Tennessee over Mississippi at
all. I wouldn't want to compare the two States. Our sister State
which is adjacent to us on the south, certainly is a very progressive
State. Because of the Voting Rights Act they now have some 400
black elected officials while we, in Tennessee, would have less than
50.
So, I think they have made political progress and, hopefully, with
the extension of the Voting Rights Act, we will continue to make
that progress, not only in Mississippi but we will be the benefactors
as well in our State and other States throughout this country.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.
I just want to commend the witness for his statement, which I
was very interested in.
Mr. FORD. Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Ford, you mentioned on page 4 the increased
number of registered black voters and certainly the record has
been remarkable and we are impressed with it too, and a number
of the witnesses have been impressed with the effect on registra-
tion and voting among black and Hispanics of the Voting Rights
Act.
However, we have had a number of witnesses, especially from
the Southwest, who have pointed out that, yes, the Voting Rights
Act has made it possible for Hispanic and blacks in the Southwest
to register and vote, but that new devices and ways of gerryman-
dering have been invoked and used over and over again so they
might be able to register and vote but they can't get elected to
office.
Do you believe that is true and that is one of the chief reasons
why we have to continue to support a continuation of section 5,
preclearance?
Mr.. FORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I must say I had a personal experience myself in 1974. I served
in the Tennessee House of Representatives before being elected to
serve in the Congress, and I was there in 1972 when we drew, the
lines under the new census and reapportionment of 1972.
We had our election commission submit all of the data we
needed to draw the lines in our county.
Two days prior to their submitting the precincts they split ap-
proximately 15 white precincts and did not show the split numbers
on the list that they submitted to us~
Under the redistricting plan throughout the State, we identified
counties and precincts, with the exception of the county that I
represent, and when we got to the last district, which was the 8th
District, we said, "All other precincts and wards should be placed
in the 8th Congressional District," and we were working with one
set of guides the election commission had submitted to us.
PAGENO="0572"
1446
While they really had. not falsified the information, they split the
precinct .2 days before submitting the information to us, so once we
enacted the legislation all of those other precincts that~they split in
Shelby County went into the district that I represent now, and in
which it was `almost impossible for a black'to seek, and win the 8th
Congressional District set in Shelby County~ The intent of the
legislation in Nashville was~ that they wanted to draw, a. district in
`which a black could have a good possibility `of being elected.
.So. we'went immediately and. got relief from the Federal courts.
A three-judge panel heard the case, made.reference to the Voting
Rights Act, and said that, the actions of the election commission
were ,gerrymandering~ and, `that the election commission should
have sent the. precincts that were ~s'plit to the legislature? They
ruled in our favor and ~took .those precincts out of the district.
Mr~ EDWARDS. Thank you very much.
Are there further questions?
If not, we thank you'veryrnuch for your help.
Mr.' HYDE:' Mr. Chairman, I `wonder if I might be heard for
purposes of a.. statement and offer it for the record.
Mr. ~ ~Illinois, Mr. Hyde, is recog-
nized.
Mr. BYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On May 18, you and I wrote the Department of Justice regarding
~complaints which `Rev. Jesse Jackson had made about the Depart-
ment's enforcement ~of ~section 5' in the city .of Jackson and Edge-
field County, S~C.
I assume that is Jackson,, Miss., `and Edgefield County, S.C.
Yesterday I received a response from Robert A. McConnell, the
Assistant Attorney. General-Designate for the `Office of Legislative
Affairs, Department'of Justice.
`If' you have no objection, I would like to offer the letter which
`numbers. 3 pages as part of the record with the understanding that
attachments `which are appended to `it can be acquired from the
`Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs.
I would also suggest that ~the committee forward copies of the
`Jetter to Reverend Jackson.
According to the Department, it wrote the city attorney of Jack-
son, Miss. on~February 17,"1981'; andrequested that the city outline
the steps it' planned tO take in order~to comply ~with an objection
which ~the .Department initially ..interposed on December 3, 1976.
~`We are informed that the,. Carter administration came to an
interim agreement covering the intervening.period. Since then .the
Department ,officials have been. meeting with representatives of the
city of Jackson to obtain compliance with its objections.
On April 23 the Department received a communication from the
Jackson city attorney to the effect that the city requested a de novo
`review of the annexation `at issue. In responding the Department
wrote the city attorney on May 8, 1981, that though the Depart-
ment .~would' not institute ~legal proceedings prior to the June 2,
1981 election because ~of the inherently disruptive nature of last
`minute litigation, it would take prompt legal' action as soon as the
elections were held.
PAGENO="0573"
1447
The city has since agreed to separate ballots cast in the annexed
area so that the Department might measure the impact of the
participation by residents of the annexed area.
With respect to Edgefield County, S.C., a section 5 objection to
the at-large election system extant there was interposed on Febru-
ary 8, 1979. Further research revealed that a 1966 State statute
establishing an at-large electoral system for the governing body of
the county had not been submitted for review pursuant to the
Voting Rights Act.
To date neither the State of South Carolina nor the county of
Edgefield has complied with the Department's request for submis-
sion of the 1966 law.
Nevertheless, the applicability of section 5 to this law is being
privately litigated in McCain v. Lybrand. I presume this private
litigation is based on section 3(c) of the act.
Mr. Chairman, this is in response to the issues which Reverend
Jackson raised during his appearance before us, and I would hope
that both jurisdictions can be brought into conformity by the litiga-
tion now pending in the district court for the District of South
Carolina and in litigation which the Department plans to file
against the city of Jackson, Miss.
I cannot say that I am at all satisfied with the action or rather
protracted inaction that characterizes both of these cases.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hyde and, without
objection, the enclosures you referred to will be made a part of the
record.
[The information follows:]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C., June 8, 1981.
Hon. HENRY J. HYDE,
House of Representative,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN HYDE: The Attorney General has asked me to respond to the
letter dated May 18, 1981, from you and Congressman Edwards regarding the
Department's enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.
1973c, in the City of Jackson, Mississippi and Edgefield County, South Carolina.
On December 3, 1976, the Attorney General interposed a Section 5 objection to
the voting changes resulting from an annexation made by the City of Jackson. A
copy of the letter of objection, which explains the basis for the objection, is append-
ed for your information as Attachment A. In late 1980, the Department learned
that, in spite of the outstandingSection 5 objection, the City intended to implement
the voting changes occasioned by the annexation in the 1981 municipal elections,
i.e., the citizens residing in the annexed area would be permitted to participate in
the election. Thus, on February 17, 1981, the Department wrote to the city attorney
requesting he tell us what steps the City planned to take to comply with the Section
5 objection. In this letter, the Department reiterated its position that as long as the
Section 5 objection remains outstanding, the residents in the annexed area may not
legally participate in municipal elections. A copy of the February 17, 1981 letter is
enclosed as Attachment B.
In response, the City of Jackson advised, by letter dated March 16, 1981 (appended
as Attachment C), that it would submit 1980 Census figures concerning the annex-
ation to the Attorney General in support of a request for reconsideration of the
objection. But the City further indicated that it planned to implement the unpre-
cleared voting changes occasioned by the annexation in the 1981 municipal elec-
tions.
Since then, officials of this Department have met with representatives of the City
of Jackson in an effort to obtain voluntary compliance with federal law. At a
conference held on April 13, 1981, we offered suggestions for obtaining a voluntary
resolution. See Letter of Douglas R. Marvin, Assistant to the Attorney General, to
PAGENO="0574"
1448
* Jerris Leonard, Counsel for the City of Jackson, dated April 29, 1981. (Attachment
D.) On May 5, 1981, we again met with counsel retained by the City in an effort to
resolve the matter. At that meeting we were informed that by May 15, 1981, the
City would request theAttorney General to reconsider the Section 5 objection to the
annexation. On May 23, 1981, the Department received from the Jackson city
attorney a request for "de novo" Section 5 review of the annexation at issue.
The results of our negotiation efforts are summarized in our letter to the City's
counsel dated May 8, 1981. (Attachment E.) You will note that our efforts did not
result in voluntary compliance with federal law by the start of the 1981 municipal
elections on May 12, 1981. We informed the City that, although we would not
institute legal proceedings prior to the election because of the disruptive nature of
last minute litigation, we would take prompt action to enforce federal law after the
1981 elections are completed.
As you know, the municipal election was held on June 2d. The City has agreed to
keep separate the ballots cast in. the annexed area so that we might measure the
impact of the participation by residents of the annexed area. The City has also been
advised that, even if the election outcome is not affected by the annexation, the
illegal implementation of. the annexation may result in an order shortening the
terms of the persons elected and requiring, that `a new election in compliance with
federal law be conducted.
With respect to Edgefield County, South Carolina, a Section 5 objection "to the
implementation of the requirements of the South Carolina Home Rule Act in the
context of the at-large election system existing in Edgefield County" was interposed
on February 8, 1979. A copy of the objection letter is appended as Attachment F.
You will not that the letter states that "should the county undertake to adopt an
electoral system that more accurately reflects minority voting strength, such as
single-member districts, the Attorney General will reconsider his determination
upon being so advised."
In December 1980 additional research with respect to Edgefield County revealed
that a 1968 State act that originally established an at-large electoral system for the
governing body of the county had not been submitted for review under Section 5. On
December 9, 1980 we sent a letter to the. Attorney General of South Carolina, with a
copy to the county attorney, requesting the submission of the 1966 act. (Attachment
G.) A follow-up letter was sent to the county attorney on December 31, 1980.
(Attachment H.) To date a submission of the 1966 act has . not been received.
Although neither the state nor the county has yet complied with our request for a
submission of the 1966 change to at-large elections, the applicability of Section 5 to
the 1966 change is being litigated in the-private lawsuit styled McCain v. Lybrand,
Cir. No. 74-281 (D.S.C.). Plaintiffs in that lawsuit also challenge, on constitutional
grounds, the at-large method of electing the county governing, body. The Civil Rights
Division is currently considering whether our participation in the private lawsuit
might help assure compliance with Section 5.
1 hope that this information is helpful in understanding the Department efforts to
obtain compliance with Section 5 in these two specific instances. We regret that we
were unable to obtain voluntary compliance by the City of Jackson prior to the 1981
municipal. elections but `I assure you that our efforts to obtain compliance will
continue and, if necessary, we will seek the judicial relief necessary toeffectuate the
requirements of the Voting Rights Act. The Edgefield County Section `5 issues are
now pending before the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina and that private lawsuit should resolve the issues. Although we believe
that private litigation such as the McCain lawsuit is an important element of
effective Section 5 enforcement, particularly in light of the limited resources of this
Department, we are currently considering whether participation by the United
States in the lawsuit might help assure proper enforcement of the Act.
An identical letter is being sent to Congressman Edwards.
Sincerely,
ROBERT A. MCCONNELL,
Assistant Attorney General-Designate.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our next witness is the State Attorney General
`from the great State. of New York, the Honorable Robert Abrams.
Mr. Attorney General, we welcome you.
Would you introduce your' colleague and, without objection, your
statement will be ~made a part of the record and you may proceed
at ~rour ç~y~ timc.
PAGENO="0575"
1449
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT ABRAMS, STATE ATTORNEY GEN-
ERAL, STATE OF NEW YORK, ACCOMPANIED BY DEBORAH
BACHRACH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPUTY CHIEF,
CIVIL RIGHTS BUREAU
Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you very much, Congressman.
I am very pleased to be .here and I am joined at the table by
Deborah Bachrach, who is the assistant attorney general, deputy
chief of our civil rights bureau in the attorney general's office in
the State of New York.
[The statement of Mr. Abrams follows:]
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ABRAMS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before this distinguished subcommittee
in support of the proposed extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I speak as the
elected Attorney General of the State of New York-a state which has three of its
largest counties covered by the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. I believe
that extension of those provisions is essential.
The right to vote and to have that vote count is the bedrock of our democracy. By
ratifying the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments in the 1860's, the states de-
clared this to be true. By passing the Voting Rights Act one hundred years later,
Congress sought to make the Constitution's promise of voter equality a reality, at
long last, for our minority citizens.
Every state of course has the right to determine its own electoral processes, and
the Voting Rights Act does not interfere with this right. But Congress has also
declared that states' activities must be exercised within the constraints of the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Federalism can mean no less.
The history of the past fifteen years has proven Congress right. The Voting Rights
Act does give practical effect to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. It has
led to dramatically increased registration and voting among Black and Hispanic
citizens, and has helped to increase the number of Black and Hispanic elected
officials. Because the Act works so well, Congress wisely decided to extend its terms
in 1970 and again in 1975.
The Act eliminated the literacy test for voting, a discriminatory requirement of
long standing. And to assure that more novel or subtle devices did not replace older
forms of discrimination, the Act included a "preclearance requirement." For the
past fifteen years, this requirement has deterred the use of new forms of discrimina-
tory practices-in many cases by discouraging even their introduction into state
legislatures.
In 1975, many argued that because the affected jurisdictions had made significant
gains, the Act's preclearance requirement was no longer necessary. It turned out
not to be true. In 1976, the Department of Justice objected to as many or more
proposed changes from some affected states as it had in any previous year. The
same arguments are being made today, and are equally likely to prove untrue.
Unfortunately, discriminatory practices will continue to be devised next year, and
in future years, and our nation cannot tolerate that. Extension of the preclearance
requirement is the crucial safeguard we must maintain.
In 1975, Congress also extended the protections of the Voting Rights Act to
language minorities, after finding that they too had been systematically excluded
from the electoral process. In the last six years, bilingual elections have begun to
translate the Fourteenth Amendment into a reality for many American citizens
who are not fluent in English. Kings, New York and Bronx counties in New York
State are subject to the Act's special provisions, including Section 5, which requires
preclearance of any changes in voting, and Section 203, which requires bilingual
elections. The balance of my testimony will relate to New York's experience in
complying with these requirements. That experience convinces me that neither
requirement is overly burdensome and that both requirements effectively serve to
protect the rights of minority citizens.
ADMINISTERING THE PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENT
The counties of Kings, New York and Bronx first came within the purview of the
Act in March, 1971. It was then that the United States Attorney General deter-
mined that the literacy requirement imposed by New York law was a "test or
device" within the meaning of the Voting Rights Act, and the Director of the
PAGENO="0576"
1450
Census Bureau determined that less than 50 percent of the persons of voting age
residing in each of the three counties had voted in the preceding presidential
election.
Thereafter, as allowed by the Act, the three counties attempted, to be exempted
by the federal court from the preclearance requirement. They tried without success
to demonstrate that New York's literacy test had neither the purpose nor effect of
abridging any citizen's right to vote on account of race or color. As a result, New
York has been required to submit to the Department of Justice all the voting laws
and procedures enacted since November 1, 1968 which affect any of the three
counties.
Because any change in state law or regulation necessarily affects the three
counties, all such changes are preclearedwith the Department of Justice. Redistrict-
ing affecting any of the three counties is pre-cleared; two examples are the upcom-
ing statewide reapportionment and the recent realignment of the New York City
Council after the 1980 Census. Additionally, changes unique to any of the three
counties, such as location of polling places, are also precleared.
Because responsibility for complying with the Act's preclearance requirement
regularly falls both on the New York City Board of ElectiOns and the New York
State Board of Elections, 1 recently had my staff discuss with the heads of these two
agencies their views on the preclearance requirement. From these discussions, it
became clear that the preclearance requirement has not been overly burdensome to
administer.
For example, the New York State Board submits to the Justice Department for
preclearance all amendments to our Election Law. On average, eight to twelve
amendments are submitted each year. The* submission includes a cover letter of
transmittal, a copy of the bill, the memoradum in support prepared by the bills'
sponsor, any other memoranda that were influential in gaining passage, and the
memoradum explaining the bill's terms and effect, which is prepared by the State
Board of Elections for the Governor. By submission of these documents, the State
Board of Elections is usually able to provide the Justice Department with all the
information it requires to determine whether or not a proposed change will have a
discriminatory impact. With the exception of a routine cover letter, the submission
generally includes only documents which had already been prepared as part of the
process by which the bill was enacted into law. On the rare occasion when this
information is insufficient, the additional information required can generally be
transmitted by telephone. When the voting change is. not objectionable, the preclear-
ance process imposes an insignificant burden on the state and results in no delay in
implementing amendments to our voting laws.
Since becoming subject to the Act's preclearance requirement, New York has had
approximately 500 changes in voting practices reviewed by the Justice Department.
The Department raised objections three times: twice in 1974 and once in 1975.
A brief mention of these situations aptly demonstrates the Voting Rights Act's
effectiveness in preventing changes with harmful consequences for minority citizens
of our state. In 1974, the Department objected that certain polling places had been
located in New York County, that is Manhattan, in apartment complexes with
mostly white tenants, although polling places had not been similarly located in
complexes with mostly minority tenants. As a result of the objection, steps were
taken to make polling places equally accessible to white and minority voters. In
1975, the Justice Department objected to the consolidation of two Democratic leader-
ship districts in Manhattan. The proposed consolidation would have dismembered a
predominantly minority district, with the possibility that the votes of minority
voters would be diluted. As a result of the objection, the consolidation plan was
abandoned. In each case, the objection was interposed in a timely manner, causing
the minimum necessary disruption to the electroal process. And, in each case, the
matter was resolved without litigation.
The third objection involved the 1974 redistricting of State Assembly, State
Senate, and Congressional districts in Kings and New York counties. Most of the
redistricting_was unobjectionable. However, the Justice Department was concerned
that the creation of certain districts in those two counties would have the effects of
abridging the right vote on account of race.
While, of course, New York had the right under the Voting Rights Act to chal-
lenge the Justice Department's determination in court, the state choose instead to
redraw the districts to prevent vote dilution. The reapportionment amendments
were submitted to the Justice Department on May 31, 1974 and were approved one
month later. However, white voters in Kings County sued, alleging that the plan
violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the plan, rulina that th~ con6titution does
not prohibit l~Cffi1 t~M!i~iderahons when they are used to minimize the consequences
PAGENO="0577"
1451
of racial discrimination. Under the Voting Rights Act, the effectiveness of minority
voting power could not be diluted by dividing minority communities among pre-
dominantly white districts.
The Court's decision in UJO acknowledges that a blind approach to redistricting
may well produce grossly unfair results-albeit perhaps unintended. For example,
in Kings County, in the early 1970s, the bulk of the Black population was concern-
trated near the center of the county. At that time, the traditional method of
drawing district lines in New York State was to start at the peripheries of a county
~and work toward the center. Using the method of redistricting, the Black population
would likely have been divided among more districts than would have been the case
if the redistricting procedures started at the interior of the county and worked
outward. The 1974 district lines in Kings County were, accordingly, drawn to avoid
any unintentional discriminatory effects that prior districting plans may have had
in distributing Black residents, and thereby reducing the changes to elect repre-
sentatives responsive to the needs of the minority community.
I have spoken in some detail about the effect of preclearance on the redistricting
in Kings County because it raises the issue of vote dilution; that is, the practice of
reducing the potential effectiveness of the votes of minority group members by
redistricting, at-large elections, and annexations. We cannot permit the voices of
Black and Hispanic voters to be muted by dispersing these voters among districts in
which by their numbers they comprise ineffective minorities. Both on a local and
national level, legislatures will reflect the interests of all of the people, and not just
one segment of the population, only when election districts are drawn in a non-
discriminatory manner.
In the 1970's and 80's, the issues of voting discrimination have shifted from vote
denial to vote dilution. With this shift, the preclearance requirement of Section 5
has become crucial. The overwhelming majority of objections interposed under
Section 5 in the last ten years have been to voting changes that would dilute newly-
acquired minority voting strength. Thus, to allow Section 5 to expire just as the
post-1980 census redistricting is taking place would be particularly inappropriate.
One recent New York example again highlights the complexities of redistricting
and the continuing need for the preclearance mechanism. After the 1980 census
figures were released (unadjusted for minority undercount), the New York City
Council rewrote the council lines in all five boroughs of New York City. The Voting
Rights Act, and especially the preclearance requirement, has figured prominently in
this redistricting. On the one hand, the Council redistricting appears to preserve the
opportunity for incumbent minority members to be reelected. On the other hand,
some claim that the Council could have been realigned to increase the number of
districts in which minority voters constitute a majority, and thereby more accurate-
ly reflect the increased minority population of New York City which went from 31
percent to 47 percent between 1970 and 1980.
The Council's redistricting plan will have to be submitted to the Department of
Justice prior, to its implementation. Obviously, we cannot now adequately analyze
the factors that went into the reapportionment, or the effect on minority voters of
the City Council redistricting. The Voting Section at the Department of Justice,
with its acquired expertise, will evaluate its ultimate impact. It will do so within 60
days, before the plan is implemented. If there were no preclearance, a potentially
discriminatory redistricting plan might be implemented, and years spent in expen-
sive and time-consuming court challenges. And even if the plan were ultimately
found to be fair, the perception of discrimination that might grow out of accusations
made in protracted, heated litigation could not easily be eradicated.
The 1980 and 1990 post-census redistricting create the opportunity for diluting the
voting strength of the growing numbers of minority voters. This seems to me
argument enough for a ten-year extension of Section S's preclearance requirement.
Additional argument, however, is found in Section S's deterrent effect. Some point
to the fact that of the hundreds of submissions from New York, only three have
resulted in objections. They cite this as evidence that Section 5 has become an
unnecessary burden. I believe rather that these figures are evidence of the Act's
effectiveness as a deterrent. A former member of the New York Senate's Election
Committee has described to us how amendments to the Election Law, which might
have had a discriminatory effect if passed, were often defeated or not even offered
at all because of the barrier erected by the Voting Rights Act and the need for
preclearance by the Justice Department.
The burden of meeting the preclearance requirement is one we can well afford. It
is far less costly and far more expeditious to process five hundred voting changes
through the Justice Department than to litigate through the courts the manifold
challenges that would ensue absent preclearance. And, more importantly, Section 5
83-679 0 - 82 - 37 Pt.2
PAGENO="0578"
1452
is a crucial safeguard of the gains the nation has made in transforming the prom-
ises of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments into reality.
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF LANGUAGE MINORITIES
The language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act are equally important
in guaranteeing the right to an effective vote. New York State has a Hispanic
population of at least 1.6 million people, 1.4 of whom live in New York City. As
much as I would like to be able to say that New York has a long history of
protecting the voting rights of its language minority citizens, I cannot fairly say
that. However, I can state that-with a prod from Congress and the federal courts-
we are now taking steps to bring our Hispanic citizens into the electoral process.
In 1965, the Voting Rights Act included a provision, Section 4(e), which mandated
that no person who has successfully completed the sixth grade in a public school,'
or a private school accredited by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in which
English was not the language of instruction, could be denied the right to vote in any
election because of an inability to read or write English. This provision was spon-
sored by Senators Robert Kennedy and Javits and Representatives Gilbert and
Ryan, all of New York. Its explicit purpose was to deal with the disenfranchisement
of large segments of the Puerto Rican population in New York because of an
English-language literacy requirement in New York's constitution and election laws.
There were those who honestly believed that New York's English-language literacy
requirement for voting was an appropriate mechanism to encourage our citizens
who did not speak English to learn it. But Congress declared that so precious a right
as the right to vote cannot be withheld while a citizen, otherwise qualified to vote, is
learning English.
As an example, all those born in Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States.
While Puerto Rico has a bilingual society, the primary language of Puerto Rico's
people and its classrooms is Spanish; many citizens, born and educated in Puerto
Rico are unable to speak, understand or read English. Until the mid-1970's, New
York had no comprehensive program of instruction in English and Spanish. Con-
gress recognized that it was inappropriate to penalize citizens for attending Spanish-
speaking schools in Puerto Rico, or schools in the United States which had only
recently begun to implement effective educational programs to teach English.
Elimination of the English literacy test was only the first step in opening the New
York electoral process to citizens who are not fluent in English. In 1974, in Torres v.
Sac/is, a federal court, finding that New York's English-only voting procedures
violated the Voting Rights Act, ordered New York City to provide bilingual elec-
tions. Specifically, the court order requires the New York City Board of Elections to:
(1) provide all written election materials, including ballots, in both Spanish and
English; (2) provide a sufficient number of bilingual election officials at each Board
of Elections county office and at all polling places in areas with a high concentra-
tion of Hispanic citizens; (3) post Spanish-language signs at all polling places and
places of registration, stating that election officials are available to assist Spanish-
speaking voters or registrants, and that bilingual printed materials are available;
and (4) publicize elections in the media in Spanish.
In 1975, the State Board, after encountering some difficulties in obtaining
statewide implementation, consented to a similar federal court order requiring
bilingual elections statewide in Ortiz v. New York State Board of Elections.
New York's experience with bilingual elections demonstrates that although local
officials may indeed be committed to a fair electoral process, it may take federal
legislation or a cburt order to ensure that the commitment becomes action. The
1975 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, requiring bilingual elections in areas
with significant numbers of language minorities, do precisely that. The Act's bilin-
gual election provision, like those of Section 5, apply only to the counties of the
Bronx, Kings and New York, where they serve to reinforce federal court mandate.
The New York experience demonstrates the importance of the bilingual provi-
sions and the fact that they are not burdensome or costly to implement. In New
York City, all printed election materials are bilingual. To the extent possible, all
forms are printed in both Spanish and English on the same form-either front and
back, top and bottom, or left and right side. This policy extends even to the "No
Smoking" signs. The envelope containing the "Notice of Cancellation of Registra-
tion" has a return address in English and Spanish, and a warning that the enclosed
material is "very important * * * concerning voting status" in both English and
Spanish. And, needless to say, the enclosed notice is entirely bilingual.
lJ~ 1970 Congress eliminated the sixth grade education requirement.
PAGENO="0579"
1453
The financial burden to the state of bilingual elections is minimal; beyond start-
up costs, the sums are truly insignificant. For example, all translation of~ state-wide
registration and voting materials is handled by the New York. State Board of
Elections. The translations are done by the Chairman of the Political Science
Department of the State University at Albany, and cost, on average, just over $1,000
per year for the entire state. In Westchester County, with a Hispanic population of
over 45,000 people, the costs of providing bilingual materials is approximately $3,000
per year, or less than 0.2 peréent of the County Board of Elections' budget. By using
volunteer interpreters provided by the Maryknoll priests and local Hispanic organi-
zations, Westchester County spends no money on interpreters. And the return on
these insignificant expenditures is enormous. It is estimated that since New York
first provided bilingual elections, Hispanic registration has increased by 20 percent.
Since 1965, the number of New York Hispanic representatives in the state and
federal legislatures has more than doubled. With minimal costs or burden, New
York has done much to integrate the Hispanic community in New York into the
electoral process.
To those who contend that the bilingual provisions of the Act are no longer
necessary, I point to the fact that significant numbers of people still emigrate to the
United States from Puerto Rico alone. All of them, and many other Hispanic
citizens who are not fluent in English, are citizens, entitled to vote. The Fourteenth
Amendment's guarantee of voter equality demands continuation of the Congress'
commitment to the Act's bilingual provisions.
CONCLUSION
The special provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to all or part of 22 states.
As I have testified, three New York counties, with more than 4.8 million people, are
covered by the Act's special provisions. More people are protected in these three
counties than are protected in the States of Alabama (3.9 million), Mississippi (2.5
million) or South Carolina (3.1 million) and only slightly less than in Georgia (5.4
million) or Virginia (5.3 million).
I am troubled by the argument that the Act singles out the Southern states. Even
the few statistics I have cited indicate otherwise. Furthermore, the Act's special
provisions are triggered only by practices that are demonstrated to have a discrimi-
natory impact, regardless of the state where they occur.
I am equally troubled that one response to this perception of regional discrimina-
tion is that preclearance should be implemented nationwide, without a trigger
mechanism. Unless there is a need in all jurisdictions; it seems simply wasteful and
arbitrary to extend preclearance in this fashion. At a time when the stated goal of
Congress is to cut the budget, and the goal of the Administration is to do away with
excessive government, it is ironic that some in Congress would propose extension of
a program without any prior showing of need for that extension. One can only
suspect that the effort to extend preclearance nationwide is in reality an attempt to
undermine the Act's effectiveness.
At a time when our national priorities are undergoing a major reassessment, it is
critical that the Congress as our representatives not permit our commitment to
voting rights to wane. The right to vote is fundamental because, as the Supreme
Court has noted, it alone preserves all other rights. If elected officials are to
consider eliminating programs which aid racial and language minorities in obtain-
ing social and economic equality, it is imperative that those minorities fully and
fairly participate in the electoral process. We can ill afford to send to the American
people a signal that voter equality is no longer a top national priority. Failure to
extend the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act would do just that.
Mr. ABRAMS. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before
this distinguished subcommittee in support of the proposed exten-
sion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I speak as the elected attorney general of the State of New York,
a State which has three of its largest counties covered by the
special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. I believe that extension
of those provisions is essential.
The history of the past 15 years has proven that Congress' effort
to give practical effect to the 14th and 15th amendments by pass-
ing the Voting Rights Act was well worthwhile. The act has dra-
matically increased registration and voting among black and His-
PAGENO="0580"
1454
panic citizens, and has helped to increase the numbers of black and
Hispanic elected officials. Because the act works so well, Congress
wisely decided to extend its terms in 1970 and again in 1975.
The act eliminated the literacy test for voting, a discriminatory
requirement of long standing. And to assure that more novel or
subtle devices did not replace older forms of discrimination, the act
included a preclearance requirement. For the past 15 years, this
requirement has deterred the use of new forms of discriminatory
practices, in many cases by discouraging even their introduction
into State legislatures.
In 1975 many argued that because the affected jurisdictions had
made significant gains, the act's preclearance requirement was no
longer necessary. It turned out not to be true. In 1976, the Depart-
ment of Justice objected to as many or more proposed changes
from some affected States as it had in any previous year. The same
arguments are being made today, and are equally likely to prove
untrue.
Unfortunately, discriminatory practices will continue to be de-
vised next year, and in future years, and our Nation cannot toler-
ate that. Extension of the preclearance requirement is the crucial
safeguard we must maintain.
In 1975, Congress also extended the protections of the Voting
Rights Act to language minorities, after finding that they too had
been systematically excluded from the electoral process. In the last
6 years, bilingual elections have begun to translate the 14th
amendment into a reality for many American citizens who are not
fluent in English.
Kings, and Bronx Counties in New York State are subject to the
act's special provisions, including the preclearance and bilingual
election requirements.
While I support the proposed extension of both provisions, the
balance of my testimony will relate specifically to New York's
experience in complying with the preclearance requirement. That
experience convinces me that the requirement is not overly bur-
densome and effectively serves to protect the rights of minority
citizens.
The State of New York has been required to submit to the
Justice Department all voting laws and procedures enacted since
November 1, 1968, which affect Kings, New York, and Bronx Coun-
ties. Because any change in State law or regulation necessarily
affects the three counties, all such changes are precleared with the
Justice Department. Redistricting affecting any of the three coun-
ties is precleared. Additionally, changes unique to any of the three
counties, such as location of polling places, are also precleared.
Because responsibility for complying with the preclearance re-
quirement regularly falls both on the New York City Board of
Elections and the New York State Board of Elections, I had my
staff discuss with the heads of these two agencies their views on
the preclearance requirement. From these discussions, it became
clear that the preclearance requirement has not been overly bur-
densome to adminster.
For example, the New York State Board submits to the Justice
Department for preclearance all amendments to our election law.
The submission includes a cover letter of transmittal, a copy of the
PAGENO="0581"
1455
bill, the memorandum in support prepared by the bill's sponsor,
any other memorandums that were influential in gaining passage,
and the memorandum explaining the bill's terms and effect, which
is prepared by the State board of elections for the Governor.
By submission of these documents, the State board of elections is
usually able to provide the Justice Department with all the infor-
mation it requires to determine whether or not a proposed change
will have a discriminatory impact.
With the exception of a routine cover letter, the submission
generally includes only documents which had already been pre-
pared as part of the process by which the bill was enacted into law.
On the rare occasion when this information is insufficient, the
additional information required can generally be transmitted by
telephone.
When the voting change is not objectionable, the preclearance
process imposes an insignificant burden on the State and results in
no delay in implementing amendments to our voting laws.
Since becoming subject to the preclearance requirement, New
York has had approximately 500 changes in voting practices re-
view~ed by the Justice Department. The Department raised objec-
tions three times: twice in 1974 and once in 1975.
A brief mention of these situations aptly demonstrates the act's
effectiveness in. preventing changes with harmful consequences for
minority citizens. In 1974, the Department objected that certain
polling places had been located in New York County in apartment
complexes with mostly white tenants although polling places had
not been similarly located in complexes with mostly minority ten-
ants.
As a result of the objection, steps were taken to make polling
places equally accessible to white and minority voters. In 1975, the
Justice Department objected to the consolidation of two Democratic
leadership districts in Manhattan. The proposed consolidation
would have dismembered a predominantly minority district, with
the possibility that the votes of minority voters would be diluted.
As a result of the objection, the consolidation plan was aban-
doned. In each case, the objection was interposed in a timely
manner, causing the minimum necessary disruption to the elector-
al process. And, in each case, the matter was resolved without
litigation.
The third objection involved the 1974 redistricting of State as-
sembly, State senate, and congressional districts in Kings and New
York Counties. Most of the redistricting was unobjectionable. How-
ever, the Justice Department was concerned that the creation of
certain districts in those two counties would have the effect of
abridging the right to vote on account of race.
Rather than challenge the Justice Department's determination
in court, the State chose instead to redraw the districts to prevent
minority vote dilution. A new plan was submitted to the Justice
Department and approved 1 month later. However, white voters in
Kings County sued, alleging that the plan violated the 14th and
15th amendments.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the plan, ruling that the
Constitution . does not prohibit racial considerations used to mini-
mize the consequences of racial discrimination. Under the Voting
PAGENO="0582"
1456
Rights Act, the effectiveness of minority voting power could not be
diluted by dividing minority communities among predominantly
white districts.
The redistricting in Kings County squarely raises the issue of
vote dilution. The overwhelming majority of objections interposed
under section 5 in the last 10 years have been to voting changes
that would dilute newly acquired minority voting strength.
We cannot permit the voices of black and Hispanic voters to be
muted by dispersing these voters among districts in which, by their
numbers, they comprise ineffective minorities. To allow section 5 to
expire just as the post-1980 census redistricting is taking place
would be particularly inappropriate.
One recent New York example again highlights the complexities
of redistricting and the continuing need for the preclearance mech-
anism. After the 1980 census figures were released, unadjusted for
minority undercount, the New York City Council redrew the coun-
cil lines in all five boroughs of New York City.
The Voting Rights Act, and especially the preclearance require-
ment, has figured prominently in this redistricting. On the one
hand, the council redistricting appears to preserve the opportunity
for incumbent minority members to be re-elected. On the other
hand, some claim that the council could have redistricted so as to
increase the number of districts in which minority voters consti-
tute a majority, and thereby more accurately reflect the increased
minority population of New York City which went from 31 percent
to 47 percent between 1970 and 1980.
The council's redistricting plan will have to be submitted to the
Justice Department prior to its implementation. Obviously, we
cannot now adequately analyze the factors that went into the
reapportionment, or the effect on minority voters of the city coun-
cil redistricting.
The voting section at the Justice Department, with its acquired
expertise, will evaluate its ultimate impact. It will do so within 60
days before the plan is implemented.
If there were no preclearance, a potentially discriminatory redis-
tricting plan might be implemented, and years spent in expensive
and time-consuming court challenges. And even if the plan were
ultimately found to be fair, the perception of discrimination that
might grow Qut of accusations made in protracted, heated litigation.
could not easily be eradicated.
The 1980 and 1990 post-census redistricting create the opportuni-
ty for diluting the voting strength of the growing numbers of
minority voters. This seems to me argument enough for a 10-year
extension of section S's preclearance requirement. Additional argu-
ment, however, is found in section S's deterrent effect.
Some point to the fact that of the hundreds of submissions from
New York, only three have resulted in objections. They cite this as
evidence that section 5 has become an unnecessary burden. I be-
lieve rather that these figures are evidence of the act's effective-
ness as a deterrent.
A former member of the New York Senate's Election Committee
has described to us how amendments to the election law, which
might have had a discriminatory effect if passed, were often defeat-
ed or not even offered because of the barrier erected by the Voting
PAGENO="0583"
1457
Rights Act and the need for preclearance by the Justice Depart-
ment.
The burden of meeting the preclearance requirement is one we
can well afford. It is far less costly and far more expeditious to
process 500 voting changes through the Justice Department than to
litigate through the courts the manifold challenges that would
ensue absent preclearance.
And, more importantly, section 5 is a crucial safeguard of the
gains the Nation has made in transforming the promises of the
14th and 15th amendments into reality.
The special provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to all or
part of 22 States. As I have testified, three New York Counties,
with more than 4.8 million people, are covered by the act's special
provisions. More people are protected in these three counties than
are protected in the States of Alabama or Mississippi .or South
Carolina.
I am troubled by the argument that the act singles out the
Southern States. Even the few statistics I have cited indicate other-
wise. Furthermore, the act's special provisions are triggered by
practices that have a discriminatory impact, regardless of the State
where they occur.
I am equally troubled that one response to this perception of
regional discrimination is that preclearance should be implemented
nationwide, without a trigger mechanism. Unless there is a show-
ing of need in all jurisdictions, it seems simply wasteful and arbi-
trary to extend preclearance in this fashion.
At a time when the stated goal of Congress is to cut the budget.
and the goal of the administration is to do away with excessive
government, it is ironic that some in Congress would propose ex-
tension of a program without any prior showing of need for that
extension. One can only suspect that the effort to extend preclear-
ance nationwide is in reality an attempt to undermine the act's
effectiveness.
At a time when our national priorities are undergoing a major
reassessment, it is critical that we as a nation and the Congress as
our representatives not permit our commitment to voting rights to
wane.
The right to vote is fundamental because, as the Supreme Court
has noted, it alone preserves all other rights. We can ill afford to
send to the American people a signal that voter equality is no
longer a top national priority.
Failure to extend the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act
would do just that.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General.
We appreciate your very valuable testimony.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I want to thank you, also,. Mr. Attorney Gen-
eral.
You very skillfully and correctly put to bed a lot of bugaboos
which have been raised around here about the Voting Rights Act.
You have dealt with the burden and you say there is practically
no burden on the State~ You have exploded the idea that expanding
it nationwide would be effective. You* have dealt with the deterrent
PAGENO="0584"
1458
effect and it's quite clear, and you have dealt with it better than
anyone I have seen on the deterrent effect of the act.
You have also dealt with the same concept Representative Ford
dealt with earlier, and that is the credibility of the Federal Govern-
ment behind the act does a good deal to deter and give faith and
hope that not only will people have the right to vote, but that their
vote will be counted.
One myth you didn't quite get to, and you can't deal with all of
them, of course, was the myth of the implied and inordinate en-
croachment upon the sovereignty of the State.
Would you comment on that one?
Mr. ABRAMS. Yes; I think the Voting Rights Act really imple-
ments those constitutional safeguards that are found as the unique
opportunity for the Federal Government to insure equal rights and
equal justice for all of the people who live in the 50 States that
make up this great Union.
So I don't really see great moment or merit in terms of that
argument.
Mr. WASHINGTON. It's not a question of sovereignty, it's a ques-
tion of trying to unite the country around one solid concept, and
that is the inviolability of the franchise, it's just that simple.
Mr. ABRAMS. The franchise is the bedrock, fundamental right
that is at the very heart of this country. It's at the very heart and
fabric of the democratic process and I think when we see from
experience an effective effort on the Federal level to deal with
problems in some States we should not just discard it.
We should be able to have it continue in the days ahead.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I think your testimony has done a lot to
strengthen that bedrock, Mr. Abrams, and I want to thank you.
Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. Abrams, I seem to recall in my reading that the Hasidic
Jews had a~ serious problem of gerrymandering, and they are not
covered by the Voting Rights Act.
Can you enlighten me on that?
Mr. ABRAMS. Yes. I believe you may be referring to the third
example that came under preclearance that I indicated in my
testimony, and the basic plan that was promulgated by the State
was sustained all the way through the courts up to the U.S. Su-
preme Court.
Mr. HYDE. But the plan resulted in denying a significant identifi-
able ethnic group representation and the court said they are not a
minority within the contemplation of the Voting Rights Act.
Is that correct?
Mr. ABRAMS. No; that was not my understanding or reading of
that case.
Mr. HYDE. Would you explain it to me because I am unclear.
What was the complaint of the Hasidic Jews about the way the
districts were drawn? They were denied representation. Was that
their complaint?
Mr. ABRAMS. Ms. Bachrach would like to try to respond.
PAGENO="0585"
1459
Ms. BACHRACH. The plaintiffs in that case had alleged that they
were dispersed into two districts where before they had been pri-
marily in one district.
The Supreme Court found, however, that they had made no
showing of any dilution of the effect of franchise on their part, and
so upheld the redistricting plan as a fair plan and, in fact, went on
to say it was a plan which was equally responsive to the voting
needs and strengths of both the black community and the white
community in Brooklyn.
Mr. HYDE. Then their complaint that their voting strength was
diluted by the community being divided into two districts was
rejected by the Court?
Ms. BACHRACH. That is correct.
Mr. HYDE. As a matter of fact, not because they didn't come
within the definition of minority under the law; is that correct?
Ms. BACHRACH. That is my understanding of the decision, yes.
Mr. HYDE. What groups are covered by the Voting Rights Act,
minorities, racial minorities meaning blacks, Hispanics and then
you get into the single language minority situations.
The Hasidic Jews were not encompassed in any of those, were
they? Are they a group to be protected by the act as presently
written?
Ms. BACHRACH. It is my understanding that the act was initially
directed at the problem of race discrimination.
Mr. HYDE. What I am getting at is should we broaden the defini-
tion of the people to be protected?
I am doing it the hard way, I guess. That is really what I am
asking. There are significant identifiable ethnic groups that don't
fit within the popular term of minorities; women, Hispanics,
blacks, and native Americans. I guess those are the only ones.
I am just wondering~if there are not groups that maybe ought to
be protected.
Mr. ABRAMS. It's something I think for us to ponder. We have
not focused on it precisely as you have articulated that issue.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abrams, you have spoken very eloquently about why we
should extend the Voting Rights Act in its present form.
I guess the question I would, like to address to you is what indices
should we use now or in the future which would give us direction,
such as the preclearance provisions which are no longer necessary
in particular areas of the country or are they?
Mr. ABRAMS. I think they are. If we were to have this extended
for another 10-year period, we would come to that period in time
when we can examine certain indices and data and make a value
judgment.
Some of those indices might be further enrollment of the minor-
ities who are contemplated for coverage under the Voting Rights
Act.
The opportunity for those minority members to be elected to
important positions in the body electorate of this country. Those
may be some of those indices that we would look at at that point in
time.
PAGENO="0586"
1460
I think at this juncture we find impressive progress on both
fronts, but not sufficient enough for us to say that we are at that
point in time when we should not renew these basic provisions.
Mr. LUNGREN. You have in your written testimony discussed the
language minority provisions but touch only lightly if at all during
the verbal presentation.
Why do you think we ought to extend the language minority
provision of the act at this time since that has another 3 years to
run?
Do you see any reason why we should extend it now and rather
not review it when it comes up under the already existing law?
Mr. ABRAMS. My remarks- are contained in the longer testimony
submitted with respect to the issue of bilingual provision under the
Voting Rights Act and were not contained in my short statement
because others are going to come to this table to speak to that issue
later on, and I was focusing heavily on preclearance.
The reason why I think that should be joined at this time for
extension is we can have both provisions of law terminate at the
same juncture so we won't have dispersed dates in the future with
respect to these very important basic voting rights issues.
Mr. LUNGREN. Are they not two separate issues and should they
not fall or stand on their own merits rather than one piggyback on
another?
Mr. ABRAMS. I think it's much more expeditious if they can be
treated at one time, have one set of hearings, have people who are
concerned about both issues testify. I think Hispanics are con-
cerned about both issues, about the various sections under the
VotingRights Act and not only the bilingual provisions.
I think the earlier provisions apply importantly to them as well,
so I think it's just a much more orderly way in which the Congress
could perhaps focus upon this at the expiration date of both of
these acts.
Mr. LUNGREN. What do you say to those people who say bilingual
ballots are one indication of a society losing one of its unifying
elements, that is a single language and moving us in the direction
of Quebec situation.
Mr. ABRAMS. I would say that that is a misperception. I have not
had that perception going to my polling place in recent years and
seeing a bilingual ballot in front of me or instructions that come in
two languages or getting information from the board of elections.
Indeed, just the opposite is the case. We are going to move
toward a more united and harmonious country when we increase
the opportunity for people to participate, not to feel alienated,
isolated, left out, denied. I think this basic provision of law allows
people participation in the decisionmaking process and even to be
elected to important public offices.
Mr. LUNGREN. In some areas, I guess New York, but also particu-
larly in southern California, we have had a tremendous number of
Southeast Asian refugees. Under the definition of this act, within
the near future, we could have ballots required in many, many
different languages, Cambodian, Vietnamese, and so forth.
Do you think a proliferation of ballots has no effect whatsoever
with respect to the unity of the people?
PAGENO="0587"
1461
Mr. ABRAMS. I don't really see that specter emerging. I don't
think we have such numbers of people where that is going to
happen. It has been the Spanish language in certain parts of this
country and from my view, which is a real and practical one, living
in a city that has a large number of Spanish-speaking people.
This has done much to enable them to participate in the process;
it has been a signal that they are not barred, that there is a desire
on the part of all people on the superstructure and hierarchy of
this country to have Spanish-speaking and Hispanic people partici-
pate in the electoral process to vote in primaries and elections and
also to seek public office.
So I have not found what you have said to be the case in the
State of New York as this law has been implemented in recent
years.
Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Attorney General, I was impressed with your
entire statement and, without objection, it will be made a part of
the record.
On page 10 you pointed out something new. We have had a lot of
witnesses and it's very hard to find something new. But you point
out that the preclearance requirement is far less costly and far
more expeditious to process 500 voting changes through the Justice
Department than to litigate through the courts the manifold chal-
lenges that would ensue absent preclearance.
In other words, you are saying that justice gets done insofar as
gerrymandering and annexation and so forth through this process
rather than people having to go to court; is that correct?
Mr. ABRAMS. That is right. If we didn't have this kind of expedi-
tious process we would have lawsuits cropping up all over the
country that would be costing us much more in terms of the
Federal Government's involvement, the Department of Justice's
time, the cost that is involved for a given State or other political
* subdivision, the individuals, the clogging of the court.
You would have increased costs involved and, of course, there
would be a much greater span of time. Instead of getting a decision
within 60 days you would have years go by and, indeed, I think we
have seen in some of these voting rights cases as long as 9 years
have gone by before we had an ultimate decision.
Of course, this is not very healthy or wholesome in engendering
confidence to those who feel their rights have been denied.
Mr. EDWARDS. I suppose you could say that with regard to the
Spanish or the multilanguage requirements. As I recall, New York
City or the State was taken to court before the provisions were
added to New York law and I suppose Federal law, and the allega-
tion of the plaintiffs was that I guess they are being denied due
process if they can't understand what the ballots and the voting
information says.
Is that correct?
Mr. ABRAMS. That is right. That was the Torres case in 1974,
Congressman, and you are absolutely correct.
On the issue of cost and bilingual elections, if it's of interest to
you and the other distinguished members of this committee, I
might tell you that it is literally miniscule in the State of New
York.
PAGENO="0588"
1462
We have contacted the key executive officer of the New York
City Board of Elections to try to determine what has this cost us,.
what additional cost has been imposed to have these bilingual
provisions in the law.
We have discovered that at the very outset of this process where
it was most expensive, where the startup costs had to be incurred,
there was a cost of $30,000 out of a total budget of $16 million for
the New York City Board of Elections.
To continue this on an annual basis there is almost no additional
cost. We contacted the State and discovered that there is a cost to
the State of $1,000 a year to translate voting and registration
material for the entire State of New York.
Another further example on a more local level might be the
experience of I of the 62 counties in New York State, Westchester
County, where there is a total population of 866,000 people and
there is a Hispanic population of 45,000, approximately 5.2 percent
of the population of that county.
The county spends less than $3,000 a year out of the budget of
$1 ½ million for elections for operating elections, which comes to
less than two-tenths of 1 percent of that budget.
So we think the experience in New York amply demonstrates
that cost is not a problem or a burden of implementing this very
important provision of law that will help enfranchise millions of
citizens all over this country.
Mr. EDWARDS. Your testimony is that in the first few years of the
bilingual requirements it cost more; isn't that correct?
Mr. ABRAMS. Yes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Then as techniques were developed to target and
to otherwise not waste paper and energy, then the services that
were provided were provided without any really large additional
costs.
Mr. ABRAMS. That is correct.
Mr. EDWARDS. That is generally the experience we are having in
California. At the beginning it was rather expensive, especially
since some of the registrars who flood a district unnecessarily with
the language materials. But now as they target according to the
regulations promulgated by the U.S. Attorney General, the costs
are going way down.
Are there further questions by any members of the committee?
Thank you very much, Mr. Abrams, and Ms. Bachrach.
Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. We are pleased to have the State attorney general
of the State of South Carolina, Hon. Daniel McLeod.
Mr. Attorney General, we welcome you, of course, and, without
objection, your entire statement will be made a part of the record.
Would you be so kind as to introduce your colleague and then
you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL R. McLEOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ACCOMPANIED BY TREVA ASH-
WORTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
Mr. MCLEOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen.
PAGENO="0589"
1463
I have with me Mrs. Treva Ashworth, assistant attorney general
in my office, who has general responsibility for election matters.
I may have occasion to relate some questions that may be posed
and some comments to her.
I have submitted a prepared statement to the committee and I
must say because of certain difficulties we have encountered, the
time for preparation of this has been somewhat limited.
I will, Mr. Chairman, if I may, proceed into reading the state-
ment which I have submitted to your counsel this afternoon.
When the voting rights bill was originally under consideration in
the Congress, I appeared to testify in opposition to the bill with
other persons from the State of South Carolina.
After the act was originally enacted in 1965, I also instituted an
aôtion in the U.S. Supreme Court entitled: South Carolina v.
Katzenbahk to challenge the constitutionality of the act.
The act was affirmed by the Supreme Court and since that
decision our State has faithfully complied with the act. Since 1965,
every known act of our State regarding election matters has been
forwarded to the Justice Department for preclearance pursuant to
the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Ms. Ashworth has available the number of submissions that have
been made in those years together with the number of those which
were found unacceptable to the Civil Rights Division of the Depart-
ment of Justice.
In fact, the faithfulness of South Carolina submissions was noted
in a footnote in a Supreme Court decision in which it was stated
that South Carolina was the only State falling within the scope of
the act which had consistently complied with the act.
Since the implementation of the act, `there have only been two
counties in which Federal observers have been sent into South
Carolina, during the years 1966, 1968, 1970, and 1972, and the
entire episode was concluded without rancor.
There was only one actual lawsuit which was brought in the
courts at that time to clarify the numbers of persons who were to
be admitted within the voting booth, and we litigated that in the
Federal court in Florence, S.C., and a judgment was handed down
and complied with.
There have, in the 16 years of the coverage of the act, been very
few complaints regarding voting rights problems made to my office.
I might interpolate that I am not speaking with respect to those
matters which have presented problems insofar as reapportion-
ment, which has grown to a large extent in recent years, particu-
larly in the counties by virtue of the enactment of what we term a
home rule act or provision which calls for an application of or can
call for an application of reapportionment principles.'
That has presented some problems and I think that should be
pointed out.
The Voting Rights Act has had a profound effect on South Caro~
lina in terms of numbers of people who are registered to vote and
are participating in the elections. It would be impossible to say
that there aren't probably still some problems in South Carolina
regarding voting; recent convictions in South Carolina, including a
* member of the South Carolina State Senate for election fraud bears
this out.
PAGENO="0590"
1464
There have been* actions taken by me in my capacity as attorney
general in respect to an election fraud and laws which occurred in
other counties approximately 3 or 4 years ago. Convictions were
handed down and were the first of many actions of that nature in
which convictions were obtained in State courts in quite a number
of years.
Neither the first of the prosecutions which has recently termi-
nated in the Federal courts nor the ones which are referred to as
having been brought by my office 3 or 4 years ago, concerned or
had any racial overtones at all; but they were purely election law
violations.
One would have to be an unrealistic visionary to conclude that
the Voting Rights Act or any other act will stop the stealing of
elections. Its purpose has been to secure the right of suffrage and it
has achieved that purpose in my State.
Whereas, the focus of concern appeared to be within matters
such as literary tests, obstacles to registration of voters, notices of
times and places of elections, assistance to illiterate voters and the
like, in recent years, section 5 activity appears to be almost exclu-
sively devoted to securing the election of minority representatives.
In South Carolina, this has been most often presented in the form
of reapportionment acts of whatever kind.
The Voting Rights Act has, in my opinion, served its purpose and
it should be allowed to expire.
- Because of the free exercise of the right to vote and the voting
strength of minorities, it is not likely that any persons will attempt
to tamper with their or any other person's right to vote.
I might interpolate, I mean by that not to any degree that
cannot be managed by the States themselves.
It has been suggested as an alternative to allowing the Voting
Rights Act to expire that it should instead be extended to the
entire United States. This suggestion would not appear to be viable
simply because the administrative difficulties would be more than
should have to be borne by the Federal Government.
The difficulties that would ensue, of which I am aware, would
clearly require a monstrous organization to bring each State of the
Union under the coverage of the act.
The only reference I wish to make with respect to that concerns
Clarendon County. That was one of the two counties to which
voting observers were sent in prior years. In Clarendon County at
one time there was an act that was related to the election of the
superintendent of education.
It provided that the superintendent of education in that country
should be elected rather than appointed. The act was disapproved
by the different civil rights divisions and it was not enforced.
As time went along for several years, more recently the same
issue came up when there was an ordinance established by Claren-
don County which provided that the office should be elective rather
than appointive. That was submitted to. the Justice Department
and they approved it.
By State law the county probably did not have the authority to
enact that type of ordinance. The entire area had been preempted
by State law.
PAGENO="0591"
1465
Nevertheless, the voting rights department, I think there was
some bureaucratic, understandably a bureaucratic misunderstand-
ing. They rendered an inconsistent decision in 1 year with one
which was a few years later, completely at odds with the prior one.
The basis of it, when we inquired of their reasoning, was that
another group or another person had made that decision prior.
Consequently, we had to spend an inordinate amount of time in-
volved in disputes in the courts in my State to try to attempt to
make some heads or tails of the situation.
I would suggest that certain provisions of the act could be re-
tained. For instance, it would not unduly disturb me if preclear-
ance requirements were maintained for reapportionment acts en-
acted for the first time following the 1980 census. Additionally, it
would be my position that the criminal sanctions of the Voting
Rights Act be made permanent provisions, of law.
Their effectiveness has already been demonstrated in my State
by conviction of prominent citizens under the criminal provisions
of this act who were charged and convicted of the crime of vote
buying. That was the case I referred to just a moment ago.
The right to vote is essential to the maintenance of the Govern-
ment under which we live and any legal enforcement provisions
that protect that right should not be discarded.
I am deeply committed to the fundamental proposition that a
citizen's right to vote and to have his vote counted should be
jealously and zealously protected. I do not believe that the expira-
tion of the Voting Rights Act will have the effect of bringing about
a restoration of any discriminatory practices which the Congress
found to formerly exist in South Carolina as its basis for the
enactment of the law.
That law has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and I do
not question its validity. The continuance, however, now rests with
the Congress.
Any discriminatory practices or procedures, including laws that
have been enacted relating directly to the voting process or to
annexations or to the political thicket of reapportionment, that
may have taken place in the last decade, have been few in number
and are not likely to recur.
It is now time to remove South Carolina from its state of vassal-
age.
I might add, lest I be too critical of the Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice, I do not mean to be hypercritical of
them at all. I have worked and I have been up here constantly
back and forth since 1965 and to some extent prior thereto.
My relationships with them have been very cordial and I have a
high degree of regard for them. We differ on very fundamental
questions and differ very sharply but, nevertheless, the relation-
ship established has been good.
I know the problems to deliberate. Not infrequently, Mrs. Ash-
worth has the problem of forwarding certain matters to the Civil
Rights Division for its consideration. We will receive telephone
calls or she will call the Department and ascertain whether an act
of a certain year has been forwarded up there. They may do the
same thing in reverse.
PAGENO="0592"
1466
I may have a record in my office; they may have a record in
theirs, it may not be in the other one. It is understandable with
that difficulty facing the operation of 16 States now within the
scope of the Voting Rights Act the bureaucratic organization is
going to get too large.
It could not possibly, in my opinion, be extended, realistically be
expected to be large enough, efficient enough to be able to cover
the entire United States.
I think at the very least the extension of the retention of any
part of the preclearance provision of section 5 related to, as I said a
moment ago, original acts that were enacted after the 1980 census,
could well be submitted for preclearance.
Mr. Chairman, that completes whatever statement I had to
make.
Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. We
are pleased to have you here.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I want to also thank you, Mr. Attorney Gener-
al, for your testimony.
I get the feeling, as I read your testimony, sir, that you are
attempting to fairly weigh this whole business of the Voting Rights
Act.
For example, you feel it should not be extended. Your reason is a
cost factor on the taxpayers. That is debatable as to whether or not
it would be that cost, but I can see your point.
You also maintain that even though you feel that preclearance
section should not be maintained in its pristine form that perhaps
it could be continued beyond the reapportionment in 1980, as other
evidences of your attempts to be fair here in assessing the efficacy
of this act.
But I can't concur with your conclusion on page 4 when you say:
"I do not believe that the expiration of the Voting Rights Act will
have the effect of bringing about a restoration of discriminatory
practices."
The discriminatory practices, as you well know, existed in many
States, including South Carolina, based on the testimony we have
before us for many, many years.
Mr. MCLEOD. I have the statement you referred to.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I am quoting the part of the statement in
which you said, on page 4:
I do not believe that the expiration of the Voting Rights Act will have the effect
of bringing about a restoration of the discriminatory practices which the Congress
found to formerly exist in South Carolina as its basis for enactment of the law.
As a matter of fact, those practices existed for many years and
the act has been in effect only 17 years.
My question to you is, based upon your temperate approach to
this act in terms of your assessment of it, would it not be wise to
give the Federal Government the benefit of a long history of inordi-
nate infringements upon the voting rights of black people in your
State, would it not be wise to leave this act on the books as a
deterrent effect, if nothing else, as was alluded to or stated by. the
attorney general from the State of New York?
What would be your response to that?
PAGENO="0593"
1467
Mr. MCLEOD. I see your point but I don't think, sir, that I would
agree with it.
I think it ought to be allowed to expire.
I grant you that this is a desired fact of the present Federal
presence in so far as any violation of certain practices might
appear to exist. For example, I made a statement to the Subcom-
mittee on Sectional Elections of the American Bar Association
recently in Washington. I used this illustration.
I am morally certain that the threat which was made by means
of a telephone conversation early in the morning in the State said
a box had not been submitted, a ballot box had not been received
in the central vote-counting place. It was a prominent race of some
degree of importance in that State, and I used the deterrent effect
of Federal prisons.
I said, "You better get that box or you are going to have Federal
people swarming all over your place in 30 minutes."
It was a bluff, of course. I do not think the retention of any
provision of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as I conceded in my
statement to you, would have that effect. I think that box probably
came in immediately, and I am morally certain that it brought
about the election of a single person in the State, just as I am
morally certain that the voting strength of minority groups had a
very effective and telling vote in the State's two gubernatorial
races in the past years in South Carolina.
Mr. WASHINGTON. As a matter of fact, in South Carolina since
the advent of this act, the percentage in number of blacks on the
voting rolls have increased, am I correct?
Mr. MCLEOD. Yes, sir; not increased as much, as dramatically as
I had thought. They have increased since 1965 until the present
time, of about 7 percent.
The significant thing is, when you look at the 1980 total popula-
tion of the State, which is approximately 3 million people, and
compare the number of black registrants with the number of white
registrants vis-a-vis their respective populations, you have a de-
crease in the number of registrants, white, percentagewise, since
1965, to the present time, and an increase in the number of black
registrants since 1965 to the present time. The total raw figures, of
course, are probably in accordance with the population comparison.
Another factor that serves as a greater deterrent, and I deeply
and sincerely believe the greatest deterrent to anyone tampering
around with the right to vote, tampering around with elections,
tampering around with statutes, with reapportionment statutes or
anything of that nature, the biggest deterrent is the fact that black
power is a great factor in my State as in many other States. When
you have the right to vote, that brings respect.
Mr. WASHINGTON. It is more potential than real, is it not?
Mr. MCLEOD. Well, I think--
Mr. WASHINGTON. As a matter of fact, Mr. Attorney General,
there have been some prominent black citizens from your State
who came and testified very candidly that they felt that for the
Voting Rights Act to end, the preclearance section, would set them
back inordinately in the State, and they felt that Congress in its
wisdom should extend this section another 10 years.
83-679 0 - 82 - 38 Pt.2
PAGENO="0594"
1468
They were not bitter; they were not recriminatory. They were
simply stating as a cold, hard fact that they felt the kind of
exclusion that existed in this State for so many years, it would be
extremely unwise for Congress to back up at this point.
I see your position is not cast in stone either. I see you are trying
to be fair. I am simply saying to you that many black citizens in
your State do not feel as you feel about it.
Mr. MCLEOD. Well, I do not think to maintain an act on the
books just for deterrent, it would create more an irritant than
anything else. We have got an additional factor. It is not a proper
sphere of the Federal Government.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Sir, there have been too many cases which
have been brought and which were found to have tremendous
effects throughout the South, not necessarily in your State, in
terms of the percentages, but quite a few of them, so it is not just
something that is an irritant.
It has been effective and viable with blacks and Latins not only
on the voting registration books, but also guaranteeing a good
count, and to preclude the annexation of suburban areas to take
blacks in certain cities. It has been proven and documented, so it is
not just an irritant; it is viable, and if not the most effective one,
one of the most effective civil rights acts we have ever passed.
You are a temperate person, a considerate person. You are a
thinking man, and I would suggest you might well consider this.
I yield back my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. Attorney General, what is the percentage of black popula-
tion in South Carolina?
Mr. MCLEOD. The total population is 3 million in round figures.
White is 2 million in round figures; black, 948,000.
Mr. HYDE. In other words, about one-third of the population?
Mr. MCLEOD. I think it is 38 percent black, I believe.
Mr. HYDE. Thirty-eight percent black?
Mr. MCLEOD. I think that is right. I could be corrected on that.
Mr. HYDE. Do you have a bicameral legislature; a senate and a
house?
Mr. MCLEOD. Yes, sir.
Mr. HYDE. How many senators do you have?
Mr. MCLEOD. Forty-six.
Mr. HYDE. How many are black?
Mr. MCLEOD. None.
Mr. HYDE. I have no more questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. LUNGREN. No questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. I have no questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. MCLEOD. Black members of the house of representatives,
which contains--
Mr. HYDE. I am sorry, how many members of the house are
black?
Mr. MCLEOD. I think it is 14. I may be wrong.
Mr. HYDE. Out of how many?
Mr. MCLEOD. 124.
Mr. HYDE. 124?
PAGENO="0595"
1469
Mr. MCLEOD. Yes.
Mr. HYDE. But no senators?
Mr. MCLEOD. We have confused the figures. From the election
* report which has been submitted, about 63 blacks are elected at the
present time; about 63 blacks at the present time, I think,
statewide. Some of them are elected statewide, some members of
the house, some of them are council members.
Mr. HYDE. I want to go over that again. You just said 63 blacks
are elected statewide?
Mr. MCLEOD. Well, I mean statewide compilation. Some are elect-
ed. There are none elected on a statewide race, that is true.
Mr. HYDE. I understand. Your senate is divided into senatorial
districts?
Mr. MCLEOD. Yes, sir.
Mr. HYDE. Can you explain why there are no black senators,
State senators?
Mr. MCLEOD. Well, I. would explain to you with just the words I
used to Mr. Emmanuel Cellar when I testified before this predeces-
sor committee some years back. A great deal of this-and I do not
know what percentage-is due to apathy and nothing else but.
The same thing is true with respect to the young people, who
fought like the devil to be given the right to vote, getting the
voting age lowered, and then failed to participate. Whites do it;
blacks do it. I dare say other racial minorities do the same thing.
They simply neglect to vote.
Mr. HYDE. I understand that and appreciate that. Are there
districts that are drawn that one would expect a black would be
elected to the senate, but through apathy is not? Is there suëh a
district?
Mr. MCLEOD. TO a degree. The Reapportionment Act of the
senate was litigated, Morris v. Klinger. That was decided and went
up to the Supreme Court. It was a tug-of-war that was on the very
issue you are talking about: It was ultimately affirmed by the
Federal court as nondiscriminatory. That was a verdict on 14th
amendment grounds as well as 15th amendment grounds.
The reason the Justice Department did not figure in the early
States was simply because it had been submitted to them, they did
not act-the attorney in charge of the Civil Rights Division. I have
forgotten his name, but there was a tug-of-war between the Justice
Department and the courts over which should be required to move
first.
The attorney I mentioned, the assistant in charge of the Voting
Rights Division, came down, argued this matter before the three-
judge court in my State. At that time they were pussy-footing
around. One was waiting for the other to move. The three-judge
court moved first and relieved the Justice Department of the trou-
ble.
If the Justice Department moved first, it would relieve the court
of a great degree of trouble.
Finally, the court made another decision on it. That was ap-
pealed, and it was appealed before Judge Green in the District here
on the extension of time for the consideration while these things
were happening. That is what reached the District Court of Ap-
PAGENO="0596"
1470
peals, the three-judge court in the District, and ultimately went up
to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied certiorari on it.
Mr. HYDE. If I understand you right, there are districts in South
Carolina where black voters dominate, but do not vote in such
numbers as to elect a black to the senate.
Mr. MCLEOD. That is correct.
Mr. HYDE. And there are no legal obstacles to them participat-
ing; it is just a disinterest, which is a problem that we have seen in
young voters as well as others. Is that your testimony? I just want
what you understand.
Mr. MCLEOD. To a degree. I do not think they have any difficulty
from a legal standpoint with any reapportionment acts of the
senate or of the house of representatives. Each of those has been
contested. Each of those have been approved by the final judgment
of some court competent to handle it in the Federal jurisdiction.
I frankly have forgotten what the routine they went through
under section 5 or what the procedure was there. We do not repre-
sent the senate nor the house in the court proceedings. We former-
ly did, but do not at the present time. They retain their own
counsel.
I do not think you can quarrel with any malfunction in so far as
voting rights are concerned from that standpoint. They do not like
it, sure. They are arguing about it in the legislature today and
probably are going to continue to argue about it for a long time.
Mr. HYDE. Do you not think it is odd though, a third of the State
is black and not one black is in the senate? Does that not strike
you as odd?
Mr. MCLEOD. I am sorry---
Mr. HYDE. Does it not strike you as odd that a third of the
population is black and there is not one black State senator-
unusual?
Mr. MCLEOD. No; it is not. Unfortunately, it is not unusual. It is
a typical thing. There is a change in house representation, no
question. They are elected every 2 years and the senate is elected
every 4 years. Reapportionment presents that problem.
If I were a black I would complain about it. As a matter of fact, I
live in a Republican neighborhood right now myself. I am not a
Republican. It caused the defeat of the fellow that redistricted that
area.
Mr. HYDE. Let me ask you this: The reapportionment plan that is
now in effect in the State of South Carolina for your State senate
districts, is that precleared?
Mr. MCLEOD. This is the one I was referring to a moment ago
when there was a race between the--
Mr. HYDE. The courts and Justice Department, you mean it fell
between the stools and nobody made an adjudication on it?
Mr. MCLEOD. It was adjudicated, as I tried to indicate a moment
ago.
Mr. HYDE. The courts upheld the reapportionment?
Mr. MCLEOD. Yes; and in the house also.
Mr. HYDE. I am not asking about the house. I am looking at the
State senate.
Mr. MCLEOD. That case was Harper v. Kleindeinst.
PAGENO="0597"
1471
Mr. HYDE. That is a Federal court case. Was it litigated in the
District of Columbia or down in South Carolina?
Mr. MCLEOD. It was originated in South Carolina, a three-judge
court down there.
Mr. HYDE. A three-judge court, and they held reapportionment
was not a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Thank you.
Mr. MCLEOD. Harper v. Kleindeinst.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, there is some conflict in testi-
mony here, or rather there apparently is some conflict in testimo-
ny. We have had witnesses from South Carolina who testified
contrary to what this witness has testified to.
For example, we were told that Senator Gressette, State Senator
Gressette of the senate of South Carolina, who is in charge of
redistricting, stated publicly that there would be no redistricting in
his State until after the Voting Rights Act expired. That testimony,
we have had that stated here.
Other than interrogating the witness further, Mr. Chairman, I
am going to suggest that perhaps we do some investigatory work
here and find out exactly what the status of redistricting in the
State of South Carolina is at this point.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, certainly the redistricting for congressional
seats has not taken place yet, is that not correct? Is it not accurate
the redistricting, the congressional redistricting and the State as-
sembly and senate redistricting as a result, as required after the
1980 census--
Mr. MCLEOD. That is right.
Mr. EDWARDS. Have not been enacted yet by the South Carolina
Legislature?
Mr. MCLEOD. Under consideration at the present time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Under consideration, and the point of the gentle-
man from Illinois is that some State official-who was it?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Senator Gressette.
Mr. EDWARDS. Said that they intended to postpone it until after
the Voting Rights Act expires, or section 5 expires, in August 1982.
Mr. MCLEOD. I am not familiar with it. I know Senator Gressette,
but I am not familiar with it.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Well, is it coincidence that on page 4 you state
that you are not adverse to extending the act, preclearance section,
beyond redistricting of 1981? Is there a coincidence between those
two things?
Mr. MCLEOD. First enactment after the 1980 census, I would not
favor extending it beyond that time.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I understand your position.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. We
appreciate your testimony.
We are now pleased to welcome our colleague from the 12th
Congressional District of California, the district which is closest to
my own congressional district, our good friend and most distin-
guished congressman for many years, the Honorable Paul "Pete"
McCloskey, Jr.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. McCloskey, we are delighted to have you.
Without objection, your statement will be made part of the record.
You may proceed.
PAGENO="0598"
1472
TESTIMONY OF HON. PAUL McCLOSKEY, JR., A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, rather than read my whole
statement, I might say that the first two-thirds of it refers to the
cost of the bilingual ballot on local governments.
I would just like to refer to the fact that the first 2 pages of it
specify the cost to the State of California, local governments, in
complying with the act last year, and point out that the proposition
13 initiative in. California was a definite expression of California
voters to cut the costs of local government, and that while this
imposed cost under the bilingual ballot law is relatively minor, it is
viewed by the residents of California as a Federal imposition on
local government, and perhaps has attracted more hostility and
anger as a result of this Federal requirement than any other law
that I know of, at least in my own district.
I use the example of Redwood City, one of California's 54 cities of
50,000 population or more, which has 8,622 Spanish-origin citizens,
with perhaps half that number of eligible Spanish-origin voters,
and yet after printing the materials last year at a cost of $1,784.59,
only 60 voters of Spanish origin out of over 4,000 requested the
ballot, and of that 25 actually used it.
The balance of the cost of the bilingual provisions against the
use in that community has made the citizens of that community
almost unanimously request i~hat this provision be repealed.
The point I would like to make, though, more strongly than the
cost and the perceived fact of that cost being imposed for a rather
minor benefit is the last point of my statement, and the question,
are we really helping minorities by making it easier for them to
vote knowledgeably in their native language.
For citizenship, we require applicants to pass a test on the U.S.
Constitution and legal system, and the English language. For chil-
dren born here to foreign language parents, we provide several
million dollars a year in bilingual education funds. Why? Because
we realize that equal opportunities in education and employment,
and thus earning capacity, requires a working use of the English
language.
We diminish the ability of the minorities to reach their full
status of equality in the American economic system if we encour-
age them to neglect a diligent pursuit of excellence in the use of
the English language.
Is there any one of us, moving to Mexico or Japan, who would
not want to learn the Spanish or Japanese language in order to
improve our economic and social circumstances? Would we feel
voting in Mexico or Japan to be more important than earning a
good living there?
Solely on principle, Mr. Chairman, I think this law is wrong. It is
bad for the very people it seeks to assist.
I would suggest we repeal it now, and thereby enhance the
chances for a more valuable Voting Rights Act.
I might say, as I listened to the prior witness, I go back to 1965
when, as I recall, 7 percent of the black citizens of Mississippi
eligible to vote were actually able to register, and I hope we will
extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I think it is ~ne of the most
important acts ovor pa~ed by this eongress, but I think the bilin-
PAGENO="0599"
1473
gual provisions unduly attract attention, an adverse attention to
the underlying act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. McCloskey follows:]
TESTIMONY OF PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a very brief statement in support of exten-
sion of the Voting Rights Act as a whole, but for repeal of the Bilingual Ballot
provisions of Title II of the Act.
Since the bilingual ballot law in 1975, we have seen a wave of public opposition to
the steadily-increasing costs of government at all levels, federal, state and local.
In 1974, Congress had the luxury of trying to help minorities and the poor with a
whole host of well-intentioned actions, of which the bilingual ballot was one.
In the same year, however, we saw the commencement of an uninterrupted chain
of years of deficit spending: In 1974 the federal deficit was $4.7 billion; in 1975 the
federal deficit was $45.2 billion; in 1976 the federal deficit was $66.4 billion; in 1977
the federal deficit was $44.9 billion; in 1978 the federal deficit was $48.8 billion; in
1979 the federal deficity was $27.7 billion; in 1980 the federal deficit was $59.6
billion.
We are now engaged in a wholesale congressional review of the many praisewor-
thy programs which have contributed to these deficits following an overwhelming
public mandate to do so in the 1980 elections.
California voters, in Proposition 13, issued a similar overwhelming mandate to
local governments * * * insisting on a cut in local expenditures by cities and
counties. It is on local cities and counties that the burden of bilingual ballot
expenditures falls.
I have appended to this statement a list of the incremental costs to California's 58
counties of the bilingual ballot, totalling $862,756.01 solely for the 1980 general
election.
But let me point to a single small city in my congressional district, one of some
424 cities in California and one of 54 cities of 50,000 population or over.
Redwood City has a population of 54,965, of whom 8,622 are of Spanish-origin. In
Redwood City's separate municipal election in 1980, the City spent $1,784.59 for
Spanish-language materials.
Of its 8,622 Spanish-origin citizens, only 60 requested Spanish-language materials
and only 25 actually voted.
The resulting cost, $73 per Spanish language ballot actually used, is clearly
offensive to the tax paying public.
I think it fair to say that the overwhelming opinion in the State of California is
that the bilingual ballot law should be repealed.
The question is one of balance * * * between federally-imposed taxpayer costs on
the one hand and a praiseworthy experiment in helping minorities on the other.
And are we really helping minorities by making it easier for them to vote
knowledgeably in their native tongue?
For citizenship, we require applicants to pass a test on the U.S. Constitution and
legal system in the English language. For children born here to foreign-language
parents, we provide several hundred million dollars a year in bilingual education
funds. Why? Because we realize that equal opportunity in education, employment
and thus earning capacity, requires a working use of the English language. We
diminish the ability of minorities to reach their full status of equality in the
American economic system if we encourage them to neglect a diligent pursuit of
excellence in the use of the English language.
Is there any one of us, moving to Mexico or Japan, who would not want to learn
the Spanish or Japanese language in order to improve our economic and social
circumstances? Would we feel voting in Mexico or Japan to be more important than
earning a good living there?
Solely on principle, Mr. Chairman, I think this law is wrong. It's bad for the very
people it seeks to assist.
Let's repeal it now, and hopefully thereby enhance the chances for extension of
the far more valuable underlying Voting Rights Act.
PAGENO="0600"
1474
COST IN CALIFORNIA FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE II OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
[1980 general election]
Alameda $3435.00
Colusa 60.00
Contra Costa 3437.00
Fresno 225.00
Imperial 350.00
lnyo 300.00
Kern 245.00
Kings 225.00
Los Angeles
Madera 250.00
Merced 238.00
Monterey 424.00
Napa 1,350.00
Orange 500.00
Placer
Riverside 745.00
Sacramento 1,076.00
San Benito
San Bernardino 976.50
San Diego 3,200.00
San Francisco 15,360.00
San Joaqoin 1,031.00
San Lois Obispo 645.00
San Mateo
Santa Barbara 630.00
Santa Clara 935.00
Santa Cruz 1,795.50
Solano 6,000.00
Sonoma 1,004.37
Stanislaus 1,058.00
Setter 55.00
Tulare 665.65
Ventura 982.00
Yolo 5,000.00
Yoba 785.00
San Francisco (Chinese).. 24,167.00
Total 77,150.02
$2,636.45
488.70
11,505.00
3,439.00
2,075.50
13,941.00
3,409.00 659.00
29,100.00 3,700.00
2,487.00
2,572.51
25,707.00
5,940.00 2,336.55
18,105.00
21,950.00
1,227.00 130.00
5,211.23 75.27
346.05
60,250.00 1,000.00
54,700.00 100.00
4,537.00 409.00
1,700.00 58.00
10,186.73
7,917.00
11,271.00 396.00
4,034.00 117.43
14,297.00 10.00
3,615.19 243.80
24,872.00 11,176.00
863.37 14.00
3,468.68
13,667.00 745.00
$12,071.09
558.88
15,298.00
126,586.00
2,425.50
300.00
17,186.00
6,330.00
135,200.00
3,376.00
3,460.51
26,131.00
9,810.27
19,730.00
21,950.00
4,202.00
7,497.50
487.05
94,726.50
59,150.00
31,576.00
3,389.00
10,874.65
18,158.00
12,626.00
5,395.83
16,102.50
6,000.00
5,010.72
116,054.00
1,232.37
4,660.20
15,808.00
5,000.00
3,850.44
40,542.00
862,756.01
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. McCloskey.
The gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I have no questions of the distinguished gen-
.tleman except to thank him for his very cogent testimony.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too welcome Mr. McClos-
key, who is always illuminating.
Pete, Redwood City has a population of 54,000, 8,000 of Spanish
origin, and of the 8,000 Spanish-origin citizens, in the separate
municipal election of 1980 only 60 of them requested Spanish lan-
guage materials?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I think that statistic ought to be cut in half,
probably there were less than 50 percent registered or eligible
voters of that population.
Mr. HYDE. So you are saying that what number should b~t ç~ in
Translation
cost
Incremental
printing cost
Incremental
postage cost
Incremental
stall labor
cost
Incremental
data
processing
cost
Other
incremental Total cost
cost
$586.09 $613.55 $4,800.00
2.05 $0.25 7.88
167.00 75.00 114.00
58,488.00 1,141.00 63,293.00
3,000.00
1,827.00 210.00
94,100.00 8,300.00
106.00 533.00
500.00 150.00
11.72 172.00
1,125.00
1,800.00 200.00 100.00
1,135.00
141.00
27,500.00 5,000.00
1,100.00 50.00
4,125.00 145.00 7,000.00
525.00 75.00
42.92
9,812.00 206.00 223.00
229.00 100.00
189.40 20.00 100.00
147.36
42,976.00 5,000.00 30,972.00
200.00 100.00
277.92 247.95
121.00 52.00 241.00
2,674.44
245.00
146.00
4,537.00
543.00
4,125.00
170.00
7,000.00
372,730.85
80,956.19
197,049.87
6,442.25
128,426.83
PAGENO="0601"
1475
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Out of perhaps 4,000 eligible voters or people of
voting age, only 25 actually voted out of the 4,000.
Mr. HYDE. Out of 4,000, only 25 voted. My question is, it cost
your municipality, or this municipality, $1,784 for those materials?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Right.
Mr. HYDE. Is that typical, though, throughout the State or was
that an unusual situation?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. It is typical throughout my area, San Mateo and
Santa Clara Counties. I cannot speak for the other counties. The
costs were a great deal more in 1978, but the counties were able to
reduce the cost substantially by 1980.
Mr. HYDE. Pete, it would help us if we have more macro than
micro figures because we are legislating for the country, not just
your district. I should think that somehow, if you want us to let
California rather than just your district out from under, we ought
to have figures.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Appended to it are 36 of the 58 counties. The
cost to the counties was $862,756.01.
Mr. HYDE. How much does that work out per vote? Have you
figured that out?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I will be glad to supply that for the record. I
have the 1978 figures, but not the 1980 per-vote figures.
Mr. HYDE. I mean, just something that is a good, hard statistic to
justify your position would be helpful to the rest of us.
Do you see any particular problem with a person who is a
citizen, who is eligible to vote, an adult of voting age, what is so
insuperable about learning the name of the candidate in English
and the party and the office? You know, this is not like it is
calculus or something. I should think it would not be too difficult.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Hyde, I do not know that there is any
material intrusion on the selection of candidates under the Califor-
nia process, but since the days of Hiram Johnson we have had
initiatives which quite often attract much attention.
Mr. HYDE. Bilingual?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Those are valid explanations, and to vote knowl-
edgeably, even knowledgeable citizens of the English language can
be misled on something as to whether a cigarette tax helps or
hurts the country.
I make no quarrel with the fact that many people of foreign
language will be better educated in California on issues if the
ballot is in their own language, but the cost of this, while relatively
minor you might say to a city of 50,000, what is the cost if the
Federal Government imposes $1,700, what does it really mean?
But it is a State where the people have voted, rather a substan-
tial majority, in proposition 13, to reduce property taxes to a level
in which cities and counties have a rough time going forward at
all, any additional cost imposed by the Federal Government is
perceived as a burden perhaps much greater than the dollar would
indicate. That attracts a public hostility to the Federal law which
imposes this, and that is what causes the citizen to look at the
small number of people actually using the ballot, saying, "For 25
ballots in Redwood City, why should the city have any expense
imposed by the Federal Government?"
PAGENO="0602"
1476
That is really the point. I think that this law is well-intentioned,
properly conceived, but back in 1974 we had the luxury of operat-
ing on relatively balanced budgets up until now, fiscally, with the
citizenry examining every cost imposed by every law, cost effective-
ness does become a major point, and respect for the law itself
becomes a major point.
Mr. HYDE.. Well, I had not thought of California's unique initia-
tive. We do not have that to any extent in Illinois, and I could
certainly see that bilingual material would be very important.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Lungren.
Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
appearing here today, Pete.
In some of the submitted testimony we have today, there is a
suggestion that much of the opposition to bilingual elections is the
result of, not high cost or even the possibility of their promoting
cultural separatism, but of an anti-Hispanic, antiforeign sentiment
that is pervasive now.
It goes on to suggest that some people seem to be unduly fearful
of refugees and aliens overrunning our shores. How would you
respond to that as being the basis for support for what you are
trying to do?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I would be embarrassed and ashamed if any
part of my desire to repeal the bilingual ballot was based on
hostility to any foreigners coming to California, particularly Viet-
namese or Cambodians or Koreans or Mexican American. It seems
to me that that should have no weight in this argument, has no
proper weight.
The basic argument against bilingual ballot, in my judgment is
that if minorities come here, they ought to be encouraged as rapid-
ly as possible to have full social and economic equality. If you
cannot speak the English language, you are denied promotability
in any number of jobs, and you are limited to those jobs where a
lack of English knowledge, you can get by. Those are usually the
lowest-paying jobs in our society, so to say to a foreigner coming to
this country, "We are going to break our backs to let you vote in
the English language," I think to that person coming here, he
would far rather have a good living, a good standard of living, a
good employment wage than the right to vote.
It seems to me that you inexorably, by stretching the voting
privilege above the economic privilege, it does not make sense.
Mr. LUNGREN. Someone suggested that this first came into law
as a result of the efforts of Senators and Congressmen from New
York on behalf of a rather large Puerto Rican community, and
pointed out that Puerto Ricans are American citizens, and yet
apparently Spanish is the predominant language; therefore, they
need this protection to fully participate in the system. I am just
trying to find out how you respond to that.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I was here in 1974, and my recollection is that
the cosponsors of the bill were both from California, Senator
Tunney and Congressman Edwards, who occupied a position of
leadership at that time, as Congressman Edwards does now. I give
him credit for it, as I did then. Excuse me, I may go too far in that
respect.
PAGENO="0603"
1477
Mr. LUNGREN. Is the crux of your complaint about the continu-
ation of bilingual ballots the cost? You also indicated the hostility
that has been engendered in your district. Could you elaborate?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. It used to be the cost in the first years it was
used, in 1976 and 1978. The cost was much higher. I have the
precise per city and per county cost. We have an overwhelming
eruption of anger in the cities and counties of California at this
cost being imposed upon them, but as you look at this schedule
that is appended for the counties and the figures for the single city,
I think the cost can no longer be contended to be the primary
objection to bilingual ballots.
What is now the primary objection is the practical-not just
hostility, but fury that this engenders in the voter when he sees a
ballot printed in two languages and wants to know why there is a
ballot voted in two languages when he believes, or she believes that
we do have a national language. It is a national policy that every-
body be encouraged to speak that language. That runs counter to
that policy.
You will notice that a Senator from my State has entered a
constitutional amendment making English the national language.
That seems a little redundant. I guess we consider English as the
national language.
Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. McCloskey.
One of the previous witnesses mentioned the Federal cases. One
is Torres v. Sachs. The other is the Puerto Rican Organization for
Political Action v. Kusper, where the court said that if a person
who cannot read English is entitled to oral assistance; if a Negro is
entitled to correction of erroneous instructions, so a Spanish-speak-
ing Puerto Rican is entitled to assistance in the language he can
read or write or understand.
Would not your suggestion violate what the court has held? You
are going to give a Spanish-speaking American citizen born in San
Jose or San Mateo no assistance.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, if the person is born here, he is required
to go to school until the age of 16 in the State of California in a
school system in which we are going to break our backs to give him
proficiency in the English language so that he can earn a living,
and if at the age of 16 that person has not pursued the course of
study in the English language that we spent so much money to
make available to him, then I have no sympathy with that person's
inability to find and understand the materials on how to vote.
It seems 10 times more important that that person who is born
here and gone through a school system for 16 years have the
ability to earn a living and have the economic opportunity without
which he or she cannot have without an understanding of the
language.
Mr. EDWARDS. We have had testimony that about 16.5 percent of
Mexican Americans over the age of 16 have completed less than 5
years of schooling.
As a witness from Austin, Tex., pointed out last Friday, it was
not the Mexican American child's fault. It was the fault of the
American system that did not provide education and allowed these
children to be out in the plantations cutting vegetables, whatever
PAGENO="0604"
1478
they were doing, and they would have to go to work and the school
system did not really take care of the obvious and clear idea you
just expressed, and we, of course, would agree with.
It is now estimated that almost one-fourth of all citizens of
Mexican American extraction have completed less than 5 years of
sdhool. Well, are you going to disenfranchise these people?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. No, but does not this law encourage people to
feel that they are entitled to assistance because they have not
taken advantage of the educational system? I would accept the
blame in past years for whatever we have not provided in the way
of equal educational opportunity for language minorities, but it
seems to me that today to keep this law in effect would be, in
effect, to recognize a future right not to attend school.
It is not just the whole public school system we are now trying to
cope with, and if we were to create a new Federal obligation to
spend money, and in this case require money of local government
to make up for all of our past sins, that I think goes too far in the
face of the framework of our people right now who are saying, "Cut
every possible cost of government you can."
I guess it is a different concept of what we owe for the sins of
past years that may have been appropriate in 1974. That is why I
cited these last 7 years of incredible deficit spending. We had the
luxury to try all sorts of good things in the 1970's, but now we are
going on seven straight years of deficit spending, essentially 10
percent of the Federal budget, and having to review every one of
these programs.
So, I suppose I apply a slightly different standard of what we
should spend to make up for some of these deficiencies of the past.
Mr. EDWARDS, There are hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans
and hundreds of thousands of Mexican Americans in different
parts of the country, and quite a number of them in California, and
our own county. You and I share Santa Clara County, which has
the largest number of Spanish-speaking people in northern Califor-
nia.
Do you really think it is in the public interest to send them into
voting booths all over the country where they really do not under-
stand what they are voting about?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. No, I do not think that is in the public interest,
but I think it is even less in the public interest to encourage people
to try to reach equality in this country with any misunderstanding
that they can do so without speaking English well.
I put economic quality of opportunity as the major goal we
should seek for the minorities. I know of no way in our system that
you can achieve equal pay and equal opportunity for promotion
unless you do speak the English language fairly well. I see the
Vietnamese coming here, rapidly learning this language because of
their desire to get ahead economically.
It seems to me that the best thing we can do for the Mexican
American is to make employment opportunities available that are
not just cleaning hotel rooms or worki~ig in the agricultural fields,
in neither of which case do you need to speak English, but the lack
of ability to speak English goes hand-in-hand with the lowest jobs
in the economic spectrum, so anything that enc9Mr~g~ that it
~~mg to m~ ig a thsservice to the minorities.
PAGENO="0605"
1479
Mr. EDWARDS. Certainly no one would ever quarrel with your
devotion to education and to proper education to all of our chil-
dren. We all certainly agree on that.
In New Mexico they have had bilingual ballots since, I think,
1910, and Hispanics hold statewide offices in the State senate to
the extent of 35 perôent, and the State representatives, 28 percent.
Does not the example of New Mexico, having bilingual ballots
and bilingual assistance, show that integration into American soci-
ety is even better where people can use the language that they are
the most comfortable with?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, if you or I went to New Mexico
we might not want to run for office there unless we could speak
the Spanish language, but New Mexico is unique among the 50
States. New Mexico is a State which was the center of Spanish
culture in this country.
I remember it was 300 years ago last year, I mentioned to the
gentleman from Illinois, that the New Mexicans rose up and threw
out the Spanish Inquisition in the rebellion of 1680.
The cultural history of New Mexico is a little like Louisiana in
its cultural derivation from the French. I think it helps in Louisi-
ana today to know French, but I do not think we would want to
insist in New Mexico or Louisiana that they teach Spanish or that
they teach French, because of that cultural background.
Mr. EDWARDS. I have no further questions.
Mr. Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Representative McCloskey, I was diverted
during your testimony and missed practically all of it. I just heard
the tail end of it in which I thought you did endorse without
reservation the entire act.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I have endorsed the Voting Rights Act, which I
hope will be extended. I would like to repeal the bilingual ballot
provision.
Mr. WASHINGTON. That is what I gathered, but during the course
of these hearings we have heard a great deal of testimony about
the actual cost of minority language assistance in elections. I be-
lieve all witnesses felt that the cost of elections in California was
unnecessarily high, and this resulted from certain unique provi-
sions of California law and the administration of the statute.
My question is, Do you not think California could find cheaper
ways to administer the voting rights provisions?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. When I testified 4 years ago I said the cost was
too high. California has successfully reduced the cost. In this ap-
pendix which I have added, it shows that for 36 counties the cost
was less than $1 million. It seems to me that it can no longer be
argued that the cost is excessive for the bilingual ballot. I do not
make that argument.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I see. I am not conversant with the bilingual
program in the State of California public school system. How are
they faring in light of proposition 13?
* Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I cannot give you a judgment.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Would it be fair to assume they are suffering
less than with other school systems?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. That would be my guess, but I am not informed
on that.
PAGENO="0606"
1480
Mr. WASHINGTON. The reason I asked the question is because you
stress what you feel to be the responsibility of our Latin citizens to
as quickly as possible master the English language.
I was just wondering whether or not the State of California had
the people in positions to help Hispanic citizens to master it?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Put it this way: California has a mandatory
education law so that each child up to the age of 16 must attend
and complete the high school education. The city of Mountain
View, which Congressman Edwards and I have both represented in
the past, and which I now represent, for years in Mountain View,
for its Mexican American population, concerted efforts were made
to keep the kids in school so that they finish their high school
education.
The tendency of the Mexican American culture is for the kids to
fan out over the area and earn money, which is turned over to the
head of the family to keep the family going. Quite often, it was
almost impossible to get the Mexican American to go on into
college because of the cultural ethic and background.
The whole effort in California to educate the Mexican American
to speak the English language well so that he or she could rise up
in the economic community is not just in the schools, it is in the
colleges. Tremendous efforts have been made to try to get Mexican
American people into the educational system, primarily to learn
the English language which then equipped them for whatever abili-
ties they have to go on to better employment opportunities.
That is why it seems to me that the bilingual ballot concept, that
voting is the important issue, runs counter to our desire to upgrade
their economic situations.
Mr. WASHINGTON. My question directed itself to the curriculae
rather than attendance. Both might be proper. Let me ask another
question.
You have introduced a bill which I understand from staff would
eliminate the preclearance provisions in the State of Texas, where
you have a large percentage of blacks. Are you aware that it does
do that?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. No, the only bill I have is repealing title II of
the act.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Let me just indicate that your bill, which is
identical to the other bills that have been introduced to delete the
minority language provisions, does more than that.
The reason that Texas and the Southwest are covered under
section 5 is because of the trigger mechanism that is defined as
language minority. It also deletes that particular trigger, so that
Texas and the Southwest would no longer be covered.
It also deletes the 14th amendment provisions for section 5,
which was in fact inserted in 1979 because it was not clear whether
in fact the 15th amendment would cover Texas and the rest.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. You are saying part of title II triggers title V?
Mr. WASHINGTON. No, but the language in the act, there are two
different sections of the act. One is the separate section 203, which
your bill does delete-specifically, section 203, but it also goes back
and deletes any reference tç 1un~uuge minority, the term "lan-
~üage minor!ty.~'
PAGENO="0607"
1481
So that the trigger mechanism to bring in Texas and the South-
west is deleted under all three bills, yours and the other two, so
they in fact do go further than stated.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Then I am in error in the draftsmanship, be-
cause that is not the intention. Our intention is to repeal the
bilingual ballot provisions and no more.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hyde still does not eliminate the language
minority.
Mr. HYDE. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to understand our
good colleague, Pete McCloskey. As I heard you testify, you feel,
you indicate that the right to vote is not as important as making
economic progress. Is that an unfair statement?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I would say that economic progress to me is the
most important thing we can do for the minorities in this country;
the economic progress is what makes all of the other rights worth-
while.
Mr. HYDE. Are you subordinating the right to vote?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I don't think you deny the person the right to
vote by making the vote in the language of the country. I said, for
example, if I went to Mexico I would not feel the Mexican Govern-
ment was under an obligation to have printed ballots in English so
I might vote more knowledgeably.
It would seem to me if I choose a country I choose that country
with the understanding and hopefully the goal of knowing the
language of that country, and that no country ought to have to
change its voting requirements or its ease of voting to accommo-
date the person who is trying to learn that language in order to be
an equal citizen in that country.
I would agree with you if we were denying the person the right
to vote, but you are not denying the Spanish American.
Mr. HYDE. You are failing to facilitate.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. You are failing to make it easier.
Mr. HYDE. In a way you are saying by crippling you are perpet-
uating a dependence on a language that is not in the mainstream,
is not a language that will facilitate them to achieve economic
progress.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. You have said it better than I did.
Mr. HYDE. I doubt that. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. McCloskey, I want to compliment you on your
coming here today and also in reversing your position with regard
to the cost. I think it was a very courageous thing to do and honest
thing for you to do, because you have always operated in that way.
But, you do know your testimony is now different from the
former course that you together with Mr. Thomas, the gentleman
from California took. You do not object to this provision any more
on account of cost because, really, it is not costing very much.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I have to say
that since 1976 and 1978 the county clerks have managed to reduce
the cost to what I think is a defensible figure.
I would point out, though, that the perception of the California
voter of any costs at the present time imposed by the Federal
Government on the State and local level, like many other issues,
causes much more concern than perhaps it justifies; but the percep-
tion of the voter that his laws are fair and that his costs are
PAGENO="0608"
1482
acceptable probably has not diminished even though my testimony
here, it seems to me, is an acceptable cost.
I am not so sure the public so views it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Civil rights laws, I am sure you would agree, are
written for the benefit of the minorities generally, not the benefit
of majorities which can generally take care of themselves in Amer-
ica.
The legislation after it was enacted for bilingual ballots was
attacked severely in California by the secretary of state, as you
recall, and by many registrars who swamped California with bilin-
gual ballots, without complying with the regulations promulgated
by the U.S. Attorney General that require careful targeting.
In San Diego, for example, they just post the facsimile of the
Spanish language ballot on the wall of the voting booth.
So, the cost problems have been worked out and I know you and
I are delighted they are.
I now yield to counsel.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman McCloskey, you state that you would hope that
these minority language provisions would be deleted or rescinded;
would you also want the California election laws which require
oral assistance in polling locations with 3 percent, not 5 percent,
but 3 percent of the language minorities-the law requires that
where there is 3-percent minority language population in a particu-
lar precinct, oral assistance must be provided. Would you also want
that California law to be rescinded?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I think probably.
Ms. GONZALES. You have been mentioning that one of the rea-
sons why people ought to be able to speak English or understand
English much better than we maybe recognize is because of the
money that is being poured into bilingual education, and that that
ought to have had some effect on the population; is that correct?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. That is my understanding of the rationale for
bilingual education. It is a valid Federal expenditure to permit new
citizens or citizens of foreign parentage an opportunity to learn the
language.
It seemed a valid reason and I have supported the program.
Ms. GONZALES. Is it your understanding bilingual education has
developed since the Federal decision which came about in 1973 or
1974, so, in fact, it may not have affected earlier generations that
are really more impacted by this situation.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Yes; I would accept that.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
No more questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. We appreciate your testimony, Mr. McCloskey.
Your testimony is that the rest of the act should be exten~led, the
bilingual requirement should go out; is that it?
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Yes~ I think this act-as I say; I would put it in
the 1964 act as the most important act of Congress in this century.
Mr. EDWARDS. Your work in civil rights for many years is known
by all of us and appreciated by all of us, and we appreciate your
testimony here today, even though there might be some disagree-
ment as to a couple of items.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Thank you.
PAGENO="0609"
1483
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much.
We are delighted now to have the testimony of our patient
colleague from the great State of New York, Congressman Robert
Garcia.
Mr. Garcia, we certainly welcome you. Your statement will be
made a part of the record, without objection, and you may proceed.
Please introduce your colleagues.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT GARCIA, REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ACCOMPANIED
BY LUIS BURGUILLO, JR., AND ANTONIA HERNANDEZ
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I am fortunate to have Ms. Antonia
Hernandez. I have asked her to join me on this panel. And my own
counsel, Mr. Luis Burguillo.
Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and I know what it is to. sit at
that end. I know sometimes we listen with a great deal of patience,
but we have so much to do. I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have my statement and I will only read a small
portion of my statement and I would ask that the balance of the
statement be entered into the record.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, so ordered.
[The statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT GARCIA
Chairman Edwards and members of the Civil and Constitutional Rights Subcom-
mittee, I am here today to show my overwhelming support for H.R. 3112, an
extension of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. I am supportive of the 10 year
extension of the special provisions, the seven year extension of the language minor-
ity provisions, the amendment to Section 2 which enables the victims of voting
discrimination to challenge discriminatory election practices without the necessity
of prOving. discriminatory purpose. Mr. Chairman, as the only Hispanic Member of
Congress from the State of New York, which has a Hispanic population according to
the census of almost 10 percent, and as chairman of the Census Subcommittee I can
assure you the undercount is very extensive. As chairman of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus whose members represent the nation's more than 18 million His-
panic Americans.
Hispanics are vastly underrepresented in the U.S. Congress and at all levels of
government throughout the United States. Longstanding and often purposeful dis-
crimination is at the root of our exclusion. The Voting Rights Act has been instru-
mental in working to guarantee that Hispanics and other racial and language
minority citizens will not be excluded from the political process because of their
racial or ethnic background. I am deeply fearful that if the Voting Rights Act is
weakened in any way, the small but sure signs of progress we can now point to will
rapidly erode.
Of particular concern to me and to Hispanics throughout the country are the
bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Sadly, these provisions are under
attack by members of Congress, the public and the press. I firmly believe that much
of the hostility to bilingual elections is based on ignorance, misinformation, and
fear. I hope today to educate you, correct some of the misinformation and to dispel
some of the fears that have been generated.
When Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it recognized that there
are indeed American citizens who do not speak English and who are entitled to the
protections of the Voting Rights Act as surely as illiterate English speaking citizens.
I am referring to Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act which states in part:
"Congress hereby declares that to secure the rights under the 14th Amendment of
persons educated in American-flag schools in which the predominat classroom lan-
guage was other than English, it is necessary to prohibit the States from condition-
ing the right to vote of such persons on ability to read, write, understand or
interpret any matter in the English language."
This section on the Voting Rights Act is directed toward Puerto Ricans and it was
included in the Act at the urging of members of Congress from New York where
83-679 0 - 82 - 39 Pt.2
PAGENO="0610"
1484
Puerto Ricans have long made up a significant part of our population. I am grateful
to the late Robert Kennedy, the late William Ryan and to Senator Jacob Javits for
having introduced Section 4(e) into the original Voting Rights Act.
Unfortunately, Section 4(e) did not go so far as to require bilingual election
materials and a lawsuit on behalf of Puerto Ricans residing in New York had to be
brought in the early 1970's. As a result of this lawsuit, Torres v. Sac/is, New York
City has had bilingual elections since late 1973. I would like to read from the
decision in Torres v. Sac/is because it is very illuminating in understanding how
fundamental bilingual voting assistance is to citizens who do not speak English:
"In order that the phrase `the right to vote' be more than an empty platitude, a
voter must be able effectively to register his or her political choice. This involves
more than physically being able to pull a lever or marking a ballot. It is simply
fundamental that voting instructions and ballots, in addition to any other material
which forms part of the official communication to registered voters prior to an
election, must be in Spanish as well as English, if the vote of Spanish-speaking
citizens is not to be seriously impaired . . (and to ensure) that their vote will be
more than a mere physical act void of any meaningful choice. Plaintiffs cannot cast
an effective vote without being able to comprehend fully the registration and
election forms and the ballot itself. (Slip Opinion at pp. 6-7.) Torres v. Sac/is, 73 Civ.
3921 (SD. N.Y. July 25, 1974).
Torres v. Sac/is was only one of a number of lawsuits brought on behalf of Puerto
Ricans under Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act. As a result of other lawsuits, the
entire state of New York, three coUnties in New Jersey, and the cities of Philadel-
phia and Chicago have bilingual elections.
When Congress expanded the Voting Rights Act in 1975 to include protections for
other language minority citizens it was acknowledging what the courts had decided
already: that non-English speaking U.S. citizens have a right to assistance in their
own language.
Sadly, many members of Congress wish now to do away with protections they
determined six years ago were necessaryin order to insure equal access to the polls
for all U.S. citizens, regardless of their ability to speak or understand English.
Opponents of bilingual elections have alleged that bilingual elections are "too
costly" and that they promote cultural separatism. I believe these allegations are
unfounded. Members of this subcommittee have heard extensive testimony to the
effect that many of the high costs associated with bilingual elections are erroneous
and misleading. I would like to add here that New York City has never felt
burdened by the requirement to provide assistance to non-English speaking voters.
The Director of the Board of Elections for New York City reports without resent-
ment that the costs of bilingual assistance are "all part of our system."
Testimony presented to the subcommittee by the Lieutenant Governor of New
Mexico, Roberto Mondragon, was persuasive in dispelling the allegations that bilin-
gual elections will lead to cultural separatism. He pointed out that the state of New
Mexico has provided bilingual assistance since 1912 and that New Mexico has the
highest degree of minority participation and representation of any state. So I hope
that these allegations can be laid to rest.
But before doing so, I feel compelled to say that I believe much of the opposition
to bilingual elections is the result not of their high cost or even of their "promoting
cultural separatism" but of an anti-Hispanic, anti-foreign sentiment that is so
pervasive now. As a nation, we seem to be unduly fearful of "hordes of refugees and
aliens" whom, it is thought, will overrun our shores.
I am deeply saddened by these sentiments and the negative actions taken by
legislators in response to them. But I am hopeful that this committee and this
Congress will not confuse the voting rights of millions of U.S. citizens with such
negative sentiments. I am hopeful that this committee and this Congress will indeed
extend the Voting Rights Act and all of its temporary provisions until 1992.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to show my overwhelming sup-
port for H.R. 3112, an extension of key provisions of the Voting
Rights Act. I am supportive of the 10-year extension of the special
provisions, the 7-year extension of the language minority provi-
sions, the amendment to section 2 which enables the victims of
voting discrimination to challenge discriminatory election practices
without the necessity of proving discriminatory purpose.
Mr. Chairman, as the only Hispanic Member of Congress from
the State of New York, which has an Hispanic population, accord-
PAGENO="0611"
1485
ing to the census, of almost 10 percent, which, as chairman of the
Census Subcommittee I can assure you the undercount is very
extensive.
As chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, whose mem-
bers represent the Nation's more than 18 million Hispanic Ameri-
cans-within that figure, Mr. Chairman, I have also included the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with their 3.5 million population.
There is no question when you look at the U.S. Congress, six of
us-five of us who vote-Hispanics are vastly underrepresented in
the U.S. Congress and at all levels of government throughout the
United States.
I would say, to deviate from my statement, I am a product of the
1965 Voting Rights Act. I was the first Senator of Hispanic origin
to be elected to my State, the State of New York. Even though in
those days, Mr. Chairman, we had a population almost I would say
of about 1 million people, we never were able to get an Hispanic
elected to the New York State Senate. We had maybe two mem-
bers, three members of the State assembly. We had no members of
the city council. And the reason was very plain, that the reappor-
tionment-and having been involved in four different reapportion-
ments myself, I speak from experience, Mr. Chairman-when it
comes to the political reapportionment of Districts, every member,
whether they be at the State level or the Federal level, we are all
going to look out for ourselves and what is good for us, and that
districts where there is no question they. are compact and contigu-
ous, that truly represent large blocs of Hispanics, large blocs of
blacks, are split and cut up in so many different pieces that it is a
virtual impossibility to be able to elect a person from a minority
group.
Mr. Chairman, I would say these are very difficult times for
Hispanics. I think the trend in this country has been very negative.
I sit as the chairman of the Census and Population Committee
and 1 held some hearings on immigration. There is hostility, Mr.
Chairman, no matter how you want to. cut it, no matter how it
surfaces, when the large groups of Haitians and Cubans were arriv-
ing. There are many people in this country who just did not want
them.
I am certain, Mr. Chairman, if those same immigrants were
crossing the Atlantic from various Anglo-Saxon parts of the Atlan-
tic or Europe that there would not have been the same objection as
there has been because of race and because of color.
I say that also because, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to call it
the way it is~ There are ways tQ discuss it and we can use the right
adjective and right word at a time so it does not appear we are
discriminating, but there is a hard core discrimination throughout
this country.
Just let. me speak in terms of the Hispanic and the Hispanic's
opportunity for the media. In spite of what my colleague from the
State of California, who I understand is also a candidate for the
U.S. Senate from that State as well, and who has always been a
champion, and-it really hurts me personally to come here and
* testify after him and have him say what he said-but the Hispanic
community is probably one of the few communities, Mr. Chairman,
that has for the first time nationwide, just as ABC and NBC and
PAGENO="0612"
1486
CBS, a major network that broadcasts one-half hour of news every
day into approximately 24 cities throughout America where there
is a large Hispanic community, which means that the Hispanic,
while in fact he may not be able to read or write, he is certainly
knowledgeable as to what is taking place in this country.
In terms of newspapers, in Los Angeles you a have a newspaper
called La Opinion, the opinion. And in New York we have El
Diario. These are large newspapers. These are papers with tremen-
dous circulations. And, again, well-written newspapers that reach a
large community. So that again not only from the media but also
from the printed word you a have got a community that truly
knows what is happening within their respective communities.
What we are doing here today, Mr. Chairman-I know the
number of radio stations in California alone, there are 24 radio
stations that are Hispanic.
When I was holding a hearing, Mr. Chairman, in the city of
Houston with my colleague Mickey Leland, on the census, I re-
member a gentleman coming up and testifying before us and he
testified that he had owned an all-English-speaking radio station-I
will never forget this-and was losing money, Mr. Chairman. What
happened was he converted that station to an all-Spanish radio
station. He said his revenues have never been higher. He. said he
received all sorts of threatening phone calls for devoting all of that
energy to those wetbaöks, to those-it was just awful, the testimo-
ny. I would be delighted to make that testimony part of this record.
The point is he nevertheless pursued and continued and that
station today is alive and well in the city of Houston.
I use these examples, Mr. Chairman, because even in my own
nomination when I decided to run for the U.S. Congress I want to
make it clear it is not just one party, it is two parties that discrimi-
nate. My party is just as bad as the other party when it comes to
reapportionment.
The franchise is with the political bosses, Mr. Chairman; that is
who controls.
When I decided I was going to run for the U.S. Congress, and I
was a New York State Senator, the deputy minority leader, Mr.
Chairman, I could not run on my own party's line. I had to run as
a Republican because I never got along with that person who was
my county chairman because he, in fact, had other thoughts and I
would never participate with him in terms of what took place in
the State capital.
The point is these are the same people, Mr. Chairman, who pick
up the phone and call the leadership of both Houses and draw the
lines as to how the new districts will be. So I believe that with
what we all and what you have now come to know as section 5, the
preclearance, which covers my county, incidentally, the county of
the Bronx in the city of New York-I think that is essential.
But I believe that should also go into many of the Southern
States. The attorney general of the State of South Carolina sat
here and talked about a population of 900,000 in a State, his State,
the State of South Carolina, and yet there was not one, not one
black member of the State senate. There is no excuse for that.
There is just none.
In the State of Texas there is not one black State senator.
PAGENO="0613"
1487
Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me that anybody who has the
slightest amount of commonsense should realize that those lines
are lines that until the Attorney Genral plays a major role, and
goes into those States-I remember, Mr. Chairman, when I was
listening to testimony in the State of Texas, a small group came
and testified in terms of breaking down the census tracks in the
State of Texas. If it is a population of 10,000 or less they don't give
you the breakdown.
In many of these small towns how are you going to be able to
break that figure down to be able to reapportion if you don't have
those census tracks that come in below the 10,000 figure.
Mr. Chairman, I know that these are very difficult times, espe-
cially for minorities. There is a trend in this country that is
moving so far to the right which makes it very difficult.
I don't expect to be applauded in my effort here before you, not
because of this, but I just think the whole question of this Congress
and the mood toward the renewal of the Voting Rights Act is going
to be close at best. But I am not optimistic in terms of its passage
in both Houses, and if. it should be that it should be signed into law
by this President.
It is a shame because I think when you exclude any American
from the process you are excluding all of us. While power is the
name of the game, there is no question in my mind that I think
this country is the poorer for what has developed and what is
developing.
I just would like to applaud you because I know you have been a
champion as it relates to trying to get everybody into the main-
stream, and I think these hearings are essential.
I very seldom testify, Mr. Chairman, before committees. This is
only about the second or third time. But the issue, as far as I am
concerned, is that important, and I thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Your. testimony was not
only useful but it was very moving and it is much appreciated.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I also want to thank you, Representative
Garcia, and I also want to refer to your fine work during the last
Congress when you authored a bill establishing the Federal equal
opportunity recruitment program, which is now part of the Civil
Service Reform Act.
* I cannot say any more than to allude. to-direct your attention to
* your remarks on page 4 of .your submission, and. you say it all
there. You feel compelled to say you believe much of the opposition
to bilingual elections is. a result not of their high costs or even of
their promoting cultural separatism, but to an anti-Hispanic and
antiforeign sentiment that is pervasive in this country.
Substitute black for `Hispanic, you get the same result. Substi-
tute, to a certain extent,. the word Jewish, and you get the same
result.
As you so well pointed out, I think until this country gets its
head together in reference to its minority groups, we are going to
have some serious, serious trouble.
1 can't add anything. I want to compliment you on a very cogent
statement.
PAGENO="0614"
1488
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Washington, if I may, one of the things Mr.
McCloskey failed to mention is that when a person enters into a
precinct to vote-just let me speak from my own experience in the
State of New York, we have these big black cards that are on the
wall describing the candidates and the office and it is in both
English and Spanish.
Many people come in and they will read that in Spanish. They
will not ask for a ballot in most instances, but they will read that
black card and they will know. But had that black card not been
there in English and Spanish, many of them would have problems
and especially Puerto Ricans who were born as American citizens
and who come to New York or Northern parts of the United States
and who really cannot speak English, and yet they are citizens by
birth.
So when he talked about 25 ballots or 40 or 50 ballots being
printed, the fact is many of those people read this black card, a
facsimile of what they are actually going to be doing, and actually
what the voting machine looks like, so that his testimony is not
necessarily complete.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Lungren?
Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Garcia, on the question of the bilingual ballot ap-
proach, is that something that you think is only of a temporary
duration or is it something that ought to be permanent?
Mr. GARCIA. I would have no problem. I would think it should be
permanent as long as there are Americans who have difficulty in
truly understanding a ballot in only the English language.
Mr. LUNGREN. Evidently you have a rather strong feeling about
some who suggest that bilingual ballots might be one means of
promoting cultural separatism.
Let me just ask you: Do you think there is any validity to that?
Do you recognize as a sincere concern on the part of some that
they don't want this country moving in the direction of a Quebec
situation, and to the extent they have that concern can you suggest
how they can view this bilingual ballot just as limited in the
electoral context and not as part of a promotion of cultural sepa-
ratism?
Mr. GARCIA. On the question of Quebec, because that question
has come up time and time again, I think the situation in the
United States is totally different than that which has taken place
in Canada today between the Province of Quebec and the rest of
the country.
The English and French historically have been at odds. Whether
you go to France or England, that has been the situation, and
when they first joined together, Canada and Quebec, they truly
never tried to put that act together. So, consequently, over the
decades the situation has become exacerbated in Quebec.
I feel my own sense-I feel that every person in this country
should speak English. There is no question in my mind and I would
want that to be. I believe we have to be competitive. I am a
believer in bilingual education, not for the sake of perpetuatlng,
but to make us competitive. But I want to make it very clear that
as long as there are youngsters out there and people who are
PAGENO="0615"
1489
citizens and have a problem, that we have to make it our business
that they go into those polling places and that they have every tool
available~ to. them to make certain that they vote in an intelligent
* manner. That, to me, is very important.
It reminds, me of a joke, but it is true, about this person who goes
into a court for- citizenship and he says, "Your Honor, you will
forgiva. me, Mr.' Judge, but you know, I don'ta speaka so good an
English, but I coma before you and I want to be a good American."
And the Judge looks down from the bench and he says, "Look, as
longa as I ama the Judge, you gonna be a citizen." And that is the
point, as long as a person speaks with an accent or has difficulty,
that does not make them less of a citizen.
What I am saying is we have, to be sure that everything is made
available.
I think the cost, as Mr. McCloskey has said, from the time we
involved ourselves in the bilingual situation as it regards the bal-
lots today, the cost has decreased accordingly.
The. question I would have liked to have asked Mr. McCloskey, if
in fact the private group in Redwood' had decided to print those
ballots, would it have made any difference to the people of Red-
wood that that was being printed at private expense, at the cost of
some private individual, as opposed to coming to the $1,700 that
came out of taxpayers' money?
I would venture to. say, Mr. Lungren, that the problem would
still prevail. It is not the money. It was not the money. It is the
question of having the ballot.
So when he talks about the financial aspects of what this Voting
Rights Act is all about as it involves the~,ballot being in two
languages, I would dare say that is not the case.
Mr. LUNGREN. I am on another Subcommittee on Immigration
and very much involved in the whole refugee issue and, believe it
or not, get accused of being both a conservative Sand liberal at the
same time.
Mr. GARCIA. That is a tough situation.
Mr. LUNGREN. No one seems to be satisfied with what you do
there. One of the major, I think, bits of information our subcom-
mittee probably achieved when we. brought them out to California
recently was the crux of the problem with the refugees appears to
be, in almost every instance, language difficulty.
Those that are not being able to get off welfare and work, it is
because of language difficulty. Those who are having problems, just
about every area it was language difficulty.
One of the things I think we concluded on both sides of the aisle,
at least from our subcommittee, was we had' not done a good
enough effort in promoting the learning of English with those
individuals.
I just have a' major concern in terms `of policy decisionmaking as
to whether we do that, and whether this is an element of that. I
understand your concern about people' voting not knowing what
they are doing, and I don't want that happening either.
Mr. GARCIA. But it can take place, Mr. Lungren, and that is the
problem we face. Just what I hope to do, what I hope to accomplish
by testifying before this committee is to make that point: because I
just feel it is important for you as well as it is for me.
PAGENO="0616"
1490
I dare say that the three of us who are here as Members of
Congress, all of us within our districts have Hispanics, and I would
just think we would want those persons as they go to know what
the issues are, what you stand for, what Mr. Edwards stands for,
and what I stand for, and I hope they would be able to weigh all of
that and vote intelligently.
In this business it is not 100 percent one way or the other. It is a
question of how far you go; it is 80-20 or 70-30 or 60-40, or even
51-49; I don't know. But it just seems to me we have that responsi-
bility as Members of the U.S. Congress. And it is not easy as it
deals with immigration and the whole question because I face it,
too.
I get hell from the other side. They beat me up all of the time.
But what can I do? I am not quitting. I am going to run for
reelection again and I am sure you are. And I am sure Mr. Ed-
wards is.
Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you.
Mr. GARCIA. It is a tough business. These are difficult days and
everything we do is looked at and measured.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. It was just very impressive
testimony, and thanks to your assistants.
We will now have a panel presentation. Our witnesses are Mr.
Arnold Torres, a congressional liaison with the League of United
Latin American Citizens, and Henry Der, executive director, Chi-
nese for Affirmative Action.
Gentlemen, we welcome you. Without objection, the statement
will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Torres is first or Mr. Der?
TESTIMONY OF ARNOLD TORRES, CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON,
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND HENRY
DER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION
Mr. TORRES. I will proceed, sir.
I would like to apologize first to the members of the committee
and to staff for not preparing our written testimony in time to
circulate it and distribute it to the members.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the committee and their staff
for allowing us and giving us this opportunity to testify on what we
have been informed as to the minority language provisions of the
Voting Rights Act.
Basically, introduction-wise, I am Arnold Torres, Congressional
Liaison for the League of United Latin American Citizens, the
country's oldest and largest Hispanic organization, and we would
like to direct our comments primarly to the testimony that has
been provided by Mr. McCloskey and to try and provide a different
perspective or, better yet, a more clear perspective of the need for
bilingual provisions.
LULAC is extremely supportive and would underscore the neces-
sity to extend the Voting Rights Act as is without any changes. In
fact, if there were to be any changes politically I would not expect
it to be very feasible.
We would like to see more money go into enforcement aspects of
it as well as more moneys into resources for the Department of
PAGENO="0617"
1491
Justice to insure and. to respond to complaints and objections from
litigant groups.
We were very, very interested and found very stimulating the
statements made by Mr. McCloskey. He gave the example of Red-
wood City of a population of 8,622 Spanish origin citizens. He
indicated, without having any documentation, he felt out of the
8,622, 50 percent of those were of voting eligibility. Again, we don't
exactly know the number. I don't have that kind of information at
my fingertips.
Furthermore, he indicates that the cost to the city of Redwood
was $1,784.59 for Spanish language materials. He does not clarify
if, in fact, that $1,784.59 are just on the bilingual ballot or if, in
fact, they were for the purposes of providing voting materials,
election materials in Spanish or other languages.
Again, another piece of detailed information which is necessary
in order to get a much more clear picture of the situation.
Third, in his statement, written as well as verbalized, he said
that 60 requested Spanish language materials and only 25 actually
voted.
It escapes us to make any conclusions from that statement until
the 35 who didn't vote on the Spanish language materials or ballots
have been surveyed as to the reasons why they didn't.
I think the problem really lies in the fact that many assumptions
are being made about the bilingual ballot, but more importantly
about the overall issue of the minority language provisions.
Mr. McCloskey has, unfortunately, in support of bilingual educa-
tion, perhaps has not fully understood the purpose of it. It is not
intended to provide educational services to people who are not in
school. It is a program, educational program for minority children
or children who do not have English as a dominant language, and
do not speak English primarily.
It does not address the problem of the individual in this country
who entered back in the 1930's or 1920's who was not really held to
a very, very stringent citizenship or naturalization requirements of
having to speak English. It does not address and does not begin to
deal with the issue of the new migrant from Spanish-speaking
countries or from other countries that do not have English as their
dominant language.
We find that in the census of 1980 that the Bureau of the Census
has indicated that the growth in the Hispanic community cannot
be solely looked at, nor is it solely .based on the birth rates of the
Hispanic community, but more importantly perhaps it is as a
result and consequence of migrant patterns.
We are not finding migrants or immigrants from Mexico and
other countries of Latin America who are 6 and 7 and 10 and 15
years old coming that are open to bilingual eduation, but unfortu-
nately are not in a position to vote.
So bilingual education is not a remedy to deal with the language
problems that a person has who is of voting eligibility.
That is something that perhaps should be underscored insofar as
dealing with the interests in repealing the provisions, the minority
language provisions.
PAGENO="0618"
1492
The other thing that concerns us is that whole idea that the
bilingual ballot should be scratched because it is an intent or
perhaps serves to create a Quebec in the United States.
The primary purpose of the Voting Rights Act and the minority
langauge provisions is to try to correct and try to establish a
mechanism that will allow people to participate in the democratic
society of the United States. The democratic society allows, guaran-
tees, and has as one of its most cherished rights the right to vote.
The creation of a Voting Rights Act was-I don't need to really
go into this-but we need to emphasize the fact that if the States
were doing their job, the Voting Rights Act would never have come
about.
If San* Mateo or Redwood City would have somehow provided
their own type of system, educational system, or whatever you
would like, in order to address the problem of not allowing His-
panics equal entry into the elections process, then there wouldn't
be a Voting Rights Act whatsoever.
But because of the shortcomings of States and local jurisdictions,
because of the pervasive discrimination in certain parts of the
country, not only toward the Hispanic but toward blacks and other
minorities, the Voting Rights Act was created arid passed by Con-
gress.
So to us it escapes us as to the concern that people have to do
away with minority language provisions. It is not an educational
program. It is a program that provides a mechanism by which the
abridged rights of a large segment of this country's population are
being given the opportunity to vote under circumstances that were
not there before.
We wanted to provide you with a very brief overview. I have 5
minutes and I wanted to get this over with real quick to satisfy
counsel.
In 1977 the Secretary of State of California conducted a study, a
section 1655 study in which they found a number of problems on
the part of the counties. I wanted to just go very briefly over the
problems of recruitment, lack of recruitment of bilingual person-
nel, a very, very lightweight or, better yet, a very superficial selec-
tion process in which you had in the general election, at least in
the county of Fresno in the State of California, some bilingual
election officers who could not answer a simple question such as
"Hay personas que hablan Espanol en este recinto de votacion?"
[Are there Spanish-speaking precinct workers at this polling
place?].
Also the assignments of bilingual personnel was never made in
areas where there was assessments of need of precincts, in certain
precincts in the award of their need of people that had a certain
bilingual skill.
There are a number of problems insofar as targeting. Many
counties that are covered under the VRA in the State of California,
instead of targeting decided to blanket; obviously that increased
the cost of anything they did.
In addition to that, they continued to do a very poor job insofar
as outreach services. Or they did not work with outside community
groups very well at all.
PAGENO="0619"
1493
I guess maybe we can allow for the questions. But the point is a
lot of work has gone into trying to have the act be that to many
which they have not been afforded before, the opportunity to vote.
There are a lot of things that need to be done to improve the act.
Obviously, the extension of it would help very much.
One last point. Some people may ask us why are we concerned
with extension, having the minority language provisions discussed
now as part of the overall extension of the Voting Rights Act in
view of the fact these provisions do not expire until 1985.
It is our view administratively, bureaucratically, and morally, we
have five abridged groups under the Voting Rights Act: blacks,
Hispanics, native Americans, Alaskans, and Asian Americans, and
they all have the same problem.
To separate the one mechanism that is attempting to remedy
those problems does not appear to make much sense, and certainly
is a very costly and unnecessary function of congressional over-
sight.
The opportunity presents itself as it does now to bring together
both aspects of the act, and we would underscore the necessity to
dO just that.
If the act is to be extended, the minority provisions should be
extended along with the overall sections of the act.
Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Torres.
As a matter of fact, the registrars in California really sabotaged
the bill by, as I said earlier, by completely flooding their districts
with a lot of unnecessary material at taxpayers' expense, and since
that time--
Mr. TORRES. They~ are improved somewhat.
Mr. EDWARDS. They have improved tremendously. And it is very
much I think to Mr. McCloskey's credit he has taken back his
original accusations that the bill was terribly expensive. It is not
expensive.
Mr~ TORRES. No. Not if it is implemented correctly.
Mr. EDWARDS. It was definite testimony today.
Mr. TORRES. It has changed and has altered significantly. One
point was of the 35 counties I think only two did not blanket back
in the 1976, election in the State of California in 1977. So in our
opinion you put it very well. They did, in our opinion, very much
sabotage the act and they have done a very good job because, the
fallout of their initial criticisms still looms over'±hese provisions as
evidenced by Mr. McCloskey's testimony, and the sentiments and
opinions of some of the members of this subcommittee and other
Members of this Congress.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Mr. Der?
Mr. DER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Because I have submitted an 18-page written testimony, I don't
* think that the 5 minutes or 10 minutes allotted will permit me to
read all 18.
Mr. EDWARDS. I' think a couple of `pages of it, but the entire
statement, of course-and it is a splendid statement-will be made
a part of the record, and you may proceed as you desire.
PAGENO="0620"
1494
Mr. DER. I was just going to do that. That was to summarize
some of my written comments.
[The statement of Mr. Der follows:]
TESTIMONY OF HENRY DER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION
I am Henry Der, Executive Director of Chinese for Affirmative Aátion.
Chinese for Affirmative Action is a voluntary membership-supported, San Fran-
cisco-based non-profit organization dedicated to defend the civil rights of Chinese
Americans and to promote equal employment opportunities for members of the
Chinese American Community.
For the past six years, Chinese for Affirmative Action has played an active role to
monitor and assist the office of the San Francisco Registrar of Voters for compliance
with Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires the City and County of
San Francisco to conduct its election in Chinese and Spanish, as well as in English.
Ever since President Gerald Ford signed the 1975 bilingual election amendments
into law, the opponents of bilingual elections have been relentless in their emotion-
al, fever-pitched campaign to belittle the rights of language minority citizens and to
virtually accuse these citizens for being un-American and lazy. While it is almost
impossible to persuade these opponents of bilingual elections to reverse or moderate
their views, there is a compelling need to answer the charges that: (1) Bilingual
elections are costly; (2) language minority citizens do not want to learn English; (3)
the federal bilingual elections law is ineffective and unworkable.
I. THE COSTS OF BILINGUAL ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN GROSSLY EXAGGERATED AND
INCORRECT
Even before the 1975 bilingual election amendments were enacted. The San
Francisco Registrar of Voters predicted that it would cost $2 million to implement
trilingual elections in San Francisco. The California Secretary of State March Fong
Eu characterized the 1975 bilingual elections amendments as a "financial albatross"
around the necks of state and local governments, requiring the expenditure of "$20
million" to send a trilingual ballot pamphlet (English, Spanish, and Chinese) to
every registered voter in California. (Ms. Eu's assumption about a trilingual ballot
pamphlet for every California voter was incorrect.) Ms. Eu's Office also predicated
that the printing of a trilingual ballot pamphlet would "consume a full one third of
the total uncommitted current newsprint supply available in the United States and
Canada."
These and other predictions made by other election officials throughout California
were dramatic, but totally misleading and over-inflated. In almost every instance,
the costs of bilingual elections were less than 5 percent of what was predicted. The
San Francisco Registrar of Voters spent $40,250 to print Chinese and Spanish
ballots and ballot pamphlets for the November 1975 Municipal Election, the first
election to be covered by the newly-enacted bilingual elections law. The Secretary of
State spent $278,000 to print bilingual ballot pamphlets or about 1 + percent of her
original prediction for the June 1976 Primary Election. In spite of these actual costs,
these predictions of "multi-million" dollar bilingual elections from the outset have
created the lingering impression on the general public that bilingual elections are
costly and unnecessary.
As if the prediction of a $2 million trilingual election in San Francisco was not
bad enough, the City and County of San Francisco wasted over $84,000 in October,
1975, to send a notice of inquiry on plain bond paper without any official letterhead
to then all 271,718 San Francisco registered voters to ask whether they needed
bilingual, written, materials.. The Chinese and Spanish portions of this notice of
inquiry read:
"The purpose of this notice is to find out if you would prefer your written
electoral materials and information in Chinese or Spanish or verbal assistance in
the voting booth. . . . If you would prefer this, please check the box or boxes on the
enclosed card and mail it as soon as possible. The card must be in the mail within 5
days if you want to have the information or assistance in another language at the
November elections."
* There was no telephone number listed in the Chinese or Spanish portions of this
notice of inquiry. The only method of requesting Chinese or Spanish materials was
in writing. Nothing in the notice indicated that the reader had the right under
federal and state law to receive election materials in their native language.
The response to this kind of chilling, ineffective inquiry was predictably low. 783
voters requested election materials printed in Chinese and 580 requested materials
PAGENO="0621"
1495
printed in Spanish. Riled by this notice of inquiry, an equal number of citizens
adamantly opposed to bilingual elections went out of their way to send back the
prepaid. postage card with scribbled comments like: "American people that don't
make an effort to learn English should not have the privilege to vote." "Let these
people learn our language. Stop changing things to suit them." "American language
only." "If they don't like it, let them go back where they came from."
It never occurred to San Francisco officials to spend the $84,750 on voter registra-
tion and education among affected language minority communities as one means of
including non-English speaking citizens into the democratic process.
The San Francisco Registrar of Voters, also went ahead and printed 25,000 ballot
pamphlets each in Chinese and Spanish for the November, 1975 election. Because
the San Francisco Registrar of voters had not developed an effective plan to identify
and register language minority voters, San Francisco officials did not distribute
many of.the 50,000 ballot pamphlets in Chinese and Spanish. The cost to conduct a
trilingual election in November, 1975, could and should have been much less than
$125,000.
What is the cost to conduct trilingual elections? Opponents of bilingual elections
have been quick `to cite price tags from $537 per language minority vote cost in
Redwood City, San Mateo County to $10,668 per vote cost in Solano County in
California as the consequences of~ complying with federal law. Proponents of bilin-
gual elections have never asserted that it would cost no extra dollars to implement
bilingual elections. But, given the general lack of comprehensive voter outreach and
registration plans .targeted towards language minority citizens throughout affected
counties in California, it is not surprising that "bilingual" ballots are underutilized
and that .the unit cost of language minority ballots has been made more expensive
than the unit cost for English ballots.
There is a great need~ to examine the' cost of conducting bilingual elections
relative to the cost of government. Listed below is the breakdown of the trilingual
election costs incurred in San Francisco for the June 1980 Primary Election to
November 1980 General Election:
`
June 1980
November
primary
election
1980 general
election
Personnel
$6,366
4,771
30,975
10,000
~
52,851
$8,250
3,661
49,553
10,000
72,203
Advertising
Voter pamphlet
Other printing
Miscellaneous
Total trilingual costs
It should be noted' that the ballot for the November 1980 General Election was
more lengthy than the average because of the unusually large number of supervi-
sorial candidates, local and state propositions, and the:city charter revision amend-
ment, thereby requiring the printing of two ballot pamphlets per voter. The cost of
$72,203 for the bilingual components of the November 1980 General Election does
not accurately reflect the average costs for the bilingual components of an election.
The price tag of' $52,851 for the June 1980 Primary Election is more typical of the
average cost.
Contrary to the widely held misconception that bilingual elections cost the Ameri-
can public "an arm and a leg", the cost to conduct elections in three languages is
insignificant compared to the cost of government listed below are some comparative
cost figures within San Francisco city government:
Item
Budget
Percentage ot total
city budget
All city departments
SF registrar of voters
November 1980
$1,069,000,000
1,800,000
900,000
100.000
.168
.084
Bilingual components of November 1980
72,203
.006
PAGENO="0622"
1496
Bilingual components of the November 1980 General Election cost barely six-one-
thousandth of one percent of the total 1980-81 City budget. Bilingual elections in
San Francisco are clearly neither a significant nor expensive cost item. (Because the
November 1980 General Election was not typical, the costs of bilingual elections are
more like 0.004 percent of the total city budget). -
Critics may claim that the bilingual components of the November 1980 General
Election accounted for 8 percent of the total cost of that election. Greater scrutiny is
needed to demonstrate that the bilingual costs incurred are reasonable. Of the
$72,203 spent on the bilingual components is the November general election, $49,522
was spent on both the Chinese and Spanish voter pamphlets in the following
manner:
November 1980 bilingual voter pamphets
Translation:
Chinese $24,166
Spanish 15,360
Printing: 18,000 pamphlets total 9,074
Postage 952
49,552
Unless an office has the in-house capability, outside costs will always be incurred
to translate the voter ballot pamphlet and other related election materials into the
affected minority languages.
The cost to print and distribute the language minority ballot pamphlet is compa-
rable to the cost for the English ballot pamphlet.
November 1980 pamphlet
Printing
Postage
English
Chinese/Spanish
$139,834
9,074
$85,503
952
407,982
18,000
55.2
55.7
As of October, 1980, the San Francisco Registrar of Voters had on record 3,206
requests for election materials in Spanish. Undoubtedly opponents of bilingual
elections will argue that the unit cost per language minority vote in the 1980
November General Election was $15.70 as compared to the 964 unit cost for the
234,627 voter cost in English. It is a mistake to calculate the unit cost per language
minority vote based on the number of requests for bilingual materials.
Immediately after the December 1979 Run-off Election, the San Francisco Regis-
trar of Voters surveyed the head inspectors of 46 targeted Chinese precincts out of a
total of 900+ city precincts. In these 46 precincts, a total of 7,104 ballots were cast.
Of these, 2,986 or 42 percent were cast by non-English speakers. The number of non-
English speakers who actually vote in an election is considerably higher than the
number of requests for written language minority materials.
California State election laws require considerably more printed, written materi-
als distributed to every voter than what is required in other states. Bilingual
elections materials are only an extension of existent state election requirements and
laws. It is unfair for critics to lambast the cost of bilingual elections without
carefully examining the basic costs involved in conducting English elections. For
example, in San Francisco alone, over 50,000 English ballot pamphlets are returned
to the Office of the Registrar of Voters every election because the registered voter
did not vote, move, or failed to notify officials of a change in residence. The costs to
print and mail and receive back these unused English ballot pamphlets, to check
the voter rolls, and to send a postcard verification are as follows:
English Ballot Pamphlets for Nonvoters
Printing: 50,0020 cents $10,000
Postage: 50,000x23 cents 11,500
Return postage: 50,000 x 25 cents 12,500
Clerical 20,000
Verification: 30,000x9 cents 2,700
Return postage: 10,000 xiS cents 1,500
Total 58,200
PAGENO="0623"
1497
Clearly, San Francisco spends more for English ballot pamphlets sent to non-
voters per election~than for bilingual pamphlets, $58,200 vs. $49,552.
There is no doubt that the effectiveness and efficiency of various city/county
registrar of voters offices can be improved~ If so, both English and bilingual elec-
tions costs would be considerably lower.
II. LANGUAGE MINORITY CITIZENS WANT TO LEARN ENGLISH AND TO VOTE
Critics of bilingual elections have often characterized bilingual elections as a ploy
by language minority communities to promote ethnic separation. There is the
sterotype held by many that language minority citizens do not want to learn
English. Opponents also question how naturalized language minority citizens gained
their status without learning sufficient English to vote. Naturally, persons opposed
to bilingual elections do not understand the discriminatory experiences that Chinese
Americans have had to suffer and which have made it difficult for Chinese Ameri-
cans, particularly the elderly, to learn English.
Not until 1943 were Chinese persons permitted to become naturalized citizens of
our country. This historic prohibition against citizenship by Chinese Americans
have had a devastating impact on many of today's elderly citizens who were denied
equal educational and socio-economic opportunities during their younger days. The
brutality of this federal prohibition forced Chinese Americans to look inwardly to
the Chinatowns of America were opportunities were few and interaction with other
Americans occurred infrequently.
At least 20 percent of the Chinese American adult population are employed either
as seamstresses, janitors, maids, waiters, busboys, or unskilled workers. These per-
sons know only too well that, if they possessed greater English language skills, they
would be able to attain better-paying employment opportunities and gain greater
social mobility in our society.
In spite of their long working hours, many of these Chinese adults are motivated
to learn English. One out of every 4 students (25%) enrolled in adult classes at S.F.
Community College District today is Chinese; Practically all of these Chinese adult
students are enrolled in English language classes. The percentage of Chinese adult
students far exceed the 15 percent Chinese representation in the total city popula-
tion.
Chinese Americans can hardly be characterized as not wanting to learn English.
While Chinese for Affirmative Action has been a strong advocate for bilingual
elections, we have also encouraged all limited, non-English Chinese speakers to
learn English and to become active participants in the democratic process. Over ten
years ago, Chinese for Affirmative Action took the initiative to produce the Emmy
award-winning 65 half-hour television series, "Practical English," to teach English
to Chinese adults with an accompanying set of 4 Practical English Handbooks.
Through a subsequent federal grant,. Chinese for Affirmative produced the "Practi-
cal English Tape Kit" comprised of 29 one-hour audio cassette tapes to complement
the Practical English Handbook for home learning. To date, the Practical English
Tape Kit has been distributed to over 25 percent of the non-English speaking
Chinese adult population throughout the country.
Recent amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act have attempted to
remedy the longstanding discriminatory practices against Chinese persons. Perma-
nent resident aliens who are at least 50 years old and have resided in America for
20 years do not have to met the English language requirement of the naturalization
examination. Title VIII US Code 1423 provides:
"No person except as otherwise provided in this subchapter shall hereafter be
naturalized as citizen of the United States upon his own petition who cannot
demonstrate-
"(1) an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write,
and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language: [Provided], That this
requirement shall not apply to any person physically unable to comply therewith, if
otherwise qualified to be naturalized, or to any person who, on the date of the filing
of his petition for naturalization as provided in section 1445 of this title, is over fifty
years of age and has been living in the United States for periods totaling at least
twenty years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence: [Provided
further], That the requirement of this section relating to ability to read and write
shall be met if the applicant can read or write simple words and phrases to the end
that a reasonable test of his literacy shall be made and that no extraordinary or
unreasonable condition shall be imposed upon the applicant; and
"(2) a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the
principles and form of government, of United States."
PAGENO="0624"
1498
By virtue of their long time residence in America, many Chinese adults have
become citizens under this provision of the law. It is important to note though that
these persons still had to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of American
history and government.
Applicants for citizenship who are not at least 50 years old must demonstrate the
ability to read and write simple words and phrases in English. Frequent questions
asked during the English language portion of the citizenship examination include:
What's your name? Where do you live? How many children do you have? Who is the
President of the United States? Is this a book?
A review of the English language used in a typical ballot proposition demonstates
that more than simple English words and phrases are used. Attached as Appendix
A is a copy of the state and local propositions appearing on the November 4, 1980
General Election ballot plus an excerpt from Propositions L-the Retirement Cost-
of-Living Increase.
There is no reason to penalize language minority citizens from voting because
they do not comprehend the English used on a typical ballot and ballot pamphlet. In
addition to the assistance of the translation of all official elections materials, there
exist a dozen daily or weekly Chinese language community newspapers which play
an important role in informing and educating the public about political candidates,
their stands on different issues, and political propositions. These Chinese language
newspapers include: Chinese Times, Sing Tao Daily, Young China Daily, China
Daily, World Journal, Tien Shing Weekly, East/West, Asian Week, San Francisco
Journal, Truth Semi-Weekly, Chinese Pacific Weekly, Far East Times.
In addition to these newspapers, there are numerous Chinese language radio
programs dealing with current events and political issues in our society.
III. BILINGUAL ELECTIONS CAN WORK IF LOCAL OFFICIALS WANT THEM TO WORK
No one will argue that it take some effort to enfranchise language minority
citizens who have been excluded from the democratic process and to develop and
implement effective bilingual elections. But, the task is not so monumental that it is
impossible. If local election officials work in good faith and try to solicit the
cooperation of affected language minority communities, tremendous progress can be
achieved to make language minority citizens equal participants in the electoral
process and our society~
It is commonplace for some election officials to believe that the mere printing of
bilingual materials fulfills the requirements of the 1975 bilingual elections amend-
ments. There is more to bilingual elections than just a bilingual ballot or ballot
pamphlet. Specifically, the presence of bilingual poil assistance is a major compo-
nent in assisting language minority voters to cast an effective ballot.
The tenure of Mr. Thomas Kearney as San Francisco Registrar of Voters from the
period of May, 1976 to February, 1980 is a clear demonstration of how one local
official can thwart compliance with federal law and implementation of effective
bilingual election.
Immediately after the 1975 amendments were enacted the law, Chinese for Af-
firmative Action persuaded the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to establish a
Multilingual Citizens Task Force to assist in the implementation of the Voting
Rights Act. In spite of the appointment of concerned language minority citizens to
the Multilingual Citizens Task Force, the Registrar led to the demise of the Task
Force within one year of its creation.
Prior to the June 1976 Primary Election, Chinese for Affirmative Action commu-
nicated to the Registrar that, based on the number of requests for elections materi-
als in Chinese and U.S. Census population data, at least 47 precincts, out of 900+ in
San Francisco, should be assigned to Chinese bilingual poll worker to render bilin-
gual oral assistance. Monitoring the 47 precincts on Election Day, Chinese for
Affirmative Action found that only 14 of these targeted precincts or 29.8 percent
had a Chinese bilingual poll worker. Further, Chinese for Affirmative Action point-
ed out to the Registar that, of the six official voter registration tables situated
throughout the City, none were located in either of the two affected language
minority communities.
During the 1977 San Francisco Election, Chinese for Affirmative Action indicated
to the Registrar again which precincts were in need of bilingual poll assistance. As
in the previous election year, the Registrar ignored our communications with him
with regard to the need to target Chinese bilingual precincts.
Chinese for Affirmative Action and other community groups had no alternative
but to approach the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act in San Francisco. Prior to the June, 1978
Primary Election, the U.S. Attorney informed the Registrar of his obligations to
PAGENO="0625"
1499~
comply with the federal law. After several on-site visits, the U.S. Attorney notified
the Registrar that, among the deficiencies observed, (1) San Francisco had adopted
no precedure whereby Spanish speaking election officials were assigned to precincts
in Chicano communities; (2) there were no Chinese speaking election officials as-
signed to several precincts in the Chinese community were a clear need for such
assistance had been demonstrated, and in still other precincts more assistance than
had been provided was required in order to meet the needs of those precincts.
On election day during the June Primary, teams of assistant attorneys and law
clerks of the U.S. Attorney Office and bilingual community volunteers observed
selected, targeted bilingual precincts in the Chinese and Hispanic communities. Of
the 48 targeted Chinese precincts, only 29 had a bilingual poll worker. The Regis-
trar had made no provisions to target any Spanish precincts. Voter confusion or
hesitancy to proceed with the electoral process by language minority voters was
noted as commonplace in the Chinese precincts. For example, three elderly Chinese
voters were reported to have decided not to enter their polling place at Clementina
Towers because no Chinese bilingual poll official was present.
Other deficiencies observed by these teams included ineffective assistance at polls
rendered by bilingual officials, due to the lack of adequate training. In some pre-
cincts, the presence of one bilingual poll official was not sufficient to handle all non-
English speaking voters. Often times, the use of the voting machine was explained
by the English speaking poll official. Further, many language minority voters were
automatically given the English ballot without being asked whether they needed a
minority language ballot.
Between the June 1978 Primary Election and November 1978 General Election,
the Registrar had a time certain to demonstrate how he would better comply with
the federal law. Because the Registrar made little effort to comply, the U.S. Attor-
ney filed a lawsuit in federal court on October 27, 1978, to seek compliance. The
federal court judge then issued a temporary order requiring the Registrar to imple-
ment the following action for the November, 1978 General Election: (a) secure the
assistance of the Secretary of State to target Chinese and Hispanic bilingual pre-
cincts; (b) secure the assistance of community groups to recruit bilingual officials; (c)
conduct training sessions for bilingual poll officials, particularly in cooperation with
community groups; (d) notify all poil officials in targeted precincts of their obliga-
tion to assist non-English speaking voters; (e) post bilingual signs notifying voters
about the availability of bilingual poll assistance. A federal examiner was also
appointed to monitor all polling activities on election day. With the cooperation of
community groups, an almost sufficient number of bilingual poll workers was re-
cruited within three days to cover the targeted bilingual precincts on election day.
While the U.S. Attorney was negotiating a Consent Decree for the lawsuit, the
Registrar was given all of 1979 to demonstrate what he could do on his own to
comply with the requirements of the federal law. For the November 1979 Municipal
Election, the Registrar demonstrated again his defiance of federal law, by not
recruiting a sufficient number of bilingual poll officials. Of the 51 targeted Spanish
precincts, only 41 had bilingual poll workers. Only 36 of the 69 targeted Chinese
precincts had bilingual poll workers.
Hauled into federal court immediately after the November 1979 Municipal Elec-
tion to explain his failure to recruit an adequate number of bilingual poll officials,
the Registrar revealed, when questioned about his personal feelings about the 1975
amendments:
"My feelings about the necessity for polling place workers, my personal feelings
aside from the law is that it's not as necessary as a lot of people think. However,
that doesn't influence my efforts in trying to comply with the law."
Under further questioning of Mr. Kearney, it was revealed that he had made
racial slurs against Chinese Americans during the preceding November 1978 Gener-
al Election when he got angry at his assistant for assigning a trainer to go to
Chinatown, at the request of Chinese for Affirmative Action, to train bilingual poll
workers recruited by community groups.
"ASSISTANT ATTORNEY. Mr. Kearney, did you state to the presence of Mr. Lamar
Johnson (trainer), having been informed that he was going to the Chinese communi-
ty to conduct training sessions for Chinese bilingual poli workers, did you state to
him quote, `I don't want Lamar teaching those damn chinks and also damn chinks
they shouldn't get something special.'
"Mr. KEARNEY. I may have said that. I don't know the exact text of that."
Later on under further' questioning by the federal court judge, Mr. Kearney
admitted: "~ * * asked that we send an instructor to a location in Chinatown to
conduct a class for Chinese polling place workers only. And I thought that wasn't
necessary. And knowing that I felt that way, one of our staff scheduled Mr. Johnson
83-679 0 - 82 - ~O Pt.2
PAGENO="0626"
1500
to conduct a class in Chinatown against my wishes and I became angry and said
something approximately what was quoted * * * J can't deny that I said it."
Evident from this court testimony, the Registrar's personal feelings about bilin-
gual elections did interfere with his efforts to comply or not comply with the 1975
amendments. The Chinese American community succeeded to persuade the Chief
Administrative Officer to remove Mr. Kearney from the position of Registrar of
Voters. After Kearney's removal, the City made remarkable improvements to
comply with federal law. Listed below is a comparison between the June 1978 and
June 1980 (post-Kearney) Primary Elections for the assignment of bilingual poii
officials:
June 1978
June 1980
Targeted
Filled
Targeted
Filled
Chinese 48 29
Spanish
92
60
92 ± 20 standbys.
60 + 9 standbys.
More importantly, in May, 1980, the U.S. Department of Justice and City and
County of San Francisco entered into a comprehensive Consent Decree that requires
the City to take the following actions: (1) develop and implement a recruitment
program for bilingual poll officials to commence.four months prior to every election;
(2) establish effective procedures to target precincts in need of bilingual poll work-
ers; (3) provide appropriate training and written materials to all bilingual poll
workers; (4) establish an election day "hotline" for non-English speaking voters; (5)
train all poll officials regarding the manner in which they are to assist language
minority voters who vote in non-designated Chinese and Spanish language pre-
cincts; (6) develop a glossary of commonly-used election terms in the appropriate
minority languages; (7) assign at least two bilingual poil officials to those precincts
where there are determined to be at least twenty-five percent or more Chinese or
Spanish speaking voters; (8) develop a voter registration outreach plan to actively
seek out and register Chinese and Spanish speaking voters; (9) establish effective
procedures for distribution of bilingual voting and registration materials; (10) initi-
ate contact and work with community groups to identify and secure sites for voter
registration; (11) identify and maintain a listing of underregistered Chinese and
Spanish speaking precincts; (12) assign appropriate staff resources to assist commu-
nity-based voter registration groups located in language minority communities; (13)
develop public service announcements to encourage voter registration among affect-
ed language minority communities; (14) encourage public agencies and private insti-
tutions to assist in the distribution of bilingual voter registration forms.
IV. CONCLUSION
With the Consent Decree in effect and a more cooperative Registrar of Voter staff,
Chinese for Affirmative Action is optimistic that progress will be made during the
coming years to enfranchise all language minority citizens in San Francisco into the
electoral process. Bilingual elections will work in San Francisco at very little cost to
the public. Chinese for Affirmative Action asks the U.S. Congress to approve H.R.
3112 which if enacted will extend the bilingual elections amendments to the Voting
Rights Act for seven additional years.
PAGENO="0627"
1501
APPENDIX A
9. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCiSCO
GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEMBER 4. 1980
MEASURES SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS
STATE
FOR 211 ~
1 PARKLANDS ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. Provides
tioneas,otherresaurces, acquiring, developing, restoring parks, beaches, recrea- AGMI4ST 212 -~`
FOR 214 -~
2 ~t ire a~n~ ~ bond ~ 215 ~.
INSURANCE GUARANTEE FUNDS. TAX OITSET. Authorizes l;gislation es YES 217 ~
3 tablishing insurance guarantee funds to pay claims against insolvent insurers. Allows
tax offsets. Fiscal impact: If offset allowed by legislation, could result in State General
- Fund losa of as much as $30 million per year.
4. TAXATION. REAL PItOPERTY~ PROPERTY. ACQUISITION BY TAXING..
ENTITY. Removes tax limitation for this purpose if approved by two-thirds of voters.
Fiscal impact: To extent new indebtedness is created, ad valorem property taxes on ______________________
real property could rise. A rise in property to-na could increase state costs fat reim--
harsements to local entities. For other possible fiscal impacts see analysis by' Legisla- N
tive Analyst in Ballot Pamphlet..
TAXATION. REAL PROPERTY VALUATION. DISASTERS, SEISMIC . YES 224 ~
5. SAFETY, CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. Amends constitutional definitions of
* "newly constructed" and "change in ownership." Fiscal impact: Local-Significant NO 225 "*
loss of property tax revenues. Moderate increase in assessment costs. State-Addt.
tional school district aid costs..Increuse in income tax revenues. . . . .
JURORS. Permits legislative reduction of jsriea in municipal and justic~ court .~ YES 227 -`--k
civil cases to 8. persons or leaner agreed number. Fiscal impact: None ... NO 228 --~
I TAXATION. REAL PROPERTY VALUATION. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM. - ~.=
* Legislature may exclude active solar energy systems from term `newly constructed" - ~ 230
in Constitution. Fiscal impacti Depending upon legislation enacted, local property ______________________
tax revenues could be reduced and state school district aid increased. NO 231 ~ -:
8 WATER RESOURCES-DEVELOPMENT A~ PR~CTION..Limits modfl- .
cation of specified measures relating to Delta and specifies other water resources YES 233
development cqnditiona. Fiscal impact: Undetermined increase in "tate reimburse ______________________-
ment of court ëosts to Sacramento County and decrease in state travel costa NO 234 ~.*
PAGENO="0628"
APPENDIX A
CITY &COUNTY OF SAN FRANC1SCO
IO GENERAL ELECTiON
NOVEMBER4.19~
- YES 235 -*-
9 SAFE DRINKING WATER BOND LAW. Allows increase from $ISj)00.000 to
$30,000j)O0 in bond proceeds for grants to improve public water systems. Fiscal NO 236 "~
impact: Revenue loss to State General Fund of $36 million over a 30-year period.
4j~ SMOKING AND NO-SMOKING SECTIONS. Provides for designation of amok- YES 238 "~``*~
U irtg and no-smoking sections-in specified types of enclosed facilities. Fiscal impact:
Minor costs to state and local government. Indeterminable reductions in stote and NO 239 "~
local tax revenues and-savings from decline in smoke-related illnesses and decline
in fire looses. -
Ii JUDGES SALARIES. Establishes judicial bmae-salarim Allows specified rbangbs y~ 2
by Legislators. Provides -laws oceting judges salaries are not contract obligations. _______________
Fiscal impact: State salary and pension reductions of approximately $Z7 million
from 1981 through 1998.
CUYAND COUNTY
YES 253 -+
I)L Shall City employees be allowed in-the City's Health Service System as determIned- - _____________
byrdnance subject t consists en and qsalaflcats ns as th Board of S pexvtsors NO 254 ~~i*
YES 256 ~
E: Shall the compensation- of Police and Fire uniformed officers be protected against
reduction belowabase rate determined by dateof cmploymsmu? __________________
F-Shall polisemen and firemen who secremembera before November 1.1976 be allawed - -. YES 259 ~
to transfer to the Retirement Plan in effect after November 1.1976 and be compen-
sated up ro $40,000-based on years of sersiceforelecting to transfer? NO 260 -~
10
1502
A Shall a Charter so proposed by the San Francisco Charter Commission be adopted?
* ~- Shill officers and employees be-permitted to base designated interests in certain
D transactions of the city which are now prohibited but be required to disclose said
interests and abstain from participation inthe transaction?
* Shall rates for the Municipal Railway as proposed by the Public Utilities Commia-
- ~ *oionl approved, rejected or amended by amajority vote of the Board of Super-
YES 244 ~
NO 245 ~
- YES 247'-*
NO 248
YES 250 -"~-
NO 251 -*-
PAGENO="0629"
1503
APPENDIX A
CI1Y & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`I. GENERAL ELECTION
NOVEMBER 4, 1980
YES 261 -*.
G Shall members of the Police aol Fire Departments with five yeats of service who
cease to he employed for rouses other than death or retirement have the right to vest NO 262 ~--
their retirement contributions and receive a retirement benefit ot age 50?
Ii Shall fire protection services be restored to and maintained at the levels no less than YES 264 "*`*`~
ii those authorized on Jane 30, 1978? - NO 265 -*-
I Shall a schedule of compensation based upon the last demand of employees repre-
sented by the faternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lucal No. 6, he
approved?
I
J
Shall a schedule of compensation based upon the last demand of employees repre-
sented by the Laborers' International Union of North America, Local No. 261, be
approsed. : NO 271 "*`
K DECL4RATION OF POLICY: Shall the Board of Supervisors enopt legislation
to establish us the policy of the City and County of San Francisco that there be an
* addition of 20,000 new units of Residential Housing ia San Francisco by January. 1,
1985?
L DECLARATION OF POLICY: Shall the Board of Supervisors submit a Charter _______________
amendment to adjust cost-of-living increases or decreases in retirement allowances
fur miscellaneous employees, from funds legally available for ouch purposes, in
accordance with percentage cost-of-living allowances determined to be in effect
annually its, other Sun Francisco Bay Area counties; provided that such cust-ol -
* living allowances to San Francisco retired employees or beneficiaries shall- not be- _______________________
less than 2 percent annually.
I& DECLARATION OF POLICY: We~ the people, declare that San Francisco moat
m I g pratt pasd ~ rs~a~ues wls sep is~f~ ~d11menta~tr,1 i that YES 280 -*`
the. 1980's, pay a lower, rate of taxes than the average wage~roer; and that San' -
Francisco's huge banks and insurance companies pay no local business, taxes at all. ______________________
We pay our share, and so should they, ` ., . ~` * S -
- N Sb lIthe members f th B d f Supers tn be I t d by d sirs t th th YE~ 283 "*"*`
tlag NO284-'-~
11_ * -~ - *- :--. - - - .. EMDOFRALLOT - - *` --* S -.
* YES 267 ~
NO *268 -.-+`
- YES 273 ~~*a
NO 274 ~-" -
YES 276 ~--~
NO 277 __*Pr S
PAGENO="0630"
- - ~ A - * -`
Retirement Cost-of-Living Increase t
- -. PROPOSITiON L
DECLARATION OF POLICY: Shall the Board of Supervisors subndt a Charter amendment to adjust cost-
of-Uving increases or decreaaea In rstirement allowances for ialscellanoous ernploye.s, from funds le-
gally svallabl. for such purpoass, in accordance with peroentage cost-ol-Svlng allowances det.rn~ned to
be In effect annually In oth.r San Francisco Bay Area counties; provided that such cost-of-living
allowances to San Francisco retired employees or benellclarlei shall not be less than 2 percent annually?
Analysis.
By Ballot Simplification Committee
ARGUMENT lii FAVOR OF PROPOSITiON L
Vote "Yes" on Proposition L declaration of Policy it merely authorizes the Board of Su-
For years our retired city employees have struggled to pervisors to study and develop a more reasonable cost-of-liv-
meet the increased cost of living on fixed incomes. More ing adjustment. Results of the Board's study would be
than 65 percent of our members, whopaid into the Retire- included inn Charter Amendment for submission tothe peo-
meet System during their working years, are living on pIe at a later election. San Francisco's 2 percent cost-of-liv-
monthly retirement allowances of less than 5500 with an cx- ing allowance is among the lowest of Bay Area Counties. In
isting non-compounded 2 percent annual adjustment for in- fairness, we urge a "YES" vote on Proposition L.
flation. Cost-of-living statistics are nagging reminders thaI 2 Frank H. Dunne, President
percent provides only 53 to 54 monthly to meet living costs. Jaykee Ford, 1st Vice-President
This ballot measure won't cost the taxpayers one dotter. As a Retired Employees, City and Counly of San Francisco.
NO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION I. WAS SUBMITTED
1504
counties. Any increase could not be less than 2% per year
of the basic retirement allowance.
A YES VOTE MEANS: You want the Board of Supervisors
to place a charter amendment before the voters which
would change the method of adjusting retirement
allowances for cost-of-living.
A NO VOTE MEANS: If you vote no, you do not want a
charterathendinetii ~hangiñg ~tirement cost-of-living
adjuptments.
THE WAY IT IS NOW: The Charter now provides fora
cost-of-living adjustment for retired city employees. This
adjustment cannot beinore than a 2% increase peryear of
the basic retirement allowance. Only a chartàr amend-
ment can change this.
THE PROPOSAL: Proposition L would direct the Board of
Supervisors to put such a charter amendment on the
ballot. This amendment would set cost-of-living adjust-
meets in retirement allowances according to a formula
based on cost-of-living allowances in other Bay Area
Controller's Statement on "L"
City Controller John C. Farrell has issued the following
statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition L-
"Should the proposed Declaration of Policy be approved,
in my opinion, it would neither increase nor decrease the cost
of government.
a Charter amendment is subsequently approved by the
electorate granting permissive powers to the Board of Super-
visors to adjust cost-of-living allowances, in and of itself, the
legislation would have no effect on the cost of government,
However, future legislatve action by the Board of Supervi-
sors increasing the current 2% ceiling on cost-of-living
allowances could result in an increase in the cost of govern-
ment. Based on existing actuarial data, each 1% increase be-
yond the current 2% ceiling could add approximately
58.000.000 to the cost of government."
How "L"Got On Ballot
Proposition L was placed on the November 4 ballot
through a provision in the present City Charter which allows
four or more members of the Board of Supervisors, acting
individually rather than as a legislative body, to place an or-
dinance or a policy measure on the ballot. San Francisco is
believed to be the onlycity or county with a legal prPeision of
this type
On August 21 Registrar of Voters Jay Patterson received
a request uigned by seven supervisors asking that the issue of
cost-of-living adjustments for retired City employees be
placed on the ballot as a "Declaration of Policy" for the vot-
ers to decide. The Supervisors signing the requesl were Don
Horanzy, Quentin Kopp, Nancy Walker, Harry Britt, Doris
Ward, John Molinari and John Bardis.
Araom.ntn pntnt.d on this pan, a'. the op5s5ons otth. authoss and bane not bn chnek.d foe annuravy by.ny official *g.nny.
PAGENO="0631"
1505
Mr. DER. From the outset I would like to state for the record that
the rights of language minorities and minorities in general have
never, been a popular issue in this country. Minority rights would
never win an election anyplace in the country.
The fact that people resent the appearance of a second language
other than English on a ballot pamphlet or a ballot is not a bona
fide excuse for depriving language minority citizens of the right to
vote in a language that is intelligible.
I am heartened by Congressman McCloskey's admission today
that cost is not a major problem with the bilingual provisions of
this particular Federal law. We need to realize though that great
harm has been done during the last 5 to 6 years by opponents of
bilingual elections. Prior to the act being enacted and signed into
law by President Ford and immediately thereafter, many State and
local officials were quite irresponsible in making dire predictions as
to the cost of implementing bilingual elections in California.
The California Secretary of State herself characterized bilingual
elections as being a financial albatross around the necks of State
and local governments. Her original estimate was $20 million to
implement bilingual elections.
The San Francisco Registrar of Voters predicted that it would
cost in the neighborhood of $2 million to implement trilingual
elections.
It is really those kinds of figures that have stuck in the minds of
the local citizenry.
While again I am heartened by the admission that cost is not the
problem, I think it is going to take us more than 3 years to set the
record straight with the general public as to what are the intended
results and goals of bilingual elections.
Much has been stated with respect to why language minority
citizens need bilingual elections, particularly those who have
become naturalized citizens. I would only bring to the attention of
the subcommittee title VIII of the United States Code Section 1423,
which speaks to the two requirements to become a naturalized
citizen. The first requirement is to understand, to read, and write
simple English. The second is to a have a knowledge of American
history and government.
There is one exception to the first requirement. If a person is 50
years old at the time of application for naturalization and has
resided in this country for over 20 years, then the applicant is not
required to demonstrate a proficiency in the English language.
Given the long history of Chinese American, in this country,
there are many elderly Chinese American citizens who have
become citizens through this exception of the law whereby profi-
ciency in English is not required. Chinese Americans have suffered
a long history of discrimination in this country of ours. Prior to
1943, Chinese permanent resident aliens were not permitted to
become naturalized citizens. It is only just that certain elderly
Chinese Americans are not required to demonstrate English lan-
guage proficiency to gain citizenship.
With respect to all other applicants for naturalization, one is
required to speak only simple phrases and words in the English
language.
PAGENO="0632"
1506
To the best of my knowledge, naturalization examiner ask,
simple questions such as where do you live, how old are you, how
many children do you have for the English language portion of the
examination.
I have submitted for the record a copy of the most recent ballot
that appeared in the November, 1980, general election in San
Francisco. One only has to take a quick perusal of this ballot to see
that the English used in this ballot is fairly complex. This ballot
requires extraordinary English skills on the part of the naturalized
citizen to wade through the many complex ballot argument for
both local and State propositions.
It is my strong belief that the bilingual election laws can work if
people want them to work in the respective local jurisdictions.
In the case of the city and county of San Francisco, for the past 5
years language minority citizens have had to deal with a registrar
of voters who has been both a recalcitrant obstructionist and a
racist in his attitudes toward implementation of the bilingual elec-
tion laws for Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking citizens in the
city and county of San Francisco. My written testimony documents
during the period from May 1976 to February 1980, all the opportu-
nities the register of voters had to establish a procedure whereby
adequate bilingual oral assistance would be rendered to language
minority citizens, but failed to do so in every instance and in
practically every election. Even when under a court order to work
with community organizations, to train and recruit bilingual poll
workers, the registrar of voters resisted and resorted to calling
Chinese-Americans by variOus racial slurs and derogatory names.
This registrar is probably the most blatant, clear example of how
one official has allowed his personal feelings to get into the way of
conducting official business.
Fortunately San Francisco has been able to get another registrar
of voters. Language minority citizens feel that we will see a better
day in the city and county of San Francisco because the present
incumbent has a much better attitude toward the Federal voting
rights law and how it should be implemented in the city and
county of San Francisco.
One last comment I would like to bring to the attention of the
committee; 3 years ago the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco took a
very active interest in the voting problems faced by language mi-
nority citizens in the city and county of San Francisco. Because of
the U.S. Attorney Office's great interest in seeking compliance in
the city and county of San Francisco and in working with commu-
nity civil rights organizations, their office filed a lawsuit in 1978
against the city and county of San Francisco. In May 1980, a
consent decree was achieved, laying out a fairly comprehensive
program whereby language minority citizens in San Francisco will
be registered and rendered adequate bilingual poii assistance on
election day.
This consent decree has great merit. We would hope that the
U.S. Department of Justice and other local U.S. attorneys will
make appropriate applications in those jurisdictions that come
under their purview.
1VII~. EBWARDS. Thank you both very much.
PAGENO="0633"
1507
I certainly agree with you that great harm was done in Califor-
nia, anyway, in the first 2 or 3 years of the operation of the act,
both by local and State politicians to the climate in California, and
by radio talk shows, and I think you know which one I mean.
Mr. DER. Yes. And also local newspaper columnists who have
been quite brutal.
Mr. EDWARDS. As I started to. say, local columnists on the first
page of the second section of the local paper.
Mr. DER. Yes, which is an afternoon paper; right.
Mr. EDWARDS. Really, I cannot tell you how delighted I am to
have our colleague, Mr. McCloskey, who is just a fair guy, to come
here today and testify, and, in effect, say that his position was
misinformed and that he has changed his mind and that cost is not
an element anymore.
Cost is not an element at all.
I am delighted because I think it is very much the job of the
politician, of the elected official, to explain things to his, or her
constituents and never under any circumstances to have any tinge
of racism because there is a great deal of racism in the argument
over the minority ballot, especially in California and, to a certain
extent, in Texas.
Certainly it has been proved in a number of States, and I am
happy to say it is now proved in California that it can work if
people want it to work. If they don't want it to work, then it will
just be the subject of talk shows and newspaper articles and a lot
of racial disorder and emotion and animosity are developed and it
is up to us who are in office to keep cool heads, keep level heads
and explain what the truth of the matter is.
Counsel, do you have any questions?
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wonder if maybe both of you could answer a question Mr.
McCloskey raised in his statement. His question is are we really
helping minorities by making it easier for them to vote knowledge-
ably in their native language.
His main thrust was really on the next page where he really is
talking about whether we don't, by providing bilingual assistance,
we don't diminish the ability of minorities to be able to become
integrated into the economic system, and whether we don't do
minorities a disfavor by, in fact, encouraging them to continue to
use their own primary language.
Mr. DER. Even prior to the implementation of bilingual elections,
Chinese Americans were never really that well integrated into
American society in the first place. The fact that we have China-
towns in the major metropolitan areas of the west coast and east
coast is a testament to the fact that historically Chinese Americans
`have had to look inwardly and look to themselves because of not
being accepted in American society and because of pervasive, dis-
criminatory practices.
Obviously I disagree with Congressman McCloskey's position that
bilingual elections do a great disservice to. language minority citi-
zens because it hinders their integration into American society.
Every language minority person, like other Americans, worries
about house and home, and being able to secure a good job. Even
before bilingual elections were enacted by the U.S. Congress people
PAGENO="0634"
1508
in the Chinese community were. scrambling' to get better jobs. The
implementation of bilingual-' elections has not caused language mi-
nority -citizens. to `stop their quest for better jobs and then narrowly
turn to bilingual elections as salvation for a better future.
Bilingual elections is really just one very small means for lan-
guage minority' citizens to -participate in the democratic process.
Mr. TORRES. `Unfortunately a,lot of people say a number of things
based on assumptions and `based on a public mood. Obviously the
public mood now' is~ to have serious concerns about anything that is
bilingual.
But I think we" just look at the results in this case, we are not
going to assume anything, we are going to look at some of the
facts.
,The Hispanic community in the last Presidential election had an
increase in voter -registration of 30 percent, had an actual increase
of `19 percent in actual" voter participation, actual voter turnout.
That was not done because they were in a bilingual education
program. That was done becaue the Voting Rights Act made it
available to them to do just that. That was created and brought -
`about by the fact that the bilingual minority language provisions of
the Voting Rights Act allows for the dissemination of information
in other languages besides English and languages that allow people
to feel as though they have a stake involved in an election, wheth-
er it be at a local, State or, in this case, the Federal election of a
President, national election of a President.
The last point I would make is that we are a little concerned
that oftentimes non-Hispanics have a tendency to tell Hispanics
what is best for us. I think in this `case' the~ statistics very much
point out the fact that the - Voting `Rights Act and minority lan-
guage provisions are the best thing for us.
The last point, the paranoia that exists in the country now
against bilingualism would have us believe that the Hispanic
American is organizing itself very well to create a different nation
within the United States. Supposedly some would even like to refer
to it as the Southwest onslaught. ~But you don't see a referendum
in San Antonio where over 50 percent of the population is Hispanic
saying you no longer can speak English in San Antonio. You don't
see that in the city of El Paso where over 56 percent or 56 percent
is~Hispanic or Mexican American. But you do see a referendum in
Dade County which says that English is the dominant language
and there is no moneys to be appropriated for functions that per-
petuate or advance the cause and learning of a different language.
It is not a fear that is realistic; it is one that has been brought
about by paranoia, a very concerted paranoia and effort that is a
problem of insuring minority Americans participate fully in the
democratic processes of this society.
Thank you.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
I -have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Mr. Boyd?
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Der, you made an
interesting point when' you indicated that in your judgment the use
of bilingual ballots encourages, in your case, Chinese, to reach
PAGENO="0635"
1509
outward rather than inward as they historically have done; is that
correct?
Mr. DER. Yes. I feel very strongly that the bilingual ballot is one
mechanism that draws Chinese-speaking citizens into the political
arena and permits them to understand what is happening in our
society.
Mr. BOYD. If we put that aside for the moment, philosophically,
do you think that a person is made more or less economically
mobile by an inability to speak English?
Mr. DER. I agree with the fact that one absolutely has to know
English to be at the maximum level of economic mobility. As a
civil rights organization, Chinese for Affirmative Action encourages
people to learn English. We produce Practical English audio cas-
sette tapes that are distributed to Chinese-speaking adults so they
can learn English at home.
I feel that people can do a number of things at one time. They
can learn English and still use the bilingual ballot in the democrat-
ic process.
Mr. BOYD. OK. But if you do agree that you are less economically
mobile through an inability to speak English, couldn't that, and
has it not in the case of the Chinese, resulted in a greater
interdependence on others within the same language minority
group?
Mr. DER. Not necessarily. The fact that people have not been
able to get jobs outside of Chinatown and then have had to revert
to the subeconomic culture in Chinatown, have left them ripe for
economic exploitation by other Chinese Americans.
Mr. BOYD. Was that not partially as a result of inability to speak
English?
Mr. DER. Partially so, but also there has always been historically
a lack of opportunity to learn English in Chinatown.
Mr. BOYD. I understand that.
Mr. DER. Also, in different parts of the country.
Mr. BOYD. I understand that also. I am trying to suggest to you
that some of the people who take the position in the Congress that
bilingual ballots are inappropriate in this kind of legislation do so
because they feel in an incremental way that lack of economic
mobility is caused by lack of ability to speak English. Lack of
economic mobility ultimately results in greater interdependence on
one's own cultural, language and ethnic group, and continued
interdependence can, in the long term, result in cultural separat-
ism.
You take the position, interestingly, that the use of the bilingual
ballot encourages involvement, encourages a culture to reach out-
ward rather than turn inward. It is on that point that you may
disagree with other members who have testified.
Mr. DER. Like the Hispanic community, there are well over 12
Chinese language newspapers that are printed either on a weekly
or daily basis in San Francisco. Language minority citizens are
quite aware of national, regional, and local events that are occur-
ring daily.
Chinese Americans read about these events in the Chinese lan-
gauge newspapers because that is a language that they know best.
But they are unable to voice their opinions or to participate in the
PAGENO="0636"
1510
democratic process because they are intimidated by an English-
only election system, particularly in California where we have
many propositions that affect the financial status of our State and
local government.
* Language minority citizens are interested, but have not partici-
pated in the election process because of the English language bar-
rier.
The presence and availability of bilingual ballots give them the
opportunity. to vote . and to voice their opinions and be counted.
Mr~ BOYD. But have you any statistics to show that their partici-
pation and use of bilingual ballots is directly proportionate to their
increased use of the English language? Has it encouraged them to
remain dependent on Chinese or does it encourage them to learn
English or does it have any relation at all?
Mr. DER. I don't think really there is a relationship. As a matter
of fact, I would say that the interest in learning English in the
Chinese~ American community is extremely high. One out of every
four adult~ students who is enrolled in our community college
classes is a Chinese American. That is 25 percent of all students.
.Chinese Americans constitute 15 percent of the San Francisco
population. So we far exceed the population parity.
Most of these Chinese students are enrolled in English language
classes of all levels from zero level up to the fifth grade level and
on up.
The fact that we have bilingual elections has not encouraged
people to stop learning English.
Mr. BOYD. But in your judgment there is really no relationship
between the two?
Mr. DER. I don't think so. In terms of whether they . want to
continue to learn English or not, language minority citizens have
to learn English .to get a better job.
Mr. . Boyn. But you do agree with the progression of points we
have just been discussing about economic mobility, and separatism
caused by. inability to integrate culturally?
Mr. DER. Yes; as other proponents of bilingual elections have
stated, proponents of bilingual elections are not seeking cultural
separatism. We are part of America. Everything around us is
American. It just so happens there are certain groups of people
that don't speak English very well. They have something to say at
the ballot box like other taxpayers.
As you may know, Chinese Americans hold the owning of proper-
ty in high esteem. It would seem quite reasonable to me that if you
pay property tax, you should be able to voice your vote. Contrary to
popular belief, not all Chinese Americans register with just one
party when they do register. Chinese Americans span all economic
interests.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
That concludes the hearing for today. The next hearing will be in
Montgomery, Ala., Friday.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the . subcommittee was recessed, to
.reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Friday, June 12, 1981.]
PAGENO="0637"
EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1981
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in the U.S.
courthouse, Montgomery, Ala., Hon. Don Edwards (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Edwards, Washington, and Hyde.
Also present: Ivy L. Davis, assistant counsel and Thomas M.
Boyd, associate counsel.
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional
Rights, which is a' portion of the House Judiciary Committee, is
here in Montgomery, the historic, capital of the great State of
Alabama, as we continue our extensive review of the need to
extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
All of us here today from Washington, from Illinois, from Califor-
nia, are appreciative of the hospitality of all of the people that we
have met.
We have enjoyed being here very much. We are looking forward
to our stay. I want to particularly thank the good mayor, Mayor
Folmar, for arranging to have us met at the airport and transport-
ed to our hotel.
Mayor, we appreciate that very much.
Our colleague, Congressman Bill Dickinson, said that he wanted
to come and sent us a message of hospitality. Congressman Dickin-
son, who is a good friend of us here on this podium, states that he
too welcomed us to Alabama and, of course, to the State capital.
Our hearings have shown that the permanent provisions of the
act are national in scope and that the temporary provisions, espe-
cially section 5-which expires in the next year-apply to `all or
portions of 22 States. Today's hearing is going to focus on voting
rights issues in Alabama and Mississippi.
In the time we have here, we have tried to achieve a cross-
section of views from various parts of the State. We have invited
several Alabama State officials, who declined to attend, but we
encourage them and others who were unable to schedule their
appearance to submit their statements for the record and I hope
that the Governor and the other State officials will submit state-
ments for the record.
It is my pleasure to introduce for a short statement the gentle-
man from Illinois, Congressman Harold Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(1511)
PAGENO="0638"
1512
Thank you, Mayor, for your gracious reception of us. I am
pleased to be in the State of Alabama, which is considered a second
home by many people in my district, the First District of Chicago.
They too remember the frustrations and the debate that came
from attempting to vote in the South.
Throughout these hearings we have learned that while progress
has been made, we have heard testimony that emphasized the need
to extend the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act for 10
years.
I guess my feelings may be summarized as follows: I congratulate
the State ofAlabama and the State of Mississippi, on having made
progress since enactment of the historic Civil Rights Act of the past
few years.
I understand the tremendous struggle to part with past ways and
the tremendous good will of the many people among these States
that this progress represents.
At the same time, I must view it against a longer history, one
which makes clear that the prudent policy for us all would be to
extend these laws for an additional 10 years.
I ~m reminded that the Federal guarantees have provided much
needed protection for the good people of all races who have in the
* end been responsible for the progress that has occurred.
* I look forward to a productive hearing today with my colleagues.
Once again I want to thank you, Mayor, for inviting us here.
Mr. EDWARDS. The ranking Republican on this subcommittee is
the distinguished member from Chicago, the Honorable Henry
Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no statement to
make.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our first witness today is the mayor of this city,
Mayor Emory Folmar.
Mayor Folmar, welcome. You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF EMORY FOLMAR, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
MONTGOMERY, ALA.
Mr. FOLMAR. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. WASHINGTON. I ask unanimous consent that the subcommit-
tee permit coverage of this hearing in whole or in part by televi-
sion broadcast, radio broadcast, or still photography in accordance
with committee rule No. 5.
Mr. EDWARDS~ Is there objection?
The Chair hears none. It is so ordered.
Mayor?
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, we do
sincerely welcome you to the city of Montgomery. We hope your
stay here is pleasant and productive.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to express my opin-
ion to you and the committee on the proposed extension of portions
of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
No one that I know in this area has any desire to deny anyone
the right to vote. That is a settled issue.
I have not come to talk about doing away with safeguards that
deal with voting rights. 1 don't believe it is right to deny anyone
PAGENO="0639"
1513W
the right to vote because of race, color, or sex and I have never
thought so.
Blacks have been for the last 15 years able to register to vote
with absolutely no difficulty. According to the Almanac of Ameri-
can Politics 1980 and the 1980 Census for the State of Alabama, the
statistics for registered voters are as follows:
Total population for Alabama, 3,890,061; total registered voters,
1,938,231; total black population, 995,623; total black registered
voters, 503,940; percentage of registered voters, 50.6 percent; total
white population, 2,894,438; total white registered voters, 1,434,291
and percentage of registered voters, 49.4 percent.
Last year, prior to the Presidential election, blacks were regis-
tered by the hundreds in Montgomery County and by the thou-
sands all across Alabama. Even with all the heat generated in the
Presidential and senatorial election in this city, not a single diffi-
culty in voting, other than long lines, was brought to my attention.
Alabama has two black Federal judges and one black on the
Alabama Supreme Court. There are many black mayors and city
council members in Alabama towns and cities.
Numerous blacks have been elected to the Alabama Legislature
where their influence is strong. As a matter of fact, in the Ala-
bama Senate blacks are chairmen of the two most powerful com-
mittees.
Here in Montgomery four of nine city council members are
black, two of five county commissioners are black, two of five
legislators are black and one of three city judges is black.
My point in this recitation is to point out that black representa-
tion is a reflection of black political power.
With this as the background, it is my strong opinion that Ala-
bama should be treated like other States in the Union either by
being removed from the coverage of section 5 of this act or by its
expiration.
Never would this law have emerged from the Congress had it
been applied to the entire United States.
This act presupposes guilt on the part of the covered political
subdivisions until that subdivision proves that it is not discrimina-
tory in its actions.
This concept is discriminatory to the covered jurisdictions and
goes squarely against the American concept of everyone being in-
nocent until proven guilty.
I feel about this law as did former Supreme Court Justice Black
when he said, "When any State abridges the rights of citizens on
account of race, the proper course for the United States is to
institute suit in Federal court and have such discriminatory prac-
tice halted."
There are adequate remedies easily available to any citizen who
believes that he or she has been the victim of racial discrimination.
If the remedy of total expiration of this portion of the act is not
available, may I suggest that those jurisdictions that have not had
a proven case of racial discrimination as covered by this act for 10
years, immediately be released from coverage.
Under Section 5 of this act, jurisdictions must submit any change
in its voting laws to the U.S. Attorney General or district Federal
court in Washington, D.C. for preclearance for a declaratory judg-
PAGENO="0640"
1514
ment that the change does not have the purpose and will not have
the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of
race or color.
I cannot believe it serves any useful purpose for the city of
Montgomery to have to go to Washington, hat in hand, to beg for
permission to change the location of voting places or get permission
to redistrict or to annex additional citizens.
Treat us as equals; if we do something wrong, right the wrong.
However, do not consider us worse than murderers and thieves
who must be proven guilty before sentencing.
If people who commit heinous crimes still have all the safeguards
of trials and appeals, why should not honest citizens have those
same rights?
Before someone suggests that this extension is needed to keep us
honest, let me point out that law enforcement officers cannot incar-
cerate someone just to keep them honest.
No; we must have proof of guilt before a judge. and jury before
even the most unsavory character can be removed from society.
Why then the continuance of this discriminatory practice that
says we must prove our innocence before some faraway tribunal?
Is it politics in its rawest form? If so, say so.
Say that there are those who wish to keep this yoke on our
southern necks for the political delight of others. If that is not the
case, what in heaven's name is the extension for?
If we are doing wrong, show us where we err; if we do a wrong,
right that wrong. But do it in the same manner you would with
any other suspected lawbreaker.
Take the suspected party to court and prove him to be a law-
breaker.
Furthermore, just because someone comes before this committee
and says there is discrimination taking place now in Alabama or
Montgomery doesn't make. it so. any more than an arresting policy
officer saying that a person is guilty just because he says so.
All we are asking for is to be treated as full citizens of this great
country with the same guarantees at the bar of justice as any other
American.
I urge that section 5 of the 1965 voting rights be allowed to
expire without further extensions.
Thank you for this opportunity to present my views to this
committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Folmar follows:]
STATEMENT TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMIrPEE ON CIVIL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BY EMORY FOLMAR, MAYOR OF THE Crry OF MONTGOMERY
Mr. Chairman, 1 appreciate this opportunity to express my opinion to you and the
committee on the proposed extension of portions of the 1965 voting rights act;
No one that I know in this area has any desire to deny anyone the right to vote.
That is a settled issue. I have not come to talk about doing away with safeguards
that deal with voting rights. I don't believe it is right to deny anyone the right to
vote because of race, color or sex and I have never though so. Blacks have been for
the last 15 years able to register to vote with absolutely no difficulty. According to
the Almanac of American Politics 1980 and the 1980 census for the State of Ala-
bama, the statistics for registered voters are as follows:
Total population for Alabama 3,890,061
Total registered voters 1,938,231
Total black population 995,623
PAGENO="0641"
1515
Total black registered voters 503,940
Percentage of registered voters 50.6
Total white~popu1ation 2,894,438
Total white registered voters. 1,434,291
Percentage of registered voters 49.4
Last year, prior to the Presidential election, blacks were registered by the 100's in
Montgomery County and by the 1,000's all across Alabama. Even with all the heat
generated in the presidential and senatorial election in this city, not a single
difficulty in voting, other than long lines, was brought to my attention.
Alabama has two black Federal jadges and one black on the Alabama Supreme
Court. There are many black mayors and city councilmembers in Alabama town
and cities. Numerous blacks have been elected to the Alabama legislature where
their influence is strong~ As a matter of fact, in the Alabama Senate blacks are
chairmen of the 2 most powerful committees. Here in Montgomery 4 of 9 city
councilmembers are black, `2 of 5 county commissioners are black, 2 of 5 legislators
are black and 1 of 3 city judges is black. My point, in this recitation is to point out
that black representation. is a reflection of black political power.
With this as the background, it is my strong opinion that Alabama should be
treated like other States in the Union either by being. removed from the coverage of
section 5 of~ this act or by its expiration. Never would this law have emerged from
the Congress had it been applied to theentire United States. This actpre-supposes
guilt on the part of the covered political subdivisions until that subdivision proves
that it is not discriminatory in its actions. This concept is discriminatory to the
covered jurisdictions and goes squarely against the American concept of everyone
being innocent until proven guilty. I feeL about this law as did former Supreme
Court Justice Black when he said, "When any state abridges the rights of citizens
on account of race, the proper course for, the United States is to institute suit in
Federal Court and have such. discriminatory practice halted". There are adequate
remedies easily; available to any citizen who believes that he or she has been the
victim of racial discrimination.
If the remedy of total expiration ofthis portion of the act is not available, may I
suggest that those jurisdictions that have not had a proven case of racial discrimina-
tion as covered by this act for 10 years, immediately be released from coverage.
`Under section 5 of the act,' jurisdictions must submit any change in its voting laws
,to the U.S. Attorney General or District Federal Court in Washington, D.C. for
preclearance for a declaratory judgment that the change does not have the purpose
and will not have the effect of denying. or abridging the right to vote on account of
race or color.. I cannot believe it serves any useful purpose for the city of Montgom-
ery to have to go to Washington, hat in hand, to beg for permission to change the
location of voting places or get permission `to redistrict or annex additional citizens.
Treat us as equals; if we do something wrong,' right the wrong. However, do not
consider us worse than murderers and thieves who must be proven guilty before
sentencing. If people who commit henious crimes still have all the safeguards of
trials and appeals why .should not honest citizens have those same rights. Before
someone suggests that this extension is needed to keep ,us honest, let me point out
that law enforcement officers can not incarcerate someone just to keep them honest.
No, we must have' proof of guilt before a judge and jury, before even the most
unsavory character can be removed from society. Whythen, the.continuance of this
discriminatory practice that says we must prove our innocence before some far
away tribunal? Is it politics in its rawest form? If that's the case, say so. Say that
there are those who wish to keep this yoke on our southern necks for the political
delight of others. If that's not the case, what in heavens name is the extension for.
If we are doing wrong, show us where we err; if we do a wrong, right that wrong.
But do it in the same manner you would with any other suspected lawbreaker. Take
~the suspected party, to court and prove him to be a lawbreaker.
Furthermore, just because someone comes'before this committee and says there is
discrimination taking place now in Alabama or Montgomery doesn't make it so,
anymore than an arresting police officer saying that a person is guilty just because
he says so. All we are asking for is to be treated as full citizens of this great country
with the same guarantees at the bar of justice as any other American. I urge that
section 5 of the 1965 voting rights be allowed to expire without, further extension.
Thank you for this opportunity to present my views to this committee.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Hyde?
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mayor, very much. I appreciate your
forthright statement and I think you have stated the case for the
83-679 0 - 82 - `~1 Pt.2
PAGENO="0642"
1516
philosophy of expiration as well as I have heard it. I understand
that you have a Ku Klux Klan active down here. What have you
done about that?
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hyde, in August of 1979, sec-
tions of the Ku Klux Klan from Louisiana and Mississippi, north
Alabama, some from this area and others, came to Selma to say
that they wanted to reenact the march that Dr. Martin Luther
King made years ago.
They came to the city council too late to be placed on the agenda~
for public assembly permit and were turned down. They came to
this very courthouse and sought Federal relief from it.
The judge ruled that our ordinance was, in fact, valid. We met
the Ku Klux Klan representatives first and told them of this action
and then they said that they would come to town and do whatever
was necessary to finish their march.
We met them at the west end of the city limits, disarmed and
incarcerated 197 members of the Ku Klux Klan, sir.
Mr. HYDE. From the statistics you have provided, you indicate
despite a nearly 3-to-i white population over black population in
terms of numbers, a higher percentage of registered black voters
than registered white voters. Is that so?
Mr. FOLMAR. I base my information on information that I have
reason to rely on which is the Almanac of American Politics, Legal
Services-although I must say that I think I don't always rely on
legal services-but their testimony in a case in Mobile indicated a
figure of some 450,000.
The American Almanac of Politics says 500,000.
I think this is so because of intensive voter registration drives
that have taken place in the black community. I think that is
great.
Mr. HYDE. Let's assume the preclearance sections, as they now
exist, were to continue, were to be extended, say for 10 more years.
Would you think that an amendment to the act which permitted
a jurisdiction, whether it is a subdivision or even a State, could go
into a U.S. district court and seek a declaratory judgment and
must prove, sustain the burden of proof, that that jurisdiction had
in the 10 years immediately past fully complied with the Voting
Rights act, made every submission required of it, had had no
objections made to any of its submissions and that notice would be
given to any interested party through publication in every newspa-
per of general circulation by posting it in the Post Office, and that
any interested party could come to court and could introduce testi-
mony or evidence as to the spirit of the act being violated?
In other words, one could live up to the letter and still, through
attitudes, intimidate people not to vote, not to register, and so that
this jurisdiction could prove it is absolutely clean in terms of the
spirit and letter of the act, and has been so for 10 years; then the
court could issue a declaratory judgment that preclearance is no
longer mandated for that jurisdiction automatically, and the court
keeps jurisdiction for 5 more years in case there is any backsliding.
Then, of course, we always have section 3(c), which, for the
isolated case permits you to go into court and prove that there has
been a voting rights abuse and reimpose preclearance.
PAGENO="0643"
1517
Would you say that that might be an acceptable middle ground
which would permit jurisdictions with a record in the past that is
one not to be proud of in terms offaciiitating...minorities to register
to vote, and would give them an opportunity to join the rest of the
country in being treated equally so long as they can sustain that
burden?
Would that be, you understand, it was a long question. Do you
understand what I was saying?
Mr. FOLMAR. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Washington, I think that it would
be fairer if the U.S. Attorney General had~to prove that we erred. I
think in any other court that we go into the burden of proof is on
the prosecution.
I don't see why we~ should be treated any different, as I said,
than murderers and thieves who have ~to be proven guilty before.
we can be sentenced~ We feel that since the .enactment of the 1965
Voting Rights Act-and it did change, Mr. Washington, as you
pointed out.
I want to say that I agree with you. I~ thought it was necessary
that we have a Voting Rights Act. .We are not proud of the way
things were handled in years. gone by.
But, with the advent of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in this
jurisdiction we have been clean. I don't think there has been a
sustained complaint against the city .of. Montgomery, the county of
Montgomery, and probably the State.
I am speaking mainly for Montgomery at the moment. I think it
is only fair that the .burden of~ proof shift to the U.S. Attorney
General.
Why should we have to. come in and prove we are .not a Commu-
nist? Why; should .we have to prove that we quit beating our wives?
Why should .we have to come in and prove this?
At this point it. seems with the record as indicated that. the
burden of proof should shift. If we do something wrong--
Mr. HYDE. Well, sir, in an ideal. situation I think you are quite
right, but it is not as though you are . dealing with an isolated
criminal act. You are dealing with an alleged practice or procedure
that bars whole groups of people from exercising a basic civil right,
the right to vote.
You are under the act now. This yoke is . on your neck, so to
speak.
What .1 am wondering is, if there is a way for you to remove the
yoke that may not be ideal in terms of the burden of procedure,
but if the act is extended. for 10 more years, there is no way that
any jurisdiction that may have a record that they have worked
very hard to prove to get out, and I am not talking idealism.
I am talking compromise and something that can be accepted.
I just throw that out as an idea.
Maintaining preclearance and. having a substantial burden to be
borne by a jurisdiction that wants~ out, and it is just an idea. I
wanted your reaction.
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr. Chairman, members, it is a good idea. We. have
no quarrel with the concept.
I think we can prove in this jurisdiction in the past 10 years
there has never been a sustained complaint against this jurisdic-
PAGENO="0644"
1518
tion. There will be those who will testify before this microphone
that there is a need for it, it still exists, this, that and the other.
I think we ought to be in a positiOn where these allegations
ought to be proved. We are willing to go and say that we are clean.
Mr. HYDE. Complying with the act is really no big deal in terms
of expense. It is irritating, I suppose, but that is about what the
burden of the act is to your jurisdiction; is that not so?
Mr. FOLMAR. Well, it requires no matter what we do we have to
get the. preclearance, whether it be to change a voting place from
city hail to the civic center or something. We have to get preclear-
ance. It is not the great burden; it is not the thing.
It is the stigma that those of us who have tried real hard to do
something about over the years resent. We think that our act has
been cleaned up. The proof of it is the number of blacks that are
elected in the State of Alabama, the city of Montgomery, the
number of blacks registered, and so forth.
As I pointed out in the last year's Presidential election, prior to
that, blacks were registered all over the place without any difficul-
ty.
We just think it is a stigma that is unwarranted just because it is
placed on our necks.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous. I just
have one more question. This is perhaps more philosophical than
anything else. I find sometimes it is tough to draw the line between
racial discrimination and political discrimination.
I think you have got a burgeoning Republican Party down here
and Democrats and Republicans don't always get along too well
together.
That is certainly true up where I come from. Some of the in-
fighting could be political rather than racial, could it not?
Mr. FOLMAR. Oh, I think when the House of Representatives-I
mean when the Alabama Legislature grabs the thorny problem of
redistricting, you will find politics rearing its head. I think you will
find that in any jurisdiction that you can still comply with all of
the civil rights laws and politics still exists.
I don't think you can ever get politics out of politics.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you. I have no more questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Washington?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor, unlike my colleague, I have no problem whatsoever in
making a clear distinction, historical, factual and otherwise, be-
tween politics and race.
There is no confusion about that at all. In the realm of politics,
one still has no problem pointing to certain clearcut instances of
racism against black people.
The justification for the 1965 Voting Rights Act was well estab-
lished back in the sixties and that is why we have the act. There is
no question that historically this act is designed to abolish or wipe
out a preexisting pattern of conduct which made it impossible for
black folks, one, to register; two, to vote; and three, to make their
vote count.
There is just no arguing against that historical fact..
PAGENO="0645"
1519
Your~ point; I gather, is that we have gone through the crucible,
you have proved yourself, and therefore you should be able to opt
out.
i.can't agree with you.
* -For ~example;~ in your statement you indicate that blacks have
not been discriminated against in the last 15 years or at least since
*passage :Of~ the original act in 1965.
Could you. comment then on the massive~ reidentification and
explain that for me?
Where I come from, we don't call it reidentification; we call it
something else. That has been proposed for the black belt counties
and their effect on persons who reside in rural areas? Could you
spell it out?
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, first of all, let me say up
front that. I agree with you.
There was a need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. There were
a lot of us ashamed of the practices that took place in this State
and ether States along that way.
I go back to my statement: I have never believed that anybody
should be denied the right to vote because of race, sex, color, or
anything like that. I said that then. I say it now.
I didn't like it. I don't like it now.
Mr. WASHINGTON. You are not on trial here.
Mr. FOLMAR. Yes, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON.' We are talking about the necessity for extend-
ing the act. Just assume that everyone who appears before us is
bound to obey the law. The question is, should the law be ex-
tended?
My concern is what is behind this reidentification thing that
seems to be proliferating `throughout the counties `of this State?
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr.' Chairman, members, jurors for the circuit court
of Montgomery County are drawn from the registered voter list.
We have a registered voter list in Montgomery County of 110,338;
78,537 are white, 31,845 are black.
~But here is the kicker: On the average,, 36.9 percent of the
~notices mailed out to serve on jury duty are returned marked
.unknown.
The December mailout for jury duty consisted of 5,000 names
drawn. from the voter lists at random; 1,846, or 36.9~percent of the
notices came back marked addressee unknown, deceased, moved,
left ~no forwarding... address. We have-and I can .only speak for
Montgomery County-we have many. people on the voter lists.
We know they have moved, they have died, et cetera. We think
that reidentification process would make our lists more . correct.
I don't think this is an effort-I ëannot speak for other jurisdic-
tions. .1 can speak for here. We would do. it under the-with Feder-
al' agents standing there,. if you chose to.
But I think that to clean the list up, to get rid of a situation
* where 36.9 percent of the. notices that we send out. for jury duty to
registered voters, are -returned unknown, . deceased, unknown, so
* forth, that is the.. reason we want to do it in Montgomery County.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Who is in control of the -reidentification proc-
ess? Who sends out the notices? Who tabulates them? Who is
responsible for them?
PAGENO="0646"
1520
Where do you get these figures from? Who compiled those fig-
ures?
Mr. FOLMAR. The figures for the jurors, Mr. Washington?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. FOLMAR. This was done by the Clerk of the Probate Judge's
office.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Is that an elective office?
Mr. FOLMAR. The clerk's job is an appointed office. The probate
judge is elected.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Who appoints the clerk?
Mr. FOLMAR. The probate judge.
Mr. WASHINGTON. He's elected?
Mr. FOLMAR. Yes, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON~ I assume he is a Caucasian?
Mr. FOLMAR. Yes, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON. In Choctaw County, in 1978, the reidentifica-
tion process eventuated this situation. Prior to. the bill there was
an 8-percent difference, and after the bill there was a 30-percent
difference; that is 8 and 30 percent more whites than blacks were
registered before than after the registration was completed.
The registration bills have been introduced in Perry, Sumter,
and Wilcox Counties, which are 60-, 69-, 68-percent black respec-
tively.
Has the population in Choctaw County, the black population,
diminished relative to the white?
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I cannot speak for the
other jurisdictions. I can only say that there are more registered
voters in some of those counties than the U.S. census says there
are people.
Mr. WASHINGTON. That would be a political question, I suppose.
My concern is about did the black population dwindle vis-a-vis
the white population? How can you account for the lowering per-
centage of black registrants after reidentification and that great
gap between the black and the white?
I mean it just didn't happen. You would assume-I woUld assume
that if that is valid, then the black population must have decreased
or the white population would have gone up; but if they remained
relatively static, then I don't know how you can account for that
difference.
Mr. FOLMAR. The only thing I can say, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen,
is that I did not bring the Alabama census figures with me, but to
show that there is no method of chicanery before you as far as I
am concerned, I would just as soon have my good friend, Joe Reed,
be chairman of the reidentification committee. And we don't get
along too well.
Mr. WASHINGTON. If you maintain this act, perhaps that might
be.
Mr. Fou~i~. I am not saying we are asking to put the fox to
guard the henhouse door. We are asking any commission or tribu-
nal anybody wishes to do, to clearly identify those voters that still
exist in a county be the ones identified.
I am not trying to turn the clock back, no, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON. All I am trying to indicate is that the reidenti-
fication process is suspect.
PAGENO="0647"
1521
For example, in this case, justice has interposed 72 objections to
changes. submitted under section 5. Four of those changes have
been since 1975. That isquite a track record.
Mr. FOLMAR. Yes, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON. For the last 5 years, 45, but yet and still you
indicate that all is peace'.and quiet on the plantation?
Mr. FOLMAR.. I don't ~`be1ieve I said plantation, but I will agree
.~that I did ~say-now,. again, we will..accentuate the. difference in
political philosophies.
`I don't think that in this jurisdiction there has been a~single
sustained objection to any of the requests that we have made under
section 5, Mr. Chairman, members, in~ this jurisdiction.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I will yield for the present time, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. .EDWARDS. Mr. Mayor, I too want' to thank you for your
forthright statement.
I might' point out that there is. no politics in this act for any of us
here.
I assure you that certainly you don't get or lose votes in the
State of California by coming here.
`So I might point out that my own congressional district, the 10th
District of California,. is covered in* part ~by the Voting Rights Act,
as well as a total of 22 States are covered~ in one way or the other.
Also,' that ~the act has .been held as constitutional and rational
"excercise of Federal power by..' the Supreme Court of .the United
States.
I note also that `although you state that it~.is time for. section 5 to
be" phased out, the Birmingham Post Herald. in.. an editorial Friday,
`May .1,. disagreed with you. It .says "We disagree. Scores of corn-
* plaints of civil rights violations `filed under the act remain unre-
solved * * *`~ and so forth. So there is a difference of opinion.
We have yet to have any organization of black citizens of Ala-
bama come .forward and say that it is time to end `the participation
of this State in the Voting Rights Act.
There are .some examples that .the subcommittee has not had
`.explained to them of...what is going on that are `very' difficult to
swallow, and we are down here to seek responses;~ and certainly
Mr. Washington mentioned one of the key ones, this reidentifica-
tion, purging system that seems unique in' this part .of. the country.
We have 22 million people' in California. We don't have to reiden-
tify, purge, and do all those sorts of `things. As a .matter of fact, the
State of Wisconsin doesn't even require registration. Registration
can be used as a device to deny people' the right to. vote, so can
purging," so can reidéntification.
In Choctaw County,. in Alabama, `how do you explain this? In
Choctaw County .the reregistration bill .that was passed by the
legislature puts "the burden on the voter to register to vote from
the hours of 9 to 4.
Now, this is .when a poor black is working, .perhaps `out in the'
field, 30, 40 miles from home; He or she has to find his or her way
20, 30, 40 miles and reidentify or reregister or something like .that
when it is very easy for'. most white people ~in Choctaw County to
reregister.
They have much better transportation' and so forth.
PAGENO="0648"
1522
How can we sitting up here look at that in any way and say that
it is designed and it does reduce the number of black people who
can vote?
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr. Chairman, members, I have not come to plead
for doing away-for reidentification. What I was talking about in
my testimony was the preclearance, of changing the-having to go
to get redistricting or annexation or moving polling places.
I agree with you that the voter reidentification would present
some problems. I do think that there are some pitfalls. I do think
that any situation where voter reidentification takes place should
be monitored very closely to see that it is done honestly and fairly.
I would support any such thing as that.
My point, in merely speaking to voter reidentification, is what I
know in Montgomery County where we have a tremendous number
of people that we know that have moved or are decreased. I am not
here as an advocate for voter reidentification, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, Mr. Mayor, if Congress does as you suggest
and not renew or extend section 5, then the field is wide open for
reidentification bills to be passed in State legislatures, or purging
bills.
What happened in Choctaw County could happen all over.
Now, in Jefferson County that is entirely different. The bill
passed by the legislature provided for the burden to be on the
county to go out and seek, and it worked just fine.
Blacks' and whites' registration went up 10 percent, but where
you put the burden on the blacks, on the voters, himself or herself,
it could only result in deprivation.
I think it is honest and forthright of you to say what you said.
Mr. FOLMAR. Yes.
Mr. EDWARDS. I have no further questions.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I have one. I think it should be made
clear when the chairman says if preclearance expires that the field
is wide open for the legislature to pass reidentification legislation,
that section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act is permanent law.
The Voting Rights Act will not expire. It is permanent law. The
prohibition against bailout expires and it has to do with precléar-
ance.~
Should a reidentification ordinance, statute, pass of the sort the
chairman has described, with hours from 9 to 4 during~ a weekday,
obviously designed to make it tough to get in and reregister, a
court remedy exists and that court remedy is under section 3(c).
It is permanent law. The court takes equitable jurisdiction and
can impose mandatory preclearance for as long as the court wants.
So no matter what happens in terms of expiration of preclearance,
there are court remedies.
The real problem is nobody wants to go to court. It is time-
consuming. It is costly. It is burdensome. It may not be effective.
Automatic preclearance at least has the appearance of being effec-
tive. I am not sure it has been all that effective for some of the
cases we have seen. Justice hasn't been on top of them in my
judgment.
That is what the argument is about. Every other-a criminal is
to be tried in court. Personal injury cases are to be tried in court
PAGENO="0649"
1523
under rules of .evidence~ But these voting procedures are to be
precleared.
Voting is ~different. Voting involves a lot of people. Delay denies
the right. If an unfair law. is passed, by the time it gets through the
court, the question is really moot.
So that is the reason, the rationale for the administrative proce-
dure.
OK. I really appreciate your testimony. You have shown courage
and intelligence. I thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Washington?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor, let me try to nail this down. I think the colloquy
here regarding reidentification illustrates clearer than anything
else we could bring forth the necessity for maintaining preclear-
ance.
Clearly, as you and I both agreed a short while ago, there has
been a pattern in many of the States which definitely, clearly,
denied blacks the right to vote, et cetera.
Denied them the right to register, and then diluted' or destroyed
the efficacy of the vote, by various forms such as gerrymandering,
at large elections, so forth and so on.
Reidentification in Choctaw County, which puts the burden on
the voter to me is a clearcut example of another attempt-in this
case successful-to "keep blacks from registering to vote as com-
pared to Jefferson County reidentification, which is a purer form.
There is a suspicion that any~ change in the electoral laws or
administrative procedures in certain States and counties is de-
signed to dilute, destroy, and negate that vote. We didn't create
that suspicion.
The black voters in Alabama didn't create that suspicion. The
people who voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act didn't create that
suspicion. That suspicion of that kind of conduct was created right
here in this State and other States. That is a fact.
Any time you change any laws, and the net result of those
electoral changes is that the black vote is diluted, you have suspi-
cion. That suspicion is not paranoic. It is well founded. It is clear.
To me Congress would be negligent in its responsibilities to
enforce the 15th amendment of the Constitution if it did not insist
that' preclearance and the administrative process prevail.
Not the court system which is costly, time consuming; not the
,court system, but preclearance.
I say, sir, just by a discussion of the reidentification, we have
brought out the central point of why preclearance should be main-
tained. That burden is not necessarily yours. I am not talking,
about Montgomery necessarily. That is not necessarily yours. You
can't defend the whole State.
You cannot defend all the laws of the `State, but since you are in
this State and that pattern exists and these laws have passed and
the Justice Department has come in 45 times in 5 years, I think
commonsense dictates that the Congress maintains section 5 of the
act. ,
Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Certainly.
PAGENO="0650"
1524
Mr. HYDE. What we do in Chicago, I think the board of election
commissioners, or the county clerk sends a post card to your regis-
tered address. If it comes back undelivered, you are automatically
removed. Then you have to come down and reinstate yourself to
prove that you really are living there and you are not sure why
that post card wasn't delivered.
The problem in reregistering is like voting. It ought to be just as
easy to do; it ought not to be made more difficult than voting. If it
is done with a rational reason, with a good reason such as nearly
39, 37 percent on jury duty returned unknown, but 9 to 4 is really
not fair.
Of course, in Illinois we close at 6, don't we, Harold?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes.
Mr. HYDE. That is not good. We ought to keep open until 8 so
people can get there to vote. I wish Illinois would be a little more
liberal on that too.
Thank you.
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes?
Mr. F0LMAR. I would like to respond to Mr. Washington ~nd say
that I agree that the suspicion is rightly founded. I agree. I can't
quarrel with that.
There were acts that were unconscionable as far as I am person-
ally concerned.
As I say, I can't speak for Choctaw County, nor can I look at
their intent; but I am saying that I would certainly support any
proposition that would be reasonably fair to achieve a cleaning up
of a voter list to get rid of some 30 percent or 37 percent of people
who are dead.
There is no rationale in the world for their names or people who
have moved to stay on the voter lists whatever safeguards would be
necessary to do that or follow the Birmingham or Jefferson County
pattern, whatever.
I didn't come to speak on that point as much as I did the other.
If we want to separate the reidentification process from the others,
then that is an entirely different matter.
I noticed you mentioned at-large elections, and I know that is
going to be a part of further congressional action, but I believe the
Supreme Court said that that is not illegal, that an election at-
large is not illegal and doesn't-unless the intent is proved that the
purpose of it was to deny somebody the right to vote.
Certainly as long as we are following Supreme Court rules in
other things, I think an at-large election is certainly legal.
Mr. WASHINGTON. That may well be true, but I insist on hanging
tough on the reidentification aspect which to me is a clear illustra-
tion.
It seems to me if you just look at your vital statistics, and look at
the ratio of black versus white in terms of population, you would
assume that that similar ratio, a similar ratio would prevail after
reidentification. It didn't. Suspicion is well founded. Since suspicion
is well founded in reference to that employee, why should the
Congress repeal or not continue section 5? It just does not make
any sense. That is just one example, in one State.
PAGENO="0651"
1525
There are other examples in other States, and other examples in
this State which we will get to some time today.
I. submit to you, sir, that the reidentification aspect proves
beyond a shadow of a doubt that Congress right in what it did in
1965; it was right in extending this act; and it would be just as
right in extending it for another 10 years, not as a burden on this
State, but as a guarantee to citizens that their rights are inviolate
and they will not be cut short, truncated, or abused by any process
on the State level.
That is all.
Mr. HYDE. I think what the gentleman is saying is, he can't
defend Choctaw County. He is talking about Montgomery County.
What is right for Montgomery County may be different for some
other county.
Why should Montgomery have to carry the burden of Choctaw
County?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Because Montgomery County is a part of the
State of Alabama just like Choctaw County.
Mr. HYDE. And Alabama is part of America.
Mr. WASHINGTON. And America has said that the voting rights
will prevail.
Mr. EDWARDS. If there are no further words, thank you, Mayor.
Mr. FOLMAR. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, we appreciate you being
here. Thank you for the opportunity- to testify. I hope your stay
here is pleasant.
- Mr. EDWARDS. We now have a panel presentation. Ms. Maggie
Bozeman from Aliceville, Ala., P-ickens County, accompanied by
* Sheriff Prince Arnold, Camden, Ala., in Wilcox County, and Mr. W.
C. Patton, retired national director of the NAACP voter education
project, and accompanied by I-believe our friend Dr. Joe Reed, who
is chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference.
-- TESTIMONY OF MAGGIE BOZEMAN, ALICEVILLE, ALA.; SHER-
IFF PRINCE. ARNOLD, CAMDEN, ALA.; W.. C. PATTON, RETIRED
NATIONAL ~DIRECTOR, NAACP VOTER EDUCATION PROJECT;
AND DR. - JOE REED, CHAIRMAN, -ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC
CONFERENCE
Mr. REED. Welcome to Montgomery, Ala. We appreciate your
- coming. -
- Alabama is in dire need. of- the extension of the Voting Rights
Act. Montgomery is not interested.
I am Joe Reed, chairman of -the Alabama Democratic Conference,
- the -Black Political Caucus of Alabama. I am a member of the
Montgomery - City Council and - I am employed as associate execu-
tive secretary of the Alabama- Education Association.
- We hope that when this committee leaves this State you will go
- back with a firm commitment to extend the 1965 -Voting Rights
- Act.
- - - I am not surprised that the mayor of Montgomery opposed this
act. I am certain- he o-pposed it in 1965. He - opposed it in 1975. He
will - probably oppose it in - 1-985 and -1995. His -rhetoric ~changed a
little bit.
- I have never heard- of him being for the 1965 Voting Rights Act
in my 22 years in Montgomery, Ala. That is not the issue here.
PAGENO="0652"
1526
One of the concerns we have you have touched on already. That
is the hours people must have in order to register to vote. Usually
they are from 9 in the morning to 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
You have already taken notice of the fact that working folks
cannot vote and register at that particular time.
I won't dwell on that particular issue because I want to take my
5 minutes and get through.
One thing I would point out to the committee is there is a lot of
resistance to voter registration. Alabama passed a law to allow
voter registrars to appoint deputy registrars to assist in the process
of voter registering.~ Only 12 counties would appoint deputy regis-
trars, even when the Governor of Alabama wrote some voter regis-
trars and encouraged them to appoint deputy registrars.
They ignored the Governor. That tells you pretty much how most
folks in Alabama still feel about registration. That is a fact.
Another point I would point out is that we still have numerous
polling places in white establishments, white stores, white
churches, and so forth. While I don't think that there ought to be
any, seldom, if ever, do you find a voter place in a black establish-
ment.
I want to move on as rapidly as I possibly can to speak to
another chilling effect on the casting of one's ballot, and that is the
involvement of blacks as polling officials.
I will concede in some counties blacks do serve as polling offi-
cials, but in most counties they do not. If they do, it is only
tokenism. I won't spend a lot of time on that.
I will make that point and go on. If you want to raise that
question, you can.
I think one point we ought to talk about is the preclearance
section. The mayor told you this morning Montgomery is innocent.
* Just, I believe 3 years ago, this court found that Montgomery
had a pattern and practice of discrimination against blacks, par-
ticularly in the fact that the court finally ordered the county
commissioners of Montgomery to reapportion.
Blacks are elected now by district. We happen to have two blacks
on the Montgomery County Commission as a result of that court
order.
We are not talking about 1965. We are not talking about 1975. In
fact, these persons were elected in November of last year. It is
because of the Federal court, this court, the Federal District Court
of Alabama found that Alabama had intentionally passed laws to
get around electing blacks.
At that time we did have a district system. We went to an at-
large system.
Another point I would like to point out is that since Montgomery
is so innocent, just recently in 1978, the mayor of the city of
Montgomery came before the city council and asked the city coun-
cil to annex certain portions of Montgomery, certain portions of the
county to the city of Montgomery. I opposed it because I saw it was
going to dilute the black vote and possibly eliminate a black on the
city council.
We all entered a covenant that is in your package there. We
said, let's for the sake of Montgomery, try to do something in good
faith.
PAGENO="0653"
1527
The mayor called me and said, let's work this matter out.
I said OK, if we can, we will try to work it out.
I said I will be fair. I don't trust the mayor any more than I trust
the Russians. What we did do; I did agree to, because there were
certain council members who signed the covenant.
I want ~ou to know under the laws of Alabama, the mayor of
Montgomery is supposed -to submit a plan for reapportionment.
We blocked it- in. the legislature, but, as I said, to get it through,
we entered an agreement.
I want you to know that the mayor responded not by working
cooperatively with us, but submitted a plan that would wipe out
district three, my particular council district.. That is what the
mayor did. That is a fact.
I want to show you the headline: "Blacks May Lose Seat on City
Council."
Look at that. Let the public see it. That is the very gentleman
who said things were so hunky-dory down here.
The point I am getting to is that this was not necessary. In fact, I
have presented a plan to do just the opposite. That is,. to preserve
the four black council seats.
The mayor is now fighting that tooth and naiL What I am trying
to tell you is, the. preclearance section is very important in this
instance.. We are going to oppose it in the~:Department of Justice
and if necessary we are going to have to do what Mr. Hyde just
said was very expensive~ and that is to go into court, because it is
not fair and it broke the covenant and this is what people sitting
there said in signed statements.
if they break a promise when there is a. signed statement, I guess
you can imagine what would happen when those statements are
not signed.
I will leave that and go to something else.
I think it is important you take note that the Alabama Legisla-
ture, with 16 blacks in it, has been under a court order. Therefore,
they have to report to the courts on any changes in the legislature.
Right now the courts have decided that particular issue and you
would note in your pack again -that the Attorney General wrote a
letter to some legislators that read, "I am pleased to inform you
that you don't have to ~report to the courts any longer."
When he did that, that was a signal. Do what you* need to do.
There was an open secret on Capitol Hill they are going. to try to
get rid of blacks in the legislature this time around.
This ~is why the preclearance section is so ~important. Nowhere
-~.has the need for the Voting Rights Act been more evident than in
the-State of Alabama.
* Those of you on the committee who participated in the passage
of this act, your contribution to making America live up to its true
creed, that we. hold.. these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created* equal, and they are .endowedby their Creator with certain.
inalienable rights, and ~among these are. life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.
I submit to you, peo.ple cannot pursue happiness if they can't
vote.
When you go back, you keep in mind that in Alabama we still
have some 250,000 blacks unregistered. There are some 300,000
PAGENO="0654"
1528
registered and they are registered because of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act.
When Everett Dirksen and Hubert Humphrey joined hands in
1965 to pass the Voting Rights Act, Alabama had less than 10
black public officials. Today we have over 300,000 black voters and
250 black elected officials.
As I said, 16 members of the legislature, six sheriffs-one is
sitting right here with me today-two probate judges, tax assessors,
school superintendents, county commissioners, what-have-you.
No one has ever been hurt by passage of the 1965 Voting Rights
Act. Many people will be hurt if it is not extended.
The only criticism people can find of the Voting Rights Act is, it
has been too successful for some people.
I wish to impress upon this committee unless the Federal Gov-
ernment continues to provide unconditional protection of black
people to vote, then we won't have it.
If the Congress fails to extend the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it will
be a signal for the sons of former slaveowners to take away the
political birthright of the sons of former slaves and return them to
the shackles of political slavery without any hope of political eman-
cipation.
Mr. Chairman, whatever happens, the Congress, the President
should not and cannot turn their backs on the black citizens of this
State, on the black citizens of this region, on the black citizens of
this Nation and not only blacks, any other citizen who wants to
enjoy and use the sacred pearl of democracy, the right to vote.
Again I say, if it were not for the Congress, if it were not for the
courts, we wouldn't be here this morning.
Thank you so very much.
[Applause.]
[The statement of Mr. Reed follows:]
PAGENO="0655"
1529
1ESTTh~Y OF XE L. REED ON ¶IHE \?EJITNG RIGI'IS ~T
REFORE `I~iE SUBOD~ITTEE ON CIVIL ~D.~STITt1rIO~L RIGFES
OF E~HO~E JUDICIARY Y~ETFEE
M~RY, AI~BN~
~JUNE 12, 1981
I. am ~roe Reed and I am U~airuan of the Alabama .DmtrcraticCOnferenCe,
the Black Political Laucus of Alabama. I am.a nerrber of the ?knt~eery city
Council and I am eirplajed ~s the Associate Executive Secretary of the
Alabama Education Association. I ama before this cx~rmittee to ask that
* the United States Governirent keep its cxrrmitnsnt to help* all Arrericans
achieve the Anerican dream, expressed in the stateirent that, `we hold these
* truths to be self-evident that all nen~are created equal, they are endowed
by their creator with cmrtain. inalienable rights, anong these are life,
liber~T and the pursuit of happinass." But there can be so pursuit of
happiness in a derrocracy if people do sot have the right to vote. To this
~rnd, Mr. thairman, I ask that when this cctrmittee leaves the boundaries of
the State of Alabama, it g~ back to the nation's capitol and reaffirm to
all Airericans that the right to vote is a sacred pearl of deirocracy and to
deny any individual that right to vote is to deny that individual his share.
of deirocracy. Our country cannot tolerate such a denial.
I wish to add that I am sot surprised to see Mayor Errory Fblmar,
of the City of MDntgorrery, here to oppose this law. Mayor Folrrar,
so doubt, opposed this arrendrrent in 1965; he aould have opposed it in 1975;
he. will oppose it in 1985; he will c~rose it in 1995, because Mayor Polmar
does riot share the cx:xrrrnitzrent to the Arrerican Dream, as I trust that ireirbers
of this axrrnittee and the rest of Airerica share. The saying that a voteless
PAGENO="0656"
1530
~sthrony of Joe L. Reed on the Voting Rights Act
Jure 12, 1981
Page 2
people is a hopeless people can be so sore tne than in the State of Alabane;
and, if ever there was a tine when the right to vote ~hould sot be abanctred,
diluted, or cxxrprornised, it is rx~. Mr. a-iairrran, as a person who has the
responsibility arxf the opportunity to travel throughout the State of Alabane
arxI as ore who is totally involved in tie political process as it relates
to voter registration as well as elections, I can sulinit to you, that in
this state, we still have probless associated with registration and voting.
Ore severe prcblem is that of inconvenient registration hours. The hours
we have today are tie sane hours we had in 1965. In rest cases, the hours
* set ty the Board of Registrars are from 9:00 in the irorning to 4:00 in the
aftersoon. Usually, the place designated for registration is in the
* courthouse and, of course, the courthouse cray be as ~ as 20 to 30 miles
frce anne people's residence. This rrekes it virtually irrpossible for the
vorking man or s~ren to becrae a registered voter and, because of distance,
ii? scee cases the cost is prohibitive.
~ot only &) ~e have a resistance on the part of the registrars to
adept r~q registration hours, there is still an atirosphere of resistance to
registering people. Bor exanple, the 1978 Alabaira Legislature passed a law
that allcwad each county Board of Registrars to appoint deputy registrars to
assist them in the registration process. 1~ date, only about 12 counties
have appointed deputy registrars and in sate cases they have since fired thee.
Even when tie Coven-or sent a letter to Boards of Registrars throughout the
state encouraging t1-~n to appoint deputy registrars, rest boards iganred the
PAGENO="0657"
1531
¶t~stinony of Joe L. Reed on the Voting Rights ~ct
June 12, 1981
Page 3
&vernor's request. In sane cases, elected officials have a~xxxipanied
blacks to the Board of Registrars in order to get deputy registrars a~ointhd.
Yet oust Boards refused to a~çoint deputy registrars even theugh the deputy
registrars ~re serving at ro cost to the State and ro cost to the Board
of Registrars.
1~rx)ther factor that caused a chilling affect on the process of
voting is the location of voting planes. Throughout this state are nurrerous
polling planes located in white private establishirents sudi as stores,
churches, and other private businesses.. But seldem, if ever, and oust
tines never, can one find a voting place located in a black establishnent.
In addition, the distance is oftentines so far that a person oust own a
car in order to get to the polls.
Alx)ther problem that has an inpact advetsely on blacks registering
to vote is the lack of blacks serving on Boards of Registrars and in addition the
lack of blacks working as election officials. While I will concede that there
are blacks working as election officials in a few counties, in oust counties
blacks are rarely selected to work as polling officials, and this tends to chill
black participation in the political process~ We still have situations
where police and other law enforcesent officials are patrolling polling
places when it is obvious that there is ro reason for their being there.
In sane cases, where blacks have sought to assist other blacks in casting
their ballots, these blacks have been arrested or otherwise intimidated.
83-679 0 - 82 - ~ Pt.2
PAGENO="0658"
1532
Testinoey of Joe L. Reed on the Voting Rights Act
June 12, 1981
Pa~ 4
Anether technique being c~ed to adversely affect black folk's political
strength is the process of annexation, where many white~ cranunities are
annexed in order to dilute the black vote, particularly in city elections.
On the other hand, there has bean resistance to annexing areas which are
pre&~ninately black into certain corporate city limits. In Courtland, Alabama,
it was necessary for blacks to incorporate a small neighborhood that should
have been annexed to the City of Courtland, but because they could never
get.that portion annexed, they finally incorporated as an independent
irmnicipality. This happened only after five years of repeated frustration
and rejection by the city fathers. Ancther technique used has been to
relocate r~ subdivisions just outside the City limits so that when blacks
irove into thee, their influence in the city's politics would be diluted.
In our cs~n city of Mantgczrery,~ Alabama, in 1978, the Mayor of the *
city proposed to annex certain portions of the county into the city limits
of Mantjsrery. As a councilirenter, I opposed this annexation becauee I was
convinced that it ~uld dilute the black vote in the city as wall as cause
the reduction in tie ~nurrber of black council marrbers. The natter, however,~
passed tie city council without ir~r vote but then, wa who cççosed annexation,
successfully had it blocked in tie Alabama Legislature until a oxenitrrent
was nade. strong the councilrren-bers that they would adcpt a redistricting plan
that would preserve four black council seats. This covenant was signed by
eight of the mire councilnethers, as wail as the Mayor. After annexation
passed, tie Mayor of the City of Mantgczrery (the one who just testified before
PAGENO="0659"
1533
Thstiimny of Joe L. Peed on the Voting Rights Act
June 12, 1981
Page 5
this cxzrniittee) broke tie covenant by proposing to the city cx)unCil a
plan that would dilute tie nurrber of blacks in Council District 3 to the
extent that no black could likely be elected. In 1970, this district had
78% black ija it and rz~ it would have 62% black, made up primarily of
children in tie housing project, to be mixed in with prominent white
cxxrrrainities that do not have a reputation for supporting black candidates.
See Exhibit I, which is a cepy of the covenant.
At this point, may I rmnind you that the least eapensive solution
to problene similar to theore I have just discussed is the preclearance section
of the Voting Rights Act. In the Alabama Legislature, there are conversations
already appearing signifying that there will be efforts to get rid of three
or four blacks in the Legislature; and, since Alabama is no longer rnguired
to suhnit its legislative reapportionrrent plan to the federal courts, the
* preclearance reguiremant takes on additional significance. (See Exhibit II)
Last, but not least, is the effort that the State of Alabama is
making through its so-called reidentification act to further dilute black
participation in the political process. There have been several local bills
* passed this year in the Alabama Legislature that would reguire all voters to
~re forward and reidentify thenselves in order to rEeain on the voter rolls. (Exhibit
III)
This ireans appearing in person, and these bills are not reidentification bills;
they are re-registration bills. There are already laws on the books to correct
the probleirs, the very thing that these so-called reidentification laws purport
PAGENO="0660"
1534
`1~sthrony of Joe L. Reed on the Voting Rights ~ct
JuTE 12, 1981
Page 6
to correct. I hasten to add that we are rot opposed to reidentificaticxi,
per se, in fact, in an effort to prevent the passage of so-called local
reidentification bills, we proposed a statewide bill to deal with voter
reidentification. It passed the Senate and died in the House, largely
because soire white representatives fruit rural black-belt counties opposed
it. I sulitirit to you a copy of this proposal. (See Exhibit IV)~
In that proposal, we had also reunrrrrended a system of t~puty
Registrars, but sure of the legislators siriply did rot want any sore black
folk registeredin their areas.
I urge the cnrrmittee to rote that rrost of these local bills apply
in counties where there is a majority or high percentage of blacks in the
population. In fact, one county legislator introduced a bill to aUcM city
clerks to becare deputy registrars, but arother legislator rerroved all the
counties in his district fran the bill's coverage.
NcMhere has the need of the Voting Rights Act been irore evident
than in the Stite of Alabama and for tiDse of you on this cxzrrnittee whit
participated in the. passage of this Act, your contribution tcMard risking -
Arrerica live t~ to its tr~ creed is perhaps far beyond i~hat you at that
tote realized. When the late Senators Dir3csen and Htirphrey joined hands
to make the fifteenth arrendirent to the United States Oitnstitution bear fruit in 1965
by enacting the Voting Rights Act, Alabaira had less than 10 black elected
officials and f~r than 75,000 black voters. rbday, because of that Act,
PAGENO="0661"
1535
TesthTbny of Joe L. Reed on the Voting Rights Act
June 12, 1981
Page 7
Alabarra has over 300,000 black voters and 250 black elected officials:
16 nerrbers of the legislature, 6 sheriffs, 2 probate judges, 5 tax assessors,
5 school superintendents, over 35 school board nerrbers, over 100 city council
seitbers, over 20 irayors, and 27 county conmissioners. While we still de not
have our proportionate share of black public officials, no one can der~y
that this election of blacks to publià of f ice resulted directly fron the
1965 Voting Rights Act and the only reason we have people who are opposing
it is because it has been too successful.
I wish to inpress upon this cxrrinittee that the black vote in Alabana
has not only been used to elect black officials; we have supported and
determined the outcnne of the election of many white officials also. Thus,
the off-spring of the 1965 Voting Rights Act are not only found anong black
elected officials, but anong white elected officials as well.
In short, unless the Federal gevernuent continnes to provide
unconditional protection for black people to vote, then I sutinit to you we wifl
not have it. If the Congress fails to extend the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it
will be a signal for the"sons of forner slave ceners'.' to take away the political
birthright of the "sons of footer slaves" and return then to the shackles of
political slavery witlx)ut any possible hope of political emancipation.
PAGENO="0662"
1536
EXHIBIT I
An Agreement
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the undersigned officials of
the City of Montgomery to expand the City Limits of the City of
Montgomery; and,
WHEREAS, such expansion will require -certain portions of
Montgomery County not currently in the City of Montgomery to be
-annexed to said City~ and, -
WHEREAS, - such annexation will increase the population of the
City of Montgomery by an estimated 18,000 citizens~ and,
WHEREAS, - such increase-in population will-require an increase
in the population size-of each Montgomery City Council District: and,
ITHEREAS, such increase could have an adverse effect on the
current racial makeup:of-the said City Council; and,
WHEREAS, it is not the-desire of the undersigned officials
- to dilute the current -racial makeup of the said City Council:
NOW, THEREFORE, We,~the undersigned officials of the City
ofNontgomery~ in a spirit of cooperation and in an effort to
-ensure the City's growth through annexation, do hereby agree to
- support the re~districting plan, effective in 1983, that most
nearly preserves the current racial makeup of the Montgomery City
Council, so long as said plan complies with applicable law in
- general, and with the following conditions in particular:
1. - That any Montgomery City Council District drawn
must meet the `one man, one vote" concept as required
by the-Federal Courts.
2. That the Montgomery City Council Districts must be
contiguous.
- 3. That no Montgomery City Council member will be gerry-
manderedout ofhis or her district as a. result of
re~districting.
We further agree that, tc insure that the spirit of this
agreement is carr-ied- out, -to submit,- the 1983 plan to the United
States Department ~of Justice for appropriate review. -
PAGENO="0663"
CATHERYNE CASWELL, Hem r
Montgomery City un 11
/ ~
JOEl.~ ~D Member
Monti mery City Council
LE IS GOLSON, `Member
Montgomery City Council
~L.OLER.Meme~~
Montgo
Y~H~ ~
STARR J~.. Member
Mon'fgomery Ciy Council
T LL N,Nemer
Montgomery City Council
D~~(
WOTARY PU
My Commission Expires: 7~~-SO
DONE this the day of
1537
_L7,q1~d# ~, in the
Year of Our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Eight.
LA D. DI)tON. Membe.s~-~
Montgomery City Council
LL PEAK, Presi enX/,
Montgomery City Courf 1
,/1T~RMAN HARRIS, Presi ent Pro-Tern,
Montgomery City Council
(1. ~
/;~A~ ~
T~1ORY WLF~AR, iiayor
Ci~ Montgomery
STATE OF ALABAMA
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
fl')aArii
before me, this the ~ day of
1978.
PAGENO="0664"
* 1538
~OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
E)~UBIT II (:~:II1!~)
* CHARLES A. GRADDICK
ATrORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ALABAMA
April 30, 1981
Honorable Lister Hill Proctor
Honorable Richard S. Manley
Co-Chairmen
Joint Interim Committee on
Apportionment
State Capitol
Montgomery, Alabama 36130 -
Dear Gentlemen:
I am p1eased~to inform you that the three-judge panel in
the- legislative reapportionment case has been dissolved and
that you are no longer required to submit the new reapportion-
- -: - ment plan for approval. - - - - -
- * You may already be aware of this decision, which arose -
from a motion to intervene filed by the Board of Registrars
- of Tuscaloosa County. -However, I am enclosing a copy of the -
- - opinion for your convenience. - - - - * - * -
- - - * - Sincerely, - -
a ~
- - - - - _*_ -- - - -- - CHARLES A. GRADDICK - -- -. -
* - - - -: - *~ : - Attorney General - - -
- - CAG:lb - -- - -* * - -- - *. I -
PAGENO="0665"
1539
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
N. 0. SIMS, at ml.,
P1~intiffs,
R. E. FARR, et al.,
Intervening
Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff and
* Amicus Curiae,
V.
MABEL AMOS, Secretary of State
of the State of Alabama, et al.,
Defendants,
PIERRE PELHAM, et al.,
- Intervening
Defendants. -
E. D. NIXON, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
ALABAMA INDEPENDENT DENOCRATIC )
PARTY, a corporation,.
* *: - Plaintiff-. - -* S )
- Intervenor, : )
v. -~ *~ :. - : )
GEORGE C. WALLACE, as Governor
of the State of Alabama, ci ml., )
Defendants,
PIERRE PELHAN, et al., )
Intervening Defendants. )
3. ELBERT PETERS, individually, )
* for himself and for all others
similarly situated,
* Plaintiff,
t;~?3 3 ~
i/HE P. w'.:-:-~,. Cult
U. S. D15R:C7 iOtJR.j
)411)OIE CiSlitCi OF tU..
(~I-.: 1~
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3459-N
* DISTRICT OF-ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1744-N
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3017-N
* GEORGE C. WALLACE, as Governor
of the State of Alabama, ci ml.,
* Defendants,
PIERRE PF.LHAN, ct ml.,
Intervening
Defendants. - -
PAGENO="0666"
1540
ORDER
Pursuant~ to the memorandum opinion of this Court made and entered
herein this date, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. That the motion for leave to intervene in the above-captioned cases
be and is hereby denied.
2. That this three-judge court be and is hereby dissolved.
Done, this the ~~~day of April,1981.
~)
- UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
UNITED STAT S CIRCUIT JUDGE
- - I" ~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PAGENO="0667"
1541
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Board of Registrars of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, moves for leave
to Intervene in the above-captioned cases. The Board alleges it is charged wIth
the dut~-of registering voters within Tuscaloosa County for all elections, includ-
ing municipal elections. The Board further alleges that a certain area was
annexed into the City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in July and August of 1980; tiat,
according to this Court's order entered.in thesecases on January 3, 1972, the
location of Alabama Senate Districts 16 and 30 was established; that at the time
of the entry of this Court's order in 1972 Academy Drive Subdivision was totallf -
unoccupiedand vas used primarily for agricultural purposes. The Board asks
this three-judge court to clarify the location of the affected area by determin-
ing whether the affected area is located in Senate District 16 or in Senate
District: 30.
- These civil a~tions were commenced under Title 42, Sections 1983 and 1988,
United States Code) by plaintiffs contending that the Alabama Legislature was
malapportioned and that, as a result, their voting strength was diluted and they
a
were underrepresented in contravention of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments -
--- ~- ~ -
-- to the United States Constitution a~d the Constitution. of the State of Alabama~.
- ~ ~ ~ -~ ~`- -~ ~ ~.
(1901) ,~ ~ ~-
This Court determined and held that a three-judge court was req ired
because a substantial constitutional question was involved
* The history of this litigation spannqd more than a decade prior to the
entry of the 1972 order. In that order the Court recounted the trend of protracted
judicial restraint that was for the purpose of affording the Alabama Legislature
an opportunity to reapportion itself in accordance with the 1970 decennial census
as required by both the United States and the Alabama Constitutions. The action
* .- ~ -. .*- :- ---.- .- - - ~- :~- -~--..-s~--- - -
taken by the Court in the 1972 orderwas to order a plan of reapportionment of
th Al b ma Leg slatu e on th ba is of the 1970 de eon al c nsus
-
~~h" 1980 d ceon a]. c n us B s now b en completed Ne are quite certain -~
there 1- a been many population ~ ch gem in Alabama s nce 1970 these
will be reflected b~j the 1980 census. The "affected" areaswhich the petition for
* - - - -
intervention that we now consider discloses, present one such change. * The United
- .*
State~ and the Alabama Constitutions required that the Alabama Legislature respond
-,
to these changes by reapportionment. As a. matter of fact the Alabama constitution
commands that rcap~portionment be accompfLshed in the next regular session follow-
ing each decennial census. Art. 9, Sec. 199, Alabama Constitution of 1901.
-2-
PAGENO="0668"
1542
In March 1970 this three-judge court observed that "[aifter- the
* èompletiori of the 1970 census the Legislature can be expected with reasonable
dispatch to reapportion both the Mouse and the Senate . - ." We intervened
only because the legislature refused to do so and we intervened for a specific
- purpos~, i.e., to reapportion the Alabama Legislature as required by the 1970
census.
This. three-judge court by its 1972 order accomplished its intended ~
purpose. We retained jurisdiction to see that that purpose was-fully irisple-
z,ented. It. was properly implemented -and now there is no further purpose for
this three-judge court to continue to retain jurisdiction. The court was not
- constituted to sit in perpetuity for the purpose of overseeing the apportionment
- of the Alabama Legislature. This three-judge court having served its purpose
and the substantial constitutional question no longer existing, the court. should
now be dissolved. - -
* - It may ver~well be that some changes should be made in the Senate-district
- - * - lines inTuscraloosa County. If so, these changes, as the petition to intervene
- * reflects, are changes that have taken place since the 1970 census. If that be
~ ~ - * - - --~-- --
true then petitioner's relief must carrie from the Alabama Legislature or, if that
~
body age n fans to act from a duly n titut d court
- ~ ~ -. - ~- -` -
An order will be entered a cord ngly ~
Done this t}ie ~!~~day of Apr 1 1981 -
- ~
*4~TEScIR~UDGE,-
* :~.- ______
- -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *
PAGENO="0669"
1543
3 EXHIBrrIII(a~
4 ~t H. 663 By Pegues (With Notice and Proof)
Ri 3/17/81
5 RFD Local Legislation No. 1'
:7 ~. 1~ `~
9 ABILL
:0 TO BE ENTITLED
.1 AN ACT
3. Relating to~ounty; roviding for purging
* the lists of registered voters; requiring and prescribing
15 the procedure for the re-identification of registered
16 voters; placing certain duties on the board of registrars,
17 judge of probate, and the county governing body relative
18 to the re-identification of registered voters; and pro-.
19 viding a penalty for willfully making a false statement in
20 connection with re-identification.
21 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF AlABAMA:
22 Section 1. In Perry County, the board of registrars
23 is hereby directed to purge all lists of the qualified
24 electors in the county. to the end that the names of all
25 persons who are deceased or nonresidents of the county,
26 or have otherwise become disqualified from voting in Perry
27 County,~ shall be removed from such lists, and that the
28 name of each qualified elector shall appear only on the
2. list of qualified electors for the beat ~n which he resides.
30 Section 2. The board of registrars shall omit
31 and remove from the lists of qualified electors of the
32 county the name of any person who fails to re-identify
33 himself, in the manner prescribed herein, before the first
34 day of January, 1982. Mo person whose name is removed
35 from the list of qualified electors as herein provided
36 - shall cease permanently to be a qualified elector nor be
37 subject to re-registration, but ~hal1 be ~ubject only to
38 -
39.
40
41
PAGENO="0670"
1544
2
4
5 the requirement that he re-identify himself as a duly
6 registered elector before being listed on the list of
7 qualified electors in the county, and before being entitled
8 to vote.
9 Section 3. Prior to the first day of January,
LO 1982, the board of registrars of Perry County is hereby
11 authorized, directed, and required to visit each beat in
the county at least once, and more often if necessary,
L3 and- remain there at least one day from nine o'clock in
L4 the morning until four o'clock in the afternoon, for the
-purpose of enabling qualified and registered voters
16 . -residing in the beat to appear before the board and re-
17- - identify themselves. The board.shall give at least ten
18 - days notice by advertisement in a newspaper published in
19 -the county, of the time when, and the place in the beat
-20 where, theywill attend for-the purpose of enabling voters
21. : - to appear and re*identify themselved. Upon failure to
22 give such notice, or to attend any appointment made by them
23 many beat, they shall, after like notice, fill new
24 - - appointments. The board shgll remain in- session for thirty
25 -- days. During the 30 day session the board shall visit
26 - each beat on at least on~ day and the remainder of the time
27 may be divided as the board of registrars deem necessary,
28 to enable the qualified electors of the county to appear
-29 and re-identify themselves in the manner presc±ibed herein.
30 ~ voter shall appear and re-identify-himself at any place
31 -except in the beat in which he resides or in the courthouse
32 of-the county.
33 Sectiori 4. Each member of the board of registrars
34 shall receive thirty dollars per day, for each day, for each day's
35 - attendance upon the special sessions of the board required under
36 * the provisions of this act; but if such special session is
37 held on-the same day a regular session is required to be
38 -
~9.
40 - -2--
PAGENO="0671"
1545
3
4!
5 held under the laws of this state, registrars shall receive
6 only one per diem allowed for performing their regular
7 duties, it being the intent and purpose of this act that
8 registrars shall be entitled to receive only one per diem
9 allowance foi one day's service. If one or more of the
10 members of the board shall refuse, neglect, or be unable to
11 serve, or if a vacancy or vacancies occur in the membership
12 of the board from any cause, the Gbvernor, State Auditor,
13 and Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, or a majority
14 of them,, shall forthwith make other appointments to fill
15 such vacancies.
16 Section 5. The voter may re-identify himself by
17 appearing in person before the board of registrars in
18 the beat in which he resides, or before the board of
19 registrars in regular session, and answering such questions
20 and submitting such proof under oath, as the board may
21 require in.àrdertd establish the voter's identity,
22 place of legal residence, and the fact that the voter
23 has môt become disqualified from voting in the county.
24 - Section 6. The board of registrars shall meet
25 on the first Monday in Jan~iar~ 1982 for the purpose of
26 * ~urging the registration list~ and the names of all persons
27 who have failed to appear and re-identify themselves in
28 - the manner herein prescribed shall be s,tricken from the
29 lists, provided, however, that said board shall not strike
30 the name of any persons, or the spouse of any person,
31 known by any member of said board, or made known to the
32 said board by the written affidavit of another qualified
elector, to be in active duty of any of the armed forces
of the United States of America, and to be stationed, or
35 to be living with her or his spouse, as the case may be,
36
37
38
.39
40
1' l
PAGENO="0672"
1546
4
outside Perry County, Alabama during the period of time
6 from the effective date th~reof to January 1, 1982.
7 Section 7. Any qualified elector of the
8 county who shall have his name omitted or removed fron
9 the list of qualified electors in the county. by failure
10 to appear and re-identify himself as herein provided
11 shall be entitled to have his name restored to the
12 *. list of qualified electors by appearing in person at
3 the office of the board of registrars, and answering
4 such questions and submitting such proof, under oath,
as the board nay require to establish the voter's . . -
16 identity, place of legal residence, and the fact that the
17 voter has notbecome disqualified from voting in the county..
18 Provided, however, every qualified elector must have re-
19 identified himself at least 10 days prior to the election
20 at which he offers to vote; providedfurther, however, that
21 .this act shall -not be construed or applied to impair or
2~2 .. deny the right to vote in person orby absentee ballot of
23 - . any person or of the spouse of any person, now a qualified
24 elector of said county, who is in active duty of any of the
25 . armed forces of the United States of America and stationed,
26 and, as to thespouse, who is living withher or his husband
27 or wife as the case may be outside of Perry County, Alabama,
28 during the period of time from the effective .date hereof to
29 January 1, 1982.
30 Section 8. The county commission of Perry County
31 is hereby authorized, directed, and-required to furnish the
32 board of registrars with the supplies, equipment, printed
33 forms, stationery and newspaper advertisements necessary for
34 the. re-identification of voters as herein provided.
35 Section 9. The queatioiinaire to re-identify a
36 voter shall be in substantially the following foam:
37
38
39
40
PAGENO="0673"
VOTERS RE-IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Perry County, Alabama
Date 19
Name -:
First Middle Last
nt,if~a~j:n; 3.3, 7~. o: othe: -
LegaL Residence Address
Street
City or Town
State
Date of Birth Sex
I now vote and I am a qualified elector in
precinct or Beat No Box No
County, and I have not been disqualified from voting in
this county, I am not a qualified voter in any other county
in the State of Alabama or in any other State in the
United States. .
I have resided in Precinct or Beat No.
~or the past months.
Signed
Signature of Voter
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
day of .19
Registrar--Judge of Probate
Section 10. Any person who willfully makes a
false statement to the board of registrars, or any duly
authorized person, in re-identifying himself as a qualified
elector in the manner provided herein shall be guilty of
perjury, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by
imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one
nor more than five years.
Section 11. The provisions of this act are
severable. If any part of the act is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the
part which remains.
83-679 0 - 82 - `t3 Pt.2
-.J
1547
5
4
5
6
7
3.
.9
26
27
28
29
`30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39.
40
PAGENO="0674"
1548
3'I . 6
4
5 Section 12. All laws or parts of laws which
6 conflict with this act are repealed~
7 Section 13. This act shall become effective
8 immediately upOii its passage and approval by the Governor,
9. or upon its otherwise becoming a law.
10
11
12 .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39.
`0
-to -
PAGENO="0675"
1549
S 568 III(b~~~( ~
By Mr. Taylor (N & P)
RFD-LL~1
Rd 1-4-7-81
A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
Providing for purging the lists of registered
voters . ~ equiring and prescribing the.
procedure for the reidentification of registered voters;
placing certain duties on the board of registrars and the
county governing body relative to the reidentification of
registered voters. .
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
Section 1 The board of registrars of Lowndes
County is hereby..di~rected to purge all lists of the
qualified electors in the county to the end that the names
of all persons who are deceased or nonresidents of the
county, or have otherwise b~come disqualified from voting
- : in:Lowndés County, shall be removed from such lists, and
6 that the name of each qualified elector shall appear only
17 on the list of qualified electors for the precinct or beat
in uhich he resides.
J 9 Section 2 The board of registrars shall omit
and remove from the lists of qualified electors of the
-1 county the name of any person who fails to reidentify
2 himself, in the manner prescribed herein, before the first
1 3 Monday in January 1982. No person uhose name is removed
14 from the list of qualified electors as herein provided
5 shall cease permanently. tobe a qualified elector nor be
6 subject to re-registration, but shall be subject only to the
.7 requirement that he reidentify himself as a duly registered
1)
PAGENO="0676"
1550
3 2
4
5 elector bef6re being listed on the list of qualified
6 electors in the county, and before being entitled to vote.
7 * Section 3. Effective immediately, theboard of
8 registrars of Lowndes County is authorized and directed to
9 commence reidentification of the qualified electors of the
10 county. The members of the board of reg,istrars shall meet
Il as provided by law at least once, and mor~ often if necessary,
12 and remain at each location at least one day from nine
13 o'clock. n.m. until four o'clock p.m. for the purpos~ of
14 enabling qualified and registered voters to reidentify them-
15 selves. The board shall give at least ten day~' notice, by
16 adve~tisement in all newspapers of general circulation
17 published in the county, stating the time, date and place
8 where they will meet. Upon failura to give such notice,.
9 or appear as notified, after like notice, they shall repeat
20 correctly the notice and meeting process. The board shall
21 remain in session for thirty (30) days. During such session
22 the board shall visit each location on at least one day axiçl
23 the. remainder of. the time may be. divided as the board of *
registrars deems necessary to~nable the qualified electors
25 of the county to appear. and reidentify themselves in the
26 . manner provided herein. Nqvpter shall appear and reidentify
27 himself except as px?ovided in this Act. *
28 . Section 4. Each member of the board of registrars
29 shall receive ten dollars per day from the county general
30 fund, or'as otherwise provided by law for special registrars,
31 for each dày's attendance upon the special sessions of the
32 board required under the provisions of this Act; but if such
33 special session is held on the same day a regular session is
34 required to be held under the laws of this state, registrars
shall receive only one per diem allowande for performing
36. their regular duties, it being the intent and purpose of this
Act that registrars shall be entitled to receive ~nly one
PAGENO="0677"
1551
3
5 per diem allowance for one day's service. If one or'more
6 of the members of the board shall refuse, neglect, or be
7 unable to serve, or if a vacancy or vacancies occur in the
8- membership of the board from any cause, the Governor, State
9 Auditor, and Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, or
~LO a majority of them, shall forthwith make other appointments
1 to fillsuch vacancies. . .
2 Section 5. A voter may reidentify himself in
3 either one of the following ways: (a) He may reidentify him-
4 self by appearing in person at the office of tile board of
5 registrars and answering such questions and submitting such
6 proof as may reasonably be required by the board or one of
7 their duly authorized employees to establish his identity
8 . . and place of legal. xesidence and that .he has, not become dis-
9 qualified from voting in such county (b) If the voter is
0 physically handicapped injured or incapacitated to such an
1 extent that his or her personal appearance before the board
2 of registrars would place an~ undue burden or hardship on .the
3 . vot.er, then the voter may make a written request of the board
4 of.registrars to have a memberof the board come to the
5 residence of the voter for~the purpose of reidentifying the
6 voter. It is provided further, however, that such a written~
7 request must be -accompanied.. by. a certifi~ate of a licensed
28 . physician of Loundes County stating that the voter is so
handicapped, injured or incapacitated. The board of registrars
30 shall respond to. all such valid requests for such reidentifi-
1 cation in the.voter's personal residence. (c) Any voter who
2 has been purged from the list of qualified electors for
3 failure to reidentify may reidentify himself on any election
day at the office of'the board of registrars by appearing in
`person. He will., be. given a certificate to take to the polls
in order to vote, on. that day.
PAGENO="0678"
1552
4
.5 . Section 6. (a) The board of registrars shall.
6 meet on the first Monday in January 1982, for the purpose
7 of purging the registration lists, and the names of all -
persons who have failed to appear and reidentify themselves.
9 in the manner hereiiv prescribed shall be stricken from the
10 lists; provided, however, that said board shall not strike
11 the name of any person, or of the spouse ~f any person,
12 known by any member of said board, or made known to the
13 sai4 board by the written affidavit of another qualified
14 elector, to. be in active duty of any of the armed forces
15 of the United States of America, and to be stationed, or
1.6 to be living with her or his spouse, as the case may be,
17 outside La ndes County, Alabama, during the period of tima
18 of reidentification
19 (b) Following each general election the election
20 officers of Lowndes County shall deliver to the board of
21 registrars a list which indicates the names of all electors
22 who voted at such election: The board of registrars shall
23 keep on fi1e~suth listing and any qual~fied e1e~ctor who does
24 not vote in two or more cons~cutive general elections shall
25 h'ave his or her name remcved from the list of eligible voters
26 and may reidentify as provided in Section 5 hereof.
27 Section 7. An~ qualified elector of the county
28 who shall have his name omitted or removed from the list
29 of qualified electors in the county for any reason stated
30 herein shall be entitled te have his name restored to the
31 list of qualified electors by appearing in person at the
32 office of the board of registrars and answering such questions
33 and submitting such proof, under oath, as the board may
34 require to establish the voter's identity, place of legal
35 residence, and the fact that the voter has not become dis-
36 qualified from voting in the county. Provided, however,
37
:9
PAGENO="0679"
1553
4
5 every qualified elector must have reidentified himself as
6 herein provided in Section 5 hereof provided further
7' however, that this Act shall not be cons'truedor. applied
8 to impair or deny the right to vote in person or by absentee
9 ballot of any person or of the spouse of any person, now,a
0 qualified elector of said county who is in 4ctive duty of
1 any of the armed forces of the United States of America and
2 stationed and as to the spouse who is living with her
3 or his husband. or wife as ,thecase may be outside of Lowndes
_4. . -County, Alabama, during the period of tine of reidentification.
15 . . Section 8. `The.' county coirzrnissioners of Lowndes
6 County are hereby authorized, directed, and ~required to
7 furnish the board of registrars with the supplies equipment
18 printed forms stationery and newspaper advertisements
19 necessary for the reidentification of voters as herein pro-
20 vided
21 Section 9 The questionnaire to reidentify a
22 voter shall be in substantially the following form
23 VOTER S REIDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
24 Lowndes County Alabama
25 Date -. ,19.
26 . Name - .. . `
First Nid~le . Last
27
`28 Legal Residence'Address _______________________________
Street
29 ` ` ` ` `
`30 City or Town ` `
31 State `: `
32 ` Date of Birth ____________________ Sex
33 , Social Security Number ___________________________
34 Driver's License: State ___________ Number _____________
35 I now vote and I am a qualified elector in Precinct
36 or Beat No Box No Lowndes County and I have
37
38
PAGENO="0680"
1554
3~ 6
5 not been disqualified from voting in this county. I am
S not a qualified ~voter in any other county in the State of
Alabama or in any other state in the United States.
1~
3 I have resided in Precinct or Beat No.
9 for the past ___________ months.
o Signed ________________________
Signature of Voter
1 -
2 Sworn to and subscribed before me this day
3 of ___________,19.
4 _________________
Registrar
5 - -
6 Section 10. The board of registrars shall publish
7 in the county newspaper or newspapers a map showing voting
8 district dividing lines to assure that the voters will be
9 informed as to which district they are to vote in
0 Section 11. The provisions of this Act are
l~ severable.. If any part of the Act is declared invalid or
2 unconstitutional, such declaration ~hall not affect the
3 part which remains.~
* Section 12. All laws or parts of laws which
5 conflict with this Act are hereby repealed.
S Section 13. This-Act shall become effective
7 immediately upon its passage ~`nd approv~al by * the Governor,
3 or upon its otherwise becoming a law, except as hereinabove
otherwise provided.
PAGENO="0681"
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
`$0
1555
C 1.
A}IENDNENT TO S . B -
In Section 5, page .3, delete entirely lines
24 through 31, and insert in lieu thereof the
following: . .. .. . .
of registrars~ requesting the `board to furnish `the
necessary forms for reidentification. . Such written
request must be accompanied by a certificate of a
duly licensed-physician stating that the voter-is so
handicapped, injured or incapacitated. The board shall
respond to all such valid requests for reidentification
forms (c) Any voter who
yEAs_~~..C~-'- -sg2.. . -
McDOWELL `- ,:,~fl/
PAGENO="0682"
1556
E38UBIT 111(c)
L H. 140 By Minus (With Notice and Proof)
If~ Ri 2/3/81
RFD Local Legislation No. 1
LLL~~~
9 ...:::.. . A BILL~ 1
10 . TO BE ENTITLED
11 `` AN ACT
13 *Relating to~~ounty roviding for the
14 reidentification of registered voters in such county;
15 prescribing the procedure for the reidentification of registered
16 .roters; and providing a penalty for willfully making a false
17 statement inconnection with reidentification
18 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
39 Section 1 The board of registrars of Sumter County
20 S hereby directed to purge all lists of the qualified electors
71 in the county to the end that the names of all persons who
22 ire deceased or nonresidents of the county or have ot"ierwise
become disqualified from voting in Sumter County, shall be
removed from such lists; and that the name of each qualified
75 elector shall appear only on the list of qualified electors
* fl~or the beat im whIch `he resides.
27 Section 2. The b~ar4 of registrars shall omit and
YB ieuove from tha lists of qualified electdrs of the county
29 ;:be uame of any persom who fails to reidentify himself, in
;:he *.ianner prescribed herein, before the first day of January,
31 ~982. ~ person whose ~name is removed from the list of qualified
32 alectors as herein provided shall cease permanently to be
33 . t qualified elector nor be subject to reregistration, but
34 ;hall be subject only to the requirement that he reidentify
* hiinaclf as a duly registered -elector .before being liste4 on
the list of qualified electors in the county, and before
37 being entitled to vote. ` -.
PAGENO="0683"
2
Section 3. Prior to the first day of January, 1982,
the board of registrars of Sumter County is hereby authorized,
directed, and required to visit each beat in the county at
least once, and more often if necessary, and remain there
at least oneday from nine o'clock in.the morning until five
o'clock in the afternoon, for..the purpose of enabling qualified
and registered voters residing in the beat to anpear before
the board and reidentify themselves. The board shall give
at least ten days notice by advertisement in a news~aper
published in the county of the tine when and the place in
the beat where, they will attend for the purpose of enabling
voters to appear and reidentify themselves. Upon failure
to give such notice, or to attend any a~pointment made by
then in any beat, they shall, after like notice, fill new
appointments. The board shall remain in session for thirty
days. During the $0 day session the board shall visit each
beat on at least one day and the remainder of the time may
be divided as the board of registrars deem necessary, to
enable the qualified electorsof thecounty to.appear and
reidentify.themselves in the~ manner prescribed herein. No
~oter shall appear and reidentify himself at any place except
.~in the beat in which h~ res~des or. in the courthouse of the.
county.
Section 4. Each member of the board of.registrars
shall receive thirty dollars per day, for each day's attendance
uponthe special sessions of th~ board required under the
provisions of this act; but if such. special session is held
on the same day a regular session is required to be held
under the laws of this state; registrars shall receive only
one per diem allowed for performing their regular duties, it
being the intent and purpose of t~ris :act that registrars shall
be entitledto receive only one per diem allowance for. one
day's service. If one or more of the members of the board
1557
4
5
6
.7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
`8
29
:~o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
PAGENO="0684"
1558
5 shall refuse, neglect, or be unable to serv~, or if a vacancy
6 or vacancies occur in the metribership of the board from any
7 cause, the Governor, State ~~uditor, and Commissioner of
8 Agriculture and Industries, or a majority of them, shall
9 forthwith make other appointments to fill such vacancies.
10 Section 5. The voter may reidentify himself by
11 appearing in person before theboard of registrars in the
12 beat in which he resides, or by appearing before the judge
13 of probate, or either of the clerks in the office of the
14 judge of probate, or before the board of registrars in regular
15 session, and answering such questions and submitting such
16 proof under oath, as the board may require in order to
17 establish the voter's identity, place of legal residence,
18 and the fact that the voter has not become disqualified from
19 . voting in the county.
20 Section. 6. The board of registrars shall meet on
21 the first Monday in January 1982 for the.purpose' of purging
22 . the regist~ation'lists and the names of all persons who have
23 failed to appear, and reidentify .themselves in the manner herein
24 prescribed shall be stricken frOm the lists, provided, however,
25 that said board shall not strike the name of any person, or
26 bf the spouse of any person, known by any member of said
27 board, or made known to the~said board by the written affidavit
28 of another qualified elector, ~to be in active duty of any'
- 29 of the armed forces of the United States of America, and to
30 be stationed, or to be living with her or his spouse,' as the
31 case may be; outside Sumter County, Alabama, during the period
32 of time from the effective `date hereof to January 1, 1982.
33 Section 7. Any qualified elector of the county
34 who shall have his. name omitted or removed from the list of
35 qualified electors in the county by failure to appear and
36 * reidentify himself asherein provided shall be entitled to
37 have his name `restored to the list of qualified electors by
38 .`ippearing in person at the office of the board of registrars,
39 * or at the office of the judge of probate, and answering
:~ F'~'~
PAGENO="0685"
3_ 4
4
5 such questions and submitting such proof, under oath, as
6 the board nay require to establish the voter's identity,
7 place of legal residence, and the fact that the voter has
8 not become disqualified from voting.in~the county. Provided,
9 . however, every qualified elector: must have reidentified
10 himself at least 10 days prior to the election at which he
11 offers :to vote; - provided further, however, that this act shall
12 not be construed or applied to impair or deny the right to
13 - vote in person or by..absentee ballot of esy person or of the
14 spouse:ofany person, now a qualified elector of said county,
15 who is in,.activt duty of any of the armed forces of the United
16 States of America and stationed, and, as to the spouse, who
17 is living .with her or his husband or wife as the case nay
18 .be outside of Sumter County., Alabama, during the period of
19 ,. .:.time from the effecitve date hereof to January 1, 1982.
20 . . ~ Section 8. The county governing body of Sumter
21 County is hereby authorized, directed, and required. to furnish
22 ... the board Of registrars with the supplies, equipment, printed
23 forms, stationery and-newsp~per advertisements necessary for
24 . . the reidentification of voters as herein provided.
25 Section 9. The questionnaire to reidentify a voter
26
27
28
29 _________________________
30 ______________________________________________________
31
32 _________________________________
33
.37 . .
38 .
1559
shallbe in substantiallytbe.following form:
VOTERS REIDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Sumter County, Alabama
Date - 198
Name
Last Riddle First
Legal Residence Address
Street
City or Town _________________________
State ________________________
34
35
36
PAGENO="0686"
1560
`3 5
4
5 Social Security Number O~tional) ____________________
6 Other Identification ________________________________
7 Date of Birth ___________________________Sex Race
3 I now vote and i am a qualified elector in precinct.
9 or Beat No. ________, Box No. _____________ Ccunty, and I have
10 not been disqualified from voting in this county. I am not
11 a qualified voter in any other county in the State of Alabama
12 or in any other State in the United States.
13 I have resided in Precinct or Beat No. for
14 the past ______months.
15 Signed ______________________
Signature of Voter
16
17 Sworn to and subscribed before me this _______ day
18 of ________,19
19 . -
Registrar - Judge of Probate
20
21 Section.lO. Any person who willfully makes a false
22' statement to the board of registrars, or* any duly authorized
23 `person, in reidentifying himself as a qualified elector in
24 the manner provided herein shall be guilty of perjury, and *`
25 upon conviction thereof sha~ll- be punished by imprisonment
26 ~in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than
27 five years. -*
28 Section 11. The provisions of-this act are severable. -~
29 If any part of the act is declared invalid or unconstitutional,
30 such declaration shall not affect the part which remains.
31 Section 12. All law~ or parts of laws which conflict
32. with this act are repealed.
33 Section 13. This act shall becore effective
34 irrasediately upon its possage and approval by the Governor,
35 or upon its otherwise becoming a law:
36
$j~ J9~O
\41
PAGENO="0687"
1561
EXHIBIT IV
6
7
8 SYNOPSIS: This bill provides for theCounty~Board of Registrars to purge the
9 names of any registered- voter it believes to be deceased, non-residents
of the county or who otherwise suffer disqualification as-registered
11 voters; providesfor and prescribes the procedure~;for-re-identification
of registered voters; provides for the appointment of Deputy Registrars
13 to aid in the re-identification and registration of electors; provides
14 f or the appointment of City Clerks as Deputy Registrars upon the request
15 of the municipal governing body; places certain duties on the Board of
16 - - Registrars, - the Judge of Probate, and the County Governing Body relative
17 - to re-identification of registered voters; and provides a penalty for
18 making a false statement in connection with re-identification
19 - -. - - -
20 A BILL
21 - - TO B-E ENTITLED -.
22 AN ACT
23 Providing f-or purging -the lists of registered voters; requiring and -
24 prescribing the procedure for the re-identification of registered voters; providing
25 for the appointment of deputy registrars to aid in the re-identification and
26 registration of electors; placing certain duties on the board of registrars,
27 - judge ofprobate, and the county governing.body- relative to the re-identification
28 of registered voters; and providing a penalty for willfully making a false state-
29 ment in connection with re-identification.
30 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OP ALABAMA
31 - Section 1. The board of registrars of each county is hereby directed
32 to purge the names of all qualified electors which it reasonably believes or
- upon information or evidence are deceased or nonresidents of the county, or have -
otherwise become disqualified from voting in the county, and the name of each
- 35 qualified elector shall appear only on the list of qualified electors for the
36 -beat, precinct or ward (referred to- hereinafter as beat) in which he resides.
37
38
39
PAGENO="0688"
1562
5 Section 2. The board of registrars shall omit and remove from the
6 lists of qualified electors of the county the name of any person who it reasonably
believes is not a qualified elector and who has by reason of death or nonresidence
8 in the county or other legal disqualification not re-identified, in the manner
~ prescribed herein, before the first day of January, 1982. No person whose name
10 is removed from the list of qualified electors as herein provided shall cease
11 permanently to be a qualified elector nor be subject to re-registration, but shall
12 be subject only to the requirement that he re-identify himself as a duly registered
13 elector before being listed on the list of qualified electors in the county, and
14 before being entitled to vote.
Section 3. Prior to the first day of January, 1982, the board of
- 16 registrars of each county is hereby authorized, directed, and required to visit
17 or cause deputy registrars to visit each best in the county at least once, and
18 more often if necessary, and remain there at least one day from nine o'clock
19 in the morning until six o'clock in the evening or nine o'clock in the moining
20 until 12:00 noon Saturday for the purpose of enabling qualified and registered
21 voters whose names it propoies to strike to appear before the registrar or deputy
22 registrar to re-identify themselves or nonelectors to register. The board shall
23 give at least fifteen days notice by advertisement in anewspaperof general cir-
24 culation in the county, of the time when, and the place in the beat where, they
25 will attend for the purpose of enabling voters to appear and re-identify or non-
26 electors to register. Uponfailure to give such notice, or to attend any appointment
27 made by them in any beat, they shall, after like notice, fill new appointments.
28 The board shall remain in session for thirty working days. During the 30 day
29 session, the board shall visit each beat on at least one day and the remainder
30 of the time may be divided as the board of registrars deem necessary, to enable
31 the qualified electors of the county to appear and re-identify themselves in the
32 manner prescribed herein. A voter may appear and re-identify himself at any beat
33 or in the courthouse of the county.
34 , Section 4. Each member of the board of registrars shall receive twenty
35 dollars per day, for each day's attendance upon the special sessions of the board
36 required under the provisions of this act; but if such special session is held
37 on the same day a regular session is required to be held under the laws of this
38 state, registrars shall receive only one per diem allowed for performing their
39
PAGENO="0689"
1563
5 regular duties, it being the intent and purpose of this act that registrars shall
6 be entitled to receive only one per diem allowance for one day.' a service. If one
7 or more of the members of the board shall refuse, neglect, or be unable to serve,
8 or if a vacancy or vancies occur in the membership of the board from any, cause,
g the Governor, State Auditor, and Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, or a
~ majority of them, shall forthwith make other appointments to fill such vacancies.
11 Section 5. To assist in the re-identification required by this act and
12 in the registration of electors and other performance of its lawful duties, the
13 board of registrars shall appoint in accordance with §17-4-157, Code of Alabama
14 1975, two deputy registrars for each precinct in the `county for a two year term
15 within sixty days after the passage of this act and every two years thereafter.
16 Further, each board shall, , upon the written request, of any municipal governing
17 body, appoint as a deputy registrar the clerk of any municipality within the county.
18 Any person serving as a deputy registrar shall be trained by the board of registrars
19 and shall serve without compensation. The board shall -providedeputy registrars
20 with all necessary forms and when, such forms are completed, deputy registrars
21 ` shall return them to the office of the board of registrars as the board may require,
22 but not later than five, working days. ,
23 ` Section 6. The voter. may re-identify himself-by appearing in person
- 24 ` before a registrar or deputy registrar., or by appearing before the judge of probate,
25 or either of the clerks in the office of the judge of probate, or through his or
26 her representative before the board of registrars in regular session or deputy
27 registrar. -
28 Section 7. The names of.persons to be stricken from the list of
29 registered voters shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
30 - the county not more than thirty and not less than fifteen days prior to making
31 the visits required in Section 3, and not more than thirty nor less than fifteen
32 days prior to the date for purging the list.
33 Section 8. The board of registrars shall meet on the first Monday
in January, 1982, for the purpose of p~irging the registration.lists and the
- ~ names of all persons who have failed to re-identify themselves in the manner
36 herein prescribed shall be stricken from the lists, provided, however, that said
board shall not strike the name of any persons, known by any member of said board,
38 or made known to the said board by another qualified elector, to be a legal resident
39 -
-3-
83-679 0 - 82 - 4i4 Pt.2
PAGENO="0690"
1564
5 of the county. not known to be suffering from any disqualification.
6 Section 9. Any qualified elector of the county who shall have his
7 name omitted or removed from the list of qualified electors in the county by
8 failure to appear and re-identify himself and who has not otherwise been iden-
9 tified as herein provided shall be entitled to have his name restored to the
10 list of qualified electors by written affidavit or appearing in person before
a registrar, or~deputy registrar, or at the office of the board of registrars
12 or at the office of the judge of probate, submitting proof of legal residence,
~3 and the fact that the-votqr has not become-disqualified from voting in the
14 county. Provided, however, every qualified elector must have re-identified himself
15 at least-lO days prior to the election at which he offers to vote; provided,
- 16 further, however, that this act shall not be construed or applied to impair or
17 deny the right to vote in person or by absentee ballot of any person, or of the
18 spouse or child of any person, now- a qualified elector of said county, who is in -
19 - active ~Iuty of any of -the armed forces of the United -States of America and sta-
20 -- tioned, and, as to the spouse or child, who is living with her or his husband or
21 wife, mother or father, as the case may be, outside of the county, or who is -
22 -living outside the county while attending acollege or university or other institution
23 - of higher education or who is employed outside of-the United States during the period
24 of time fromthe effective date hereof to January 1, 1982; and provided further that
25 --the provisions of this-act shall not restrict the board of registrars from purging
26 the registration list as provided in §17-4-132, Code of Alabama, 1975. -
27 Section 10. The county coimnission-of each county is hereby authorized,
28 directed, and required to furnish the county board of registrars with the supplies,
29 -equipment, printed forms, stationery and newspaper advertisements necessary for the
- 30 re-identification of voters as herein provided. -
31 Section 11. Any person who willfully makes a false statement to the
32 board of registrars, or any duly authorized person, in re-identifying himself
as a qualified elector in the manner provided herein shall be guilty of perjury,
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished with a fine not to exceed $1,000
or by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one month nor more than
36 one year. - -
37 - Section 12. The provisions of this act are severable. If any part of
the act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not
- affect the part which remains. -
5 Section 13. - AU lava or parts of lava ~ibicb conflict with this act
6 are repealed.
7 - Section 14. This act shall become effective immediately upon its
8 passage and approval by t~ Govarn~r, or. upon its otherwise b.ecaing a law.
PAGENO="0691"
1565
Mr. EDWARDS. May. I note applause is not permitted in. a congres-
sional hearing?
Who will be the next witness to speak? Without objection, all of
the statements of the four witnesses will be made part of the
record.
Ms. Bozeman?
Ms. BOZEMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is
Maggie Bozeman.
I am a resident of Pickens County, Ala. I am president of the
Pickens County branch of the NAACP.
I serve as coordinator of the Pickens County Democratic Confer-
ence. I live in the town of Aliceville, population 3,240.
When it comes to black people registering and voting, I am here
to tell you that Aliceville is a long ways from being a wonderland.
Unless you take wonderland to mean the whole Pickens County in
a negative sense.
Based on the 1980 census, Pickens County has 8,978 blacks and
12,451 whites. Blacks are 41.8 percent of the population. However,
those fairly impressive numbers don't mean anything because we
have been unable to elect a black to a countywide office in Pickens
County.
Except for two black towns in Pickens County, we have~ no black
officials to speak of.
Likewise, we have few blacks who are appointed to serve on
various city and county boards. Every chance I get to say it, I tell
people that Pickens County has no equal when it comes to denying
blacks ease of access to registration and voting. Registration bar-
riers, accessibility to the registration site, an attitude of the board
of registrars remain our biggest problem in Pickens County, Ala.
In 1978 we requested that our board of registrars appoint deputy
registrars. They flatly refused.
Although the board told us on several occasions that they would
be willing to hold voters registrations in the precincts, we have
been unable to get them to implement this. Their `basic excuse for
not having an ~active voters' outreach program is' that the legisla-
ture has set certain registration days for them to follow and that
they will not get paid for the days which have already been desig-
nated by law for them to register people. . ,
,Rarely have we conducted a voters' registration drive in Pickens
County which has not met with some resistance from local officials.
One .of the most .annoying things black voters, face in Pickens
County in trying to register is .steady pressure, of the law enforce-
ment officers. .
You would think that the deputies. `were on the payroll' of the
board of registrars the way they come around to snoop, to see what
we are doing
Voting problems in Pickens County Voting problems are far
more severe `than prOblems of registration. In fact, based upon
numerous complaints we filed with the Justice Department last
year, that agency sent Federal observers to Pickens County to
monitor the election
In my opinion Pickens County has one' of "the mOst outdated
systems of voting I have ever seen recently.
PAGENO="0692"
1566
We still use paper ballots. Moreover, for lack of a better term, we
have open house voting in Pickens County Ala. In most polling
places there is no privacy whatsoever. I mean whatsoever.
~For example, `if I vote at the armory, I must go there and go to
the ~table which has the letter' B. I and all the other voters whose
name end in .B must .mark our ballots in the presence of others
using the same table.
For those folks who cannot read, it is very discouraging because
these folks often are readily~ turned off `by new schemes to harass
black voters.
During the 1980 election, last fall, blacks seems to~ be the Only
ones who were questioned about who would be providing assistance
to voters.
In addition, the standards for assisting voters was changed by
local officials.
People who were to provide assistance were required to stand an
unreasonable' distance away from the polling place. I happened to
be one. They were often watched by a deputy sheriff on duty at the
polling place.
In my case particularly, the deputy sheriff took pictures of me-
if you' will, we are willing to share ~them with you-and all of the
folks I assisted in voting.
Has this committee ever heard of such?
Absentee ballots~ In Pickens County in 1980 the sheriff deputies
were instructed to visit the homes of all black families who re-
quested absentee ballots. The whole idea behind this move was to
determine if. there were people who got absentee ballots who were
in,town on the day of election.
In addition~ to this, legal `harassment can `result from voter par-
ticipation in Pickens County. I can testify to that because I sought
to educate black ~people regarding how they can vote an absentee
ballot.
By doing so, I was hauled into court and accused of fraud along
with Mrs. Julia Wilder.
The board of elections released me once an indictment was made
about charges regarding absentee ballot distribution.
Just being. a voter in Pickens County is a wearying experience.
Sometimes I feel like giving up, but I keep going on.
Indeed, the thing that keeps me going on is to know that I: can
call upon the Justice Department for relief if need be.
If Congress takes the Voting Rights Act protection from us in
Pickens County in the State of Alabama, we voters in rural Ala-
bama may as well start whistling Dixie.
May I say to the committee and to the people here today, if the
Voting Rights Act is not extended, may you come to Pickens
County, Ala., and kneel with us and say, "Lord, please take all
blacks on home with you where maybe, ifsuchbe; we cannot take
much more."
Thank you kindly.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Bozeman.
[The prepared statement follows:]
PAGENO="0693"
1567
1TS~IM~NY OF
M&OGIE BOZ~N
PI~KE~S cçxm~, ALABAMA
BERRE WE WXEE JUDICIARY SUBCGt'1flT~
CIVIL AND (Zt~STUI.T1'ICt~AL RIQU'S
JUNE 12, 1981
t'D11~XZ1ERY, ALABAMA
PAGENO="0694"
1568
ME. CHAIRMAN AND NE~1BERS OF THE SU&XNITITEE:
MY NN~1E IS MAGGIE BOZEMAN, AND I AM A RESIC~Nr OF PICKERS CX)UNIY, AIABAKA.
I AM PRESIDENT OF TIlE PICKERS CCXJNTY BRANCH NAACP, AND I SERVE AS CX)ORDINATOR OF
THE PICKERS COUNTY DE~4)CRATIC CXJNFEREL~CE. I LIVE IN TIlE Tt~ OF ALICEVULE, POPU-
LATION, 3,240.
IT CONES TO BLACK PEOPLE REGISTERING AND ~YrING, I'M HERE TO TElL IOU
THAT ALICEVILLE IS A LONG ~`LAYS FI~4 BEING A ~)NDERLAND ,~ UNLESS YOU TAKE "~`XJNDERLAND"
`IX) MEAN ThE WFOLE OF PICKERS (DUNTY IN A. NEGATIVE SENSE.
BASED ON THE 1980 CENSUS, PICKERS C~MY HAS 8,978 BLACKS, AND 12,451 ~lI'1ES.
BLACKS ARE 41. 87~ OF TIlE POPULATION. WWEVER, TFOSE FAIRLY IMPRESSIVE NUMBERS DON'T
MEAN AN?1I{ING BECAUSE WE HAVE BEER UNABLE ID ElECT A BLACK TO A CDUNIYWItE OFFICE
IN PICKERS (DLNrY. DICEPT FOR 1W) POOR ALL-BLACK 1T1~NS IN PICKERS CXX&IY (OLD
FI~J{'HIS AND McMULWI), WE HAVE F~) BLACK ELECIED OFFICIALS IX) SPEAK OF. LD(EWISE,
WE HAVE F~'I BlACKS ~`MO ARE APPOINTED TO SERVE ON VARIOUS CITY AND COiNIY BOARDS.
EVERY GlANCE I GE~ TO SAY IT, I TELL PEOPLE THAT PICKENS (DUNTY HAS FD
EQUAL WHEN IT (X}TES TO LENYING BLACKS EASY ACCESS TO REGISTRATION AND VOTING.
REGISTRATION BARRIERS: ACCESSIBILITY TO TIlE REGISTRATION SITE AND ATTITUDES
OF THE BOARDS OF REGISTRARS REMAIN OUR BI(X~ST PROBLEM IN PICKERS (DUNTY. IN 1978,
WE REQ~JES1ED THAT OUR BOARD OF REGISTRARS APPOINT IEPUIY REGISTRARS. iHEY FLATLY
REFUSED. ALTJIXUl THE BOARD `IOU) US ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT THEY W)ULD BE WILLING
TO hOLD WIrER REGISTRATION IN TIE PRECINCTS, WE HAVE BEER UNABLE TO. C~r .11El4 TO
IJIPLFJ'ENT THIS. THEIR BASIC DCCUSE. FOR NCIT RAVING AN ACTIVE VOTER OUTREACH PROGRAM
IS THAT1IIE LEGIS]AI1JRE HAS SIrT CERTAIN REGISTRATION hAYS FOR THEM TO P011CM, AND
THAT THEY WILL hUE CE~ PAD). FOR THE OAYS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEER DESIONATED BY LAW
FOR THEM 10 REGISTER PEOPLE.
PAGENO="0695"
1569
RARELY HAVE WE COMDIEIED A SJUEER REGISTRATION DRIVE IN PICKENS (XXNIY
WHIQI I U\S N(JF ~F Wfl}1 SOME RESISTANCE F1~Z4 LOCAL OFFICIALS. ONE OF THE M~T
AENOYTNO `IflINGS BlACK \~Y1ERS FACE IN PICKF~ CX)UNI'Y IN TRHING 11) REGISTER IS THE
STFADY PRESENCE OF THE LAW ENFORCEIIENE OFFICERS. YOU ~`KRJLD WINK THAT WE DEPU-
TIES ARE ON THE PAYROLL OF THE BOARD OF REGISTRARS THE WAY THEY (X}IE AROUND
TO SNOOP 10 SEE WHAT WE' RE DOING.
\OTING PROBLE2'~: IN PICKENS COL.tfl'Y, WFING PROBL~ ARE FAR FORE SEVERE
THAN PROBLF2'~ OF REGISTRATION. IN FACT, BASED UPON NIFIEROUS COMPIAINLS WE FUEl)
~rrni THE JUSTICE DEPACINFNE LAST YEAR, THAT AGERY S~C FEDERAL OBSERVERS 11)
PICKEHS COLN~Y TO MJNTRJR THE ELECEIONS
IN t'W OPINION, PICKENS OOILNI'Y HAS ONE OF THE I'OST OUIflATED SYFI~ OF VOEING
I HAVE SEEN RECENTLY. WE STUL LIRE PAPER BALLCIES. L4)REOVER, FOR LACK OF A BETTER
TERM, WE HAVE "OPEN HOUSE WIrING" IN PICKENS COUNTY. IN WJST POLLING PLACES,
THERE IS NO PRIVACY WHATSOEVER. FOL EXAMELE, IF I VOLE AT THE ARFORY, I NOSE GO
WERE AND 0010 ThE TABLE WHICh HAS THE `TB". I AND ALL THE (IDlER WIERS WHOSE
NAMES END IN "B" FORT MARK OUR BALWIS IN THE PRESENCE OF (IDlERS, USING THE SAME
TABLE. FOR TIUSE FOLK WHO CAN'T READ, IT IS VERY DISCOURAGING BECAUSE THESE FOLK
OFTEN ARE EASILY TURNED OFF BY N~4 SQIEIIES TO HARASS BLACK VOTERS.
DURING THE 1980 ELECTIONS LAST FALL, BLACKS SEEID TO BE THE ONLY ONES ~)
WERE (~JESTIONED ABOLTE WHO NOULD BE PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO VCIIERS. IN ADDITION,
TIlE SEANOARDS FOR ASSISTING \O'IERS WAS Q'IANCEI) BY LOCAL OFFICIALS. PEOPLE ~)
WERE TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE WERE REC~JIRED TO STAND A REASONABLE DISTANCE AWAY F~1
* `IlIIC POLLIUN PLACE. THEY WERE OFIW SU+ONED II) ASSIST BY A LEPIJIY SHERIFF ON 111W
AT `DEC POLLING PLACE. IN ME CASE IN PARTICILAR, ThE DEFICIT SHERIFF TOOK PICIHEES
OF FE AND ALL THE FOLK I ASSISTED IN WIrING. HAS THIS CL]+ImEE EVER HEARD OF
SUCH?
-2-
PAGENO="0696"
1570
BAUfl1~: IN PICKE2~ awi~ IN 1980, THE SHERIFF'S DEP1J~IES WERE
Thfl~tKTE1) it) VISIT ~fltE FKPFS OF AU. ELACK FAMILIES Mi) REQJESIED ABS~IEE BATLOrS.
THE WF~DU~ IDEA BEHIND 11115 MJVE WAS it) IEIE~4INE IF THERE WERE PEC~LE t4lO COT
ABS1NTEE BAJ1IJ~S MO WERE IN `I~XI~ ON THE L~Y OF TIE ELECTION.
IN AI~)~fION TO THIS, lEGAL RRAS~4~F CAN RESULT F1~4 VOTER PMFIC]PXflON.
IN PICKE1~ COIN.tY. I CAN `TESTIFY it) THAT, BECAUSE I SOIThW it) E11X~AIE BLACK
PEOPLE REGARDING 1KW `fl-IEY CAN VOTE AN ABS~IEE BAllOT. BY DOING SO, I WAS HAULED
INII) COURT AND A(XUSED OF F1~AUD, ALONG WTFH !~fl~S. JULIA WflJ~. THE BC~RD OF
EEXXATION RELEASED 1 ONCE AN INDICIMENT WAS MAlE ABCXJT Q3AR(~S REGARDING ~A~ENJ~
BAUUIS DIS~JiUBUrION.
JUST BEING A WTTER IN PICKEHS CCLWIY IS A WEARYING EXPERIENCE. SCZT1}ES
I FEEL LIRE GIVING UP~ rnrr I KEEP GOING. INDEED, THE THING THAT KEEPS 1 GOING IS
TO KNCM THAT I CAN CALL ON THE JUSTICE LEPAR1}1EN~ FOR RELIEF, IF NEED BE. IF
CONGRESS TAKES THE MITING RIQTI'S ACT P1~YTECTION Fl~X1 US, WE WIIERS IN RURAL ALAB~
MAY AS WELL START WHISTLING DIXIE.
1W~( YOU, ?`R. QiAIJ~(AN.
PAGENO="0697"
1571.
Mr. Patton, are you next, or Sheriff Arnold?
Mr. PATTON. Mr. Chairman, members of the., committee,.: lest .1
forget, all that may be told to you that has been accomplished since
we had the 1965 Voting Rights Act would. not have, been accdm-.
plished if we :had; not had. it. ` . , .
I want to emphasize that fact.. .. . .
The passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act may be considered the
second Emancipation Proclamation in this country~and. particularly
in the Southern States. . . . .
The key to our survival in the ,future is .the ballot, .for with the
proper use of the ballot we breathe. and grow economically, politi-~
cally, socially, and physically. . . :
The ballot is so important that I used to say in going around that
it affected us from the cradle .to the grave, but .now, since we have
the abortion laws, I. have had to change that..
I now say we are affected by the ballot from conception. to the
resurrection. . , ,
There are two B's that run .this country. They are the ballot and
the buck. Without the ballot we couldn't get the buck. Without the
ballot we don't get what our taxes pay for as services .from our
cities and our counties. .
The only weapon that we have, the most effective weapon, is our
vote for people in the legislative bodies, policymaking boards that
we determine and breed. . . . ,
Before ,the 1965 Voting Rights Act .was made law, the way of life
in the South. for blacks was `only the. crumbs. that fell from the
tables of those in power. ` `
Before the 1965 emancipation, the old cliche that said, "Negroes
have no right that a white man ,had to respect" was in effect.
As national director of NAACP voter education, I traveled an
average of 20,000 miles a year working in large cities, hamlets, and
villages, organizing voter registration campaigns and I know of the
hostility and. barriers to. black participation in the political process
which affected not only the economic and social well-being of black
Americans in a devastating manner but the judicial system was
blighted with unequal justice, or no justice at all for, blacks.
Today, without reenactment of this bill, the .evil roots that are
still present will sprout and give growth to the inequities that
stalked this country until 1965. This may be detected in the com-
ments made by people who are opposed to it, the evil forces, the
evil roots that exist.
It was in 1943, or thereabouts, when I was called on by. the late
Walter White in an effort to conduct a voter registration. campaign.
At that. time we had less than 25,000 black voters in the State of
Alabama. It was not until after 1965 that any material . progress
was made. . .
I can recount that in the remote rural areas of Alabama, the few
Negroes that were registered had to be recommended by some
white person. All types of intimidation was experienced by those
who attempted to. register on their own. . .
When blacks began to become wise as to what the ballot could
do, our. State legislature passed a bil.l that had so many require-
ments it made it impossible to register unless some white person
said the black applicant embraced the qualities of a good citizen
PAGENO="0698"
1572
We had~~to go into court and I sat as chairman of a committee to
raise funds to take this bill into court which wa~ finally declared
illegal.
`As soon as this was done, the legislature then ehacted a require-
ment for a literacy test with. questions that a Philadelphia lawyer
couldn't answer~~ and certainly not the members of the' board of
registrars.
.With the test done away' with, the State `appointed, hostile mem-
bers ~of the board' of ~registrars in the various counties. They did
whatever~ it' was possible' to' make it difficult because :there' was a
time that we were registered on a quota basis. They -registered one
black to every three white' persons ~that they registered. Some
`insisted upon-those who insisted on putting our names on ~the
rolls, `our `homes were-shot into at night. Some were `dismissed from
their jobs. Even today in ~a subtle manner, this sort of thing is
existing.
When the' law `-was first passed, of reidentification, it was" de-
signed for counties of 200,000 population and more; Today many of
those who have much smaller populations are asking for that.
The only purpose of it is to~di1ute and make it inconvenient and
expensive for blacks to keep their names on the rolls of registered
voters.
The law provides that in the month of October of certain years
that the books shall be carried from precinct to precinct and dis-
trict to district. What would happen? These registrars would put
up a little sign `of where `they were going to be in some obscure
place Nobody would see it They couldn't read it The oniy notice
in the papers was the weekly papers, the white papers.
`Blacks didn't have them. When they went to these rural~ areas
~with the bOoks, those who were. on these boards of registrars would
hide. behind the counters in those stores where they were in order
to' keep Negroes from finding them.
`When they went to the courthouse on many occasions, the boards.
of registrars hid in the vault-in the. probate judge's office, out of
the sight of these Negroes.
They had persons to tell the whites' where the board of registrars
were `located. This was done.
There have ~been times when they did all these types of things.
There are hundreds of other gimmicks used to prevent black
registration. You went into register. If you look like you were
intelligent, they would say, give me a utility bill, a gas bill, a light
bill. If you. didn't' have it, you would have `to go back and get it
another day~ When you got back there, they. had another require-
ment that sent you away, all designed to keep you from registering,
to discourage you.
The key to our' survival in this what we call the land of the free
and the home of. the brave, `supposedly exercising democracy, will
depend greatly upon the enactment and extension of the voting
rights bill. `
The political process in-this State and in many other States in
the South-I work in the North as well as `in the South, East and
West, the political frontiers are still here and will be for years to
come ~unless this civil rights bill is reenacted befQr~ we will pene-
trate these political frontiers. `
PAGENO="0699"
1573
Thank you, gentlemen.
[The statement of Mr. Patton follows:]
PAGENO="0700"
1574
TESTIMONY
CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON EXTENSION OF 1965 VOTING RIGHT ACT
BY: W. C. PATTON
RETIRED NATIONAL DIRECTOR,
NAACP VOTER EDUCATION
FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1981
THE PASSAGE OF THE 1965 VOTING RIGHT ACT MAY BE CONSIDERED THE SECOND EMANCIPA-
TION OF NEGROES IN THIS NATION AND PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTHERN STATES.
THE KEY TO OUR SURVIVAL IN THE FUTURE IS THE BALLOT, FOR WITH THE PROPER USE OF
THE BALLOT, WE BREATHE AND GROW ECONOMICALLY, POLITICALLY, SOCIALLY AND PHYSI-
CALLY.
THERE ARE TWO B'S THAT RUN THIS COUNTRY. THEY ARE THE BALLOT AND THE BUCK AND
WITHOUT THE BALLOT, WE CAN'T GET THE BUCK. WITHOUT THE BALLOT, WE DON'T GET THE
SERVICES WE PAY FOR WITH OUR TAXES. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WEAPONS WE HAVE TO FIGHT
OFF THE ENEMIES ARE OUR POWER IN THE LEGISLATIVEBODIES AND POLICYMAKING BOARDS
WHICH DETERMINE HOW WE LIVE AND BREATHE.
BEFORE THE 1965 VOTING RIGHT ACT WAS MADE LAW, THE WAY OF LIFE IN THE SOUTH FOR
BLACKS WAS ONLY THE CRUMBS THAT FELL FROM THE TABLES OF THOSE IN POWER. BEFORE
THE 1965 EMANCIPATION~ THE OLD CLICHE THAT SAID "NEGROES HAVE NO RIGHT THAT A
WHITE MAN HAD TO RESPECT" WAS IN EFFECT.
AS NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF NAACP VOTER EDUCATION, I TRAVELLED AN AVERAGE OF 20,000
MILES A YEAR WORKING IN LARGE CITIES; HAMLETS AND VILLAGES, ORGANIZING VOTER
PAGENO="0701"
1575
REGISTRATION CAMPAIGNS AND I KNOW OF THE HOSTILITY AND BARRIERS TO BLACK
PARTICIPATION IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS WHICH AFFECTED NOT ONLY THE ECONOMIC~
AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING OF BLACK AMERICANS IN A DEVASTATING MANNER BUT THE. E
SYSTEM WAS BLIGHTED WITH UNEQUAL JUSTICE, OR NO JUSTICE AT ALL FOR BLACKS~
TODAY, WITHOUT REENACTMENT. OF THIS BILL, THE EVIL ROOTS THAT ARE STILL PRESENT
WILL SPROUT AND GIVE GROWTH TO THE INEQUITIES THAT STALKED THIS COUNTRY UNTIL
1965.
IT WAS IN 1943 OR THEREABOUT WHEN I WAS CALLED ON BY THE LATE WALTER WHITE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NAACP, TO ORGANIZE AND PROMOTE A STATEWIDE VOTER REGISTRA-
TION CAMPAIGN IN ALABAMA, AT WHICH TIME WE HAD LESS THAN 25,000 BLACK VOTERS IN
THE ENTIRE STATE OF ALABAMA. NO NOTABLE GROWTH WAS MADE UNTIL AFTER THE 1965
VOTING RIGHT ACT WAS PASSED.
I CAN RECOUNT THAT IN THE REMOTE RURAL AREAS OF ALABAMA, THE FEW NEGROES THAT
WERE REGISTERED HAD TO BE RECOMMENDED BY SOME WHITE PERSON. ALL TYPES OF INTIMI-
DATION WAS EXPERIENCED BY THOSE WHO ATTEMPTED TO REGISTER ON THEIR OWN.
WHEN BLACKS BEGAN TO BECOME WISE AS TO WHAT THE BALLOT COULD DO, OUR STATE LEGIS-
LATURE PASSED A BILLI THAT HAD SO MANY REQUIREMENTS IT MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
REGISTER UNLESS SOME WHITE PERSON SAID THE BLACK APPLICANT EMBRACED THE QUALITIES
OF A GOOD CITIZEN. . . .
I PERSONALLY CHAIRED A STATEWIDE COMMITTEE TO RAISE FUNDS THAT THIS LEGISLATIVE
ACT MIGHT HAVE ITS DAY IN COURT. THE CASE WAS FILED IN MOBILE, ALABAMA, AND WAS
ULTIMATELY DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
PAGENO="0702"
1576
AS SOON AS THIS WAS DONE, THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED ANOTHER BILL REQUIRING A
LITERACY TEST WHICH HAD QUESTIONS WHICH A PHILADELPHIA LAWYER COULDN'T ANSWER
AND CERTAINLY NOT MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL BOARD OF REGISTRARS. IT WAS THE 1965
VOTING RIGHT ACT THAT DID AWAY WITH THIS TEST.
WITH THE TEST DONE AWAY WITH, THE STATE APPOINTED HOSTILE PERSONS ON LOCAL
BOARDS OF REGISTRARS IN THE VARIOUS COUNTIES THAT SOUGHT TO USE WHATEVER METHODS
THEY COULD TO REGISTER BLACKS ON A QUOTA BASIS, SOMETHING LIKE FIVE WHITES TO
ONE BLACK. THE EMPLOYERS OF BLACKS USED VARIOUS KINDS OF THREATS TO DISCOURAGE
THEIR BLACK EMPLOYEES FROM REGISTERING. SOME WHO INSISTED ON PUTTING THEIR
NAMES ON THE ROLL OF QUALIFIED VOTERS HAD THEIR HOMES SHOTINTO AT NIGHT. SOME
WERE DISMISSED FROM THEIR JOBS. ANOTHER ONE OFTHE GIMMICKS WHICH THEY CONSIDER
LEGAL IS REIDENTIFICATION. THIS IS DESLGNED MAINLY TO PUT VOTERS TO A LOT OF
EXTRA TROUBLEAND TO DILUTE OUR VOTING STRENGTH. WHEN THE LAWWAS FIRST PASSED
IT~ AFFECTED ONLY COUNTIES WITH 200,000 OR I4ORE POPULATION, BUT TODAY OTHER COUN-
TIES HAVE JOINED IN ADOPTING THIS PROPOSAL, MAINLY TO DILUTE AND REDUCE OUR VOT-
ING STRENGTH.
THE STATE LAWPROVIDES THAT IN THE ?IONTH OFOCTOBER BEFORE AGENERAL ELECTION,
THE REGISTRATION BOOKSSHALL BE CARRIED TO THE VARIOUS PRECINCTS AND DISTRICTS.
MANY TIMES NOTICES OF THE DATE AND~PLACES WHERE THE BOOKS ARE TO BE LOCATED ARE
PUT IN SUCH OBSCURE PLACES, THEYARE~NOTNOT1CEABLE. THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN
THE BOARD WAS NOT OPEN TO REGISTER PEOPLE~BUT WEREFIID BEHIND THE COUNTERS OF
SOME STORE OR EVEN IN THE `FAULT IN THE PROBATE ~1UDGEtS OFFICE, ALL DESIGNED TO
KEEP OUT OF THE SIGHT OF~BLACKS. ~4HO WOULD WANT TO REGISTER.
PAGENO="0703"
1577
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF OTHER GIMMICKS USED TO PREVENT BLACK REGISTRATION. FOR
EXAMPLE, BLACK PERSONS WOULD BE ASKED TO PRODUCE A UTILITY BILL FOR IDENTIFICA-
TION.
THE KEY TO OUR SURVIVAL IN THIS WHAT WE CALL THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME
OF THE BRAVE SUPPOSEDLY EXERCISING DEMOCRACY WILL DEPEND GREATLY UPON THE
REENACTMENT OR EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS STILL A FRONTIER AND IT WILL NOT BE UNTIL YEARS TO COME
THAT WE WILL HAVE COMPLETELY PENETRATED THIS FRONTIER.
PAGENO="0704"
1578
TESTIMONY June 12, 1981
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF OTHER GIMMICKS USED TO PREVENT BLACK REGISTRATION. FOR
EXAMPLE, BLACK PERSONS WOULD BE ASKED TO PRODUCE A UTILITY BILL FOR IDENTIFICA-
TION.
THE KEY TO OUR SURVIVAL IN THIS WHAT WE CALL THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME
OF THE BRAVE SUPPOSEDLY~ EXERCISING DEMOCRACY WILL DEPEND GREATLY UPON THE RE-
Lf~
ENACThENT OR EXTENSION OF THE ~i)RIGHTS BILL.
THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS STILL A FRONTIER AND IT WILL NOT BE UNTIL YEARS TO COME
THAT WE WILL HAVE COMPLETELY PENETRATED THIS FRONTIER.
Mr~ EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Patton.
The last member of the panel to testify wil1~be Sheriff Prince
Arnold, Camden, Ala., the sheriff of Wilcox County.
Mr. ARNOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to come before this committee to testify in favor of the
extension of the Voting Rights Act.
Our local press many times reports that I am one of the youngest
sheriffs in the country. I was elected sheriff in 1978. In fact, Mr.
Jesse Brooks, who is the tax collector, and I became the first
elected officials. in the history of Wilcox County.
This opportunity of blacks being able to serve 1 feel as a man in
the political arena did not come in Wilcox County until over a
hundred years after the American Constitution guaranteed blacks
the right to vote.
You may be interested to know that Wilcox County did not have
a single voter until the Voting Rights Act in 1965. At that. time the
black population in Wilcox County was over 70~ percent. Today the
black population is over 68 percent. That is based on the 1980
census, but in terms of black elected officials, we are still underrep-
resented.
Indeed, if it wasn't for the Voting Rights Act, we wouldn't have a
single black elected official in Wilcox County.
In 1980, Wilcox County elected four additional blacks to public
office. We elected two to the board of comissioners, two to the
board of education.
Right now we feel that these gains are not safe because there is a
move to undo our gains among the black folks of Wilcox County.
The old attitudes are still there. The resistance to blacks partici-
pating in public affairs are not looked on too kindly.
Some black folks in Wilcox County are still not able to vote and
still not able to exercise their rights. There are new schemes that
are being devised to discourage black folks from participating in
the politics and the political arena in Wilcox County.
In order to give this committee a better background of what it is
like to run for sheriff in Wilcox County, I am going to try to give
you some of my experiences over the last few years.
PAGENO="0705"
1579
During my election in 1978, approximately 72 Federal observers
were called to monitor the election. If the Federal observers had
not been there, there is no doubt in my mind that I wouldn't have
been elected sheriff of that county.
In addition to the Federal observers, there were State troopers
called in to keep order during the tabulation of the votes.
There were threats on my life. I can never forget on the night of
election there. was a wall of human bodies surrounding me as I left
the courthouse, to protect my safety because it was not common for
black folks to be elected in Wilcox County.
At a number of the polling places on that date, black folks were
given-black poil workers were given a whole lot of hell. Many
voters were turned around, especially our old people and illiterate
voters. But the determination to win, the determination to succeed
was so strong that we had, black folks who openly challenged the
resistance with a new defiance of their own.
~This is the reason I was elected sheriff of Wilcox County.
In one particular area, in the Pine Hill community, the mayor of
that city turned black folks around in droves until a Vietnamn
veteran-he contended, told the mayor if he didn't stop harassing
his black folks, he said that one of us was going to hell today and
he wasn't intending to be that one.
One of the most bizarre, one of the most incredible things that
happened on that election day' occurred in one of the polling places
known as the members community.
* My opponent, who was a white man at that particular time, the
election was being held in one of his relatives' homes.
The white/black population was approximately 50 percent. I got
one vote out of that place. I would like the community to know
that that voting place is still there.
We feel that for black folks, who have struggled so long to
become a voter, it is difficult to go and vote in these type places.
One of the most abusive type acts .1 saw in 1978 was the refusal
of poll workers to allow black folks to challenge a ballot. If the
names of the voter were not on the voting list, especially among
the elderly and the handicapped people, the abusive language was
so bad.
I remember one time the polling official said, "Old lady, if you
can't see, if you can't hear,' you should have stayed `at home."
These type of things discourage people from going, out and
voting. Please don't think that the Voting Rights Act is not needed
and the coverage is not needed and the extension is not needed at
this time.
In my race in 1978, over a thousand absentee votes were cast. I
think that-I think there were many dead folks who voted in that
election..
The cheating that went on, I can't tell you of the cheating that
went on down there.
I led in the primary close, to 2,000 votes, but I won the election
by less than 200.
The fact that I am now sheriff and I am committed to upholding
the law does not mean that the abuse has stopped
The defiance is still there. There seems to `be little respect for
voting laws. For example, during the 1980 election, approximately
83-679 0 - 82 - ~5 Pt.2
PAGENO="0706"
1580
60 white poii workers failed to show up to work on the polls on
election day.
I believe the reason was because they knew that black folks had
started voting for other black folks. We had to try to run out and
find people to work the polls, and many times the probate judge
could not be found in Wilcox County.
The latest struggle confronting us in Wilcox County is that they
call the reidentification bill, the reregistration of voters. Our sena-
tor, Senator Taylor, who represents seven counties, introduced this
bill in only two counties, which are predominantly black counties,
Wilcox, which is 68 percent black, and Lyons County, which is 75
percent black.
At that particular time, the senator stated that the county com-
mission in Wilcox County wanted this bill, but I say to the commit-
tee today that these were lame duck commissioners. They had lost
the election.
Between that time, they had the senator introduce this bill.
These two white commissioners were defeated at a later date. The
two black commissioners went on record opposing this bill, but we
still didn't have enough votes to overturn it.
Recently I went to Washington. In fact, I went to Washington
Monday. I was up there Tuesday to appear before the officials at
the U.S. Department of Justice stating our objection to the Wilcox
County reregistration, reidentification of voters.
In my opinion the bill is unconstitutional. It is strictly designed
to diluate the black vote. There is no other way. I think the
hardship that it would cause on our people to try to reidentify, to
reregister, would be worse than when they brought in the Federal
registrars in 1965.
I wonder why Senator Taylor only sponsored this bill for the two
predominantly black counties in his seven county district?
Finally, I want this committee to know that I want to see the
Voting Rights Act extended to protect the dreams of my grandpar-
ents, that the life could be better for people in Wilcox County.
I went to Chicago looking for a better life, but I came back to my
roots in Wilcox County because I felt that I had a promise to keep.
I came back so that I could show black folks and white folks that
sheriffs can be good people, that they can be honest people and
they can be gentle people.
I came back and allowed myself to serve so that black women
who worked in domestic-type jobs, who pulled out of their bosoms
their hard earned dollars to help get me elected, that I will always
protect her rights in Wilcox County.
As the Voting Rights Act is made, it is possible for basic constitu-
tional rights to be realized by both of us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnold follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHERIFF PRINCE ARNOLD
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Prince Arnold, Sheriff of
Wilcox County, Alabama. I am honored to come before this committee to testify in
favor of the extension of the Voting Rights Act. Although the press likes to report
that I am one of the youngest sheriffs in the nation, becoming sheriff in Wilcox
County did not come easy. I was elected sheriff in 1978. In fact, Mr. Jesse Brooks,
PAGENO="0707"
1581
who was elected collector, and I became the first black elected officials in the
history of Wilcox County.
Just think. This opportunity of blacks being able to serve our fellowman in the
poltical arena did not come in Wilcox County until over 100 years after the Ameri-
can Constitution "guaranteed" blacks the right to vote.
You may be interested to know that Wilcox County did not have a single black
registered voter prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. At the time,
the black population of Wilcox was over 70 percent. Today, Wilcox County has a
black population of 68.8 percent based on the 1980 census figures. But in terms of
black elected officials, we are still underrepresented. Indeed, were it not for the
Voting Rights Act, I dare say that Wilcox County would still have no black elected
officials today.
In 1980, Wilcox County elected four additional blacks to public office. Two were
elected county commissioners, and two were elected to the county school board.
These gains are not safe, however. Because there is a move afoot to undo our gains.
Among whites, the old attitudes are still there. The resistance to blacks participat-
ing in the domain of public affairs is not looked on too kindly among some white
residents of Wilcox County. Consequently, new schemes are being devised in an
effort to discourage blacks from actively participating in the political process.
In order to give this committee a better background of what it was like to run for
sheriff and to be elected in Wilcox County in 1978, I'd like to recall some experi-
ences for you.
During my election in 1978, approximately 72 federal observers were called in to
monitor the election. If the federal observers had not been there, I know that I
would not have been elected. In addition to the federal observers, state troopers
were called in to keep order during the vote tallying. There were even some threats
on my life. I'll never forget that on the night of the election, a human wall of black
men surrounded me as I left the courthouse. They were there to protect my safety
because it was not a common practice for blacks in Wilcox County to go to the
courthouse to witness the counting of votes, and especially the votes of a black
candidate.
At a number of polling places that day, poll workers gave black folks hell. Many a
voter was turned around, especially the elderly and illiterate voters. However, the
determination to succeed was so strong that we had blacks to openly challenge the
resistance with a new defiance of their own. In the Pine Hill community, the mayor
was turning away black voters in droves. However, he abruptly stopped that when a
Vietnam veteran walked up to the mayor and said: "If you continue to harass these
black voters, one of us is going to~ hell today, and I don't intend for it to be me."
One of the most bizarre things to happen on election day in 1978 occurred at the
polling place in Mims. At Mims, the voters vote in a private home, which is a
residence belonging to whites. Did y'all hear what I said. At Mims, the voteres vote
in a private home-and not on the porch either, but inside the living room. As fate
would have it, the residential polling place at Mims was the home of a close relative
of the white candidate I was running against, and though that voting box is
predominately black, I got only one vote in Mims because the blacks were simply
afraid to attempt to vote there. It was reported that the white woman who owned
the house would not let black voters go inside her place to vote.
Incidentally, the polling place at the Mims residence is still being used today.
What's more, I know of another polling place in Wilcox County where the people
vote inside a house. The effect of this is that black voters rarely go vote there
because of the trouble they may encournter in doing so.
One of the most flagrant abuses I saw in 1978 was the refusal of poll workers to
allow blacks to vote a challenged ballot, if the names of said voters were not on the
voting list. Among the elderly voters, the physically handicapped and the illiterate
voters, the verbal buse many received from poll officials was disgraceful. I remem-
ber hearing one poil worker tell an elderly black woman: "If you can't hear or can't
see, you should have stayed home, old woman."
Please don't think for a moment that the Voting Rights Act is not needed and the
coverage maintained and extended in present form. Alas, in my race in 1978, whites
cast over 1,000 absentee votes. Somebody has got to be voting dead folk. The
cheating which went on was phenomenal. I lead substantially in the primary.
However, in the runoff, I won by only 200 some odd votes.
The fact that I am now sheriff and am committed to upholding the law does not
mean that. the abuses have stopped. The defiance is still there. And there seems to
be little respect for* voting laws.~ For example, during the 1980 general election,
approximately 60 white poll workers failed to show up to work the polls, on election
day. At the last minute, we had to run arOund and conscript blacks to work at the
polls. The probate, judge was nowhere to be found on election day.
PAGENO="0708"
1582
The latest strategy which the white Wilcox County community has influenced was
their conspiring to get State Senator Cordy Taylor to sponsor a Voter re-identifica-
tion bill. Senator Taylor contends that the county commissioners asked him to
sponsor the re-identification bill. But two of the white commissioners were defeated
last year, by black candidates. About a month ago, our black commissioners went on
record opposing the bill. But the three white commissioners voted for a re-identifica-
tion bill.
I went to Washington recently and appeared before officials at the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, stating my objections to the Wilcox County voter re-identification
bill. In my opinion, the bill is unconstitutional and is designed to dilute the black
vote. I wonder why Senator Taylor only sponsored re-identification bills in the two
predominately black counties in his seven-county district? I wonder why the Wilcox
County Commission just decided last year that it wanted to have a re-identification
program, only after two white commissioners were defeated? The defeated commis-
siones lost to black candidates. Senator Taylor was elected in 1978. Why wasn't the
bill sponsored then?
Finally, I want this committee to know that I want to see the Voting Rights Act
extended to protect the dream that my grandparents had that life could be better
for people in Wilcox County. I' went to Chicago looking for a better life, but I came
back to my roots in Wilcox County because I felt that I had a promise to keep. I
came back so that I could show black people and white people that sheriffs can be
good people, honest people, gentle people. I came back and allowed myself to be used
in service so that the black woman domestics who pulled out $1,000.00 for her
bosom to help me get elected can know that I will always protect her rights in
Wilcox County just as the Voting Rights Act has made it possible for a basic
constitutional right to be realized by both of us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Sheriff.
Thanks to all of the witnesses for very moving and persuasive
testimony. We appreciate it very much.
The gentleman from Illinos, Mr. Washington?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Reed, the former plan for redistricting the
city, has that been submitted for preclearance?
Mr. REED. No, sir; not yet. It has not yet passed the council. It is
now in my committee.
We have substituted that plan. The council has not yet voted on
it. The mayor has said he has the five votes to stop my plan
because we have substituted a new plan for the one the mayor has
submitted.
The mayor says he has the five votes to get his plan through.
Of course, if he gets it through, we will then have to oppose it in
the Department of Justice.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I am looking at the map. I don't have the
figures nor do I have the breakdown, the racial breakdown.
In what way does the mayor's plan remove your seat?
Mr. REED. What happened, the mayor changed district three, in
which this courtroom sits, by taking a great portion of this district,
placing it in another district, which was not necessary, and placing
settled white communities, which do not, have a reputation for
supporting black candidates, into my district along with placing
blacks in my district who are basically from the housing projects
where you have children who are not voting-of voting age popula-
tion.
In fact, in 1970 a council district in Montgomery had roughly
15,000 folks. Now an ideal district would be 19,795, roughly' 19,600,
given the point deviations.
The mayor took about one-half of my district and just placed it
among other districts and put a total new section into my district.
This was not necessary at all. That is the way he sought to dilute
PAGENO="0709"
1583
the black vote in that particular district, because the mayor can't
defeat me.
He wants me defeated. That is the only way he can try to do it.
Mr. WASHINGTON. What percentage of your district is black now?
Mr. REED. In the 1970 census it was 78 percent black. Under the
mayor's plan, it would be 62 percent black
~I have not verified the mayor's figures, but under my plan, which
the mayor has already verified* my figures, it will be 82 percent
black.
So the mayor proposes to reduce it from 78 percent black, the
way it was in the 1970 census, to 62 percent black.
The. key to it is that you are putting children, making up to 62
percent black who are now of voting age population in several
communities where the voting age population is much higher in
those communities.
- Mr. WASHINGTON. And the percent black that he takes out of
your district, he puts them into a white district?
Mr. REED. No, sir; what he does, he puts some in a black district
and takes some of the other black district and mixes it with whites.
He does a combination of three things.
When we annexed the city of Montgomery, it was* necessary for
all districts to expand. Roughly we have to pick up about 4,700
folks. There had been some shifts in thepopulation. It is very easy,
the plan that 1 submitted-which is this plan-it is very easy to
meet the covenant we entered into.
I think that is the most damaging thing about it. When men
can't meet-make an agreement and then everybody keep it. I
think that part is more damaging than anything else because it
places the integrity of the city and the city officials on the line,
particularly when the agreement was made to get annexation
~through.
So the mayor responded by simply coming up with this plan to
dilute district three.
Therefore, what is going to happen, there are four blacks on the
city council out of nine. If the mayor's plan passes, which he says
he has the five votes to pass it, then there would be three blacks on
the city council.
No black is going to get elected under the mayor's plan.
Mr. WASHINGTON. The percentage of blacks in the overall area
is--
Mr. REED. About 40 percent.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Has it remained the same?
Mr. REED. Yes. The mayor was so upset -when the census came
out that he was demanding a new census count because he was
saying there are too many blacks in Montgomery.
That is what he said.
In fact, he wanted to demand a new count. from the census. He
said there are just too many blacks.
What the mayor was upset about, there were enough blacks to be
put in the district so we could keep both council seats. That is what
the mayor ws upset about.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I yield.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.
PAGENO="0710"
1584
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if the testimony
of Mr. Reed was available last evening? Was it?
Ms. DAvIs. No.
Mr. HYDE. Nobody knew the mayor would be as sharply criti-
cized? I am just concerned that the mayor testified first and left.
He has been the object-and I don't know whether rightly or
wrongly-of a rather serious personal attack.
You know we are going to have to bring him back to respond to
this, I would think, if he wants to.
I just wondered whether anybody knew the nature of Mr. Reed's
testimony.
I am not criticizing it. I am just saying in all fairness the mayor
ought to have a chance to respond.
I would suggest that Mr. Reed's testimony-the transcript be
prepared and submitted to the mayor. If he wants to, he can get a
chance to respond.
Mr. EDWARDS. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none. So ordered.
Mr. HYDE. I want to say that I have listened with great interest
and concern, and I will tell you, registration hours from 9 to 4 is
outrageous. It is absolutely designed to keep people who are work-
ing and who have difficulty in traveling from registering.
If that persists and exists, it is more than wrong. It is-it would
seem to me to-well, I don't want to say too much, but it is mOre
than wrong.
The lack of deputy registrars, only 12 counties have them, dem-
onstrates a clear lack of enthusiasm for getting people registered,
obviously.
The location of voting places, if what Mr. Reed says is true-and
I don't doubt that it is-is a subtle intimidation of black people and
is also wrong.
The lack of blacks working as polling officials is wrong.
On assistance voting, I have very mixed feelings because I can
tell you that is very abused up in my area where the polling
worker-does the voting for the voter-makes sure they vote for
the right party-now, we have heard where it is all done on the
table; there is no privacy.
That is outrageous, absolutely outrageous; yet do you want to say
something, Mr. Reed, about assistance voting?
Mr. REED. Yes, sir.
One thing, in Alabama a voter has the right to select a person of
his choosing to assist him. In other words, John Jones can get his
mother, brother, cousin, anyone he wants to take in to help him.
What happens, we have found some resistance from polling offi-
cials on this, but the attorney general and the laws have been
interpreted to mean that a voter can get the person of his choosing
to help him.
Mr. HYDE. I would like-I think that is a good idea. It should be
anyone but a polling offIcial.
Mr. REED. Right.
Mr. HYDE. The polling official is there to see you vote right and
not to cast the vote for you. That is an abuse in my judgment.
Mr. REED. We agree with you.
Mr. HYDE. These are very serious charges and facts.
PAGENO="0711"
1585
I would be most interested in any rebuttal of those that can be
made, if indeed it can be made; 9 to 4 to register is absurd.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms; - Bozeman, in Pickens County the legislature
has established for, I guess, all of the counties certain registration
days
In other words, the legislature has not established that all days
and evenings are appropriate for registration.
Now, that is what we have in my State, which is not necessarily
the model for the world, but the Government goes out of its way to
provide registration books to what we call floating registrars. They
can take them home with them and the purpose is to get as many
people to vote as possible.
That is not the practice; the opposite is the practice. Is that
correct?
Ms. BOZEMAN. That is correct, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. Is it really true that finally when in Pickens
County black people come to vote that there are law enforcement
officers standing by?
Ms. BOZEMAN. It is true, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. This is not before 1965? This is now?
Ms. BOZEMAN. This is now, in the 1980 election.
Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I yield.
Mr. HYDE. I would say in Chicago, and I think in Cook County,
Illinois, that is the practice as well, to have a policeman stationed
at the polling place.
Frankly, I look upon that as salutary. It may be different down
here, but in places in Chicago things sometimes get pretty heated
in polling places
An officer of the law can be most useful. You don't have to run
out and call one. He is right there.
It may be different down ;here, but I personally welcome, in my
jurisdiction, having a policeman in each polling place. They do try
to keep things orderly.
Sometimes things get disorderly.
Mr. EDWARDS. Are these black policemen?
Ms. BOZEMAN. They will be on the inside with the weapons
taking pictures of people who help assist.
Mr. HYDE. Taking pictures is outrageous. That is nonsense.
Ms BOZEMAN It happens
Mr. HYDE. You ought to charge them a fee for having them take
your picture.
Mr. ARNOLD. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. ARNOLD. May I address the law official's question?
In a small county, in a rural county, you don't have the resist-
ance that you would have in Chicago, a large city.
Law people normally just as easily stop by; if everything is
orderly, he continues on. I think in these counties law officials are
used to harass people, to intimidate people, and this is their pur-
pose.
Most people are afraid of the law in these rural counties
PAGENO="0712"
1586
Mr. HYDE. I can see where it would be different. We feel more
comfortable, frankly, seeing a policeman, sitting in a polling place.
They just sit off to the side and read the paper and don't bother
anybody, but they are there because it can get pretty contentious,
pretty argumentative, pretty hot in the polling places sometimes.
I can see where it could be an intimidating factor too, but I just
want you to know it isn't that way everywhere.
I welcome it, frankly, up in my area.
Ms. BOZEMAN. We see them all around, at the voting preeinct, on
the day of election, and also the day you are trying to register
people. When we go in they go in with us.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Patton?
Mr. PATTON. In one county of Alabama, at the primaries; the
deputy sheriff was there and the white polling officials did not
want the poll watchers to see them count the vote. They said that
they did not want to see them breathing down their necks.
When the general election came, or before the general election, I
sent a telegram to the sheriff and said to him, "You are the chief
lawmaking man in this country." He was running for election.
"Now, unless you see to it that these poll watchers can notice
and count the vote, we are going to ask that this election be
thrown out and that a new election be held."
He got my telegram and he went over to the Judge of Probate
and asked him who was W. C. Patton. The Judge of Probate pre-
tended he didn't.know.
Finally he asked somebody else. He says he is with the NAACP.
At that general election, when the election was held and the
time to count the vote came, this sheriff was there to tell those
persons counting the vote that you have got to let these poll
watchers in there to see what you are doing because he is going to
have this election thrown out and I want to be re-elected.
The sheriff said, so you have got to let them see it. Otherwise he
knew that I could appeal to Mr. Jerry Jones-Mr. Jones in Wash-
ington, who is with the Department of Justice, the Voting Rights
Section-to ask that we contest that election.
If we hadn't had the Voting Rights Act, and we didn't have the
voting rights section there in Washington of the Justice Depart-
ment, that would have never been made possible.
Ms. BOZEMAN. I would like to add that some of the officers, the
policemen, are also polling officials.
We cannot have poll watchers in Pickens County because in 1980
there were some persons manhandled because they were watching.
Mr. HYDE. Would you repeat something? You don't have a secret
ballot in Pickens County? You vote on a table in front of every-
body?
Ms. BOZEMAN. Yes. Open house. Just like here now.
Mr. HYDE. Does that still go on?
Ms. BOZEMAN. 1980.
Mr. HYDE. Everybody sees how you vote?
Ms. BOZEMAN. Yes.
Mr. HYDE. No booths, no curtains, nothing like that?
Ms. BOZEMAN. In one precinct where there were the Justice
Department, the last election, the Presidential election, they had
PAGENO="0713"
1587
little curtains in Aliceville, but in other parts of the county, still
open house in 1980.
Mr. HYDE. How widespread is that? How many polling places
does that occur in?
Ms. BOZEMAN. Give and take about 15.
Mr. HYDE. Does that happen anywhere else in Alabama?
Mr. REED. I am certain there are plenty of places in Alabama
where people don't have a booth to vote in, where you vote on the
table.
There's plenty of places in the State for that. I can confirm-I
cannot confirm how many, but so many that you can't count them*
all, sir.
Mr. PATTON. In one county where you have the paper ballot, it
appears that the polling officials keep a record of the number; that
is, your count; you first, second, third, fourth. Those blacks that
come in and they vote, and they look at that number, and when
the election is over they can tell their white counterparts in there
how you voted because the record is kept of how he voted by
number.
Ms. BOZEMAN. This happened in Sumter County, Marengo, and
Choctaw, open house.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I have a different question.
Ms BOZEMAN We can't even take sample ballots
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Patton, on June 3, in a hearing in Wash-
ington D C, of this subcommittee, Attorney Fred Gray of Birming
ham testified that in many instances the State or counties had
failed to preclear certain election changes. My question is, are you
structured here in such a way that you can monitor all these
changes?
Are you aware, are yOur voters aware, the people aware, of how
they can perhaps-either one?.It doesn't make any difference.
Mr. PATTON. At this present time .1 am not employed as such and
I cannot monitor them because I am not employed as such, but I
would venture to say if somebody monitored this, they would still
find these inequities and these violations and that sort of thing.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I was directing my question to the question of
the changes in electoral laws which have to be precleared.
Mr. REED. What you have on that, and we have many legislators
here who can bear this out, normally many of these changes you
are talking about that have not been precleared, they are basically
local bills.
In the Alabama Legislature you have the local courtesy rule. A
legislator can introduce a bill for his county, his area.
Nobody checks it. It passes without being looked at.
Sometimes people don't know what they passed. There is virtual-
ly no way to keep up with all of them.
In some cases you can find out, you can monitor the paper, you
keep up with some of them. Keeping up with all of them is almost
an impossibility.
Black members of the legislature can't keep up with every local
bill that comes up and what it does.
Mr. PATTON. All of those submitted to the Department of Justice,
the Voting Rights Section, I get a copy of them when I get that
copy; I try to make the people in local communities aware and ask
PAGENO="0714"
1588
them if they have any objections and tell them the time limit that
they have in order to register their objections with Washington,
the Voting Rights Section.
That is true for all over the country, even in-even in New York
and in other States where the voting rights bill affects them.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, on the point that Mr. Hyde made
concerning the mayor, I would also request and urge you to ask the
mayor to come back.
I think it would be appropriate for him to come back and re-
spond. I would like to hear his responses. I am not being facetious.
I would certainly ask that you ask him to come back. I really do.
I think it is a good point. I want to point that out.
Back to the question raised by Mr. Washington. What we did in
one instance, as much as we could, we collected as many local bills
as we possibly could find. We submitted them to the Justice De-
partment in Washington and asked them* to find out how, many
have been cleared. We found out quite a few had not been pre-
cleared.
We still have a lot of local bills now that people are operating
under that have not been precleared.
There is no way to keep up with them.
Mr. WASHINGTON. In the last 5 years, there have been objections
raised by the Justice Department to 45 changes. There is just no
way of knowing how many objections the Justice Department
might have raised to bills that they didn't' know anything about.
Mr. REED. They have some now-they have confirmed some legal
bills that no one objected to because people didn't know about it.
When we sent the bills up, I guess it must have been 1 ~/2 years
ago-don't hold me to that time, within the last 2 years-we sent
some bills up that had been passed, particularly involving local
bills.
Mr. WASHINGTON. My point is this: We simply do not have an
adequate recordkeeping, one, of `the number of changes; two, the
number of changes which might have been objected to by the
Justice Department? We just don't know how deeply this act has
cut? `
Mr. REED. That is correct, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON. It might be the Justice Department is just
dealing with the' surface?
Mr. REED. That is right.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Which argues for an extension of this act so
there can be a more assiduous concern, a monitoring of the Justice
Department of this?
We don't know the effect of the act?
Mr. REED. By all means.
Mr. WASHINGTON. We say it is the best Civil Rights Act ever
passed. That is probably true. It still may not be 40 percent effec-
tive, 50 percent. It may be only 5 `or 10 percent?
Mr. REED. I would suggest changes in it to correct a lot' of
concerns.
Rev. Jesse Jackson and several other folks talked about some
weaknesses in the law; but right now, since we are trying to hold
it, we are not bothering with it.
PAGENO="0715"
1589
There are serious weaknesses in the law that could be corrected
and ought to be corrected.
Mr. WASHINGTON. It might well be the greatest weakness is the
commitment on the part of the Justice Department to make cer-
tain commitments.
Mr. REED. Without question. That is one of them.
Mr. EDWARDS. I have a final question for Mr. Patton. Mr. Patton,
you spent a great part of your life, of your active, very active life,
in this area of voting rights and working for participation of black
southerners in the elective process, is that not correct?
What do you think would happen if the Voting Rights Act is not
renewed in Alabama?
Mr. PATTON. We would go back to where we were before 1965. It
would be a matter of turning back the clock, and all of the inequi-
ties, the intimidation, et cetera, would be reenacted; and as I said a
few minutes ago, the roots of those evils back yonder are still here
and only time and opportunity is needed for them to come back to
sprout out and to do the same thing that was done before the 1965
Voting Rights Act was passed.
We would have the same intimidation, the same type of situa-
tion; laws would be passed; we would not have representation in
*our legislature; we would* not have representation on our policy-
making boards, in our counties, and our cities. It would be simply
turning back the clock.
The minds of those who were here have not changed. We have
got to look at it, that racism is not dead.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much.
Are there further questions?
Mr. Hyde?
`Mr. HYDE. I don't mean to detract in any way from the impor-
tant statement you just made. I think'we perpetuate an error when
we ~constantly say `that ,: if the Voting Rights Act is repealed or
expires-I think we have a duty to `explain the Voting Rights Act
is not about to expire; it is not going to be repealed; only the
preclearance sections; that is what we are discussing.
Intimidation' of people~ concerning their voting rights is a crime,
under permanent sections `of the Voting Rights Act.
~The provision" of attorneys fees for private parties bringing suit is
a permanent provision of the act.
The provision of Federal registrars is a permanent provision of
the act.
1 just think we demean a lot of strong portions of the act `that
are staying by saying it rises or falls on preclearance.
.1 think preclearance is important. More and more I am inclined
to think we must retain preclearance; but I do think that we must
recognize there are~ other parts of the Voting Rights Act that are
permanent law, that do not expire next year; and that maybe don't
go far enough, but they are again from the days of 1965.
Literacy ~tests `are outlawed by the Voting Rights Act. That
doesn't expire. That will not be repealed. Poll taxes are outlawed.
Intimidation, obstructing people from .voting is a crime, a Feder-
al crime now. That is not going to expire.
The Voting Rights Act doesn't expire. The preclearance provi-
sions only. We are trying to determine whether they should be
PAGENO="0716"
1590
extended for 10 years more, not the expiration of the Voting Rights
Act. I really think that we use that phrase a little cavalierly when
we say the Voting Rights Act is repealed or expired. It is not going
to be repealed.
Mr~ PATTON. Until a whole lot more funerals are held, you still
need the preclearance.
Mr. HYDE. You would agree that there are other provisions in
the act that are most useful, would you not, that are permanent
law?
Mr. PATTON. I think they are needed and equally as needed as
the preclearance.
Mr. HYDE. I thank you. That is a very important statement.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I thank you too. I have to respectfully dis-
agree insofar as the emphasis that my respected colleague from
Illinois made.
It is my opinion that without preclearance, the Voting Rights
Act is in real trouble. Voting in this country, and especially in the
South, is in real trouble.
Without preclearance, you have an invitation to gerrymander;
you have an invitation to at-large voting; you have an invitation to
completely disenfranchise the black population like it was before
1965.
Many of the things that my respected colleague mentioned have
to do with violations of criminal law that are flaws in practically
every State of the Union and Federal law-In the earlier civil
rights laws also-and of course violations of the Constitution.
So I don't think we ought to split hairs about it, but I think we
would agree-and Mr. Hyde agrees too how important preclearance
is.
Mr. HYDE. Let me state that judicial preclearance remains, I
might add.
Not to make too fine a point of it, the Voting Rights Act retains*
judicial preclearance which can be ordered by a court.
What we are really talking about is administrative preclearance.
That is the only part that expires. It is an important part, maybe
the most important part, but I just think we are a little loose in
our language when we say the Voting Rights Act.
A lot of good things are in that act that are permanent law and
will stay.
Mr. REED. That is so important, the preclearance. The average
person cannot get a lawyer. The judiciary-you can't reach it; you
can't get in court. We can't go to court every time there is-not
only that, some judges are not always friendly either.
You have to keep that in mind.
Basically the preclearance administrative section is so important,
particularly to people who do not have the means to litigate, the
time it takes, and so forth.
Mr. HYDE. That is the heart and soul of these hearings.
Mr. PATTON. Every section of this voting rights bill, including the
preclearance, is important, and will be important, and will be
necessary until a whole lot more funerals are held.
Ms. BOZEMAN. May I read this one statement from the Alabama
Code, 17-4125?
PAGENO="0717"
1591
Registration required only once. Exception: No person heretofore registered and
no person hereafter registered shall again be required to register unless he or she
has changed the county of his residence.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of the
witnesses
Mr. EDWARDS. Our next witness is the Honorable Don Siegelman,
secretary of state of the State of Alabama.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DON SIEGELMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. SIEGELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressmen, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to testify on behalf of this most important and historic
act.
The Secretary of State in Alabama, as in most States, has a
myriad of election functions and is therefore usually referred to as
the chief elections officer for the state.
The Secretary of State has responsibility for the form and con-
tent of the ballot, supplies, forms, notices, certification of nominees
and the official canvass of results.
As the secretary of state, `I have frequent contact with various
Federal and State officials regarding the enforcement and meaning
of Federal and State election laws.
In additjon to the perspective afforded me by the official duties
of the secretary of state, I have been fortunate to have received a
wealth of information from the Alabama Election Law Commis-
sion.
The election law commission is an advisory group of citizens
* appointed by me in 1979 to advise my office of problems in the
election process as well as to propose solutions to those problems.
The commission is. composed. of blacks and whites, women and
men, young and old, Republicans and Democrats, labor.. and busi-
ness, officials and nonofficials, candidates who won as well as can-
didates who lost.
More than 1,700 persons have participated in scores of public
meetings held throughout Alabama. The information I have gath-
ered at these meetings and through correspondence with election
law commissioners has been invaluable in helping me to under-
stand, in a practical way, how the elections process in Alabama
works.
Since 1901, as a nation, our philosophy and attitude about poli-
tics and participation in government has changed; Both Federal
and State laws, and. U.S. court decisions have required changes
from time to time.
Some of those changes included giving the right to vote to
women in 1919, and removing the obstacles of poll taxes, literacy
tests, and property ownership requirements.
In 1965, the Federal Government mandated a fair and even-
handed policy with respect to the right of all citizens to register
and vote..
In 1972, after thousands of young Americans were killed or
wounded .in . the Vietnam war, we extended the right to vote to
their peers so that they too could help formulate the national . and
PAGENO="0718"
1592
international policy in which they would be expected to participate
in future years.
An examination of election data during the 1950's and early
1960's provides incontrovertible evidence that the constitutionally
guaranteed right of citizenship was still denied to many Alabamans
at that time.
In 1956, only 10.3 percent of the voting age blacks in Alabama
were registered to vote. In predominantly black Wilcox and
Lowndes Counties, there were no blacks registered to vote.
Between July 1964, just prior to the passage of the Voting Rights
Act, and March 1968, Alabama saw a 31 percent gain in registered
voters. The densely black populated counties of the Black Belt
more than doubled their registered voters in all but three of the
counties.
Clearly voter registration in Alabama has been greatly affected
by the passage of the Voting Rights Act. But this is not the only
aspect of the election process which has seen dramatic change.
Since 1965 we have seen major increases in the numbers of blacks
running for political office and being elected to office.
We have come a long way since the days of standing in the
schoolhouse door. Where once Southern whites threatened, intimi-
dated and coerced blacks, Federal officials are now accused of
threatening, intimidating, and coercing election officials.
Neither is the correct process for orderly change. When the 1965
Voting Rights Act was passed, after the long struggles which had
taken place between black and white citizens in the South and
other parts of the country over the emotionally volatile issue of
integration, some southerners perceived that there was rejoicing
and feelings of vindictiveness on the part of certain Federal bu-
reaucrats who seemed to them to enjoy rubbing the South's nose in
it, if you will.
The right atmosphere for change today must be based on mutual
understanding of each other's position, and a sense of trust, cooper-
ation and assistance.
For the State-Federal relationship to improve, there must be a
demonstrable showing by Federal officials that we have made prog-
ress in the South and that problems also exist elsewhere.
The change in philosophy and attitude, no doubt in part due to
the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the discussion and debate which
encircled it, has broadened the perspective of Alabamans so that
there is now a continuous vigil by blacks and whites alike which is
witnessed here today, to insure the integrity of the process and the
continuation of our demOcratic system of government.
The question today is whether or not the safeguards built into
the 1965 Voting Rights Act are still necessary to protect the rights
of citizens to register and vote.
As an example of what could happen, let's just look at one State
House district, composed of Perry and parts of Dallas' and Marengo
counties, with a black population of over 60 percent.
The legislator who is elected is white. None of the counties are~
predominantly white. Without the protection of the Voting Rights
Act there is nothing to prohibit an act of local application `being
passed by the legislature `which obliterates, through a voter reiden-
PAGENO="0719"
1593
tification bill, the voting population of those counties which have
the highest black population.
Even if such voter reidentification bills are not racially motivat-
ed, if the Voting Rights Act is not extended, the bill could be
administered to the disadvantage of citizens without much real
fear that their prejudiced action would ever be challenged.
In fact, one such bill did pass, reducing the combined black
population for this district to 45.4 percent.
Blacks in rural Alabama are~ often the poorest people in their
community. Transportation to polling places and registration
places is extremely limited. Purchasing newspapers which an-
nounce voter reidentification programs is a very low priority to
poor people, coming well after buying food, clothing, and providing
shelter.
Members of minority groups and poor people often obtain inferi-
or education and therefore are unable to read public notices, or
make a calendar note of the date, time, and place of public meet-
*ings.
More often than not, opportunities for reidentification are held
at a time and place which is not convenient, or in places where
members of minority groups may not feel welcome.
It has been recognized that voter reidentification programs are
outdated methods of trying to clean voter registration lists of dead
people, duplicates, felons, and others who should not be on the list.
With reidentification, we throw out the baby with the bath water
by removing qualified registered voters at the same time we take
off the list persons who are no longer qualified.
This puts an added burden on certain groups of people. In this
past legislative session in Alabama, there were many such bills
introduced and passed.
It is my fear, and the fear of many others in Alabama, that voter
reidentification could severely threaten and undermine the demo-
cratic system and concept of one person/one vote.
Legislation which would purge voting lists throughout the State
in a fair and concise manner was introduced to the State house and
senate this past session.
This legislation would have provided for a statewide voter file
maintenance system to insure that deceased persons, and persons
who have moved and reregistered in different counties, or who
have been convicted of disqualifying crimes, would automatically
be purged from voting lists.
Unfortunately, the need to maintain more accurate voter lists
was seen as important only in certain counties.
The Federal Government is coming to Alabama on issues of
overcrowded prisons, mental health, reapportionment, and voting
rights. Each time it has been brought on by a handful of powerful
legislators who refuse to. act in a responsible manner.
As a result, the entire State has to suffer. .
Here we are in 1981 still talking about voter registration prob-
lems. If election law reform legislation would pass the Alabama
legislature, we could solve our own problems and put our own
house in order.
Unfortunately, a couple of reactionary, shortsighted, white legis-
lators coming from predominantly black districts have been able to
PAGENO="0720"
1594
stop election law changes that would be able to bring our voting
rights laws up to date and make the voting rights extension unnec-
essary for Alabama.
Voting list maintenance is just one area where local officials
need assistance.
Some problems could. be avoided in the first place if there were
proper training programs, training aids, and job aids for officials
charged with election responsibilities.
Complaints of this nature which are now . being filed with the
Justice Department would be eliminated before they arise.
Not only would such assistance facilitate compliance and save
valuable employer time, it would also help create a closer working
relationship between Federal and local officials.
It is time the Federal Government offered a helping hand rather
than the back of the hand to local election officials.
The Federal Government needs to provide assistance to states
from which it. expects compliance with* the Voting Rights Act. A
simple and easy to understand form furnished by the Federal
Government to the secretaries of state, and then forwarded to
counties and municipalities within the State, would facilitate ini-
tial submission requirements under the act.
Federal funding to establish and maintain~ election statistics, as
well as demographic data, which could be made available to local
and county officials, would do much to aid local officials in their
ability to respond to questions put to them by Federal officials.
The preclearance provisions are necessary and should be applied~
to any jurisdiction in any part of the United States where laws or
procedures seem to limit citizen participation in the electoral proc-
ess but, once the available data indicate that barriers no longer
exist, preclearance should no longer be required.
Federal and State officials need to move from an adversary rela-
tionship to one of cooperation. Local officials are in desperate need
of resources and assistance from the State and/or Federal Govern-
ment if they are expected to fully comply with the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act.
Changes need to be made in the triggering formula for preclear-
ance to take into account changes in demographics and voter par-
ticipation.
I hope these recommendations can be given careful thought and
consideration by this committee.
But, despite the shortcomings of the act and its implementation,
the extension of the Voting Rights Act is a minimum effort which
must be made to protect the right of all Americans to exercise
their constitutionally guaranteed right to freely participate in the
affairs of their government.
The federal government has come into Alabama on the issues of
overcrowed prisons, mental health, reapportionment and voting
rights-each time such has~ brought on by a handful of powerful
legislators who refuse to act in a responsible manner. As. a result,
the entire State has to suffer.
Here we are in 1981 still talking about voter registration . prob-
lems. If election law reform legislation would pass the Alabama
Legislature we could solve our own problems and put our own
house in order. Unfortunately, a couple reactionary, short-sighted,
PAGENO="0721"
1595
white legislators, coming from predominantly black districts, have
been able to stop election law changes that would bring our laws
up-to-date and probably would make the Voting Rights Act unnec-
essary for Alabama.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary of State.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Siegelman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON SIEGELMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF
ALABAMA
STATEMENT REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for. giving me this opportunity to testify on
behalf of this most important and historic Act.
Holding public office gives one a viable forum from which to address such issues.
Public officials have a special responsibility to use that forum to address issues
which have a relationship to their office. The more important the issue, usually the
more controversial, and hence, the more political risk associated with the issue.
It is critical that these controversial issues be addressed, not avoided. Otherwise,
the holding of public office becomes nothing more than a tool for self-gratification,
or for selfish special interests.
The thoughts that I wish to share with you today may not please either the
political Right or the political Left. They are certainly not intended to please
everyone or any one particular group. Rather, I will present my honest assessment
of where we are in our political and philosophical development, and, my realistic
views of what should be done to preserve the intended state-federal relationship,
while at the same time protecting the right of all qualified citizens to vote and fully
participate~ in our governmental system.
Mine is a moderate proposal, enlightened by my years of political involvement
before I was elected to public office and tempered by the knowledge I have gained
since having been elected the Secretary of State for the State of Alabama.
I served as Executive Director and General Counsel for the state Democratic
Party from June, 1973 to December, 1977 which provided me with a unique vantage
point, revealing very serious problems affecting elections in Alabama. Because I was
concerned about these election law problems and because of my background, I ran
for Secretary of State, believing that I could propose meaningful and creative
changes which would be of benefit to all the people of Alabama.
The Secretary Of State in Alabama, as in most states, has a myriad of elections
functions and is therefore usually referred to as the Chief Elections Officer for that
state. The Secretary of State has responsibility for the form and content of the
ballot, supplies, forms, notices, certification of nominees and the official canvass of
results. As the Secretary of State, I have frequent contact with various federal and
state officials regarding the enforcement and meaning of federal and state election
laws.
Voter registration in Alabama is handled by a three-person Board of Registrars in
each of the 67 counties. The Secretary of State is charged with the responsibility of
furnishing all forms, supplies and notices to the Boards. In addition, the Secretary
of State is to receive from the Boards of Registrars voter registration data on a
periodic basis. Such reports include the total number of registered voters immedi-
ately preceding each election.
In addition to the perspective afforded me by the official duties of the Secretary of
State, I have been fortunate to have received a wealth of information from the
Alabama Election Law Commission. The Election Law Commission is an advisory
group of citizens appointed by me in 1979 to advise my office of problems in the
election process as well as propose solutions to those problems. The Commission is
composed of blacks and whites, women and men, young and old, Republicans and
Democrats, labor and business, officials and non-officials, candidates who won as
well as candidates who lost. More than 1,700 persons have participated in scores of
public meetings held throughout Alabama. The information I have gathered at
these meetings and through correspondence with Election Law Commissioners has
been invaluable in helping me to understand, in a practical and concrete way, how
the elections process in Alabama works.
I have recited for you some of my background and the experience from which my
perspective has developed. Before I share with you my recommendations regarding
the future of federal voting rights legislation, I would first like to review some of
the legal and political history of voter participation in Alabama.
83-679 0 - 82 - +6 Pt.2
PAGENO="0722"
1596
As youladies and gentlemen are perhaps aware, when the Constitution of Ala-
bama was adopted in 1901 it was done so with the specific purpose of disenfranchis-
ing certain citizens. One had to be white, male, 21 years of age and' own property to
vote. Not only could black people not vote, neither could women, young people, nor
those who rented' property. The poll tax and literacy tests were also created as
further barriers to registration and participation in government.
Since 1901, as a nation, our philosophy, and attitude about politics and participa-
tion in government has changed. Both federal and state laws, and United States
court decisions have required `changes from time to time. Some of those changes
included giving'the right to vote to' women in 1919, and removing the obstacles of
poll taxes, literacy tests, and property ownership requirements. In 1965, the federal
government mandated a fair and even-handed policy with respect to the right of all
citizens to register and vote. In 1972, after thousands of young Americans were
killed or wounded in the Vietnam War, we extended the right to vote to their peers
so that they could help~formulate the national and international policy in which
they would be expected to participate in future years.
Although changes were occurring nationally, the' evolution of .attitudes in the
South, and in Alabama, came more slowly. An examination of election data during
the 1950's and early 1960's provides incontrovertable evidence that the constitution-
ally guaranteed right of citizenship was still denied to many Alabamians.
In 1956, only 10.3 percent of the voting age blacks in Alabama were registered to
vote. In predominantly black Wilcox and Lowndes Counties, `there were no blacks
registered to vote, yet potential black voters amounted to 8,218 in Wilcox County
and 6,512 in Lowndes County.
Two years later, in 1958, blacks in Macon County petitioned the Civil Rights
Commission to study discriminatory practices used in voter registration. At that
time, the population of Macon County was approximately 32,000, of which 27,000 (or
84 percent) were black and 5,000 were white. However, out of the 3,170 registered
voters only 1,070 were black,' less than 4 percent of the black population. Of the
white population, onthe other hand, 42 percent were registered. When Civil Rights
Commissioners were called in to study the issue, the Board of Registrars refused to
let them examine their voter registration records.
During the period from 1960 to 1965, Alabama was the site of much racial unrest
resulting largely from inferior treatment of blacks in the `area of voting rights. The
record clearly `shows that, very often, the only recourse blacks had was to turn to
the federal government.
In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that gerrymandering
(drawing district lines in a way which denies a minority group representation)
constituted a denial of suffrage, which violated the 15th Amendment.
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was ratified and the Supreme Court ruled in
Reynolds v. Sims that Alabama, among other states, was not apportioned properly
and ordered the state to reapportion.
Finally, in 1965, prior to the passing of the Voting Rights Act, Alabama was the
site of the famous Selma to Montgomery march, led by Dr. Martin Luther King,
which illustrated and dramatized the plight of the disenfranchised blacks.
Between July 30, 1964, just prior to the passage of the Voting. Rights Act, and
March 1, 1968, Alabama saw a 31.4 percent gain in registered voters.. The densely
black populated counties of the "Black Belt" more than doubled their registered
voters in all but. three of the counties. The following chart illustrates the registra-
tion trends in predominantly black Alabama counties over the past two decades:
°°
`
Percent
black 1960
Number of registered voters
Percent
increase
1980
1966 1968 1970
Dallas
Greene
Hale
Lowndes
Macon
Marengo
Perry
Sumter
58 3732 5,886 6,136 6,620 8919 139
55 9,437 22,941 23,398 24,238 32,171 241
78 2,372 5,500 5,448 5,500 7,448 214
63 4,125 9,000 8,793 8,500 8,724 112
75 2,325 5,282 5,880 6,215 10,869 367
85 7,111 11,000 10,691 8,318 15,418 117
53 6,455 13,065 12,901 13,567 17,090 165
60 4,000 8,935 8,576 8,306 9,800 145
70 3,942 7,826 8,003 8,115 12,500 217
PAGENO="0723"
1597
Percent
County black
1960
Number of registered voters
Percent
increase
since
1980 1960
1966 1968 1970
Wilcox 69 3,050 8,453 8,453 8,518 12,500 310
Clearly voter registration in Alabama has been greatly affected by the passage of
the Voting Rights Act. But, this is not the only aspect of the election process which
has seen dramatic change. Since 1965 we have seen major increases in the numbers
of blacks running for political office and being elected to office.
In 1966, Dr. John Cashin, a black dentist from Huntsville, organized the National
Democratic Party of Alabama (NDPA), with the goal of registering blacks to vote,
and electing blacks to local, state, and party offices, By 1960, four of five Commis-
sioners elected in Greene County were NDPA candidates. In 1970, three blacks were
elected to the State Legislature, the first since the Reconstruction period. Currently,
there are three black members of the State Senate and 12 members of the State
House of Representatives. Blacks now hold many county and city positions through-
out the state and participate to a great extent in activities of the major political
parties in Alabama.
There is no doubt that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was responsible for improve-
ments in the elections process in Alabama. The dramatic changes in the numbers of
blacks being registered, participating as candidates, and holding elective office, is
evidence that previous methods of disenfranchising the black voter have been effec-
tively dealt with. The facts, election and voter registration data, speak for them-
selves.
We have come a long way since the days of standing in the school house door.
Where once Southern whites threatened, intimidated and coerced blacks, federal
officials are now accused of threatening, intimidating, and coercing Southern elec-
tion officials. Neither is the correct process for orderly change. When the 1965
Voting Rights Act was passed, after the long struggles which had taken place
between black and white citizens in the South and other parts of the country over
the emotionally volatile issue of integration, some Southerners perceived that there
was rejoicing and feelings of vindictiveness on the part of certain federal bureau-
crats, .who seemed to them to enjo~r rubbing the South's nose in it, if you will.
This perceived "holier than thou' attitude and unjustified, boastfully expressed
self-righteousnes by politicians in other parts of the country and federal officials,
left as much as a bad taste in many a Southerner's mouth as did the days after
Reconstruction.
The right atmosphere for change today must be based on mutual understanding
of each other's position, and a sense of trust, cooperation and assistance. For the
state-federal relationship to improve, there must be a demonstrable showing, by
federal officials that we have made progress in the South and that problems also
exist elsewhere.
Blacks are registered and will continue to be registered throughout the state of
Alabama. The change in philosophy and attitude, no doubt in part due to the 1965
Voting Rights Act and the discussion and debate which encircled it, has broadened
the perspective of Alabamians so that there is now a continuous vigil by blacks and
whites, which is witnessed here today, to ensure the integrity of the process and the
continuation of our democratic system of government.
The question today is whether or not the safeguards built into the 1965 Voting
Rights Act are still necessary to protect the rights of black citizens to register and
vote.
While I personally believe that most Alabama election officials are scrupulously
honest, fair and non-prejudiced in their respnsibilities relating to voter registration,
it would be unreasonably, and dangerously, naive for us to assume that there are
not those who would manipulate the political system to maintain their political
power, perhaps not on the basis of race or solely on the basis of race, but for their
own selfish, egotistical or financial gain. The Voting Rights Act continues to serve
as a deterrent for those few who would seek to intentionally deny black citizens the
right to vote or to dilute it through legislative reapportionment or other schemes.
As an example of what could happen, let's just look at one state House district,
composed of Perry and parts of Dallas and Marengo counties, with a black popula-
tion of 60.5%. The legislator who is elected is white. None of the counties are
predominantly white. Without the protection of the Voting Rights Act there is
PAGENO="0724"
1598
nothing to prohibit an Act of local application being passed by the Legislature
which obliterates, through a voter "reidentification" bill, the voting population of
those countries which have the~highest black population. Even if such voter reiden-
tification bills are not racially motivated, if the Voting Rights Act is not extended,
unscrupulous officials could administer the bill to the disadvantage of citizens
without much .real fear that their* prejudiced action would ever be challenged.
in fact, one such bill requiring the voting population of Perry County to "reiden-
tify," was passed. 60.2% of the citizens of Perry County are black. By removing
those citizens, the combined black population for this district is lowered to 45.4%. It
is apparent that it will be more difficult for the poor, for the black voters in that
district, to become reregistered, even if we assume an even-handed, policy with
respect to acceptance of white and black voter registration applications.
Blacks in rural Alabama are often the poorest people in their community. Trans-
portation to polling places and registration places is extremely limited. Purchasing
newspapers which announce voter "reidentification" programs is a very low priority
to poor people, coming well after buying clothing and providing shelter. Members of
minority groups and poor people are often victims of inferior education and there-
fore are unable to read public notices, or make a calendar note of the date, time and
place of public meetings. More often than not, opportunities for "reidentification"
are held at a time and place which is inconvenient, or in places where members of
minority groups do not normally feel welcome.
It has been recognized that voter "reidentification" programs are outdated meth-
ods of trying to clean voter registration lists of dead people, duplicates, felons, and
others who should not be on the list. With reidentification "we throw out the baby
with the bath water" by removing qualified registered voters at the same time we
take off the list ~ersons who are. no longer qualified. This puts an added burden on
certain groups of people. In this past legislative session in Alabama, there are many
such bills introduced and passed.
Let's take a look at the demographics of three counties for which voter "reidentifi-
cation" bills have been enacted:
(1) Perry County: 60.2 percent black.
(2) Sumter County: 69.5 percent black.
(3) Wilcox County: 68.9 percent black.
These three state Acts passed by the Alabama Legislature would force. voters in
three predominantly rural counties to "reidentify" themselves prior to voting in the
next elections. These bills, in my opinion, have an extremely adverse effect on the
elections process in this state and can be construed to revoke the voting rights of
many citizens of those counties.
Acts dealing with voter reidentification in Sumter and Perry counties carry an
unfair burden. The hours required by this legislation for reidentifying are prohibi-
tive to most people. The legislation requires that Boards of registrars meet only
between the hours of 9:00 am. and 4:00 p.m., hours when most people work. The
legislation also requires that notice of reidentification dates and places be an-
nounced in only one newspaper. These county newspapers are aimed at a particular
reading public and are not read by the entire citizenry.
A third objection to this legislation is that "proof of voting eligibility is defined
by the members of the Board of Registrars, and could be arbitrarily enforced.
Finally, there are no provisions for reidentifying electors who are unable to visit
the reidentification site, whether they are ill, handicapped, elderly, unable to find or
afford transportation.
Act 81-383, requiring reidentification of voters in Wilcox County, is far more
ominous than the first two mentioned. Section 3 of this Act requires that registrars
meet "as provided by law at least once, and more often if necessary". Conceivably, if
the Board determined that only one meeting was necessary, a vast percentage of the
voting population could be purged after holding one seven hour session. Compound-
ing this problem, this Act does not specify "where" each meeting of the Board shall
be held. Thus, by virtue of this reidentification law, the Board could hold its
meetings at a private club, residence or other locations inconvenient to vast sections
of the black population.
Once again, the hours required for reidentification are between 9:00 am. and 4:00
p.m., impractical for working people.
Section 5 (a) states that a person may reidentify only, by "answering such ques-
tions and submitting such proof as may reasonably be required by the~ board or one
of their duly authorized employees". This is an~ arbitrary method for determining
eligibility and may not be uniform in its application.
81-383 does provide for reidentification of infirm voters. However, Section 5 (b)
requires a written request be made, by the elector, for forms from the board. This
requires that the elector be able to read and to write. A further requirement is that
PAGENO="0725"
1599
a doctor's certificate, stating that the elector cannot appear in person to reidentify,
accompany the reidentification form. An undue financial burden may be placed on
the elector since a doctor frequently requires an office visit, even of regular pa-
tients, to write such certificates, and often if no visit is required, a fee is charged for
filling out such a form.
Section 9 requires that in re-identifying as a registered voter, one must provide a
social security number and driver's license number. Many people living in rural
communities do not have jobs which are covered by the Social Security Act and
have never applied for a number. Many people do not drive and therefore do not
have a driver's license. As a result, failure to drive an automobile or have a Social
Security card could become grounds to deny voting rights.
It is my fear, and the fear of many others in Alabama, that voter reidentification
legislation severely threatens and undermines the democratic system and concept of
one person-one vote.
While this legislation may not have been passed to intentionally deny black
citizens the right to vote, it is easy to see that it could have the effect of diluting
black voting strength in three state House districts which have a predominately
black population, but where legislation would adversely affect black voting strength
but where such legislation was not necessarily racially motivated, the Voting Rights
Act serves as a safeguard, a measure of protection which would not otherwise be
available.
Legislation which would purge voting lists throughout the State in a fair and
concise manner was introduced to the State House and Senate this past session.
This legislation would have provided for a statewide voter file maintenance system
to ensure that deceased persons, and persons who have moved and reregistered in
different counties, or who have been convicted of disqualifying crimes, would auto-
matically be purged from voting lists. Unfortunately, the need to maintain more
accurate voter lists was seen as important only in certain counties. Re-identification
was the method chosen by the Legislature to be used in those counties.
While I strongly oppose reidentification legislation because it requires extra work,
finances, and places burdens on those people who can least afford it, we must
recognize the difficulty which faces Boards of Registrars who try to maintain up-to-
date lists.
In our society, where citizens frequently move from state to state, if is difficult to
maintain a clean and up-to-date list of registered voters. The Census Bureau has
estimated that several million people move from state to state each year. In addi-
tion, of course, people move from county to county and across precinct lines within
a county in the course of a year. In Alabama, it is estimated that in excess of
100,000 voters change their residence annually. Some people lose their voting rights
because of the commission of certain crimes. Others die in another county or outside
the state. All of these activities make for a job that is virtually impossible for the
Boards of Registrars in Alabama, since each Board has a separate and independent
system of its own. It is therefore impossible for the Board in one county to know if a
citizen is also registered in every neighboring county, nor is there any way to verify
whether or not that person may have voted in all the counties in which he or she
might be registered.
Maintaining an up-to-date and accurate voter registration list is so important to
the majority of the electoral process, that I feel that states and counties under the
Voting Rights Act should be given financial assistance for list maintenance. If this
were done it would eliminate the need for voter reidentification programs, reduce
the possibility of vote fraud and consequently reduce complaints being filed with the
Justice Department under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Voting list maintenance is just one area where local officials need assistance.
One of the complaints received as an outgrowth of this last election emerged from
Sumter County. Sumter has a population which is approximately 69.5 percent black
and 30.5 percent white. There was a voter registration drive in Sumter County, and
as a result, a complaint was filed with the Justice Department against the Board of
Registrars alleging that more information was being required at the time of regis-
tration than was called for constitutionally or statutorily. My office intervened to
help solve the problem. On the surface this problem appeared racially motivated.
However, the Board of Registrars was not deliberately trying to prevent people from
registering, but simply had unanswered questions. They were trying to handle the
situation as best they could. Since there was a place on the voter registration form
for the voter's social security number, the Board assumed it was required and
refused to register voters without one.
Some problems could be avoided in the first place if there were proper training
programs, training aids and job aids for officials charged with election responsibil-
ities. Complaints of this nature which are now being filed with the Justice Depart-
PAGENO="0726"
1600
ment would be eliminated before they arise. Not oñiy would such assistance facili-
tate compliance and save valuable employee time, it would also help create a closer
working relationship between federal and local officials.
It is time the federal government offered "a helping hand" rather than the "back
of the hand to local election officials. In the past, some federal officials seemed to
have enjoyed making impossible demands on Southern election officials when ques-
tions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act emerged. Impossible documentary
demands have been made to justify the passage of simple annexation laws. No
simple forms have been made available and no federal help has been forthcoming to
assist election officials to comply with the demands of the Voting Rights Act.
Information concerning a specific breakdown of black/white population in a certain
portion of a city, comparison of box-by-box election results of black participation in
elections, as well as other demographic requirements apt to justify the passage of
certain Acts, places an impossible demand on the local official who barely has
enough money in his or her budget to make ends meet as it is.
The federal government needs. to provide assistance to states from which it
expects compliance with the Voting Rights Act. A simple and easy-to-understand
form furnished by the federal government to the Secretaries of State, and then
forwarded to counties and municipalities within the state, would facilitate initial
submission requirements under the Act.
Federal funding to establish and maintain election statistics, as well as demo-
graphic data, which could be made available to local and county officials, would do
much to aid local officials in their ability to respond to questions put to them by
federal officials.
In addition, the federal government has a greater responsibility in the elections
process than it has been willing to accept. States and counties bear the entire
financial burden of not only responding to questions arising out of the submission of
an Act under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but also for every federal election.
Every two years we have a general election which includes candidates for Congress.
Every 6 years we elect U.S. Senators. Every 4 years we have elections for delegates
to the national conventions and candidates for President and Vice-President. Ballots
are printed, elections supplies are ordered, voting machines are purchased, and
elections officials are hired to conduct and election, for which the state and county
pay the entire economic cost. In my judgment the federal government should bear
some of the financial responsibility for elections.
While I realize, that Congress is unlikely to consider modifications to the Voting
Rights Act during its current session, I would like to suggest one additional im-
provement that I hope we can work toward. In my judgment, the trigger mechanism
for section 5-preclearance should be a formula which is continuously updated. All
federal elections throughout the country should be monitored, and as it becomes
available, new census data should be analyzed, to determine which voting jurisdic-
tions should fall under the provisions of the Act. For example, there are many
counties in Alabama where voter participation problems are far fewer than in the
past and, in my opinion and demographically, do not justify the use of the preclear-
ance procedures. If an examination of current voting and census data suggests that
systematic barriers to participation no longer exist in a given jurisdiction, then that
area should be exempted from the preclearance provisions. If on the other hand,
current data indicate systematic. exclusion is occuring in a jurisdiction not previous-
ly covered, that. area should be subject to preclearance requirements.
My point is simple: the preclearance provisions are necessary and should be
applied to any jurisdiction in the United States where laws or procedures seem to
limit citizen participation in the electoral process, but, once the available data
indicate that barriers no longer exist, preclearance should no longer be required.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that "the right to vote is our most precious
right." And, indeed it is since all duties and responsibilities as well as our rights
and freedoms stem from our right to vote. And, all problems that we face can be
solved, or exacerbated, by the people we put into public office. Attempts to thwart
the will of the voter, or to subvert our democracy by tampering with the elections
process, by restraining, diluting or denying the right of qualified citizens to register
and. to vote, cannot be tolerated.
If the right to vote is important to be protected for blacks in Alabama, certainly
that right to vote is precious enough to be protected for blacks in Massachusetts or
Chicanos in New Mexico and Texas or Native Americans in Arizona,' or Puerto
Ricans in New York. Any Acts which affect the right to vote should be looked upon
with the utmost care and scrutiny, whether they are in the South, the North, East,
or West.
The Voting Rights Act sometimes has been applied in a heavy-handed and vindic-
tive manner. Federal and state officials need to move from an adversary relation-
PAGENO="0727"
1601
ship to one of cooperation. Local officials are in desperate need of resources and
assistance from the federal government if they are expected to fully comply with
the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Changes need to be made in the triggering
formula for preclearance to take into account changes in demographics and voter
participation.
The federal government has come in to Alabama on the issues of overcrowded
prisons, mental health, reapportionment and voting rights-each time such has
been brought on by a handful of powerful legislators who refuse to act in a
responsible manner. As a result, the entire state has to suffer.
Here we are in 1981 still talking about voter registration problems. If election law
reform legislation would pass the Alabama Legislature we could solve our own
problems and put our own house in order. Unfortunately, a few reactionary, short-
sighted, white legislators, coming from predominantly black districts, have been
able to stop election law changes that would bring our laws up-to-date and probably
would make the Voting Rights Act unnecessary for Alabama.
I hope these recommendations can be given careful and thoughtful consideration
by this committee at an appropriate time. But, despite the shortcomings of the Act
and its implementation, the extention of the Voting Rights Act is a minimum effort
which must be made to protect the right of. all Americans to exercise their Constitu-
tionally guaranteed right to freely participate in the affairs of their government.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Washington?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes.
Mr. Siegelman, I have had a bit of trouble focusing on your
statement here. You have two before us and you amended the
second one. -
I have been bouncing back and forth trying to keep up with you.
Did I understand you to suggest that racial motivation was not a
factor in the reidentification bills?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. I am saying that that has yet to be shown, but
the practical effect of at least one of those bills is that it substan-
tially reduces the black combined population of that legislative
district from which a white legislator has been elected.
Mr. WASHINGTON. As you know, in cases like this, the intent has
to be garnered from the available objective evidence.
What we have here is that five of the seven counties designated
for reapplication have a black population of over 50 percent,
Sumter, Wilcox, Perry, Lowndes, Tuscaloosa, Dallas, and Winston.
Is that coincidental?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. Going back to my statement, there are a couple
of legislators who are eleted from predominantly black districts
who are in powerful positions in the Alabama House of Representa-
tives who have opposed a statewide voter file maintenance system
which would eliminate not only the need, but would specifically
repeal voter reidentification bills.
In my judgment the statewide voter file maintenance system bill
should be passed and if it were passed it would eliminate these
complaints from the State of Alabama going to the Justice Depart-
ment.
My position is, if the State of Alabama does not create such a
system and if we remain under the provisions of the Voting Rights
Act, the Federal Government should offer us that help so that we
can solve those problems here in Alabama and eliminate the prob-
lem from which complaints arise.
Mr. WASHINGTON. But the problem is that certain legislators,
white, if you will, conduct themselves in such a way that one has
to assume that their purpose is to dilute black votes.
PAGENO="0728"
1602
For example, my allusion to the five out of seven cOunties, one
has to look at revocation as it has been applied in Alabama as a
tool to dilute black representation.
You certainly can't look at it any other way.
Those few; as you indicated, who do this make it hard for the
good guys like you who maintain you want to straighten this
matter out.
It makes it difficult to go along with your statement at page 20
where you say my point is simple.
The preclearance is unnecessary and should be applied to any
jurisdiction where laws seem to limit citizens' participation in the
electoral process, but once the available data indicate that barriers
no longer exist, preclearance should no longer be required.
What available data do you have to indicate that Alabama no
longer has this problem in contradiction to these reidentification
bills, which have passed in several of the black counties?
Mr. :SIEGELMAN. What I am saying, sir, is there are certain
counties in Alabama which in my judgment do not justify being
included under the preclearance--
Mr. WASHINGTON. That came because the Federal Government
wasn't dealing with the counties. It was dealing with the State.
The Congress was very aware-you were dealing with the con-
cept of States rights. They imposed that burden on the States, the
~theory being that the State would police its own internal affairs.
There are various political geographical subdivisions. They in
turn would wipe out these things. Many of the States have not
done that. They have let these counties go along as they please and
do as .they please.
Now, well-meaning people like yourself come to us and appear
and say, we want to bail out. County X is a clean county. Look at
our record. You see?
Then you have seven or eight counties where that is .not true.
The States have not lived up to their responsibility.
Let us have no confusion about the power of Congress in this
matter. The 15th amendment is clear. It couldn't be clearer.
For the first time in 1965 the Voting Rights Act seriously imple-
mented it. The purpose overrides State individual conduct.
There is a Federal standard of conduct. What the Federal Con-
gress was trying to do was bring certain States up to that level of
standard. They haven't done it.
Mr. EDWARDS. The time of the gentleman has expired.
We have five more witnesses this morning. In fairness to the
witnesses who remain this morning, the Chair will impose the
House rule of 5 minutes.
Mr. WASHINGTON. You caught me in. midair, Mr. Chairman. But
that is all right.
Did you want to respond briefly?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. My response would be that there are counties in
Alabama which, in my judgment, should not be included under the
preclearance provisions.
If we are to remain under the Voting Rights Act, I think that
State or Federal help should be provided so that in responding to
questions which perhaps emanate from an annexation law, local
officils will be provided with the democratic data, the statistical
PAGENO="0729"
1603
data which they need to answer the questions put to them by
Justice Department officials.
Again I think that the preclearance provisions are necessary, but
that for us to create the type of atmosphere that I think we all
wish, then I think that that relationship between the State and
Federal officials needs to be based on trust and cooperation and
understanding of where each other is.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I will subscribe to that.
One quick question.
As I indicated before at one of our hearings, Attorney Gray from
Birmingham made the statement that the State of Alabama had
failed or certain counties had failed to submit certain changes for
preclearance. As the secretary of state in this great State,. don't
you feel it your responsibility, since you are in charge of the
electoral machinery of the State to monitor every county, every
township, every hamlet, every city, to make certain that any
changes in election laws are precleared?
Don't you think that is your responsibility?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. No. One, if we had the appropriate assistance,
which I addressed in my 22-page statement, I think that could be
done. I think that it is unnecessary in certain counties because I
don't believe their past history or present demographic data war-
rants their being included under the Voting Rights Act.
I think there are counties which should remain.
As I said, I think the preclearance provisions are necessary until
we are able to solve these remedial election problems which would
make complaints virtually nonexistent.
*Mr. WASHINGTON. But the responsibility is yours by virtue of
your own statement?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. No. The responsibility as a statutorily construct-
ed matter is not mine; but in Alabama we have a very decentral-
ized system of elections which is perhaps part of our problem.
The responsibility for municipal elections is solely within the
municipality itself. The chief elections officer for municipal elec-
tions is the city clerk.
For counties it is the probate judge. For State elections, it is the
secretary of state.
Mr. WASHINGTON. The 1965 Voting Rights Act acts upon the
State of Alabama. You are the chief electoral officer of the State of
Alabama?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. Not-as a practical matter, yes. As a legal
matter, as I mentioned, the responsibility is extremely decentral-
ized. We have a system which places a responsibility on the Attor-
ney General. We have a system that places part of the elections
function on the Governor; part on district attorneys, part on the
boards of registrars, part on county clerks, part on city clerks, part
on the sheriff.
It is because of this decentralized nature of Alabama's election
laws that I think part of our problems arise in the administration
of the laws.
Mr. WASHINGTON. This is a Federal law, Mr. Siegelman. This is a
Federal law. If the chief electoral officer of the State doesn't at
least inform and monitor these various political subdivisions, how
can you expect the subdivisions to comply?
PAGENO="0730"
1604
How can you even advocate modifying the Voting Rights Act
when the chief electoral officer of the State hasn't done all he can
do to make sure that act is in force?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. I would differ with you in the respect that the
secretary of state's office has not done everything he could possibly
do to improve the elections process.
*We have continuously submitted-legislation-we have contin-
uousy submitted legislation to the proposed legislation to the Ala-
bama Legislature which would make it easier for people to register
and easier for people to vote.
We have submitted legislation to the Alabama Legislature that
would systematically and fairly remove dead people and duplicates
and remove the need for voter identification programs.
We have submitted legislation which would provide for an insti-
tuted training program for election officials so they would know
what questions to ask of potential voters so that the rights of
voters would be fully protected.
We have proposed a number of reforms which I think, if they
were enacted, would make this act virtually unnecessary in the
State of Alabama.
Mr. WASHINGTON. The point is, the reforms haven't taken hold?
The witnesses' testimony--
Mr. SIEGELMAN~ In some counties, as I mentioned, there are at
.ieast two Alabama Legislators who have been vehemently opposed
to remedial reforms in the elections process. They are white legisla-
tors coming from black districts. If the reforms are passed, they
probably will not be back in 1982. They are acting perhaps not out
of racial motivation, but perhaps out of selfish, political self-surviv-
al, but the result of their act is still the same; that the entire State
is having to suffer for the acts of those few people.
There are counties in Alabama that are having to justify annex-
ation laws in my judgment that perhaps should not be.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. HYDE. Is open house voting illegal in Alabama?
In other words, the failure to provide a secret ballot? Is that
against the law?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. Yes. Except we had a-up until this last election
we had a provision with respect to absentee ballots which required
voters to sign his or her ballot.
Alabama was the only State that required voters to sign his or
her absentee ballot. We were able to have a provision passed by the
Alabama Legislature to insure the secrecy of absentee ballots. The
paper ballots are numbered. There is a seal placed over that
number.
The ballot, after it is cast by the elector, is to be placed in a
sealed ballot box only to be opened, counted, and then resealed and
never opened except in the case of contests.
To open that box, or to examine it, to remove the* seal, is a
violation of State law.
Mr. HYDE. Were you here when. the testimony of the previous
panel occurred and they said that they don't have a secret polling
place? They have to vote on a table in front of everybody?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. State law requires that each voter be provided a
proper place for casting a secret ballot.
PAGENO="0731"
1605
Mr. HYDE. Obviously that State law is not obeyed in those coun-
ties and places where they must vote on the table?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. If that is occurring, that is a violation of State
law.
Mr. HYDE. Does the attorney general of the State of Alabama
have the legal authority to enforce that State law?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. Certainly. The district attorneys in that district
also have that responsibility. They share that responsibility.
The district attorneys in Alabama are elected, of course.
Mr. HYDE. Is the attorney general appointed?
Mr. SIEGELMAN. He is also elected.
What I am saying is, it is sometimes difficult as a political
matter for a district attorney-this is their perception: It is diffi-
cult to enforce the laws against the people you expect to vote for
you in the next election.
Mr. HYDE. But the attorney general for the State of Alabama
represents all the people of Alabama. He ought to have the re-
sources to start doing something about these kinds of conduct.
These violations of law.
Mr. SIEGELMAN. Obviously all of the laws of the State ought to be
enforced with that same vigor. I happen to think the right to vote
is our most precious right since all our duties and responsibilities
emanate from that and therefore it should be carefully and espe-
cially protected.
Mr. HYDE. I agree with you.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much.
Mr. SIEGELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our next group of witnesses is a panel presenta-
tion by Mayor Richard Arrington of Birmingham, Ala., Jefferson
County; Senator Michael Figures, Mobile, Ala., Mobile County;
Larry Fluker of Evergreen, Ala.
TESTIMONY OF MAYOR RICHARD ARRINGTON, BIRMINGHA1~I,
ALA.; STATE SENATOR MICHAEL FIGURES, MOBILE, ALA.;
AND LARRY FLUKER, EVERGREEN, ALA.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any particular order we should follow, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. EDWARDS. That is entirely up to you.
Mr. ARRINGTON; Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Richard Arrington, Jr., mayor of the city of Birmingham.
You do not have copies of my prepared statement. I do have copies
here.
Mr. Chairman, other distinguished committee members, I appre-
ciate the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of
the extension of the key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act
now currently in effect.
Among all of the recent civil rights legislation aimed at protect-
ing the basic constitutional rights of all of our citizens and rectify-
ing the lingering effects of past acts of illegal denial of constitution-
al rights, none is as important or more important than the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
I say this not only because of the significant increase in the
number of minority voters since the Voting Rights Act, but also as
PAGENO="0732"
1606
a reminder that in a democratic society such as ours there is
perhaps nothing so important as total access to the exercise of
one's right to vote.
In addition to its impact on increased minority voter registration,.
the Voting Rights Act, . through its~ provisions for court-imposed
preclearance as a remedy for voting violations, the formula for
subjecting jurisdictions to the requirements of the act and prohibi-
tions against tests and other devices, which have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on unconstitutional grounds,
have served to secure~~ the rights of minorities gained through the
exercise of the right to vote.
In other words, these provisions have served as a deterrent to
many of the potential practices which could serve to dilute the
voting strength made possible by increased minority~voter registra-
tion or which could~ otherwise abridge one's access to equal partici-
pation in our political system.
The Voting Rights~ Act has brought our Nation a long way down
the road toward its goals of full and equal protection of every
individual's and every group's right to participation in our political
system.
Certainly when we have a proven legislative remedy for achiev-
ing a goal which is fundamental to what we cherish in a democra-
cy, it is not the time to abandon that remedy or to. dilute it before
our goal is fully achieved.
Let me point out several facts which speak clearly to the need to
continue the current provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
One. In Alabama and other States affected by .the Voting Rights
Act, at some levels of government and particularly the State level,
the percentage of elected officials who are black do not begin to
approximate the percentage of blacks in the total population.
Yet the progress of the past 15 years or so .indicates that the
interest on the part of blacks in participating in the .system is
clearly present and an adequate extension of the act will surely
lead us to. achieving that goal in the affected States.
Two. Unabridged access to the ballot box in all jurisdictions
affected by the: current act .is not yet a reality. In some Alabama
counties, for example, that goal has been realized; but in some,
notably some rural counties with majority black populations, com-
plaints about tactics designed to discourage black voter registration
are not uncommon.
Short hours for voter registration. and a limited number of days
per week for voter registration make it difficult for people living in
areas remote from the board of ~registrars and who work extended
hours to register and at the very best it creates an inconvenience
inconsistent with our goal of equal access to the political system;
hence it becomes a deterrent to voting.
Some boards of registrars, despite enabling legislation from the
State and requests of blacks, still do not permit the use of deputy
registrars which would enhance access to the ballot by many, in-~
cluding the elderly.
Fears by blacks of political gerrymandering, the unfair redistrict-
ing acts, biased annexations which dilute black voting strength,
unfair use. of voter reidentification programs-and I . might add
parenthetically the unwillingness of State officials to live by the.
PAGENO="0733"
1607
laws or the authority they have or to use that authority particular-
ly when it comes to programs of reapportionment or programs of
redistricting.
All of these are concerns which are likely and fears which are
likely to become realities in the absence of protective provisions of
the Voting Rights Act such as preclearance and similar safeguards.
I strongly encourage the committee to support the extension of
the current Voting Rights Act by support of H.R. 3112 introduced
by Congressman Rodino in April 1981.
In addition to retaining the current temporary provisions of the
act, it is important to clarify the burden of proof in cases of voting
discrimination.
Where the effect of discrimination is clearly present, it appears
unreasonable to impose an undue burden on victims by requiring a
proof of intent also.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Arrington follows:]
PAGENO="0734"
1608
STATEMENT OF MAYOR RICHARD ARRINGTON, JR.
OF BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
IN SUPPORT OF THE EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
JUNE 12, 1981
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA
Mr. Chairman and Other Distinguished Committee Members:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee
in support of the extension of the key provisions of the 1965 Voting /
Rights Act now currently in effect. Among all of the recent Civil
* Rights Legislation aimed at protecting the basic constitutional rights
of all of our citizens and rectifying the lingering effects of past
acts of illegal denial of Constitutional rights, none is as important
or more important than the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I say this,
not only because of the significant increase in the number of minority
voters since the Voting Rights Act, but also as a reminder that in
a democratic society such as ours, here is perhaps nothing so
important as total access to the exercise of one's right to vote.
In addition to its impact on increased minority voter registration,
the Voting Rights Act, through its provisions for court-imposed
preclearance as a remedy for voting violations, the formula for sub-
jecting jurisdictions to the requirements of theAct and prohibitions
against tests and other devices which have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on unconstitutional grounds, have served
to secure the rights of minorities gained through the exercise of the
right to vote. In other words, these provisions have served as a
deterrent to many of the potential practices which could serve to
dilute the voting strength made possible by increased~ minority voter
PAGENO="0735"
1609
registration or which could otherwise abridge one's access to
equal participation in our political system.
The Voting Rights Act has brought our nation a long way down
the road towards its goals of full and equal protection of every
individual!s and every group's right to participation in our political
system. Certainly, when we have a proven legislative remedy for
achieving a goal which is fundamental to what we cherish in a
democracy, it is not the tine to abandon that remedy or to dilute it
before our goal is fully achieved. Let me point out several facts
which speak clearly to the need to continue the current provisions of
the Voting Rights Act:
(1) In Alabama and other states affected by the Voting Rights
Act, at some levels of government and particularly the state level, the
percentage of elected officials who are black, do not begin to
approximate the percentage of blacks in the total population. Yet, the
progress of the past 15 years or so indicates that the interest on the
part of blacks in participating in the system is clearly present and
an adequate extension of the Act will surely lead us to achieving that
goal in the affected states.
(2) Unabridged access to the ballot box in all jurisdictionS
affected by the current Act is not yet a reality. In some Alabama
counties, for example, that goal has been realized; but in some,
notably some rural counties with majority black populations, complaints
about tactics designed to discourage black voter registration are not
uncommon.
Short hours for voter registration and a limited
number of d~ys per week for voter registration make
-2-
PAGENO="0736"
1610
it difficult for people living in. areas remote from
the Board of. Registrars and who work extended hours
to register and at the very best it creates an
inconvenience inconsistent with our goal of equal
access to the political system; hence it becomes a
deterrent to voting.
Some Board of Registrars, despite enabling legislation
/` from the State and requests of blacks, still do not
permit the use of Deputy Registrars which would enhance
access to the ballot by many, including the elderly.
Fears by blacks of political gerrymandering, the unfair
re-districting acts, biased annexations which dilute
black voting str ngth, unfair use of voter re-identif i-
cation programs etc., are likely to become realities
in the absence of protective provision of the Voting
Rights Act, such as pre-clearance and similar safeguards.
I strongly encourage the Committee to support the extention of the
current Voting Rights Act by support of H. R. 3112 introduced by
Congressman Rodino in April, 1981. In addition to retaining the current
temporary provisions of the Act, it is important to clarify the burden
of proof in cases of voting discrimination. Where the effect of
discrimination is clearly present, it appears unreasonable to impose
an undue burden on victims by requiring a proof of intent also.
Should we abandon outright or by indirection or dilution, this
noble and worthy cause of safeguarding everyone's right to equitable
participation in our political system, we will have taken a giant
step backward towards repeating a part of our history which all who
-3-
PAGENO="0737"
1611
truly believe in the American ideals of freedom, justice and
equality of opportunity will regret.
-4-
83-679 0 - 82 - 47 Pt.2
PAGENO="0738"
1612
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mayor Arrington.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL FIGURES
Mr. FIGURES. Chairman Edwards, I am Michael Figures. I repre-
sent the 33d senatorial district in Mobile County.
The question I should like to propose at the outset as a frame-
work to my brief statement is this: By what logic can one assume
that over 300 years of slavery and institutionalized racism can be
eliminated, particularly in the area of its most historical concentra-
tion, within the 16 years that the Voting Rights Act was placed on
the books of this country?
Voting, of course, is the most fundamental right in the democra-
cy. What then gives us the authority to believe that the right so
murderously denied 16 years ago that Congress sought to further
support the protection already provided in the U.S. Constitution is
no longer necessary?
The fact is, most of those in power at the time the Voting Rights
Act passed and at whom it was aimed for the most part are still
alive and doing well. Their spirits have not been cleansed by the
well of redemption.
They believe no more now than they did then that black votes
should be freely allowed.
There have been few, if any, accommodations by them if you look
at it closely.
The test, I submit, is not how many black elected officials have
been elected because of or under the Voting Rights Act, and indeed
there really have not been many in proportion to our number, but
rather how many whites have voted for those blacks who were
elected.
There may be some isolated examples somewhere where a large
number of whites have voted for a black, but not in Birmingham
where Mayor Arrington is from; not in Evergreen where Mr.
Fluker comes from, and certainly the less than 2 percent white
vote I received in 1978 in a district over 40 percent white is
evidence of a pattern existent in the South.
As long as racially polarized voting exists, there will be a need
for a Voting Rights Act to protect against white politicians who
will do all they can to insure they stay in office in areas with large
black populations.
You see what the Alabama Legislature did just last month in
Lowndes, Wilcox, and Sumter Counties with the reidentification
bills about which there has been abundant testimony. They resist
elections by doing what my hometown has done. They have spent
in excess of $600,000 already to keep an at-large election scheme
that has prevented any black from being elected to a three-member
at-large city commission in the history of the city.
They don't have the money to stop homes from flooding every
time we have a hard rain because they spend it to keep blacks out
of city hall.
Now, the Supreme Court has said we must show the form of
government we have that was established in 1911 was established
for the specific purpose of excluding blacks from office.
We must show that it was intentional, in other words. It is
fundamentally absurd that you don't have to show intent to
PAGENO="0739"
1613
damage another person's property in a traffic accident, but you
have to show intent when a whole race of people's right to vote and
consequent right to have access to public office is damaged, in fact,
denied.
Why should you have to prove intent in a town where in 1976
the bicentennial year, you will recall, a group of more than eight
white policemen attempted to hang a black man; where just this
past Tuesday morning, a white policeman is accused of raping a
black woman?
Why should you have to prove intent where the only black
policemen who rank above patrolmen in the Mobile Police Depart-
ment are three black sergeants, all who were put there by court
order, while a white counterpart, who used the word nigger just
2½ months ago in describing a black suspect, is promoted to major
and a white policeman who has killed three blacks and paralyzed
another runs for city commissioner against an encumbent who has
allowed these things to go on in the police department?
Black elected city officials could begin to address these problems
that white officials ignore because they know that white voters
elect them and will not hold their mistreatment of black folks
against them.
No wonder that Senator Jeremiah Denton feels he has the right,
through political pressure, to involve himself in a voting rights suit
in his hometown because there has been no discrimination there
since he has been home.
What further. evidence do you need to see the extent to which
white politicians will go to project an at-large voting system?
With this kind of example being set by a U.S. Senator, what kind
of schemes do you think local and State officials might engage in to
protect their power by abridging the right of black folks to vote
and hold public office.
It is not by accident that almost all black citizens are gerryman-
dered out of the city limits of Mount Vernon, Ala., or a group of
blacks surrounded by municipalities in Mobile County is in neither
of them.
Why do local communities refuse to appoint deputy registrars?
Are limited voter registration days and hours designed to prevent
massive voter registration drives?
Is this why, after 1968, the percentage of black voters has not
increased significantly?
In a way it is strange that we talk here of allowing one of the
major achievements, perhaps the major achievement of the civil
rights struggle, to expire, in a day when assaults against blacks,
and the Ku Klux Klan are on the rise, when black unemployment
is disproportionately high.
You know, the majority of the black community in Mobile be-
lieves that the recent lynching of a young black boy was purely
racially motivated and here we are in Montgomery, indeed, the
birthplace of the civil* rights movement where the Voting Rights
Act was actually born and we are here talking about letting it die.
I am on the joint legislative committee that will study reappor-
tionment, that is supposed to reapportion the State legislature and
the U.S. congressional seats. I am gearing up for a fight. We begin
meeting next week.
PAGENO="0740"
1614
I know my colleagues, some of whom might otherwise do well,
will be doing all they can to not increase the number of black
elected officials in this State.
They will be doing their best to lessen that number.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Figures follows:]
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL A. FIGURES, ALABAMA STATE SENATOR
The question I should like to propose at the outset as a framework to my brief
statement is this: By what logic can one assume that 100 years of slavery and
institutionalized racism can be eliminated, particularly, in it's historically most
concentrated areas, within the 16 years that the Voting Rights Act was placed on
the books of this country?
Voting, of course, is the most fundamental right in the democracy. What then
gives us the authority to believe that the right so murderously denied, just 16 years
ago, that Congress sought to further support the protection already provided in the
United States Constitution, is now no longer necessary?
The fact is that most of those who were in power at the time the Voting Rights
Act passed and at whom it was aimed for the most part, are still alive and doing
well and their spirits have not been cleansed by the well of redemption. They
believe no more now than they did then, that black votes should be freely allowed.
There have been few, if any accommodations by them, if you look at it closely.
THE TEST, I submit, is not how many black elected officials have been elected
because of or under the Voting Rights Act, and indeed there really have been many
in proportion to our number. But rather, how many whites have voted for those
blacks who were elected?
There may be some isolated examples somewhere, where a large number of
whites have voted for a black, but not in Birmingham, where Mayor Arrington is
from, not in Evergreen where Mr. Fluker comes from and certainly the less than
270 white votes that I received in 1978, in a district that is over 40 percent white is
evidence of pattern existent throughout this state and the entire South.
As long as racially polarized voting exists, there will be a need for a Voting
Rights Act to protect against white politicians who will do all they can to insure
that they stay in office in areas not having large black populations. You see what
the Alabama Legislature did just last month in Lowndes, Wilcox and Sumter
Counties. They resist single member district election systems by doing as my home
town, I am not proud to say, has done. They have spent in excess of $600,000
already to keep an at-large election scheme that has prevented any black from
being elected to a three-member City Commission in the history of the city. They
don't have money to stop homes from flooding every time we have a hard rain
because they spend it to keep blacks out of city halls.
Now, the Supreme Court has said that we must show that the form of government
we have was established in 1911 for the specific~ purpose of excluding blacks from
office. We must show that it was intentional. It is fundamentally absurd that you
don't have to show intent to damage another's person or property in a traffic
accident, but you have to show intent when a whole race of people's right to vote
and consequent right to have access to public office is damaged-in fact, denied.
Why should you have to prove intent in a town where in 1976, the Bicentennial
Year, you will recall, a group of more than 8 white policemen attempted to hang a
black man; where just this past Tuesday morning, a white policeman is accused of
raping a black woman?
Why should you have to prove intent where the only black policemen who rank
above patrolmen in the Mobile Police Department are three black sargeants, all
who were put there by Court Order, while a white counterpart, who used the word
"nigger" just 2½ months ago in decribing a black suspect is promoted to major and
a white policeman who has killed three blacks and paralyzed another runs for City
Commissioner against an incumbent who has allowed these things to go on in the
police department?
Black elected city officials could begin to address these problems that white
officials ignore because they know that white voters elect them and will not hold
their mistreatment of black folks against them. .
No wonder that Senator Jerimiah Denton feels he has to right through political
pressure to involve himself in a Voting Right Suit in his hometown because There
has been no discrimination there since he has been home." What further evidence
do you need to see the extent to which white politicians will go to project an at-large
PAGENO="0741"
1615
voting system. With this kind of example being set by a U.S. Senator, what kind of
schemes do you think local and State officials might engage in to protect their
power by abridging the right of black folks to vote and hold public office.
It is not by accident that almost all black citizens are gerrymandered out of the
city limits of Mt. Vernon, Alabama or a group of blacks surrounded by municipal-
ities in Mobile County is in neither of them.
Why do local communities refuse to appoint Deputy Registrars? Are limited Voter
Registration days and hours designed to prevent massive Voter Registration drives?
Is this why after 1968, the percentage of black voters has not increased significant-
ly?
In a way it is strange that we talk here of allowing one of the major achieve-
ments; perhaps, the Major achievement of the civil rights struggle to expire . . . in
a day when assaults against blacks, and the Ku Klux Klan are on the rise, when
black unemployment is disproportionately high. You, know, the majority of the
black community in Mobile believes that the recent lynching of a young black boy
was purely racially motivated and here we are in Montgomery, indeed, the birth-
place of the civil rights movement where the Voting Rights Act was actually born
and we are here talking about letting die.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Fluker.
TESTIMONY OF LARRY FLUKER
Mr. FLUKER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am
Larry Fluker of Conecuh County, Evergreen, Ala. I am president of
the Conecuh County branch of the NAACP and vice chairman of
the Conecuh County Democratic Conference.
In addition, I am a deputy registrar, and have held the position
since June of 1978.
In 1964, I became the first president of the Conecuh County
branch NAACP, just one year prior to the passage of the Voting
Rights Act.
At the time a number of community leaders drafted me to be the
NAACP president because I was in the funeral and insurance
business. Therefore, they thought it would be more difficult for
whites to bring economic reprisals against me.
I was only 20 years old then, but I accepted the challenge be-
cause I saw the need for a civil rights organization in Conecuh
County.
For the most part, teachers were afraid to be openly identified
with the NAACP then.
Prior to the signing of the Voting Rights Act, there were ap-
proximately 1,000 black voters in Conecuh County. But after
August of 1965, I can recall vividly the long lines of black people
who came from throughout the county to register.
We even had Federal registrars to assist in the registration
process~ Today Conecuh County has approximately 3,600 black reg-
istered voters.
The black population, based on the 1980 census data for Conecuh
County, is 6,534. We are 41.1 percent of the population.
Excluding the Black Belt counties, Conecuh is one of the few
counties which has a black population of over 40 percent. Despite
our numbers, we have been unable to elect any blacks to county
office because of racial bloc voting.
In 1980, we had three blacks to run for county office. Two of
them were.. in runoffs. And one lost by a margin of approximately
250 votes in an at-large election.
In 1978 we had two blacks to seek county office.
PAGENO="0742"
1616
In 1976 there was only one black candidate in a race. In fact, as
early as 1972, we had a black to run for county office.
It is interesting to note that prior to 1972 Conecuh County had
four single-member commissioner districts. District 1 was predomi-
nantly black, with a black population of 60.1 percent.
District 2 was 43.7 percent black.
District 3 was 41 percent black.
And District 4 was 38.1 percent black.
In 1971, however, at the request of the Conecuh County Commis-
sion, an act was introduced and passed the Alabama Legislature,
merging the four single-member districts into two districts. The
former districts 1 and 2 were merged, forming a new district 1.
Former districts 3 and 4 were merged, creating a new district 2.
This merger of former single member districts definitely diluted
the black vote. Because after the merger neither district had a
majority of blacks. I learned about the change in commission dis-
tricts in 1980. The changes were never submitted to the Justice
Department for preclearance.
In fact, the Justice Department indicated that Conecuh County
had never submitted any reports with respect to changes in elec-
tion procedures.
In any case, I ran for place 2 on the Evergreen City Council in
1980. To my amazement and that of the entire black community,
the city clerk who served as election supervisor in all municipal
elections, left off approximately 200 black voters on the official list.
Many of the people who were left off had lived in the city for
years. Many were prominent citizens. None of these folk were told
that they could vote a challenge ballot.
Consequently, they had to go by city hail and pick up a certifica-
tion slip before they could vote. Because of this requirement, a
significant number of these people did not return to vote.
At one of the polling places in the courthouse, one of our poll
watchers reported that 28 black names were left off the list. Thir-
teen of them did not return to vote. As a result, the only incum-
bent black member on the council at the time lost by four votes.
Unfortunately, this council member seemed afraid to challenge
the election, so he never did.
Incidentally, although there were two white incumbent council
members who were unopposed, another white candidate chose to
run against the black incumbent.
In my case, a white store manager who had been in Evergreen
for less than 2 years, ran against me. One of the white candidates
even admitted that his reason for running against a black candi-
date was because he felt he could beat him.
The inference one can draw from that is that the white candi-
date was counting on the white bloc vote to elect him.
Although Conecuh County now has nine black deputy regis-
trars-plus the chairman of the board of registrars is black, the
resistance to appointing deputy registrars initially was astounding.
For over a week we battled with the board before they consented
to appoint us. However, we went out and registered almost 800
people in 2 months. The white chairman of the Board resigned in
protest. The vacancy which was created paved the way for Gover-
nor Wallace to appoint the first black registrar in Alabama.
PAGENO="0743"
1617
In addition to not having any black elected officials in Conecuh
County, our efforts to get blacks appointed as poll workers have
also been frustrated.
Both the. Conecuh County Democratic Executive Committee and
the election supervisOry committee have given us thern runaround in
terms of appointing.. blacks.to work the polls.
The election supervisory committee claims that it cannot appoint
poll workers but only accepts recommendation from committee
members.
- However, I know of an instance where a man went to a commis-
sioner and asked him to get the election supervisory committee to
appoint his wife to work the polls. It was done.
Incidentally, during the 1980 elections Conecuh County had less.
than 12 blacks working at the polls out of approximately 140 poll
workers.
I forgot .to mention earlier that as a result of our protesting the
city clerk striking approximately 200 black voters from the list last
summer, the Justice Department sent in 70 Federal observers to
monitor the primary elections last September. Approximately 25
returned for the runoff election.
The Federal observers decided to return for the runoff elections
because' they observed a number of irregularities at several of the
polling places. In several instances it was reported that the poll
workers were quite rude to the Federal observers.
At the Cedar Creek polling place, poll officials would, not let
several black voters come inside the polling house out of the rain.'
One official slammed the door in .my face when I asked him to
permit the voters to come' in out of the rain. This same poll official
made some threats later, stating that he would be ready for the
niggers when we came back for the runoff election.
One of the things that the poll officials resist most is the law
which permits assistance to voters who are illiterate, handicapped,
or don't know how to operate the voting machine. There are re-
peated attempts on the part of poil workers to deny illiterate
voters to select people of their own choosing to assist them in
voting.
In wrapping up, I wish to point out that Conecuh County has
been selected by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as one of four
counties in the South on which it will do an intensive election
probe.
The local officials have not taken too kindly to this thought. In
fact the editor of the local paper said that Conecuh County elec-
tions don't need the Feds to stick their. noses in local politics.
In `his column of August 28, 1980, the editor of the Evergreen
Courant advised local officials to cooperate with the Federal ob-
servers. Also, as a final statement to his readers, the editor wrote,
"I really don't think there is anything to hide. Elections in this
county have been conducted fairly and honestly for at least 10
years now."
To say the least, that is `an interesting comment. For the editor
implies that 10 years ago, in 1970, elections may not have been
conducted fairly in Conecuh County. That revelation supports my
contention all the more that we need the Voting Rights Act ex-
tended. Because, just as the editor didn't speak of corruption or
PAGENO="0744"
1618
discrimination he may have known about 10 years ago, it is highly
unlikely he will do so now.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fluker follows:]
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF LARRY FLUKER, CONECUH COUNTY, Ai~.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Larry Fluker of Conecuh
County, in Evergreen, Alabama. I am president of the Conecuh County Branch
NAACP and Vice Chairman of the Conecuh County Democratic Conference. In
addition, I am a Deputy Registrar, and have held the position since, June of 1978.
In 1964, I became the first president of the Conecuh County Branch NAACP, just
one year prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, a number of
community leaders drafted me to be the NAACP president because I was in the
funeral and insurance business. Therefore, they though it would be more difficult
for whites to bring economic reprisals against me. I was only 20 years old then, but
I accepted the challenge because I saw the need for a civil rights organization in
Conecuh County. For the most part, teachers were afraid to be openly identified
with the NAACP, then.
Prior to the signing of the Voting Rights Act, there were approximately 1,000
black voters in Conecuh County. But after August of 1965, I can recall vividly the
long lines of black people who came from throughout the county to register. We
even had Federal registrars to assist in the registration process. Today, Conecuh
County has approximately 3,600 black registered voters. The black population based
on the 1980 census data for Conecuh County is 6,534. We are 41.1 percent of the
population.
Excluding the black belt counties, Conecuh is one of the few counties which has a
black population of over 40 percent. Despite our numbers, we have been unable to
elect any blacks to county office because of racial bloc voting. Tn 1980, we had three
blacks to run for county office. Two of them were in runoffs. And one lost by a
margin of approximately 250 votes in an at-large election. In 1978, we had two
blacks to seek county office. In 1976, there was only one black candidate in a race.
In fact, as early as 1972, we had a black to run for county office.
It is interesting to note that prior to 1971, Conecuh County had four single
member commissioner districts. District one was predominately black, with a black
population of 60.1 percent. District two was 43.7 percent black. District three was
41.0 percent black. And district four was 38.1 percent black. In 1971, however, at the
request of the Conecuh County Commission, an Act was introduced and passed the
Alabama legislature, merging the four single member districts into two districts.
The former districts 1 and 2 were merged, forming a new district 1. Former districts
3 and 4 were merged, creating a new district 2.
This merger of former single member districts definitely diluted the black vote.
Because after the merger, neither district had a majority of blacks. I learned about
the change in commission districts in 1980. The changes were never submitted to
the Justice Department for pre-clearance. In fact, the Justice Department indicated
that Conecuh County had never submitted any reports with respect to changes in
election procedures.
In any case, I ran for place 2 on the Evergreen City Council in 1980. To my
amazement and that of the entire black community, the city clerk, who served as
election supervisor in all municipal elections, left off approximately 200 black voters
on the official list. Many of the people who were left off had lived in the city for
years: Many were prominent citizens. None of these folk were told that they could
vote a challenge ballot. Consequently, they had to go by City Hall and pick up a
certification slip before they could vote. Because of this requirement, a significant
number of these people did not return to vote. At one of the polling places in the
courthouse, one of our poil watchers reported that 28 black names were left off the
list. 13 of them did not return to vote. As a result, the only incumbent black
member on the council at the time, lost by four votes. Unfortunately, this council
member seemed afraid to challenge the election. So he never did.
Incidentially, although there were two white incumbent council members who
were unopposed, another white candidate chose to run against the black incumbent.
In my case, a white store manager who had been in Evergreen for less than two
years ran against me. One of the white candidates even admitted that his reason for
running against a black candidate was because he felt he could beat him. The
inference one can draw from that is that the white candidate was counting on the
white bloc vote to elect him.
Although Conecuh County now has 9 black deputy registrars-plus the Chairman
of the Board of Registrars is black, the resistance to appointing Deputy Registrars
PAGENO="0745"
1619.
initially was astounding. For over a week, we battled with the board before they
consented to appoint us. However, we went out and registered almost 800 people in
two months, the white Chairman of the Board resigned in protest. The vacancy
which was created paved the way for Governor Wallace to appoint the first black
Registrar in Alabama.
In addition to not having any black elected officials on Conecuh County, our
efforts to get blacks appointed as poll workers have also been frustrated. Both the
Conecuh County Democratic Executive Committee and the Election Supervisory
Committee have given us the runaround in terms of appointing blacks to work the
polls. The Election Supervisory Committee claims that it cannot appoint poll work-
ers but only accepts recommendation from committee members. However, I know of
an instance were a man went to a commissioner and asked him to get the election
Supervisory Committee to appoint his wife to work the polls. It was done. Inciden-
tally, during the 1980 elections, Conecuh County had less than 12 blacks working at
the polls, out of approximately 140 poll workers.
I forgot to mention earlier that as a result of our protesting the city clerk striking
approximately 200 black voters from the list last summer, the Justice Dept. sent in
70 Federal observers to monitor the primary elections last September approximately
25 returned for the runoff election.
The Federal observers decided to return for the runoff elections because they
observed a number of irregularities at several of the polling places. In. several
instances, it was reported that the poll workers were quite rude to the Federal
observers.
At the Cedar Creek polling place, poll officials would not let several black voters
come inside the polling house, out of the rain. One official slammed the door in my
face when I asked him to permit the voters to come in out of the rain. This same
poll official made some threats later, stating the he would be ready "for the
niggers" when we came back for the runoff election.
One of things that the poli officials resist most is the law which permits assist-
ance to voters who are illiterate, handicapped, or don't know how to operate the
voting machine. There are repeated attempts on the part of poll workers to deny
illiterate voters to select people of their own choosing to assist them in voting.
In wrapping up, I wish to point out that Conecuh County has been selected by the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as one of four counties in the south which it will do
an intensive election probe. The local officials have not taken too kindly to this
thought. In fact, the editor of the local paper said that Conecuh County elections~
don't need the "FEDs" to stick their noses in local politics. In his column of August
28, 1980, the editor of the Evergreen Courant advised local officials to cooperate
with the Federal observers. Also, as a final statement to his readers, the editor
wrote: "I really don't think there is anything to hide . . . elections in this county
have been conducted fairly and honestly for at least 10 years now."
To say the least, that is an interesting comment. For the editor implies that 10
years ago in 1970, elections may not have been conducted fairly in Conecuh County.
That relevation supports my contention all the more that we need the Voting
Rights Act extended. Because just as the editor didn't speak of corruption or
discrimination he may have know about 10 years ago, it's highly unlikely he will do
so now.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Fluker.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Mayor Arrington, Birmingham is in Jefferson
County, right?
Alabama. Yes, it is.
Mr. EDWARDS. When you had reidentification there, the black
and white registration percentage went up 5 percent or 10 pecent
for each group.
In Choctaw County, after reidentification, black registration was
cut in half. How do you account for that?
Mr. ARRINGTON. Well, we have to consider the manner in which
local authorities such as members of the Board of Registrars apply
the law. I think that in many instances the authority exists at
State and local levels to do away with the abridgement of some of
the rights that we are concerned about.
PAGENO="0746"
1620
However, were people willing to shoulder that responsibility at
these levels, there never would have been a need for the Voting
Rights Act. in the first place.
In Birmingham you had an urbanized area, a very active regis-
tratior~ campaign, a very cooperative Board of Registrars in terms
of using .deputy registrars, in terms of trying to promote voter
reidentification.
Compared with some of the rural counties, it is very, very unique
in that regard.
In rural counties, you often times get just the opposite. Reidenti-
fication may very well be used as a means of-as a deterrent to
voting.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Is it your fear that reidentification or pioys
such as that would proliferate if this act, or the preclearance
sections were permitted to expire? Ploys like that would prolifer-
ate?
Mr. ARRINGTON. Yes. I think preclearance is absolutely essential
to assuring complete access to the voting box. Preclearance, I think
is absolutely essential not only for the rural counties, but I think
for the entire State of Alabama. Preclearance is important.
It serves as a deterrent to potential practices that might abridge
one's right to vote.
In a~ very short time, for example, consider the fact we are going
through redistricting or we will be going through redistricting,
reapportionment in the State of Alabama.
Consider the fact that you can take that with home rule and a
single act of the legislature, can wipe out all the gains we made in
voting and everywhere else, including in Jefferson County.
I think preclearance is an absolute necessity if we are going to
continue to make progress toward giving everybody equal access to
voting rights.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I yield.
Mr. HYDE. I have no questions. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Senator Figures, the secretary of state, I believe,
said if the Alabama legislature really did its work, we would not
have to be down here.
It would not be necessary to have a Voting Rights Act, is that
right?
Mr. FIGURES. Yes, sir. I think his more exact words were that
there were a couple of white reactionary legislators who keep
reaction reform from passing which, if it were passed, the election
law would not be necessary.
Mr. EDWARDS. They are not a majority?
Mr. FIGURES. No, but there are more than two. There are 105
members of the Alabama House. Thirteen are black. The remain-
der are white. Of that number, I would say 70 percent feel that
way. The same thing is true in the senate.
One senator in the senate has a local veto power over any
legislation affecting the entire county, whether in his senate dis-
trict or not.
I represent senate district 33. There are three others represent-
ing a part of Mobile County. Either of us can veto any legislation
pertaining to the entire county. It is true if the Alabama legisla-
PAGENO="0747"
1621
ture would do its job there would be no need for the Voting Rights
Act.
I might point out polarized voting is so great in this State that it
does not behoove them politically to make decisions advantageous
to black folks.
Mr. EDWARDS. You are saying if they did their job they wouldn't
get re-elected?
Mr. FIGURES. They feel that way.
I take the position it is about time they demonstrated leadership
and begin to advance at the political leadership level the notion
that black folks can run and be elected on the basis of qualification
and that they should not be making decisions on the basis of racial
considerations, but they always do.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Mr. Fluker, you pointed out that in Conecuh County this redis-
tricting was done that was obviously discriminatory but you discov-
ered it 9 years later.
Mr. FLUKER. Yes.
Mr. EDWARDS. It has never been submitted to the Justice Depart-
ment?
That points out something that I believe Mr. Washington was
concerned with and rightly so.
The Voting Rights Act, the preclearance provisions, are volun-
tary. The jurisdictions have to do this in a voluntary manner and
then the Justice Department acts in a voluntary manner too. That
sometimes can result in great delays.
Perhaps that is something that we should address in the future.
Not having it quite as voluntary as it is.
I imagine that was quite a shock for you to discover that some-
thing happened 9 years earlier that had never complied with the
law.
Mr. FLUKER. Yes, sir, that is true. In fact, we learned about it
when we got in touch with the Justice Department because we
were dissatisfied with not having a significant number of poll
workers and when we began to report the incident that happened
with the city election, we were amazed at the fact that there had
been no submission on the part of the county commission.
Of course, I think that generally in Conecuh County nobody is
aware of the change that took place in 1971.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much.
Are there other questions?
Thank you very much, members of the panel.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our last witness this morning is the president of
the Alabama League of Women Voters from Birmingham, Ala.,
Anne Findley Shores
TESTIMONY OF ANNE FINDLEY-SHORES, PRESIDENT, ALABAMA
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
Ms. FINDLEY-SHORES., Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Findley-Shores, welcome. Your entire state-
ment will be made part of the record. Without objection, you may
proceed.
Ms. FINDLEY-SHORES. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommit-
tee, I am Anne Findley-Shores.
PAGENO="0748"
1622
I do thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of
the League of Women Voters of Alabama.
I know Ruth Hinenfeld, president of our national organization,
has testified before you of the League's support for the extension of
the Voting Rights Act.
I do not want to be repetitious. I do, however, want to assure you
that we at the State level, even of a State covered in the jurisdic-
tion of section 5, are in agreement with the League's national
support position.
We are in favor of a 10-year extension of the act with its require-
ment for preclearance with the Justice Department of changes in
voting or election procedures in States and localities where discrim-
ination has existed.
I remember well when the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. A
bill had been introduced in the State legislature which would have
liberalized our State voter registration laws and the League of
Women Voters was in Montgomery lobbying for its passage.
Before the bill came up for a vote, the Federal iegslation passed.
As a native Alabaman, I shared the sense of humiliation which
many white southerners felt because section 5 did not apply to the
whole country, but my humiliation was really for my home State,
which did not deal fairly or justly with its black people until the
Federal Government forced it to.
With the addition in 1975 of section 5 coverage for language
minorities, the act does now apply to the whole country. Thus the
argument that it discriminates unfairly against the South is clearly
invalid.
The League of Women Voters of Alabama is opposed to an auto-
matic nationwide application of section 5.
The enormous number of submissions which would result from
such application would so dilute Justice Department attention that
many inequitable election practices could and probably would slip
through.
We are opposed to allowing the temporary provisions of the
Voting Rights Act to expire. With the changed political climate in
Washington, we are hearing more of the old rallying cry of States'
rights.
We must remember that too often in the past States' rights has
really meant States' claim to the right to practice racial injustice.
The elections of last November are being interpreted by some as
a mandate by the people for a return to the good old days, and I
put that in quotes.
Whatever the so-called mandate was, I do not believe a majority
of the voters intended their votes to lead us to a return of the days
when voting discrimination was common practice.
Alabama is a better place now than it was 20 years ago largely
because of Federal intervention. Black Alabamans generally now
know firsthand of the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship,
and white Alabamans have finally overcome their paralyzing fear
of integration.
If the Voting Rights Act, the temporary provisions were to
expire, I would like to believe that white and black Alabamans
together would not allow us to return to the way it used to be, but
why take the chance?
PAGENO="0749"
1623
We urge your support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act
to encourage our continued progress toward interracial harmony
and justice for all.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Findley-Shores follows:]
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF ANNE FINDLEY-SHORES
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Anne Findley-Shores.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the League of Women
Voters of Alabama. I know that Ruth Hinerfeld, president of our national organiza-
tion, has testified before you of the League's support for the extension of the Voting
Rights Act and I do not wish to be repetitious. I do, however, want to assure you
that we at the state level, even of a state comprising a covered jurisdiction under
Section 2, are in agreement with the League's national support position. We are in
favor of a ten-year extension of the Act with its preclearance requirement with the
Justice Department for changes in voting or election procedures in states and
localities where discrimination has existed.
I remember well when the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. A bill had been
introduced in the state legislature which would have liberalized our state voter
registration laws and the League of Women Voters was in Montgomery lobbying for
its passage. Before the bill came up for a vote, the federal legislation passed. As a
native Alabamian, I shared the sense of humiliation which many white southerners
felt because Section 5 did not apply to the whole country. But my humiliation was
really for my home state which did not deal fairly or justly with its black people
until the federal government forced it to.
With the addition in 1975 of Section 5 coverage for language minorities, the Act
does now apply to the whole country. Thus the argument that it discriminates
unfairly. against the South is clearly invalid.
The League of Women Voters of Alabama is opposed to an automatic nationwide
application of Section 5. The enormous number of submissions which would result
from such application would so dilute Justice Department attention that many
inequitable election practices could, and probably would, slip through.
We are opposed to allowing the temporary provisions of Voting Rights Act to
expire. With the changed political climate in Washington, we are hearing more of
the old rallying .cry. of "States Rights". We must remember that too often in the
past, "States Rights" has really meant states' claim to the right to practice racial
injustice. The elections of last November are being interpreted by some as a man-
date by the people for a return to the "good old days". Whatever the so-called
mandate was, I do not believe a majority, of the voters intended their votes to lead
us to a return to the days when voting discrimination was common practice.
Alabama is a better place now than it was twenty years ago, largely because of
federal intervention. Black Alabamians now know first hand of the privileges and
responsibilities of full citizenship. And white Alabamians have finally overcome
their paralizing fear of integration.
If the Voting Rights Act were to expire, I would like to believe that white and
black Alabamians, together, would not allow us to return to the way it used to be.
But why take the chance? We urge your support of the extension of the Voting
Rights Act to encourage our continued' progress toward interracial harmony and
justice for all.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Ms. Findley-Shores, for a
very helpful statement.
Mr. Washington?
Mr. WASHINGTON. I agree with you, Ms. Shores. Why take the.
chance?
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. HYDE. No questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. You are from Birmingham, is that correct?
Ms. FINDLEY-SHORES. Yes, sir.
PAGENO="0750"
1624
Mr. EDWARDS. Birmingham has a black mayor. We had the pleas-
ure of having him testify. What happened in Birmingham that is
different than what happened to some other cities?
Can you use the microphone, please?
Ms. FINDLEY-SHORES. You mean regarding the voter registrars?
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, it is somewhat unusual to have a black
mayor of a major American southern city. I wondered what went
on in Birmingham that resulted in the election of a black mayor?
Ms. FINDLEY-SHORES. My own opinion is that Birmingham was so
bad for so long. [Laughter.]
Well, it was-that finally when the Voting Rights Act did pass
and people began to register in larger numbers, I think it was a
relief to everybody, frankly. White people also.
I sense a relief. We had feared integration, and blacks voting en
masse.
When it came about and the world didn't come to an end, it was
a relief.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, thank you very much.
The subcommittee will recess now until promptly at 1:30 when
we will hear from witnesses regarding the State of Mississippi.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee was recessed, to re-
convene at 1:30 p.m., the same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
The next witnesses will constitute a panel. The panel will consist
of Haley Barbour, Esquire, who is the vice chair of the Mississippi
State Republican Party-Mr. Barbour is from Yazoo City, Miss.-
and a gentleman who has testified before this committee before,
Stone Barfield, Esquire, also from Mississippi.
Gentlemen, please come to order.
TESTIMONY OF HALEY BARBOUR, VICE CHAIR, MISSISSIPPI
STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, YAZOO CITY, MISS., AND STONE
BAREFIELD, MEMBER OF THE MISSISSIPPI HOUSE OF REPRE-
SENTATIVES
Mr. BARBOUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Welcome.
Without objection, both of your statements will be made a part of
the record.
Mr. Barbour, are you first?
Mr. BARBOUR. If that suits the committee, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Welcome. You may proceed.
Mr. BARBOUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the com-
mittee; I am Haley Barbour. I am the Vice Chairman of the Missis-
sippi Republican Party and Chairman of its Election Law Task
Force. My testimony is in opposition to the renewal of the 1965
Voting Rights Act.
This act grossly violates the principles of federalism, relegating
certain States to a statute more akin to that of colonies than full
members of the Union. It repudiates the democratic process and
the republican form of government by giving unelected bureaucrats
veto power over matters far beyond - what would normally be con-
PAGENO="0751"
1625
sidered election or voting issues. There can be no doubt preclear-
ance literally rends the fabric of the U.S. Constitution.
My opposition to the act centers on section 5 preclearance and. its
implementation; failure ` to provide a reasonable bailout provision,
and the : designation of the District of Columbia' as the proper
jurisdiction for cases arising under the act. I also believe this
punitive act~is no longer needed and that any aggrieved party has
other adequate remedies to redress any voting rights violations.
Section 5 preclearance is violative of virtually every concept of
American government. Compliance with it is onerous and expen-
sive under the best of circumstances, but it is oppressive and
openly discriminatory as implemented by the Department of Jus-
tice.
The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
~makes it plain that they do not consider their role in preclearance
as that of neutral umpire or unbiased judge. Their purpose under
section 5 is to help black candidates and black voters dominate, not
just to see that they are not discriminated against.
Jim Turner, Deputy Assistant Attorney General under at least
four Presidents, flatly told me the test is not whether a submission
is fair or reasonable but whether it is subjectively the best deal
that can be made for the blacks involved. There is, therefore, no
objective standard by which an act, ordinance or plan is judged at
Justice.
Hence, the State of Louisiana is allowed to adopt an open pri-
mary system of elections, while Mississippi's legislature repeatedly
passes and submits the exact same procedure, only to have it
knocked out each time.
Hence, when my home county, Yazoo, sought guidance from
Justice after its 1975 redistricting plan was turned down, Gerald
Jones, chief of the voting rights section, told our county attorney
he could provide no direction on whether the black population
should be packed in larger majorities into fewer districts or spread
out to impact on more districts. Jones said he would have to check
with the local civil rights leaders in our community to see if they
considered any new plan the best for them.
Hence, Mississippi is prevented from having a reasonable system
of purging from the rolls voters who have died or moved, despite
the fact the legislature passed a system like that used in 28 other
States. The assistant attorney general's office asked that the facts
be verified over and above the certified documents of the State of
Mississippi, so the Mississippi attorney general called the speaker
of the house in Mississippi's House of Representatives on the phone
to substantiate his information.
Making no progress, the Speaker reached Representative Fred
Banks, a black representative from JacksOn, and let the voting
rights officials get the word straight from Representative Banks.
Only then was the story believed and the. submissio.n was approved.
One would hope such an instance was unique, but it is not. In my
hometown, when we redistricted our wards prior to the 1978 elec-
tion, there was a lawsuit filed. A plan agreeable to all parties was
developed and adopted. The lawsuit was settled by an agreed order.
PAGENO="0752"
1626
This plan, along with the agreed order of the court, the U.S.
District Court for the southern District of Mississippi, signed by the
civil rights plaintiffs attorney, was submitted under section 5.
Soon thereafter, Justice contacted the plaintiff's attorney. They
wanted to verify that he had actually signed and actually agreed to
this plan, this order, and whether he thought it was still the best
plan for his clients. In essence, he wants to know if he wanted
another bite at the apple. Not only was this an insult to our town's
officials and the Federal court, but I believe the plaintiff's attorney
himself considered it an affront.
For preclearance, all I shall use are irrelevant save race, and the
rankest conjecture as to the possible effect of a law on black voting
strength overrides demonstrable concrete evidence of the need for
it on other reasonable and productive grounds.
A prime example is the expansion of the city limits of Jackson,
Miss. You need not be a political scientist or a public administrator
to know many cities are strangled by loss of population to sur-
rounding suburbs and the resulting diminution of the tax base. I
was taught in college that the liberal solution to this problem was
to make it easier for the core city to annex the suburban areas.
This would result in the city remaining vital, services being unified
and efficient, everyone paying his fair share for the common good,~
et cetera.
Jackson in the 1970's tried to take on everything within howitzer
distance, including every residential neighborhood, black or white.
Justice objected on the ground the annexation would reduce the
black percentage of the city's population from 40 percent to 38.6
percent and, therefore, violated the act.
In the two elections since the objection, the annexed area's vote
has not affected the outcome of any race. Nonetheless, the citizens
of the annexed area are threatened each time by the Justice De-
partment with disenfranchisement. Here a bureaucratic and, as it
turned out, erroneous determination of a miniscule dilution of the
black vote overrode numerous valid reasons for annexation.
Not only does Justice enforce the act discriminatorily and unrea-
sonably, they also expand their powers under the act by interpret-
ing it as they please. A case in point occurred in Mississippi last
year.
The Mississippi Republican Party, which had formerly selected
its national convention delegates by convention, held a primary to
select them under authority of an act passed by the Mississippi
Legislature, and approved by the Department of Justice in 1976.
The Voting Rights Section, upon being advised of the party's deci-
sion, required preclearance of the party's delegate selection rules.
The party, under severe time restraints, submitted the rules
under protest and they were approved. Still, I find no authority
under the act for Justice to demand such a submission or for a
political party to be burdened by the provisions of section 5.
Preclearance in principle, and its discriminatory enforcement in
particular, are insults to the people of Mississippi, but perhaps the
cruelest cut of all is that there is no way to get relief from being
punished, if you happen to be in Mississippi. There is no real
bailout provision.
PAGENO="0753"
1627
Representative Barefield will discuss the absurdity of the so-
called bailout provision in more depth than I, but suffice it to say
the provision is a sham. It doesn't exist.
First, it is unfair enough for a political subdivision to be forced to
comply with the unique and onerous provisions of section 5 when it
has not been accused and does not violate anyone's voting rights. It
is doubly wrong when such an entity cannot even try to prove its
innocence to get relief from the burdens of the act. If preclearance
is retained-and I believe it should not be-or if current preclear-
ance is replaced by an alternative procedure, elementary fairness
dictates that a real bailout mechanism be created or that the act
be made applicable to every State.
Making the District Court of the District of Columbia the forum
for actions under sections 4 and 5 does great violence to the basic
precepts of American jurisprudence. It is expensive and oppressive.
It is an invidious system like that applied to colonies by their
emperor. It is indefensible, even if it were necessary, and it is not.
I assume you agree that provisions of the Voting Rights Act
contradict the basic systems of American Government and juris-
prudence. I suppose some of you are willing to impose these ex-
traordinary burdens because you perceive a need to protect voters
whose freedoms are in daily peril. If so, you are wrong, very wrong.
Aaron Henry told you in Washington recently that it is harder to
register to vote in Mississippi than to get a hunting license. That is
a misleading statement, falsely implying that discriminatory prac-
tices exist. There are no racial impediments to voter registration
anywhere in Mississippi, and have not been in my adult life. The
clearest demonstration of this is the fact that in 1978 a higher
percentage of the voting age population was registered to vote in
Mississippi than in New Jersey, California, New York, Massachu-
setts, or in the Nation as a whole.
We have more black elected officials in Mississippi than in any
other State. In my hometown and county, we have a number of
black elected officials, and the black vote often determines the
outcome of elections. It is actively sought by politicans, black and
white alike. Such is the case across the State.
Furthermore, the most effective political organization both in
Yazoo County and in the State of Mississippi is the unified black
campaign for a Democratic candidate led by the NAACP, voters
leagues, et cetera. We have had several such campaigns in my
county and four statewide since 1976. The vote generated by this
organization is virtually monolithic, and the turnout mechanism is
highly organized and extremely efficient.
The product of this organization is that Mississippi voted ap-
proximately the same percentage of its voting age population in
1980 as did the Nation as a whole. In. 1978 its turnout of the voting
age population was 36.2 percent and compared favorably with that
of New Jersey, 36.8 percent, and New York, 36.8 percent, while it
exceeded the percentages in such States as Arizona and Maryland
and matched that of Vermont.
Our 1978 percentage of registered voters actually casting ballots*
was one-fourth higher than that of the District of Columbia. The
1976 turnout percentage of voting age population, 49.8 percent,
exceeded that of such States as Hawaii and Nevada, matched Flor-
83-679 0 - 82 - `~8 Pt.2
PAGENO="0754"
1628
ida's, and was within 1 percentage point of that of Maryland, 50.3,
and New York, 50.6.
It is a plain fact that the voting rights of blacks in Mississippi
are neither denied nor abridged. Both statistical and empirical
research will bear that out. Those who cry for preclearance and the
other travesties of the Voting Rights Act to be extended do not do
so because they want a fair, open election system but because they
want an arbitrary and discriminatory process they can manipulate.
Aaron Henry himself established that in his testimony before
this subcommittee on May 29 when he told you how Justice is
always at his~ beck and call. Congress would do this country a great
disservice to continue such an insult so that one man can pull the
strings and completely change the outcome of votes taken by elect-
ed officials, elected by hundreds of thousands of people.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Barbour.
[The prepared statement follows:]
PAGENO="0755"
1629
HALEY BARBOUR
8~, 960
YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI 39194
TESTIMONY OF
HALEY BARBOUR
VICE-CHAIRMAN, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN PARTY,
CHAIRMAN, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN PARTY
ELECTION LAW TASK FORCE
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL ANO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HOUSE COMMITTEE
OH THE JUDICIARY
MONTGOMERY, ALANABA
June 12, 1981
PAGENO="0756"
1630
My name is Haley Barbour. I am Vice-Chairman of the Mississippi
Republican Party and Chairman of its Election Law Task Force. My testimony
is in opposition to the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
This Act grossly violates the principles of federalism, relegating
certain states to a statue more akin to that of colonies than full mem-
bers of the Union. It repudiates the democratic process and the republican
form of government by giving unelected bureaucrats veto power over matters
far beyond what would normally be considered election or voting~ issues.
There can be do doubt preclearance literally rends the fabric of the
United States Constitution.
My opposition to the Act centers on Section 5 Preclearance and its
implementation, failure to provide a reasonable bail-out mechanism, and
the designation of the District of Columbia as the proper jurisdiction
for cases arising under the Act. I also believe this punitive Act is not
needed and that any aggrieved party has other adequate remedies to redress
any voting rights violations.
Section 5 Preclearance is violative of virtually every concept of
American government. Compliance with it is onerous and expensive under
the best of circumstances, but it is oppressive and openly discriminatory
as implemented by the Department of Justice.
The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights makes
it plain that they do not consider their role in preclearance as that of
neutral umpire or unbiased judge. Their purpose under Section 5 is to
help black candidates and black voters dominate, not just to see that they
are not discriminated against. Jim Turner, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General under at least four presidents, flatly told me the test is not
whether a submission is fair or reasonable but whether it is subjectively
PAGENO="0757"
1631
the best deal for the blacks involved. There is, therefore, no objective
standard by which an act, ordinance or plan is judged at Justice.
Hence, the State of Louisiana is allowed to adopt an `open primary"
system of elections, while Mississippi's legislature repeatedly passes
and submits the exact same procedure only to have it knocked out each time.
Hence, when my home county, Yazoo, sought guidance from Justice
after its 1975 redistricting plan was turned down, Gerald Jones, Chief
of the Voting Rights Section, told our County Attorney he could provide
no direction on whether the black population should be packed in larger
majorities into fewer districts or spread out to impact on more districts.
Jones said he would have to check with the local civil rights leaders in
our community to see if they considered any new plan the best for them.
Hence, Mississippi is prevented from having a reasonable system
of purging from the rolls voters who have died or moved, despite the
fact the Legislature passed a system like that used in 28 other states.
For preclearance all issues are irrelevant save race, and the
rankest conjecture as to the possible effect of a law on black voting
strength overrides demonstrable, concrete evidence of th~ need for it
on other reasonable and productive grounds.
A prime example is the expansion of the city limits of Jackson,
Mississippi. You need not be a political scientist or a public admini-
strator to know many cities arestrangled by loss of population to
surrounding suburbs and the resulting diminution of the tax base. I
was taught in college that the "liberal" solution to this problem was
to make it easier for the core city to annex the suburban areas. This
would result in the city remaining vital, services being unified and
efficient, everyone paying his fair share for the common good, etc..
Jackson in the 1970's tried to take in everything within howitzer
PAGENO="0758"
1632
distance, including every residential neighborhood, black or white.
Justice objected on the ground the annexation would reduce the black
percentage of the City's population from 40% to 38.6% and, therefo.re,
violated the Act. In the two elections since the objection, the annexed
area has not affected the outcome of any race. Nonetheless, the citizens
of the annexed are are threatened each time by the Justice Department
with disenfranchisement. Here a bureaucratic and, as it turned out,
erroneous determination of a miniscule dilution of the black vote overrode
numerous valid reasons for annexation.
.Preclearance in principle and its discriminatory enforcement in
particular are insults to the people of Mississippi, but perhaps the
cruelest cut of all is that there is no way to get relief from being
punished, if you happen to be in Mississippi. There is no real bail-out
provision.
Representative Barefield will discuss the absurdity of the so-called
bail-out provision in more depth than I, but suffice it to say the pro-
vision is a sham.
First, it is unfair enough for a political subdivision to be forced
to comply with the unique and onerous provisions of Section 5 when it has
not or does not violate anyone's voting rights. It is. doubly wrong when
such an entity cannot even try to prove its innocence to get relief from
the burdens of the Act. If preclearance is retained--and it should not
be--or if current preclearance is replaced by an alternative procedure,
elementary fairness dictates that a real bail-out mechanism be created
or that the Act be made applicable to every state.
Making the District Court of the District of Columbia the forum
for actions under Sections 4 and 5 does great violence to the basic
precepts of American jurisprudence. It is expensive and oppressive.
PAGENO="0759"
1633
It is an invidious system like that applied to colonies by their
emperor. It is indefensible, even if it were necessary, and it is not.
I assume you agree that provisions of the Voting Rights Act
contradict the basic systems of American government and jurisprudence.
I suppose some of you are willing to impose these extraordinary burdens
because you perceive a need to protect voters whose freedoms are in daily
peril. If so, you are wrong. . . very wrong.
Aaron Henry told you in Washington recently that it is harder to
register to vote in Mississippi than to get a hunting license. That is
a misleading statement, falsely implying that discriminatory practices
exist. There are no racial impediments to voter registration anywhere in
Mississippi, and have not been in my adult life. The clearest demonstration
of this is the fact that in 1978 a higher percentage of the voting age
population was registered to vote in Mississippi than in New Jersey, Cali-
fornia, New York, Massachusetts, or in the nation as a whole.
We have more black elected officials in Mississippi than in any
other state. In my hometown and county, we have a number of black elected
officials, and the black vote often determines the outcome of elections.
It is actively sought by politicans, black and while alike. Such is the
case across the state.
Furthermore, the most effectivepolitical organization both in Yazoo
County and in the State of Mississippi is the unified black campaign for
a Democratic candidate led by the NAACP, Voters Leagues, etc. We have
had several such campaigns in my county and four state-wide since 1976.
The vote generated by this organization is virtually monolithic, and the
turnout mechanism is highly organized and extremely efficient.
The product of this organization is that Mississippi voted
approximately the same percentage of its voting age population in 1980
PAGENO="0760"
1634
as did the nation as a whole. In 1978 its turnout of the voting age
population was 36.2% and compared favorably with that of New Jersey
(36.8%) and New York (36.8%), while it exceeded the percentages in such
states as Arizona and Maryland and matched that of Vermont. Our 1978
percentage of registered voters actually casting ballots was 1/4 higher
than that of the District of Columbia. The 1976 turnout percentage of
voting age population (49.8) exceeded that of such states as Hawaii and
Nevada, matched Florida's, and was within one percentage point of that
of Maryland (50.3) and New York (50.6).
It is a plain fact that the voting rights of blacks in Mississippi
are neither denied nor abridged. Soth statistical and empirical research
will bear that out. Those who cry for preclearance and the other tra-
vesties of the Votings Rights Act to be extended do not do so because they
want a fair, open election system, but because they want an arbitrary and
discriminatory process they can manipulate. Aaron Henry himself established
that in his testimony before this Subcommittee on May 29 when he told you
how Justice is always at his beck and call. Congress would do this
country a great disservice to continue such an insult.
PAGENO="0761"
1635
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Barefield.
TESTIMONY OF STONE BAREFIELD
Mr. BAREFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sincerely appreciate
the opportunity you afford me to come here today to express my
thoughts concerning proposed legislation relating to the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
Let me first assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the other gentlemen
of the subcommittee, that I do not oppose the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 in any shape, form, or fashion except the
provisions contained in section 5.
Mr. Chairman, you will recall that I also appeared before this
committee some 6 years ago and expressed my opposition to the
amendments to the Voting Rights Act at that time. I have read
much and heard much about the proposed extension of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
Mr. Chairman, I am just a poor country boy who tries to practice
law down in southeastern Mississippi. I have been in that profes-
sion for 20 years. I have read the Voting Rights Act of 1965
numerous times. I have studied its language in great detail, and
within the limited knowledge of the English language which I
possess, I can find no language in the Voting Rights Act of 1965
that provides that it will stand repealed at any time in the future.
The. Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a permanent act. It is an act in
perpetuity and will always be on the statute books until it is
repealed by Congress or otherwise declared unconstitutional.
What this committee is considering-and I refer to the bill intro-
duced by Mr. Rodino, H.R. 3112-and what this Congress did in
1965 and what this Congress is about to do again in 1982 is to add
additional years onto the burden which the States must carry
before they will even have the right to petition the Federal judici-
ary to come out from under this act.
Let me depart from my text for a minute, Mr. Chairman.
When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it deter-
mined that there were certain tests and devices existing in these
States which should be eliminated. I think they were correct. Hind-
sight tells me that. Without the Voting Rights Act, the South
would have never made the progress that it has made since 1965.
There has been great change and great progress made; but Con-
gress wrote the law and Congress said Mississippi, you exist for 10
years with a perfect record-excuse me, you exist for 5 years-the
first time-with a perfect record and you can get out from under
this act.
Then Congress, when we served our 5 years, this subcommittee
and Congress met and said we made a mistake, we should have
said 10 years.
So Mississippi served its 10 years, Mr. Chairman. Just as we
were about to get out, you met again and said whoops, we made a
mistake, we should have sentenced you to 17.
Now Mr. Chairman, 16 years, hopefully with a perfect record,
but if even one iota of the allegations made before this committee
by Mr. Fred Banks, by Dr. Aaron Henry, by Mr. Frank Parker, by
Mr. Rheems Barber, are to be taken as truth, there is no way in
the world Mississippi can get out from under this act, because
PAGENO="0762"
1636
section 4 provides, Mr. Chairman, that when we filed our petition
the burden is onus to prove that for the 17 years prior tothe filing
of that petition we have not violated this~ act.
We will go a step further. It says that if the court-and this
court, by the way, sits in Washington, D.C., not in Mississippi-
that if the court in Washington, D.C., finds that we in fact did
during that 17 years violate this act, then we can't go back to court
for another 17 years from the day they sign that court order, under
existing law.
Gentlemen, listen to me. We can't file today. The earliest we
could possibly file it would be August of 1982. If Mississippi goes to
Washington, D.C., and asks and petitions our Government, through
the Federal judiciary, for the opportunity of proving our innocence
for 17 years, you may rest assured Dr. Henry will be there testify-
ing, Mr. Banks will be there testifying, Mr. Parker will be there
testifying.
If that court finds that we are not clean, then, gentlemen, under
the existing act it will be the year 1997 before Mississippi can go
back, but if you adopt the amendment of Mr. Rodino, it will be the
year 2007, a quarter of a century-not in my lifetime, Mr. Chair-
man, or perhaps yours-that 2.5 million people and the legislative
process of Mississippi will be subjected to section 5 clearance in the
Justice Department.
I am fully aware that there are members of this subcommittee
and Members of Congress who would like to make such a fact
permanent. If you do, Mr. Chairman, for God's sake give us some
protection from the arbitrary and capricious manner by which the
State of Mississippi is treated by the Justice Department.
I say that, and I mean that. I represent the Forest County Board
of Supervisors. We redistricted under a suit filed against us by
black plaintiffs. They were well-represented by an outstanding at-
torney who now resides in this State, I believe, Mr. George Peach
Taylor. We fought that lawsuit. The court ordered the plan.
Mr. George Peach Taylor appealed that to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The fifth circuit affirmed that plan, dismissed
the appeal. We reregistered our voters with the approval of the
Justice Department, and under the supervision of federally desig-
nated employees who came there and watched us, and we prepared
* for the 1975 election~
On July 5, without so much as a phone call, without so much as
a letter, in walks a Justice Department lawyer, files a lawsuit, and
seeks to enjoin our elections.
Mr. Chairman, I couldn't have been more shocked if the Moon
was to fall through this ceiling. Why? We have had our lawsuit.
We have had our day in court. Everybody is happy. One man, one
vote. We met the burden.
The lawyer said, well, that was a 14th amendment lawsuit. Now
we are going to sue you under the 15th amendment.
How many days in court do they get? I said, what do you need?
What do you want? What can we do to make you happy, Mr.
Justice Department?
He said all you have to do is move these little lines over here
and take these blacks in. The minute he said it, it was very obvious
PAGENO="0763"
1637
why. There was a local black citizen who was a potential candidate
who wanted to be included.
We told him no. Mr. Chairman, that lawyer looked me and my
colawyer in the eye and said, you can't afford not to agree. I said
why?
You don't have the financial resources.
We fought them. We went back to court. We won. We went to
the fifth circuit and, Mr. Chairman, a black lady was elected jus-
tice court judge in that district in the first primary over two
whites, one of whom was a white incumbent.
As soon as the election was over, and the Justice Department
realized that we were right and they were wrong, they dismissed
the lawsuit, dismissed the appeal.
This kind of treatment we can't live under, Mr. Chairman. We
have to have some fair and equitable treatment in dealing with our
problems.
Mr. Frank Parker in his presentation to your committee in
Washington used my name in his testimony with regard to the
open primary law and quoted me as having said that one of the
purposes of the open law was to prevent minorities from being
elected.
I deny that quote, but what I did say, Mr. Chairman, and I
authored that bill for the first time in 1964, quite frankly, to
prevent my colleague over here in the Republican Party from
getting to the situation that he finds himself in today, and that is
almost a controlling party in my State; what I did say was that
under the system that I grew up under, and under my understand-
ing of the American system, majority vote ruled; that had always
been the system in Mississippi.
The open primary rule, it required nothing more than a majority
vote for election. All I said was that I did not believe that a person
should be elected by a minority vote, meaning-and perhaps a bad
choice of words-a plurality.
Another instance that I believe was mentioned by Mr. Banks
regarded an* amendment in the 1981 session of the Mississippi
Legislature where we had had our justice court judge system, de-
clared unconstitutional because of the fee system upon which it
was based and the legislature found it necessary to revamp that
system. In doing so, we chose to modernize it, to update it, hopeful-
ly to make it more effective by reducing the number of judges.
Each county is now allocated five judges from each county. We
went on a graduated scale based on some two judges in some
counties to five in others. I serve as vice chairman of the judiciary
committee of the Mississippi House of Representatives. Mr. Henry
is a member of that committee. He proposed in that committee
that those judges be elected by district rather than the county at
large.
I supported him with that amendment. We lost in committee. We
went to the floor. Dr. Henry tells you in his testimony, and Mr.
Banks, that it was through his efforts on the floor of the house that
that was reversed and that is true but, Mr. Chairman, I tell you
that I stood at the podium with him for no other reason than the
fact that he was right.
PAGENO="0764"
1638
I am concerned that, having once placed upon the Southern
States a sentence of punishment, that Congress cannot make up
their mind when that sentence will be completed.
I heard the mayor of Montgomery say to you this morning,
gentlemen, if we are doing something wrOng, tell us what it is. Put
it in the law so I can know how to work with it. It is the section
that defines a test or device that I sincerely believe you ought to be
dealing with, because if you are to lead us to believe that if even at
the end of 27 years I can get out and have hope and look forward
to that date, but four times I have reached that point only to have
you resentence me. Give us some hope.
May .1 close, Mr. Chairman, by recalling an incident in the early
history of this country. I am reminded of the story about General
Washington when he was at Valley Forge. It was a severe winter.
His troops were without shoes, clothes, or ammunition or comple-
ments of war.
He wrote a letter to Congress and asked for help. He received no
response. Congress just debated.
He sent a second letter. He received the same response and
Congress continued to debate.
Finally, he wrote a third letter. It came to the attention, I
believe, of Benjamin Franklin, who read it. It said this, in effect:
"Is there anybody there? Is anybody listening? Does anybody
care?"
Mr. Chairman, Mississippi finds itself today in that same situa-
tion along with the other States. We really wonder, is there any-
body here? Is anybody listening to us? Does anybody care? It is
time for all of us, black and white, to put the reconstruction of the
1870's behind us and the mistreatment that they have received for
many years and start working together as a people and forgetting
the distrust.
1 understand why the black man has a fear. I do not understand
why he still has it in 1980. I do not believe it is realistic. He is
getting more help today than he ever dreamed he would have in
1965. Many, many black elected officials in Mississippi today are
there because of this act. If you repealed it on the spot today, Mr.
Chairman, you could not in the Mississippi Legislature go back to
where we were.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Mr. Barefield follows:]
TESTIMONY OF STONE D. BAREFIELD, MEMBER, Mississi~~i HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity
that you afford me today. to express to you my views and concerns relative to
proposed legislation presently before this committee and the Congress of the United
States relating to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Let me first assure you that I do not oppose the provisions of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 in any shape, form, or fashion, except those provisions contained in
Section 5.
Mr. Chairman, you will recall that I also appeared before this committee some six
years ago and expressed my opposition to the amendments to the Voting Rights Act
at that time. I have read much and heard much about the "Proposed -Extension" of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I have secured copies and have read the statements of Dr. Aaron Henry, Repre-
sentative Fred Banks, Mr. Rheems Barber, Mr. Frank Parker, Mr. Benny C. Thomp-
son, and others who have previously appeared before this committee in support of
PAGENO="0765"
1639
the pending legislation. Each of these gentleman have encouraged this committee to
"extend" the Voting Rights Act of 1965, either for a number of years or to make it
permanent.
Mr. Chairman, I am just a poor old country boy who tries to practice law in a
small town in South Mississippi, having been engaged in that profession now for
some 27 years. I have read the Voting Rights Act of 1965 numerous times. I have
studied its language in great detail, and within the limited knowledge of the English
language which I possess, I can find no language contained in the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 that provides that it will stand repealed at any time in the future.
Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a permanent act. It is an act in
perpetuity and will always be on the statute books until it is repealed by the
Congress of the United States or declared unconstitutional.
What this committee is considering and what this Congress did in 1965 and what
this Congress is about to do again in 1982 is to add additional years on to the
burden which the states must carry before they will even have the right to petition
the Federal Judiciary to come out from under this act.
In short, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, you are undertaking to
increase the burden from 17 years to years; that Mississippi must prove that it has
not committed any violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I read where Dr.
Aaron Henry had stated that during the last four years there had been 56 instances
of violations of the Voting Rights Act by the State of Mississippi or its political
subdivisions. Assuming that it is true, for I certainly do not accept it as a fact, and
assuming that the last of those 56 acts occurred as late as 1980, then as I interpret
the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it will be the year 1997 before the State of Mississippi
would even be eligible to come out from under the Voting Rights Act, as the law is
presently written.
Mr. Chairman, is this committee and this Congress so interested in continuing a
burden of punishment, so vindictive in its desire to destroy the spirit of 2½ million
good people, that it would seriously consider postponing until the year, 2002, before
the State of Mississippi can seek relief? It was, I believe, the original intent of
Congress to insure not only that all people, but particularly the Blacks in the South,
can not only register to vote, but could vote and have that vote counted and to show
good faith by providing that once that was accomplished, the State would have to
show that it had existed for at least ten years before it could be exempted from the
act, and thus, remove itself from the pre-clearance provision. That ten years has
grown to seventeen, and now you seek to increase it further to twenty-seven.
As a member of the Mississippi Legislature for the past twenty-two years and a
former chairman of the election committee of the Mississippi House of Representa-
tives and presently a member of that same committee, I can assure you that
notwithstanding all of the allegations, suspicions, and innuendos made before this
committee by those Mississippians who have testified earlier and whom I have
mentioned above, that the legislature of the State of Mississippi has made a tremen-
dous good faith effort to stop and prevent the enactment of any legislation that
could even be considered a possible violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
because of the sincerity of the legislative leadership of Mississippi to get Mississippi
out from under this act.
I certainly do not suggest that there have not been. acts which were in violation of
the Voting Rights Act, either by the State of Mississippi or by its numerous political
subdivisions of which I and other members of the legislature have no control, but I
am saying to you that these acts, when made, were made in good faith and their
unconstitutionality was only determined by subsequent Court Decisions of the Fed-
eral Judiciary and were not based upon any existing case law at the time of their
enactment.
The pre-clearance provision of Section 5 continues to work a tremendous hardship
on the people of Mississippi and particularly the arbitrary and capricious manner
by which the precleardnce provision is administered by the Justice Department.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I said arbitrary and capricious.
Those who have previously testified before this committee from Mississippi have
described what a horrible motive and purpose was behind the enactment of the open
primary law, which I first authored in 1964 as a member of the House of Repre-
sentatives. As the author of this legislation, I can assure you the motives were not
racial, but were designed to insure that no public official would hold office in the
State of Mississippi unless he shall have been elected by the majority of the voters
of the election district. I personally and sincerely believe that that is the American
system. I have been told that all of my life, and I have been led to believe that the
majority system was the American system, but notwithstanding whatever motives
Dr. Henry and others may want to place upon the so-called open primary law, I
would like to point out to this committee that it has been enacted and submitted
PAGENO="0766"
1640
under Section 5 on at least three or four occasions. In each instance, it has been
either rejected outright or it has been given undue delay and consideration by the
Justice Department. Now if you will please understand what I am about to say:
After the State of Mississippi had enacted the open primary law on three different
occasions, members of the Louisiana legislature, hearing of the law and believing
that it would be good for their state, came to Mississippi, secured copies of our
legislation, took it back to Louisiana, enacted our legislation, changing primarily
the word, Tuesday, to the word, Saturday, in order to conform to the fact that they
hold their elections on Saturday and secured the approval of the Louisiana open
primary law. Louisiana submitted it to the Attorney General under the preclear-
ance provisions of Section 5, and to the astonishment of everyone in the State of
Mississippi, secured the immediate approval.
Now, if you know anything at all about the history of Mississippi and Louisiana
insofar as racial relations are concerned, you will know that there is not one iota of
difference in the racial history of those two states, and the only thing that may
separate them is the Mississippi River. For the Justice Department to refuse to
approve a law for Mississippi on the grounds that~ it dilutes Black votes and to
approve the same law for another state, Louisiana, and determine that it does not,
is certainly not a fair and equitable administration of Section 5 and appears to be a
political decision rather than a legal one.
When efforts that were made to determine how such a law could have been
accepted for Louisiana when rejected by Mississippi, all we could learn was that the
Blacks in Louisiana did not object to it, or perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the political
clout of the Congressional delegation from Louisiana was perhaps a little more
powerful than that of the Mississippi delegation. If we are to live under the law of
this country, then let us administer the law fairly and equally and not based on the
political whims and wishes of the bureaucrats who infest the Justice Department.
Again, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the statement to the committee by Mr. Frank
Parker, he went to great detail in his presentation to discuss the Mississippi Legisla-
tive Reapportionment controversy that existed for almost 12 years.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I have known Mr. Parker for a number of years.
He is, indeed, an outstanding attorney. I would be remiss if I did not suggest that
sometimes he is somewhat loose with his facts in that he does not always present
them fairly and equitably. Mr. Parker in his presentation would have you believe
that the reapportionment plan which is presently in existence in the State of
Mississippi is the result of his untiring efforts and legal talents. The truth of the
matter is that the present existing apportionment of the Mississippi legislature is
the result of a legislative enactment plan which was submitted to the Justice
Department for pre-clearance under Section 5 and was promptly objected to by the
Justice Department, maintaining that it would dilute the Black vote. The elected
leadership of Mississippi chose to exercise their right and petition the three Judge
Court of the District of Columbia to approve said legislative enactment, notwith-
standing the objection of the Justice Department.
That plan, Mr. Chairman, was approved by a three Judge Federal Court in the
District of Columbia under Section 5 as a constitutional reapportionment plan. Mr.
Frank Parker, representing the intervenors contested that plan and during the
course of that plan attempted to secure compromise modifications which were, in
my opinion and the opinion of many others, politically conspired so as to alter Black
districts by reducing the Black percentage in districts where a majority of sixty
percent Blacks would be reduced in order to increase the Black percentage in other
districts where there resided friends and clients of Mr. Parker. This shows to me
and I hope to this committee that the Justice Department will not move on any
issue in Mississippi without first receiving its pre-clearance of Dr. Henry Aaron, Mr.
Fred Banks, Mr. Frank Parker, and perhaps others. I would remind this committee
that none of the Judges in the three Judge District of Columbia Court were from
Mississippi. I believe one was from Pennsylvania, one from Maryland, and perhaps
the other one was from New Jersey. I would request that this committee review,
read, and study the transcript of the proceeding in that case so that you might learn
first hand of the little respect they indicated for the manner in which the Justice
Department had treated the State of Mississippi in its reapportionement controver-
sy.
A few more instances of the Justice Department arbitrary and capriciousness:
The town of Port Gibson attempted to annex vacant land in which no one resided
for the purposes, I understand, of constructing a manufacturing plant for the
community. No way it could have been a dilusion. Annexation was rejected by the
Justice Department.
The city of Indianola sought to change the position of Chief of Police from an
elected position to an appointed position. In attempting to clear the matter under
PAGENO="0767"
1641
Section 5, the ,Justice Department was only concerned with, "Who do you intend to
appoint?" I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that who was to have been appointed is of
no concern to the Justice Department. It was either a dilusion or it was not.
The city of Hattiesburg annexes property in an adjacent county in order to
furnish fire and police protection and water and sewer to a new hospital constructed
in the area. The annexation is submitted to the Justice Department and approved
without question. Notwithstanding, that it was a dilution-approval, in my opinion,
because the Black community did not object.
The city of Jackson, Mississippi annexes additional area adjacent to Southwest
Jackson, containing some 35,000 residents. The Justice Department objects but tells
the city officials of Jackson that it is not the annexation they object to but only the
right of the people in the area to vote, and as late as June 2, 1981, those 35,000
residents who were permitted to vote in the municipal election of Jackson, but who
were required to have them segregated and separated from the other votes so that
the Justice Department could throw them out if they did not like the outcome of the
City elections.
The State of Mississippi enacted legislation that contained a number of changes in
the election laws. One section of that act provided for the increase of pay for the
election workers who work at the polls on election day. The act was submitted to
the Justice Department for pre-clearance under Section 5 and was objected to by the
Justice Department. When the Black leadership in Mississippi began to get pressure
put on them by the Black poll workers, who were to work in that year's election,
because they were not going to get the pay increase which the legislature had voted
them, the Justice Department simply revised its thinking and advised the State of
Mississippi that they had no objection to that "section" of the act. I would point out,
Mr. Chairman, that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not give the Attorney
General or his deputies such discretion.
One point I would like to specifically make reference to is the remark contained
on page seven of the statement of Mr. Frank Parker, before this committee last
week, and I quote from that the following, "In 1968, the bill's sponsor, Rep. Stone
Barefield, stated that one of the purposes of the bill was to cut down the changes
(sic-obviously should be chances) of a `minority' candidate being elected." I wish to
deny to this committee that I ever made such a statement. The purpose of the open
primary law in 1964, when I first introduced it and today is the assurance that no
candidate should be elected by a minority of the votes. Perhaps the word, minOrity,
was a bad choice of words. To state it another way: the purpose of the open primary
law is to insure that no person shall be elected by a plurality vote.
Mr. Parker goes into great detail testifying as to the number of instances which
he alleges are violations of the Voting Rights Act. In all fairness, I only ask that
you have your staff review the facts in each of those instances to determine whether
or not the instances as described by Mr. Parker are, in fact, as he describes them. I
do not suggest for a minute that there have not been some instances of violation of
voting rights in Mississippi as in other states. But for Mr. Parker to attempt to
persuade this committee that each and every act undertaken by the people of
Mississippi is done out of bad motives to prevent some' from voting in the State of
Mississippi is a contemptable misrepresentation of the truth. Many of the instances
which Mr. Parker refers to you will find were decisions of the United States Federal
Court and the United States Court of Appeals, and were not acts of the Mississippi
Legislature or other State officials.
If, Mr. Chairman, the number of instances cited to this committee by Mr. Parker,
Mr. Banks, and Dr. Henry have, in fact, occurred, which I deny, then the fact that
such acts have not been punished or corrected constitute a sincere indictment of the
Justice Department having permitted such acts to occur without appropriate and
swift legal action against the State of Mississippi and its political subdivisions to
insure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to attach to
this statement and earnestly encourage that each member of this committee and its
staff read it, a brief, filed by the State of Mississippi in the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case of City of Rome vs United States of America. I sincerely
believe that a study of this brief will point out to this committee far better than I
ever can the serious problems which Mississippi and the other Southern states face
because of the arbitrary and capricious manner by which they are treated by the
Justice Department. This, Mr. Chairman, must be corrected.
PAGENO="0768"
INDEX
Page
QUESTION ADDRESSED 1
INTEREST OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ~.. 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 4
ARGUMENT 6
I. Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act Is And Al.
ways has Been Unconstitutional 6
II. Assuming Arguendo That Section 5 Of The Vot-
ing Rights Act Is Not Unconstitutional On Its
Falce, It Has Become Unconstitutional As A
Rcsnlt Of Judicial l)ctermination And Admin-
istrative Misapplication 14
III. This Court Should Exercise Its Inherent Author.
ity To Depart From The Doctrine Of Stare De-
cisis And Overrule Precedent In This Case .... 25
CONCLUSION 29
CITATIONS
CASES:
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) .. 24
Allen v. Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) .. . .15, 16,
21,26
Avrr~i v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) 15
Burden V. NorIIser~i Pun/ic Railroad, 154 U.S. 282
(1893) 26
Briiicoc v. Bell, 43~ U.S. 404, 412 (1977) 24
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) ... 11
PAGENO="0769"
Citations Continued
Page
Borne! v. Coronado Oil ~ Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1931) 26
City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358, 362
(1975) 22
Connor, ci al. v. Coleman, et ol., (No. 78.1013, SOt.,
October 1978, Term) 13
Continental TI7., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 433 U.S.
36 (1977) 2
Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 580 (1911) 9
Dougherty Cty., Ga. Bd. of Ed. v. White, 99 S. Ct. 368
(1978) 15,16
East (`arroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S.
636 (1976) 15
Gaston. County, North Carolina v. United States, 395
U.S. 285 (5969) 15
Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 545 (1973) . .7,8, 11,
15, 16, 22, 25
Glidden. Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) 28
Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1957) 28
llelveriny v. Heillock, 309 U.S. 106 (1940) 27
Ilenr,, v. State of Mississippi, (No. A-1067, S.Ct.,
October 1978, Term) 13, 23
Hirabayoshi v. United Slates, 320 U.S. 81, 104 (1943). 20
lames v. llnitcd Slates, 366 U.S. 213 (1960) 28
Jones v. Alfred 1!. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 440 (1968) 14
Aovaes V. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 95 (1949) 9
Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71(1869) .. 8
Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (7 Wall.) 457 (1871) .... 29
Lnr,s ~. Rlwiles, :1M9 U.S. 212 (1967) 15
lIar,~la,~l V. l.'nrironn,entol Protection A gene,,, 530
(4th Cir. 1975) ccrt. granted, 426 U.s.
904 (1976) 8
Citations Continued iii
Page
Maryland v. Wins, 392 U.S. 183, 205 (1968) 9
Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) 15
Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491, 504.505, 507 22, 24
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 847,
851, 852 (1976) 9,21.
.Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126, 145
(1941) 20
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) 14
Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 396 (1971) 15,21
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559.560 (1896) 6
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (.1957) 27
St. Joseph Stock Yards v. United States, 298 U.S. 38
(1936) 28
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S.
495, 528 (1935) 10
South Carolina v. Katsenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 334, 358,
359, 360 (1966) 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 24, 26
Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928) .. 28
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869) 8
United States v. Bd. of Com'rs of Sheffield, Ala., 435
U.S. 110 (1978) 15
United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 508 (1974) .. 23
United States v. State of Louisiana, 225 F. Supp. 353
(El). La. 1963) 11
Wesbcrry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 7
Yakus v. United States, 321 17.5. 414, 424 (1944) .... 20
Yick Wet v. hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373.374 (1886) .... 25
PAGENO="0770"
iv Citations Continued
Page
STATUTES: IN THE
42 U.S.C. 1973h ~tqtr~m~ ~tnwt ui ii~r tu~t~ ~ttitrn
42 U.S.C. 1973b(a) 4
OCTOBER TERM,
42 U.S.C. 1973b(b) 24
42 U.S.C. 1973c 1, 2,4
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: No. 78-1840
Art. 1, ~ 8, ci. 18 11
Art. IV, ~4 4,8
XIII Amendment 14 CITY or ROME, BRUCE HAMLER, and H. ~`. HUNTER, 35.,
Appellants,
XIV Amendment 14
XV Amendment ~ 2 1,3, 11, 14
UNITED STATES or AMERICA, GRIPPIN B. Bait, Attorne7
SUI'ltESIE COURT RULES: General of the United States, and DREW S. DAYS Iii,
Rule 42(4) 1 Assistant Attorney General of the United States,
* MISCELLANEOUS:
Alien, LAW IN T5IE MAKING (1958) 20 On Ap~.~a1 Front the Unitad States Dist~H Court
Douglas, Stare Decisis, 49 Coi.un'. L. REV. 734 (1949). 27 for the ESsirict of Columbia
}Ianus, et al., The Voting Rights Act of 1965 As
Amended: History, Effect, and Alternatives, Cole-
GRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (1975) 12,21 BRIEF OF THE STATE OF `MISSISSIPPI
Jackson, Decisional Law and Stare Decisis, 30 A.B.A.J. AS AM1~US CURIAE
334 (1944) 28
Joint Center for Political Studies, NATIONAL Rosns
OF BLACK ELECTED OFFICIALS (1978) 13
This brief is submitted pursuant to tue pr1vue~S
I~oiand, Stare Dt.CISIS and the Overruling of Consti- t d a State through its Attorney General under
ttItIonIil Decisions in the Warren fears 4 VAL2.
L. REv. 101 (1969) 27 Supreme Court Rule 42(4).
Reed, Stare I )eisi.s and Constitutional Law, 35 PA.
Ifoit A~N. Q. 131 (l93~) 25 QUESTIO~'I ADDRESSE1~
Traynor, Tin. Limits of Judicial Creativity, 29 Ussr. The State of Mississippi confines its presentation as
L. J. 102o (1)78) 26.~28 amicus curiae to discussion of the questions of whether
PAGENO="0771"
9
3
this Court (a) should reverse its prior decisions up-
holding generally the constitutionality of 42 U.s.c.
1973c (1970) [hereinafter Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act], or (b) having extended the scope of Sec-
tion 5, as presently applied in the wake of judicial
determinations and administrative misapplications
based upon this Court's precedents, it has become un-
constitutional.
INTEREST OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
As one of the jurisdictions covered by the Voting
Rights Act of 1970, as amended, the State of Mississippi
qua State, and with regard to its component political
subdivisions, has a significant and continuing interest
in the current status of the constitutionality of Section
5 of the Act. Mississippi supports the position adopted
by the City of Rome with regard to the construction
of the phrase "does not have the purpose and will not
have the effect," with respect to the triggering inech-
anisni for Section 5.
Under Section 5, State interests have been subjected
to signifh ant apprehension as a result of tins Court s
interpretation of the scope aiki e~tent of'thst section's
operation. The State of Mississippi has found through
years of litigation in the federal courts, that under
Section 5 there exists a statutory right without an
effective judicial or administrative remedy. This would
likely be the case even if the provisions of the Voting
Rights Act were confined to the evident plain meaning
of 11w words of tlit sl:iliite. But (oInpoiIlRluig the in-
terpr~taf ions of' federal courts at all levels, is the ap-
1)lieati~l by the I )cpartinent of .Justice of its own infer-
pictatoti of those various court decisions. These Dc-
partinental interpretations arc further complicated by
its own application of intra-Departmental policies and
procedures in the operation and qxecutcon of the pro-
visions of Section 5. The result is that all covered ju-
risdictions, from that of a sovereign State down to the
smallest school district, must traverse a maze of finite
approval stages within the Department or the federal
courts. Even if officials at these levels have access to
eleai and undisputed facts in each ease, the prospective
variables of ignorance, mistake and plain misfeasance
at the administrative level cause the application of
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to fall before the
constitutional requirement of "appropriateness" under
Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.
For these reasons, because Mississippi has an inter-
est in protecting its inchoate authority as a State in the
orderly operation of. state and local government and in
future litigation in federal courts at all levels, it pre-
sents this supportive brief in the present action.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
As a local jurisdiction covered under Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act, the City of Rome, pursuant to
that provision's preclearance requirement, sought ap-
proval by the Attorney General of the United States
to effectuate certain changes in its City Charter. These
changes included the creation of a seemingly simple
majority vote requirement for the City Commission
and the Board of Education elections, along with the
creation of numbered posts for those eleètions; the
estal,l slinunt of ward `residency reiuirements for the
ll,ard Il,,catimi elections only ; and the institution
of staggered terms for both the City Commission and
time Board of Elections. .J 1TIUSI1CTIONAL STATEMENT 5-
6. In one form or another, the Attorney General inter-
PAGENO="0772"
4
5
posed objections to all of these changes on two sep-
arate occasions in 1975 and 1976. The City then filed a
42 U.S.C. 1973b [Section 4) action seeking a declara-
tory judgment in the District Court for the District
of Columbia. The sum and substance of that court's
holding was that while the City was found to have acted
without invidious "purpose," it was nevertheless found
to have an unintended effect adverse to the class of
voters protected by the Voting Rights Act. Appeal lies
directly to this Honorable Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
]973b(a) and 42 U.S.C. 1973c. Id. 7-9.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The State of Mississippi seeks to persuade this
Court to reconsider its decision in South CaroUna v.
Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), finding Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to be constitutional
within the ambit of the Enforcement Clause of the
Fifteenth Amendment. For the reaspns urged in sep-
arate and dissenting opinions since that case, it has
now become clear that Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act is and always has been unconstitutional. Its thresh-
old violation is of the fundamental principle of fed-
eralism inherent in our constitutional system. The vest-
~ing of authority in a single individual to effectively
veto the operations of an integral component of this
Federal Union is to reduce the States to colonial or
palatinate status. This is a direct contravention of the
(luarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the
Unite(l St;~tis Constitution. There, in point of fact, the
aflirniative duty is placid upon the central government
to preserve and guarantee republican government,
rather than create statutory and administrative bar-
riers to its orderly function.
Assuming arguendo that Section 5 of the. Voting
Rights Act is not unconstitutional on its 1face, it has be-
come unconstitutional as applied pursuant to its piece-
meal interpretation by federal courts at all levels, and
by the arbitrary, capricious and ofttimes malpracticed
administration by the Department of Justice. From the
initial decisions by this Court applying the Act's rem-
edies to state and federal elections, to those decisions
extending its administrative guidelines to the smallest
political component in the covered States, the statu-
torily-reqiiirecl preclearance procedures have bur-
geoned into incredible complexity and delay. The pro-
cedures comprehended in the language of the Act it-
self, from the sixty-day submission period to de novo
proceedings before an independent three-judge fed-
eral tribunal, have resulted in litigatory and financial
burdens which no right-thinking legislator could have
intended for Section 5 to have visited upon the covered
jurisdictions. Certainly the lengths to which the courts
and the Department of Justice have required these
jurisdictions to go in order to exercise even the most
basic electoral and governmental powers cannot any
longer be said to be "appropriate" under the Fifteenth
Amendment.
This is especially clear since both Mississippi, and
the City of Rome, Oeorgia (and, indeed, along with
the South in general) have, in the thirteen years since
the initial findings regarding the constitutionality of
Section 5, exl)(rienced dramatic social, economic and
political (hanges. This positive progress has resulted in
making Section 5 superfluous at best and an admin-
istrative burden at worst for the free and unfettered
access to the very elictoral system it was designed to
enhance and facilitate to begin with.
PAGENO="0773"
6
7
Finally, Mississippi emphasizes the inherent author-
ity of this Court to reverse itself, especially where
constitutional rulings are concerned. Not only is it
within the Court's endemic authority to override prece-
dent, but it also becomes its duty to do so where the
passage of time clearly establishes the need to act in the -
Court's continuing protection of our Constitution as
the organic law of the nation.
For these and other reasons elucidated herein, Mis-
sissippi supports the City of Rome's application for
reversal of the judgment below.
I. SectIon 5 of the Voting Rights Act Is and Always Has Been
Unconstitutional.
In much the same way as the first Mr. Justice Har-
lan in dissent anticipated the true meaning of the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
meat in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.s. 537, 559-560
(189(i), so too was Mr. Justice Black incisively aware
of the prospective impact of the operation of Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act on constitutional govern-
ment in the United States. In the central case at issue.
here, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301
(1966), upholding the constitutionality of Section 5,
Mr. Justice Bl;nk filed what has come to he a classic
dissent. Protesting aga$nst the justiciability of the
issue to begin with, and concerned about the further
li,iui,lation of the Guarantee Clause, .Justice Black oh-
JNt((l thtt the mendicant requirement of Section 5 ``so
distorts our constitutional structure of government as
to reinkr nov distinction drawn on the Constitution
Jut wren ~tnti~ and Fetletal power almost meaningless."
Id. at 158. Tn a (entral government of delegafed pow-
ers, he argued, if the "reserve[d] . . . powers to the
States are to mean anything, they meats at kast that the
States have the power to pass laws ~ind amend their
constitutions without first sending their officials hun-
dreds of miles away to beg federal authorities to ap-
prove them." id. at 359. With astonishing prescience
for the bureaucratic functioning of the Section 5 re-
quirements, he noted through experience that, "I can-
not help hut believe that the inevitable effect of any
such law which forces any one of the States to entreat
federal authorities in far away places for approval of
local laws before they can become effective is to create
the impression that the State or States treated in this
way are little more than conquered provinces." Id. at
359-360. He also noted the tendency toward the in-
evitable delegation and dispersion of power within a
Section 5 type preclearance apparatus. With that dele-
gation traditionally goes a dissipation of care and ex-
pertise in administrative decisions. Justice Black con-
cluded that, "It is inconceivable to me that such a
radical degradation of State power was intended in
any of the provisions of our Constitution or its Amend-
ments." Id. at 360. Cf. the dissenting opinion of Mr.
Justice Harlan earlier in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376
U.S. 1, 38 and 48 (1964).'
Over the next seven years there was a steady expan-
sion of the scope of Section 5 preclearance authority.
When in 1973, the Court ruled in Georgia v. United
States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973), that Section 5 preelear-
ance requirements applied to the reapportioning of
entire State legislatures, Mr. Justice Powell, in a vig-
* As is elu.idaied in greater detail in Argument II below, at
p. 14, the inexorable operation of Parkinson's Law with regard to
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has become all too grim a
reality.
PAGENO="0774"
8
9
orous dissent, reasserted the constitutional objections
voiced by Justice Black. In the Georgia case, Justice
Powell agreeing with Mr. Justice White, objected
to the extension of Seeton 5 upward to incorporate the
fundamental electoral partitioning of an entire State.
It was, he said, "a serious intrusion, incompatible with
the basic structure of rnir system for federal authori-
ties to compel a State to submit its legislation for ad-
vance review." fd. at 545 (footnote omitted).
It is, of course, fundamental that Congress has the
power to implement protective voting rights legisla-
tion pursuant to the "appropriate legislation" license
of the Enforcement Clause of the Fifteenth Amend-
ment. That authority, however, while plenary, is
neither absolute nor arbitrary. All segments of the
Constitution operate in harmony with all other seg-
ments, and federal authority to regulate guarantees as
to votinc-i'ights must conform with authority reserved
to the States to manage their own poliitcal affairs.
Fundanuntal to those reserved rights is the authority
of State legislatures, again within the ~ con-
stitutional confines, to pass State laws. As with all fed-
eral enactments, those laws have the full leeway of
"necessary and proper" legislation. Mary,land v. En-
virm,inen(v,l !`roteetion Agency, 530 F.2d 215, 225 (4th
(`jr 1975). `Ibis Court has long devoted careful concern
to flu luf(ttr of " functions essential to the separate
1,1(1 i ndependint existence of the component members
of the tihral union'' lane Count~j v. Oregon, 74 U.S.
(7 Wall.) 71 (1869); see also Tea-as v. White 74 ITS.
(7 \v.~!) 700 (1869). While cross-currents of Amen-
(ais 5O(i~t% may ~liamige tin! focus of legislative and
Jmm(li(i;tl at tent on in response to the neeas of the body
politic, a Stain is not a mere factor in the ``shifting
economic arrangements!' of society, Kovac8 v. Cooper,
366 U.S. 77, 95 (1949), but is, instead, a coordinate
element in our constitutional system. That system will
not allow "the National Government [to] devour the
essentials of State Sovereignty." Maryland v. Wirtz,
392 U.S. 183, 205 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
This Court, in a recent consideration of the tradi-
tional means and substantial needs of the structures of
State and local governments, has ruled that notwith-
standing a broad basis for the Federal Government's
constitutional power (e.g., the Commerce Clause), Con-
gress may not exercise that power in a fashion which
"would impair . . - the States' `ability to function ef-
fectively in a federal system.' " National, League of
Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 852 (1976). There the
Court held that a federal statute, constitutional on its
face, was infirmly applied under the cos)ditions as they
existed at that time. "We hold that insofar as the
challenged amendments operate to directly displace the
State's freedom to structure integral operations in
areas of traditional governmental functions, they are
not within the authority granted Congress.. . ." Id.
at 852. The Court further observed that a situational
over-extension of Congress' authority to withdraw
from the States the power to make fundamental intra-
state (Incisions would leave little of time States' " `sep-
arate and izulepen(l(mmt existence' " hi. at 851. See also
Co!Jlc v. Oklahoma, 221 11.5. 559, 580 (1911).
Time seemingly plenary power of the Enforcement
Clause of the Fifteenth Amnemulment has thus provided
a ~velIsprimg, feeding a vast reservoir of federal statti-
tory authority in dealing with civil rights legislation.
This ease is confined to tIme dredging of merely one
PAGENO="0775"
10
11
estuary, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. See
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 5-9.
The central philosophy in upholding Section 5 as
"an uncommon exercise of constitutional power," was
the Court's conclusion "that exceptional conditions can
justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate"
under the Constitution. 383 U.S. at 334.' If this con-
stitutional philosophy is to be accepted, it must neces-
sarily, therefore, work both ways. If the Katzenbach
premise that extraordinary times such as the early
years of the Civil Rights Movement, can produce con-
stitutionally permissive federal legislation to deal with
extraordinary civil rights deficiencies, it is also logical
to conclude that changes in those conditions for the
better may abate the constitutional operation of that
legislation. If, therefore, the enforcement provisions
of the Civil War Amendments are operative as correc-
tive devices under the Constitution in order to insure
proper access to equality for minority citizens in all
phases of American social, economic, and political life,
that same liberality of interpretation must also take
cognizance of the turning of the seasons wherein the
desired fruit has been borne and harvested. In short,
the very methodology which, during a previous era
became vital to the acquisition of access to the political
process cats-and we submit has-become an obstacle
to the participatory government which it was intended
to promote.
2 5V ii) mt here dw~'ll on the argument, but merely advert in
l2;l~1u 1) p2*'VIfltlO rulings on this p rn' joe point. This ``exceptional
cotolit j~,,is' ` u'' out ion arose in ,,oue trying times in Sehechter
!`ouItr~/ (`or~i. v. (`ailed .S'lales, 295 tY.~. 495 (1915). There the
Court in a lan,linsrk pronounretoent ruled that, ``Extraordinary
conditions may colt for extraordinary remedies [butl . . - extra-
ordinary conditions `In not create or enlarge constitutional power."
Id. at 528.
"Appropriateness," thet'efoi'e, must be considered
within the context of the Constitutioa as it exists to-
day.3 Justice Powell had serious misgivings about the
appropriateness of Section 5 in Georgia v. United
States, supra, six years ago. While acknowledging con-
gressional power to enact "appropriate legislation" in
siecessitous circumstances, lie expressed "disagree-
ment . . . with the unprecedented requirement of ad-
vance review of State or local legislative acts by fed-
eral authorities, rendered all the more noxious by its
selective application to only a few States." 411 U.S.
at 545, note.
Central to this case, thei~efore, is the contention of
the City of Rome, supported by the State of Missis-
sippi, that legislation, which under the Fifteenth
Amendment was found to be constitutional and appro-
priate under circumstances existing thirteen years ago,
can no longer be upheld on that basis due to both the
very success of the legislation and the dramatic changes
which were symbiotic to it. Under these conditions, both
the legislation and its judicial adhesion, have, in fact,
outlived the utilitarian purposes for which they were
at that time intended.
In this regard, judicial analogy has been drawn be-
tween the Elastic Clause of Article I and the Enforce-
ment Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment. See United
States v. State of Louisiana, 225 F. Supp. 353, 360
(E.D. La., 1963). But this analogy standing alone-
even without the fresh viewpoints of modern social and
lnmhcd, nvi'm~ the precipatory case of BCown v. Board of Edu-
cation, 147 L'.~. 153 (1954) found that the Civil War Amendments
must be viewed in their "present place in American life through-
out ttue Nation,'' (enmphasis admled) Id, at 492.493.
PAGENO="0776"
12
13
l)olitical developments-cannot bear the full weight of
constitutional imprimatur. If any analogy is to be
drawn, it should be one which emphasizes the composi-
tion of two separate and vital elements in this parallel,
i.e., that "appropriate" legislation not only conform to
the denotation of that term, but also that it meet the
separate requirements of being both "necessary" and
"proper." Appellants and amicus contend that Section
5 no longer meets the constitutional requirement of
these parameters. These results obtain essentially be-
cause of the dramatic changes in Southern political
life since the inception of Section 5 remedies. They also
contend that Section 5 in particular has reached the
limit of its productivity under the Constitution and
therefore should be pruned from the corpus of federal
constitutional law so as to allow the continued organic
growth of democratic participatory government in the
States affected.
To begin with, the primary.intent of the Voting
Rights Act, dramatic increase in Black voting registra-
tion, has become a fait accompti in every southern
State.' The electoral consequences of this dramatic in-
crease were inevitable, and blacks now hold more offices
in the Southern States than in any other region iii
Atnerica.~ `J'his proportion of minority leadership is al-
`The biggest gains have been in Mississippi, where black regis-
tration went front 6.7% to 59.s%; in Ucorgia the black percentage
went op (loin 27.4% to 52.6%. Overall, by 1969, black registration
hail juailropled in the Ststcs covered by the Voting ifights Act.
.1. llanos, ci il., The Voting Rights Act of 1965 as Amended:
II story, Efltt'l.-,, and .~ltei-iaatives (CoNuttEs-iloNAL ReSEARCH
Ii, 1975, reriserl Noveitihcr 19 1915) 1 hereinafter,
I.i:oist.s't'ivc I 1i.~r'ttv
The latest statistie~ on black elected officials are reflective of the
saturation effect o( tlic~ Voting Itights Act itself. As of July 1978,
there was a total of 4,5(13 black elected officials in the United States.
most certain to be significantly increased as a result of
the implementation of the most recent legislatively en-
acted reapportionment plan approved for tile State of
Mississippi by a three-judge federal court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia under the Section 5 court alternative
preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act, Missis-
sippi v. United States, Civ. No. 78-1425 (D.D.C., June
1, 1979), motion for stay denied in Henry, et al. v. Mis-
sissippi, No. A-1067 (S.Ct., June 18,1979); Sand doubt-
less also by both Mississippi's and Georgia's 1980 legis-
lative reapportionment. These statistics conform to the
plain meatting concept of the law and are immensely
illttminatmg with regard to the dramatically changed
political conditions in the States covered by Section 5.
Nor are the benefits of these dramatic gains likely
to stiffer retrenchment as a result of the overruling of
this Court's decision in South Carolina v. Katzenbach,
viz Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. There remain a
plethora of legal, statutory and equitable remedies
available to private plaintiffs with the eager assistance
of the Department of Justice and all its many resources
in the continued maintenance and protection of all man-
The eleven Southern States accotint for 2,230 or 55.7% of them.
Mississippi tanks second in the nation in the total nutnber of black
elected Skits (:to:l), white Georgia tonics sixth in the nation
(228) I corgia ranks second in I he nation iii the number of blsek
elected officials holding two offices &t). Mississippi and Georgia
alone account for 11.8% of the total black elected officials in the
United Slates. Joint Center for Political Studies, NATIONAl. ROSTER
or llt..w,c Ei.vcii:o (ketcisec lxx (1918).
A hlarli State Senator, tIn: first in modern Mississippi history.
was ClCetc(l in a sjweial election called by the JT5~ District Court
for the Southern I )i.strict of Mississippi in a district whose con.
figuration is neatly identical to the Senate l)istriet approved in
Mississippi V. 1/sited States. Id.
PAGENO="0777"
14
ncr of civil rights under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments. See Jones v. Alfred H.
Mayer Co., 392 U.s. 409, 440 (1968) (these Amend-
ments operate to strip away all "badges and incidents
of slavery"). Moreover, public interest groups, politi-
cal leadership, and more especially black leadership in
elected and appointed positions of public trust and
power, in the South would prevent any regression to
the practices of a previous era.
Thus, in view of the burdensome consequences attend-
ing the passage and sustaining of Section 5 of the Vot-
ing Rights Act, its constitutionality ought to be recon-
sidered iii light of the fifteen years of experience and
practice since its enactment. It is our view that if the
Court were now to undertake such analysis, it would
find that what seemed to many an incursion on the
constitutional rights of the States which may have been
justified under the concept of a "living Constitution,"
is no longer required.
II. Assuming Arguendo That SectIon 5 of the Voting slIghts Act
Is Not Unconstitutional On Ii, Face. It Has ~ecomne Unconsti-
tutional As A Result Of JudicIal Determination and Admlnla.
trative Misapplication.
This llomt6i~able Court has previously upheld the con-
stitutiommality of the enactment of the Voting Rights
Act and its Sm'ctiumt 5 preclearanec mechanism, South
C~zrnlin,t V. Katzeithach. 383 U.S. 301 (1966), and its
amtimmtmlnemmts, ()reijon V. Jut elicit, 400 U.s. 112 (1970).
itt ulilit ion, this Coitit has bemit called upon on numer-
(fits mttur samsiolts to deal with the applicability of
Section 5 parti'thar to various situations and units
of govrttttment iii the affected States. On separate occa-
sions this Court has held titat the broad purview of See-
15
tion 5 encompasses electoral activity in congressional
districts, Lucas v. Rhodes, 389 U.S. 212 (1967); local
units of government, Avery v. Midland County, 390
U.S. 474 (1968); activities of citizens as private attor-
neys general, Alien v. Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544
(1969); selection of presidential electors, Moore v. Ogii-
vie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969); the impact of educational
levels on the electoral process, Gaston County v. United
States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969); the shift to at-large mu-
nicipal elections, Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379
(1971); state reapportionment plans, Georgia v. United
States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973); at-large county elections,
East Carroll Parish Schóo&Board v. Marshall, 424 U.s.
636 (1976); municipal subdivisions, United States v.
Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, 435 U.S. 110
(1978); and participatioit of public personnel in elec-
tions, Dougherty County Board of Education v. White,
- U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 368 (1978).
Appellants and amicus submit that this piecemeal
interpretation of Section 5 has spread its intended
force and effect over an area well beyond that intended
by Congress or manageable by those in the Department
of Justice responsible for executing these decisions.
Our position conforms to that of Mr. Justice Powell in
his dissent in Dougherty County Board of Education V.
White, where he averred titat, "The Court's ruling is
without support in the language or legislative history
of time [Voting Rights} Act." 1~Lis conclusion was that,
"In(leed, if time Court truly means that any incidental
irripact on elections is significant [enough] to trigger
the preelcarance reqmtirentent of ~ 5, then it is difficult
to imagine witat source of state and local enactntents
PAGENO="0778"
16
17
would not fall within the scope of that section." -
U.S. at -, 99 S.Ct. at 380. (footnotes omitted)'
The philosophical premises of our judicial system, of
course, allow an appellate court to review statutory law
only by chance, when litigation happens to arise in the
accusatorial process. The necessitous installment inter-
pretation of Section 5 has nonetheless had an adverse
and unfortunate effect not only on the purpose of the
Voting Rights Act itself, but also on the confluent oper-
ation of the two tiers of the federal system. These situ-
ational interpretations of the applicability of the cover-
age of Section 5 have resulted in the fragmenting of
the powet's of federalism and their absorption in the
vacuum of centralized authority. Nonetheless, all of ~he
political entities within and including the States coy-
ered by the Section 5 preclearance requirements have,
pursuant to this Court's decisions, been forced to
shoulder a burden which increases geometrically in
proportion to a political subdivision's inability to sus-
tain it. The result is that the srAaller the governmental
unit captured by Section 5, the greater its proportion-
ate burden in bearing up under the judicial and admin-
istrative burdens. As already noted, absent Section 5
preelearance procedures, political minorities would still
~peskirig in a footnote to the question of the constitutionality
~of Section 5, Justice Powell's dissent adverted to the fae~ that in
addition to hiiasrlf--he cited his previous dissent in Georgia v.
1/sited States, 411 U.S. at 545-Other Members of this Court
have also expressed misgivings about the constitutionality of See-
hots 5.'' In iilditiiia to ref~'rring to Mr. Justice Black `a dissenting
views in Soul!s (`arid ~ v. I(at:rubueh, in 1966, 353 1.8, 301, 358,
he also ited Justice harlan `s concurring and dissenting opinion
in .411c,& v. ~`Ia!e Board of L~1rrtions, 393 U.S. 544, 586 (1969),
and Chief Justice Burger's concurring opinion in Georgia v. United
States, 411 ITS. 536, 545 (1973). -- ITS, at -` 99 S.Ct. at
377, ii. 1.
retain a multiplicity of remedies in order'. to protect
their sights. But with the continued interference of the
administrative requirements of Section 5, States and
their component political subdivisions are technically
given administrative and judicial appeal rights but
realistically denied them in the ensuing process.
Section 5, as it stands today, therefore, provides tho
States with a technical right without an effective rem-
edy. It does not straisi the concept of this Court's power
of judicial notice for it to take cognizance of Missis-
sippi's experiences with Section 5. Mississippi is eco-
nomically a poor State composed of political subdivi-
sions whose economic resources are relatively meager.
Yet their experiences with Section 5 arc not untypi-
cal. The operation of both the administrative and
hitigatory alternatives of Section 5 has the inevitable
effect of requiring the smallest governmental entity to
match its resources with the largest, the Federal Gov-
erstetsent. Not only for the State, but also for its smaller
municipalities, its poorer counties, and independent en-
tities such as boards of trustees of hospitals and other
municipal corporations, the functional requirements of
the "Washington experience" with Section 5 is pro-
hibitory. Tlse retentions of I).C. c~unsel required under
the local rules, the expenses involved in the location,
transportation, and testimony of witnesses, and the sus-
taining of all other expenses attemtdistg a one- to two-
week trial isi the District of Columbia-not to mention
ams appeal to this Honorable Conrt-ai'e so far beyond
the capacity of governmental units such as the City of
Rome ~tttd cities and towns similas'ly situated in Ails-
.sis.s'ippi as to straia the credulity of even the most opti-
ististic litigant. Indeed, in istore instances than perhaps
even this Court is aware, vas'ious governmental units
PAGENO="0779"
18
19
simply allow a Department of Justice's arbitrary objec-
tion to stand for the simple reason that in the overall
scheme of things, selectivity in pursuing the appeal re-
(luires that smaller issues must be allowed to fall before
the Department's fiat. In sum, the covered States and
their subdivisions are being required to weigh issues,
not on the basis of their legality or constitutionality,
but rather on the basis of whether or not they can
afford to make a point of exercising their constitutional
rights. If anything could be found to be more objec-
tionable thaii local government by federal interdiction,
it must be local government by federal default. Thus by
the operational effect of this Court's interpretations of
Section 5, it has, while technically recognizing States'
rights under Section 5, effectively cut off the remedies
of smaller subdivisions within those States to appeal.
Faced with these insurmountable difficulties, the cov-
ered States have been forced to accept as a fact of life
that the Department of Justice may use Section 5 as a
sword as well as a shield. Under current Court dcci-
sions-as well as the Department of Justice's own in-
terpretations of them-the implementation of Section
5 goes beyond mere Departmental approval or disap-
proval of a prospective change in local election laws,
and is used instead to usurp the daily operation of
local govermuent. In Mississippi's experience, for ex-
ample, before a small Mississippi community could be
allowed to change the office of Chief of Police from an
eleete(l to an appointed position, the Department of
Justice repured the town officials to stipulate in ad-
van~ who would be appointed to the office. The same
kimiti of o~'rt political negotiations have also been re-
quirc(l in instances from the seemingly innocuous an-
nexation of land for future town development to the De-
Partiflent's selective approval of proposed .legislation
so that vital parts have been discarded while precatory
provisions have been allowed to stand useless by them-
selves. Finally, with regard to the conflicting interpre-
tations of Section 5, the Attorney General of Missis-
sippi, on at least one occasion, has had to issue separate
and conflicting opinions for the Northern District of
Mississippi, under one court's interpretation, and for
the Southern District of Mississippi under another, for
the same statewide election.
This undue, and we believe unconstitutional, opera-
tion of Section 5 comes from the hands of an integral
Department of the federal government which, under
the Constitution, has an affirmative duty to protect and
guarantee republican government, rather than inter-
pose barriers to it. Functional consequences make elec-
tions almost impossible in the covered States. Missis-
sippi has not been able to restructure its election laws
for 15 years, since November 1, 1964. During that time
the State's Attorney General has had to constantly
build bridges between laws as enacted, statutes as ap-
proved by the Justice Department, and the situations
as they have actually existed during election years. Over
the years those bridges have become more and more
precarious in their underpinnings and consequently
have become constitutionally and legally unsafe for the
support of the voting rights of all the citizens of the
State.
It is our contention, therefore, that when the absence
of rights varies inversely to available remedies, any
statute requiruig coiifornuty ~vitli such a l)IOccss is Un-
constitutional. As Mr. Justice Stone consistently
pointed out, "The Constitution, viewed as a continu-
ously operative charter of government, is not to be in-
C)1
PAGENO="0780"
20
21
teipreted as tleniatiding the impossible or the impracti-
cable." Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U.S.
126, 145 (1941) and Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S.
414, 424 (1944). See also his opinion in Hirabayashi V.
United States, 320 U.S. 81, 104 (1943).
Under Section 5 as it exists today, all covered States
and their subdivisions, no matter how small in size, and
all electoral issues, no matter how seemingly remote
to the electoral process, must be submitted to the ex-
pensive legal, litigatory, and lugubrious burden of go-
ing to Washington, D.C. to appeal procedurally to the
Attorney (leneral of the United States but in reality
to his subordinates, or it, the alternative to an increas-
ingly burdened federal district court there. In such a
system it is not uncommon that "an erroneous judg-
inent may stand, and acquire an undeserved authority,
merely because the losing patty does not appeal against
it-usually for the excellent reason that he can't af-
ford any further costs of litigat,ion." C. Allen, LAW IN
THE MAKINO 298 (1958).
As already noted,' this Court's standing precedents
now require any governmental unit td bear this cx-
l)Ctlsive, time consuming, and immensely frustrating
htii'deit (or alt aspects of the electoral process in each
aol eveiv State subdivision. But this Court has also
ut lv I :tkcu Jul itial viol ice of a similar process with
to t lie ho `dun of federal legislation on local
partiti patioui i u i'iuuuerce. ``Quite apart from the sub-
sIn ut ml i'iv~ts i uuilneuul upon the States and their poii ti-
tat sitidi v b.iits,'' I he ( uirt. noted of that federal
statute, `` I it] lisplaes State lulicies regarding the
uu:uu'r ii ~i'l (tv will structure delivery of those
governmental services which their citizens require."
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. at 847.
The operational burden of Section 5 has, at long last,
come to that point in the history of this nation where
it should be allowed to collapse of its own weight. In
addition to the litigatory maze which any party from
State to county to municipality to school board must
thread, the administrative anthill of Section 5 pre-
clearance submissions in the Attorney General's office
has so leavened the quality of the administrative proc-
ess as to place it beyond the ken of even the most
conscientious public servant. As a direct result of this
Court's previous rulings and the Attorney General's
interpretation of them, the processing of these submis-
sions has become an increasingly burdensome task for
the Department of .J'ustiee.'
Moreover, the increased burden on the Department
of Justice indisputably has had the effect of lowering
the quality of attention the Attorney General and his
staff can give to submissions. Whatever the jurisdic-
CJi
`Shortly after the pasrnige of the Voting Rights Act, the number
of submissions was negligible, averaging only about 65 per year
for the tint (`vi' years if the Act's existence. Of ttese, the l)epart-
unent objected to only 13 or about 5.9%. After this (ourt's initial
ruling, on the expansive uatore of Median 5 per uc, however,
`specialty in lilies v. Xlulc listed of Meclion; 393 (1,5, 544
(1969), suhrnj~uj,s inereaxel fin, 255 in 1970 to 1118 in 1971.
By 1974, the total sulnivsiou, tail increa,el to 3,929. By then
the Attorney (ieneral a proportionate rate of objection of 4% to
6% win `silt jug in ii e,t',i;,,,,t ig of `tei'tral laws in about
150 `s's's pea' u'si', l,eas,,.sev: II sassy at 56.57, `l'lj~ ihiseussio,,
of the IvIes of h~ al,jtj'st~t iv, route euler Motion 5, how.
eve,', i~ ill I, way flint ti titer to any ptrport.d (lesiralaility
of it olternstjv' 4e,'tisi 5 route of litigation, See .hlliulMuncTiOsJsf,
SrAl'cMs:ur at 27
`5', a apes tg~ 1415
PAGENO="0781"
tion, this process still requires massive amounts of
man hours, legal fees, and political negotiations to
produce. Indeed, this Court took judicial notice of the
fact that under such conditions "the Department of
Justice does not have the resources to police effectively
all the States and subdivisions covered by the Act."
Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 396 (i971).
rfhe inevitable result, despite the terms of the Act, is
that the Attorney General must delegate to the lowest
echelons of his Departmetit, a federal statutory power
of the broadest implications and results for the sov-
ereign States of this Union and their citizens.'° There
is at least some doubt, however, as to whether the Vot-
big Rights Act, by analogy to other federal legisla-
tioti of the same era, eveti allows the Attorney Gen-
eral to delegate this authority beyond the top level of
the Department of Justice. In an action based on the
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, this Court con-
23
eluded that Congress did not intend a similar power
on the criminal side to be exercised by "any individual
other than the Attorney General or an Assistant Attor-
ney General specially designated by him." United
States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 508 (1974). There the
Court found that the exercise of federal statutory
power in a constitutionally sensitive area required
"[t~he mature judgment of a particular responsible
Department of Justice official [to bej . . . interposed
as a critical precondition to any judicial order." Id.
at 515-516.
But the level to which this decision-making process
under Section 5 has devolved was astonishingly demon-
strated in Mississippi's most recent administrative ex-
perience with the Department of Justice. There the
functional decision to interpose an objection to Missis-
sippi's entire statewide reapportionment plan-the
same plan which was recently upheld on appeal in the
judicial alternative-was left to the discretion of a
second-year law student who was a paralegal on the
Voting Rights staff and who had no substantive exper-
tise in the field. See Defendant's Brief in Connor, et
al. v. Coleman, et al., No. 78-1013 (S.Ct., October Term,
1978), at 19, a. 15, and its Appendix at D-44. See also
the Appellee's Brief in Response to Opposition to the
Ap~)lieation for a Stay Pending Appeal in a companion
case, henry, et al. v. State of flfississippi, (S.Ct., Oc-
tober Tni'm, 1978), at 15 a. 42. The State of Mississippi
as amicwe submits that it could itever have been the
intent of the Congress of the United States that one
of the States of the Union or any of its political sub-
divisions s~tould receive this kind of negligible atten-
(ion to the expensive and painstakingly crafted efforts
of an entire State legislature and administration, or
22
cli
Cit
"In at least one major case, the Attorney General literally could
not make up his mind within the sixty days whether5 or not a
jurisdiction's proposed action was objectionable. Rather than "take
the chance" he therefore interposed a nunc pc'o tunc objection
just to be "safe." \~`hite that action was disallowed by this Court,
Morris v. (;ressette. 432 U.S. 491, 507 (1977), that attempt by
tin' 1 )cparltni'nt of .1 ustcc'e demonstrates a disposition in the ad.
ministration of the Act of a philosophy of presumptive and almost
r,'tlcx;vc fl'jctt ciii. &C ciba City o[ I~uhinoiid V. United States,
429 I'S. :;as, :tt;9 (l975~. Early on, Mr. Justice Powell foresaw
such ci lilTh'cttty acid was iccaisting in ilissecct that, `As a minitciuin,
mtsscicctitc~ liii' `c ctcstitcttiotiality iii the Act (itself), the Attorney
I ,tcc'i;tl should to' ruciuuiru',! to u'suuuply with it u'aplieitly and to
,vcbc' its privisidcus ccuclv wh,'o cc is aIde to make an aftirnuative
(.`ucur~icu v. Iuuited SLates, 411 ITS, at 545. See also the
ujuiuuiccuc by ```liltc', l'swc'll irsul lic'hnujuiist, ,i.~., in the sciuuue ease
that tl~ At tcuutuc'y t cccec;ut ` `siucucclcl tot be able to object by simply
savitig thu;it to' c'cuictcst iuu:cki' tip his timid cur that the evidence is
`iii i,Ididtiiflsi..'' hi.
PAGENO="0782"
24
25
if it did so intend, this Court should never stand for
it."
Tue declivity of administrative quality current un-
dee Section 5 is all the more distressing in view of the
fact that the decisions of the Department of Justice
and its Voting Rights Section are not only traditionally
not reviewable, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387
U.S. 136 (1967), but are also veiled from public and
judicial scrutiny by Section 4(b) of the 1975 amend-
ments to the Voting Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. 1973b(b).
That this Court upheld the constitutionality of that
section as well, offers little encouragement. Briscoe v.
Bell, 432 U.S. 404, 412 (1977). See also Morris v. Gres-
sctte, 432 U.S. at 504-505 ("Since judicial review of
the Attorney General's actions would unavoidably ex-
tend this [preclearance] period, it is necessarily, pre-
cluded."). The sole alternative to this discouraging ad-
rninistrative process is to plunge once again into litiga-
tion, excessively costly to every, jurisdiction in every
way.
Despite the prayer of appellants in this case: supple-
mented by the urging of the State of Mississippi as
aitncus curiae, to persuade this Court to depart from
previous decisions under federal statutory execution
of a vital Amendment to the nation's Charter, these
prayers arc ittatle ttttt in derogation of, hut rather in
faithftil tiehuse of, the I)asie doctrines of participatory
K~uii,i.~tr. burr illoek had fortseen that it the States
air suttlivisions were to he rqutire1 to get distant Federal
,sel'at'ae in 11w ihpartm'nt of lustier that other laws on
tiiffrtit silt,; `sean fore the States to seek the advance approval
not only of tte .` toroy Chneral hut [stool of any other
elton uutttttrs of tilt staff. South (`aruFitta v. Katzenbach 383
u.s. t tao.
democracy under our federal system. As then-Solicitor
General Stanley Reed observed, "No responsible offi-
cial, jurist or statesman, has ever suggested that an
effort should be made to ask reconsideration of the
doctrine of dual sovereignty, separation of powers, or
the supremacy of the federal Constitution." Reed,
Stare Decisis and Constitutional Law, 35 PA. BAR
Assw. Q. 131, 139-140 (1938). Through these briefs, the
City of Rome and the State of Mississippi seek to in-
tegrate and strengthen the symbiotic partnership of
the basic component elements of our State and Federal
Governments. rrjtese intonements are therefore made in
obeisnatee to the patainouttt order of the Constitution.
This Court is no stranger to the fact that a statute,
seemingly innocuous, or even beneficial, on its face,
may result in an unconstitutionality of the most periti-
ciotis sort, as applied. That concept is one against which
this (`ourt has traditionally been vigilant. "Though the
law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appear-
atice, yet, if it is applied and administered by public
authority with an evil eye and nit unequal hand, so as
practically to make unjust and illegal discrimination
betwecat persons in similar circumstances, material to
their rigltts, the (lettial of equal justice is still within
the proltihition of tite Constitution." Yick lVo v. Hop-
huts, 118 U.S. 356, 373-:174 (1886).
Ill. Thla court Should Exercise lie Inherent Authority To Depart
From The Doctrlno Of Stare Decists And Overrule Precedent
In This Case.
Si itt its ni hal itili ng nit Stttimt 5 in Georgia V.
lint! id S/aIrs, 4111 LS. 52; (197:1), fltis Ctttt it ltas felt
itstl I oat iii ttttthtr t ta hotel tie of stare decisis et non
quteta too Jere (``atlltere to prior tltcisittits and d& not
b-s
Cl'
PAGENO="0783"
26
27
disturb settled points"). By its very nature, however,
and certainly cognitive of the mass of litigation spring-
ing from its operation, Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act is not a settled issue. In the past, the admonition
of Mr. .Justiee Brandeis has been urged upon the Court
to the effect that, "Stare decisis is usually the wise
policy beeause in most matters it is more important
that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be
settled ritht." unmet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285
U.s. 393. 405 (1931) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Of
course, ideally, the converse rule should be applied as
it has been traditionally by this Court. "It is more im-
portant that the Court should be right upon later and
more elaborate consideration of the cases than con-
*sistent with previous declarations." Bardea v. North-
ern Pacific Railroad, 154 U.S. 282,322 (1893). Other-
wise the doctrine would tend to persuade judges "to let
bad enough alone." R. Traynor, The Limits of Judicial
Creativity. 29 1IAST. L. .T. 1025, 1035 (1978).
The State of Mississippi thus urges this Honorable
Court to be as liberal in reappraising the applicability
of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as was Chief
Justice Warren in speaking for the Court in South
Carolina v. Katzenbach, when he acknowledged the
"inventive manner," 383 U.s. at 327, of its enactment
niul uitii'iletl ``the possiliility of over-breadth" in
the Act's provisions. Id. at 331. See also his l~ngutage
ill rlll~'~ V. Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 566
(1969). As Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed, "Legal
II s'~ ~r' tint. sd f-g'tu'rated abstra('t categories
`~y have' a Sped lit' ,j ulicial origin and etiology.
They deri~ meaning and content from circumstances
that gave rise to them and from the purpose they were
designed to serve." Reid v. (Jovert, 354 U.S. 1, 50
(1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)."
This capacity for constitutional change in an organic
document was comprehended by Justice Douglas who
observed that "stare decisis must give way before the
dynamic component of history." W. Douglas, Stare
Decisis, 49 COLUM. L. REV. 735, 737 (1949). The alter-
native, he said, "is to let the Constitution freeze in the
pattern which one generation gave it." Id.
In the thirteen years since the upholding of the ini-
tial version of the Voting Rights Act, the interpreta-
tion of what was constitutionally necessary during
chaotic and critical decades of American history may
no longer be deemed requisite. Accommodation might
be made for constitutional observance of changing
mores and institutions in American life. As one con-
stitutional scholar observed,
Particular constitutional principles or certain ap-
plications thereof may be correct for one period of
our development and yet incorrect for a future era.
It is true that certain clauses of the Constitution
may have a fixed, technical meaning that is sus-
ceptible of only one correct interpretation. How-
ever, most of the significant clauses speak only in
generalities whose substance and importance vary
with the course of history. J. Noland, Stare Dc-
cisis and the Overruling of Constitutional Dcci-
"Thus (he Court has m~a recently reiterated that `stare
dec.isis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of
adherence to hi latest dt't'i,i*-.n. however reecnt and questionable,
when such otliterettee involves collision with a prior doctrine more
embracing ii its scope, immtriasivally sounder mind verified by ex-
perience." Conliimrnlal 7'.V., inc. v. GTE Sylvania, inc., 433 U.S.
36, 55, mm. 30 (1977). Cf. Ihiuring v. liallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119
(1940).
PAGENO="0784"
28
29
sions in the Warren Years, 4 VALP. L. REV. 101,
104-105 (1969). See also Springer v. Philippine
Jslo,ids, 277 U.s. 189, 209-210 (1928).
Mr. Justice Jackson also found that "individual study
of [a decision's] background and antecedents, its
draftsmanship and effects" are mandatory. R. Jack-
son, I)ecisional Law and Stare Decisis, 30 A.B.A.J.
334, 335 (1944). Chief Justice Roger Traynor was of a
similar view, counseling that precedents "first (be]
nnalyze[d) exhaustively . . . , particularly in the con-
text of possibly equally strong competing claims . . . ."
29 HAST. L. J. at 1040.
Because of the viability of our Constitution, rulings
on constitutional law in particular simply do not lend
themselves the Talmudic permanence of transcendental
morality. As Mr. Justice Cardozo noted, "The doctrine
ut stare decisis, however appropriate and even neces-
sary at times, has only a liniited application in the field
of constitutional law." St. Joseph's Stock Yards Co. V.
United States, 298 U.S. 38, 94 (1936). See also James
v. ITnited States, 366 U.s. 213, 222 (1960) (Black and
Douglas, J.J., separate opinion); Green v. United
~S'tules, 356 U.S. 165, 193 (1957) (Black, J., Warren,
Cd.. and Douglas, J., separate opinion); and Glidden
Co. V. Zdanoek, 370 U.S. 530, 541 (1962) (Harlan,
Britun n. uid Stewart, J .~1., separate opinion). Indeed,
in a landmark ease of reversal, Mr. Justice Bradley,
COIlCIll)I ig, found that,
\Vller( the decision is recent, and is only made by
a hart majority of time Court, and during a time of
public excitement on the subject, when the question
has largely entered into political discussions of the
day, 1 consider it our right and duty to subject it
to a further examination, if a majority of the
Court are dissatisfied with a formei decision. Legal
Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 569-570
(1871).
The modern and traditional argument, therefore,
with regard to previous decisions under the Voting
Rights Act, that reversal of any one or more of them
would have unsettling constitutional, political, and so-
cial effects, cannot withstand close scrutiny in light of
the history of the Court and the nation. This would es-
pecially be tile ease if this Honorable Court could be
persuaded, at big last, to take judicial notice of the
changed and changing conditions in those jurisdictions
covered by the Voting Rights Act itself. The State of
Mississippi and the City of Rome, therefore, endeavor
through these briefs to impress upon the Court the re-
sultant inappropriateness under the Constitution of
continued adherence to Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, therefore, the decision of the
United States District Court below should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted.
A. F. SUMMER
Attorney General for the
State of Mississippi
JEans LEONARD
S~)eeia! Counsel
FIANK W. J)UNHAM, Jim.
Special Counsel
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Site 550
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 872-1095
C,'
PAGENO="0785"
1659
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Barefield.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Washington?
Mr. WASHINGTON. My question is for counsel, Mr. Barefield.
On page 3, sir, the second paragraph, what is the population of
Mississippi?
Mr. BAREFIELD. If you will pardon me, Mr. Washington, I have
some hearing problem. The acoustics in here are not the best they
should be.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Counsel, what is the populatipn of Mississippi?
Mr. BAREFIELD. In the 1980 census, roughly 2.5 million people.
Mr. WASHINGTON. On page 3, the second paragraph, you say:
Mr. Chairman, is this committee and this Congress so interested in continuing a
burden of punishment, so vindictive in its desire to destroy the spirit of 2.5 million
people?
Mr. BAREFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON. How many black people live in the State of
Mississippi?
Mr. BAREFIELD. 34 percent; 800,000.
Mr. WASHINGTON. So this 2.5 million includes the black people?
Mr. BAREFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Are you implying the Voting Rights Act of
1965 is destroying the spirit of the black people?
Mr. BAREFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON. On what basis, sir?
Mr. BAREFIELD. When the city of Jackson attempted to annex
southwest Jackson, and they did, and the Justice Department in an
arbitrary manner comes back and says, look, we don't care if you
annex southwest Jackson, but you are not going to let those people
vote down there, there were blacks living in that area, Mr. Con-
gressman. Blacks.
Now when a black man-let me give you an illustration.
Cities furnish garbage collection to the residents of the munici-
pality and not to the residents outside. If you were a black man
living in southeast Jackson, right outside the line, would you be
upset because your garbage couldn't get collected because you hap-
pened to have two white neighbors instead of two black ones?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Counsel, I haven't seen a black person from
Mississippi who would agree with that statement. As a matter of
fact, I haven't seen a black person in Mississippi who doesn't agree
that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should not be extended.
I am submitting, sir, that perhaps you shouldn't put yourself in
the position of speaking for black people in Mississippi and so your
21/2 million figure is probably off.
Mr. BAREFIELD. Congressman, may I respond?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Certainly.
Mr. BAREFIELD. Certainly I have learned after 22 years in the
Mississippi legislature that I cannot speak for the black people.
I can speak for the people of Mississippi and hopefully one of
these days we are going to become a homogenous group with
common interests.
I do not know how we will ever get there if we do not work
together.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I can suggest a way. You appeal to people to
put the reconstruction behind us.
83-679 0 - 82 - 50 Pt.2
PAGENO="0786"
1660
Mr. BAREFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Everybody agrees with you. I am the only one
who doesn't. Black or white.
The question is the effects of reconstruction, how can we get that
behind us?
Many people, including myself, feel that one way to do so is to
maintain section 5 in the Voting Rights Act because there are
simply too many instances, for example, in the State of Mississippi
which make it clear that Mississippi or those who control the
electoral process of the State simply have not made up their minds
to be fair to the black people and the effects are still here.
For example, there have been approximately 1100 complaints
lodged with the Justice Department relative to election changes in
the State of Mississippi, and in that 15-year period 56 submissions
and 78 changes have been found by the Justice Department to be
validly complained against.
Approximately half of those have been within the past 5 years.
These matters have not been litigated in a court obviously, but
there have been administrative hearings, there have been determi-
nations made, and the conclusions were that certain aspects of
certain areas within Mississippi were unfair to the treatment of
black people.
That is a fact of life. How can you claim that the act is no longer
of any value to the people of the State?
Mr. BAREFIELD. Congressman, let me ask you, how can you take
those statistical figures which are not substantiated and have
never been substantiated by anybody and rely on them?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Well, they are from the Justice Department. I
will take their word for it.
Mr. BAREFIELD. They are figures of complaints filed. Did they
ever go to court to determine the validity of those?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Counsel, you know as well as I do every ques-
tion of law doesn't wind up in a court of law. Nor would you, as a
lawyer, advocate any such thing.
If that happened, you couldn't get into the courts, they would be
so cluttered up.
We need administrative processes. We need areas like this, to do
it through negotiation, through administration, rather than
through the adversarial tactics of a courtroom.
I advocate that. I know many other lawyers who do.
The issue whether it is in court or not in court is not viable. We
don't want to clutter up the courts with these cases ad infinitum.
Mr. BAREFIELD. Congressman, may I clarify here? You indicated
a minute ago about section 5 giving that protection. I understand
that. My argument to the committee today is if you are going to
keep section 5 and you don't want me to come up from under
section 5 forever or for when, say so.
Don't keep toying with us and say we are going to let you out in
5 more years. We will let you out in ten years. Seventeen years.
Now 27.
Mr~ WASHINGTON. Who says that?
Mr. BAREFIELD. The law says it.
Mr. WASHINGTON. It doesn't say that at all. It has been extended.
Mr. EDWARDS. He is talking about a bail-out..
PAGENO="0787"
1661
Mr. BAREFIELD. I interpret the law as being a continuous amend-
ment increasing the sentence of the southern States before they
can even have the right to petition to come out.
That is the way I read the law. I am sorry.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Let me quote from Frank Parker. "The tempo-
rary provisions of the Voting Rights Act should be extended not to
punish the South for past wrongs, but to protect minority voters
from present discrimination."
The discrimination is rampant, it is documented, it is there, it
has been testified to by any number of people before. There will be
others testifying to it today. You simply want to ignore it.
I yield the rest of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. HYDE. I do not have any questions.
Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Chairman, would it be rude if I asked to
answer a question Mr. Washington asked of Mr. Barefield?
Mr. EDWARDS. You are recognized.
Mr. BARBOUR. The point--
Mr. WASHINGTON. Before he does, may I do this?
In your opening remarks in your submission, Mr. Barbour, you
say "This act grossly violates the principles of federalism, relegat-
ing certain States to a status"-blah, blah, blah.
That matter has been resolved, sir. It has been resolved many,
many times. It was resolved back in 1965 when the act was passed.
It was resolved in 1970 when it was amended. That is old hat.
The 15th amendment makes it very clear that Congress has the
power, the responsibility, the duty to do exactly what they did.
The question now is in this hearing whether or not the State of
Mississippi and its political subdivisions and other States under the
act have conducted themselves in such a way that the act does not
have to be extended, and the testimony is overwhelmingly no.
They haven't done so. That is the issue.
But we are not here to reprove the Congress' basic power to
establish the act. They had that power.
Mr. BARBOUR. Of course, sir. I do not contend it is unconstitution-
al to discriminate against these States this way.
The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly said, even though this does
fly in the face of federalism and fly in the face of basic American
jurisprudence, it is still constitutional to do so as a remedy for a
wrong.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I don't understand them saying it flew in the
face of basic remedies. The 15th amendment of the Constitution of
the United States is the law of the land.
Congress has the power within that 15th amendment to imple-
ment the 15th amendment.
That is what it did with this act. It is not violative of the
Constitution. It doesn't rend it asunder.
Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Certainly.
Mr. HYDE. I can't ask any questions. I must leave. I regret I must
catch a plane.
The focus of the testimony is that administrative preclearance is
unfair; no way ever to bail out no matter how good you are, what
your intentions are, what your record is, and third, whatever you
PAGENO="0788"
1662
do has to be done in the District of Columbia court, and don't trust
your local courts even though they are Federal. It seems to me that
it is worth discussing as to whether or not there should be a
provision in the law to permit a jUrisdiction, whether it is a State
or a county or a municipality, to have its conduct recognized for a
sufficient period of time to have been exemplary in conformity
with the spirit as well as the letter of the law and to provide
incentives to counties to clean up their act~
I think that is something we can address that doesn't weaken the
act. I think it strengthens it to provide some incentive for decent
people to act decently to have their decency recognized and then
have an opportunity to join the ranks of the other States in terms
of being treated alike in legal procedure.
I also think we ought to take a look at the courts of the South,
the Federal courts, to see whether they are so deficient that only
the District of Columbia court is adequate to handle this.
The subject of preclearance, I am not yet convinced that it isn't
still needed, but I am simply expressing my statement. I do agree, I
think we need some better bailout and we ought to recognize there
is a U.S. District CoUrt down here in the South that is honest as
well as in the District of Columbia.
That is just a statement that I say; then take the disadvantage of
you by leaving.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Hyde.
Mr. BAREFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
Mr. WASHINGTON. You may just as soon as I remark.
I am not at quarrel with you, Mr. Hyde. The question here is
how has Mississippi comported itself.
Mr. HYDE. Sure.
Mr. WASHINGTON. That is the issue.
Unless we get beyond that issue, the relevant matters that you
bring up I don't think are quite relevant.
Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman would yield, I don't think you are
entitled to narrow the issue to that. I think that is an issue.
I think it is a basic issue, but I also think we can always look at
these laws as long as they are up for renewal and see if they can be
improved and made more fair.
I would like to define that as an issue too, even over your
objections.
Mr. WASHINGTON. That would be on your time and your ques-
tion.
Mr. HYDE. That is right.
Mr. WASHINGTON. My question goes to the comportment of the
State of Mississippi.
Mr. BARBOUR. That is the point I wanted to answer.
Mississippi to day is under the Voting Rights Act under a form
of the grandfather clause. The 1964 trigger, if it was applied in
1980, Mississippi would not be under the Voting Rights Act.
In 1980 Mississippi met the standards of the act that we would
not have been covered. So we are being covered because of where
we were in 1964.
All we are saying is OK, we are under the grandfather clause. I
am being punished for the sins of prior generations. So be it.
PAGENO="0789"
1663
Give us a way to try to prove our innocence. The public is being
misled into thinking if you don't renew this act, come August 1982,
Mississippi is going to be out from under section 5.
The fact of the matter is, if what you are saying is true-and it
is certainly not my place to argue with you-if we have not com-
ported ourselves properly, in 1982, when we go to the district court
in the District of Columbia, we don't get out from under the act
and we can't until 17 years of perfect behavior, and the burden of
proof is on the State of Mississippi to prove the 17 years of good
behavior, if you don't do anything.
Congressman, I submit to you one reason that the black people of
Mississippi and the white people of Mississippi don't understand
what is happening here is that they think this act is just going to
expire, that it is over, that we are out from under it come 1982.
We are not. The words. of the act are plain. We can't get out
until we can go to the district court, petition and prove 17 years of
a clean slate.
Now, you want to make it 27 years of a clean slate. Politicians I
know are often unfairly called on to prove their innocence. We in
Mississippi are saying let us try to prove our innocence. We would
rather take our chances proving our innocense than taking the
treatment we are getting from justice now.
Mr. WASHINGTON. I can suggest one direction you might take to
demonstrate, if not prove your innocence. On page 2, you say here,
in paragraph 2:
Hence, when my. home county of Yazoo, sought guidance from justice after its
1975 redistricting plan was turned down.
Gerald Jones, chief of the voting rights section, told our county attorney he could
provide no direction on whether the black population should be packed in larger
majorities into fewer districts, etc.
Why didn't you ask the black people how they felt about it? You
didn't think about that. Why didn't you have it in your submis-
sion? It would have made sense to me. You didn't think enough of
the black people in Yazoo County to ask them what they wanted.
You went some place else to ask them what you should give them.
Mr. BARBOUR. It was demonstrated to the Justice Department
and was pointed out in fact that the black people of Yazoo County
had been involved. When Justice didn't approve it, the board of
supervisors said look, if you tell us what you want and what is
wrong with this, we will do it however you want.
Mr. WASHINGTON. The Justice Department had no responsibility
to tell you what they wanted. They had the responsibility to tell
you you were doing it wrong. Why didn't you go back to the black
people you were affecting?
Mr. BARBOUR. Congressman, the fact of the matter is that didn't
seem to have much weight with the Justice Department who was
involved in drawing up the plan.
Mr. WASHINGTON. You wouldn't have much weight with me in
the Justice Department.
Mr. BARBOUR. What is wrong with it? What is wrong about it you
want us to change? We will change it if that is what it takes.
Mr. Jones said look, that is not my problem. You give me some-
thing, I will ask the people down there if that is what they think is
the best deal they can make.
PAGENO="0790"
1664
Mr. WASHINGTON. Is that a promise?
Mr. BARBOUR. Sir?
Mr. WASHINGTON. Is that a promise?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Barefield, both you and Mr~ Barbour feel
Mississippi should be bailed out?
Mr. BARBOUR. No, sir. I believe we should have an opportunity to
bail out.
Mr. EDWARDS. Then would you assist the committee in telling us
what part of Mississippi should have the opportunity to be bailed
out?
Mr. BARBOUR. There are numerous counties and municipalities
in the State of Mississippi that have never had anyone, to my
knowledge, file any complaint against them. They are bound be-
cause the State is bound.
Every municipality, 290 cities, 82 counties, are bound under the
State. The State is bound--
Mr. EDWARDS. I understand the law, sir.
Mr. BARBOUR. I am sorry. I submit some of those municipalities
and counties, if they could have the opportunity to prove their
innocence, would.
Black and white alike would agree to it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Do you think Yazoo should have the opportunity
to be bailed out?
Mr. BARBOUR. I think Yazoo County should have an opportunity
to prove its innocence.
Mr. EDWARDS. What indications would you produce to prove that
this should be done?
Mr. BARBOUR. Well, sir, I think we would introduce the voter
registration rolls of our county. We have very, very high voter
registration votes for the county and for the municipality.
Half of the elected officials in the municipality, or half of the
aldermen, are black. We have black elected officials in the county.
I will be candid with you, Mr. Congressman. We can't meet a 27-
year standard right now.
If Yazoo County had to prove 17 years of innocence, we are going
tO have to wait some number of years down the road. The point is,
we are not going to have a chance some number of years down the
road.
Mr. EDWARDS. Have you gone to the legislature? Your registra-
tion office is open in one place from 8:30 to 5:30 on weekdays in
accordance with the State law?
Mr. BARBOUR. I believe 5 o'clock, to be candid.
Mr. EDWARDS. That is difficult for black people in many cases;
isn't that correct?
Have you made efforts to have roving or deputy registrars to
make it easier for black people in Yazoo to register?
Mr. BARBOUR. In Yazoo County in recent years the answer to
that is no. In Yazoo County voter registration is essentially at the
saturation point.
Mr. EDWARDS. Have you gone out of the way to have the polls
* open at very convenient hours for black people living 40, 30 miles
out of town?
Mr. BARBOUR. We open the polls when the State law says open
them.
PAGENO="0791"
1665
Mr. EDWARDS. Have you gone to the legislature and asked that
the law be changed for the convenience of your people?
Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Congressman, the answer to that is no.
The reason for that is in our last municipal election, for instance,
we had a 90 percent turnout of registered voters. Ninety percent.
In every election we have a higher percentage of the registered
voters to vote than ever before.
Mr. EDWARDS. Have you consulted with the local black popula-
tion when redistricting is involved to be certain that you are com-
plying with the Voting Rights Act that requires that you enhance
minority power?
Mr. BARBOUR. My understanding is not that we are required to
enhance minority power.
That is not my understanding. In answer to your question of
have we both in the city and county redistricting, both of which
were done in the 1970's, absolutely.
Blacks were involved in it; agreements were reached with civil
rights groups. The NAACP, black potential candidates. They were
involved not only in the drawing of the lines, but in the agree-
ments about reregistration.
With the agreement of the black political leadership of the coun-
try, when the city redistricted, we had a reregistration. When the
county redistricted, we agreed the blacks wanted to wait and have
a reregistration after the 1980 census thinking we may have to
have another county redistricting.
The answer to your question is absolutely yes.
Ms. DAvIS. Mr. Barbour, you have indicated in your statement at
page 2 that compliance with section 5 is onerous and expensive.
Can you indicate to the committee when you have served as a
public official charged with submitting changes to the Department
of Justice?
Mr. BARBOUR. I have not served as a public official charged with
that duty.
I have been called upon to work with public officials that have
done that.
Ms. DAVIS. Upon what do you base your charge that the act is
onerous and expensive?
Mr. BARBOUR. Well, the Mississippi. Legislature just appropriated
$400,000 to try to get a declaratory judgment in the District Court
for the District of Columbia.
By my standards, that is expensive.
Ms. DAVIS. Mr. Barbour, excuse me, we have had testimony from
public officials-including the attorney general of South Carolina-
who have indicated that in fact compliance with section 5 is not
burdensome and not expensive. They have indicated that the prin-
ciple of having to comply with section 5 is what troubles public
officials in the covered jurisdictions more than anything else.
I would suggest to you that the argument you have raised is an
argument that is probably unique to yourself and probably not to
many other public officials.
Mr. BARBOUR. If I may, ma'am-if that was a question-let me
state while I may have a difference of opinion with the attorney
general of the State of South Carolina, I believe you are mistaken
PAGENO="0792"
1666
if you believe elected officials throughout the State find the act to
be neither onerous or expensive.
Ms. DAVIS. On page 4 of your testimony you indicated that there
have never been racial impediments to voter registration for blacks
anywhere in Mississippi, anywhere in your lifetime.
Mr. BARBOUR. My adult life.
Ms. DAVIS. Your adult life.
You have also indicated in your testimony that you had an
opportunity to review the testimony that was submitted to the
subcommittee on May 18 by a number of individuals from Missis-
sippi, and I ask you in light of the testimony that you had an
opportunity to review, are you still supporting this statement?
I assume your adult life has been--
Mr. BARBOUR. Sixty-eight.
Ms. DAvIS. Sixty-eight?
Mr. BARBOUR. Ma'am, to be accurate, 1968.
Ms. DAVIS. OK. The testimony that those witnesses presented
indicated voting discrimination post-1968 and especially post-1975-
that would take into account your adult life. Are you still support-
ing that?
Mr. BARBOUR. Ma'am, the only thing I remembered in any of
that testimony as far as registration to vote was Mr. Henry saying
that it is discrimination that the voter registrar's office only opens
from 8:30 to 5 and doesn't move around.
I happen to favor moving out and going into the precincts. It
hurts Republicans a lot worse than blacks because in the suburban
neighborhoods, overflow from the city of Jackson into Madison and
Rankin Counties-which are heavily Republican-apartment
houses are another angle.
The fact is, I don't consider that discrimination or unconstitu-
tional. I wish it were different myself. That is the only thing I
remember in the testimony about voter registration discrimination,
ma'am, to be honest.
Ms. DAVIS. Mr. Barefield, you indicated that you testified before
this subcommittee in previous years, in 1975, during that exten-
sion?
Mr. BAREFIELD. I did, yes.
Ms. DAVIS. I had an opportunity to review your testimony at that
time. I wonder if you might be able to give us an update on an
action that you reported on at that time?
You indicated that the Mississippi Legislature-I don't recall the
exact date of your testimony before the committee, but the commit-
tee held hearings in March of 1975 on the extension legislation.
At that time you reported on house concurrent resolution No. 45,
which was adopted by the Mississippi House in February of 1975
and adopted by the senate in March of 1975.
That particular resolution would repeal the literacy requirement
that was part of the Mississippi constitution.
Mr. BAREFIELD. Yes.
Ms. DAVIS. You also reported that there was a house concurrent
resolution No. 46, which would repeal the poll tax provision in the
Mississippi constitution.
Mr. BAREFIELD. Yes.
PAGENO="0793"
1667
Ms. DAVIS. That those resolutions were now before the people of
Mississippi and you suggested in your testimony that you would
assure the committee that the people of Mississippi would vote to
repeal those provisions and that would certainly be an indication of
their good faith and interest in not discriminating against blacks
any more in voting.
Can you tell me what the status is of those resolutions?
Mr. BAREFIELD. You are asking me to go back 6 years to 1975. I
remember what you are talking about. I remember the constitu-
tional amendments being proposed.
I remember them being passed. I couldn't tell you right now-do
you know? As far as I know, they are not in the constitution any
more.
Mr. BARBOUR. They were all struck out.
Ms. DAvIs. They were struck out?
Mr. BARBOUR. There was a list on the ballot. They voted to put
them out of the constitution.
Ms. DAvIs. There is no longer a literacy test requirement and no
longer a poil tax requirement?
Mr. BAREFIELD. There is no requirement to my knowledge, statu-
torily or otherwise, in the constitution of the State of Mississippi
that requires any test or device as defined within the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
May I say right here if I could, Mr. Washington, with regard to
the things that you keep talking about that are occurring in the
South-and I don't deny that they are occurring-but I am befud-
dled somewhat, Congressman, because what you are talking about
is not the test or the device that Congress wrote into the law.
If that is what you want us to do, and these are the things that
you say stop, that is what I suggested in my testimony.
Amend that section and say a test or device shall include and be
defined as being any annexation in which there are more whites in
the area than there are blacks. Put it in the law. Then I can stop
annexing territories to cities and try to comply with the law.
We are dealing with a gray area. You are dealing with people on
the local levels, in small communities, untrained in the law, who
are trying to operate a town of 500 people or a county that is very
rural, and they just do things, just like they do, I am sure, in the
rural areas of your State. They just do things. They try to do what
the people want.
Ms. DAVIS. Mr. Barefield, I have one more question. I have a
limited amount of time. If you would respond to the following
question:
How has the Voting Rights Act hurt Mississippi?
Mr. BAREFIELD. I don't think it has. It has been a great help. I
really mean that.
Mississippi is today where it would never have been without this
act. That is not the point I argued today. That is not the plea I
make.
I ask only to be told with some definite time when can Mississip-
pi join the rest of the Union with regard to legislative enactments?
That is all I want to know.
PAGENO="0794"
1668
Ms. DAVIS. I assume the presumption would be when the act is
not extended again that the record is clear it is no longer necessary
to apply section 5.
I assume if the act is not extended again that that is an indica-
tion that Mississippi has reached that point?
Mr. BAREFIELD. Do you think Mississippi qualifies tQ come out in
1982? I don't. I don't. I really don't.
Ms. DAVIS. I am not here to answer those questions. You are, Mr.
Barefield.
Mr. BARBOUR. You referred to me and Mr. Barefield when you
said had it hurt us. The one thing it really does that is bad, it
makes every issue a racial issue.
That is what is bad and wrong and unfair. There ought not to be
anything in the world where all the white people think one thing
and all black people think one thing. That is not right. That is not
human nature.
But the Voting Rights Act submerges everything else to race.
That is what I think is wrong. I really think it does young people
particularly a disservice. It is unfair to weight us down with what
people were doing 20 years ago.
Young black people and white alike, ma'am.
Ms. DAVIS. I would suggest there may be some people who feel
that way and other people who do not feel that way. You obviously
feel the Voting Rights Act does that. I think there are many
Mississippians, blacks and whites, who may not share your view.
That is all for me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Washington?
Mr. BAREFIELD. Mr. Chairman, before I close, I have a few docu-
ments I would like to submit for the committee. I would like to ask,
specifically, Mr. Chairman, that a copy of the amicus brief which I
attached to my statement filed by the State of Mississippi in the
case of the city of Rome against the United States be made a part
of your record.
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. It will be made a part of the record. Thank
you.
Mr. BAREFIELD. I have also, Mr. Chairman, a deposition taken of
Mr. Drew S. Days III of the Justice Department by the State of
Mississippi which was taken in the case of the State of Mississippi
in the three-judge court when we were seeking to secure the ap-
proval of our reapportionment plan which was approved, Mr.
Chairman, by the three-judge court in Washington, D.C., after the
Justice Department had objected to it.
I would like to make that copy of his deposition a part of the
record for the study of the committee.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of copies-and this
did not come to my attention until Tuesday of this week, after I
sent my statement in-I have here an editorial from the Gulfport-
Biloxi Sun newspaper, located on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
I can only say that I would describe this paper as a very modern,
progressive, and liberal newspaper. I would like to leave that edito-
rial for the record.
Mr. EDWARDS. That editorial will be part of the record. The
affidavits will be made a part of the file without objection.
PAGENO="0795"
1669
Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of documents
concerning the Justice Department's assumption of jurisdiction
over the question of the Mississippi Republican Party's rules for its
delegate selection in 1980 which I ask be made part of the record.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, so ordered.
We thank both of you gentlemen for very candid discussion and
testimony with us.
Mr. Boyd, did you have questions?
Mr. BOYD. The only remark I would make, Mr. Chairman, is for
the record.
That has to do with last Friday's meeting of the subcommittee in
Austin, Tex., at which time the subcommittee heard testimony
from Attorney General Mark White, who emphasized the cost and
burden which he believed the Justice Department puts upon his
State as a result of section 5.
In light of counsel's comment to the contrary, I thought it was
necessary to balance the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much.
Our next witnesses will be Betty Paulette from Macon, Miss.;
James Figgs, member of the Quitman County School Board, Marks,
Miss., and they are accompanied by Robert Walker, field director,
NAACP, Jackson, Miss.
TESTIMONY OF BETTY PAULETTE, MACON, MISS., JAMES
FIGGS, MEMBER, QUITMAN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, MARKS,
MISS., ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT WALKER, FIELD DIREC-
TOR, NAACP, JACKSON, MISS., AND JASPER NEELY, PRESI-
DENT, GRENADA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI CHAPTER, NAACP
Ms. PAULETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Paulette will speak first.
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Paulette is from Macon, Miss. You may pro-
ceed.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Washington, staff of this Judici-
ary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you.
I am Robert Walker, a native and resident of Vicksburg, Miss.,
and a U.S. citizen.
Except for several short working assignments outside of Missis-
sippi, I have lived in the State my entire life.
At present I am the Mississippi field director of the NAACP. I
am a historian by training and am well aware of the relationship
of the franchise to meaningful citizenship and the need for Federal
legislation and protection of this basic right.
Also, I know of the abuse my people and Americans have suf-
fered in the absence of guarantees and protection of our franchised
rights throughout this land.
Additionally, I know the obstacles that have prevailed with refer-
ence to the efforts of black Mississippians to register and vote. I
wish to introduce into the record a short overview on white resist-
ance to black voter registration in Mississippi through 1974.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, it will be received. (See p. 2641.)
PAGENO="0796"
1670
Mr. WALKER. In addition, Mr. chairman, we have some state-
ments in support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act, as is,
that we would also like to have introduced into the record.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. WALKER. They are from the League of Women Voters of
Mississippi, the Mississippi AFL-CIO and the Mississippi American
Civil Liberties Union. (See pp. 2699, 2740, 2793.)
Our presentation today will, as stated, be in two parts.
First, we will deal with the question of access. Mrs. Betty Pau-
lette and Mr. James Figgs will deal with that.
We have with us Mr. Jasper Neely.
Once finished with the statements and questions, the second
panel will deal with the question of dilution and some access
overlap. That panel consists of Attorney Charles Victor McTeer of
Greenville, Miss.; State Senator Henry Kirksey of Jackson, Miss.,
and Attorney Martha Bergmark, a member of the Advisory Com-
mittee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
At this time Ms. Paulette will make a statement. She will be
followed by Mr. James Figgs, a member of the county board of
education in Quitman County.
We will have a short wrap-up then.
Ms. PAULErrE. I am Betty Paulette, Macon, Miss., Noxubee
County.
I am a member of the Democratic Party executive committee of
the county.
I have had the chance to work on the polls in the municipality
and also in the county.
I stand in favor of the Voting Rights Act that was passed in 1965.
The citizens of Noxubee County were the last people to go to the
polls to cast their vote.
I don't know what they are doing in other counties, but I was
born and reared in Noxubee County and I know them.
In all neighboring counties in Mississippi, blacks had begun reg-
istering to vote for quite a while. The first year, one black elected
to the board of supervisors was the only black elected official for
several years.
The attitudes of some poll workers were terrible, and still is to a
large degree. Without the Voting Rights Act, Mississippi will move
back to no blacks working on the polls. They have about 75 percent
of whites now.
Where there are six people at a table in most cases, only two
blacks are there with four whites, and sometimes none.
Their job is to initial ballots, and tally at the close of the voting
day. Sometimes a recount is requested.
In recounting the ballots,' the attitude was terrible of some of the
white people. We found that some ballots would be left in boxes.
Totals of tally would be switched. The incumbent's total which was
small, was placed in the challenger's total and the large total
which was the challenger's was placed in the incumbent's total.
Poll watchers were harassed and illiterate voters would be so
nervous confronting the attitudes of some of the poll workers.
The registering of sick and handicapped people was a terrible
ordeal. The local police and deputy sheriff with a lawyer would go
to the homes of some of the old black people and threaten them
PAGENO="0797"
1671
and ask them not to vote absentee. They would have them brought
into the sheriff's office and question them. The people would be so
frightened.
In the State of Mississippi where they will not pass a compulsory
school attendance law, and now take away the Voting Rights Act,
blacks and minority citizens would suffer a great setback. This
Voting Rights Act should be an act to last permanently or until a
compulsory school attendance law is passed and has been in effect
for the next 2 years.
That way the younger generation would be able to mark their
ballots correctly. So many ballots wouldn't have to go down the
drain at the end of a voting day. Education is the basic opportunity
for people to be able to read and write and elect officers of their
own choice.
In Noxubee County approximately 75 percent of the total black
population is functionally illiterate. Since integration no real effort
to improve the educational system has existed because of the elec-
tion process.
The county school system administration is made up of five
elected board members and an elected county superintendent of
education.
The educational system has been dominated by an all-white
school board and a white superintendent who showed no interest in
the all-black public school system because their children attended
the academy or elsewhere.
As a result, young blacks still have doubts and fears of register-
ing and voting because of a lack of confidence and fears of being
intimidated at the voting precincts.
We have just begun to live down the fears of voting and to stand
up to threats, and we have a lot of them on election day. We
cannot stand up to threats if we do not have this Voting Rights
Act. We need this act as we need shelter if we are to help develop
ourselves as a race of people.
Great numbers of people in the county do not know how to read
and write. They need help. Without this Voting Rights Act they
would not get it.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Paulette follows:]
STATEMENT BY BETTY PAULETTE, MACON, Miss., NOXUBEE COUNTY
I stand in favor of the Voting Rights Act that was passed in 1965. The Citizens of
Nuxubee County were the last people to go to the polis to cast their vote. In all
neighboring counties in Mississippi, Blacks had begun registering to vote for quite a
while. The first year one Black elected to the Board of Supervisors was the only
Black elected official for several years.
The attitude of some poll workers were terrible, and still is to a large degree.
Without the Voting Rights Act Noxubee County will move back to no Blacks
working on the polls. They have about 75 percentl of Whites now. Where there are 6
people at a table in most cases, only 2 Blacks are there with 4 Whites. Their job is
to initial ballots, and tally at the close of the voting day. Sometimes a recount is
requested. In recounting the ballots, the attitude was terrible of some of the White
people. We found that some ballots would be left in Boxes. Totals of tally would be
switched. The incumbents total which was small was placed in the challengers total
and the large total which was the Challengers was placed in the incumbents total.
Poll watchers were harrassed and illiterate voters would be so nervous confront-
ing the attitudes of some poll workers.
The registering of sick and handicapped people was a terrible ordeal. The Local
Police and Deputy Sheriff with a lawyer would go to the homes of some of the old
Black people and threaten them and ask them not to vote absentee. They would
PAGENO="0798"
1672
have them brought into the Sheriffs office and question them. The people would be
so frightened.
In the state of Mississippi where they will not pass a Compulsory School Attend-
ance Law, and now take away the Voting Rights Act, Blacks and minority citizens
would suffer a great set back. This Voting Rights Act should be an act to last
permanently or until a Compulsory School Attendance Law is passed and has been
in effect 20 years.
In Noxubee County approximately 75 percent of the total Black population is
functional illiterate. Since integration, no real effort to improve the educational
system has existed because of the election process. The county school system admin-
istration is made up of five elected Board members and an elected County Superin-
tendent of Education.
The educational system has been dominated by an all White school board and a
White Superintendent, who showed no interest in the all Black Public School
System, because their children attended the Academy or elsewhere. As a result
young Blacks still have doubts and fears of registering and voting because of a lack
of confidence and fears of being intimidated at the voting precincts.
We have just began to live down the fears of voting an to stand up to threats. We
cannot stand up to threats if we do not have this Voting Rights Act. We need this
Act as we need shelter if we are to help ourselves as a race of people.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Paulette.
Mr. Figgs. Welcome.
You may proceed.
Mr. FIGGS. Mr. Chairman, members of this honorable committee.
My name is James Figgs.
As you can see, I am black. I make this fact known on this
record because very few black Americans in this country, and
indeed, in the area where the Voting Rights Act is applicable, the
Deep South, are opposed to its continuance.
I am most happy to appear before you today because you have
shown your concern for America by holding this hearing.
I believe that this great country of ours must do what it must to
unite all elements and this togetherness cannot be achieved unless
we are all given an equal opportunity to participate in the political
process.
Unfortunately, blacks in the South and in Mississippi have not
been able to participate on par with whites.
The Voting Rights Act is our only guarantee that we will at least
be given an equal chance to make the American system work for
all people, whether they be black, white, or of Mexican descent.
Honorable committee members, I have read many reports, state-
ments, and proposed legislation concerning the Voting Rights Act
and most of the proposals tend to suggest that all is well in the
South and there is no real need to continue the Voting Rights Act.
These statements are based upon false assumptions and cry out
loud for correction.
The South, and indeed, Mississippi, has not changed to the
extent that black people's voting rights will be observed without a
strong Voting Rights Act. The more things seem to change, the
more things seem to remain the same.
I have read my history and 1 know that the Hayes-Tilden com-
promise of 1877 is about to reoccur.
If the Voting Rights Act is discontinued or weakened, widespread
corruption, intimidation, and political slavery will reoccur and
black people will be set back in this country 50 years.
White control of the political process in areas where blacks have
substantial numbers will be boosted by a combination of fear, farce,
violence, and fraud.
PAGENO="0799"
1673
The Ku Klux Klan has already started to flex their muscles by
committing acts of terror in the South and no one has attempted to
stop them.
Just as in 1877, intimidation on the one hand and lack of protec-
tion on the other will effectively reduce black participation in the
political process.
At least with the Voting Rights Act, we can. vote out mayors,
sheriffs, and other law enforcement officers and officials who
refuse to curtail racial violence. If we don't vote, or can't vote, we
will return to the days of political slavery and everybody in this
country will suffer.
The myth that Mississippi has changed can he dispelled by the
following events and circumstances.
I have noted this on a couple of exhibits. I might add in Quitman
County, Marks, Miss., where I live in the Delta, there is approxi-
mately 59 percent of the population that is black.
Out of five supervisor district beats, a black majority. The fifth
supervisor district beat, with a 35-percent black population, almost
but never occur any irregularities as they pertain to participation
of blacks in that heat.
For the last 8 years we have tried to elect innumerable number
of black citizens in Quitman County.
For the last two elections, two State supreme court decisions in
the State of Mississippi have overturned the election based upon
gross irregularities and discrimination in Quitman County.
In other areas of Quitman County, in three other areas, blacks
have sought to participate to find only themselves to be subjected
to intimidation; persons who live on plantations, persons who work
in factories, persons who work as housemaids, are psychologically
intimidated by their superiors.
As you can note in exhibits, I have requested, as president of the
local chapter, several investigations by the Justice Department. As
a result of one of those investigations, for the first time our black
supervisor was allowed to take his seat only to find out 7 months
later that the other four supervisors and the chancery clerk had
connived and conspired against him to have, him eliminated out of
office, thereby putting him in a position of embarrassment where
he had to run all over again.
Only upon a recount was it found that persons who lived in
Memphis, Tenn., white people, came down to Mississippi and this
community and voted for the white candidate of that particular
beat.
Only after the election commissioner refused to have a sensitive
ear to the complaints of the black candidate, only after filing
through the proper courts, was the black candidate able to go to
the Supreme Court and get a'favorable decision.
There have `been many, many other instances that I could cite
here and repeat over and over again.
I say, in my conclusion, that when blacks lose in this country
their fundamental rights, everybody loses. Until we have caught up
with the white folk in voting rights matters, the act should be
maintained.
The Voting Rights Act is a small price to pay for all of the years
of black suffering in this country, for those voices who still cry in
PAGENO="0800"
1674
the graves of Mississippi that died that those of us in Mississippi
might have a piece of the political process.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Figgs follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES FIGGS, PRESIDENT OF QUITMAN COUNTY NAACP
Mr. Chairman and members of this Honorable Committee: My name is James
Figgs, and as you can see, I am Black. I make this fact known on this record
because very few Black Americans in this country, and indeed in the area where
the Voters Rights Act is applicable, the deep South are opposed to its continuance.
I am most happy to appear before you today because you have shown your
concern for America by holding this hearing. I believe that this great country of
ours must do what it must to unite all elements, and this togetherness cannot be
achieved unless we all are given an equal opportunity to participate in the political
process. Unfortunately, Blacks in the South and in Mississippi have not been able to
participate on par with Whites. The Voters Rights Act is our only guarantee that
we will at least be given an equal chance to make the American system work for all
people, whether they be Black, White, or of Mexican descendant.
Honorable Committee members, I have read many reports, statements and pro-
posed legislation concerning the Voting Rights Act and most of the proposals tends
to suggest that all is well in the South and there is no need to continue the Voting
Rights Act. These statements are based upon false assumptions and cryout for
correction. The South and indeed Mississippi has not changed to the extent that
Black People Voting Rights will be observed with a strong Voting Rights Act. The
more things seems to change, the more things seems to remain the same.
I have read my history and I know that the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877 is
abOut to reoccur. If the Voting Rights Act is discontinued or weaken, widespread
corruption, intimidation and political slavery will reoccur and black people will be
set back in this country 50 years. White control of the political process in areas
* where blacks have substantial numbers will be hasten in by a combination of fear,
force, violence and fraud. The KKK has already started to flex their muscles by
committing acts of terror in the South and no one has attempted to stop them. Just
as in 1877, intimidation on the one hand and lack of protection on the other will
effectively reduce black participation in the political process. At least with the
Voters Rights Act, we can vote out mayors, sheriffs and other law enforcement
officers*and officials who refuse to curtail racial violence. If we don't vote or can't
vote, we will return to the days of political slavery and everybody in this country
will suffer.
The myth that Mississippi has changed can be disspelled by the following events
and circumstances.
In conclusion, I can only say that when Blacks lose in this country, their funda-
mental rights, everybody loses. Until we have caught up with the white folk in
voting rights matters the act should be maintained. The Voting Rights Act is a
small price to pay for all of the years of black suffering in this country. Thank you.
EXHIBITS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE.
Mr. DREW S. DAYS III,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR DREW: The Quitman County N.A.A.C.P. is requesting your personal atten-
tion be given to this request for immediate investigation to several alleged irregu-
larities which occured upon it's Black Citizens of Quitman County during the
November 6, election. This was as a result of the many blacks that were seeking a
position in the County government. There seems to have been a denial of the proper
WILL of the voters complaints as follows: 1) Threats and intimidation of some black
voters 2) The denial of some illiterates to receive assistance of their own choosing 3)
Poliwatchers denied their rights and harassed. 4) Some farmers denied their laborer
the right-to-go-vote. 5) Some factories and plants didn't allow time-off for voting.
The Quitman County N.A.A.C.P. strenuously object to anyone's civil rights being
violated. We deserve justice down here in Quitman County. If you could hear my
PAGENO="0801"
1675
people crying Out for fair treatment. You wouldn't put off for tomorrow-what you
can do today. Please Help Immediately!
Peace to all!
JAMES FIGG5,
President of Quitman County NAACP.
LOCAL NAACP REQUESTS INVESTIGATION
The Quitman County NAACP is responding to a request made by its membership
to seek help from the Department of Justice during the NAACP regular monthly
meeting, November 7, Wednesday night, when Mr. Alfred "Skip" Robinson, presi-
dent of the United League of Mississippi, was special guest.
James Figgs, president of NAACP, is requesting Mr. Drew Days III, assistant
attorney general of the civil rights division, United States Department of Justice, to
investigate immediately alleged irregularities during the November 6 election in
Quitman County.
Some of the complaints the NAACP received: (1) The denial of some illiterates for
assistance; (2) Threats and intimidation of some voters; (3) Pollwatchers denied their
rights; (4) Some farmers who did not allow their labor time off to vote and some
factories which didn't allow their labor time off for voting.
The Quitman County NAACP strenuously objects to anyone's civil rights being
violated.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Figgs.
Mr. Neely, do you have a statement?
Mr. NEELY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, due to the length of time that we have taken, I
am not going to read an entire statement.
I think there is a copy of it before you there. I would like to
make some excerpts from the contents of the statement, if possible.
Mr. EDWARDS. It will be made a part of the record, Mr. Neely.
Mr. NEELY. Thank you.
I am Jasper Neely. I live in Grenada County, Miss., where I have
resided all my life.
First of all, I would like to say that I am in full support of the
extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and if it weren't for the
act I would not have been elected in 1976 to the Grenada City
Council.
Prior to 1975, approximately 500 blacks were registered in Gren-
ada County and now approximately 6,000 are~ registered in Gren-
ada County.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act is a result of our ability to partici
pate in the political process.
I would just like for the panel to turn to page 2 of the document.
I hope that this panel today realizes the Voting Rights Act is not
the real issue.
The real issue is the antiblack movement in this country.
It is affecting black individuals as a whole. The same individuals
who opposed integration in the 1950's and 1960's and the 1965
Voting Rights Act-such as Senator John Stennis, Senator Strom
Thurmond, former Senator James Eastland, and Republican Sena-
tor Thad Cochran are the same individuals who opposed the exten-
sion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, affirmative action plans, Legal
Services, and other social service programs.
In 1946 a Mississippi Senator opposed legislation that would have
hampered or prevented many of the activities of the Ku Klux
Klan. The reason given by the Senator for opposing the legislation
was that the legislation would be unconstitutional.
83-679 0 - 82 - 51 Pt.2
PAGENO="0802"
1676
However, no Senator or Representative from Mississippi has ever
sponsored or supported any legislation against the Ku Klux Klan
that may have prevented violent acts against those involved in
voters' registration in Mississippi, such as Medgar Evers, Veron
Damner, Rev. George Lee, Amzely Moore, and the three youths
found dead near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1963.
Much of the violent acts against blacks for registering and voting
must be shared by Mississippi senators, congressmen, Governors,
representatives and Mississippi city officials for not speaking out
against violence.
Yes, I must admit Mississippi has changed since the passing of
the 1956 Voting Rights Act. However, many of Mississippi's
changes have come about as a result of Federal intervention such
as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, public accommodation laws, and
Federal court decisions.
Mississippi is not going to voluntarily comply with any Federal
law with which they disagree.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act needs to be extended.
I urge this committee to do what they can to see that this act is
extended.
[The statement of Mr. Neely follows:]
EXTENSION OF THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT
My name is Jasper Neely, I am a 43 year old black citizen of Grenada County,
Mississippi, where I have resided all of my life, except for traveling. I am President
of the Grenada County, Mississippi Chapter of the NAACP, and a former Grenada,
Mississippi, City Councilman (a position I held from 1976 until 1980).
Historically, Mississippi has denied black citizens the right to vote and devised
many means of preventing blacks from becoming qualified voters. It is my opinion
that Mississippi would resort to illegal tactics if it were not for the 1965 Voting
Rights Act. Prior to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, less than five hundred (500) blacks
were registered to vote in Grenada County, and no black had ever been elected to
serve as a city or county official. Today there are 6,000 black registered voters in
Grenada County, and two of the six City Councilmen are black. There is a strong
possibility that blacks may be elected to the Grenada County Board of Supervisors
in the next election. If it were not for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, this political
change would not have been possible in Grenada County, Mississippi.
In 1974, the Grenada County Chapter of the NAACP informed the Justice Depart-
ment that the City of Grenada, Mississippi, was not in compliance with the 1965
Voting Rights Act because of failure to submit city annexations and voting changes
to the Justice Department for appearance or rejection. All of the city's annexations
were composed of white subdivisions, even though the black citizens of Pine Hill
had requested annexation to the city and were continually denied.
Following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, all annexations
which had previously not been submitted to the Justice Department for approval
were declared void. Following numerous conferences between city representatives,
the Grenada County Chapter of the NAACP and the Justice Department, an agree-
ment was reached, which resulted in the City being redistricted. Since blacks were
of the majority in two of the city's four voting wards, two blacks were elected to the
City Council in 1976. Thus, Pine Hill was annexed to the City. All this was made
possible by the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Following the attempt of a black man to run for City Council for the City of
Grenada in 1966, the City of Grenada, Mississippi attempted to change their form of
City Elections from by Wards to At Large Elections. However, a U.S. District court
Judge of the Northern District of Mississippi instructed the City of Grenada, Missis-
sippi that they must return to their original pattern of electing by Wards. Prior to
the Grenada City election in 1976, we discovered that approximately one hundred
qualified black voters (including my wife) had been removed from Ward three. I
beat my white opponent by less than a hundred votes. Gentlemen, I hope today that
we are not over looking the real issues. The real issues are racism and the anti
black movement in the United States today by the so called conservative element
and the so called moral majority. Not balancing the Budget or the 1965 Voting
PAGENO="0803"
1677
Rights Act. The same individuals who opposed Integration in the Nineteen Fifties
and Nineteen Sixties, and the 1965 Voting Rights such as Senator John Stennis,
Senator Strom Thurmond, former Senator James Eastland, and Republican Senator
Thad Cochran, are the same individuals who are opposing the extension of the 1965
Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action Plans, Legal Services, and other social serv-
ice programs.
In 1946 a Mississippi Senator opposed legislation that would have hampered or
prevented many of the activities of the K K K, the reason given by the Senator for
opposing the legislation was that the Legislation would be unconstitutional. Howev-
er, no Senator or Representative from Mississippi has ever sponsored or supported
any legislation against the K K K, that may have prevented violent acts against
those involved in Voters Registration in Mississippi such as Meger Evers, Veron
Danmer, Rev. George Lee, Amzely Moore; and the three youths found dead near
Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1963. Much of the violence acts against black for regis-
tering and voting must be shared by Mississippi Senators, Congressmen, Governors,
Representatives and Mississippi City Officials for not speaking out against violence.
Yes, I must admit Mississippi has changed since the passing of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act. However, many of Mississippi's changes have come about as a result of
Federal intervention such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, public accommodation
laws and Federal court decisions. Mississippi is not going to voluntarily comply with
any Federal law with which they disagree.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act needs to be extended.
Mississi~~i COUNCIL REFUSES To ADOPT REsoLuTIoN OPPOSING RACISM
*The Grenada, Mississippi City Council, by a vote of four to two, refused to adopt a
resolution opposing racial, religious and sexual hatred at its regular meeting on
May 11, 1981, here. Three white city councilmen voted against the resolution, with
one abstaining. The City's two Black councilmen voted for the resolution.
* The resolution, which was introduced by Floyd Boelair, a Black councilman, came
at the urging of a local citizen present at the council meeting, who was concerned
with the leafleting of the local white community by representatives of the Ku Klux
Klan that past weekend. Reportedly, the Klan passed out literature at several
locations in this colorful lakeside community.
The original intent ~of the resolution, according to Stewart Guernsey, a local
lawyer, was to get the city government to go on record condemning Klan activity in
the area.
Some civil rights observers in the state say that this incident is further evidence
that the Voting Rights Act should be extended when it comes up for renewal in the
congress. They say that whites can't be trusted to look out for the rights of Blacks.
PAGENO="0804"
1678
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Neely, for an excellent statement.
Mr. Washington.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, I have a question for Mr. Figgs.
Mr. Figgs, you indicate, or rather you state, that if the Voting
Rights Act or the preclearance sections of it are not extended,
there is a clear and present possibility of violence against black
voters in Mississippi. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. FIGGS. I didn't quite understand you.
Mr. WASHINGTON. You expressed some fears that if the Voting
Rights Act is not extended that there might well be violence perpe-
trated against black voters or black people in Mississippi.
Mr. FIGGS. That is correct. at this point in the area that I live in,
the only time that we have any cross burnings is where blacks
have a possible chance of being elected.
Those individuals who have ownership of grocery stores who let
out credit, who do hiring, bank officials, plantation owners are the
individuals who are selected to conduct the voting process in its
entirety during the election.
We have numerous times requested an accounting with that
number of blacks, that blacks be given the same proportion of
representation on the poil working crew as whites.
We find that in beat one, where we have this trouble with the
only black supervisor that we now have, that many times they will
appoint a black who is up in age and will be a bailiff. It would be
in the age bracket from 65 to 75, and if they decide to appoint a
black woman, it will be one who can identify with their concerns.
Black in skin but white in heart.
These are the kinds of things we are confronted with daily in
Quitman County because of our potential outbreak of electing
black officials. It does not stop with the person at the polls. It goes
to the height of, the epitome of the people who control the political
power in the county.
We were surprised during the last election in the municipality
that one of the strong famiiies decided that they wanted to stoop
low and do their own dirty work at the polls.
So as my colleague, Mr. Neely, said, I just can't accept the fact
that if you have been kicking my hump all these many years, that
you decided that you are going to stop, because of a change of
heart, voluntarily.
PAGENO="0805"
1679
Mr. WASHINGTON. I can't say it better. You are saying this, as
many witnesses are saying: there are still many attempts to dilute
black voting strength through changes in the.. laws, and so forth?
Mr. FIGGS. I am saying that.
Mr. WASHINGTON. Let me get your rationale.
Mr. FIGG5. During the November election many of the blacks in
Quitman County did not have the educational level that one would
expect at this day and time. So,. therefore, any presence of someone
that they feel that they might meet some repercussion later on,
they would not go in the polls.
Some of them need our assistance, but that fear is still there.
Believe it or not the fear is still there The fear is still there
We were only able to elect myself and another person for the
first time to the board of education when we had 15 Federal
observers.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Washington, if I may say something?
The possibility of danger is always real in Mississippi, and there
have been numerous instances pointed out to the State office of the
NAACP where people have had exchanges of words and there have
been hard feelings.
Certainly if it were not possible to have a Federal presence at
~the elections, I have no reservations whatsoever about real, actual,.
physical violence taking place.
One report we received from Quitman County in Marks, in the
most recent mayoral election, is that the deputy sheriffs were
bringing people to~ the polls and that in itself was intimidation~
As . Ms. Paulette pointed there was intimidation, in Noxubee
County, Miss., when law enforcement officers were present.,
I would like to mention several other things about the question
of dilution. That would be addressed by the following panel, but
during the. past year I had an opportunity to serve on a special
education study committee for the State of Mississippi, and there
are many, many people' in the State in key political~ positions who
want to dilute the. black vote. They are doing everything they can.
One of the proposals that came up in those committee meetings
was a movement from appointed, municipal school board members
to at-large elections.
I live in .Warren County. We all know about the efforts of the
board of supervisors there.
In the State of Mississippi supervisors have the responsibility of
developing county redistricting plans.
We went without elections from 1971 to 1979 because the board
of. supervisors was so keyed up on diluting. the black voting
strength that they. refused to. come out with an acceptable plan.
.We .know `about what has been happening in Jackson, `Miss., in
the delta. Those will be spoken to, but I would like to give a couple
of more . things `that I hope will put in perspective what we are
about here today. .
Many of you probably know that when Mayor Charles Evers of
Fayette, Miss., ran for the U.S. Senate in 1978, that there were
.changes in polling'.places overnight without any. notice whatsoever.
We, during the past election in Mississippi, the municipal elec-
tion on June 2, we decided that we `would have people report to us
the .various irregularities that were taking place.
PAGENO="0806"
1680
Let me speak for a few minutes to the question of access.
Generally in Mississippi there is a dual registration in order for
a person to have access to the electoral process; that is, if a person
lives in a town or municipality, in order to be able to vote in the
municipal election, they have to register both for the county and
the city.
Last September there were in Jackson some protest march regis-
tration efforts: While people were across the street at the county
court house registering, many of those persons were residents of
the city. The persons at city hail closed shop.
We find that in the State of Mississippi there were-in Vicks-
burg, for instance-there were 28 people on June 2 who were
denied the right to vote because of the dual registration policy.
In Marks, Miss., in the delta, there were at least 50 people who
were denied the right to vote in the municipal election because of
the dual registration policy.
We found-and I want to just focus on Vicksburg and a couple of
other places, and we will submit to you our complete study, but we
found that there were 116 people in Vicksburg alone who were
turned away from the voting booths because they had allegedly
gone to incorrect polling places.
There were 97 people who were not granted permission to vote
due to the fact that their names did not appear on the official
voting books.
There were 24 instances of relatives living at the same address,
yet having to vote at separate voting precincts which could, in
effect, deal both with access and dilution.
Forty-seven people had to transfer to other polling places to vote
even though they had been able to vote at that particular voting
precinct during the recent Democratic primary, a few weeks before.
Twenty-eight persons were not allowed to vote, as I pointed out
earlier, because they had only registered in the county.
The Governor of Mississippi, several weeks ago, acknowledged
that Mississippi still had problems and that is in the record, in the
newspapers, and he has not denied that.
What has been said for Vicksburg can be said for Lexington,
Miss.; can be said for Laurel, Miss.; can be said for Jackson; can be
said for Greenwood; can be said for Woodville, Miss., where a
young black man had a realistic chance of winning the position of
mayor at Woodville, but, because of the dual registration policy,
many people were not able to vote because they had not registered
in the city.
He lost by 29 votes.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we find that while all
of these things happen to potential voters, some elected officials do
as they wish. For example, in my home county in December of
1980, the brother of the county attorney sought the position of
district attorney, and the county attorney went into the office of
the circuit clerk, removed the poil boxes from that office and did
not bring them back until the next morning, a violation of both
State law and in violation of seeking the approval of the circuit
clerk, who said he did not knOw anything about it.
These are just a few of the things that are happening: in Missis-
sippi. I say to you that unless we have the Voting Rights Act
PAGENO="0807"
1681
continued as is and enforced, the number of things that happens at
the different elections in Mississippi will increase tremendously.
There is no question about it. We must have the 1965 Voting
Rights Act extended asis.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, Mr. Walker, Mr. Barefield and Mr. Barbour
~testified that the white officials of .Mississippi are suffering because
of. the Voting~Rights Act, that it is a huge burden and that in most
parts of Mississippi that if it were-section 5 were not renewed
that there wouldn't be any consequences at all. How do you re-
spond to that?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with anything that
Mr. Barefield says.
Mr. EDWARDS... Ms. Paulette, is the discrimination more predomi-
nant in the rural portions . of Mississippi? Are the cities better
insofar as that issue is concerned?
Ms. PAULETTE; Mr.. Chairman, I can only answer for Noxubee
County, where I have lived and worked. It is the same in the
municipality and also in the county The discrimination is there
The intimidation is there
The fear among:the black people going to the polls is there. The
illiteracy is there. You name it.
Anything that can. be counted against minorities and blacks in
Noxubee County and in the city is there..
Mr. EDWARDS; This could be changed overnight if the attitude of
the people, the white people, sort of in charge of these areas, would
change their attitudes, is that correct?
Ms. PAULETTE. That is right. This is not overnight. It has always
been there People that used to-before the Voting Rights Act,
there were several people that I know about who were intimidated,
beaten, and ran out of town from their homes because they tried to
go to the polls to vote That is a fact
Mr. EDWARDS. That is illegal under Federal law and State law in
the State of Mississippi?
Ms PAULETTE That is right, but it is happening
Mr. EDWARDS. Is it your testimony .that the local police do not
enforce those laws2
Ms. PAULETTE. ~I didn't hear you. Beg .pardon?
Mr EDWARDS You have local police They don't enforce these
Mississippi laws that prohibit the kind of conduct that you de-
scribe? . . . . . . .
Ms PAULETTE No, sir, they do not They participate in it
Mr. FIGGS. Absolutely.
Ms PAULETTE They participate in it
Mr. FIGGS~ Mr. Chairman, we~had One individual who called the
sheriff to complain about a precinct manager, and the sheriff
locked the complainer up.
The word got out and it was in the heat of the day, and most of
the people who were .going to come to the polls. stayed away be-
cause they had a sheriff down there locking up folks.
When you are dealing with people who already are afraid to
vote;.: this add~to the. burden. I have. been in. voter registration 17
years. No one that 1S. in control of the books,~ no one in the munici-
pality~ or the county, volunteer and do the volunteer act, open up
on Saturdays, appoint registrars, they don't even tell blacks when
PAGENO="0808"
1682
they go pay their tax or when they pay the water bill at the city
hail that you should register~
We have registered in the city of Marks over 250 people, and we
had about 100 volunteers to go themselves.. Those hundred were
not told that you had to go over to the Court House, which is in
front of the City Hall, to register, so you can participate.
So it is sort of a-all of them are caught together.
They came up-they had about 25 of 100' of them showing up
dead. So when it is in the books, they had them dead because the
last name was Brown. Maybe two or three Browns had died. They
automatically claimed the living Brown was dead.
All these kinds of things add up. When a decision of an office ii
decided by three or four votes, they won't be playing; they are
going for broke. 0 0 0 0 0
Mr. NEELY. Mr. Chairman, I think you asked earlier why fear is'
still there. I can say for the people `in Mississippi,' in my0 home
town, `fear is still there. 0 0 0
On May 9, in my home town, the Ku Klux Klan, in full gear,
paraded in the city of Grenada past soliciting memberships.' 00
On May 11 the Grenada city council refused to pass a resolution
0 opposing the activity of the Ku Klux Klan. 0
This past Thursday, a week ago, the United Methodist Confer-
ence, State Conference, being held in Grenada, Miss., recognized
the fact that Ku Klux Klan activity is a problem and drafted a
`resolution opposing the activity of the Ku Klux Klan in Mississip-
pi.
Thank you. 0
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. You have been `a very
helpful panel, excellent witnesses. Thank you. 0 0 00
`Mr. Walker, I believe you have another panel, is that correct?
Mr. WALKER. Yes. While that panel is coming forward, let me
just say the figures I gave, they were all blacks; blacks were the
ones. 0 0 0
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Members of the next panel are: Mr.
Charles Victor, Esq., of Greenville, Miss.; Senator Henry Kirksey of
Jackson; Martha Bergmark, a member of the Advisory Committee
of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
You may proceed. 0 `0
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES VICTOR McTEER, GREENVILLE,
MISS.; SENATOR HENRY KIRKSEY, JACKSON, MISS.; AND
MARTHA BERGMARK, MEMBER, ADVISORY COMMITTEE,' U.S.
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Mr. MCTEER. I am Charles Victor McTeer, attorney for the plain-
tiffs in the lawsuit known as Dotson vs. The City of Indianola.
In order to tell my story, I have to begin with the year 1965.
In 1965 this country was beset by what0 was commonly called
throughout the SOuth "Freedom Summer." 0
Black people in Mississippi were beginning to vote for the first
time in 100 years. Indeed, what had resulted was the fact that
blacks in places like Indianola, Miss., which represented the heart-
* land of the Mississippi Delta, and an' area which included more
than a 70-percent black populace, had the first opportunity to vote.
PAGENO="0809"
1683
In 1965, faced with the prospect of a 70-percent black vote turn-
out in the city of Indianola for the first time in the city's history,
the city was faced with the prospect of having a huge number of
black people coming out to vote and essentially taking over that
city.
What they did to combat that problem was both innovative and
unique.
The first thing they did was that in 1965 it annexed almost
double the size of the community in the white side of town. This is
most interesting. Indianola is like most southern towns. There's a
white community and a black community.
Indianola simply took the white community and completely dou-
bled its size in white residential communities. Not to be outdone, in
1966 it took in a very small black community which only had
approximately one-third the number of people located in the white
community.
Then in 1967 the city again took in certain nonresidential prop-
erties. Please note the fact that at all times during the course of
this activity Indianola was covered by section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act.
However, the city of Indianola completely failed to file any form
of preclearance submission as required by section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act.
In 1975, someone in the black community finally found out about
the fact of the annexation had taken place. This is an extremely
important matter.
The reason why is because you must remember that it has only
been 16 years since black people have had the right to vote in
Mississippi. Sixteen years since the great Reconstruction compro-
mise of 1876. What resultingly happened would be this:
Black people in 1965, very often because of fears outlined here
and above, have been afraid, if you will, to go in and register to
vote. Who in their right mind was going to go into the chancery
clerk's office of Sunflower County and not only register to vote, but
at the same time look for an annexation which no one had notice
of in the first place.
What resulted then was that in 1965, after notification was given
to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Justice wrote
to the city of Indianola and asked them whether or not the annex-
ations had indeed taken place and whether or not they had been
precleared.
The city of~ Indianola by and through its city attorney, wrote
back to the Department of Justice and explained that the annex-
ations which took place in 1966 and 1967 had, in fact, taken place,
but the city refused to make reference to the annexation which
took place in 1965 which doubled the size of the white community.
What resulted thereafter was a shambles. The city of Indianola
failed to submit any documentation whatsoever. However, the U~S.
Department of Justice took absolutely no action whatsoever during
the period from 1975 to 1980 to determine whether or not there
had been any submission at all.
In 1980, a submission was requested again by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice in view of the fact that blacks had determined that
there was an annexation and in view of the fact that they knew
PAGENO="0810"
1684
exactly the tort numbers, the times, the dates these annexations
took place.
Thereafter the U.S. Department of Justice took no further action
and likewise the city of Indianola continued again to make no
submissions.
In October of 1980, a private lawsuit was filed requesting en-
forcement of section 5.
In April of 1980, the U.S. District Court for the northern district
of Mississippi, a three-judge court, with Judges Charles Clark, Wil-
liam Keady, and L.D. Senter, hearing the case, decided that indeed
the city of Indianola had breached section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act and they said any annexation made after November 1 of 1965
which was not subject to preclearance would from thereafter not be
effective until such time as it was, in fact, approved by the Depart-
ment of Justice under section 5.
It should be noted that in 1965 blacks were 70 percent of the
total population of the city of Indianola. As a result of the annex-
ations, blacks then became approximately 48 percent of the voting
age population.
As a consequence of the court's action on April 7, 1981 blacks
became at that point in time 64 percent of the voting population
because of the obvious dilution effect by bringing in whites in
annexed areas.
Finally the U.S. Department of Justice received the submission
from the city of Indianola if only because of the fact that the court
had said in earlier memorandums that it should be done.
The Department of Justice objected to the 1965 annexation and
did not object to some of the other annexations which occurred
after 1965.
This was a major victory, but it is a sad victory in the context of
a number of other facts. For a 16-year period between 1965 and
1980, four city elections took place in the city of Indianola. During
that period of time all four of those elections were wholly and
completely illegal, but more important, remember this fact: In 1972
the city of Indianola enacted what is commonly called its subdivi-
sion regulations.
Under those subdivision regulations, the city required that in
order to build a house within the city limits, in the city proper, you
had to have a lot which met certain defined prerequisites.
A review of the lot sizes of the city of Indianola would show you
that in the white community, the lot size was exactly in agreement
with the provisions of the subdivision regulations.
In the black community, however, where lots were much smaller,
the lots were not large enough. As a consequence, at the point in
time that someone sold property, and the grandfather clause no
longer applied, if he tried to sell the property to someone who
would build a new house, that person could not do so because of
the fact his 1~t was too small.
Interestingly enough, city officials and others were involved in
housing projects which were located just outside of town, conven-
iently placed there for the specific purpose of allowing black people
to move by way of what we commonly call the Pied Piper effect,
outside of city limits.
PAGENO="0811"
1685
What resulted thereafter was that during the period from 1972
through .1980, approximately 3,100 black people moved into commu-
nities located just outside of town.
The sadness about this prospect-and this is something that no
one has talked about here-and perhaps my brothers and sisters
from Alabama would agree with me, in every Mississippi Delta
town there is a Federal subdivision which is located just outside of
tOwn. In every Mississippi community, even in my dear Yazoo City,
there is indeed a Federal subdivision financed by. Federal money,
used under the 235 act or the 502 act which is, in fact, put just
outside of town an without exclusion, not one of. those subdivisions
in any Mississippi town, in any place in .. the Mississippi Delta, has
ever been brought into town.
* It is also interesting to note that not one of those subdivisions is
in fact resided in primarily by members of the white race.
The crucial and most interesting fact about Indianola is that
every possible piece of white property which could have been
brought into that town was brought into~. that town, but every
possible black piece of property that~ was `located adjacent to the
* city limits was, in fact, eliminated.
We are told by the city of Indianola that they cannot bring these
black properties into town. They say the reason~ is economic feasi-
bility. They. basically claim that there is indeed too many people
and there's too much money that must be expended for repairs of
these areas. ,
Yet each one of these areas was built in accord with the Indian-
ola subdivision regulations and second, built with Federal money.
Indeed, we will hope to provein our case that one of the crucial
aspects of this thing is that the black: subdivisions located just
outside.: of town are in even better condition than white. subdivi-
sions located inside of town.
As a native Mississippian, one who chooses to live there, I just
point out the fact that we should not he here talking about the
future or extension of the Voting Rights Act; We should be talking
about the strengthening .of the Voting Rights Act.
The reason why is because of the, fact that~ as J:háve described to
you in Indianola, changes as they are, defined by section 5 often
taken place in.the absence~ofknowledge of black people.
.We `don't sit in the courthouse. I `sit here and look ~t the beauty
of seeing two black women working in this Federal courthouse
here. We don't have black people in large numbers.sitting in chan-
cery clerks `offices in Indian'ola or other parts of Mississippi.
We point out the fact that indeed outside of the city of Jackson
and Hinds" County, there is on'ly "one suit that has ever been filed in
the entire State of Mississippi to enforce section 5 That is this
lawsuit
We also point out the fact that the advantage of the Voting
Rights Act is that it puts the burden where it belongs
It puts the burden on Mississippi and each one of those people
who testified here earlier, Stone Barefield and the other gentle
man, when they. used the word Mississippi they didn't mean black
and white Mississippi, they meant white Mississippi
PAGENO="0812"
1686
That has got to be remembered here, because no black man in
his right mind is going to come before this tribunal or any other
and say in his adult lifetime he knows no history of racism.
Let us consider this fact: One of the reasons why black people
have not been successful in Mississippi in the use of section 5 to
date relates to the fact that we just have not had technical assist-
ance. There have not been lawyers in every city, in every town,
ready and available to these questions.
Let us not forget that the crucial flaw of section 5, the crucial
flaw of section 5 is indeed the fact that it is a mandatory statute
which is voluntarily enforced, meaning that, in fact, it is the area
of the commuity, the governmental unit, the city, the town, the
county which must in the first instance make the submission
which is indeed required before the Justice Department can even
take a look, and let us not further forget the fact that it is the city
that makes the decision on what, in fact, is a change.
Remember, the statute basically says all changes, procedures,
standards, and practices that exist from or after November 1 of
1964. Many municipalities might say there is no such thing as an
annexation change, even though annexations may have a dilutive
effect.
The point here is that the burden must remain because not one
of the gentlemen here who testified before this group, not one of
those white gentlemen would dare say before me or any other
native Mississippian that he is willing to guarantee that white
government, municipalities, and other governmental units have
followed the prerequisites of section 5 for the last 16 years.
I would like you to consider the fact that Stone Barefield was
right when he said that we good black folk have been more success-
ful than we ever dreamed.
I would suggest to you we have been more successful than he
ever dreamed, and indeed that is in fact the problem.
Any Mississippian who stands before you and says that there is
no need for section 5, either knows nothing about the operation of
section 5 in the State of Mississippi, or knows a whole lot.
In that consequence, yes, we have had more blacks elected to
positions than we have ever had before, but we have more blacks
proportionately in Mississippi than any other place in the country.
Yes, it is in fact true there is now a proper legislative plan in
1978 for that in the State of Mississippi.
Everybody forgets that we have had an illegal plan which has
been the consistent source of fights with the State legislature.
Let us not forget the fact that indeed we are talking about a
reversion to Dred Scott in the simplest form of the word where
Judge Taney said very specifically in 1875, indeed, the black man
has no right which a white man must honor.
I have been told there is a suggestion that there should be a bail-
out provision. I do not agree with a bail-out provision unless cer-
tain things are promised to me and my fellow black citizens.
No. 1, there must be the enactment of district ëivil and criminal
penalties for officials who, in fact, enforce a change under section 5
in a knowing way and attempt to enforce that change.
No. 2, funds must be provided for black people so that they may
indeed combat the city, because the saddest thing about Indianola
PAGENO="0813"
1687
is that even though there has been. an illegal government there for
16 years, and even though everybody knows it, the courts, the
lawyers, the city of Indianola, because of the fact that those
black-white officials sitting there having the right to use black
folks' money as well as white folks' money to combat black folks'
civil rights, and, there is no greater irony than that, to pay taxes
and have the same tax money used to maintain a clearcut
illegality.
There should be the consideration of appointment of masters
under rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil .Procedure to provide
basically that the conduct of the city must be reviewed by a neu-
tral party to determine whether or not in fact changes were made;
and clearly any review of compliance over the ~past 16, 25 or 30
years must show that indeed section 5 has been complied with and
that the 15th amendment has been complied with under both the
concepts of purpose and effect.
They say that indeed they have been good for the last 16 years.
They were bad for 400 years before that, and indeed, I believe that
after the experience of Indianola, section 5 must be continued.
If section 5 and the Voting Rights Act as a whole is not contin-'
ued, then there will be a reversion. Those people who sit here and
talk about fear, if you have never been in Mississippi, .and if you
have never handled a Civil Rights Act case, and if you have never
had your name plastered across the papers, and if you have never
had the experience of someone calling your house and saying that
`they, were going to kill your daughter, like they told me' 2, years
ago, then you can't talk to me..
I love my State and I think that we are entitled to fairness. If
you take section 5 from us, then it will be the first step not just for
the end of fairness for black people in Mississippi, but perhaps the
end of the 15th amendment, and that is what is at stake here.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. McTeer follows:]
STATEMENT OF CHARLES VICTOR MCTEER, ESQ., GREENVILLE, MISSISSIPPI
In Indianola, Mississippi, for 16 years the municipality has held illegal elections.
Individuals residing in areas annexed in 1965, 1966, and 1967 have been allowed to
vote in elections absent available pre-clearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. In 1975, the United States Department of Justice, being aware of Indianola's
annexations, demanded Indianola to submit those `annexations for pre-clearance.
Thereafter, in 1975, Indianola did .~ admit the occurrence of certain annexations
which included within the City a small black area and certain non-resident areas
and made no mention of the 1965. annexation which brought into Indianola a large
number of white citizens. Thereafter, Indianola failed to submit any further docu-
mentation as required by the ~U.S. Dept. of Justice. The Department of Justice,
likewise, also took `no further action pertaining to Indianola. In August of 1980,
after consultation with citizens within the city of Indianola and their attorney, the
U.S. Department of' Justice made a second request for information pertaining to
those annexations. Again, Indianola failed to respond: In' October of 1980, Nelson
Dotson and others, filed their suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi claiming that the city. of Indianola had violated
section 5 and requesting that citizens residing in the areas subjected to' annexation
and no preclearance be deannexed from' the municipality for purposes' of voting. In
April, 1981, Indianola finally made its submission to the'Department of Justice, In
essence, section 5 provides that no covered governmental unit shall enact any
change in voting prerequisites or qualifications, standards, practices or procedures
`different .from those in existence on November 1, 1964, without approval of the
United States' Department of Justice~ or. the United ,States District Court for' the
District of Columbia. A `change in any practice or procedure may have an adverse
PAGENO="0814"
1688
impact upon minority voting strength. On the basis of this analysis an annexation
which may change the percentages of black voting strength in the affected commu-
nity is such a change. Upon review, the key issue for a United States District Court
is whether or not a change has occurred in an affected area which was not pre-
cleared. If this is the case, private parties may move to stop enforcement of the
change by injunction.
On May 7, 1981, following a hearing in Jackson, Mississippi, of April 7, 1981, the
United States District Court issued its order deannexing each of the said subdivi-
sions from participation in the municipal elections of the City of Indianola until
such time as the annexations have in fact been approved by the United States
Department of Justice under section 5.
On June 2, 1981, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its response
to the submission of Indianola. The Department objected to the annexation of all
white residential areas while accepting all the black residential areas so annexed
and all non-residential areas in both communities. The effect of this ruling is to
again substantially increase the percentage of black voters in the City of Indianola,
Mississippi.
We are advised that there are two basic complaints which have been made by
opponents of section 5 which are the basis for their alleged gOod faith efforts to see
an end to the statute's operation. First, it is claimed that the South for too long has
been the "Whipping-boy" and should be allowed to come from under the shroud of
its past. Second, it is argued that section 5 has effectively operated to eliminate the
very problems which it sought to solve and therefore it no longer needs to continue.
One cannot avoid historical likenesses evident here. Could one imagine the seri-
ous impact upon the rights of black people had the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
to the Constitution of the United States been subject to repeal during the 20-year
period after their enactment in the late 1860's. Indeed, the South and Mississippi
have made great advances during this last score of years. Nonetheless, Indianola
demonstrates the crucial flaw in the operation of section 5. While mandatory in
nature, section 5 is basically a voluntary enforcement statute. The statute is based
upon voluntary decision by a municipality to abide by the law and submit its
changes and further prove that there is no effect or purpose in the opration of the
statute which adversely affects minority voting strength. Additionally, the statute
depends upon the voluntary efforts of the Attorney General of the United States to
enforce the law, thereby ending known discriminatory practices and disallowing
attempts to enforce subtle and sophisticated as well as direct forms of racial dis-
crimination. Unfortunately, Indianola demonstrates best that it is the voluntary
nature of section 5 that has been its historic weakness. In this consequence, those
persons who say that the Act has run its course do not understand that there is no
proof that municipalities subject to its coverage have abided with the provisions of
section 5 and precleared their changes. Likewise, there is no proof that the U.S.
Department of Justice has effectively enforced section 5.
Any person familiar with the Mississippi Delta would clearly understand that
there is a strong likelihood that section. 5 is only beginning to have a real meaning
and effect in that area. Since its enactment only one suit has been filed in the
Mississippi Delta pertaining to the operation of section 5, that being the recent
Indianola case. This is due in part to two factors. First, many black citizens simply
did not and do not understand the operation of section 5 nor is there a clear
understanding of the actions of a municipality which are covered under operation of
the statute. Secondly, many of the decisions pertaining to the operation of munici-
pal government that many be covered under section 5 often are unknown unto
blacks until after they have been in effect for some time. As indicated in Indianola,
it was 10 years following the annexations of 1965 that blacks generally had knowl-
edge that annexations had taken place in the white community. Finally, even in
those areas where blacks were aware of annexations, there was a lack of available
technical assistance to help and/or assist blacks legally in the provision of suits or
private actions to maintain their rights. Finally, the US. Department of Justice
simply does not have the staff available to facilitate ready enforcement of objection
where they may exist. For these reasons, section 5 is only now beginning to have
real meaning in the black communities of the Mississippi Delta. In the State of
Mississippi, Jackson and Hinds Counties have been the center of all activity in the
Voting Rights arena. Few suits have been filed outside of that area. Indeed, no area
of the state of Mississippi has had the intense legal struggles pertaining to voting
rights similar to those found in Jackson and Hinds Counties. Few, if any, actions to
those found in Jackson and Hinds Counties. Few, if any, actions have been filed to
redistrict county supervisory line, school board lines and municipal borders in the
Mississippi Delta. For this reason, the Mississippi Delta which includes the largest
per capita concentration of blacks in the United States contains relatively few
PAGENO="0815"
1689.
blacks holding official positions in legislative seats on a state and/or federal basis,
in country-wide office or. in a region-wide position. It is inescapable that with such a
large concentration of black people this could only occur in the face of evident racial
gerrymandering.
The State of. Mississippi and particularly the Mississippi Delta suffer from contin-
ued evidence of white resistance to fair black participationin elections. The demise
of section 5 would clearly result in a return to both subtle and blatant forms of
racial discrimination and a retrenchment similar to that following the great com-
promise of 1876.
PAGENO="0816"
1690
IN THE UNITED ~TATES DISTRiCT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MAY;41981
NELSON DOTSON, et a]., )
Plaintiffs
versus ) NO. GC8O-220-WK-O
THE CITY OF INDI1~NOLA, et a?.,
Defendants
JUDGMENT
For the reasons set out in the Opinion of this court entered
this date,
It is DECLARED AND ADJUDGED that the annexations to its
corporate limits effected by the City of Indiai~ola, Mississippi,
on May 25, 1965; May 4, 1966; September 2, 1966; and July 14, 1967,
constitute voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting or
standards, practices, or procedures different from those in force
and effect on November 1, 1964, within the meaning of Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. S 1973c, that Indianola
has failed to t(illy comply with the provisions of that Act before
enacting or administering those changes, and that the conduct of
elections by the City of Imdianola which encompass such annexed
areas as a part of the municipality is violative of the Act.
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the legal boundary:
lines of the City of Indianola, Mississippi, shall be, for the
purpose of conducting municipal elections, those in force and
effect prior to November 1, 1964; provided, that the City of
Indianola may enforce in such elections any subsequent annexations
which are properly precleared in accordance with the provisions of
said Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Citizens residing in
PAGENO="0817"
1691
areas annexed prior to such preclearanCe shall have all other
rights of citizens in the munic1palit~Y except the right to participate
in municipal elections as candidates or electors.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that this case be and is hereby remanded
to flonor~ble William C. Keady as a single-iUthJO for the purposo
of hearing and disposing of all other claims raised by the plaintiffs
and not considered by this court.
Nothing contained in the Opinion of this court nor in this
Order nor the continuing jurisdiction of this court to enforce
its terms nor the jurisdiction of the single judge to hear the
remaining issues in this cause shall be construed as cause to
delay the promptest possible determination by the Attorney General
of the United States of whether to object to all, or any part of
the four annexations submitted by the City of Indianolu for his
approval.
SO ORDERED this day of May, 1981. -
~i~ED STAThS CIRCUIT JUD
ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
83-679 0 - 82 - 52 Pt.2
PAGENO="0818"
1692
IN TILE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPI'I
GREENVILLE DIVISION
NELSON DOTSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs
versus ) NO. GCSO-220-WK-O
THE CITY OF INDIANOLA,
etal.,
Defendants
OPINION
Before~CHARLES CLARK, CIrcuit Judge; KEADY, Chief Judge; and
SENTER, District Judge.
CHARLES CLARK, Circuit Judge:
On October 1, l9~O, Nelson Dotsän and fifteen other
black adult citizens., residents, and qualified electors of Sunflower
County, Mississippi,. brought this action pursuant to Section 5 of
the Voting Rights~ Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. SS 1971
et seq. Section 5 prohibits a state or political subdivision
from enacting or seeking to Ladminister any voting qualification,
pr~equisite, standard, practice, or procedure different from
that in. effect on Nàvember 1, 1964, without first either obtaining
a-declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia or securing tacit recognition from the
Att~orney General that the voting change does not have the purpose
or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of
- race, color, or membership in a language minority. 42 U.s.c. S
l973c.
The complaint in this case is composed of five counts, only
the first of which is presently under consideration. In Count I
the plaintiffs challenge four annexations to the corporate limits
PAGENO="0819"
1693
of Indianola, claiming that the City violatc~d ~ction 5 Whim it
made these annexations.without obtaining preclearancc as r~guir~d
by the Act. They seek declaratory and injunctivo relief against
Phillip Fratosi, Mayor of Indianola, and against Gary L. AuStin,
Charlotte II. Buchanan, G. Clarke Johnson, P. harold Manning, and
James D. Robinson, members of the India'nola Board of Aldermen.
The plaintiffs seek an order setting aside the 1977 municipal
elections and scheduling a special election to choose new city
officiala. They also ask for prospective injunctive relief requir-
ing the City to hold future elections based upon the pro-annexation
city. limits.
We grant only the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and
prospective injunctive relief.
I.
Substantially all of the facts necessary to the disposition of
the issues in this case have been stipulated by the parties. On
May 25~ 1965; May 4, 1966; September 2; 1966; and July 14, 1967,
the City of Indianola obtained decrees from the Chancery Court of
Sunflower County, Mississippi, approving its Petitions for
Confirmation of Extension of Boundaries. Each of these annexations
addeu new eligible voters to the electoral base for Indianola; and
the city now concedes, as it must, that annexations enlarging the
nunb~r of eligible voters in the municipality are changes of a
voting qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure
as contemplated by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.~ See Perkins
V. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 388-95, 91 S.Ct. 431, 437-39, 27 L.Ed.2d 47
484-~9 (1971). Indiariola also concedes that it has not yet
obtained preclearance of these annexations as required by Section 5.
Indianola has implemented the 1965-67 annexations in the
municipal elections conducted in 1968, 1969, 1973, and 1977. In
each of these elections, persons residing in the newly annexed
-2-
PAGENO="0820"
1694
areas have participated both as. voters and ~ts cdid~tos. The
incumbent mayorand alderir~gnwere all elected in 1977, and four
of the five p~esent aldermen reside in the annext~d areas.
Some additional facts are relevant to the question of the
scope of relief to be afforded in this case. On October 2, 1975,
J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the
Civil Rights Division, wrote to Frank Crosthwait, then City
Attorneyfor Indianola. Pottinger informed Crosthwait that the
Division-had learned of several ann~ations to the corporate
limits of litdianola and advised him that Lh~st~ chanycs in voting
pract~ice or procedure~could not lawfully be implemented unless the
City first-complied with the proclearance requirement of Section 5.
Pottinger requested the City to submit the annexations to the
Attorney General for review or to bring an appropriate declaratory
action in the District Court for the District of Columbia. On
Noven~er b, 1975, Crosthwait replied to the Pottinger letter,
noting three of the challenged annexatIons and identifying them by
their location in the Chancery Clerk's records. Crosthwait's letter
did not refer to the 1965 annexation.
On Decembar 23, 1975, Pottinger again wrote to Crosthwait,
this time requesting additional information necessary for proper
evaluation of the annexations. For some unexplained reason, the
Citynever res~onded to this request. Then, on August 21, 1980,
the Dspar-tmentofJustice wrote to the present City Attorney, W. Dean
Belk, and asked the City to provide the additional information
previously requested concerning the 1966 and 1967 annexations.
The Justice~Depar.tment also requested-the same kind of information
for the 1965 annexation. The City represents to this court that
it has now submitted all of the information sought by the Department
of Justice concerning each of these annexations.
PAGENO="0821"
1695
The Voting Rights Act ordinarily limits tt~ io~uee for
determination by the three-judge court to the question of whether
the politic~il subdivision has complied with the rt1uiremc:tt:; of the
`Act and to the nature of relief to be afforded the plaintiffs in
the event of non-compliance. See United States v. Board of Supervisor:
of Warren County, Miss., 429 U.S. 642, 97 S.Ct. 833, 51 L.Ed.2d 106
(1977); Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 91 S.Ct. 431, 27 L.Ed. 2d
476 (1971).
However, Indianola has interposed numerous defenses to the
plaintiffs' requested relief. The main defense, and the cne upon
which the City primarily relies, is the doctrine of laches. Laches
is an equitable concept that may operate in some contexts as a time
limitation barring a plaintiff's claim. It is founded upon the
policies of promoting repose in society, encouraging diligence in
`plaintiffs, avoiding evidentiary problems occasioned by long delay,
and advancing shared concepts of justice. See gener~fl~ Note,
The Application of the Doctrine of Laches in Public Interest Litigat~'
56 B.U.L. Rev. 101, 196 (1976). `To prevail on a laches defense, a
defendant must show a delay by the plaintiff in asserting a right
ordain, that the delay was inexcusable, end there has been undue
prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay. See, ~
Envir?nmental Defense Fund v. Alexander, 614 F.2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.
1900), cert. denied, - U.S~. ,` 101 S.Ct. 316, 66 L.Ed.2d 146
(1980); Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 596 F.2d 1249, 1256 (5th Cir. 1979);
Matter of Henderson, 577 F.2d 997, 1001 (5th Cir. 1978).
.Although there' is no precedent for application of the laches
defense to private suits for injunctive relief under Section 5, the
City urges us to adept it in this case. The gist of its argument
is as follows. Indianola first anriexedadjacent `lands in 1965.
Thus, the plaintiffs have delayed 15 years before initiating this
action. The City then argues thatwe should look to the analogous
-4-
PAGENO="0822"
1696
state statute of limitations, in this c~e ti: si:*:-ytar `cc trh-all"
statute e~boditX~ in Miss. Code Ann. § l~l49 (l51~) . S~ne~' tito
piaintiffs' delay exceeds the applicable limitations period, a
presumption arises that the delay is irs'xcusabl', tiit:r*~Ly shifting
to the plaintifLe the burden of showing some urtificat.ien Lot the
untimeliness of their suit. To demonstrate pr~judico the City
offers three categories of evidence. First, it offers proof of
potential witnesses who are now deceased or who have diminished
memories of the events surrounding the annexations to show it has
incurred a disadvantage in asserting or establishing its claims or
defenses. Second, the City offers to show that it has expanded
municipal services and incurred bond obligations on the assumption
that the annexations were properly made. Third, the City proffers
evidence of injury to citizens and residents of Indianela who,
relying in good faith on the validity of the annexations, have moved
int~ and purchased property in the newly annexed areas.
Nevertheless, we conclude that the doctrine of laches is not
available in a private action'for injunctive relief brought under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. We do so for several reasons.
First, application of the laches defense to bar the plaintiffs'
action would frustrate the remedial purposes of the Act. Section 5
was intended to prevent covered states from fashioning voting
changes which..might deprive blacks of their right to vote.~ See
general~y South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308-16,
86 S.Ct. 803, 808-12, 15 L.Ed.2d 769, 775-80 (1966). Congress imposed
upon the covered states the burden of submitting any change in
voting practice or procedures for approval in Washington, D.C.,
before it became effective. See Perkins v. ~Matthews, 400 U.S. 379,
396, 91 S.Ct. 431, 441, 27 L.Ed.2d 476, 489 (1971); Ramos v. Koebig,
638 F.2d 838, 846 (5th Cir. 1981).
Indianola has not discharged ~tS undisputed obligation tO
submit these four annexations to either test designated by Congress.
PAGENO="0823"
1697
The burden to obtain federal approval of those annexations before
ccnducting elections based upon the new corlorute limits too alwuyo
rested with bite City. The laches defence, however, presupjoceo
that the plaintiffs had an obligation to challenge the altered
voting regulation in the first instance. Allowing indianola to
assert laches to bar the plaintiffs' requested relief would trans-
form its own long failure to comply with the duty imposed upon it
by Section 5 into a defense. Under this approach, the longer the
City delayed in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities, the
better its defense would become. Therefore, to apply the doctrine
of laches to a private injunctive action "would b~ to do precisely
what 5 *5 was designed to forbid: allow the burden of litigation
delay to operate in favor of the perpetrators and against the
victims of possibly racially discriminatory practices. berry v.
Doles, 438 U.S. 190, 194, 98 S.Ct. 2692, 2694, 57 L.EcI.2C1 193, 697
(1978) (l3rennan, J., concurring) (citation omitted).
Second, the doctrine of laches is inconsistent with the nature
*of the obligation imposed by Section 5 upon affected states and
political subdivisions. The duty to obtain federal approval of
new voting standards, practices, or procedures is a continuing one.
It arises anew each time the defendant enacts or seeks to administer
an uncleared voting regulation. See 42 U.S.C. § l973c. Even though
Indianqia effected the challenged annexations during l965,.-l966, and
1967, it breached its statutory duty to secure preclearance of the
annexations when it conducted municipal elections in 1968, 1969,
1973, and 1977 based upon the post-annexation corporate limits.
Although the City insists that the plaintiffs have delayed bringing
this action for at least 13 years, it is clear that Indiartola violated
Section 5 as recently as 1977 by holding municipal elections utilizing
boundary changes which had not been precleared. Thus, the vice of
City's past non-compliance survives unabated as a present violation.
PAGENO="0824"
1698
Third, the remedy sought does not go to tic legality of the
annexations. It is limit~d to the right of those living in such
areas to vote in municipal elections.
For similar reasons we reject the City's proffered statute
of limitations defense. Assuming without deciding that an action
for injunctive relief brought by a private litigant could be barred
by the running of an analogous state statute of limitations, it is
clear that the applicable six-year limitations period of Miss. Code
Ann. 5 15-1-49 (1972) has not yet run. Less than four years ago,
Indianola held municipal elections which improperly implemented the
four challenged annexations. Therefore, even if applicable, the
statutory period has not expired as to this election.
In addition to the laches and statute of limitations claims,
the City raises several other defenses in its answer, including the
necessity under state law that one objecting to an annexation take
an ~ppeal within 10 days from the approving judgment of the Chancery
Court, exhaustion of state remedies, and.the unconstitutionality
of. the Voting Rights Act. The City has not pressed these contentionE
before the three-judge court. They are without merit, and we reject
them.
III *
We come now to the question of remedy. Since Indiandia admits
that the challenged annexations are subject to the Act's preclearanc
requirement and that it has failed to fully comply with the provisiox
of Section 5, the municipal elections conducted by Indianolain
1977 were in violation of the Voting Rights Act. To remedy the
municipality's past implementation of the unapproved annexations,
plaintiffs seek an order setting aside the 1977 elections, ousting
the incumbent city officials, and compelling a special election to
choose replacements to serve until the next regularly scheduled elect
PAGENO="0825"
1699
Although the ~Jupreme Court has tacitly recogni~t1 that such
retrospective relief may beappropriateinSoifle cases where an
election implementing a covered votinq change has been held without
preclearance, it has never decided a cas~ specificaily endorsing
such a remedy. We conclude that ordering a special election
is unwarranted in the circumstances of this case.
The Supreme Court has identified several factors to be considered
when determining whether overturning em eloctien and ordering a new
one will i~. ju.tifi J One fwtte. i wh Lhcr th Lat~. or political
subdivision could reasonably be expected to ha~e known thet the
election violated Section 5. When the is~nie of whether the disputed
change in voting practicesor procedures is novel or unsettled,
then ordering a new election would not be appropriate. See Allen V.
State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 571-72, 89 S.Ct. 817, 835,
22 L.Ed.2d 1, 20-21 (1969).
In Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. at 396-97, 91 S.Ct. at 441,
27 L.Ed.2d at489-90, the Court identified several other factors
relevant to fashioning appropriate relief. Included were the nature
of the voting changes involved and whether the political subdivision
had sought federal approval. Where no submission of the implemeeted
change had been made pursuant to Section 5, PerkIns suggested that
it might be appropriate to give the affected jurisdiction a period
of time in which to seek preclearance, ordering a new election only
ifpreclearance were not obtained. Id.
Finally, in Berry V. Doles, 438 U.S. at 192-93, 98~S.Ct. at
2693-94, 57 L.Ed.2d at 696, the Supreme Court adopted the remedial
approach suggested in Perkins.. In ~ the covered change was a
statute staggering the terms of the members of a county board,
administ,~red in an election held without preclearance. The district
court enjoined futureS epforcement of the statute but refused to set
-8-
PAGENO="0826"
1700
aside the past election because the statute cffCct!d ~ minor,
technical change and because there w-n; no evidence of discriminatory
intent. The Court remanded the case with directions to enter an
order-allowing the defendants 30 days to submit the change pursuant
to Section 5. The Court noted that if preclearanco were denied or
not sought, the district court might properly order all members of
the board to be elected simultaneously at the ynoral election.
Id. at 192-93, 91 S.Ct. at 2694, 57 L.Ed.2c1 at 696.
Relying upon these factors, the plaintiffs-urge that ordering
new elections is justified in this case. They point out that
these -four annexations made extensive and comprehensive changes
in voting practices and not minor or technical ones. They also
point out that the City must have knowz of its duty to seek
federal approval of these changes since Perkins v. Matthews
established in 1971 that such annexations were covered by the
Act. See 400 U.S. at 389-90, 91 S.Ct. at 437, 27 L.Ed.2d at 485-
86. Moreover, they emphasize that the 1975 Pottinger-Crosthwait
correspondence indicates that the City actually knew of its
statutory duty.
After giving full consideration to these facts,-We neverthe1es~
decline to order new elections. - Two reasons predominate. First,
- counsel for the City -of Indianola have represented to the court
that all the ~requested preclearance information has been s'ubmitt.ed
to: the Attorney General of the United States as of May 1, 1981.
This submission makespossible a final resolution-of the dispute.
Second, burdens imposed upon the City and its residents by
holding special elections decidedly outweigh the benefits inuring
to the plaintiffs and public. The incumbent mayor and aldermen,
elected in 1977, have already-served more than three-quarters of
their - terms. Scheduled regular primary and general elections
must be conducted November 9 and December 10 of this year. City - -
officials chosen for the remainder of the incumbents terms at a
special election which-allowed meaningful time for campaigning
would serve only a few monthsbefore the regular election process
commenced.
PAGENO="0827"
1701
Any elections are expensive and tinie-consumin~. ~;pecial electid
would entail campaign expenses for both black and white candidates
and supporters.to gain relatively brief terms of office. The burdens
of cost and disruption of the orderly admini~.tration of municipal
affairs entailed by special elections would far outweigh the possibl~
benefits to the general public. The plaintiffs themselves would
obtain little or no benefit, too. To void the 1977 elections and
order a special election could do nothing but vindicate an abstract
right without according any perceptible advantage in addition to
the renaming relief we grant. Taking into account the riqhts of
all the parties involved and the public, we decline to require
special elections now. The incumbent city offcials may continue
to hold office for the remainder of their present terms and until
their successors are elected and take office at the regular election~
held later this year.
However, Inclianola cannot continue to hold elections based upon
uAcleaxed post-annexation city limits. Unless and until the City
obtains clearance of its post-Act annexations in accordance with
Section 5, all future elections must be conducted on the basis of
the city boundaries as they existed before the unprecleared
annexations were made, and citizens residing in such annexed areas
may not participate in future municipal elections, either as
electors or as candidates. Cf. Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. at
397 n.l4, 91 S.Ct. at 441 n.l4, 27L.Ed.2d at 490 n.14. This
relief applies only to the right to vote and be a candidate. It
does not, of course, constitute dc-annexation, and it does not affect
the rights of citizens residing in the annexed areas in any other wa~
Therefore, having determined that the May, 25, 1965; May 4, 1966
September 2, 1966; and July 14, 1967, annexations by the City of
Indianola constitute voting qualifications, prerequisites, standards
practices, or proceduresdifferent from those in force or effect
- 10 -
PAGENO="0828"
1702
November 1, 1964; that such differences arc within the coverage
of Sectibn 5of the Voting Rights 1~ct of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c;
arid that the City failed to comply with the provioions of Section
5 with regard to such changes, the court. concludes that the
plaintiffs are entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief
set out above. All the remaining issues should be remanded to
Judge WilliamC. Keady for determination as a single district
judge.
Judgment will be entered in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
58.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. McTeer. Splendid testimony.
Senator Kirksey, are you next?
TESTIMONY OF MARTHA BERGMARK
Ms. BERGMARK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Washington, I am Martha
Bergmark of Hattiesburg, Miss.
I have resided in the State of Mississippi for 28 of my 32 years.
Since 1973, I have practiced law in Hattiesburg, first with a private
firm and since 1978 as the executive director of Southeast Missis-
sippi Legal Services Corp.
Since 1975, I have been a member of the Mississippi Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to tell you why I
believe extension and strengthening of the 1965 Voting Rights Act
are essential to the continued participation of blacks in the func-
tions of government in Mississippi.
As an exhibit to his testimony before you on May 28, 1981, Frank
Parker of ~the ~Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
submitted a comprehensive recent history of continuing infringe-
ments on voting rights: entitled, "Voting in Mississippi: A Right
Still Denied."
I believe this study provides compelling documentation of the
ingenuity and diligence of Mississippi's white power structure in
maintaining up to the present day a political system in which
blacks have only minimal representation.
I will use my time with you to provide some additional examples
of voting rights infringement in my home area, southeast Mississip-
pi.
The city~ of :Hattiesburg is presently a defendant in a suit to
change the form of its municipal government from an at-large to a
district or ward system of voting.
Duringthe pendency of that suit, on August 7, 1979, a referen-
dum was held on the question of whether to change from a corn-
mission form of government with at-large voting, under which
blacks have never been elected, to a mayor-council form with ward
voting, under which it was likely that two blacks would be elected
to a nine-member council.
Blacks comprise approximately 29 percent of the population.
PAGENO="0829"
1703
In that referendum, 84 percent of the white voters voted to*
retain the commission form of government, while 84 percent of the
black voters voted for the mayor-council form.
During the petition drive which precipitated the referendum,
supporters of the change collected signatures door to door and at
shopping centers. White petitioners, including myself, were fre-
quently told by whites that they were refusing to sign the petition
because they knew our purpose was to make black representation
in city government possible.
Such responses were typically accompanied by the use of racial
epithets.
Black petitioners were directly subjected to racial slurs.
Henry McFarlin, a black, testified that only two of the more
than 200 whites he talked to agreed to sign the petition.
Another incident which occurred prior to the August 7 referen-
dum is described in the affidavit of Robert L. Gibbs, a native
Mississippian and a black attorney then residing in Hattiesburg.
I have attached this affidavit as an exhibit to my testimony and
request that it be made part of the hearing record.
Mr. Gibbs relates his experience in being improperly denied
access to timely voter registration and the persistence it required
for him to secure his right to vote in an important and racially
polarized city election.
Mr. Gibbs later learned that his experience was shared by at
least one other black Hattiesburg resident.
We can reasonably infer that this clear interference with the
right to register and vote would have deterred those less knowl-
edgeable or sophisticated in the exercise of their rights.
Hattiesburg's three city commissioners, all white, campaigned
actively for retaining the commission form of government with its
at-large voting.
Then-Mayor A. L. Gerrard, addressing questions about the issue
at an all-white Rotary Club meeting was asked whether mayor-
council supporters were "pushing this change just to get the nig-
gers in the government" and answered affirmatively.
This was confirmed at the Hattiesburg trial and he confirmed it
by saying he answered yes out of respect for the questioner.
This incident dispels the notion that the mere existence of a
substantial black minority in the electorate, and a corresponding
desire to court black votes will force white elected officials to be
sensitive or responsive to the needs of their black constituents.
Finally, with respect to Hattiesburg, two very recent incidents of
official interference with the right of blacks to be elected to public
office illustrate the lengths, to which whites continue to go to
prevent the effective participation of blacks in the electoral proc-
ess. `
In the November 4, 1980, Presidential election, two white pre-
cinct workers at Camp School Precinct made certain that at least
two white voters .knew the racial identity of candidates for public
office. Affidavits from the white. voters documenting these irIci-
dents are submitted herewith for `inclusion in the hearing record.
I am convinced that if the Voting Rights Act is not extended and
strengthened, even more egregious interference with black partici-
pation in the electoral process will be commonplace.
PAGENO="0830"
1704
Before I turn to the situation in Laurel, Miss., I would like to
digress for a moment and speak to a question that counsel to the
committee, Ms. Davis, raised with an earlier witness, Mr. Barefield.
Mr. Barefield told you that the Mississippi Constitution no longer
contains literacy or poll tax provisions as prerequisites to voting.
It still contains an antimiscegenation provision. At a pretrial
deposition and subsequently at trial for the Hattiesburg city gov-
ernment case testimony was taken from the Forrest County circuit
clerk who is not only the official responsible for voter registration,
but also the official who issues marriage licenses.
She testified that since coming into office in 1978, it had been
her policy to refuse marriage licenses to interracial couples in
order to comply with Mississippi law in this regard.
She has never seen fit to hire a black person on her staff.
As a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's Mississippi
advisory committee, I participated in a recent study of the respon-
siveness of the city of Laurel's municipal government, elected on
an at-large basis, to the needs and views of its substantial-37
percent-black minority community.
The advisory committee chose Laurel for this study based on
application of neutral criteria as typical of cities its size with at-
large voting.
The committee further decided to prepare its public report in the
form of a* videotape documentary in order to facilitate its clearing-
house and community information functions.
At its December 17, 1980, meeting held in Laurel, the advisory
committee viewed the videotape report entitled "Laurel and
Laurel: A City Divided," and found that at-large municipal voting
structures generally deny black people in Mississippi living in ma-
jority white communities equal opportunities for representation in
municipal government.
The advisory committee further found that black citizens living
in Mississippi cities and towns with at-large vOting systems strong-
ly believe that their all-white city councils are not responsive to
their needs and interests.
Based on its findings, the advisory committee urged the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights to recommend to the President and
Congress that the Voting Rights Act be extended for an additional
7 years.
The committee further asked the Commission to recommend that
the present provisions of the act be expanded to outlaw on a
nationwide basis any voting qualification or standard, practice, or
procedure with respect to voting which has the purpose or effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.
The advisory committee asked the Commission to forward the
videotape report to this Judiciary Committee for review in your
deliberations on this issue.
I submitherewith as exhibits to my testimony a. transcript of the
videotape and a copy of advisory committee Chairperson Mary
Ramberg's letter of transmittal to: the Commission.
* Again I request that these documents be made a~ part of this
hearing record and urge the~ committee to obtain and view this 26-
minute report.
PAGENO="0831"
1705
It will' provide you with eloquent testimony to the view of Lau-
rel's black community that so long as blacks are denied even the
possibility `of being represented in city government, city officials
will continue their historic pattern of nonresponsiveness.
Based on my experiences as a Mississippian, I believe that the
Voting Rights Act, and especially the critical enforcement provi-
sions contained in section 5 must be extended. This act has been
crucial to the gains made since 1965 by black Mississippians in
voter registration and in winning election to public office. Howev-
er, as great as these gains have been, we must recognize that the
battle is far from won.
Far too many Mississippi whites, including many public officials,
would celebrate the lapse of the Voting Rights Act. Too many
whites would welcome a return to the all-too-recent past when
blacks were openly denied participation in government.
Mississippi history, up to the present, is replete with examples of
the dedication of her white citizens to that goal.
If the Voting Rights Act is not extended, I fear that historians
would point to 1981, as they now point to 1876, when Federal
troops were withdrawn from the States of the Confederacy, as a
year when the U.S. Government abandoned its commitment to
legal equality and left Mississippi and other Southern States free
to trample the rights of their black citizens.
[The statement of Ms. Bergmark follows:]
TESTIMONY OF MARTHA BERGMARK ON EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Martha Bergmark of
Hattiesburg, Mississippi. I have resided in the State of Mississippi for 28 of my 32
years. Since 1973, I have practiced law in Hattiesburg, first with a private firm and
since 1978 as the executive director of Southeast Mississippi Legal Services Corpora-
tion. Since 1975, I have been a member of the Mississippi Advisory Committee to
the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to tell you why I believe extension
and the strengthening of the. 1965 Voting Rights Act are essential to the continued
participation of blacks in the functions of government in Mississipi.
As an exhibit to his testimony before you on May 28, 1981, Frank Parker of the
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law submitted a comprehensive recent
history of continuing infringements on voting rights entitled, "Voting in Mississippi:
A Right Still Denied." I believe, this study provides compelling documentation of the
ingenuity and diligence of Mississippi's white power structure in maintaining, up to
the present day, a political system in which blacks have only minimal representa-
tion. I will use my time with you to provide some additional examples of voting
rights infringement in my home area, southeast Mississippi.
The City of Hattiesburg is presently a defendant in a suit to change the form of
its municipal government from an at-large to a district or ward system of voting.
During the pendency of that suit, on August 7, 1979, a referendum was held on the
question of whether to change from a commission form .of government with at-large
voting, under which blacks have never been eleceted, to a mayor-council form with
ward voting, under which it was likely that two blacks would be elected to a nine-
member council. Blacks comprise approximately .29 percent of the population. In
that referendum, 84 percent of the white voters voted to retain the commission form
of government, while 84 percent of the black voters voted for the mayor-council
form.
During the petition drive which precipitated the referendum, supporters of the
change collected signatures door-to-door and at shopping centers. White petitioners,
including myself, were frequently told by whites that they were refusing to sign the
petition because they knew our purpose was to make black representation in city
government possible. Such responses were typically accompanied by the use of
racial epithets. Black petitioners were directly subjected to racial slurs. Henry
McFarlin, a black, testified that only two of the more than 200 whites he talked to
agreed to sign the petition.
PAGENO="0832"
1706
Another incident which occurred prior to the August 7 referendum is described in
the affidavit of Robert L. Gibbs, a native Mississippian and a black attorney then
residing in Hattiesburg. I have attached this affidavit as an exhibit to my testimony
and request that it be made a part of the hearing record. Mr. Gibbs relates his
experience in being improperly denied access to timely voter registration and the
persistence it required for him to secure his right to vote in an important and
racially polarized city election. Mr. Gibbs later learned that his experience was
shared by at least one other black Hattiesburg resident. We can reasonably infer
that this clear interference with the right to register and vote would have deterred
those less knowledgeable or sophisticated in the exercise of their rights.
Hattiesburg's three city commissioners (all white) campaigned actively for retain-
ing the commission form of government with its at-large voting. Then-mayor A. L.
Gerrard, addressing questions about the issue at an all-white Rotary Club meeting,
was asked whether mayor-council supporters were "pushing this change just to get
the Niggers in the government" and answered affirmatively. This incident dispels
the notion that the mere existence of a substantial black minority in the electorate,
and a corresponding desire to "court"~ black votes, will force white elected officials
to be sensitive or responsive to the needs of their black constituents.
Finally, with respect to Hattiesburg, two very recent incidents of official interfer-
ence with the right of blacks to be elected to public office illustrate the lengths to
which whites continue to go to prevent the effective participation of blacks in the
electoral process. In the November 4, 1980, presidential election, two white precinct
workers at Camp School Precinct made certain that at least two white voters knew
the racial identity of candidates for public office. Affidavits from the white voters
documenting these incidents are submitted herewith for inclusion in the hearing
record. I am convinced that if the Voting Rights Act is not extended and strength-
ened, even more egregious interference with black participation in the electoral
process will be commonplace.
LAUREL
As a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's Mississippi Advisory Commit-
tee, I participated in a recent study of the responsiveness of the City of Laurel's
municipal government, elected on an at-large basis, to the needs and views of its
substantial (37 percent) black minority community.
The Advisory Committee chose Laurel for this study, based on application of
neutral criteria, as typical of cities its size with at-large voting. The Committee
further decided to prepare its public report in the form of a videotape documentary
in order to facilitate its clearinghouse and community informationfunctions.
At its December 17, 1980, meeting, held in Laurel, the Advisory Committee
viewed the videotape report, entitled "Laurel and Laurel: A City Divided," and
found that at-large municipal voting structures generally deny black people in
Mississippi living in majority white communities equal opportunities for representa-
tion in municipal government. The Advisory Committee further found that black
citizens living in Mississippi cities and towns with at-large voting systems strongly
believe that their all-white- city councils are not responsive to their needs and
interests.
Based on its findings, the Advisory Committee urged the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights to recommend to the President and Congress that the Voting Rights
Act be extended for an additional seven years. The Committee further asked the
Commission to recommend that the present provisions of the Act be expanded to
outlaw on a nationwide basis any voting qualification or standard practice or
procedure with respect to voting which has the purpose or effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.
The Advisory Committee asked the Commission to forward the videotape report to
this Judiciary Committee for review in your deliberations on this issue. I submit
herewith, as exhibits to my testimony, a transcript of the videotape and a copy of
Advisory Committee Chairperson Mary Ramberg's letter of transmittal to the Com-
mission. Again, I request that these documents be made a part of this hearing
record and urge the Committee to obtain and view this 26-minute report. It will
provide you with eloquent testimony to the view of Laurel's black community that
so long as blacks are denied even the possibility of being represented in city
government, city officials will continue their historic pattern of non-responsiveness.
Based on my experience as a Mississippian, I believe that the Voting Rights Act,
and especially the critical enforcement provisions contained in Section 5, must be
extended. This Act has been crucial to the gains made since 1965by black Mississip-
pians in voter registration and in winning election to public office. However, as
great as these gains have been, we must recognize that the battle is far from won.
PAGENO="0833"
1707
Far too many Mississippi whites, including many public officials, would celebrate
the lapse of the Voting Rights Act. Too many whites would welcome a return to the
all-too-recent past, when blacks were openly denied participation in government.
Mississippi history, up to the present,. is replete with examples of the dedication of
her white citizens to that goat.
If the Voting Rights Act is not extended, I fear that historians would point to
1981-as they now point to 1876, when federal troops were withdrawn from the
states of the Confederacy-as a year when the United States government abandoned
its commitment to legal equality and left Mississippi and the other southern states
free to trample the rights of their black citizens.
83-~679 0 - 82 - 53 Pt.2
PAGENO="0834"
1708
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT L. GIBBS
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY OF HINDS
I, Robert L. Gibbs, being duly sworn say:
1.
That I am Robert L. Gibbs, an adult resident citizen of
Hinds County, Mississippi, and a duly licensed and prac-
ticing attorney in the State of Mississippi.
2.
That in June, 1979, I moved to Hattiesburg, Mississippi,
Forrest County, where I became employed as a staff attorney
with Southeast Mississippi Legal Services Corporation.
3.
That sometime in June, 1979, prior to the deadline to
register to vote in the election to decide the change in
Municipal form of Government, I went to the Forrest County
Courthouse to register to vote. I was allowed to register
in the County, but I was told by a deputy clerk that the
apartment complex in which I lived (Christina Apartments) was
outside the city limits and that I would not be allowed to
register for the municipal elections. She informed me not
to go to Hattiesburg city hall, since I was outside the city.
4.
Later, after the deadline to register for the election
on the change of the Municipal form of Government had past,
I found out that I was, indeed, staying within Hattiesburg'5
city limits. I determined this after talkiii~with several
people who were from Hattiesburg and knew its city limits.
PAGENO="0835"
1709
5.
Shortly thereafter, 1, along with another black
attorney went to city hall. At city hall I spoke with a
white deputy city clerk who informed me that I did stay in
the city limits and I could register to vote. However, she
informed me that I would. not be allowed to vote in the elec-
tion onthe change in the Municipal form of Government
since the deadline had past. I explained to the clerk that
when registering to vote at the Forrest County Courthouse I
was told I could not vote in the city elections, and it was
this reason that I did not register to' vote in the city on
that day. I produced my voter's registration card which
evidenced the date I registered at the County Courthouse.
The clerk again told me I would not be allowed to vote in
the upcoming election. I then demanded to see a city
commissioner. When this was done another white person (who
appeared to be a city clerk), called the deputy clerk aside.
After a shortdiscussion out of my hearing, I was told that
since it was not my fault in failing to register to vote
before the deadline, my registration would be "backdated"
so I could vote in the upcoming. election, This was done
without further. incident.
6.
I have also spoken with another black resident of
*Christina Apartments who told' me that she too was told that
she could `not register to vote in the Hattiesburg city elec-
tions by officials of the Forrest County Courthouse, I
cannot, however, remember who that person was.
Further affiant says not.
PAGENO="0836"
1710
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this the 7~day of
June, 1981.
(~ `~O1q)
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
M~ Camm~eS~ Ex$res ~gt~~ra, 1~s.
PAGENO="0837"
1711
AFFIDAVIT OF JO HAlLEY
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY OF FORREST
Personally appeared before me,~the undersigned authority in
and' for the jurisdiction aforesa~d, the within named JO BAILEY,
who' after having `been by me ~first duly sworn states on oath the
following:
I.
lam: `a white resident of HattiesbUrg, Forrest County, Mississippi,
~where `I am employed as~an assistant professor of Psychology at,
the University' of: Southern Mississippi, and am a qualified elector.
II.
On.Novembér .4, 1980, I went to vote at Camp School Precinct.
I Obtained assistance from aprecinct worker, an older white male,
in theTuse of the new voting machines. In demonstrating the machine
he used a `demonstration ballot, not a sample of the real November 4
ballot However at the end of the demonstration he opened the
`real ballot, pointed out the names of two candidates for a particular
~off ice' and' said', `Now this is the white one .and this is the colored
one."
III.
`Later that day, I telephoned Martha Bergmark, reported this
incident to her, and asked her:to report it to whatever election
official or other persons she deemed appropriate.
JO~ HAEY ` ,` ,
SWORN T0 `AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this the ~day' of June, 1981.
~
NOTARY PUBLIC ` `
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ` "
j~wO~ ~
PAGENO="0838"
1712
AFFIDAVIT OF KIM T. CRAZE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY OF FORREST
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority in
and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, the within named KIM T.. CRAZE,
who after having been by ne first duly sworn states on oath the
following:
I.
I am an adult resident of Hattiesburg, Forrest County, Mississippi,
where I am employed as an attorney. I reside in the Camp School
Precinct and am a qualified elector.
II.
On November 4, 1980, I wentto vote at Camp School Precinct.
I obtained assistance from a precinct worker, an older white
female, in the use of the new voting machines. In demonstrating
the use of the voting machine, this precinct worker pointed out
to me that of the two candidates for a particular office, one
was black and the other was white, and she identified which was
which on the ballot.
~ T~ d~
KIM T. CRAZE
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this thej hday of
__________ 1981.
/~?k (~/ &t~
NOTARY PUBLI~L~~
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
~
PAGENO="0839"
1713
February 1981
Arthur..S..Fleming, Chairperson
Nary F. Berry, Vice Chairperson
Stephen Born
Jill S. Ruckleshous
Murray Saltzman, Members
United States Commission on Civil Rights
Washington, D.C. 20425
Dear Commissioners:
The Mississippi State Advisory Coinmitteeto the.ljnited States
Commission on Civil Rights .presents. the. report Laurel and Laurel:
A City Divided to you pursuant to our responsibilities under
Commission regulations.
The Mississippi State Advisory Committee undertook this study to
analyze whether or not there are continuing problems of dentals
toblacks in Mississippi of equal rights to political participation
and if~ so, to analyze the consequences: of; that denial for the black
community.
Mississippi now has 387 black elected officials,'tnore than any
other state in the country, largely as a result.of the `implementation
and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.. Although this represents
considerable progress, there are snore than 4,900 elective offices in
the state, and black elected officials st~l1 represent only 8 percent
of the total number of~;e~ected officials' in a state which is 37 percent
black. `
The City"ofLaurel,'Mississippi.Was not~singled' out fort this study, but
was chosen on the basis:of" the application of neutral criteria as
typical of cities its size with at-large voting. The.i~Iississippi State
`Advisory Committee wishes to. thank Bobby D. Doctor,. Regional Director,
and staff of'the Southerü Regional Office for their support services
`on this' project. " The Committee is particularly grateful for the
diligent efforts and hard work of Ms.. `Miriam,Grayboff who worked with
the Committee in the preparation of the documentary report
As a result of this study the Mississippi State Advisory Committee
finds
`1)' At-large municipal voting structures generally deny black
people in Mississippi living in majority white communities
PAGENO="0840"
1714
2
equal opportunities for representation in municipal
government. Since Laurel's adoption in 1912 of at-
large voting under the commisfion form of government,
no black person has been elected to the Laurel City
Council, despite the fact that, according to the
1970 Census, Laurel is 36.9 percent black in
population.
This total exclusion of black representation typically
exists throughout Mississippi in majority white cities~
and towns with at-large municipal elections. Of the
79 cities and towns in Mississippi with populations
of 2,500 and over, half (39) currently elect members
of their city councils at-large. Of these, 69 percent
(27) have no black representation on their city
councils despj~te substantial black population concen-
trations living within their city limits. Most of the
remaining communities with at-large elections which
have one or more black city council members are
majority black~ in population.
2) Black citizens living in Mississippi cities and towns
with at-large voting systems strongly believe that
their all-white city councils are not responsive to
the needs and interests of their black communities.
As this report demonstrates, the black citizens of
Laurel have numerous complaints of racial discrimination
in the provision of municipal services which they feel
are not being addressed by a city council elected at-
large.
In light of these fiiidings,.the Mississippi State Advisory Committee
recommends:
I) That the United States Commission, on Civil Rights recommend
to the Président and Congress that the Voting Rights Act of
165 be extended for an additional 7 years.
If the temporary provisions of. the Voting Rights Act are
~allowed to. expire as scheduled in August 1982, the modest
gains made in this state could be wiped out. The Voting
Rights Act remains, the lifeblood of black political parti-
cipation in Mississippi and the South, and its guarantees
must continue in effect both to protect existing gains and
to provide for continued progress in. black political
participation.
PAGENO="0841"
That the United States Commission on Civil Rights recommend
to the President~nd Congress that the present provisions
of the Voting Rights~Act be expanded to outlaw On a nation-
wide basis any voting qualification or standard, practice
or procedure with respect to voting which has the purpose
* or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race or color.
* At present, the Voting Rights Act outlaws in covered
states only those election law changes enacted since November
1, 1964,which.are racially discriminatory in purpose or.
effect. Under recent Supreme Court decisions, black voters
challenging discriminatory election laws in effect before
.1964 have the heavy burden of proving that those laws were
conceived of operated for a racially discriminatory
~ Proof of racially discriminatory êffectis not
enough. As one consequence, majority white cities and
towns through Nississippi and the South are permitted to
retain at-large municipal election schemes adopted before
1964 which deny black voters any opportunity for represen-
tation in municipal government..
The promises of the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of
equal political participation for black citizens remain unfulfilled
if racially discriminatory electoral mechanisms such as these are
allowed to continue to exist and remain untouched by existing law..
Weurge your consideration of the facts presented in this report and
the Nississippi State Advisory Committee's recommendation for.
corrective action. We believe Laurel and Laurel evidences,, perhaps
more clearly than raw data black voter alienation from the local
political process in Nississippi, and suggest that thevideotape and
transcript be forwarded to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees-
for review in their deliberations on the question of extension of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Respectfully,
FOR TILE MISSISSIPPI STATE -
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Nary L. Ramberg, Chairperson
1715
3
2)
I
PAGENO="0842"
1716
JJgITED STATES coMi~;sstoH ON ~~V1L ~lGHTS
SOUThERN REOIONAL OFFICE
~ T.~.t C+-.~y B..~
7~ Pl,J...& ~ ~. )2
~ ~~s~p** 3OI6~
~s~q 221-4391
LALIQEL. I LAUtEL -- A CITY ~flVlVZV
A tl-mLsttzte Y44eo~tape Repo'tt by
~tha IU~~4LppL AduL6o'LU Comn~.tit~
to 2~hn (1.5. Conm~41~.ton on Cc.vc2
*RL9hC6.
TitLe 7tepOft* o~ iftt U~t~~rpL
AdvA-oo'&g Coanntttee to the tI.S.
Coi~Lon on CLvLL R~htC tua4
p*~opa'ttd £o~& the LJt~oAtnatton and
coneLde'LatLon o~ the Cota~4~On.
U wLtt be aon~do~ted by the
CommL4ãLOn, and the Conmt86~On
to.iU mahe pebZLa Lf.6 ~teaeUon.
* In the me~tnt.Lv'e, the ~ontent& o~
th.~ 4epo~zt ikouU not be ak4.buted
to the Com?nZ6SLon, but on!y to the
IUeeLeeLpptAdvLeoky CommLtttt.
August 19S1
PAGENO="0843"
1717
Transcript of Soundtrack
Laurel E, Laurel: A City Divided
Audio
Voice of Interviewer: Why did the Advisory Committee to the
(A Report. of the Mississippi U.S. Coismission on Civil Ri~hts adopt
Advisory Committee to the this project of looking into the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: political structure in Laurel,
Mississippi, and its relationship to
how Federal money is spent?
Frank Parker (Member, Mississippi Well there is a continuing concern of
Advisory Committee) the exclusion of black people from
representation in government, at all
levels, in the state of Mississippi. We
have a situation now in which, as a result
of the last election, there is a substan-
tial number of black legislators elected
to the Mississippi legislature--17 blacks
were elected.1/ A substantial number of
blacks elected to county supervisor
positions. Yet, at the municipal level,
black people are still excluded in many
parts of the state from any representation
in municipal government as a result of
at-large voting.2/
Youngsters' Voices Singing: (Camera 1, 2, 3, .4. Tell me what .you're waiting for.
run by of dilapidated houses, well Scooby ecooby doo. Guess what America,
kept homes) we love you! A rock, a roll and so much
soul I don't mean to say, I don't
memm.to boast...:"
They just get a job, go to work, `eat,
deep... Some of em go to church every
`..night,,ain~t. got .a thought of &their own...
They're afraid if they think, the white
fôlks'll know it.
Voice of Susie Ruffin:
* (Community Resident)
(Scenes of Laurel-residents at
work, home, etc.)
Train Sound comes up and fades
Mate. Samuels:
`(Rehabilitation ~and.Community
Officer) Stands before map in
Laurel City Planning Office.
As you can plainly see, thedivisionline
is here. This is the, the Southern Rail-
way tracks running here, and it more or
less divides the city in terms of black
population and white population.3/
PAGENO="0844"
1718
Video Audio
Narrator: As the railroad tracks cut southwest to
(Scenes of Laurel) northeast through Laurel, Mississippi, two
communities are divided. On the one side
of the tracks, the Laurel which is almost
all black and mostly low income; on the
other side, the Laurel which is nearly all
white and where the shopping district,
schools, and hospitals are located.4/ ror
the many black residents, the isolation of
their community and the occasional blocking
of f by the trains are more than inconvenience.
The train line has come to symbolize a
segregated past and a perceived neglect of
present needs.
Marzell Clayton: We have had houses in this Queensburg area
(Laurel Resident) to burn down because the fire truck couldn't
get there. And then we have had sick people
trying to get out from down here to the
hospital. The ambulance can't get down there
when these trains are blocked. Both of these
trains have been across the tracks at the same
time. And in the morning time we have had
people late for work, children late for school.
See, just this year is the only time we have
ever had any transportation. We had to fight
like `Rip' to get transportation for our
children to get to school. And some of `em
were walking 5 miles! Nov that we do have the
buses, but yet and still we have a hassle with
the people who are trying to get to work. And
`if we had a ~fire, just look what could happen
down there now. And it's just a bad condition!
Interviewer: What has happend over the 11 years which has
`prevented a crossing frnm.being put here?
Marzell Clayton: Not one thing! Only thing we have just been
to them from titus to time, asking them to
put one here. Every time, "Well, we g'bt
-to them when we fix the downtown area first,
then we'll go into the community." But I
~don't think, I don't, that'a right! Because
I think, they should serve the needs of the
PAGENO="0845"
1719
Audio
Narrator Although blacks make up a sizeable proportion
(Scenes of Laurel and of o'~'the population, Laurelhas never elected
people voting) a member of. a minority to public office. .51
Jones County's largest municipality began aa
a lumber mill in the late 1800's. John Mason,
who developed a way to turn sawdust and
woodwasteinto building board, and the rail
lines,helpedit grow into a town of 25,000.
Elections in Laurel are held at large. 6/
Members of tii~e Commission on Civil Rights'
Mississippi Advisory Committee wanted to
find Out how just~ responsive government
officials chosen on such a basis could be to
the needs of minority constituents, whether
Laurel's 7,000 black citizens were able to
participate fully in the electoral process and
if federal funds. were being meted out
properly and fairly.
John Rasberry (President, Jones I.'~m sure most of y'all are here on behalf
County Board of Supervisors:): of the Revenue Sharing... Everybody back
there?
cc 0.K You got it, Mr. Clerk? Right.
Interviewer: in your opinion have you spent the Federil
Revenue Sharing money properly.
Rasberry: (Rasberry's..face . ..As.jar as we know, according to lawwe have
-appears on'flashback' ~insert) .gone atraight-down-the~lina. EYes, iu'aain.
Interviewer: . `How do you go about assessing the needa?
~Rasberry: * . Well we setup in different.categories to
fit theneeds, ~the demands of the people.
Interviewer: . Bow do you go about.establishing. prio~ities
on-what should come first in your budgeting?
Rasbe-rry: . Well, we have to get together and discuss
that. We don't know. . .and then we come up
(flashback dissolves) with that priority.
~Rasberry (in ~~oard hearing -room) ~Anybody got anything they want to . say, come
on around.
PAGENO="0846"
1720
Marzell Clayton I'm Marzell Clayton. First I'd like to thank -
the board for this opportunity for the
organization of People Helping People to have
the opportunity to come before you and present
to you some of the most needed proposals that
we feel that Revenue Sharing money should be
spent, and any money that can be available
in Jones County and in the City of Laurel
that would `releviate' the problems of the
people who live in Jones County and in the
City of Laurel. And our number one priority,
we feel like, which we have tried on several
occasions, is to get an eaergen~y housing system.
Number two, is the railroad tracks that are
located in the City of Laurel and on Queens-
burg Avenue. (That railroad track is a spur
from Nasionite.) And it'.s the most uncon-
venient thing we have in trafficvay in the
City of Laurel.
Voice of Interviewer Do you think hearingson various Federal
(In Parker's Office) programs are sufficient where people can
come and voice their opinions to the
elected officials?
Parker: (Attorney, Lawyers' No because this can simply be a sham.
Committee) can be a futile exercise. The city commissioners
can sit at this hearing, or the county board
of supervisors can sit at this hearing all
evening long and not act on any of those
suggestions,and not acton any of those
protests. lt'ajust.a.sham; it-could have
no affect at all on the decision-making
as to exactly how that money is being spent.
Interviewer:- (inLaurel Could we get to Revenue Sharing. Do you
Mayor's office) have any idea of how much money was
allocated to Laurel last year? -
Mayor Bill Patrick Around, around 500,000 dollars LI
You are aware that, well, the formula calls
for giving ~ Revenue Sharing to those
- municipalities or- counties where you have
lower income people, so that the more low
income...
Mayor The poverty level. In fact that's -
-figured in twice.
~t~rv5ewer:
Ah,-so it is weighted-toward the poor. -Would
you say that most of the Revenue Sharing
money is spent in projects where the poor reside?
PAGENO="0847"
1721
Mayor: Ab, yes, to benefit them. Of course,like, you
take a training facility for the police
department. We have used some Revenue
Sharing funds to provide the police training
which are white and black. Because the police
protect the black as much as they protect the
white. So, yes I would.say so. -
Interviewer: Is that what it was.spent for last year?
8/
Mayor: Well, a portion of.i We've paved a lot
of streets in the. black area with Revenue
Sharing funds.Z./We put a lot of sewer
exten~i~n lines in the black area. Of course
they needed it in.the first place. Their..streeta
were not as well kept down through the years
and there was quite a number of areas that
did not have sewerage. ~I There're not
anymore. We've covered `em all.
Interviewer: .. Now were the priorities established? I
- mean who decided that the best usage would
be a police training facility?
Mayor: We have a citizens' input group, quite a number
of citizen groups. We open it up to anybody.
We advertise our intent, have hearings and
anybody that has any. input, whatsoever, no matter
who he is, he can be an individial .or a group.
And we listen to them all
Well, it seems as though we have poor government
`~~~nma Nix (Laurel resident) right now, for..listening .to;our problems.
(at downtown ma~.l)
The City of Laurel don't listen to nobody
Clayton: . unless you got some money! Now if you're
(at railroad crossing) . in the big brackets they'll, hear you.
Bill riflery: . I think those that're administrating ourtax
(Laurel businessman) .~ monies are good people and they're doing their
very best to put those monies in plac~s that
will be the best for our general population.
Narrator: (camera surveys `In.talking with `Laurel residents, tbeinterviewera
white neighborhood) soon found out that attitudes on'how good a
job local officials were doing depended on which
aide of the tracks you came' from. To some, like
newsman Ed Jussley, Laurel, and the state,had
made remarkable progress in involving blacks
in the political process.
PAGENO="0848"
Ed Jussley: (Laurel Newsman) No, I don't think that's an issue anymore.
Because they're in all the advisory
councils. They always have blacks on
them now.
Interviewer - On advisory councils?
Jussley: On cItizens' groups, and councils and
school boards, that kind of thing.
Is this because of the Federal
requirement?
~ No. I think people around here in
-Laurel, in Jones county, realized back
in the 60's that it was time to get
that input.
There was some real pressure, sure,
because when you vent to Washington
--to appeal for money, it was always
nice to have a black sitting there
with you that would help talk the
- - - - case up. -
~I don't think a paternalistic city
- -- - `governmentS can bave :a :true assessment
~of.the-neèds~of~thebl~aCk community. - --
- . They:will-.make certain appointments-. . -
- - - :for.example, maybe appoint a black to -
~aschoolboaid - which are basically -
- showcase. They will do some showcase
things. They will maybe pave some
streets in the black community. Bpt
without ~y~pg in the black community, -
without being familiar with the population -
and their needs, in the black community,
* - - -then no all-white city government can `be
truly responsive to the needs and
interests of that black community.
If Nasonite vo~'t put an overpass here,
.:thenlet.the city take~the Federal
- money and make an overpass with the street,
build,a bridge with a street. It `wouldfl~t
- - take~that much money, the way it's sloping -
and all. It went downtown into a good barn shed.
1722
~Ao
*Interviewer
Jussley:
;Parker: -
;(In:his oLfice)
: Clayton: (at railroad
~.traoks) -
PAGENO="0849"
1723
This nice good shed up there tThich we had
some good stables under there we could make
a good cattle shed out of it. What it really
did, it done our old people a disadvantage.
See before that was built, what they had, we
could take old people and drive right ~ip in
front of the store, right on the sidewalk and
let them Out. Now they can't go up town now.
You can't get a car close enough. If it's
raining, it gets wet, and most of the people
______________________________ can't get there, because they can't walk.
So somewhere, some Federal money's going down
the drain here somewhere. And I feel, like, it's
a bigger Watergate down here than there's
ever been in Washington. But how are we
going to find it?
Mayor Patrick, have there been any criticisms
of the way the Commission has decided to use
Federal funds either through Revenue Sharing
or CD monies; that is, arguing with the
priorities which the Commission has set?
Oh yeah. As long as people have opinions there
are going to be varying opinions. Certainly.
We have groups that will complain about, y'know,
anything that we do and so we do hear `em.
And sometimes people's complaints are justified
and sometimes they are not. But we do receive
complaints.
Row would you characterize"justified and
* unjustified" complaints about the priorities
that..have been set up to this point, starting
* with these criticism you think may have. . . *
Weliwe have some people that have a personal
interest in certain things that they would like
to have these Revenue Sharing fuOds ~pent oii
so that they might benefit personally. We have
some people that I call "aginners." They are -
just against-anything, and we hear from those
quite a bit.
But I would say that the cricitisms that are
real just,and ones that are there for a
productive reason, we don't get too many of*
those. But those are the ones we really pay a
lot of attention to because,when they are trying
to benefit the entire city and the people
through their constructive criticism, then
_wing of Downtown Mall)
Textappears over Mall Fountains:
From 1971-1978 the City of Laurel
received $14,000,000 from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development *i~/
Male interviewer: (in Mayor's
office)
Mayor:
`~Male interviewer:
*~Mayor:
83-679 0 - 82 - 5'~ Pt.2
PAGENO="0850"
1724.
* Audio
that's good. But ub, that's not the
ones.. .that gets up on television. It's
usually the other, the other type, and
that's goodbecause,y'know,we're glad to
have them. We like to have, these voices
raised, because -how are you going to know what
everybody is thinking if you can't hear
them? But I've never heard of a statue
being erected to the~tnemory of an "aginner."
When you have complaints about conditions or
water in this area, do you go to the city
officials with your complaints?
Well you can, but it is fruitless. Because
the Leontyne Price project, 11/ the project
down here aren't owned by the city. They're
owned by a private company. These streets
down here-aren't even owned by the city.
So they will tell you when you have a
complaint about the Leontyne Price project,
go to that company. And then when you have
complaints about -the Laurel Housing Authority
projects, they will tell you, they will send
you to the Laurel Housing Authority. And
- that is an all white board. There are no
blacks-on that board.
rs that -an elected board? or an- appointed
board?
It's an appointed board.
Who appoints them?
The City Commissioners. And we won't have
a black on that board until you get a black
- .*as a city comzsissioner.And with the present
form of government we can't do that. `12-/
What is the general situation facing the
black community in Laurel as far as low income
housing is concerned?
-We don'.t haveany, ~At least, we can't~g~ar~y.
-Me there any public housingprojectsaS such?
Voice of Female Interviewer
(at housing project) -
George Miller
(Laurel resident)
:erviewer
Miller:
Interviewer
Miller:
Interviewer
(in shopping mall)
"~mmal~ix: -
Interviewer:
PAGENO="0851"
1725
Emma Nix: - They say they are not taking applications. We
were told that it would be May before they start.
But I don't know why they are letting the houses
go vacant. And there are so many, not only this
girl, but so many that don't have any place to stay
here.
Interviewer: Now when people don't have any place to stay, they
don't sleep under the trees, they don't sleep
Out in the fIelds, where do they stay?
Nix: Well, they can't get a place for rent. They
don't have any houses for people for low income
Those that they have, if you find a house Out in
the street, they're so high the people here don't
have any funds to pay for their rent.
Parker: (in his office) The problem here,is that cities refuse to spend
their own money to perform the kinds of studies
which are necessary to determine the needs of the
black community, and unless the Federal Government
provides this money, most cities will not do it.
The whole purpose of the NIJD community block grant
program is to eliminate urban blight. And in most
cities in Mississippi, the greatest, the highest,
levelof urban blight occurs in the black
neighborhoods. And most cities refuse to recognize
their obligation under this program to:sper~d their
money where the needs are greatest.
Of course, Laurel bas built .B downtown..mall, ~I
interviewer: ~gather with a blobk grant. ~Woüld you consider
this an appropriate use of community block grants
,funds?
Parker: `~WCll,~that'1sfor REID to determine. My own~position
: would bethatitwouldbe a violationof~the
Congressional purpose of the act.
We asked for some money, and the Federals government
Mayor: :(In~Mayor's office) granted it-to us for the purpose of renovating
.downtown laurel. _Then, when we got to the area
where-wehad finished our planning, and we were
starting to demolish buildings and had the town in
*the biggest-mess you've ever seen in your life,
then they said there will be UP more Urban Renewal.
But we wi]~ have Community Development, and you'll
~get the -samemoneythat you would have gotten
* through Urban Renewal but we are going to call it
`Bold Harmless,t and it's going to be in the
Community Development.
PAGENO="0852"
1726
Video'
We ]~ to use that money to finish what we
started. If we hadn't nsed Federal money to fix it
back up like the original plan called for, we
wouldn't have a Laurel.
`If we can have a viable downtown, one where we
are a regional shopping complex, where people
will come in here and buy where they wouldn't
have before, that's going to increase our sales
tax money. That means that the coffers of the'
City of Laurel are going to have more money to do
things for the people who live here without
raising their taxes. This is a direct benefit to
the low and moderate income people and the mino-
rities, having this downtown fixed up that way.
Male Interviewer: (at mall) Do you shop down here, downtown?
Emma Nix Well, not too much, not very often because I
don't have very much money. But I pay bills
down here.
Larry Thomas As of now there exist oo black businesses
(Laurel Pharmacist) (in Pharmacy) downtown in the central downtown district at all. ,,~,/
Female Interviewer: Do you feel the Mall has benefited the city-at
- large. -
Thomas: You're speaking of the Downtown Mall?
Interviewer: Yes.
`Thomas: - -- Inbeauty, -and :1- believe tbdir,~-intentionswere `to
bring tnorebusiness `to downtown. -- And I believe
~they'succeeded~aome, doing'that. But I,'but from
the proportion of money spent and the benefit
~`~they got, I-wouldn't believe-it was that positive.
Question fr~ - `Mayor Patrick, you'have mentioned that various
Martha Bergmark: (Mississippi :-groups have input into how these priorities are
Advisory Committee) ` eet for expenditure of funds. Is it xxt, though,
the Commission that has the final say `in' that?
`MayorPatrick: - Absdlutely.' Right. - ` ` -
Bergmark: In setting the priorities, these officialeare the -
~ones that have,' actually vote vn what -the priorities
-will be, what the expenditures will be? - - -
PAGENO="0853"
1727
Audio
Mayor: According to law. That's right
Bergmark: So you can either take into account ornoi take
into account, as you see fit, the input of
these various groups?
Mayor: Right. Just like the one that wanted
the olympic size-swimming pool. We took, we.listened
to him, 57e analyzed it, but the priorities were
not there.
Voice of Male
Inter-viewer: Mayor Patrick we've picked up some complaints about
the questions about these very long trains coming
-and bisecting the city.(the train coming from
Masonite plant)and that, for a number of years,
citizens groups and individuals have being saying
that this disrupts the community, is a threat to
safety because of fires on one side of the tracks
and fire engines on the other, people trying to
get to hospitals, to school, to work, and the city
has not been responsive. Could you comment a bit
on just how serious a problem this is and where it
ranks in the list of the Commission's priorities?
Mayor: Well, we have had complaints of the trains. `Course,
we don't run the trains. That's private enterprise.
So all we can do is have ordinances that set up
* the times the streets can be blocked. And we have
enforced that every time it.is been called to our
* mattention and we've put.'fines on the'-railroad -and,
frankly,I've heard very little complaints recently
on that because one of the big complaints was,
vell,'we don't.1~ave fire protection.' We have
built two new firestations,inthe-minority~'area.
This was one of `the top-complaints that the
minorities said they had against the city. We
don't have proper fire protection. We J~avC built
and supplied two brand new fire stations. So we
corrected that problem - according to the input
of the citizens group that brought it-to our
attention. So this is one of the citizens'
.participation that paid off, and we have them
both there. * -~I4/ *
PAGENO="0854"
Video
1728
Audio
Narrator:
(views of firestation under
construction)
Samuels: (In city
planning office)
Voice of Narrator:
Employment data~ superimposed
of still photo of man mowing
* lawn in front of City Mall
i'arker:(In his öffjce)
* Construction of the Queensburg firehouse
came about after nearly a decade of futile requests
for a railroad overpass, and was more immediately
preceded by citizen appeals directly to the
-Federal Government. Aware that the Mississippi
Advisory Committee to the Civil Rights
Commission was looking into Laurel and monitoring
how the city used Federal funds, several residents
availed themselves of the rather simple procedure
for registering complaints with the Office of
Revenue sharing. They wrote letters alleging
discriminatory use of those monies. The
decision to build the station followed soon
after.
And then there was the man in the middle,
Rehabilitation and Community Relations Officer,
Nate Sainuels.
For a long while the black people, the
minority people,were rather reluctant to come
to me, I think, based on the fact that, I think,
they thought they would get nothing accomplished.
And in time, though, this was all changed, and
theydid see that I was being productive -and
had,ai~T~as concerned about their needs and
their concerns. And of course thatwas the'reason
-why I was-there, to address these problems.
And increasingly, they began to rely on me-and
bring their problems to me. And I acted .as
advocate for them, for all :of their problems, with
the cityfathers.
Samoele, Laurel's highest ranking black
employee is the.e.xception in the city~.s
~employmentprofile. While Laure3 does-an-adequate
job, numerically, in hiring blacks in proportion
to their 36 percent representation-in ;he popu-
lation, the kinds of 3obs -they. hold is another
- -story. - Almost ha-If of the 96 blacks in the 352-
--eperson--workforce are in sewers and sanitation, - -
streets-and highways. None of the department
administratcrrs, nor. any person in the professional
*cacegory is a member of a minority or a female. - 151 -
Black people, I think, in Mississippi want more
than'anythinga-voicei.n city government.'E~en if
there's only one -or two black city council members,
- at least black people will, know they do have a
voice, that they will have an opportunity or
* channel through which they can make complaints,
* and bring issues into the open, -which concern- them.
* ~Without a voice in city government, without any
PAGENO="0855"
1729
black representation at all, then city
government, in my view, cannot remain viable
and cannot be claimed to be representative.
Larry Thomas: (In pharmacy) There's never been any fruitful election -- as
a matter of fact there has never been a black
elected official in Jones county Q.r~ Laurel
ever. No public office, of no type.
Emma Nix: (at ~W I do know,we have a lot of names that be on
thebooks, and they don't ever vote. I don't
know why.
George Niller: (at housing Black people in Laurel have, they've given up.
project) They feel that there is no reason for them to
register to vote, or even to go vote. The
blacks across Jones county, about 47 percent
of the black population are not even
registered. ~F And, of the people that are
registered, only about 35 percent of them even
go to the polls to vote.
Interviewer: Why do you think that they don't vote, or don't
register to vote?
* ~ller: Well they feel, that there's nothing they...
they feel their votes don't count, that there's
nothing they can do.
Interviewer: You were talking..before about the kind of
government `you have here, the form of
-government. Is that any reason for Sit?
`Miller: * Well we have a.rnayor and:two cotimiissioners,eand
they are, elected at:).arge. And there's no way
for a black to be appointed, I mean, to be
* -eLacted~to a position on the city government.
But we can `change the city government if we
man get people to come to the polls and vote for
* `. a change. But they feel like, again, ve"ve
met with voter apathy. But we need a mayor/council,
a strong mayor/council elected by wards. `But.at
the present time I can't see no way for the
changesexcept through the c~ourt~ and `then that takes
* ~money. ` -
PAGENO="0856"
They are in the minority and they would have
a hard time electing a minority person for -
that type /`~lected offic~7, but it can be done.
Would you support a change in the form of
Laurel city government to a mayor/council
type system with single-member districts?
If a petition came forward asking for some-
thing like that I would give it to the people
and let them decide themselves.
Jnd you would not take a position one way or
the other?
Well I can't tell you what I would do in the future
without knowing the circumstances. But I
would probably think that my best position is
to let the people speak.
The potential is there. It's just in recent
years, as you well know, that blacks'vs :been
actually given the right to vote. I'm talking
-about things like the outlawing of things like
-Poll tax and other avenues they had for
-rejecting or keeping the blacks from voting -
intimidation and all that kind of things. We
don't~have-~that~nowto -contend&with,~and yet
~.-we don'tbave. full, participation by blacks in
* the political process. And blacks, in
:particular,need to be more concerned because
- -we are the ones who need representation more so.
What the power can do, if we doThecome
- cohesive as a unit, get together, see what our
needs are, identify them and address them through
- the political process.
Bopefüllyin the-future, people-will began~to-~see
that the city, the mayor/council form -of
government will be a more representative form of
* government for everybody. And this form of
government will Tthe needs of people more,
and people will be more in -touch-and can respond
better to a mayor/council kind of government
rather than just three commissioners.
- 1730
Mayor: (in his office)
Bergisark:
Mayor:
Bergrark
Mayor:
Nate Samuels: (in city
planning office)
-(ViewofCountyCourt~onme.
persons voting)
Voice of
2arry Thomas;
PAGENO="0857"
1731
Text appears on screen
The Justice Department is conducting an
investigation to determine if election
methods in Laurel violate the
Constitution of the United States. 17/
Residents-of housing projects
talking behind credits and
acknowledgments
Laurel--A City Divided--was documented
for the Mississippi Advisory CoTemitttee
by the Commission~s Southern Regional
Office, Bobby 0. Doctor, Director
The Commission staff and Mississippi
Advisory Committee thank the citizens
and officials of Laurel and Jones
County for their cooperation in the
production of this presentation. -
We are also grateful -to WONt TV,
Hattiesburg, Mississippi for the
visual materials from their files
and to the Office or Revenue Sharing
and the Justice Department for their
assistance.
-Mary Ramberg, Chairperson
Members of the Corani ttee - -
-Martha Bergmark - Dr. Albert B, Britton,~Jr.
:GilCarmichael - William Dilday
H. Power Hearn Bobbye Henley
Sarah Johnson Sam Kinsolving
Linda Lewald Wilson Minor
Ruth Moseley Dr. Cora Norman
Dr. George Owens `Frank Parker
.:Themas Reed Ward -
- WRITER/PRODUCER -
Miriam Grayboff
NARRATOR
Boyd Lewis
CAMERA
Mark Glatzer
EDITOR
Keith Glatzer, Tele~om Productions
Song comas up-again: Scooby Scooby
Doo, Guess What, Americe, We LOVe
You. (Train sound comes up and
fades out) - -
PAGENO="0858"
1732
ADI3XTIONRt COMMnWTS
by
FORMER )17~YOR ~.L. I'ATRICK, JR.
subsequent to the cOmpiCtion Of this report,
- former Mayor W,L. Patricic, Jr. provided
edditi~naliniormati~~ refleetin~ thc city's
expenditure of Federal fundu within minority
areas. Although this roport focuses pr~inariiy
on thc allocation by Laurel city officials of.
* *Federal diacrotionaYy monies Ouring the two-
~*:~yc~r period front 1978 through 1979, ~the £o11ow~:~.
ing data include both discretionary iu~dg anC
those spt~ifical1y earmarked by thO Fedc,raL.
government for specific pro~ets for a aevon-:
year period, front 1973 to 1980. Thua, accord-
*:. lag .to ioruter- Mayor I!atriek, Laurci city
officials spent over $4.5 million in Federal
fnmd~ in minority areas as folloes:
Neighborhood PrO)ccts $2 134,000
Recroation centcr 209 000
)firestatfti - 75,000
CDH~ FntS.tloment 1,184,000
C~G Discretionary 590,000
~evernx~ Sharing 340,000
CORRECTION
Contrary to a statement eontained in this report,
the Laurel Housing Authority does have .a blaolç
m~xiber. He was appointed in 1975 by Mayor~ l'atrick.
PAGENO="0859"
1733
LAUREL & LAUREL: A CITY DIVIDED
End Notes
1. At present there are five blacks in the 52- tnember State Senate and 12
in the 122-member House. Blacks comprise 9 percent of the State
Legislature, but make up 33 percent of Mississippi's population.
Barbara McGinnis, Research Associate, Joint Center for Political
Studies, telephone interview, July 22, 1980.
2. As of July 1979 there were 17 black county supervisors (or 4 percent)
among the 410 in Mississippi. There were 17 black mayors or aldermen
(6 percent) among the state's 270. Most of the black mayors represent
small, all-black towns. One exception is the town of Bolton which has
a- small white population. Joint Center for Political Studies, "National
Roster of Black Elected Officials," Vol. 9, 1979.
3. Residents on the entire east side of the railroad tracks are virtually
100 percent black. On the west side of the tracks, along the
northern and middle portions, residents -- except for one family --
are white. The s~buthwest -tip is now a "transition area" with a few
white families among t~e black residents. Joyln Sellers, Laurel
City Clerk, telephone interview, July 22, 1980 (hereafter cited as
Sellers Interview).
4. Average income figures for black- and whites not available. Ibid.
5. In 1970 the total population of 24,145 residents included 8,914 blacks
(36 percent). The threecity commissioners in office in 1980 are
white.men. 1970 Census Data andDan.Wa]ley,AdminiStraUVe Assistant
to the Mayor of~Laure1, telephone interview,..July 22, 1980 -(hereafter
cited as "Walley Interview 7-22-80"). - -
6. Frank Parker, Attorney, Lawyers Committee for Civil. Rights UnderLay,
interview in Jackson, Xississippi,initial ~!ield interview, - November
~8, ~1978. . - - . -
7. Actual expenditures of Revenue Sharing funds for the fiscal year
ending September-SO, 1980, total..over $570,000. Large -
amounts of money were spent for the following: police training facility,
$100,000; equipment for street department,$95,000; traffic lights,
$89,000 and relocation of a fire station $75,000. Source: City of
Laurel, "Budget of Estimated Revenue and Expenditures for-Fiscal
Year-ending September 30, 1980," no date (hereafter cited as `~FY `80
budget'). - -.
PAGENO="0860"
1734
According to laurel City Planner David Parham, other significant
amounts of Federal funds received by the city since 1978 include
approximately $623,500 from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and almost $2 million from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (MUD). Since 1978 about $258,000 of the
MUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money was spent for
three drainage- tributaries on both sides of the tracks, and over
$250,00Dof the HUfl funds were spent for resurfacing and paving
roads, mostly in the black community. Telephone interview July
25, 1980 (Hereafter cited as "Parham Interview").
8. $100,000 was spent for a police training facility, FE `80 Budget.
9. City Planner David Parhais also stated that all areas of the city nosrhave
water and sewer services available. Parhaxs Interview.
10. All of this $14 million from BUD was spent on the City of
Laurel's downtown mall. Walley Interview, 7-22-80.
1l. South Park Villa (formerly Leontyne Price Homes) has 100 rent
subsfdized~multi-fami1y units. It had been operated by a mon-profit
corporation and was foreclosed by MUD for mismanagement
with 27 units still vacantbut requiring renovation. The second
complex, the Laurel HousingAuthoritY with 623 units - 54 of which
are designed for elderly and handicapped persons - is totally
occupied. Mary Ann Wilson, Deputy Manager, Jackson Office, MUD;
and Tommy Beech, Assistant Director, Laurel Housing Authority.
Telephone interviews, November 26, 1980 and December 1, 1980.
.12. The five members of the Housing Authority are appointed by the City
Commissioners to 5-year terms. Once appointed they are automomous.
One black~man currently- serves on the Board. :Dan~.wa11ey~-.~telephone
interview, July 24, 1980.
13. Confirmed by Dan Walley, Walley Interview, 7-22-80.
l4. The Lynn~KeyesYireStatiofl onBeridian~'Avenue was uilt~1n'1977 usi~ig
$148,690 of MUD money. The John B. Spriggs Fire Station was built
(on school property) in 1979 with $75,863 of Revenue Sharing funds.
Both are in black neighborhoods. Parham Interview.
15. City of Laurel, EEO~and Personnel Office, "EEO-4laploysent Summaries
`l978."
16.- Of the over~14,D0Dregistered voters intaurel, only 6,744 voted inthe
~general election of June 1977. Jolyn Sellers, telephone interview,
July 23, 1980.
PAGENO="0861"
1735
(16. continued)
Anoroximately 15,600 Laurel residents are eligible to vote.
including 5,000 blacks and 10,500 whites. Statistics by race
on who actually does vote are not available. Alice McGinnis,
Researcher, Joint Center for Political Studies. teleohone inter-
view, July 24, 1980.
17. Gerald ilebert, Attorney, Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights.
Section, U.S. Department of Justice, telephone interview, May 13,
1980.
PAGENO="0862"
1736
CITY OF LAUREL FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
June 30. 1976
TOTALS ~351 213 89 42 *6 -1
OTHER ThAN FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
June 30. 1978
_White ~Black White Black
TOTAL :~4al~ -Male Female Female
I- :48 :8 ¶13 13 14
Añalysis of Workforce Data
Laurel's 1978 employment data*reveal that minorities, including 1 Hispanic female,
make up 27 percent of the fulltiiae workforce-cotnpared to 36 percent minority
.repreeentationjn-the 1978 population. Nore than one third of the 89 black males
~who work forthecityare in the Sanitation and Sewage Department while one-tenth
of the 213 white male city. employees are in the department. Similarly, in Streets
.~and Highways, 20 percent of;à1Lblack male employees and 10 percent of -the total -
`~n~.naber ofawbite' male city employees are in the same department.
All three-~persoas'alassified as Administrat~,rs on EEO-4 reporting forms are white
males as are the eight persons in the Professional category. (The highest level
minority employee is the Community Relations Officer in the Planning Department.)
* Pate and AnatydLs - bat~.td on ~a.bZaa anti 197S EEO-4 `iapo-'~tLng £onmS
-~1~wznLshad byAtbei~iW. .Rob6ittson, Pei,ionneL O~Lcvt, cLty-o~ LawteZ.
CITY DEPARTMENTS
White Black White Black Hispanic
TOTAL Male Male Female Female (Female)
Financial Administration
Streets & Highways
Police Protection
FireProtection
Natural Resources and
Parks & Recreation
*28 7 -1
41 22 18
73 48 15
69 68 1
17 2 1
1 0 0
8 2 0
0 0 0
Housing
Community Development
Utiltiation & Transportation
20 8 7 4
5 4 .0 - 1
10 5 2 3
41 23 10 7
58 25 33 0
Sanitation & Sewage
Civil Defense and
Cemetery Maintenance
1 0
0 -0
0 0
1 :o
O 0
6 3 2 1 0 0
PAGENO="0863"
1737
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Bergmark.
Senator Kirksey, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF STATE SENATOR HENRY KIRKSEY
Mr. KIRKSEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Washington, Ms. Davis, I am
most appreciative of this opportunity to express my concerns and
views about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as extended and amend-
ed.
Having hastily looked through statements and testimonies of
Attorney Frank Parker of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, and Representative Fred L. Banks of the Mississippi
State Legislature, I shall try not to belabor points already made
although our experiences and opinions are, for the most part, close-
ly related.
I could make a further reference to that for Mr. McTeer and
others who have testified here today.
I am a native of northeast Mississippi as was my father and his
father as well as my mother and her mother. I have been a resi-
dent of Jackson, Miss., since 1961.
Let me say at the outset that I am a proud Mississippian. I love
the State and its people. I firmly believe that in terms of natural
and human resources, Mississippi should rank among the Nation's
leading States. The lowly position of my State among sister States
and the extent of poverty are attributable, not to the people or
geography of the State, but to political evils and domination that
the Voting Rights Act was designed to remedy.
Therefore, my only purpose in being here is to plead for exten-
sion of the Voting Rights Act and the strengthening of section 5
thereof.
Since most gains in voting and civil rights in the State accruing
to black citizens are associated with the Voting Rights Act, fear
abounds among most of us that failure to extend the act means a
return to "lily whiteism."
There has never been a time in the history of the State of
Mississippi when race was not a political, social, and economic
issue. Never. That is a simple fact.
Race is still the dominant issue in housing, education, jobs, and
representation in government.
Until that climate is changed, need for the Voting Rights Act
* will remain.
As long as at-large elections, gerrymandered election districts,
racially discriminatory annexations, voter registration and voting
problems and the threat of open primaries remain, so will the need
for the Voting Rights Act.
I would like to deviate a little bit and simply comment on some
of the things I have written here.
Having heard some of the other people testify, I don't think I
should go through the six pages that I have prepared, but simply
comment, because I want to get back to some statements that were
made earlier by Mr. Barbour and Representative Barefield.
Poverty in Mississippi is still rampant. I have included in the
statement that you have a copy of the fact that 59.2 percent of the
black families of Mississippi in the 1970 census had income below
poverty level and also that includes a statement that the median-
PAGENO="0864"
1738
income of blacks was less than half that of whites of the State of
Mississippi.
I submit that while those figures have changed substantially
because of inflation and other factors, that the gap between the
incomes of blacks and whites remains substantially the same or
perhaps it has widened.
There is an important matter here, and that is the exclusion of
blacks from the political process. It has left an indelible impression
on the people of the State that no matter what happens, how they
cast their vote and when they cast their vote, they are not going to
matter. It is that simple; that the white folks are going to find a
way to. negate that vote or determine who voted for whom or for
what, and as a result of that they will probably lose their jobs.
So a lot of people won't vote for those reasons.
Mississippi is a biracial State. Others have already alluded to the
fact that blacks live in black communities and whites live in white
communities.
I would like to respond to a question that was asked earlier
about the population of the State. The 1980 census shows that
blacks constitute 35.2 percent or 887,206 of the 2,520,690 residents
in the State.
Voter registration remains a problem. I am simply going to make
that statement and stand on it.
I would like to submit to this committee a copy of the Jackson
magazine. On page 20, you will find a statement here that I submit
that describes the election process in Mississippi very, very well.
The statement was made on an interview by former Governor
Ross Barnett of Mississippi in which he alludes to having bought
election for his brother and how it is necessary that if you are
running for office, that you must have someone standing over
whoever is counting the votes or you will be counted out.
I would like to enter this as a part of my testimony.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, it will be received.
Mr. KIRKSEY. Let me just give you figures here.
Madison County is just north of Hinds County, in which the city
of Jackson is located.
A recent news item shows that the voter registration in Madison
County exceeds the population of the cOunty.
I recently ran for mayor of the city of Jackson-as a matter of
fact, a few days ago.
Jackson, according to the 1980 census, has 106,000 white popula-
tion; 106,000, but the white voter registration in the city of Jackson
is 78,000. Now, there are no 1980 census figures out, or available,
on voting age, but if you take the percentage of the white popula-
tion for 1970 and apply that to the 1980 population, you will find
that you have about 70 percent of the population, 65.59 to be
precise, who were voting age as of 1970.
Now, I submit that that might have changed somewhat, and let's
move it up to the upper side and let's say that a number of whites
who are voting age, out of the total population-say in the City of
Jackson-has increased to 75 percent. .
I submit to you that 78,000 registered white voters in the city of
Jackson would still be 100 percent of the total voting age popula-
tion, and I submit also that there never has been a time when they
PAGENO="0865"
1739
were 100 percent of the voting age population registered, and that
is certified by the fact that people are registering week after week
after week, all ages of people in the city.
So the total voting age population is not registered.
Now, what bothers me about that is that in 1979, when I ran for
the senate, I have a district that is approximately half black and
white. I would not have won except that the whites were not
satisfied with the incumbent against whom. I ran.
What actually happened in the southern end of my district is
that we went to the-we took the vote and determined some 600
people who may not live in a certain precinct, 68, for example. Out
of that 600, we determined that at least we identified the residence
of 300 who were nevertheless still on the rolls in the city of
Jackson.
We challenged them and almost caused a riot in that part of the
city.
Now, we did that in this recent mayoral election. We simply
didn't have the money or the troops to do a good job, but it is very
clear that the same thing applies to other precincts around the
city.
What I am saying, I suppose, to you is that the method of
keeping the voting rolls in the city, in the State of Mississippi,
because what applies to the city of. Jackson applies statewide, is
poor; there is no attempt, or very little attempt made to update the
roll, and if people are taken off, then they tend to be black people.
In addition to that, the double registration that has been alluded
to figured very prominently in the election of June 3 of this year.
Now, what is the case as a matter of recorded fact, several
hundred people who are registered with the county circuit clerk
were not able to vote in the municipal election because they had
not also registered with city hall and they were not aware of it.
These things are not known to all of the people who are eligible to
* vote, and it is a very vague requirement of law, and I submit that
there is no possibility of remedy legislatively because Senator
Childre of Rankin County offered such a bill with my support and
it got only two votes in the elections commission-in the munici-
palities committee.
So there is no sense of responsibility on the part of the elected
officials of the state, not only the legislature, but the others, in
terms of making things convenient for citizens to participate in the
electoral process.
Now, racial bloc voting is a fact in Mississippi, and I would like
to submit for this committee's consideration a chart that I have
prepared, and I restricted that chart to the city of Jackson.
In 1980 I ran for Congress in the Fourth Congressional District;
You might say you are running for everything, aren't you? That is
true. I run often.
I ran for Congress in the primary as a. Democrat, and I carried-
and I think Attorney Frank Parker alluded to the vote that I
received in that election-about 100 percent-99.9 percent of the
black votes in the entire district were cast for me in the primary.
I take that chart-let me go back.
I took the vote. Those that were cast for me and those that were
cast for my opponent and I developed the chart.
83-679 0 - 82 - 55 Pt.2
PAGENO="0866"
1740
The chart is what I call a 200 percent charge; that is, there is the
bottom line which is zero and at the top is 100 percent Every vote
cast by a precinct for me. If precinct one cast only one vote and
that vote was for me, it is 100 percent of the vote in the precinct.
If there were 10 votes and I got 9, it was 90 percent. So the chart
lines will go from the bottom to the top.
The purpose of it is to indicate and to very dramatically and
graphically illustrate the difference in the voting patterns racially
in the State of Mississippi.
When you see that chart, you will see that whites just simply
don't vote for blacks no matter what the qualifications.
I don't mind someone saying that maybe you just don't have the
qualifications, but in the general election Dr. Leslie McLemore,
head of the Jackson State University Political Science Department
ran as an independent.
While I speak race all the time because it is a fact of life-and I
have to talk about it-Dr. Leslie McLemore kind of goes around
the issue and he talks very nice, with the idea that if you don't
bring it up, you are going to solicit some white votes.
I submit to you that McLemore didn't get any more votes from
the whites than I did. He got less, in fact, and he got fewer in the
black community.
What I am saying is that racial block voting in Mississippi is
there, and as long as at-large elections are allowed to be held in
municipalities, in counties, or wherever, blacks simply don't have a
chance not only because of racial bloc voting, but the black people
simply don't have the means financially to mount campaigns that
are what we call in the State viable campaigns; that is, to get the
word to all of the voters to turn out.
Additionally, the black voters again have that historic reluctance
to even go out, considering it a waste of time.
I would like to wind up with just two things. One is that-and I
would hope that you have this little pamphlet which I have already
submitted. I would like you, if you would, please, to follow it with
me.
I would like to go to page 1, the cover. If each of you have one, I
would appreciate your looking at the cover because I want to refer
to something.
The front cover, the very last illustration in the left column is
Yazoo County.
Mr. Barbour, who testified here earlier, is from Yazoo County.
Now, there are five county districts, two in black and one shaded
and two in white.
You will notice one thing about those districts, that they all
come together at a point and that point in this particular instance
is where the scope of the submarine-the submarine district at the
bottom comes together.
That is the city of Yazoo, Yazoo City. What is interesting about
that is that every one of those districts terminate right in the heart
of the black community and split it up. That is why it took so
many years to come about a redistricting of Yazoo County that was
acceptable to the Justice Department.
I would like you to then turn on the back at the top right and
you see another illustration. That is representative Stone Bare-
PAGENO="0867"
1741
field's County. On the left of that you see the county as it was
redistricted prior to what we call-let me-prior to-after the 1970
census. You will also notice that on the right, the black and the
shaded, and the white districts, rather, come together in the city of
Hattiesburg and just coincidentally again they terminate right in
the heart of the black concentration of Hattiesburg in Forrest
County
It is an amazing thing that even when there are no black concen-
trations that this pattern or this scheme for redistricting counties
is universally used in the State of Mississippi and I submit to you
it was developed by Mississippi State University for the specific
purpose of having in place when the Voting Rights Act was imple-
mented, a scheme to dilute the black voting strength.
It is a very, very effective instrument.
I submit that until and unless this practice is done away with,
there will never be a time in the foreseeable future when the
blacks will not have to go into court and try to undo what is done.
Let me just tell you briefly what this plan is all about.
Up until-let me see if I can. find another illustration for you to
look at.
On page 18, next to the back. You will also find this in the report
of attorney Frank Parker. You will see two maps, one at the top,
one underneath that.
Those are the same counties. That is Warren County.
The top one shows three small districts, No. 2, 3 and 4. They
were all inside the corporate limits of the city of Vicksburg. As
soon as the Voting Rights Act debate began, so began the process
of redoing the redistricting of Warren County; and the map below
with the black and white shaded district shows what resulted from
the redistricting of Warren County.
Now, the rationale for this type of redistricting is that each
supervisor, county supervisor in the State of Mississippi is responsi-
ble for the maintenance, the construction, administration of roads
and bridges for the county. Therefore, you divide the roads equally
between the five so as to equalize the responsibility.
Initially they attempted to equally divide the assessed evaluation
of all property, real and personal.
That was-proved to be so monumental that they left it alone.
That is the rationale, the basis for that.
But, the chamber of commerce in Mississippi-the MEC-the
Mississippi Economic Council-for more than 50 years prior to the
evolvement of this method of redistricting counties recommended
that county road administration in the State of Mississippi should
be a unit system of road administration because the County Super
visor District Administration is the most wasteful in the country.
It makes Mississippi, as they reported in 1970, one of the highest
cost road administration States in the Nation.
Now, what actually happens here is that there are 82 counties.
Each county has five districts, and each district has an independ
ent.:road administration. It has a. supervisor, it has a road crew,
and it has some of the most expensive equipment that you can buy
in this country
PAGENO="0868"
1742
Now, that ranges from little Issaqueena County with 2,513 popu-
lation, to Hinds County with over a quarter of a million. It doesn't
matter.
Issaqueena County buys equipment the same as Hinds County
does.
I said all of this to say to you that the plan is stupid; it has no
commonsense. Therefore, the only rational purpose, the only rea-
sonable purpose has to do with race. A means by which the State
at the county level can, to the extent that there is no means by
which they are prevented from doing it, such as the Voting Rights
Act, can instantly dilute the black voting strength.
Now, I am also a member of the joint legislative congressional
and legislative redistricting committee by virtue of being vice
chairman of the Senate's election committee.
I am on that committee, but I can say to you in all truth, except
for information that I accidentally stumbled upon, I don't know
what is going on. That is how open government is in the State of
Mississippi. What is happening right now is that hearings using a
lawyer out of Washington, D.C., a man I call Gerrymander Leon-
ard, who is hired at the cost of $85 an hour to counsel the joint
legislative committee in the manner in which it holds hearings and
in the manner in which the plan, the drawing up of the plans will
evolve.
Now I submit to you that if there were any intention of drawing
up a fair plan there would be no need for going to Washington,
D.C., and hiring an $85 an hour lawyer to come down here and tell
Mississippians how to draw a plan when, in fact, the people of
Mississippi pay for the law school at Ole Mississippi, and if they
can't produce good~ lawyers down here, as I am sure this man is,
then we ought to do away with Ole Mississippi Law School.
I will say that over again.
The important point is, if a fair plan was intended, then we
would not need to go through that.
I draw congressional redistricting plans and I can start from
scratch. I can draw you one in about half an hour for the State of
Mississippi. That is no big deal.
An eighth grader with good-who is fair in arithmetic can do it.
There are only so many ways you can draw it.
The legislative district is going to be difficult.
What I am saying to you is this: If you will again look at the
plan .on the back here, Forrest County, you have a precinct that
runs up that long stovepipe.
Incidentally, the. leg on there is about 23 miles long by 1 mile
wide. There's some worse than that.
When they began to draw up the plan for reapportionment of the
legislature, the very fact that they are now drawing in the precinct
boundaries on a census map, drawing in those boundaries on a
census map and making a determination of the precinct population
tells me that they are going to incorporate to the extent possible
the gerrymander that is already built into the county district and
transfer it to the legislative districts; otherwise there would be no
reason for doing what they are now doing.
I will end there. I feel I have taken up a lot of your time. I
appreciate your listening to me. Thank you very much.
PAGENO="0869"
1743
[The statement of Mr. Kirksey follows:]
STATEMENT OF HENRY J. KIRKSEY, STATE SENATOR, MEMBER OF THE STATE LEGIS-
LATURE, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, MEMBER OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT
I am most appreciative of this opportunity to express my concerns and views
about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as extended and amended. Having hastily
looked through statements and testimonies of Attorney Frank Parker of the Law-
yers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Representative Fred L. Banks of
the Mississippi State Legislature, I shall try not to belabor points already made
although our experiences and opinions are, for the most part, closely related.
I am a native of' northeast Mississippi as was my father and his father as well as
my mother and her mother. J have been a resident of Jackson, Mississippi since
1961.
Let me say at the .outset that I'm a proud Mississippian. I love the state and its
people. I firmly believe that in terms of natural and human resources, Mississippi
should rank among the nation's leading states. The lowly position of my state
among sister states and the extent of poverty are attributable, not to the people or
geography of the state, but to political evils and domination that the Voting Rights
Act was designed to remedy. Therefore, my only purpose in being here is to plead
for extension of the Voting Rights Act and the strengthening of Section 5 thereof.
Since most gains in voting and ëivil rights in the state accruing to black citizens
are associated with the Voting Rights Act, fear abounds among most of us that
failure to extend the Act, means a return to "lily whiteism".
There has never been a time in the history of the State of Mississippi when race
was not a political, social and economic issue * * * never. That is a simple fact.
Race is still the dominant issue in housing, education, jobs and representation in
government. Until that climate is changed, need for the Voting Rights Act will
remain. As long as at-large elections, gerry-mandered election districts, racially
discriminatory annexations, voter registration and voting problems and the threat
of open primaries remain, so will the need for the Voting Rights Act.
BLACK ELECTED REPRESENTATION
As never before in history, political campaign funds play a dominant role in the
determination of who wins elections. As of the last available census report, 59.2
percent of all black families in Mississippi had incomes below the poverty level
compared with only 28.9 percent of white families. The median income for black
families was $3,202 compared to $7,578 for.white families. The figures have changed
but the gap remains. Clearly, at-large elections place black. candidates at a serious
disadvantage.
Add to the election problems of blacks the wide chasm between the level of
education of blacks and whites. As of the same available census data, the median
years of school completed by blacks 25-years old . and over was 7.5
years * * * purely elementary compared to 12.1 or post secondary level for whites
in the same age category.
Add historic exclusion of blacks from the political process and you find an indel-
ible impression among a high .percentage of. black people that voting is a waste of
time * * * By hook or crook white folks are going to run things their way
OTHER BARRIERS TO. BLACK REPRESENTATION
Mississippi is a biracial state, black and white, where all other races comprise less
than 1 percent. Blacks constitute 35.2 percent or 887,206 of the 2,520,638 (1980
census). In terms of housing, jobs and government, Mississippi is two
states * * * one black and the other white and controlling. In short, blacks live in
black communities and whites live in white communities. However, for the purpose
of electing public officials, political lines are drawn to make the separate communi-
ties one * * * and that is where oneness begins and ends
Voter registration remains a serious problem. Among other things, for example, a
person must go to the Circuit Clerk's office in the County Courthouse to register no
matter how distant that office may be from the person's home or work. Then, if that
person lives in another municipality, he or she must also go to that City Clerk's
office to complete the registration. Many don't understand the double registration
requirement and are denied a ballot for municipal elections.
PAGENO="0870"
1744
VOTING ROLLS-OFFEN A BAD JOKE
A recent news report showed the total voter registration in Madison County to be
substantially equal to the total population of that county (over 41,000 per 1980
census). The 1980 census showed a population of 106,285 white residents in the City
of Jackson. Current voting rolls show a white registration of 78,000. If the voting
age level of the white population has not increased by more than 5 percent, that
registration is over 100 percent of the total white voting age population. Reports on
voter registration levels in 1976 indicated the white registration level to be 76
percent of the voting age population. This can only mean that about 20,000 white
persons on the rolls are no longer living in Jackson. One thing is certain, since
white persons of all ages register to vote in Jackson every week, there cannot be a
100 percent registration of the white voting age population in Jackson, Mississippi.
Re-registration of voters in Hinds County began in 1970 after redistricting of the
county. Meanwhile, the black registration is about 20,000 below the indicated voting
age level.
RACIAL BLOC VOTING
Because they don't always have a choice, black voters do vote for white candidates
for public office. On the other hand, it is as rare as Mississippi snow in May to find
a significant white vote for a black candidate no matter for what office. Since the
gubernatorial election of 1971, records show that white voters in Jackson, for
example, who vote for a black candidate average about 3 percent of the white vote.
Since white voters will not vote for black candidates regardless of their qualifica-
tion, platform or record, at large elections discriminates against blacks as effectively
as districts gerrymandered to dilute the voting strength of blacks.
BLACK ELECTED OFFICIALS-MISSISSIPPI LEADS
Much to-do has been made about the fact that Mississippi leads the nation in the
number of black elected officials. While this is true, it is also true that no other
state approaches Mississippi as to the percent of blacks in the population. No other
state comes to the number of black majority municipalities (85 or 29.7 percent) of
the total number of municipalities in the state. No other state comes close to
Mississippi as to the percent of black majority counties (21 or 26.5 percent of the
total), or black majority county districts (in spite of statewide gerrymander of
county districts) * * * 116 or 28.3 percent of the total. In short, Mississippi should
have several times the number of black elected officials it has and it would still be
far short of equity.
EQUAL ROAD MILEAGE COUNTY REDISTRICTING-A MIRROR OF POLITICAL INTEGRITY
AND PURPOSE
Around 1964, a group of Mississippi State University professors devised an invi-
dious scheme designed to all but completely disfranchise blacks for the purpose of
electing blacks to county offices. The plan was put into effect in Lauderdale County
in 1964 ahead of implementation of the Voting Ri~hts Act.
The alleged purpose of the "equal road mileage' scheme is to equalize county road
and bridge construction and maintenance responsibilities of the five county supervi-
sors. Racial purpose was denied and the methodology "legalized" by Mississippi
federal judges as an acceptable redistricting "planning method." Initially, the plan
called for equalization of real and personal property as well as square mile area.
Suffice it to say that none of the alleged purposes have ever been achieved to any
appreciable extent. Nevertheless, nearly all Mississippi counties have been redis-
tricted on the bases of equal road mileage distribution. The constitutional require-
ment of equal population and contiguity are secondary considerations, it would
seem. To meet the secondary purpose, long arms are extended from the equal road
mileage areas in carefully planned directions into the heaviest population concen-
trations. Ironically, the nearest approach to equalization by the equal road mileage
scheme is the equal distribution of the black population among if not all the county
districts. The other achievement is to institutionalize road administration in Missis-
sippi as the most costly in the nation for the nation's poorest state.
LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT ON EQUAL ROAD MILEAGE FOUNDATIONS
Today the Joint Legislative Committee on Legislative Reapportionment is hard at
work drawing in voting precinct boundaries on 1980 census maps and computing
populations for the same. Except for the purpose of preserving the racial gerryman-
PAGENO="0871"
1745
der built into county districts and using the same to further dilute black voting
strength in legislative districts, no other explanation makes sense.
If there is any hope for escape ~from this graphically clear purpose of racial
discrimination, it is only through extension and strengthening of the Voting Rights
Act.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Senator. It has been very
illuminating, I must say
The gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. WASHINGTON. I have no questions.
Mr EDWARDS We found in Texas that their specialty in voting
discrimination was gerrymandering They had 250 counties that
seemed almost to be designed for that purpose
The more counties you have, the more you can gerrymander,
obviously
Won't these plans, this redistrictings, be turned down by the
Justice Department? They have to be submitted.
Mr. KIRKSEY. What is happening, Mr. Chairman, in the past has
been-let me go to one I can explain, because it is one of Hinds
County.
If yOu will go to page 15, as you can see all of those districts-the
lines shading in there was the corporate Jackson, Miss., as of 1970.
The black lines and the map lines, and the white lines, of course,
are the district
What has happened is that, of course, we brought suit, Kirksey v
Hinds County, just as I have Kirksey v. The City of Jackson and
Kirksey verus this, that, and the other
The point here is the only thing the court did, the only thing the
court did was to simply change the configuration a little bit in the
city of Jackson to the extent that the court could then say-and I
am talking about the Southern District Court for the District of
Mississippi-the only thing they did was to move a few precincts,
move the lines a little bit so they could come up with, say, 51
percent black.
They said now the blacks ought to be able to elect here That
obviously was not true because no black was elected.
Well, the next time around,'with the help of the fifth circuit and
the Supreme Court, we had to make substantial movement on
those lines
By doing that we were able to elect two county supervisors, two
justices of the peace, and some other officers.
But the point is-and I think maybe I am not exactly-I may not
be responding to your question-the point is that as long as this
concept of redistricting-which is based on the distribution of
county road mileage, as a first priority-and I think people ought
to be the first priority in considering any redistricting or the
drawing of any kind of district-as long as that is in place, it is
easy to re-gerrymander or re-dilute the black voting strength by
simply changing the points-the boundaries in those population
concentrations, particularly where blacks are heavier concentrated.
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Bergmark, this system of dual registration, I
must admit, is rather new to me. It seems very unnecessary and on
its face discriminatory
Is this an old law in Mississippi or is this a new law that has
been approved by the Justice Department?
PAGENO="0872"
1746
Ms. BERGMARK. As far as I know, it probably predates the Voting
Rights Act. It does seem unwieldy, doesn't it?
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, it seems a terrible waste of time and dis-
criminatory on its face, as I say.
How are we going to eventually stop racial bloc voting? That is a
blockbuster of a question.
How in Mississippi will racial bloc voting eventually be eliminat-
ed?
Mr. KIRKSEY. It is one of the things that you have, Mr. Chair-
man. There are no known methods; there is nothing that I know of
that has been tried that brought it about.
I think it is one of those things that you have to live through. I
think that as people begin to realize over a period of time the color
of the person's skin is not indicative of his ability, that that hap-
pens.
When we were trying for 14 years to reapportion the legisla-
ture-and I have been working on that case since 1965-there was
that claim by Stone Barefield and the others that it was going to
totally change and disrupt the way of life, in Mississippi. That
didn't happen.
A few blacks in the legislature was all that happened.
The whites have come to respect the legislators who are there. I
am talking about changing laws to improve things in Mississippi.
The very first day in the legislature my-I offered a resolution
which would have required every legislator to abide by article 1,
section 1 of the Constitution, which prohibits legislators or any
member of one division of State government from-or any unit of
gOvernment in the State from serving in another division.
That is what the article says and that is, of course, a national
provision also.
The Governor of the State of Mississippi is a figurehead com-
pared to some of the legislators and the speaker of the house, who
make all these appointments.
I hate to get into it like this,. but the point is that when I
presented that resolution, my first day working there in the legisla-
ture, there were-there are 52 members of the Senate.
All I am asking the legislature is to abide by the law. In spite of
the fact there were also two blacks in there, there was just one
vote out of the 52 for causing legislators to abide by the law.
Now I said that to make this one point: Elections are paid for in
the State of Mississippi. The people don't have the means of
making a determination of who represents them to the extent that
they should be. Hence we get the same kinds of people who are
opinionated as Representative Stone Barefield is-and I don't mind
saying that. I would say that if he were sitting there.
Mr. EDWARDS. I am sure you would.
Mr. KIRKSEY. If we have the opportunity of demonstrating the
capabilities of what it means to have all of the members of the
team, every' member of the population of Mississippi a fully produc-
tive citizen, I think that this fear of voting black will eventually go,
but, sir, it means that we have got a long road to hoe, if you
understand that farmer's term.
Ms. BERGMARK. Congressman?
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Bergmark.
PAGENO="0873"
1747
Ms. BERGMARK. Mr.' Chairman, I think it can be safely said that
racial bloc voting is not going to go by the boards any time soon,
and that at a very minimum the provisions of the section 5 pre-
clearance are at least a help in this respect and an appropriate
remedy for trying to deal with these very longstanding and deep-
seated attitudes that are simply there.
I can walk into the attorney lounge in the Forrest County Court-
house on any day that I like and hear nigger-this and nigger-that
among attorneys..
That is just the way it is. I don't see-and those aren't all people
who are about to retire or die off or something.
So I think that is a longstanding thing that certainly I don't see.
any possibility for it being corrected in my lifetime, although hope-
fully we will see some diminishment of it.
Mr. EDWARDS. You are talking about a more equitable and fair
economic system and educational system
I was shocked to hear one witness say that children don't have to
go to school here in some places; is that correct?
Ms BERGMARK That is correct The Mississippi legislature re
pealed the compulsory. education law shortly after Brown v. Board
of Education was decided.
Just within the last 2 years, passed a provision which has no
enforcement provisions at all attached to it that says something
about, you know, you need to go to school. But that is it.
There are no enforcement provisions to the law at all.
Mr. MCTEER. Representative Edwards, I think you should be
aware of the fact you have asked three black Mississippians a very
difficult question: why are white people racist?
I think that you should be aware of the~ fact that there are any
number ~of interesting theories that have been developed about
that.
Perhaps one of the most interesting was developed by a white,
Prof. Charles Chalmers, who has testified in a number of cases on
racism in Mississippi and the aspect of racial bloc voting.
He sets forth an interesting theory which has been presented in
any number of cases. He says basically white citizens of Mississippi
still have quite an ingrained sense of Reconstruction and still
believe that the Reconstruction governments created from 1869
through 1876 were governments which were not fair, not proper, or
otherwise deprived white ctizens.
There are white children today, particularly those white children
who, do not forget, were put into private schools for the specific
purpose of avoiding the basic Kenneth Clark assumption of putting
whites and blacks together in the same institution, that are being
bred on the concept of racial superiority.
The saddest thing about Mississippi in that context is that there
is really no basic difference between the concepts of government, of
black-excuse me, of white Mississippians and the concept of gov-
ernment of Afrikaners.
Insofar as we basically understand that in the Mississippi Delta,
which has the highest concentration of black people outside of
Africa in the world, there is indeed a clearcut pride on the part of
many whites that so few whites could control so many blacks.
PAGENO="0874"
1748
There is no need for guns and rifles. Indeed, section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act expressly deals with obvious formats of discrimi-
nation.
What we are talking about here are subtle forms of discrimina-
tion that work effectively and we are also talking about the de-
struction of a system of apartheid.
That is the only way we can describe Indianola. It is a clearcut
instance of a voting age minorty controlling a voting age majority.
Whether that is done at the end of the pistol or by the threat of
losing a job or by racial bloc voting, it is just as effective no matter
what the source.
Mr. KIRKSEY. May I make an additional comment on this?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Walker, please use the microphone.
Senator Kirksey?
Mr. KIRKSEY. One of the matters here about the complaints that
have been filed-and I submit to this committee that if every
complaint that is-if every violation of the Voting Rights Act in
the State of Mississippi-if a complaint had been filed, there would
be a mountain of paper that there would be no way.
The sad part about it is just as in the case of Indianola, the act
had occurred before anyone, any black, realized really what was
going on and what recourse they had. So you have a very limited
number of complaints being filed as opposed to the violations that
occur across the State in municipalities, in counties, in the State at
large.
I wanted particularly to bring that out because the indication is
that there has been a definable number of violations, and that
simply is not the case.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. Counsel?
Ms. DAvIS. Ms. Bergmark, .1 don't mean this disrespectfully, but I
would like the record to show that you are white, and I would like
to know how you respond to the claim that the extension of section
5 of the Voting Rights Act is a stigma against well-meaning whites
in the South and an indication in their view that people perceive
them as racist?
I raise the question with you because you are white, a Mississip-
pian, and quite frankly we have not had many whites from the
covered jurisdictions who are willing to support the extension of
section 5 unqualifiedly the way you have today.
So I would like to know how you can respond to that, please?
Ms. BERGMARK. One of the occurrences in my life that made a
very great impression on me occurred on Easter Sunday when I
was in junior high school, 1963. I was standing on the steps of my
church, which was the largest Methodist Church in the State of
Mississippi, and watched as a Methodist Bishop, a black Methodist
Bishop, came and tried to worship at our church.
I watched as the church officials had him arrested and taken to
jail rather than allow him to go through the doors.
I watched as a church usher cursed and chased and kicked at
and tried to grab the camera away from a newsman who was
recording this event. That made a tremendous impression on me. It
made me realize what I said earlier: That we are dealing with
extremely deep-seated views and opinions; and even though those
PAGENO="0875"
1749
views and opinions may not be held by all white Mississippians-
and I think if there is anywhere we have seen some improvement,
it is at least in the ability of certain whites to be able to break out
of those patterns and perhaps think somewhat differently than
their parents did or their grandparents did, but that we are dealing
with the need for a long-term remedy, a remedy, the end of which I
don't see the need for
I don't know when that is going to.come.
But for me to take that personally as `a stigma against me to me
doesn't make sense. To me it is just a recognition. of the reality of
the situation. In all my years in Mississippi, I never saw a Klans-
man in garb in public, until this past year when they were handing
out leaflets and so forth on street corners.
I had never seen that until 1980, even though, of course, they
had been active for years and years.
So I `think, if you really look at the situation `there, you see that
that is the need and that is the objective situation.
Simply because there are some whites who wouldn't feel that
way, there were some whites who voted for the mayor-council form
of.government in Hattiesburg, Jackson, and other places, but that
doesn't take away the need for the remedy .as a whole.
Ms. DAVIS. So you would support the view expressed by Attorney
Frank Parker before our subcommittee that instead of looking at
the Voting Rights Act or extension of the "temporary provisions of
Voting Rights Act, namely section 5, that.' it should not be looked at
as punishment for .the South. for its past wrongs, but to protect
minority voters from' present discrimination?
Ms BERGMARK That is correct I agree fully with that
Ms. DAVIS. Thank. you. .
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd?
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman..
Ms Bergmark, I would like to go back to the miscegenation law
You indicate that that is still a provision in the Mississippi consti
tution, is that correct?
Ms. BERGMARK. That is correct.
Mr. BOYD. `My recollection of constitutional law is that the Su-
`preme Court decided that question in the early' sixties involving a
.Virginia statute.
Ms. BERGMARK. That is correct.
Mr BOYD Has anyone communicated with the local U S attor
ney with regard to the enforcement of that decision?
Ms. BERGMARK. I don't know. I think that as a result of'attention
having been brought tO the issue in~ Forrest County . through the
use of this lawsuit, that the circuit clerk said she, guessed she
would enforce the Federal. law, the' constitutional~ law, in that' re-
spect, and I understand that she has since issued at least one
marriage license to~ an interracial couple since giving the deposi-
tion in that case.
Mr. BOYD. Do you know'how widespread the enforcement of this
provision of the constitution is in Mississippi?
Ms. BERGMARK. Of that provision? I don't have the slightest idea.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. McTeer, you addressed to some extent the bailout
provision
PAGENO="0876"
1750
Do you know of any jurisdictions of any size in the State of
Mississippi which in your opinion have made improvements in the
last 15 to 17 years, and, if so, would you name them?
Mr. MCTEER. I do not know of any communities in the State of
Mississippi that justify the use of a bail-out proyision at this time~
I have no knowledge of any such communities.
Mr. BOYD. And you know of none which have made any improve-
ments of any significance?
Mr. MCTEER. What do you mean by improvements of any signifi-
cance?
Mr. BOYD. I suppose what I mean by improvements is improve-
ments with regard to their attitudes toward the involvement of
minorities; in the case of Mississippi, blacks in the electoral proc-
ess.
The attitude with regard to cross-over voting.
Mr. McTEER. I think there is a substantial change in the attitude
of white people toward black people which is basically one of
tolerance in Mississippi and the attitude of supporting black candi-
dates.
If you are asking me whether white people have now thrown
down their cross and are saying they are willing to allow blacks to
become an equal participant in the franchise of the United States
of America, and the State of Mississippi, my answer to that ques-
tion is an unequivocal no.
On the other hand, if you are asking me if whites tolerate blacks
and are not picking up the cross and putting on sheets and they
are not doing that as much as they did years ago, clearly their
attitude is one of tolerance.
Mr. BOYD. I am talking about involvement on the part of--
Mr. MCTEER. I think there needs to be-and I am not trying to
question you; I am trying to answer you-there needs to be a
distinct difference between the question of attitude on the one
hand and the question of actual participation and involvement and
the willingness of black people to become involved on the. other
hand.
That is the problem with the intent deprivation or description
that is evident.
Someone can stand up before you and I in this public place and
say simply, "I have a wonderful attitude toward black people."
The fact of the matter is though as soon as they get in the
polling booth, they tell you what they will do to that nigger. That
is the distinct difference.
What is your next question?
Mr. BOYD. I have no further questions.
Mr. MCTEER. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, on behalf of all of the members of the
subcommittee, we want to thank the people of Mississippi who
came up here `and the people of Alabama who testified today and
the people of this fine city for the hospitality that has been afford-
ed us. `
We have had a most interesting and fruitful day of hearings. We
go back to Washington somewhat depressed in some ways, but also
refreshed.
Thank you. `
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
PAGENO="0877"
EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1981
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 2:25 p.m. in room 2226 of the Rayburn
House Office Building; Hon. Don Edwards (chairman of the sub-
committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Edwards and Hyde.
Staff present: Ivy L. Davis, assistant counsel; Helen C. Gonzales,
assistant counsel; Thomas M. Boyd, associate counsel.
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today we continue testimony on the extension of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. We've had hearings here and in Texas and in
Alabama, and we are honored and pleased this afternoon to wel-
come our colleague from the great State of Connecticut, the Honor-
able Lawrence DeNardis, who represents the Third Congressional
District.
Mr. DeNardis, we welcome you and yOu may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. LAWRENCE DeNARDIS, REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE THIRD
DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF* CONNECTICUT
Mr. DENARDIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to
discuss the legislation before this subcommittee to extend the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. As you know, the Voting Rights Act
which will expire next year, if Congress does not vote to extend its
provisions, is probably the most effective civil rights legislation
ever enacted in the United States. This law has brought about a
dramatic increase in registration and voting by black and Hispanic
American citizens in State, local, and Federal elections and the
number of minority elected officials has also risen substantially.
In 1966 when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Voting
Rights Act was constitutional and a valid means of implementing
the 15th amendment, the court concluded that, and I quote
Hopefully millions of. nonwhite Americans will now be able to participate for the
first time on an equal basis in the Government under which they live. We may
finally look forward to the day when truly the right of the citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State
on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude..
Despite great strides toward this end, Federal protection of mi
nority voting rights still is needed The threat to the political
(1751)
PAGENO="0878"
1752
equality of minorities remains and there is more than sufficient
justification to extend the essential protections of this act.
While the most obvious barriers to equal political opportunity,
such as literacy tests and poll taxes have been successfully elimi-
nated, it would be irresponsible to ignore the more subtle methods
of discrimination which have surfaced. We are all aware of the
many methods which have been devised to dilute the minority vote.
These range from changing the location of polling places in pre-
dominately minority districts without notice until the day of elec~
tion, to gerrymandering election districts, holding at-large elec-
tions, and annexing predominantly white areas to cities to weaken
minority voting strength.
I strongly believe that the continuation of the Voting Rights Act
will prevent such discriminatory tactics.
In the past, each time this act served to block a discriminatory
election law or procedure, the rights of many, many minority indi-
viduals have been protected. I ask that we do not allow our success-
es of the past-please do not allow our successes of the past to
make extension vulnerable to the charge that it is no longer
needed.
Without the extension of the act, we risk undermining the gains
that have been made. The right to vote and to fully participate in
the political process is fundamental to our system of government.
In fact, as the Supreme Court has said in the past, it is preserva-
tive of all other rights.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make just two additional points before
I conclude, and that is some have suggested that the gains that
have been made under this act point to the fact that the special
provisions of the Voting Rights Act have done their job and should
be allowed to expire. I am not of that view.
I would join other voting rights advocates in arguing that 17
years can only begin to make up for a history of exclusion from the
political process; and point out further that language minorities
have been covered under the act for less than 6 years.
I would like to point out further that to revoke section 5, as has
been discussed, or to water it down substantially, would be to
abandon the most effective instrument that we have found prevent-
ing new forms of discrimination. I think it would mean, Mr. Chair-
man, a return to the less efficient means of using the courts as the
sole, case-by-case enforcer of minority voting rights.
I would be glad to respond to any questions that you might have,
and I will certainly offer my statement for inclusion in the record.
[The complete statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN LAWRENCE J. DENARDIS
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate having the oppor-
tunity to discuss legislation to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
As you all know, the Voting Rights Act, which will expire in 1982, if Congress
does not vote to extend its provisions, is probably the most effective civil rights
legislation ever enacted in the United States. This law has brought about a dramat~
ic increase in registration and voting by black and Hispanic American citizens in
state, local and federal elections, and the number of minority elected officials has
also risen substantially.
In 1966, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act was
constitutional and a valid means of implementing the Fifteenth Amendment, the
Court concluded that, "Hopefully, millions of non-white Americans will now be able
PAGENO="0879"
1753
to participate for the first time on an equal basis in the government under which
they live. We may finally look forward to the day when truly `the right of the
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by. any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'"
Despite great strides toward this end, Federal protection of minority voting rights
still is needed The threat to the political equality of minorities remains and there
is more than sufficient*justification to extend the essential protections of this Act.
While the most obvious barriers to equal~ political opportunity such as literacy
tests and poll taxes have been successfully eliminated, it would be irresponsible to
ignore the more subtle methods of.discrimination which have surfaced. We are all
aware of the maCy methods which have been devised to dilute the minority vote.
These range from changing the location of the polling places in predominantly
minority districts without notice until the day of the election to gerrymandering
election districts, holding at-large elections and annexing predominantly white
areas to cities to weaken minority voting strength. I strongly believe that the
continuation of the Voting Rights Act will prevent such discriminatory tactics.
In the past, each time this Act served to block a discriminatory election law or
procedure, the rights of many, many minority individuals have been protected.
Please do not allow our successes of the past make extension vulnerable to the
charge that it is no longer needed, however. Without the extension of the Act, we
risk undermining the gains that have been made. The right to vote and to fully
participate in the political process is fundamental to our system of government. In
fact, as the Supreme Court has said in the past, it is "preservative" of all other
rights.
Thank you
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. DeNardis, for very
excellent testimony and a very astute and knowledgeable summary
of the situation. I also welcome your testimony, and indeed the
entire subcommittee and the judiciary committee will, because all
of these civil rights bills have truly been bipartisan, nonpartisan
bills. We can't enact these bills without good Republican support,
and we have always had splendid support from the various Repub-
lican Presidents too, including President Nixon and President
Gerry Ford. I am sure we all look forward to President Reagan's
announcement in the next few weeks or months, that he too
shares your view [Laughter]
Mr. DENARDIS. I will certainly try; in my way as a freshman
Republican to work toward that end, Mr Chairman
Mr EDWARDS Thank you very much
Our next witness really should be sitting up here He sat here on
my left-not necessarily ideologically on my left-for a number of
very happy years as far as the chairman is concerned, and I
certainly speak also for our chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr Rodino
Mr Drinan we do miss you in the House and the committee
The American people miss you, where you so well used the plat-
form for good. causes that you had while you were a Member of
Congress. We are all delighted that you have not taken a backseat
and retired to holier and quieter things. [Laughter.]
I see you're president of the Americans for Democratic Action. I
spent a couple of interesting years as president myself and gave it
up to someone I wasn't quite sure had the intellectual capacity to
carry on my program, Kenneth Gaibraith. [Laughter.]
He did all right. But, Bob, we're just delighted you're here, and
you may proceed
PAGENO="0880"
1754
TESTIMONY OF FATHER ROBERT F. DRINAN, VICE PRESIDENT,
AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION
Father DRINAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It's a great pleasure for me to reappear, if you will, before this
committee where I was honored to serve for some 10 years.
I speak today representing Americans for Democratic Action, an
organization which .1 have served as vice president, and I want to
speak on behalf of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 3112.
ADA was established in 1947 to promote liberal causes and poli-
cies and liberal candidates. Today there are more than 55,000 ADA
members in 24 chapters throughout the country. And the Voting
Rights Act is one of the prime objectives of the ADA in this session
of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act was designed to do three
things-first, to allow and facilitate the registration of all voters;
second, to permit all citizens to vote equally, impartially, and with-
out discrimination and to have their vote count fully with others;
and third, to permit minority candidates to run with a reasonable
hope of access to public office.
Mr. Chairman, a look at. voting participation among minorities
over the past 16 years shows that the Voting Rights Act has been
nothing short of revolutionary in accomplishing these goals. I will
not reiterate the statistics that other witnesses have ably present-
ed. And incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I commend you upon your
characteristic resourcefulness in going out across the country, espe-
cially in the South and Southwest, to conduct hearings in the field.
It is not enough to state the impressive, results of this legislation,
but unfortunately or paradoxically it has brought it about that this
is the most successful piece of civil rights legislation the Congress
has ever enacted. And as a result, that very success has brought
upon the Voting Rights Act criticism as being no longer necessary.
It is also criticized as being burdensome `and unfair because it
requires selected States and jurisdictions to preclear all changes in
voting procedures.
Those three charges, Mr. Chairman-that the act is unnecessary,
unfair, and burdensome-constitute the core of opposition argu-
ments against its extension and especially to get rid of the pre-
clearance provisions provided for in section 5.
Mr. Chairman, it is very clear to us at the ADA that, in fact, the
act remains a paramount necessity. It is quite fair, and it is re-
markably free from paperwork expense and other burdens. An
alternative to section 5 proposed by Congressman Henry Hyde,
H.R.' 3198, would be less fair, would overburden' our court system,
and most importantly would not guarantee voting rights.
Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Hyde has indicated he is now
persuaded section 5 should be retained, and he will not pursue his
compromise. But other members may still offer something similar,
so I will discuss H.R. 3198 briefly. Allow me to address these issues.
First, is preclearance still necessary? And the answer is yes.
Although voting rights for minorities have greatly expanded since
1965, attempts to block those rights have certainly not ended. The
Department of Justice has raised objections to 815 of 34,798 pro-
posed election law changes since 1965. Those are 815 cases in which
the suffrage of thousands of men and women would have been
PAGENO="0881"
1755
impeded had there been no preclearance procedure. Without sec-
tion 5, Mr. Chairman, each of those cases would have had to be
settled by going to court, a process that can take many years and
many dollars.
During the court case, the voting rights violation would normally
be allowed to continue, as was the case with the Mississippi
NAACP challenge to the State's legislative districts. There is no
telling how many attempts there would be to deny minority voting
rights were the courts the only recourse for the injured. But we
have a good indication by the history of the covered States and
jurisdictions before 1965.
Mr. Chairman, we hear protests that the South ,and the South-
west have changed since those years, and we are all delighted that
they have. We will not go back to virtual accross-the-board denial
of the right to vote, to a Mississippi in which 6 percent of the
voting age blacks were registered. Literacy tests are gone, but
gerrymandering, other forms of vote dilution, questionable siting of
polling places, and other ingenious techniques of undermining the
minority vote are still with us.
It is essential to remember that while we all remember Selma
and the dogs and the firehoses, since the late sixties efforts to
nullify the new minority votes through dilution schemes have been
the name of the game for those who would deny full voting rights
to others. Of the 800 objections which have been entered during the
18 years of the act's existence, some 500 have taken place in the
last 5 years since the act was last extended in 1975. It cannot be
said that those figures are the result of the new section 5 coverage
added in that year.
Mr. Chairman, we should look at the same figures for the origi-
nally covered States, and the story is the same. In Mississippi, 37
changes were objected* to from 1965 through 1974, but 40 objections
were interposed in the last 5 years. In Alabama, 30 changes were
objected to from 1965 through 1974, but 42 objections were inter-
posed in the last 5 years. In Georgia, the figures are very stark-73
from 1965 until 1974, and a total of 152 from 1975 until now. In
South Carolina, 40 changes were objected to from 1965 through
1974, but 37 objections have been interposed in the last 5 years. In
North Carolina, 10 changes were objected to in the original 9 years,
but 52 objections were interposed in the last 5 years. Louisiana-67
changes were objected to from 1965 through 1974 with a total of 69
objections interposed in the last 5 years.
Mr~ Chairman, these figures tell the story of why we are here
today. These are dry statistics, but the story has been told in vivid
detail by the witnesses that you have heard from these States these
past several weeks. They have told of the widespread continued
efforts to dilute the votes of blacks and Hispanic Americans in the
covered jurisdictions.
We therefore, Mr. Chairman, are not talking about 17 years in
the penalty box, as a member of the subcommittee put it "for
actions ended long ago"; we are talking, Mr. Chairman, about a
very real and very pressing danger to the most fundamental politi-
cal right. It takes more than a decade and a half to remedy
centuries of discrimination. It takes special efforts and special
methods.
83-679 0 - 82 - 56 Pt.2
PAGENO="0882"
1756
But the crucial concern is losing the gains that we have made.
They. are not guaranteed;. they are not necessarily permanent; they
are fragile, and we risk them if we turn back the clock.
Are the Voting Rights Act and preclearance fairly applied?
Again, the answer is yes.
Under section 5, 10 States and towns or counties in 13 others
must preclear election law changes with the Justice Department.
The covered jurisdictions, run from counties in New England in my
own State of Massachusetts, in New.}Tampshire, to Alaska, Hawaii,
Arizona, California, and Colorado.
Mr. Chairman, this is hardly regional legislation, since some
have called for its, extension to cover all jursidictions in order to
make section 5 literally nationwide. Despite claims that this pro-
posal is meant to promote fairness, it is nothing more than an
attempt to emasculate the process by bogging down the Justice
Department's staff in more applications than it can reasonably
handle. In its effect, it would end preclearance, or its implementa-
tion would require a huge and unnecessary bureaucracy.
In addition, universal preclearance is of dubious constitutional-
ity. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that very substantial evi-
dence or widespread abuse must be present before the Congress
may constitutionally impose such unusual Federal power upon the
voting process of a jurisdiction. Only selected areas are covered by
section 5 because that is both the constitutional and the efficient
way and method of guaranteeing voting rights.
Mr. Chairman, it would be a waste of resources. to cover all of
those places with absolutely no history of preventing people from
voting. As Congressman Hyde put it earlier in these hearings: in
his customarily candid and blunt appraisals of such disingenuous
suggestions, nationwide coverage of section 5 "would strengthen it
to death." Facing avowed enemies, the Voting Rights Act does not
need such helpful friends.
Finally, of course, we note the minorities whom the act is de-
signed to help do not seek such extension. They oppose it as harm-
ful to their cause.
There are other complaints, Mr. Chairman, that States ëannot
prove their way out of being covered or a so-called bail out, and a
few bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be able to dictate
the actions of local officials.
On the first, there is the great risk I discussed earlier of voting
rights being denied anew should the preclearance procedure be
dropped. In addition, no reasonable bail out or procedure or qualifi-
cations have been suggested. Of course, the suggestion that an
individual saintly county should be allowed to bail out of statewide
coverage is appealing.
Mr. Chairman, while I believe strongly in redemption and salva-
tion, I do not yet know what jurisdictions these proponents are
talking about. What we have heard in evidence suggests the danger
of fashioning a simple bail out test, which in fact would eliminate
section 5 safeguards from hundreds of jurisdictions where that
particular safeguard is still necessary.
As to the second complaint, those who worry about the autonomy
of local officials still call for the Federal court system to resolve
election complaints. It is the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, of the
PAGENO="0883"
1757
Federal Government to guarantee that the 14th and 15th amend-
ments of the Constitution are observed.
This last complaint, Mr. Chairman, touches on our third issue: Is
the preclearance process too great a burden to put on a local
jurisdiction?
A look at the preclearance process reveals how small the burden
really is. A covered jurisdiction which wants to put an election
change into effect simply submits the change, along with back-
ground information, to the U.S. Justice Department. Within 60
days, or 120 days if the Justice Department requests more time, the
Department responds by preclearing or raising an objection. If
there is preclearance, the jurisdiction can simply implement the
change, and that's the end of it as far as section 5 is concerned. If
there is an objection, then the jurisdiction has other remedies.
The covered jurisdiction also has the option, Mr. Chairman, of
seeking preclearance from the District Court in Washington, D.C.,
either initially or after an objection by the Justice Department.
But the court option is so rarely used that one has to conclude that
people generally think that the Justice Department's decisions are
sound.
These burdens are small when compared to those of a court trial,
which is the suggested alternative. They are very small, Mr. Chair-
man, in view of the alternative of even one or a few persons being
denied a fundamental right, the fundamental right to vote.
In short, Mr. Chairman, each Member of Congress must ask
himself or herself if he or she is ready to tamper with a system
that works and to run the risk of denying any American that
precious right to vote.
I thank you very much.
[The complete statement follows.]
STATEMENT OF FATHER ROBERT F. DRINAN, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR
DEMOCRATIC ACTION
Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to appear before my old committee to speak
on behalf of extension and modification of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 3112.
As you know, I was actively involved `in the 1975 debate that led to its extension
until August of 1982.
Today, I am representing Americans for Democratic Action, an organization
which I serve as Vice President.. ADA was founded in 1947 to promote liberal
policies and liberal candidates for public office. Today there are more than 55,000
ADA members in 24 chapters throughout the country.
Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act was designed to do three things: first, to
allow and facilitate the registration of all voters.
Second, to permit all citizens to vote equally, impartially and without discrimina-
tion and to have their vote count fully with others.
And third, to permit minority candidates to run with a reasonable hope of access
to public office.
A look at voting participation among minorities over the past 16 years shows that
the Voting Rights Act has been nothing short of revolutionary in accomplishing
these goals. I will not reiterate the statistics that other witnesses have ably present-'
ed. It is enough to state that the impressive results of this legislation have brought
it the reputation as the most successful piece `of civil rights legislation the Congress
has ever enacted.
Ironically, that very success has brought upon the Voting Rights Act criticism as
being no longer necessary. It is also criticized as being burdensome and unfair
because it requires selected States and jurisdictions to "preclear" all changes in
voting procedures Those three charges-that the Act is unnecessary unfair and
burdensome-constitute the core of opposition arguments against its extension, and
especially to get rid of the preclearance provisions provided for in section 5.
PAGENO="0884"
1758
It is clear to us at ADA. that in fact the Act remains of paramount necessity. It is
quite fair and it is remarkably free from paperwork, expense, and other burdens.
An alternative to section 5 proposed by Representative Henry Hyde, H.R. 3198,
would be less fair, would over-burden our court system, and, most important, would
not guaranteel:voting rights. Mr; Chairman, I understand that Mr. Hyde has indicat-
ed he is now persuaded section 5 should be retained and that he will not pursue his
compromise. But other members may still offer something similar, so I will discuss
H.R. 3198 briefly. Allow me to address these issues.
First, is preclearance still necessary? Yes! Although voting rights for minorities
have greatly expanded since 1965, attempts to block those rights have certainly not
ended. The Department of Justice has raised objections to 815 of 34,798 proposed
election law changes since 1965. Those are 815 cases in which the suffrage of
thousands of men and women would have been impeded had there been no preclear-
`~ance procedure. Without section 5 each of those cases would have had to be settled
by going to court, a process that can take many years and many dollars. During the
court case the voting rights violation would normally be allowed to continue, as was
the case with the Mississippi NAACP challenge to the State's legislative districts.
There is no telling how many attempts there would be to deny minority voting
rights were the courts the only recourse for the injured. But we have a good
indication by the history of the "covered" States and jurisdiction before 1965.
We hear protests that the South and the Southwest have changed since those
years. And I believe they have. We will not go back to virtual across-the-board
denial of the right to vote, to a Mississippi in which only 6 percent of the voting age
blacks were registered. Literacy tests are gone. But gerrymandering, other forms of
vote dilution, questionable siting of polling places and other ingenious techniques of
undermining the minority vote are still with us. It is essential to remember that
while we all remember Selma and the dogs and the firehoses, since the late sixties,
efforts to nullify the new minority vote through dilution schemes have been the
name of the game for those who would deny full voting rights to others.
Of the over 800 objections which have been entered during the 18 years of the
Act's existence, some 500 have taken place in the last 5 years since the Act was last
extended in 1975. It cannot be said that those figures are the result of the new
section 5 coverage added in that year.
Look at the same figures for the originally covered States and the story is the
same.
In Mississippi, 37 changes were objected to from 1965 through 1974, but 40
objections were interposed in the last 5 years. In Alabama, 30 changes were objected
from 1965 through 1974, but 42 objections were interposed in the last 5 years. In
Georgia the figures are most stark. 73 from 1965 until 1974. 152 from 1975 until
now. In South Carolina, 40 changes were objected to from 1965 through 1974, but 37
objections were interposed in the last 5 years. In North Carolina, 10 changes were
objected to from 1965 thorugh 1974, but 52 objections were interposed in the last 5
years. In Louisiana, 67 changes were objected to from 1965 through 1974, but 69
objections were interposed in the last 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, these figures tell the story of why we are here today. But they are
dry statistics. The story has been told in vivid detail by the witnesses you have
heard from those States these past few months. They have told of the widespread
continued efforts to dilute the vote of blacks and Hispanic Americans in the covered
jurisdictions.
We are not talking about 17 years "in the penalty box" for actions ended long
ago. We are talking about a very real and present danger to the most fundamental
political right. It takes more than a decade and a half to remedy centuries of
discrimination. It takes special efforts and special methods. But the crucial concern
is losing the gains we have made. They are not guaranteed. They are not necessarily
permanent. They are fragile. We risk them if we turn back the clock.
Are the Voting Rights Act and preclearance fairly applied? Again, yes! Under
section 5, 10 States and towns or counties in 13 others must preclear election law
changes with the Justice Department. The covered jurisdictions run from counties
in New England, in my own Massachusetts and New Hampshire, to Alaska, Hawaii,
Arizona, California and Colorado. That is hardly regional legislation, Mr. Chairman.
Yet some have called for its extension to cover all jurisdictions in order to make
section 5 literally nationwide. Despite claims that this proposal is meant to promote
fairness, it is nothing more than an attempt to emasculate the process by bogging
down the Justice Department staff in more applications than it can reasonably
handle. In its effect it would end preclearance. Or its implementation would require
a huge and unnecessary bureaucracy.
In addition, universal pre-clearance is of dubious constitutionality. The U.S. Su-
preme Court has noted that very substantial evidence of widespread abuse must be
PAGENO="0885"
1759
present before the Congress may constitutionally impose such unusual Federal
power upon the voting process of a jurisdiction.
Only selected areas are covered by Section 5 because that is both the constitution-
al and the efficient method of guaranteeing voting rights. It would be a waste of
resources to cover those places with no history of preventing people from voting.
As Representative Hyde put it earlier in these hearings in his customarily candid
and blunt appraisal of such disingenuous suggestions, nationwide coverage of Sec-
tion 5 "would strengthen it to death." Facing avowed enemies, the Voting Rights
Act does not need such helpful friends.
And finally, of course, we note that the minorities whom the Act is designed to
help do not seek such extension; they oppose it as harmful to their cause..
There are other complaints that states cannot prove their way out of being
covered-or "bail-out"-and that a few bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not
be able to dictate the actions of local officials. On the first, there is the great risk I
discussed earlier of voting rights being denied anew should the pre-clearance proce-
dure be dropped. In addition, nO reasonable "bail-out" procedure or qualifications
have been suggested. Of course the suggestion that an individual "saintly" county
should be allowed to "bail-out" of statewide coverage is appealing. But, while I
believe strongly in redemption and salvation, I do not yet know that jurisdictions
proponents of this idea have in mind. What we have heard in evidence in this
hearing suggests the danger of fashioning a simple "bail-out" test which in fact
would eliminate Section 5 safeguards from hundreds of jurisdictions where it still is
desperately needed.
As to the second complaint, those who worry about the autonomy of local officials
still call for the fOderal court system to resolve election complaints. And it is the
responsibility of the federal government to guarantee that the 14th and 15th
Amendments to the Constitution are observed.
This last complaint touches on our third issue: Is the pre-clearance process too
great a burden to put on a local jurisdiction? A look at the pre-clearance process
reveals how small the burden actually is. A covered jurisdiction which wants to put
an election change into effect submits the change, along with background informa-
tion, to the U.S. Justice Department. Within 60 days (or 120 days if the Justice
Department needs more time) the Department responds by pre-clearing or "object-
ing" to the change. If there is pre-clearance, the jurisdiction can implement the
change and that is the end of it as far as Section 5 is concerned; but if there is an
objection, the jurisdiction may not use the change.
The covered jurisdiction also has the option of seeking pre-clearance from the
District Court in Washington, D.C., either initially or after an objection by the
JusticeDepartment; but the court option is rarely used because the Justice Depart-
ment's decisions are recognized as sound.
These burdens are small when compared to those of a court trial, which is the
suggested alternative.
In short, each Member of Congress must ask himself or herself if he or she is
ready to . tamper with a system that works and to run the risk of denying any
American the right to vote.
Mr. EDWARDS. We thank you very much, Father Drinan. We are
all delighted to learn that you have not lost your faith in redemp-
tion and salvation. [Laughter.]
I would say that the hearings to date would indicate that the
new devices that you mention to prevent minorities from being
elected, are the pattern not so much of preventing them from
registering and voting, as in the old days, but the subtle devices
such as gerrymandering, annexation, changing boundaries, and
things like that.
I. do appreciate your point on page 1, to permit minority candi-
dates to run with reasonable access to public office. There's no way
a minority candidate can get elected to public office if he or she is
gerrymandered out of it. And that's a pretty easy thing to do.
Some witnesses have said: "Well, look, there are only 815 objec-
tions out of 34,798"-I am referring to page 2 of your statement.
Is there any way of knowing how many gerrymanders there
might have been if there hadn't been the re4uirement for preclear-
ance?
PAGENO="0886"
1760
Father DRINAN. That's an excellent question.
When people say: "Well, the law is still violated"-the law would
be worse-the law would be more violated if it did not in fact exist.
You're quite right. This has given a signal to all of the covered
jurisdictions that they shouldn't be caught at something that is
illegal. And, as a result, they do it correct in the first instance.
Mr. EDWARDS. Counsel?
Ms. DAvIs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Father DRINAN. I'm afraid of this. She has such good questions.
[Laughter.]
Ms. DAVIS. In ñetermining whether the need still exists for the
special temporary provisions, such as section 5, what in your view
should be considered?
That is, when should we know, or when will we know, that the
act has served its purpose?
Father DRINAN. I would say another extension for the time rec-
ommended in the bill is the thing befOre the Congress now.
We can't know whether prejudice will die in another 5 or 10
years. All we can say is that this has been spectacularly successful
in limiting the prejudice in connection with the 15th amendment.
And I don't think we have to answer that.
We will just say that it's the role of the Congress to extend the
bill and that, hopefully, when this subcommittee has hearings 5 or
10 years down the road, these statistics will not be available. Then
and only then should the question of repealing this bill be thought
about.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd?
Mr. BOYD. No questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. What kind of a signal do you think we will be
sending, not only to the people in the United States, but to other
countries, if we were to either refuse to extend section 5, or amend
it so that it really wouldn't be very effective?
Father DRINAN. I think it would be quite disastrous, especially
all through Africa, and I think everywhere. It would be a signal
that we really don't care about the minority vote. It would be
worse than that. It could be said, once again, that blacks and
certain language minorities are affirmatively being excluded from
the process.
There's no other inference to be drawn, if you would repeal or
even weaken the bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. And you think it would be noticed in the Third
World?
Father DRINAN. I'm certain that the people in Africa watch the
fate of Mr. LeFever-and it is African newspapers that comment
on it every day. And this would even be more significant for them.
They would feel Americans of African ancestry are once again
being victimized by withdrawing Federal protection from a funda-
mental right.
Mr. EDWARDS. We thank you very much.
Father DRINAN. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. It's really been just wonderful having
you back.
We now welcome Arthur Flemming, the very distinguished
Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
PAGENO="0887"
1761
Accompanying him are Mr. Louis Nunez, Staff Director for the
Commission; Ms. Thelma Crivens, the Commission's Voting Rights
Act Study project director; and Mr. Paul Alexander, Acting Gener-
al Counsel of the Commission.
Mr. EDWARDS. I'll let you identify them, Dr. Flemming, so you
can pronounce all the names perfectly.
Without objection, your excellent statement, which is loaded
with good information, will be made a part of the record.
[The complete statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL
RIGHTS
I am Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights. With me today are Mr. Louis Nunez, Staff Director for the Commission; Ms.
Thelma Crivens, the Commission's Voting Rights Act Study project director; and
Mr. Paul Alexander, who is our Acting General Counsel. I appreciate the opportuni-
ty to speak to you today concerning extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as
amended.
Since the Commission was established in 1957, it has been concerned that all
American citizens are able to exercise the right to vote. The Commission has held
hearings and has done field surveys on the problems that minorities face in becom-
ing full participants in the political process. Previous Commission publications such
as Voting in Mississippi, The Voting Rights Act . . . The First Months, Political
Participation, and The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years After have documented the
fact that the right to vote has not yet been fully realized by minority citizens.
In the 1965 hearings before Congress, the Commission testified on the need for the
Voting Rights Act. In 1970 and in 1975 the Commission reported that the act was
having a salutary effect in improving minority voting rights. Noting the need to
continue its protections, the Commission called for its extension.
On behalf of my colleagues, I am appearing before you today to report the
findings of our most recent investigation of minority voting problems and to share
with you our views on the positive effects of the Voting Rights Act. This investiga-
tion will also culminate in a report entitled The Voting Rights Act: Unfulfilled
Goals, which reviews the status of minority voting rights in jurisdictions subject to
the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The report focuses on the status of
minority voting rights since the 1975 amendments to the act. I will share with you
the findings of this report, but, first, I would like to address myself briefly to the
question of why the Voting Rights Act was needed.
BACKGROUND
The right to vote is central to full political participation of all citizens of this
Nation. It grants to all citizens the power to elect those persons who make decisions
affecting their lives. Although it is a precious right, it has not been exercised freely
by minority citizens, due to continued efforts of State and local officials and private
citizens to deny them that right. As William Gillette has argued in The Right to
Vote: Politics and the Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment: "Freedom for the
freedman . . . was meaningless unless he had the ballot to protect himself." The
15th Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "[T]he right of
citizens . . . to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Despite the
passage of this Amendment, America's black citizens were systematically denied the
right to vote. For example, "literacy tests" were used as a prerequisite to registra-
tion, and were manipulated so that whites passed, but blacks failed, regardless of
the academic degrees they held. Blacks, who attempted to register, were sometimes
required to be accompanied by two persons already registered; since no blacks were
already registered, and no whites made themselves available, blacks could not
register. In some areas blacks who attempted to register were met with violence, so
that any attempt to participate in elections was futile.
Congress enacted legislation in 1870, 1957, 1960 and 1964 prohibiting discrimina-
tion in voting, but State and local officials and private citizens were persistent in
their efforts to deny minority citizens the right to vote.
Litigation was similarly unsuccessful in guaranteeing America's black citizens
their right to full participation in the political process. After lengthy and arduous
court battles in which courts found discrimination in a particular jurisdiction, the
PAGENO="0888"
1762
discriminating parties quickly invented new mechanisms for preventing minorities
from exercising their right to vote. Thus, another round of expensive and time-
consuming litigation was required. In the meantime, few minorities were registered,
and white candidates and officeholders were able to ignore the needs and concerns
of minority citizens.
In 1965, 95 years after the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress confront-
ed a problem that could best be characterized as a blight on American society:
persistent exclusion of minority citizens from the political process. In response to
that problem, Congress enacted strong legislation aimed at eliminating discrimina-
tion in registration and voting. That legislation-the Voting Rights Act of 1965-
was a carefully crafted document, each provision of which was designed to address
different types of discriminatory practices affecting minorities. It contains perma-
nent provisions that protect the voting rights of minorities throughout the Nation.
And, it contains special provisions that offer added protection to minorities in those
areas where discrimination has been the most blatant and pervasive.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
The heart of the act was-and is-its special provisions. Jurisdictions covered by
the special provisions had manifested voting discrimination through the use of tests
or devices as a prerequisite to registering or voting. Such discrimination had result-
ed in exceptionally low registration and voter turnout by minorities in these juris-
dictions. Congress did not limit coverage under the special provisions to one geo~
graphic region, however. Jurisdictions in 22 States across the Nation are covered by
the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
A state or political subdivision subject to the special provisions must submit
("preclear") to the U.S. Attorney General or to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia any proposed change in voting practices or procedures and
prove that the proposed change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or
effect. This provision, which is section 5 of the act, was enacted to prevent jurisdic-
tions from repeatedly devising new and subtle forms of discriminatory voting prac-
tices after old forms were prohibited.
Another special provison allows the Attorney General to send Federal examiners
and observers to jurisdictions subject* to preclearance. Examiners, who interview and
list potential registrants, ensure that minorities are not denied the right to register
based on race, color or inclusion in a minority language group. Observers, who may
be appointed in jurisdictions designated for examiners, observe whether eligible
voters are allowed to vote on election day and whether voting results are properly
tabulated. The appointment of observers helps to ensure that minorities vote in an
atmosphere free from fraud and intimidation.
When the Voting Rights Act was under consideration for extension in 1975,
testimony was presented showing that minority language groups were victims of the
same types of discriminatory practices used to prevent blacks from registering and
voting, such as intimidation and harassment and gerrymandering. As a result, a
coverage formula was devised making jurisdictions that had engaged in such wide-
spread discrimination against language minorities subject to preclearance and to
the other special provisions as well. The special provisions covering language minor-
ities also require minority language assistance in registration and voting in the
applicable minority language.
PROGRESS UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has prevented discrimination in registration and
voting and, as a result, has increased minority access to the political process. The
results of the act are most evident in increased registration and voting and in the
increase in the number of minority elected officials.
REGISTRATION
In 1965, registration rates for blacks were very low, especially when compared to
white registration rates. In Mississippi, 7 percent of the black voting age population
was registered, contrasted with 70 percent for whites. In Alabama, it was 19 percent
and 69 percent, respectively. In Georgia: 27 percent for blacks; 63 percent for whites.
In Louisiana: 32 percent for blacks; 80 percent for whites. In North Carolina: 47
percent for blacks; 97 percent for whites. In South Carolina: 37 percent for blacks;
76 percent for whites. Finally, in Virginia, 38 percent of the black voting age
population was registered, while 61 percent of the white voting age population was
registered.
PAGENO="0889"
1763
Bureau of the Census data, most recently available for 1976, show substantial
increases, with no State black registration rate lower than 47 percent and several
above 60 percent. Nevertheless, black registration rates continued to be lower than
white registration rates.
Registration rates for Hispanics and American Indians and Alaskan Natives
collected by the Bureau of the Census in 1976 show that their registration rates
were also lower than white rates in jurisdictions subject to preclearance. For exam-
ple, in Arizona the rate for Hispanics was 61 percent; for whites it was 72 percent.
In Colorado, the Hispanic rate was 53 percent; the white rate was 68 percent. In
New York the Hispanic rate was 52 percent; the white rate was 70 percent.
American Indian and Alaskan Native rates were also lower than white registra-
tion rates in the 1976 Bureau of the Census data. For example, in Alaska, the
Alaskan Native registration rate was 63 percent; the white rate was 73 percent. In
Arizona, the Indian registration rate was 48 percent; the white rate was 72 percent.
In South Dakota, the Indian rate was 52 percent and the white registration rate was
77 percent.
MINORITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
The number of minority elected officials has also increased. Exact estimates are
unavailable on the number of minorities elected to public office prior to 1965 in the
seven States, all but one of which [North Carolina] were covered in their entirety by
the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They were certainly fewer than 100, however. In 1968,
156 blacks had been elected. In 1974, 963 blacks held public office in these States. By
July 1980, the number had increased to 2,042.
Despite these statistics, progress under the Voting Rights Act has been painstak-
ingly slow. Moreover, voting discrimination has not been eradicated in many juris-
dictions subject to preclearance. Studies by the Commission as well as by private
organizations since 1965 have shown that voting discrimination in jurisdictions
subject to preclearance is so deeply entrenched-indeed, institutionalized-that the
improvements in the political status of minorities are fragile and, in large degree,
dependent on extension of the special provisions of the act. Not only does the legacy
of decades of discriminatory laws and practices die slowly, but jurisdictions subject
to the preclearance provisions have also shown a propensity to create new ways to
deny their minority citizens the rights the special provisions of the Voting Rights
Act were designed to protect. Continued attempts to impose new forms of discrimi-
nation make continued vigilance an absolute necessity.
THE COMMISSION'S REPORT
In its forthcoming report, The Voting Rights Act: Unfulfilled Goals, the Commis-
sion documents continuing problems that minorities face in becoming full partici-
pants in the political process. The report, which focuses on jurisdictions subject to
the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, found persistent and wide-
spread problems in the areas of registration, voting, fair representation and candi-
dacy. Additionally, the Commission found that jurisdictions frequently did not
comply with the preclearance provisions of the act. Even in 1981, some of the
barriers to full participation in the political process that had led to passage of the
Voting Rights Act persist. In other instances, newer and more subtle forms of
discrimination are being used to deny minorities full participation in the political
process. One fact, however, remains the same: minorities still do not register, vote,
or run for office in an environment free of discrimination. Moreover, even in
jurisdictions with increases in minority registration and voting, barriers to the full
political participation of minorities continue.
The Commission's forthcoming report, which was originally scheduled for release
in early 1982, was completed on an expedited schedule to enable the Commission to
provide information useful for Congressional deliberations in 1981. In conducting a
comprehensive survey of voting practices and procedures in the States subject either
to the preciearance provisions or to the minority language provisions of the Voting
Rights Act, Commission staff have interviewed election officials and other interested
parties. Before the Commission can release its report, (or otherwise identify individ-
uals or jurisdictions named in the report), it must provide them the opportunity to
reply, as our statute requires. These replies will be included in the appendix of the
report. Since the expedited schedule has not as yet afforded sufficient time for the
completion of this process, my review of findings based on data collected by the
Commission will omit the names of individuals and of jurisdictions. Testimony based
on public information, however, will identify specific jurisdictions. The Commission
will be ready to release this report following your August recess.
PAGENO="0890"
1764
HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION
Although the Voting Rights Act prohibits State and local officials as well as
private citizens from intimidating minority registrants and voters, intimidation and
harassment of minorities still persist in jurisdictions subject to preclearance.
REGISTRATION
Some minority citizens stated that some registars often ask detailed questions
about their employment and housing status. In 1980 a black 25 year-old female
attorney attempted to register in a jurisdiction in Virginia. She reported that the
attitude of the white person who registered her was "nasty"~ and that "the atmos-
phere was uncomfortable." The respondent also noted that after asking about her
occupation, the registrar then wanted to know the name of her employer. The
Virginia registration form does not contain any specific question on the name of an
employer. The registrant said that this kind of questioning could easily deter some
blacks from registering, because "they are scared of whites asking them questions.
They, especially some of the older population, still remember the way things used to
be to register, and having to go through a lot of questions reminds them of those
times."
In a Mississippi jurisdiction the white city clerk, who is the registrar for city
elections, described the registration process as being "simple and quick." According
to her, registration is an informal procedure whereby the registrant gives his or her
name, address, and employment. According to Mississippi law, every person entitled
to be registered shall sign his or her name in the registration book and thereupon
be registered. The black county tax assessor explained that the registration of a
white may be a "simple" process, but that the registration of blacks may "take up
to 1 hour" to complete.
According to the tax assessor, the questioning of black applicants by the registrar
is "intimidating." The registrar asks blacks unrequired questions such as "Do you
own the house you're staying in?" and "Does your employer know you're here
registering?" Once he observed the clerk asking an elderly black woman such
questions. "The woman became so nervous that she could not answer any of the
questions." Questions about an individual's employment can be more intimidating to
older black persons, because, according to the respondent, "To an older black, this
[type of questioning] is fearful. The fear is that the white employer will find out.
For the older black, it's a scare tactic. The older black person also feels that the
employer knows who he or she is going to vote for." Given the economically
dependent position of minorities and the history of discrimination and economic
retaliation against them, questions about their employment status can discourage
them from participating further in the political process.
Harassment and intimidation can be physically as well as phychologically threat-
ening. In 1980 an older black citizen, who lives in a jurisdiction in Georgia and who
had been involved in registration drives before, took two blacks to the courthouse so
they could register to vote. She said that while she waited for them, "the sheriff and
three other men in a car drove next to her parked car." According to the respond-
ent, the sheriff "stared" at her. "The way he looked scared me to death." She said
that the sheriff drove slowly around her car "a total of three times." As a result of
this experience, the respondent stated, "I [am not] going back there [to the court-
house] anymore m too old to be beaten up."
VOTING
Minority respondents in the Commission's survey have also stated that election
officials remain openly hostile to them when they attempt tO vote. For example, the
officials challenge their eligilbility to vote when they do not challenge whites in
similar circumstances. In one jurisdiction in Georgia, hostile whites with guns
visible reportedly congregated around the polling place and "heckled" black people
who were attempting to enter the poils to vote, making them fearful for their
physical safety. In another jurisdiction in Texas, a Mexican American candidate
reported that Mexican Americans were afraid to vote because of potential economic
reprisal. He said, "People are just too scared. I don't blame them. If they vote for
someone that their boss doesn't want them to [and he finds out], they will lose thelr
jobs." An Hispanic election worker in that jurisdiction said, "The attitude among
election personnel toward Mexican American voters is bad." She reiterated, "they
treat them bad." .
In another jurisdiction in Texas, an official said that some white election judges
"make things more difficult for the Hispanics voting [so they] are not comfortable at
the polls. The negative attitude of election judges easily discourages people from
PAGENO="0891"
1765
voting." According to a paralegal in that county, "Mexican Americans want more
Mexican American election judges. They do not feel at ease at the polis." A county
commissioner reported that there have been compliants that "election judges are
being sarcastic" to Mexican American voters "and [have] tried to discourage them
from voting."
MINORITY CANDIDATES
Minorities seeking to run for office also face intimidation and harassment, some-
times even before they have actually declared their candidacy. After one potential
candidate indicated to several people (both black and white) in a Georgia communi-
ty his interest in running for sheriff, shots were fired into his home, wounding one
of his daughters. Two whites were arrested in the incident; not surprisingly, the
man subsequently decided not to run for sheriff. In another instance, a cross was
burned on the lawn of a minority candidate for the South Carolina State legislature.
Still other minority candidates in North Carolina and Mississippi have received
threatening telephone calls and in some cases reported that they have armed
themselves or, alternatively, have taken steps never to travel alone.
Intimidation and harassment of minority voters and candidates continue to be a
fact of life in some jurisdictions subject to preclearance. As a result, many minority
voters are deterred from registering and voting and minority candidates are discour-
aged from running for office. The special provisions of the Voting Rights Act were
enacted because practices such as these prevented minorities from participating
fully in the political process. Now I must report that the practices that originally
led to passage of the act continue to exist. Consequently, the special provisions are
still needed to ensure that jurisdictions subject to preclearance do not engage in
other practices that further restrict the right of minorities to register and to vote.
FAILURE OF JURISDICTIONS TO PRECLEAR
Another reason the Commission believes that the special provisions of the Voting
Rights Act should be extended is that minorities in some jurisdictions subject to
preclearance have never received, or have only recently received, the protections
the preclearance provision was designed to provide. That is, some jurisdictions have
never submitted for preclearance changes in voting practices or procedures prior to
implementing them.
Due to the expedited schedule under which the Commission completed its 1981
investigation of the impact of the Voting Rights Act, we did not study the Depart-
ment of Justic's enforcement of the act's preclearance provisions. However, data
from the Department of Justice, from the Southern Regional Council and from court
cases indicate the need for systematic and rigorous enforcement of the preclearance
provisions.
In 1980 the Department of Justice sent 124 letters requesting submissions to
jurisdictions subject to preclearance where it was believed that changes had been
made in violation of section 5. Of these, 79 jurisdictions responded with 78 changes
that had taken place without preclearance. The Southern Regional Council in
Atlanta, Georgia, a representative of which, I understand, will be testifying here
today, has collected preliminary data on nonsubmissions by covered jurisdictions in
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana. In March 1981 the Council esti-
mated that since passage of the act over 500 changes had been made in jurisdictions
in these States without submitting them for preclearance. These data provide addi-
tional evidence on the extent of noncompliance with section 5 preclearance proce-
dures, despite the fact that the Voting Rights Act has been in existence for 16 years.
The Department of Justice also continues to be involved in litigation against
jurisdictions that implemented changes over its objections. Information provided by
the Department indicates that as of December 1980 it has been involved in 47 cases
since 1975 involving noncompliance with an objection interposed by the Attorney
General under section 5. The Department of Justice was the plaintiff in 28 of these
cases.
In many instances, when the Department of Justice or private organizations have
discovered that a jurisdiction' failed to preclear a change in voting practices or
procedures, the Department has objected to the change after it was submitted
because the jurisdiction could' not prove lack of discriminatory purpose or effect.
The change that was not precleared could have had a discriminatory purpose or
effect on the voting rights of minorities in the jurisdiction. For example, in McKen-
zie v. Giles, the failure of Dooly County, Georgia to preclear a change from a single-
member district election system, which increases the likelihood of electing minority
candidates to office, to an at-large election system, which decreases the likelihood of
PAGENO="0892"
1766
electing minority candidates to office, had a discriminatory effect on the voting
rights of minority citizens in the county. In that case, the Southern Regional Office
of the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the at-large election system for
electing members to the Dooly County Board of Commissioners, on grounds that the
at-large system had not been precleared under section 5. In fact, Dooly County's
method of electing county commissioners on an at-large basis was implemented in
1967 in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Prior to these changes, members of the
county commission had been elected from single-member districts.
After the ACLU filed suitagainst .Dooly County, alleging noncompliance with the
Voting Rights Act, the county submitted its at-large election system for county
commissioners to the Department of Justice, some 13 years after the election system
had been implemented. In July 1980, the Department of Justice objected to the
change in the method of electing county commissioners. In a consent decree entered
the same month, the court in the McKenzie case directed that the board of commis-
sioners be elected from three single-member districts, including one majority-black
district.
Section 5 is a strong remedy to deal with the deeply-entrenched problem of
discrimination in voting. The problem of discrimination will remain, however, as
long as the remedy is not used. Failure to comply with the law means that minor-
ities in jurisdictions subject to preclearance will continue to be denied their full
voting rights. The issue before this Committee is not only that there is a continuing
need for the Voting Rights Act, but also that the Justice Department's enforcement
of the preclearance provisions needs to be strengthened.
FAILURE OF JURISDICTIONS TO CONSIDER THE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS OF VOTING
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES ON MINORITY POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
The Commission believes the special provisions~of the Voting Rights Act should be
extended for yet another reason, that is: many voting practices and procedures used
in jurisdictions subject to preclearance continue to have a discriminatory effect on
minority political participation. As I have stressed, prior to 1965, discrimination in
registration and voting was a fact of life in jurisdictions subject to preclearance.
Coupled with discrimination in voting, however was discrimination against minor-
ities in other aspects of their lives, such as employment, housing and education. As
a result, minorities were unable to participate in the political process on an equal
basis with whites. Because of their low economic status, they were not always able
to afford transportation to the registration location; because of inferior education
they were unable to read the ballot on election day; and because of their experi-
ences. with hostile whites, they were fearful of voting at all-white poling locations:
The effects of past-and present-discrimination against minorities in virtually
every aspect of their lives still remain. A disproportionate number of them still are
poor and many still fear contact with whites, especially those whites on whom they
may be economically dependent. Despite the fact that whites were the perpetrators
of discrimination against minorities, many of them have not taken any steps to help
overcome past barriers to minority political participation. Indeed, in many instances
election officials in jurisdictions subject to preclearance have resisted efforts to
facilitate minority registration, voting and candidacy.
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES THAT MAKE IT ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT FOR MINORITIES TO
REGISTER.
Earlier in my discussion of progress achieved as a result of the Voting Rights Act,
I noted increasing minority registration rates. Nevertheless, black registration rates
continue to lag behind those of~whites. In its November 1976 survey of reported
registration the Bureau of the Census found few jurisdictions covered by the pre-
clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act in which the reported registration
* rates of minorities approached those of whites. In North Carolina and South Caroli-
na the gap between white and black registration rates has increased since 1974. In
Louisiana, the rate has remained constant over this period.
Two reasons why the registration rates of blacks are low compared to those of
whites are that (1) blacks continue to have relatively less access to the registration
process and (2) registration officials have resisted taking steps that would increase
their opportunities to register.
Blacks have less access because registration is an urban, business hour process
that is, for the most part, inaccessible to rural and low income people, a dispropor-
tionate number of whom are black. For example, in 1977, over 44 percent of the
* black population in the South lived in nonmetropolitan areas and over 39 percent of
this population was below the poverty level. Registration is inaccessible to them
PAGENO="0893"
1767
primarily because they cannot afford transportation to the registration location,
usually the county courthouse or city hall, or because the registration office is open
only during business hours, when they must work.
In some of the jurisdictions studied by the Commission, registrars have refused to
use mechanisms that could ease the registration process for minority registrants
who are low-income or who live in rural areas. Despite State laws permitting the
appointment of deputy registrars and/or permitting alternative registration times
and places, registrars often refuse to implement these measures on behalf of minor-
ity citizens. This has been true even when minority organizations have volunteered
to help ficilitate the process with community registration drives. Even under court
pressure, some jurisdictions have moved so slowly that the positive impact of
changes in registration procedures has been minimal. For example, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in Lodge v. Buxton that Burke County,
Georgia, a jurisdiction subject to preclearance, had been unresponsive to the needs
of the black community. One example of this lack of responsiveness was the coun-
ty's resistance to making registration more accessible to the black community. The
court stated: "The county did, indeed, establish additional registration sites. But
only after a pre-trial conference before and `friendly persuasion' by this Court. The
defendants' tepidity was further demonstrated by the fact that a period of four
months was required to get the registration cards to the new sites; and that the new
sites were operative only a short while before the registration period ended. Admit-
tedly, the County Commissioners recently approved a transportation system that
should help solve access problems for some; but only after being prodded by the
prosecution of this lawsuit * *
Another jurisdiction in Georgia was similarly reluctant to adopt measures to
facilitate minority registration. After intense pressure from the black community,
however, black deputy registrars were subsequently appointed. The duties of these
new registrars, however, did not involve registering voters. Instead, they were only
allowed to transport potential registrants to the courthouse. Moreover, these deputy
registrars were appointed only one week before the end of the registration period
for the local primary. It is clear that without affirmative efforts on the part of
registrars and election officials throughout many of these jurisdictions, minorities
will not have equal access to registration and minority registration rates therefore
will continue to languish.
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES THAT MAKE IT ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT FOR MINORITIES TO
BE ELECTED TO OFFICE
Earlier in my discussion of progress under the Voting Rights Act, I noted that the
number of minority elected Qfficials has increased in jurisdictions subject to pre-
clearance. These increases do not necessarily indicate that minorities are achieving
fair representation, however. Moreover, most minority elected officials are concen-
trated in local, part-time positions which rarely provide them with the resources or
power necessary to affect policy. In this respect, the increased number of minority
elected officials cannot be said to be a significant increase in minority political
access.
The discriminatory effect of certain voting practices and procedures on minority
political participation is most evident in the use of election systems and voting rules
that severely restrict the ability of minorities to be elected to office. Failure to be
able to elect candidates of their choice has frustrated members of minority groups,
many of whom feel that their interests are not being considered when governing
bodies make decisions affecting their lives. This is a particular concern because of
past or present discrimination against them in housing, employment, education and
access to services.
The Commission found that numerous barriers continue to limit the opportunities
of minorities to be elected in many jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions subject to
preclearance, election systems and voting rules are used which have a severely
discriminatory impact upon minorities. For example, when members of governing
bodies are elected at large rather than from single-member districts, the opportuni-
ties for minorities to gain elective office can be severely circumscribed. When whites
will not vote for minority candidates, that is, when racial bloc voting exists, the
prospects for minority officeholding under an at-large system are limited, unless the
jurisdiction has a majority of black or Hispanic voters. Multimember districts, in
which more than one representative is elected from the same district, have a similar
negative impact upon minority officeholding. They are more populous than single-
member districts, often encompassing several counties or a large city, and rarely
have a majority of black or Hispanic voters.
PAGENO="0894"
1768
Particular voting rules, often found in conjunction with at-large election systems,
also can make it very difficult for minorities to be elected to office. For example,
candidates for an at-large position on a city council may be required to gain a
majority, rather than a plurality of the votes cast, to win the election. In a commu-
nity with a black population of less than 50 percent of the total, a black candidate
may finish first among a sizeable field of candidates. But if the black candidate does
not receive a majority of the votes and the runoff is against a white candidate, the
candidate will lose if there is a significant degree of racial bloc voting. The Commis-
sion found numerous examples of this effect in jurisdictions subject to preclearance
in races ranging from Congressional campaigns to contests for town council.
The negative effect of at-large election systems can be seen in jurisdictions that
have changed their election systems to ones that provide more opportunities for
minority representation. In the period 1970 to 1978, 29 jurisdictions in Texas
changed from at-large election systems to single-member districts or mixed plans.
Immediately prior to these changes, the 29 systems elected 9 blacks and 8 Hispanics
to office. Immediately after the respective changes, 26 blacks and 24 Hispanics were
elected. In Louisiana, during the same period, 12 jurisdictions changed to single-
member districts or mixed plans. Before these changes, there were three black
elected officials in these jurisdictions. After these changes, there were 24.
In one jurisdiction in Alabama, the at-large election system for electing members
to the city commission coupled with majority vote and staggered term requirements
reportedly have a discriminatory effect on minority voting strength. The city com-
mission in this jurisdiction is composed of three memberswho are elected at large.
One of the commissioners also serves as mayor.
Despite the fact that the jurisdiction at one time had a near majority black
population and in 1980 was 33 percent black, no black has ever been elected to the
city commission. Between 1969 and 1978, four black candidates ran for places on the
commission. All were defeated. Currently, all three members of the city commission
live in the predominantly white north side of the city.
The lack of opportunities for black candidates to gain election to the city commis-
sion is related to the interaction of the city's election system with the high degree of
racial bloc voting. At-large elections, the majority vote rule, and staggered terms
make it impossible for black condidates to be elected without white votes. However,
no black candidate has ever won a single voting box (precinct) in the white commu-
nity. The one black candidate who reached a runoff failed to attract the votes that
had gone to white candidates defeated in the primary election.
The informal practice of always filling commission vacancies arising from resigna-
tion or death through appointments by the remaining commissioners also has
prevented black candidates from ever running in an election in which there was no
incumbent. Although black individuals and organizations have attempted to influ-
ence the filling of these vacancies, their suggestions have been consistently ignored.
Blacks complain that the all-white city commission has not been responsive to
their needs. They cite problems in employment as well as problems related to access
to services. For example, they allege that in 1980, 4 of 31. employees at city hall
were black. All four of these were in the two lowest paying classifications. In
virtually all city departments. blacks were underrepresented or concentrated in the
lowest paying jobs. Blacks also claim that in 1978 twice as many black households
were located on dirt streets than were white households. One black resident of the
city stated that "the white attitude here is that black folks are not ready for
leadership."
The Commission found that redrawing the boundaries of election districts or
changing actual boundaries of the jurisdiction can also have a discriminatory effect
upon the opportunities of minorities to be elected. In the context of racial bloc
voting, redrawing district boundaries in such a way that minority voters are a clear
numerical minority, or changing the boundaries of a city or town to decrease the
proportion of minority voters can ensure defeat for minority candidates.
Discriminatory boundary changes will be of special concern in the 1980s. After
the 1980 census population figures are released, States, counties, and municipalities
again will be determining whether district lines will have to be redrawn. Of pri-
mary importance to minorities will be whether redistricting plans lessen minority
voting strength and whether they discriminate against minorities in purpose or
effect.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PRECLEARANCE PROVISIONS IN PREVENTING POTENTIALLY
DISCRIMINATORY VOTING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
Voting practices and procedures that may discriminate against minorities in
purpose or effect, such as purging and reregistration, polling place location, at-large
PAGENO="0895"
1769
election systems, and statutes on assistance to illiterate voters are widespread. In
numerous instances, the section 5 preclearance process prevented implementation of
these voting practices and procedures. Three examples illustrate the impact of
sect~on 5.
In one instance the section 5 preclearance process prevented implementation of a
Mississippi law on assistance to illiterates that would have had a negative effect on
the ability of illiterate voters to be helped by an individual of their choice. In 1975
the illiteracy rates for blacks and whites in Mississippi were 18.8 percent and 3.1
percent, respectively. Prior to the new law, Mississippi's statute on assistance to
illiterates provided that illiterate voters could receive assistance from the person of
their choice, whether or not that person was a registered voter in the same precinct.
One individual could assist any number of voters, and no other person was permit-
ted or required to be present when assistance was given. The new law required that
the person giving assistance be a registered voter of the same precinct as the person
receiving assistance, that one person could assist no more than five others, and that
the poli manager must be present while assistance was given.
In May 1979 the new law was submitted to the Department of Justice for pre-
clearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In July 1979 the Attorney
General was "unable to conclude that the proposed system of assistance does not
have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to
vote on account of race or color." The Department also noted that it is common for
more than five black voters to receive assistance from the same person and that
there is no need for the person giving assistance to reside in the same precinct as
the voters receiving assistance. The Department of Justice further noted that the
vast majority of voters who have requested voting assistance in Mississippi are
black and their voting rights would be adversely affected by the provisions of the
new law.
Another reported voting problem which the section 5 preclearance provision has
helped to prevent is the location of polling places in areas that are at other times
off limits to minorities, for example in buildings which are regarded by minorities
as symbols of exclusion. In such circumstances, minority voters report that they feel
intimidated and are often reluctant to vote in the building. In other instances a
polling place is changed to a location that is inconvenient to minorities.
In February 1977, officials in Raymondville, Texas submitted to the Attorney
General changes in the location of two polling places, pursuant to section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. Although the Department of Justice did not object to one
of the polling place changes, it objected to the other change. According to the
Department, it "received unrebutted representations indicating that the change in
the location of the Precinct 1 polling place from City Hall to the American Legion
Hall may have the purpose of effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race, color, or membership in a minority language group." The Depart-
ment reported that the polling place change "will result in a significant inconve-
nience for many Mexican American voters" who reside in that precinct. In its
objection, the Department also noted that "the American Legion Hall appears to be
a place where Mexican Americans feel unwelcome. Thus, it is likely that the use of
the hall will have the effect of deterring participation by Mexican Americans
The preclearance process also has prevented gerrymandering of district lines,
another voting practice that discriminates against minorities in purpose or effect. In
Warren County, Mississippi the 1971 county elections were held under a redistrict-
ing plan objected to by the Attorney General under section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. After the 1975 county elections were stayed by the district court pending
development of a nondiscriminatory plan by the county, the all-white board of
supervisors in the 37 percent black county filed suit in the District Court for the
District of Columbia seeking approval under the Voting rights Act of their proposed
redistricting plan.
The 1929 redistricting plan, the last plan effective prior to the Voting Rights Act,
contained three districts within the near majority black city of Vicksburg and two
in rural Warren County, but the new redistricting plan proposed to eliminate the
Vicksburg districts and in each new district to combine portions of the city with
rural areas. One area in the city with a high concentration of blacks would be
divided among three districts. The proposed plan also contained districts that were
neither compact nor contiguous. Finally, the redistricting plan contained no district
with more than a 61 percent black population. A 65 percent black population is
generally considered the minimum necessary to give blacks an opportunity to be
elected to office.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia determined that Warren
County did not demonstrate that its proposed redistricting plan did not discriminate
PAGENO="0896"
1770
in purpose or effect. The court stated that the county had "failed to demonstrate
that the proposed plan would nOt lead to a retrogression in the position of racial
minorities * * ~" and that the county had "offered no valid nonracial justification
for the district lines within the city of Vicksburg which result in irregularly shaped
districts, fragment the black community and cause a diminution of black voting
strength."
Subsequent to this decision, the all-white county board of supervisors refused to
conduct elections under the 1929 redistricting plan. However, in September 1979 the
district court put into effect an interim, court-ordered, county redistricting plan and
set elections for November 27, 1979. The interim plan included districts that were 67
percent and 65 percent black. The first black county supervisor in this century was
elected in Warren County in that election.
It is clear that a variety of barriers continues to undercut the opportunities of
minorities to be elected to office. However, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has
been effective in preventing the implementation of voting practices or procedures
that have a discriminatory purpose or effect, in jurisdictions covered by the pre-
clearance provisions.
The Commission strongly recommends extension of the special provisions of the
Voting ~Rights Act for an additional 10 years. The continuing efforts by many of
these jurisdictions to implement voting practices or procedures, regardless of their
negative effects on their minority populations, makes such an extension an absolute
necessity if the voting rights of minorities are to be protected.
In other jurisdictions similarly discriminatory practices, such as the use of elec-
tion systems and voting rules that dilute minority voting strength, were in place
prior to the effective date that the jurisdictions were covered under the special
provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In such instances, minorities have brought suit
seeking to prove that jurisdictions have diluted their voting strength, in violation of
the 14th and 15th amendments, or section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Unconstitu-
tional dilution has been made more difficult to prove as a result of a recent
Supreme Court of the United States' decision, City of Mobile v. Bolden. In a
plurality decision, the Court established a strict standard of intent for proving
unconstitutional vote dilution. The plurality also applied that strict standard to
Section 2 of the Act, which prohibits the use of voting practices or procedures that
abridge or deny the right to vote based on race, color or inclusion in a minority
language group.
It is for that reason that the Commission recommends that Congress amend
section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to prohibit all States or political subdivisions
from establishing voting practices or procedures that have the "effect" of discrimi-
nating on the basis of race, color, or inclusion in a minority language group. The
effects of certain practices and procedures can be the result of past and present
discrimination against minorities. Since some jurisdictions do not consider the ef-
fects of theirvoting practices and procedures on their minority populations, it is
important that minorities themselves have some effective mechanism for seeking
redress from discriminatory voting practices. The Commission's recommendation to
amend section 2 would provide that mechanism.
COMPLIANCE-MINORITY LANGUAGE PROVISIONS
I now would like to discuss the continuing need for the minority language prdvi-
sions of the Voting Rights Act. Before discussing the Commission's findings and
recommendations with respect to these provisions, 1 would like to note that Commis-
sioner Stephen Horn dissents from them both.
Language minority citizens have also encountered numerous barriers to achieving
full political participation. Such barriers have resulted in low registration and
voting by these citizens. In Texas, for example, a U.S. District Court in 1972 stated:
"There can be no doubt that lack of political participation by Texas Chicanos is
affected by a cultural incompatibility which has been fostered by a deficient educa-
tional system . . . This cultural and language impediment, conjoined with the poll
tax and the most restrictive voter registration procedures in the Nation have
operated to effectively deny Mexican Americans access to the political processes in
Texas even longer than the blacks were formally denied access by the white pri-
mary."
Testimony presented during the 1975 hearings on extension of the Voting Rights
Act documented the failure of language minority citizens to gain full access to the
political process. Numerous witnesses testified concerning the roles that culture,
socio-economic conditions, unequal educational opportunities, and a language other
than English play in preventing language minorities from fully participating in the
political process. One witness, Howard A. Glickstein, then-director of the Center for
PAGENO="0897"
1771
Civil Rights at the University of Notre Dame, testified: "Overt discrimination is not
the only factor which limits the political participation of Sapnish-speaking Ameri-
cans. Since most registration and election materials are printed in English, the
language barrier often has prevented Spanish-speaking citizens from registering or,
once registered, from voting effectively. This barrier is as significant an impairment
of the right to vote as any literacy test that was used to deny the franchise to
blacks."
As a result of testimony on voting problems faced by members of minority
language groups, the minority language provisions were added to the Voting Rights
Act in 1975. Underthese provisions jurisdictions must provide: "~ * * any registra-
tion or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or informa-
tion relating to electoral process, including ballots * * * in the language of the
applicable minority group as well as in the English language * *
In many jurisdictions the minority language provisions have been interpreted in
the most narrow fashion, in conflict with Department of Justice guidelines for local
compliance. To begin with, jurisdictions often do not have registration outreach or
voter .education programs aimed at the language minority community. Despite the
fact that the actual tegistration form may be in the applicable language, many
minorities remain unaware of registration times and locations or are intimidated by
a registration process that does not include oral assistance in the applicable lan-
guage.
The Commission found that on election day the availability of a ballot in the
applicable language is often not accompanied by effective oral assistance in that
language. Such assistance is a necessity to aid illiterates and also to create a non-
intimidating and supportive atmosphere for other minority language voters. Native
American respondents in Oklahoma and Hispanic respondents in California and
Colorado complained that at some polling places with significant numbers of minor-
ity language voters, there was no oral assistance available in the applicable lan-
guage. In some cases where this assistance was available, minority language voters
did not vote because they were unaware of its availability anti were reportedly
embarrassed about voting without full command of the English language.
Current Department of Justice guidelines provide only that "materials and assist-
ance should be provided in a way designed to allow members of applicable language
minority groups to be effectively informed of and participate effectively in voting-
connected activities." The Commission believes that lack of specific criteria has
resulted in inadequate oral assistance to minority language voters. It has also
resulted in the failure of local jurisdictions to develop programs that will reach
minority language communities. So that covered jurisdictions may provide minority
language assistance more thoroughly and efficiently, the Commission recommends
that the Department of Justice develop criteria specifying what constitutes effective
minority language assistance.
The Commission also found that for the majority of jurisdictions required to
provide assistance to language minorities, there were minimal efforts by the appro-
priate U.S. Attorney to ensure compliance. Commission staff interviewed the eight
U.S. Attorneys that were responsible for the largest number of different types of
minority language groups in the covered jurisdictions in their regions. `None had
any compliance procedures, and only three had implemented any type of enforce-
ment activity to help assure compliance with the minority language provisions in
their regions. In general, the U.S. Attorneys considered that it was not their role to
seek out problems but to wait for submission of specific complaints. The Commission
believes that effective enforcement of the minority language provisions would be
enhanced if U.S. Attorneys were required to monitor regularly compliance with the
provisions in every section 203 jurisdiction in their districts.
It is clear that members of minority language groups continue to face numerous
barriers to full participation in the political process that stem from the refusal of
local jurisdictions to comply fully with the Voting Rights Act. The provision of
registration forms and ballots in the applicable language is only a small step in
facilitating this participation. Without registration outreach and voter education in
the language minority community and oral assistance throughout the election proc-
ess in the applicable language, increased numbers of language minorities will not
register and vote. Additionally, without adequate monitoring by U.S. Attorneys,
jurisdictions covered under these provisions may not fully understand their respon-
sibilities and also may lack key incentives to comply.
The minority language provisions are not due to be considered for extension until
August 6, 1985. At this time, however, the Commission recommends that they be
extended for 7 years. This extension would make the expiration date of all of the
act's special provisions uniform. It would also provide more time to jurisdictions
that have not yet fully implemented these provisions so that they can adequately
83-679 0 - 8.2 - 57 Pt.2
PAGENO="0898"
1772
plan and implement assistance to language minority citizens as intended by Con-
gress.
The Voting Rights Act and its amendments constitute a major effort to fulfill the
most basic right in our Nation. The act has certainly been an effective vehicle in
guaranteeing that right; unfortunately, however, its goals have not yet been ful-
filled. To continue the protections provided to minorities in jurisdictions subject to
preclearance the Commission reiterates its recommendations:
(1) That the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act being considered in 1982
be extended through 1992, an additional 10 years; and that those jurisdictions made
subject to preclearance by the 1975 amendments to the act be covered until 1992 as
well, an additional 7 years;
(2) That the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act be extended
through 1992, an additional 7 years;
(3) That section 2 of the Voting Rights Act be amended to prohibit all States or
political subdivisions from maintaining or establishing voting practices or proce-
dures that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of race, color, or inclusion
in a minority language group;
(4) That the Rights Act be amended by adding a section which places an affirma-
tive responsibility on the Attorney General to enforce more vigorously compliance
with the preclearance provision of Section 5;
(5) That the Voting Rights Act be amended by providing for civil penalties or
damages against State and local officials who fail to comply with the preclearance
provisions of the Voting Rights Act;
(6) That the Department of Justice amend its guidelines on implementation of the
minority language provisions to include specific criteria for determining effective
minority language assistance.
(7) That the Attorney General provide for effective enforcement of the minority
language provisions in jurisdictions subject to section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
by requiring U.S. Attorneys to monitor regularly compliance with the provisions in
every section 203 jurisdiction in their districts.
I hope that I have conveyed to you today that a lengthy journey lies ahead.
Clearly, 17 years of remedial effort has not been enough in view of the kinds of
persistent opposition to full voting rights for minority Americans, that I have
described to you today.- Failure to pursue the goals of full and equal political rights
for all our citizens by not renewing and strengthening the Voting Rights Act -would
not only constitute abandonment of that journey, but it would also represent a
signal to minority citizens that we no longer care. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. You may proceed. Would you please be so kind as
to introduce your colleagues.
TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COM-
MISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS; ACCOMPANIED BY LOUIS NUNEZ,
STAFF DIRECTOR; THELMA CR1 VENS, VOTING RIGHTS ACT
STUDY PROJECT DIRECTOR; AND PAUL ALEXANDER, ACTING
- GENERAL COUNSEL
- Mr. FLEMMING. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am happy to have the opportunity of appearing before this
committee, on this very important piece of legislation.
- As you have indicated, I am accompanied today by: Mr. - Nunez,
the Staff Director for the Commission; Ms. Thelma Crivens, who is
the Commission's Voting Rights Act Study Project Director; and
Mr. Paul Alexander, who is our Acting General Counsel.
I appreciate your willingness to have me submit my complete
statement for the record. This is a much longer statement than I
normally would submit for a hearing of this kind. I will give you
some reasons for that, -a little later on.
But my testimony this afternoon will be - a shortened version of
this statement. -
Since the Commission was established in 1957, it has been con-
cerned that all American citizens are able to exercise the right to
- vote. -
PAGENO="0899"
1773
* Over the years, the commission has held hearings and has done
field surveys on the problems that minorities face in becoming full
participants in the political process.
On behalf of my colleagues, I am appearing before you today to
report the findings of our most recent investigation of minority
voting problems, and to share with you our views on the positive
effects of the Voting Rights Act.
This investigation will culminate in a report entitled "The
Voting Rights Act: Unfulfilled Goals," which reviews the status of
minority voting rights in jurisdictions subject to the special provi-
*sions of the Voting Rights Act.
In 1965, 95 years after the 15th amendment was ratified, Con-
gress confronted a problem that could best be characterized as a
blight on American society: Namely, the persistent exclusion of
minority citizens from the political process.
In response to that problem, Congress enacted strong legislation
aimed at eliminating discrimination in registration and voting.
That legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was a carefully
crafted document, each provision of which was designed to address
different types of discriminatory practices affecting minorities.
It contains permanent provisions that protect the voting rights of
minorities throughout the nation; and it contains special provisions
that offer added protection to minorities in those areas where
discrimination has been the most blatant and pervasive.
The heart of the act was, and is, its special provisions. Jurisdic-
tions covered by the special provisions had manifested voting dis-
crimination through the use of tests or devices as a prerequisite to
registering or voting. Such discrimination had resulted in excep-
tionally low registration and voter turnout by minorities in these
jurisdictions.
Congress did not limit coverage under the special provisions to
one geographic region, however. Jurisdictions in 22 States across
the Nation are covered by the special provisions of the Voting
Rights Act.
A State or political subdi~4sion subject to the special provisions
must submit or "preclear" to the U.S. Attorney General, or to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, any proposed
change in voting practices or procedures; and prove that the pro-
posed change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or
effect.
This provision-which is section 5 of the act-was enacted to
prevent jurisdictions from repeatedly devising new and subtle
forms of discriminatory voting practices after old forms were pro-
hibited.
Another special provision allows the Attorney General to send
Federal examiners and observers to jurisdictions subject to pre-
clearance.
When the Voting Rights Act was under consideration for exten-
sion in 1975, testimony was presented showing that minority lan-
guage groups were victims of the same types of discriminatory
practices used to prevent blacks from registering and voting, such
as intimidation and harassment and gerrymandering.
As a result, a coverage formula was devised, making jurisdictions
that engaged in such widespread discrimination against language
PAGENO="0900"
1774
minorities subject to preclearance and to the other special provi-
sions, as well.
The special provisions covering language minorities also require
minority language assistance in registration and voting, in the
applicable minority language.~
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has prevented discrimination in
registration and voting and, as a result, has increased minority
access to the political process.
The results of the act are most evident in increased registration
and voting, and in the increase in the number of minority elected
officials.
Progress, however, under the Voting Rights Act has been pains-
takingly slow. Moreover, voting discrimination has not been eradi-
cated in many jurisdictions subject to preclearance.
In its forthcoming report, "The Voting Rights Act: Unfulfilled
Goals," the Commission documents continuing problems that mi-
norities face in becoming full participants in the political process.
The report, which focuses on jurisdictions subject to the preclear-
ance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, found persistent and
widespread problems in the areas of: registration, voting, fair rep-
resentation, and~ candidacy.
Additionally, the Commission found that jurisdictions frequently.
did not comply with the preclearance provisions of the act.
The Commission's report, which was originally scheduled for
release in early 1982, was completed on an expedited schedule, to
enable the Commission to provide information useful for congres-
sional deliberation in 1981. In conducting a comprehensive survey
of voting practices and procedures in the States subject either to
the preclearance provision or to the minority language provisions
of the Voting Rights Act, Commission staff have interviewed elec-
tion officials and other interested parties.
Before the Commission can release the full text of its report, or
otherwise identify individuals or jurisdictions named in the report,
it must provide them the opportunity to reply, as our statute
requires. These replies will be included in the appendix of the
report.
Since the expedited schedule has not as yet afforded sufficient
time for the completion of this process, my review of findings based
on data collected by the Commission will omit the names of indi-
viduals and of jurisdictions. Testimony based on public informa-
tion, however, will identify specific jurisdictions. The Commission
will be ready to release the full report-the full text of its report
no later than following your August recess.
Although the Voting Rights Act prohibits State and local offi-
cials, as well as private citizens, from intimidating minority regis-
trants and voters, intimidation and harassment of minorities still
persist in jurisdictions subject to preclearance.
Some minority citizens stated that some registrars often ask
detailed questions about their employment and housing status.
In 1980, a black 25-year-old female attorney attempted to register
in a jurisdiction in Virginia. She reported the attitude of the white
person who registered her was "nasty," and that the "atmosphere
was uncomfortable." The respondent also noted that after asking
about her ~occupation, the registrar then wanted to know the name
PAGENO="0901"
1775
of her employer. The Virginia registration form does not contain
any specific question on the name of an employer.
The registrant said this kind of questioning could easily deter
some blacks `from registering, because:
They are scared of whites asking them questions. They, especially some of the
older population, still remember theway things used to be to register, and having to
go through a lot of questions reminds them of those times.
In a Mississippi jurisdiction, the white city clerk who was the
registrar for city elections described the registration process as
being simple and quick. According to her, registration is an infor-
mal procedure whereby the registrant give his or her name, ad-
dress, and employment. According to Mississippi law, every person
entitled to be registered shall sign his or her name in the registra-
tion book, and thereupon be registered.
The black county tax assessor explained that the registration of
~`a white may be a simple process, but that the registration of blacks
may take up to an hour to complete.
According to the tax assessor, the questioning of black applicants
by the registrar is intimidating. The registrar asks blacks unre-
quired questions, such as: "Do you own the house you're staying
in?" and "Does your employer know you're here registering?"
Once, he observed the clerk asking an elderly black woman such
questions. The woman became so nervous that she could not
answer any of the questions. Questions about an individual's em-
ployment can be more intimidating to older black persons because,
according to the respondent:
To an older black, this type of questioning is fearful. The fear is that the white
employer will find out. For the older black, it's a scare tactic. The older black
person also feels that the employer knows who he or she is going to vote for.
Given the economically dependent position of minorities, and the
history of discrimination and economic retaliation against them,
questions about their employment status can discourage them from
participating further in the political process.
Minority respondents in the Commission's survey have also
stated that election officials remain openly hostile to them when
they attempt to vote. For example, the officials challenge their
eligibility to vote, when they do not challenge whites in similar
circumstances.
In one jurisdiction in Georgia, hostile whites with guns visible
reportedly congregated around the polling place and heckled black
people who were attempting to enter the polls to vote, making
them fearful for their physical safety.
In another jurisdiction in Texas, a Mexican American candidate
reported that Mexican Americans were afraid to vote because of
potential economic reprisal. He said that people are just too scared.
I don't blame them. If they vote for someone that their boss doesn't
want them to, and he finds out, they will lose their jobs.
An Hispanic election worker in that jurisdiction said: "The atti-
tude among election personnel toward Mexican American voters is
bad." She reiterated, "They treat them bad.",
In another jurisdiction in Texas, an official said that some white
election judges.
PAGENO="0902"
1776
Make things more difficult for the Hispanics voting, so that they are not comfort-
able at the poiis. The negative attitude of election judges easily discourages people
from voting.
According to a paralegal in that country: "Mexican Americans
want more Mexican American election judges. They do not feel at
ease at the polis." -
A countycommissioner reported that there have been complaints
that "election judges are being sarcastic" to Mexican American
voters, and have "tried to discourage them from voting."
Minorities seeking to run for office also face intimidation and
harassment, sometimes even before they have actually declared
their candidacy.
After one potential candidate indicated to several people, both
black and white, in a Georgia community his interest in running
for sheriff, shots were fired into his home, wounding one of his
daughters. Two whites were arrested in the incident. Not surpris-
ingly, the man subsequently decided not to run for sheriff.
In another instance, a cross was burned on the lawn of a minor-
ity candidate for the South Carolina State Legislature.
Still other minority candidates in North Carolina and Mississippi
have received threatening telephone calls and, in some cases, re-
ported that they have armed themselves or, alternatively, have
taken steps never to travel alone.
Due to the expedited schedule under which the Commission com-
pleted its 1981 investigation of the impact of the Voting Rights Act,
we did not study the Department of Justice's enforcement of the
act's preclearance provisions. However, data from the Department
of Justice, from the Southern Regional Council, and from court
cases indicate the need for systematic and rigorous enforcement of
the preclearance provisions.
In 1980, the Department of Justice sent 124 letters requesting
submissions to jurisdictions subject to preclearance, where it was
believed that changes had been made in violation of section 5. Of
these, 79 jurisdictions responded with 78 changes that had taken
place without preclearance.
The Southern Regional Council in Atlanta, Ga., a representative
of which I understand will be testifying here today, has collected
preliminary data on nonsubmissions by covered jurisdictions in
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana.
In March 1981, the council estimated that since passage of the
Voting Rights Act, over 500 changes had been made in jurisdictions
in those States, without submitting them for preclearance.
These data provide additional evidence on the extent of noncom-
pliance with section 5 precleárance procedures, despite the fact
that the Voting Rights Act has been in existence for 16 years.
The Department of Justice also has been involved in litigation
against jurisdictions that implemented changes over its objections.
Information provided by the Department indicates that as of De-
cember 1980, it has been involved in 47 cases since 1975, involving
noncompliance with an objection interposed by the Attorney Gen-
eral, under section 5. The Department of Justice was the plaintiff
in 28 of these cases.
In many of these instances when the Department of Justice or a
private organization have discovered that a jurisdiction failed to
PAGENO="0903"
1777
preclear a change in voting practices or procedures the Department
has objected to the change after it was submitted because the
jur~sdiction could not prove lack of discriminatory purpose or
effect.
The change that was not precleared could have had a discrimina-
tory purpose or effect on the voting rights of minorities in the
jurisdiction. For example, in McKenzie v. Giles, the failure of Dooly
County, Ga., to preclear a change from a single-member district
election system, which increases the likelihood of electing minority
candidates to office, to an at-large election system, which decreases
the likelihood of electing minority candidates to office, had a dis-
criminatory effect on the voting rights of minority citizens in the
county.
In that case, the Southern Regional Office of the American Civil
Liberties Union challenged the at-large election system for electing
members to the Dooly County Board of Commissioners on grounds
that the at-large system had not been precleared under section 5.
In fact, Dooly County's method of electing county commissioners on
an at-large basis was implemented in 1967 in violation of the
Voting Rights Act. Prior to these changes members of the county
commission had been elected from single-member districts.
After the ACLU filed suit against Dooly County, alleging non-
compliance with the Voting Rights Act, the county submitted its
at-large election system for county commissioners to the Depart-
ment of Justice, some 13 years after the election system had been
implemented.
In July 1980 the Department of Justice objected to the change in
the method of electing county commissioners. In a consent decree
entered the same month the court in the McKenzie case directed
that the board of commissioners be elected from three single-
member districts, including one majority-black district.
Section 5 is a strong remedy to deal with the deeply entrenched
problem of discrimination in voting. The problem of discrimination
will remain, however, as long as the remedy is not used. Failure to
comply with the law means that minorities in jurisdictions subject
to preclearance will continue to be denied their full voting rights.
The issue before this committee and. the Congress is not only
that there is a continuing need for the Voting Rights Act, but also
that the enforcement of the preclearance provisions needs to be
strengthened.
The Commission believes that provision should be made for the
assessment of civil penalties and damages against State and local
officials who fail to comply with preclearance provisions and that
the act should place an affirmative responsibility on the Attorney
General of the United States to develop an effective enforcement
program.
The Commission believes that the special provisions of the
Voting Rights Act should be extended for yet another reason; that
is, many voting practices and procedures used in jurisdictions sub-
ject to preclearance continue to have a discriminatory effect on
minority political participation.
Earlier in my discussion of progress achieved as a result of the
Voting Rights Act I noted increasing minority registration rates.
PAGENO="0904"
1778
Nevertheless, black registration rates continue to lag behind those
of whites.
In its November 1976 survey of reported registration the Bureau
of the Census found few jurisdictions covered by the preclearañce
provisions of the Voting Rights Act in which the reported registra-
tion rates of minorities approached those of whites. In North Caro-
lina and South Carolina the gap between white and black. registra-
tion rates has increased since 1974. In Louisiana, the rate has
remained constant over this period.
Two reasons why the registration rates of blacks are low com-
pared to those of white are that (1) Blacks continue to have rela-
tively less access to the registration process; and (2) registration
officials have resisted taking steps that would increase their oppor-
tunities to register.
In some of the jurisdictions studied by the Commission, registrars
have refused to use mechanisms that could ease the registration
process for minority registrants who are low-income or who live in
rural areas.
Despite State laws permitting the appointment of deputy regis-
trars or permitting alternative registration times and places, regis-
trars often refuse to implement these measures on behalf of minor-
ity citizens. This has been true even when minority organizations
have volunteered to help facilitate the process with community
registration drives.
Even under court pressure some jurisdictions have moved so
slowly that the positive impact of changes in registration proce-
dures has been minimal. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit found in Lodge v. Buxton that Burke County,
Ga., a jurisdiction subject to preclearance, had been unresponsive
to the needs of the black community. One example of this lack of
responsiveness was the county's resistance to making registration
more accessible to the black community.
Another jurisdiction in Georgia was similarly reluctant to adopt
measures to facilitate minority registration. After intense pressure
from the black community, however, black deputy registrars were
subsequently appointed. The duties of these new registrars, howev-
er, did not involve registering voters. Instead, they were only al-
lowed to transport potential registrants to the courthouse. More-
over, these deputy registrars were appointed only one~ week before
the end of the registration period for the local primary. It is clear
that without affirmative efforts on the part of registrars and elec-
tion officials throughout many of these jurisdictions, minorities will
not have equal access to registration and minority registration
rates therefore will continue to languish.
Earlier in my discussion of progress under the Voting Rights Act
I noted that the number of minority elected officials has increased
in jurisdictions subject to preclearance. These increases do not
necessarily indicate that minorities are achieving fair representa-
tion, however. Moreover, most minority elected officials are concen-
trated in local, part-time positions which rarely provide them with
the resources or power necessary to affect policy. In this respect,
the increased number of minority elected officials cannot be said to
be a significant increase in minority political access.
PAGENO="0905"
1779
The Commission found that numerous barriers continue to limit
the opportunities of minorities to be elected in many jurisdictions.
In some jurisdictions subject to preclearance election systems and
voting rules are used which have a severely discriminatory impact
upon minorities. For example, when members of governing bodies
are elected at large rather than from single-member districts the
opportunities for minorities to gain elective office can be severely
circumscribed.
The negative effect of at-large election systems can be seen in
jurisdictions that have changed their election systems to ones that
provide more opportunities for minority representation. In the
period 1970 to 1978, 29 jurisdictions in Texas changed from at-large
election systems to single-member districts or mixed plans. Immedi-
ately prior to these changes the 29 systems elected 9 blacks and 8
Hispanics to office. Immediately after the respective changes, 26
blacks and 24 Hispanics were elected.
In Louisiana during the same period 12 jurisdictions changed to
single-member districts or mixed plans. Before these changes there
were three black elected officials in these jurisdictions. After these
changes there were 24.
In one jurisdiction in Alabama the at-large election system for
electing members to the city commission coupled with majority
vote and staggered term requirements reportedly have a discrimi-
natory effect on minority voting strength. The city commission in
this jurisdiction is composed of three members who are elected at
large. One of the commissioners also serves as mayor.
Despite the fact that the jurisdiction at one time had a near
majority black population and in 1980 was 33 percent black, no
black has ever been elected to the city commission. Between 1969
and 1978, four black candidates ran for places on the commission.
All were defeated. Currently all three members of the city commis-
sion live in the predominantly white north side of the city.
The lack of opportunities for black candidates to gain election to
the city commission is related to the interaction of the city's elec-
tion system with the high degree of racial bloc voting. At-large
elections, the. majority vote rule, and staggered terms make it
impossible for black candidates to be elected without white votes.
However, no black candidate has ever won a single voting box
precinct in the white community. The one black candidate who
reached a runoff failed to attract the votes that had gone to white
candidates defeated in the primary election.
The Commission found that redrawing the boundaries of election
districts or changing actual boundaries of the jurisdiction can also
have a discriminatory effect upon the opportunities of minorities to
be elected. In the context of racial bloc voting, redrawing district
boundaries in such a way that minority voters are a clear numeri-
cal minority, or changing the boundaries of a city or town to
decrease the proportion of minority voters can insure defeat for
minority candidates.
Discriminatory boundary changes will be of special concern in
the 1980's. After the 1980 census population figures are completely
released, States, counties, and municipalities again will be deter-
mining whether district lines will have to be redrawn. Of primary
importance to minorities will be whether redistricting plans lessen
PAGENO="0906"
1780
minority voting strength and whether they discriminate against
minorities in purpose or effect.
Voting practices and procedures that may discriminate against
minorities in purpose or effect, such as purging and reregistration,
polling place location, at-large election systems, and statutes on
assistance to illiterate voters are widespread. In numerous in-
stances the section 5 preclearance process prevented implemention
of these voting practices and procedures. Three examples illustrate
the impact of section 5.
In one instance the section 5 preclearance process prevented
implementation of a Mississippi law on assistance to illiterates that
would have had a ffegative effect on the ability of illiterate voters
to be helped by an individual of their choice. In 1975 the illiteracy
rates for blacks and whites in Mississippi were 18.8 percent and 3.1
percent respectively.
Prior to the new law, Mississipppi's statute on assistance to
illiterates provided that illiterate voters could receive assistance
from the person of their choice, whether or not that person was a
registered voter in the same precinct. One individual could assist
any number of voters and no other person was permitted or re-
quired to be present when assistance was given. The new law
required that the person giving assistance be a registered voter of
the same precinct as the person receiving assistance, that one
person could assist no more than five others, and that the poll
manager must be present while assistance was given.
In May 1979 the new law was submitted to the Department of
Justice for preclearance under section 5. In July 1979 the Attorney
General was unable to conclude that the proposed system of assist-
ance does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.
The Department also noted that it is common for more than five
black voters to receive assistance from the same person and that
there is no need for the person giving assistance to reside in the
same precinct as the voters receiving the assistance. The Depart-
ment of Justice further noted that the vast majority of voters who
have requested voting assistance in Mississippi are black and their
voting rights would be adversely affected by the provisions of the
new law.
Another reported voting problem which the section 5 preclear-
ance provision has helped to prevent is the location of polling
places in areas that are at other times off limits to miorities. For
example, in buildings which are regarded by minorities as symbols
of exclusion. In such circumstances minority voters report that
they feel intimidated and are often reluctant to vote in the build-
ing. In other instances a polling place is changed to a location that
is inconvenient to minorities.
The preclearance process also has prevented gerrymandering of
district lines, another voting practice that discriminates against
minorities in purpose or in effect.
Included in my statement is a specific illustration of that point.
It is clear that a variety of barriers continues to undercut the
opportunities of minorities to be elected to office. However, section
5 of the Voting Rights Act has been effective in preventing the
implementation of voting practices or procedures that have a dis-
PAGENO="0907"
1781
criminatory purpose or effect in jurisdictions covered by the pre-
clearance provisions.
The Commission strongly recommends the extension of the spe-
cial provisions of the Voting Rights Act for an additional 10 years.
The continuing efforts by many of these jurisdictions to implement
voting practices or procedures, regardless of their negative effects
on their minority populations, makes such an extension an abso-
lute necessity if the voting rights of minorities are to be protected.
In other jurisdictions similarly discriminatory practices, such as
the use of election systems and voting rules that dilute minority
voting strength, were in place prior to the effective date that the
jurisdictions were covered under the special provisions of the
Voting Rights Act. In such instances minorities have brought suits
seeking to prove that jurisdictions have diluted their voting
strength in violation of the 14th and 15th amendments, or section 2
of the Voting Rights Act.
Unconstitutional dilution has been made more difficult to prove
as a result of a recent Supreme Court of the U.S. decision, City of
Mobile v. Bolden. I discuss that in my statement. 1 will not include
it in my oral testimony at this pOint.
I would now like to discuss the continuing need for the minority
language provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Before discussing the
Commission's findings and recommendations with respect to these
provisions I would like to note that Commissioner Stephen Horn
dissents from this part of our report.
The background for that legislation I will skip.
in many jurisdictions the minority language provisions have
been interpreted in the most narrow fashion, in conflict with De-
partment of Justice guidelines for local compliance.
To begin with, jurisdictions often do not have registration out-
reach or voter education programs aimed at the language minority
community. Despite the fact that the actual registration form may
be in the applicable language, many minorities remain unaware of
registration times and locations or are intimidated by a registra-
tion process that does not include oral assistance in the applicable
language.
The Commission found that on election day the availability of a
ballot in the applicable language is often not accompanied by effec-
tive oral assistance in that language.
Such assistance is a necessity to aid illiterates and also to create
a nonintimidating and supportive atmosphere for other minority
language voters.
Native American respondents in Oklahoma and Hispanic re-
spondents in California and Colorado complained that at some
polling places with significant numbers of minority language voters
there was no oral assistance available in the applicable language.
In some cases where this assistance was available, minority lan-
guage voters did not vote because they were unaware of its avail-
ability and were reportedly embarrassed about voting without full
command of the English language.
Current Department of Justice guidelines provide only that-
Materials and assistance should be provided in a way designed to allow members
of applicable language minority groups to be effectively informed of and participate
effectively in voting-connected activities.
PAGENO="0908"
1782
The Commission believes that lack of specific criteria has result-
ed in inadequate oral assistance to minority language voters. It has
also resulted in the failure of local jurisdictions to develop pro-
grams that will reach minority language communities. So that
covered jurisdictions may provide minority language assistance
more thoroughly and efficiently, the Commission recommends that
the Department of Justice develop criteria specifying what consti-
tutes the effect of minority language assistance.
The Commission also found that for the majority of jurisdictions
required to provide assistance to language minorities, there were
minimal efforts by the appropriate U.S. attorney to insure compli-
ance. Commission staff interviewed the eight U.S. attorneys that
were responsible for the largest number of different types of minor-
ity language groups in the covered jurisdictions in their regions.
None had any compliance procedures, and only three had imple-
mented any type of enforcement activity to help assure compliance
with the minority language provisions in their regions.
In general, the U.S. attorneys considered that it was not their
role to seek out problems but to wait for submission of specific
complaints. The Commission believes that effective enforcement of
the minority language provisions would be enhanced if representa-
tives of the U.S. attorneys were required to monitor regularly
compliance with the provisions in every section 203 jurisdiction in
their districts.
It is clear that members of minority language groups continue, to
face numerous barriers to full participation in the political process
that stem from the refusal of local jurisdictions to comply fully
with the Voting Rights Act. The provision of registration forms and
ballots in the applicable language is only a small step in facilitat-
ing this participation.
Without registration outreach and voter education in the lan-
guage minority community and oral assistance throughout the elec-
tion process in the applicable language, increased numbers of lan-
guage minorities will not register and vote. Additionally, without
adequate monitoring by U.S. attorneys, jurisdictions covered under
these provisions may not fully understand their responsibilities and
also may lack key incentives to comply.
The minority language provisions are not due to be considered
for extension until 1985. At this time, however, the Commission
recommends that they be extended for 7 years. This extension
would make the expiration date of all of the act's special provisions
uniform. It would also provide more time to jurisdictions that have
not yet fully implemented these provisions so that they can ade-
quately plan and implement assistance to language minority citi-
zens as intended by Congress.
The Voting Rights Act and its amendments constitute a major
effort to fulfill the most basic right in our Nation. The act has
certainly been an effective vehicle in guaranteeing that right; un-
fortuately, however, its goals have not yet been fulfilled. To contin-
ue the protections provided to minorities in jurisdictions subject to
preclearance the Commission makes these recommendations:
One, that the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act being
considered in 1982 be extended through 1992, an additional 10
years; and that those jurisdictions made subject to preclearance by
PAGENO="0909"
1783
the 1975 amendments to the act be covered until 1992 as well, an
additional 7 years;
Two, that the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights
Act be extended through 1992, an additional 7 years;
Three, that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act be amended to
prohibit all States or political subdivisions from maintaining or
establishing voting prabtices or procedures that have the effect of
discriminating on the basis of race, color, or inclusion in a minority
language group;
Four, that Congress~ should amend the Voting Rights Act to
provide for civil penalties or damages against State and local offi-
cials who fail to comply with the preclearance provisions of the act;
Five, that the Voting Rights Act be amended by adding a section
which places an affirmative responsibility on the Attorney General
to enforce more vigorously compliance with the preclearance provi-
sion of section 5;
Six, that the Department of Justice amend its guidelines on
implementation of the minority language provision to include spe-
cific criteria for determining effective minority language assist-
ance; and
Seven, that the Attorney General provide for effective enforce-
ment of the minority language provision in jurisdictions subject to
section 203 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring U.S. attorneys to
monitor regular compliance with the provision in every section 203
jurisdiction in their district.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I hope that we
have been able to convey to you today that a lengthy journey lies
ahead. Clearly, 17 years of remedial effort has not been enough in
view of the continued persistent opposition to full voting rights for
minority Americans. We belive that failure to pursue the goals of
full and equal political rights for all of our citizens by not renewing
and strengthening the Voting Rights Act would not only constitute
abandonment of that journey, but it would also represent a signal
to minority citizens that we no longer care.
Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Dr. Flemming. That indeed
is a remarkable statement, and we appreciate the fact that you
have suggested some strengthening amendments.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IV have no questions, other
than to compliment the chairman and look forward to a full report
of the Commission. V V V
Mr. FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, I might say-Congressman Hyde,
the statement itself is longer than we would normally have made
it, by reason of the fact that there will be some delay in the full
text of the report. But as soon as we have complied with V our
statutory requirement on that, it will be made available. V V V
Mr. HYDE. The sooner the better, because we're dealing with this
right now. V
V Mr. FLEMMINGV. We're working on it with a sense of urgency, I
can assure you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. FlemVming, in the letter that the President
wrote the Attorney General yesterday, we were all pleased that he
made a point of emphasizing his commitment to full equality for
83-679 0 - 82 - 58 Pt.2
PAGENO="0910"
1784
all Americans regardless of race, color, or national origin. He did
point out, however, that he is sensitive to the controversy which
has attached itself to some of the act's provisions, in particular,
those provisions which impose burdens unequally upon different
parts of the country.
How do we respond to that controversy?
Mr. FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, as you undoubtedly noted, the
thrust of a good deal of my testimony was directed to that particu-
lar issue. First of all, you probably noted that our study was
limited, by and large, to the jurisdictions that are covered by the
special provisions of the Voting Rights Act. And the conclusions
that we have reached are based on the evidence that was brought
together from those jurisdictions.
On the basis of that evidence, there is no question in our minds
but that as far as those jurisdictions are concerned, the Voting
Rights Act should remain in effect, including, of course, the section
5 preclearance procedures.
It is not an unfair burden that has been placed on those jurisdic-
tions; the requirement grows out of the discriminatory practices
that prevailed in those jurisdictions which had the effect of bring-
ing them in under the special provisions of the act. And those
discriminatory practices still continue, calling for the preclearance
procedure. So I don't think that the Congress has acted unfairly at
all.
The Congress, in passing the Voting Rights Act, recognized that
there might be other jurisdictions that from time to time would
likewise engage in discriminatory practices in the area of voting,
and established a procedure under which a citizen or the Attorney
General can put the relevant facts before a court and request
appropriate action which would have the effect of subjecting the
additional jurisdiction to a preclearance procedure. I refer to sec-
tion 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.
I think that Congress has made provision for equitable treatment
of the various jurisdictions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Did the investigation of the Commission produce
any evidence that some of the jurisdictions covered by section 5
have so improved in attitude and in practice that they should be
eliminated from coverage?
Mr. FLEMMING. Our investigation did not lead us to that conclu-
sion~ We did not study a particular jurisdiction, for example, that
alleged that it had reached the place where it should no longer be
subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
But as a result of our field work, we did not identify any jurisdic-
tion which we believe should be released from the provisions of
section 5 of that act.
Mr. EDWARDS. The last question I have is that in our hearings,
especially outside of this area, there was quite a lot of testimony
about a very distressing phenomenon which is racial bloc voting,
especially in the South, where the white voters just won't vote for
a black candidate and to a certain extent vice versa.
Now, that is a rather regional phenomenon, because it doesn't
necessarily take place in other parts of the country. I think in
Massachusetts-in California, we have statewide officials from time
to time who are black or Mexican-American, and I think in your
PAGENO="0911"
1785
State also, Mr. Hyde, and certainly in Massachusetts and others.
Los Angeles has a black mayor, and yet the population is immense-
ly more white than black.
What are your observations on that? Why is this something that
unfortunately takes place chiefly in the southern part of our coun-
try?
Mr. FLEMMING. I introduced at the beginning of my presentation
Ms. Crivens, who in my judgment has done a superb job in provid-
ing leadership for this nationwide study, and in bringing together
all of the evidence.
I would like to ask her if she would like to comment on your
question growing out of her experiences in the field.
Ms. CRIVENS. Congressman Edwards, we did find, in juridictions
the staff visited in the South, there were continuing problems of
racial bloc voting. Although in many instances blacks may vote for
whites, whites still are reluctant to vote for blacks. And this has
prevented many minorities in jursidictions subject to preclearance
from being elected to office.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Thank you.
I just want to clarify one point the chairman brought up. Is it
your testimony, Dr. Fleming, that there are no jurisdictions in the
old Confederacy who have lived up to the act, both letter and
spirit, over the past years, which would entitle them to exempt
themselves to bail out? I didn't think that was your testimony, was
it?
Mr. FLEMMING. My testimony was that the evidence that we
brought together in connection with our study did not identify a
jurisdiction that might be described in the manner in which you
have just described a jurisdiction. I don't think that one should
reach a conclusion of that kind just on the basis of general observa-
tion and so on.
I think, before such a conclusion is reached there should be an
opportunity for the presentation of evidence and the opportunity
for rebuttal.
Mr. HYDE. Sure, when the question was asked, if you didn't find
any, that's kind of meaningless, isn't it? Because we'd have to
know how many you looked at, how many there are, how deeply
you looked, whether you were looking for this, and all of that.
You know, I learned that judgment calls are important in this
area, too.
The question of annexations-I can certainly understand where a
city with an eroding tax base, with a deteriorating tax base, with a
sewer system that's ancient and inadequate, may look with a gleam
in its municipal eye onannexing some suburban territory to broad-
en the tax' base, provide some revenues to upgrade necessary, indis-
pensable services in the.city, but in so doing it dilutes the minority
vote that is enhanced by not annexing territories which don't have
a large white population.
Don't you think it's fair to take into consideration-this is really
a hypothetical question-all factors that justify or animate a pro-
posed annexation, rather than just the proposition that in so doing
you are diluting the minority voter strength
PAGENO="0912"
1786
Mr. FLEMMING. Well, I think, where you are confronted with a
situation of that kind, you have got to consider all of the various
alternatives that were available to the juridiction.
In the urban area situation to which you referred, it seems to me
they could still handle it in such a manner as to provide opportuni-
ties for minorities to serve in public office and participate in a very
meaningful and significant way in the expanded jurisdiction.
Consider, for example, the question of how the legislative body of
that expanded jurisdiction is going to be elected, whether it's going
to be elected in such a way as to insure blocking out the minority
voters from representation on that legislative body, or whether
they are going to set it up in such a way as to make reasonably
sure that minorities are going to have a genuine opportunity to
participate in that expanded--
Mr. HYDE. I'm just suggesting that there may be other consider-
ations that are imperative which impact negatively on the over-
arching goal that we all agree that people in covered jurisdictions
should not have their racial group's vote diluted. But I'm just
suggesting, having once represented a municipality, that other con-
siderations ought to be taken into consideration, depending on
their actuality, their relevance and, as you suggest, if there's not
another way to do it.
Adding to the tax base of these central cities which are in
trouble by annexing other nearby communities ought not to be
forbidden simply a priori because it's going to dilute Hispanic or
black or other minority votes. It doesn't mean it's right, but it
doesn't mean it's wrong either. We have to look at it in the totality
of the situation.
Is that fair?
Mr. FLEMMING. Congressman Hyde, I do appreciate that that
kind of a basic issue is raised a good many times.
Personally, I have come to the place where I believe the so-called
pratical consideration should never be permitted to operate as
roadblocks that stand in the way of an effective implementation of
the basic civil rights of the citizens of the country.
Mr. HYDE. And you understand it to be a civil right to have a
racial group's vote not diluted by an annexation which may also
save the city, albeit temporarily, from economic disaster. That's
first and foremost. And you rule out any annexation if it dilutes
the minority voting. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. FLEMMING. As you say, we're dealing with a hypothetical
case. And it's always dangerous, as you appreciate, to go too far in
discussing hypothetical situations.
Mr. HYDE. But a sense of willing to be fair, with all of the
problems cities have and officials have, I think is essential to
evaluating the worth of testimony on this issue, because they have
some awful problems. And if you're unwilling to give a half an
inch, you know, then their problems are worse than I thought.
Mr. FLEMMING. I.would still go back to my basic principle. I have
the feeling that you can always apply that principle-in other
words, give the top priority to civil rights when you are confronted
with an actual situation if you work at it.
Back in 1933 I was a reporter in this city, and. I covered the
White House for what is now U.S. News & World Report. I used to
PAGENO="0913"
1787
listen to the then President of the United States deal with what he
called "iffy" questions; he wouldn't deal with them. He just said to
reporters, "I am not going to deal with a hypothetical question. I
have enough problems dealing with the real situation."
I've often thought about that in the years that I've been'in public
office. And I think one's position can be misunderstood, in discuss-
ing a hypothetical situation, because you don't have the benefit of
all of the facts that one would have in front of him in connection
with a real situation.
But I `really want to go back to this basic position: the longer I
work in the field of civil rights, the more convinced I am that civil.
rights objectives should not yield to what may appear to be, at a
given point, pratical considerations.
Mr. HYDE. I just want you to know that I am not hypothecating
for the mental exercise of it. There are real problems.
Mr. FLEMMING. I know it.
Mr. HYDE. These are real problems that happen to municipal-
ities, and the poor city fathers sit down. And if they're going to be
debarred from any economic aid other than Federal grants simply
because an annexation will dilute a minority bloc's voting as a
bloc; I just think we ought to understand that up in front.
But I grant you, I don't have a county in mind or a city in mind.
I just have~testimony in mind which we heard in Texas about that.
But your. point is clear. The voting rights must aot be diluted, come
hell or high water. And it may be hell for that city if that happens,
in terms of police and fire and sewers and schools. and everything
else.
Mr. FLEMMING. My feeling is if they're not diluted, it won't be
hell for that city; that will be all to the good as far a~ that city is
concerned. The fact that that city has stood for the protection of
civil rights and human rights in this particular instance will
strengthen it. ,
Mr. EDWARDS. I think it's a very important question that my
colleague from Illinois brought up, and it's one that I think we're
going to have to address. Certainly cities are entitled to annex,
entitled to redistrict, entitled to do `everything a city is entitled to
do.
But naturally we also, at the same time, don'.t want it to do great
damage to the proportionate voting rights of anybody~ You just
can't do annexations for that purpose.
I think that as we move ahead that we will be able to put into
the ~report to redefine-to define what we're talking. about, because,
it is a very perplexing subject.
It must be clear `to the city that it can' annex and yet not violate
rights.
Now, somehow or another we have to figure out--
Mr. HYDE~ I think you' and 1' are in perfect accord, Mr. Chairman.
I would characterize any annexation that ~was designed to simply
dilute the minority voting strengths as illegal, ab initio, as you
lawyers say.
Mr. FLEMMING. I assumed that in your question.
* Mr. HYDE. I think there are other considerations all of us ought
to be thinking about, because `there are other inhibitions to making
a place a decent place to live too
PAGENO="0914"
1788
Mr. FLEMMING. I certainly agree. It is a major issue because one
can't travel over the country without being confronted with this
kind of a development in one location after another.
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Davis.
Ms. DMJIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Crivens, I'd like to follow up on the question raised by Mr.
Hyde and also the chairman regarding annexations or redistrict-
ings.
In your review of the Department of Justice enforcement of
section 5 and in your review of the litigation that has come under
the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution, isn't it true that the
Justice. Department and the courts have not declared that the
annexations cannot go forward, they have simply instructed the
election officials to come back with a voting scheme which allows
minorities to participate in the political process?
Ms. CRIVENS. That's exactly true. In fact, when a jurisdiction
makes a submission to the Department of Justice, they can provide
any supporting documentation for that particular change. And in
providing that information, they can indicate their concerns and
why they want to annex. And if the Department objects, it takes a
lot of factors into consideration, one of which is the type of election
system that. a jurisdiction has, so that if a jurisdiction, for example,
has an at-large election system and wishes to annex an area, if
another type of election system would provide minorities an oppor-
tunity-a better opportunity to elect candidates of their choice and
then the jurisdiction changes to that particular election system,
then the annexation may be approved.
It's providing minorities a fair opportunity, at the same time
taking into concern the needs of a particular jurisdiction.
Ms. DAvIS. Thank you.
Ms. Crivens, in your view or in your review of the implementa-
tion of the Voting Rights Act since 1975, do you feel that it's time
to amend section 5, to limit the preclearance review to certain
kinds of changes, such as redistrictings and annexations?
Ms. CRIVENS. It is my opinion that the section 5 preclearance
provision should not be limited. There are many types of changes
that can discriminate against minorities in purpose or effect. For
example, placing polling locations in an area intimidating to mi-
norities could deter minorities from registering to vote.
The section 5 preclearance process is used to prevent any type of
practice that discriminates in purpose or effect, and limiting that
process would be saying that you will deny minorities their voting
rates in particular areas and not in others. It's a very important
prevent to protect any type of infringement on minority political
participation.
Ms. DAVIS. We have heard testimony, both here and in the field,
that there are certain kinds of inconveniences to registration for
minorities in the covered jurisdictions. I wonder, Ms. Crivens, if
you might be able to tell us why those inconveniences, inconveni-
ences such as limited hours or a location for registration, are
discriminatory? Aren't they inconveniences for whites in those ju-
risdictions, as well? . . . .
Ms. CRIVENS. We found those practices were more inconvenient
to minorities: .
PAGENO="0915"
1789
First, because some minorities are so intimidated by discourteous
registrars or registering at places where the personnel is all white,
that they. are deterred from going to the registration location.
Second, a disproportionate of number rural or low-income per-
sons are members of minority groups, which means they can least
afford transportation to the registration location
And given the history of voting discrimination against minorities
in jurisdictions subject to preclearance, we feel that the boards of
registrars should take more affirmative efforts to increase minority
legislation.
Ms. DAVIS. Dr. Flemming, the duration of the special provisions
was given 5 years in 1965, 5 years in 1970, and 7 and 10 years in
1975 I'd like to know why the Commission is now advocating a 10
year extension? .
Mr. FLEMMING. We appreciate the fact that this is a matter of
subjective judgment, to some extent But our best judgment is that
these issues are going to be with us over a span of 10 years And
we feel the Congress would be wise to extend the special provisions
that for at least 10 years.
Ms~ DAVIS. I wonder, Dr. Flemming-and this will be my final
question-if you have any views on amending the bailout provi-
sion? Do you have any recommendations for how the bailout provi~
sion may be changed to allow for jurisdictions which no longer
discriminate, let's say, to get out from coverage of the act2
Mr. FLEMMING. As a Commission, we have not given considera-
tiOn to the possibility of an amendment to that particular provision
of the act. I recognize the fact that there has been some discussion
on that. I recognize that this is a very relevant issue in the consid-
eration of the extension of the act. And the Commission would be
very glad to react to any specific proposals that are made along
this line and provide the members of the committee with our own
views as to the standards that should be kept in mind in dealing
with the bailout provisions
We have not, as a group, done that up to the present time, but
we would be vei y happy to do it if the committee would like to
have us do it.
Ms. DAVIS. Thank you.
Mr EDWARDS Mr Boyd
Mr BOYD Thank you Mr Chairman
Dr Flemming you indicate in your statement that Commissioner
Horn dissented from your support for an extension to the lan-
guage-minority provision. Was he asked to accompany you here
today9
Mr. FLEMMING. No. But I have his very brief statement if you
are interested in his views. His views will be made a part of the.
report, that's our practice But we can make a copy of it available
right now
Mr BOYD Could you summarize it for us7
Mr. FLEMMING. I'll read it.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be. sufficient to~ take it
for the record. . . . . ...
Mr. FLEMMING. It's very brief. I prefer to read it than attempt to
summarize it
PAGENO="0916"
1790
Mr. HYDE. Would you read it in both Spanish and English to us?
[Laughter.]
Mr. FLEMMING. Commissioner Horn states:
I do nOt concur with the arguments made by the Commission staff and my
colleagues in chapter 7, which is that minority language provisions ofthe Voting
Rights Act; nor do I concur with the recommendations. He refers to the number of
the recommendations.
To argue that the provision of "equal protection of the laws," includes voting
rights assistance in the language of some minority group members and not others is
to pervert the meaning of a Constitution which was designed to protect the individu-
al. Equal protection is not a matter of group protection. It is a matter of individual
protection.
The 1970 national census recorded 96 mother tongues where languages other than
English were the primary languages in the households in which many of our fellow
citizens were raised. The 1980 census coded 387 non-English language possibilities,
180 of which were spoken by various tribes and groups of American Indians.
As we can readily see, to continue to aid with specialized electoral services those
who are in a few but not most minority language groups, is in itself discriminatory.
To provide governmental assistance to aid one or even a handful of speakers of any
of these possible 387 languages is also absurd.
To assure equal protection of the law there is one solution which is dictated by
commonsense.
If one wishes to cast a ballot in the United States of America, one should learn as
much English as is necessary to fulfill that limited but fundamental aspect of
citizenship.
Such a national policy would not stop a friend or relative who speaks the lan-
guage from writing out instruction or from marking a sample ballot for the individ-
ual who needs assistance. Such a national policy would not stop community-based
ethnic groups from rendering assistance to those less familiar with English than
others. Such groups have been readily available for each immigrant wave.
What such a policy would stop is the illusion that for every language group in the
Nation a Government agent must be employed or some sort of Government assist-
ance must be made available, to aid all members who understand English less well
than their native language.
Presumably naturalized citizens had to learn some English in order to receive
citizenship. Before this Nation goes the way of Quebec or engages in the bitter
language-based quarrels of some of the fragmented states of India, I recommend
that we call a halt to what many of us have long recognized as a misguided
experiment. I thus urge Congress not to extend the minority language provisions of
the Voting Right Act.
Mr. HYDE. May we have copies of that?
Mr. FLEMMING. Yes, certainly.
[The complete statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER STEPHEN HORN ON THE MINORITY LANGUAGE
PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
I do not concur with the arguments made by the commission staff and my
colleagues in Chapter 7, "The Minority Language Provisions of the Voting Rights
Act." Nor do I concur with Recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 5 in Chapter 8 as they
pertain to the extension and implementation of that portion of the Act.
To argue that the provision of "Equal protection of the laws" includes voting
rights assistance in the language of some minority group members and not others is
to pervert the meaning of a Constitution which was designed to protect the individu-
al. Equal protection is not a matter of group protection, it is a matter of individual
protection. The 1970 national census recorded 96 mother tongues where languages
other than English were the primary language in the households in which many of
our fellow citizens were raised. The 1980 census coded 387 non-English language
possibilities, 180 of which were spoken by various tribes and groups of American
Indians. As we can readily see, to continue to aid with specialized electoral services
those who are in a few but not most minority-language groups is itself discriminato-
ry. To provide governmental assistance to aid one or even a handful of speakers of
any of these possible 387 languages is also absurd. To assure equal protection of the
laws, there is one solution which is dictated by common sense: "If one wishes to cast
a ballot in the United States of America, one should learn as much English as is
PAGENO="0917"
1791
necessary to fulfill that limited, but fundamental, aspect of citizenship." Such a
national policy would not stop a friend or relative who speaks the primary language
of the citizen from writing out instructions or from marking a sample ballot for the
individual who needs assistance. Such a national policy would not stop community-
based ethnic groups from rendering assistance to those less familiar with English
than others. Such groups have been readily available for each immigrant wave.
What such a policy would stop is the illusion that for every language group in the
nation a government agent must be employed or some form of government assist-
ance must be made available to aid all members who understand English less well
than their native language
Presumably, naturalized citizens had to learn some English in order to receive
citizenship. Before this nation goes the way of Quebec or engages in the bitter
language-based quarrels of some of the fragmented states of India, I recommend
that we call a halt to what many of us have long recognized as a misguided
experiment. I thus urge Congress not to extend the Minority Language Provisions of
the Voting Rights Act.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Dr. Flemming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very, much. Dr. Flemming, Mr. Nunez,
Ms. Crivens, and Mr. Alexander.
Mr. FLEMMING. We appreciate this opportunity.
Mr. EDWARDS. There will be a vote in about 15 minutes on the
House floor. We will recess until after that time, at which moment
we will hear Raymond H. Brown, director of the voting rights
research project, Southern Regional Council.
[Recess.]
Mr. EDWARDS. The.subcommittee will come to order.
We now are privileged to hear our next witness. Mr. Raymond H.
Brown, director of the voting rights research project, Southern
Regional Council
Mr. Brown, we welcome you. Without objection your full state-
ment will be made a part of the record and you may proceed as you
please.
[The complete statement follows]
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND BROWN SOUTHERN REGIONAL COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, my name is Raymond Brown, I am Director of a Special Project of
the Southern Regional Council that is examining voting rights in the South. I am
pleased to accept your invitation on behalf of the Southern Regional Council to
share the information and analysis of our own studies on how the Voting Rights Act
has helped the South reach the goals of full democracy and equal rights in voting.
Some members of this Subcommittee know, the Southern Regional Council has
worked for more than 37 years to research and to undertake technical analysis to
promote equal opportunity among all people in the South. In the very first year of
our existence, the Council carried out a study of the remaining vestiges of the white
primary system and since 1944 has had abiding concern for the enfranchisement of
the poor, blacks, and other racial minorities in the South. During the 1950's, the
Council gathered and reported information concerning voter registration; in the
early 1960's it commenced the Voter Education Project in order to test the most
effective means by which blacks could have the equal right to vote for their own
political empowerment and for the sake of democracy for all in the region. In recent
years, the Council has continued its active concern for the franchise and the project
which I direct at the Council is designed to gauge the remaining barriers that
prohibit the fulfillment of the right to vote by all citizens in the region. Today, I
appear before you on behalf of the Council's Executive Director, Steve Suitts, and
it's President, Alabama State Representative Tony Harrison.
Since the commencement of these hearings more than a month ago, this subcom-
mittee has received a wealth of testimony from community leaders, political candi-
dates, public officials, and academicians who portrayed a vast range of local and
statewide problems of discrimination in voting. From the lowlands `of Virginia to the
weather-baked soil of south Texas, witnesses have provided a wealth of information
about the persistence Of white resistence in local court houses and state houses to
PAGENO="0918"
1792
equal rights in voting, in addition to the continued and widespread use of new and
old methods of effective disfranchisement.
In light of this record already before the subcommittee, I want to share with you
those portions of our own studies which are designed to test the effect which this
catalogue of incidences has had throughout the Deep South upon both the right to
register and vote and upon the right to have one's vote count. On the basis of data
from four Deep South states-North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisi-
ana-where reliable information has been gathered to date, we have searched to
answer the questions of how well established has the right to register and vote
become in most communities in the South and what is the state of democratic
government in light of remaining barriers and past accomplishments.
Since the end of the white primary system in the South, the most basic indication
of the fulfillment of the right to register and vote has been the analysis of registra-
tion by race. Once the Supreme Court had dismantled the legal mechanisms by
which blacks were excluded from the electoral process, white resistence intensified
at the courthouses where blacks could register to vote. As the venerable V.0. Key,
Jr., said in his panoramic work Southern Politics, each local registration officer
became a law unto himself in determining the citizen's right to vote, and the
machinery of registration in the hands of resisting white officials became the most
evasive and effective method of denying the franchise. Of course, the 1965 Voting
Rights Act recognized this basic problem and provided for the appointment of
federal registrars and a preclearance of voting changes in order to overcome the
local, rooted efforts of resistence.
After 15 years, the mechanics of the Voting Rights Act have improved the status
of the right to vote for blacks, and the percentages of registered blacks have
increased dramatically since 1965. For example, since 1962 the number of black
registered voters has almost tripled in the 11 Southern States.
From available information, however, the Council analysis suggests that it would
be a tragic mistake for this committee to assume that the right to register and vote
has been accomplished in most areas of the South. Our analysis suggests that
resistence continues to be widespread. Among 182 counties and parishes with more
than 20 percent black population in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and
Louisiana, the Council found only four counties where the rate of registered blacks
among the black population was greater than the white rate of registration.
In Georgia if the difference between black and white rates of registration did not
reach outlandish proportions, differences were extraordinary in a large number of
counties. In Wilkins county, Georgia, where 45.9 percent of the population is. black,
the white rate of registration is 85.7 percent and the black rate of registration is
54.4 percent. Hence, the white rate exceeds the black rate by 35.3 percentage points.
In Miller county, Georgia where there is a 28 percent black population, the differ-
ence between the black and white rate of registration is 32.8 percentage points.
Uniformly and with the rarest exception, the rate of white registration continues to
exceed, by a substantial margin, the rate of black registration throughout the Deep
South. In the four states surveyed, the average rate of black registration is approxi-
mately 15 percentage points below the average rate of white registration. The
differences in the rate of registration between blacks and whites in Georgia is 16.6
percent; in North Carolina it is 16.5 percent; in South Carolina it is 16.7 percent;
and in Louisiana it is almost 20 percent.
Remarkably, in 57 of 182 and counties in these four states where the black
population is 20 percent or more, 57 of the jurisdictions-nearly 1 in 3-have a
white voter registration rate that exceeds the black rate by more than 20 percent-
age points. Clearly, problems of registration for blacks continue to have a formida-
ble effect throughout the Deep South states.
This Subcommittee has received testimony by some state officials in the South
who argue that there are now many counties "Where voter participation problems
are far fewer than in the past and * * *~ demographically, do not justify the use of
preclearance procedures." As an example, these officials have usually pointed to
those Southern counties without significant black populations as the areas within
the South where black's problems with political participation no longer exist.
On the most basic measurement of political participation, the Council's analysis of
selected jurisdictions without large black populations in these four Southern states
belies the contention that the right to register and vote has become the equal right
of both black and white citizens. In a representative group of 36 counties in Louisi-
ana, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, where the black. population was
below 20 percent of the jurisdiction, the Council analyzed registration data. The
black population of these counties ranged from 2 percent in Cherokee county, North
Carolina to 19 percent in Cherokee county, South Carolina. By range of geography
and population they constitute a representative sample of the Southern counties
PAGENO="0919"
1 `709
I ,Jt)
with little black population. In these 36 counties, the data shows that in no jurisdic-
tion does the rate of black registration equal the rate of white registration. In most
Of these counties in each of the four states the difference between the higher white
rate and the lower black rate is comparable to the average differences among the
heavily black populated counties. In Alleghany county, North Carolina, for example,
where less then 2 percent of the population is black, the rate of registration among
the white population exceeds the rate of registration among blacks by a difference
of 20.2 percentage points-a difference that exceeds the average in North Carolina
among the heavily black populated counties.
In Louisiana, La Salle parish has only a 9 percent black population, but the rate
of registration among whites exceeds the rate of registration among blacks by more
than 10 percentage points. Gwinnett county, Georgia also shows a particularly
egregious example of depressed black registration. In this surburban Atlanta county
where only 2 percent of the population is black, the rate of registration among that
2 percent is almost 18 percentage points below the rate of registration among. the 98
percent white population. And in Henry county, Georgia, about which this commit-
tee has heard specific testimony concerning voting problems, the 17 percent black
population has a registration rate that is more than 34 percentage points below the
white rate.
Perhaps most remarkably, in almost half of these counties with less than 20
percent black population (15 or 36) the difference between the white and black rate
of registration is greater than the average difference in the substantially black
populated counties of the applicable state. In other words, by traditional indicators,
the problems of registration in counties with smaller black populations ire the Deep
South continue to be as great, and in some instances greater, than the problems of
registrations in largely black populated counties.
In order to understand this data in the context of the historic progress in voter
registration in the South, the Council has examined the rate of improvement of
registration in South Carolina and Louisiana over the past 23 years, from 1957
through 1980.
This analysis of the rate of improvement in closing the gap between the percent-
age of blacks among registered voters and the percentage of blacks among the
population in the jurisdiction shows some surprising, sobering results.
Among the 78 counties and parishes examined, only three had a percentage of the
black registered voters that was equal to or exceeded the percentage of the black
population in the county or parish in 1980. At the same. time, over the 23 year
period, the difference in the percentage of blacks among the total registered voters
and the total population had improved considerably. For example, while Chester-
field county; South Carolina had a 39.8 percent black population in 1957 and only
14.6 percent of the registered voters were black, by 1980 the percentage of black
population was only 32.6 percent while the percent of blacks among registered
voters had increased to 27.2 percent. Of course, the most remarkable changes
occurred in the heavily black populated parishes and counties such as Madison
parish inLouisiana, where in 1957, 67 percent of the population was black without
any registered voters. By 1980 black population was about 58 percent and the
percentage of blacks among registerd voters had increased to 48 percent. Obviously,
the Voting Rights Act and local effort have, changed nature of political participation
dramatically. These changes have not been universal in every instance, however.
For example, there has not been any improvement in the differences between the
percentages of blacks among voters and the population in 3. counties and parishes.
In these 3 jurisdictions the differences are greater today than they were in 1966.
And in Greenwood county, South Carolina, the gap between black representation
among registered voters and the total population exceeds what existed in 1957.
Tables follow:
RATE OF REGISTRATION AMONG POPULATIONS BY RACE IN JURISDICTIONS WITH LESS THAN 20
PERCENT BLACK POPULATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, AND LOUISIANA
Percent of Percent of
whites blacks
Jorisdiction (20-25 percent black population) Percenj~lack Total1b~ck re~~stee~eod register~d~s registered as Difference
voters white black
population populalion
Georgia:
Barrow 0.14 3,132 9,276 46.9 24.6 + 22.3W
Brantley .06 569 4,843 56.1 . 51.7 +4.4W
PAGENO="0920"
1794
RATE OF REGISTRATION AMONG POPULATIONS BY RACE IN JURISDICTIONS WITH LESS THAN 20
PERCENT BLACK POPULATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, AND LOUISI-
ANA-Continued
Percent of Percent of
N f whites blacks
Jurisdiction (20-25 percent black population) Percen~iack Total~b~ck ~ register~d~s registered as Difference
white black
population population
.06 10494 54,980 38.6 16.3 +22.3W
.05 2,818 20,673 38.0 36.7 + 1.3W
.18 3,418 8,630 48.2 38.6 +9.6W
.10 1,533 8,387 58.1 30.9 +27.2W
.02 4,094 76,591 46.7 28.8 + 17.9W
.05 1,321 9,967 41.5 15.6 +25.9W
.09 6,822 29,157 40.0 25.2 + 14.8W
.17 6,363 17,168 49.5 15.6 +33.9W
.17 22,895 36,479 29.4 18.5 + 10.9W
.19 7,989 14,185 39.1 28.1 +11.0W
.17 50,842 88,490 33.9 21.1 + 12.8W
.09 13,856 44,970 33.3 22.8 + 10.5W
.09 4,837 14,992 31.0 20.0 + 11.0W
.07 5,848 21,206 27.7 19.4 +8.3W
.17 9,902 30,288 55.0 48.4 +6.6W
.16 4,756 14,725 53.1 33.1 +20.0W
.17 2,840 9,732 61.3 45.0 + 16.3W
.13 63,001 181,538 42.8 29.7 + 13.1W
.11 9,127 39,505 50.1 37.0 +13.1W
.09 1,585 9,198 55.7 45.2 + 10.5W
.06 3,952 30,226 51.9 49.6 +2.3W
.03 2,411 38,735 61.5 54.4 +7.1W
.12 13,845 57,324 53.8 42.6 + 11.2W
.13 6,425 28,246 59.5 53.4 +6.1W
.06 1,668 14,621 59.6 45.3 + 14.3W
.02 203 6,002 63.1 42.9 +20.2W
.08 13,997 76,431 49.0 34.5 + 14.5W
.07 5,213 35,784 50.4 39.2 +11.2W
.14 12,201 38,669 47.0 34.1 + 12.9W
.05 3,874 32291 48.0 43.5 +4.5W
.02 401 11,900 63.7 59.9 +3.8W
.15 1,758 5,415 51.5 36.7 + 14.8W
.10 11,319 54,200 49.3 37.1 +12.2W
.10 2,556 13,278 56.0 37.7 + 18.3W
Sources: 1910 census, Bureau of the Census; Registration ftyures provided by election officials in each of the ramed states.
RATE OF IMPROVEMENT IN COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF BLACKS OF TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS
WITH PERCENTAGE OF BLACKS OF TOTAL POPULATION IN JURISDICTIONS IN LOUISIANA AND
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1957-66 AND 1966-80
Percent blacks of population Percent of blacks of registered Rate of
voters improvement per
year
1957 1966 1980 1957 1966 1980 1957- 1966-
66 80
33.8 32.0 33.0 2.1 13.3 21.9 1.44 0.54
72.0 63.2 62.5 5.5 35.0 56.9 4.25 1.61
59.3 55.8 57.2 10.7 23.8 44.5 1.84 1.38
59.7 43.3 41.5 10.0 20.0 37.4 2.86 1.39
59.8 38.7 32.9 31.1 38.5 34.0
Clayton
Douglas
Effingham
Franklin
Gwinnett
Hall..
Henry
South Carolina:
Anderson
Cherekee
Greenville
Lexington
Oconee
Pickens
Leuisiana:
Acadia
Beauregard
Grant
Jefferson
Lafourche
La Salle
Livingston
St. Bernard
St. lammany
Vermilion
North Carolina:
Alexander
Alleghany
Buncombe
Burke
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Cherekee
Davidson
Davie
Slate (county)
South Carolina:
Ahh~,,iit,,
511,4,1..
Bamberg.
Rarnell
Reaiifnrt
PAGENO="0921"
1795
RATE OF IMPROVEMENT IN COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF BLACKS OFTOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS
WITH PERCENTAGE OF BLACKS OF TOTAL POPULATION IN JURISDICTIONS IN LOUISIANA AND
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1957-66 AND 1966-80-Continued
Percent
blacks of population
Percent o
f blacks of registered
voters
Rate of
improvement per
State (county)
1957
1966
1980
1957
1966
1980
year
1957- 1966-
66 80
Calhoun
72.6
41.6
43.3
39.8
66.9
36.5
39.9
37.1
54.9
34.3
38.6
32.6
4.2
16.5
7.4
14.6
37.8
24.8
18.6
27.2
49.9 4.37 1.72
32.6 1.49 .71
28.2 1.62 .77
27.2 1.7 .32
.
Charleston
Chester
Chesterfield
Clarendon
Colleton
72.2
54.5
68.3
51.1
57.4
45.4
8.6
11.4
49.5
24.0
51.3 5 .91
39.3 1.83 149
Darlington
47.6
49.2
56.3
61.8
61.0
45.9
53.9
30.5
57.4
44.4
46.5
48.8
58.2
59.5
43.2
52.1
29.6
53.9
40.1
41.9
25.5
49.8
58.4
37.5
44.8
28.9
52.6
19.3
14.2
7.2
7.6
15.1
10.4
16.3
29.3
7.2
22.6
27.2
31.3
19.8
31.2
23.8
33.2
15.4
32.5
34.8 .72 1.17
34.9 1.74 .88
27.8
27.8 1.76 1.17
50.4 1.96 1.45
32.6 1.79 1.04
44.3 2.1 1.3
20.1
48.9 3.2 1.26
Dillon
Dorchester
Edgefield
Fairfield
Floreoce
Georgetown
Greenwood
Hampton
Jasper
65.5
48.4
31.9
69.2
64.4
62.3
39.8
29.6
65.8
61.6
57.1
31.2
29.0
61.2
60.7
19.8
11.1
8.4
15.1
0
41.9
20.9
35.8
35.7
31.1
53.4 2.81 1.19
24.1 2.04 .84
21.4
51.6 2.67 1.46
46.7 3.77 1.18
Kershaw
Laurens
Lee
.
McCormick
Marion .
57.2
53.4
55.0
48.8
52.0
46.3
15.5
5.8
29.7
15.1
46.7 1.82 1.42
36.6 1.54 1.71
Marlboro
Newberry
38.1
64.5
35.7
43.7
56.1
32.5
35.5
60.1
32.6
36.6
46.8
29.6
31.6
56.0
38.7
35.3
44.2
29.5
62.3
6.8
18.1
17.2
5.0
21.9
8.4
3.7
14.8
34.3
25.7
16.5
40.0
11.6
38.4
18.3 1.18 .53
50.1 2.29 1.42
34.2 1.29 .17
22.5 2.06 .52
40.7 3.04 .24
196 .68 .58
53.4 4.17 1.37
Orangeburg
Richland
Saluda
Sumter
Union
Louisiana:
Allen
24.4
35.4
43.1
27.8
51.6
24.8
31.9
41.2
27.8
49.4
20.4
22.4
31.6
25.4
42.3
20.0
21.5
29.6
12.2
.6
15.9
22.7
27.1.
14.9
24.8
17.9
199 52 .48
29.3
20.7 .30 .84
37.6
Ascension
Assumption
Avoyelles
Bienville -
Caddo
38.8
22.6
36.5
20.9
37.7
21.7
8.0
15.2
14.3
16.0
24.4 2.93 1.42
17.2 .96 .63
Calcasieu
Catahoula
36.1
53.0
58.4
33.0
35.2
50.3
57.5
31.8
25.8
46.8
44.7
31.3
7.8
.3
8.1
14.3
15.6
20.2
28.3
16.6
21.1 .27 .03
38.1 .97 1.06
39.3 2.51 1.53
21.9 .38 .39
Claiborne
Desoto
East Baton Rouge
East Carroll
61.2
61.2
61.6
0
51.4
49.7
East Feliciana
60.1
25.8
38.8
32.5
54.0
26.8
40.6
28.7
48.5
24.0
32.0
27.6
15.4
19.4
6.0
22.1
28.9
20.0
8.1
21.1
40.1 2.17 1.4
21.6
22.7 .03 1.66
23.2 31 .23
Evangeline
Franklin
Iberia
Iberville
49.3
49.0
47.9
24.7
40.1
43.1 1.71 .29
Jackson
32.0
28.1
41.5
67.0
32.4
24.0
41.8 .
64.0
31.8
20.2
36.6
57.8
6.8
17.5
9.2
0
19.1
15.0
19.6
47.9
26.2 1.32 .55
16.5 .17 .38
30.0 1.12 1.11
48.0 5.7 .45
Lafayette
Lincoln
Madison
Morehouse
49.6
46.1
46.9.
43.7
40.1
36.2
4.2
18.7
12.4
29.1
30.2 1.17 1.76
30.4 1.42 .63
Natchitoches
Orleans
Ouachita
34.1
34.1
37.4
32.2
55.2
29.1
16.1
3.4
24.3
19.6
44.1 .54 .21
21.3 2.01 .34
PAGENO="0922"
1796
RATE OF IMPROVEMENT IN COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF BLACKS OF TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS
WITH PERCENTAGE OF BLACKS OF TOTAL POPULATION IN JURISDICTIONS IN LOUISIANA AND
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1957-66 AND 1966-80-Continued
Percent b
tacks of population
Percent o
t blacks of registered
voters
Rate of
improvement per
State (county)
1957
1966
1980
1957
1966
1980
year
1957- 1966-
66 80
P(aquemioes
Pointe Coupee
Rapides
38.1
54.9
33.3
28.8
53.6
30.5
21.2
41.5
26.8
.8
16.7
9.4
11.7
38.1
16.8
20.2
39.2
18.9
2.24 1.15
2.52 .94
1.13 .41
Red River
Rtchland
St. Charles
St. Helena
51.9
43.2
31.5
55.2
47.5
44.4
27.1
55.5
36.3
35.3
25.4
51.4
.8
4.0
22.3
8.4
21.0
11.0
23.5
39.5
30.7
25.9
22.3
46.9
2.73 149
.64 1.71
.62 .04
3.42 .82
St. Landry
45.3
38.4
4.3
37.2
37.9
32.7
31.7
26.0
33.4
25.9
36.0
30.5
.44 .62
.12 .65
St. Martin
St. Mary
37.1
33.6
30.9
33.9
28.7
30.1
19.0
16.5
24.4
17.3
24.3
23.6
1.28 .15
.01 .72
Tangipahoa
lensas
65.3
36.7
65.0
36.8
54.6
29.1
0
8.6
24.3
14.0
48.6
24.5
2.73 2.48
.59 1.3
Union
Washington
33.5
37.1
33.9
34.5
30.1
31.9
11.7
1.0
17.0
22.3
24.6
25.1
.54 .82
2.65 .39
Webster
West Baton Rouge
52.8
49.3
39.9
43.8
31.5
32.8
West Feliciana
72.9
66.1
57.9
0
62.0
46.6
Sources: 1957 Registration figures are Osted in "The Negro Voter in the South," By Margaret Price (Atlanta, 1957); 1966 figures are listed in
VEP's Computation of Black Registered Voters, (Atlanta, 1966).
The most important element of this analysis is the rate of change in improving
black registration. In the case study of the parishes and counties in these 2 South-
ern states, the council has found that in more than 80 percent of the 74 parishes
where improvements have been made in closing the gap between the percentage of
blacks registered and the percentage of the black population, the improvements
occurred at a faster annual rate between 1957 and 1966 than from 1966 to 1980, In
other words, during the 9 years from 1957 to 1966 the annual rate of improvement
of black registration was greater over time than it has been for the 14 year period
from 1966 to 1980.
While a bevy of factors probably account for this sobering finding, this analysis
clearly indicates that the drive to establish the equal right to vote has slowed,
perhaps, more than many realized. In many jurisdictions, the rate of improvement
in registration has been diminutive. To be sure, even with all the qualifications and
limitations of this historic comparison, the data offer an unmistakable warning that
the fulfillment of the most basic right to vote has not yet been fully achieved, and
the progress to its fulfillment has not proceeded in recent years with the vigor and
results that it did in the early 1960's.
Hence, Mr. Chairman, I think the analysis of past and present registration data
offers us some important observations:
1. The differences between the rate of registration among blacks and whites
continues to be substantial and widespread;
2. The differences between rates of black and white registration, and probably the
problems which accompany such substantial differences, exist in those areas of the
South where the black population is not subsantial as much as it does where the
black population is 20 percent or more;
3. The improvement in registration has continued over the past 23 years although
the rate of improvement has slackened since 1966.
With these observations in mind, I would now like to turn the Subcommittee's
attention to how well full political participation has been accomplished today in the
South. While we know that barriers and difficulties with registration have been the
starting point of frustrating blacks' right to vote, and to have that vote count, they
have certainly not been the only techniques.
According to the preliminary analysis on the composition of countywide governing
bodies, we found relatively few jurisdictions whose governing bodies reflected the
racial composition of its population. While we are not advocating proportional
representation as such, the data does point to the widespread and massive under-
PAGENO="0923"
1797
representation of blacks on countywide governing bodies in spite of increased
registration rates and the overwhelmingblack majorities in many of these jurisdic-
tioñs. Of the approximately 168 counties included in this part of our survey, all of
which are ~above 20 percent black, 102 were underrepresented by a full 100 percent.
~ In 16 other counties, blacks were underrepresented by 50 percent or more. In only 8
of the 168 counties, were blacks represented on ~ county governing bodies in parity
with their local population percentages.
This widespread and pervasive pattern persisted throughout all of the states
included in our survey which are also covered jurisdictions under the Voting Rights
Act. Implicit in this analysis is. the true status of black political strength in the
South since the Voting Rights Act was originally passed in 1965. The analysis shows
the effect of what it means to blacks not to have their votes counted. So long as the
barriers to effective black participation in government, exist in the South, there can
be little accountability or fair, open decision-making in* government. Lest it be
forgotten, the goal of fair representative government for blacks is also as important
to whites. Until the primary obstacles to.black participation in the electoral process
is removed, public confidence in* the processes of government, citizens access to
government, and public accountability of government officials will be unreached
goals for both black and white citizens.
By banning literacy tests and other similar devices used historically to exclude
eligible black voters, and with the use of other potent provisions, the Voting Rights
Act established unprecedented procedures to enable dramatic gains in the registra-
tion of blacks on the voting rolls. While the Deep South states have the highest
percentages of black elected officials in the country, the difference between the
percentage of the black population and the percentage of black elected officials in
all these states is also the greatest. The cause of these disappointing results often
lies in the subtle, legal and practical barriers which prevent effective political
participation. Especially damaging are those practices which appear racially neutral
but, in fact, have an adverse racial impact. These include multimember districts
with at-large voting, gerrymandered reapportionment, anti-single shot voting laws,
pre-registration requirements, discriminatory registration purges, unnecessarily
complex voting mechanisms, lack of aid for illiterates, limited access to voter
registration, numbered posts, majority vote requirements, reductions in the number
of positions on local commissions and cOuncils as well as untold numbers of other
practices such as economic intimidation, and abuse of absentee voting procedures.
The continuing problem of underrepresentation of blacks in the political process
stems from. many of these factors, not withstanding the primary factor-at-large
election procedures. This method of electing public officials may not have been
designed with the specific intent of diluting the voting strength of blacks, rather
some of. its proponents have argued that they were proposed by white middle to
upper class Americans to destroy the institutional bases for urban political machine
domination Others have argued that at large election methods were proposed as
one method of diluting the political strength of newly arrived immigrants, who were
becoming increasingly powerful in ward politics, and ultimately citywide~ political
activities. In any event, regardless of whose arguments prevail, these methods have
effectively shut the door to blacks gaining countywide offices in most areas through-
out the covered jurisdictions.
At-large election methods, coupled with the high incidence of racial polarization,
in voting have proven to be insurmountable barriers for minorities to overcome in
seeking to have their interest represented on countywide governing bodies. As this
committee was told a few weeks ago, racial bloc voting has posed a real problem for
blacks seeking office in jurisdictions that are not overwhelmingly black. Even in
jurisdictions that are not overwhelmingly black, minority candidates often find it
difficult to win elections, in spite of having the numbers of their side.
Of the states surveyed, the state of Georgia has the least number of blacks
represented on its countywide governing bodies. In Georgia, 45 counties were under-
represented by a full 100 percent. In one county blacks were underrepresented by 50
percent or more. In only 2 of the counties included in the survey were blacks
adequately represented on countywide governing boards, though, they served on
only 5 of 49 counties examined. Four of these 5 commissioners were elected from
counties that maintain district election procedures. Only in one county, Turner,
which has a black population of 37 percent, was a black able to get elected under an
at-large election procedure. Even though 29 of the 49 countries surveyed employed
some form of district election methods, blacks still were unable to get~ elected in at
least 25 of such jurisdictions. Some of the counties that do not include a black on
their governing bodies' contain black populations in excess of 64 percent. This
massive underrepresentation is partially reflected in the fact that in 15 of the. 22
PAGENO="0924"
1798
counties where blacks are a signifcant majority, no black has ever been elected at
any level of government.
The inability of black candidates to win elections in jurisdictions that utilize
district election procedures stems from many factors. Chief among these are eco-
nomic intimidation, racial bloc voting, racial gerrymandering, low black voter regis-
tration rates, and the abuse of absentee voting procedures. In Georgia the instances
of white officials successful attempts at diluting the voting strength of their minor-
ity constitutents, particularly in the rural areas of the state, has been more than
adequately documented by previous witnesses (Bond, Sherman, McDonald, etc.).
This committee has been constantly apprised since the beginning of its hearings
on the extension of the Voting Rights Act, of the brutal and often harsh actions by
white public officials in South Carolina to dilute the voting strength of its black
citizens. The success of these efforts is reflected in the fact that in a state that has
approximately 38 percent black population, only 24 black South Carolinians have
made it to the county courthouse in the capacity as a County Councilor (out of
approximately 270 county-level elected commissioners). In addition, South Carolina
has only 15 black state representative (out of a body of 124), and no black person
has sat in the state's senate since the first successful effort of disfranchising black
citizens which occurred shortly after Reconstruction. The state has one of the most
sordid and shameful histories of race realtions over the past century.
Our analysis reveals that in 14 of the surveyed counties, blacks were underrepre-
sented by 100 percent. These counties included substantial black populations with-
out any representation. Two good examples: Williamsburg county which has a black
population of 62 percent, but no black elected officials, and Edgefield county which
also has about a 50 percent black population, and no black has ever been elected to
the local commission.
There are six counties in which blacks are underrepresented by more than 50
percent. Only in one county were blacks adequately represented. Of the 11 counties
where blacks comprise the majority, only 6 have black representation at all, and all
of these include only token representation. Among the remaining counties surveyed
only 10 have black representation within their county governing bodies.
Among the covered jurisdictions included in SRC's analysis, only in the state of
Louisiana have blacks been elected to countywide governing boards with some
frequency. However, even in Louisiana, where district election methods are mandat-
ed by state law, there is still substantial lack of black representation on local.
governing bodies. In the state there are 9 parishes in which blacks are represented
by less that 50 percent on local parish boards. Only in 3 parishes are blacks
adequately represented, reflecting their numbers in the parish population. These
figures, even though they reveal inadequate representation in Louisiana by blacks,
are in dramatic. contrast to Georgia and the other jurisdictions covered in our
analysis throughout the South. The analysis suggest that if certain barriers (such as
at-large election methods) that hinder blacks from exercising their franchise in an
unencumbered manner were removed, black candidates could be elected to office
with some frequency.
The Committee has not focused on the state of North Carolina during its hear-
ings; perhaps it stems from the notion that historically racial moderation has been a
trademark of the state; however, the state has one of the lowest rates, of black
representation on county governing bodies in the South. Of the counties under
Section 5 application, and included in our analysis, blacks are underrepresented by
at least 80 percent. Blacks serve on the governing bodies of only 10 counties, in spite
of large black populations and increased black registration rates. For most jurisdic-
tions in the state, blacks still have not been able to win a single county commission
post. In 34 of the North Carolina counties, blacks are underrepresented by 100
percent. In 1 county blacks are underrepresented by 50 percent, only in 2 of the
counties surveyed were blacks adequately represented.
According to a case study undertaken by the Southern Regional Council, it
appears that electoral schemes in many of the counties were changed when blacks
reached a specific percentage of the counties' registration rate. While Justice Stew-.
art admonishes that "Past discrimination cannot, in the manner of original sin,
condemn governmental action that is not itself unlawful" the history of racial
discrimination in voting in North Carolina intimates that the absence of blacks in
public office is not the offspring of immaculate conception. Between 1965 and 1980,
in the face of the most stringent executive procedures and the development of the
most sympathetic law case on voting, white North Carolina officials in the county
courthouses and the state assembly maintained a quiet campaign of resistence. in
hauntingly familiar ways. As in the past, the events unfold from the pages of work
on the North Carolina legislature.
PAGENO="0925"
1799
In an analysis of the acts of the North Carolina legislature 193 separate enact
ments have been identified since 1965 that concern voting changes in the 39 coun-
ties covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. They represent a considerable
dedication of legislative time to matters of local governance and electoral schemes.
Compared to the number of similar kinds of enactments passed by the General
Assembly for all 100 counties from 1925 to 1940, during disfranchisement, these
figures represent twice as many changes for less than half the number of counties.
It also appears that this remarkable interest in local elections and forms of govern-
ment occurred after the Voting Rights Act's passage.
Although the legislature has been greatly interested in voting changes in 40 of
North Carolina's counties, it and the local governments have not been eager to
inform the Justice Department of their work. As Table I demonstrates, the Justice
Department records verify that barely 20 percent of these legislative acts have been
submitted for review under the requirements of Section 5. Although there is some
margin of error because of the imprecise means of identification by the Justice
Department, the overwhelming majority of legislative changes have not been sub-
mitted for review and do not comply with the law. Most of these changes were made
as long as 10 years ago and are probably in full implementation at this time.
The failure to submit changes by local governments and legislativeofficers cannot
be attributed to a lack of knowledge about the Voting Rights Act's requirements.
The Justice Department has received submissions about changes in the form of
legislative acts, annexations, or revised practices about each of the counties under
the Act; moreover, the fact that 39 of the legislative acts, from at least 15 of the 40
counties, have been submitted, demonstrates a selective judgment about compliance.
Table I confirms that selective judgments have been made about changes that are
submitted for review. Thirty-one of the 39 acts submitted for review between 1965
and 1979-80 percent-have been approved by Justice, and the figure may be higher
because some submissions are still pending. There is a possible explanation for what
appears to be massive non-compliance. It may well be that the lOcal governments or
the officers of the general assembly do not consider the legislative acts to be
"changes" relating to voting or electoral schemes. It may also be possible that white
officials do not believe that all the enactments concern voting although each clearly
touches upon such matters as terms of offices, methods of selection, and procedures
for voting. Since it can be assumed that even the most ineff~ent legislative body
would not pass 154 separate local acts to simply restate existing law, and that all
public officials are aware of the connection between voting and elections, a benign
explanation for these non-submissions has not been readily apparent.
Throughout North Carolina, during the last 15 years, changes have occurred in
practices relating to methods of election, numbers of commissioners, and terms of
office. The trends have shown increasing preference for at-large elections and de-
creasing preference for nominations and elections by districts.
Tables follow:
TERMS OF OFFICE IN NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY COMMISSION, CHANGES IN PRACTICES, 1965-78
Percentage ot Percentage it
Term it ottice counties, 1965 counties, 1978
2-yr term 29 4
4-yr term 20 17
4-yr staggered term 47 69
6-yr staggered term 1 0
Combination 3 10
Total 100 100
Snurces: `Cases and Material on Local Reapportionment," Institute it Government, UNC-Chapel Hill (Dec. 15, 1965); "Form it Government ot
North Carolina Counties, 1978," Institute it Government, University it North Carolina, Chapel Hill. (1978).
83-679 0 - 82 - 59 Pt.2
PAGENO="0926"
1800
LAWS AFFECTING LOCAL ELECTORAL SCHEMES PASSED BY NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE, 1965-
79-ANALYSIS OF LAWS IN COVERED JURISDICTIONSUNDER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION V, VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Total Number Number of Number of
ear o ego rue acts submitted acts approved
1965 36 2 2
1967 30 4 2
1969 22 6 5
1971 28 6 6
1973 to 1974 33 9 8
1975 17 5 4
1977 12 4 4
1979 15 3 __________ 1
Total 193 39 31
Sources: "Session Laws of North Carolina," 1965-69; Prinf-O4it "tndex of Section 5 Submissions as of June 1980 by Location and Date," U.S.
Justice Department.
METHOD OF ELECTION FOR NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY COMMISSIONS CHANGES 1N PRACTICES;
1965-78
Method of election
At-large election
Percentage of
counties, 1965
Percentage of
counties, 1978
52
56
At large with required residency in district
Nominated by districts; elected at large
Elected by districts
36
10
2
32
4
3
At large and at large with residence requirement
At large and district elections
Total
0
0
100
4
1
100
Some changes in terms of office show the greatest shifts. In 1965, 29 counties
made straight two-year terms. By 1978, the number had dropped to four. The
preference has been for staggered terms; in 1965, 48 counties preferred some form of
staggered term but by 1978, 69 staggered their commission terms.
Changes in any of these areas vitally affect voting. For blacks who are a minority
among registered voters in any jurisdiction, multimember, at-large elections can
dilute voting strength, and a small number of elective county commissioners de-
creases the opportunity for blacks to aggregate their voting strength. While the
term of office obviously decides the frequency of elections, the staggering of terms
can lessen the number of members who would be before voters in any election.
While the analysis suggests that black counties had substantial moves in some
areas to negate black voting strength, the pattern does not appear consistent. In
fact, of the changes that were made in electoral schemes only by black counties,
more appeared positive than negative. Yet, no one element of an electoral scheme
stands alone and only in combination with others and in the context of local black
voting strength can the full impact of any scheme be understood. For example, in
Blandon county where 39 percent of the population is black, an at-large election
procedure predates 1965. Since passage of the Voting Rights Act, the county has
increased the number of members on its board but has changed the term of office
from two straight years to four staggered years. With the positive increase in the
numbers and the negative decrease in the term of office, the effects might be
considered the same in 1978 as in 1965 since the two changes would balance out.
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND H. BROWN, DIRECTOR, VOTING
RIGHTS RESEARCH PROJECT, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COUNCIL
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Raymond Brown. I am director of a
special project of the Southern Regional Council that is examining
voting rights in the South.
PAGENO="0927"
1801
I am pleased to accept your invitation on behalf of the Southern
Regional Council to share the information and analysis of our own
studies on how the Voting Rights Act has helped the South reach
the goals of full democracy and equal rights in voting.
As some members of this subcommittee know, the Southern Re-
gional Council has worked for more than 37 years to research and
to undertake technical analysis to promote equal opportunity
among all people in the South.
In the very first year of our existence the council carried out a
study of the remaining vestiges of the white primary system and
since 1944 has had abiding concern for the enfranchisement of the
poor, blacks and other racial minorities in the South.
During the 1950's the council gathered and reported information
concerning voter registration; in the early 1960's it commenced the
voter education project in order to test the most effective means by
which blacks could have the equal right to vote for their own
political empowerment and for the sake of democracy for all in the
region. In recent years the council has continued its active concern
for the franchise and the project which I direct at the Council is
designed to gage the remaining barriers that prohibit the fulfill-
ment of the right to vote by all citizens in the region.
Today, I appear before you on behalf of the council's executive
director Steve Suitts, and its president, Alabama State representa-
tive Tony Harrison.
Since the commencement of these hearings more than a month
ago this subcommittee has. received a wealth of testimony from
community leaders, political candidates, public officials and acade-
micians who portrayed a vast range of local and statewide prob-
lems of discrimination in voting. From the lowlands of Virginia to
the weather-baked soil of south Texas, witnesses have provided a
wealth of information about the persistence of white resistence in
local court houses and State houses to equal rights in voting, in
addition to the continued and widespread use of new and old meth-
ods of effective disenfranchisement.
In light of this record already before the subcommittee, I want to
share with you those portions of our own studies which are de-
signed to test the effect which this catalog of incidences has had
throughout the Deep South upon both the right to register and
vote and upon the right to have one's vote count.
On the basis of data from four Deep South States-North Caroli-
na, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana-where reliable infor-
mation has been gathered to date, we have searched to answer the
questions of how well established has the right to register and vote
become in most communities in the South and what is the state of
democratic government in light of remaining barriers and past
accomplishments.
Since the end of the white primary system in the South the most
basic indication of the fulfillment of the right to register and vote
has been the analysis of registration by race. Once the Supreme
Court had dismantled the legal mechanisms by which blacks were
excluded from the electoral process, white resistence intensified at
the courthouses where blacks could register to vote.
As the venerable V. 0. Key, Jr., said in his panoramic work
southern politics, each local registration officer became a law until
PAGENO="0928"
1802
himself in determining the citizen's right to vote, and the machin-
ery of registration in the hands of resisting white officials became
the most evasive and effective method of denying the franchise. Of
course, the 1965 Voting Rights Act recognized this basic problem
and provided for the appointment of Federal registrars and a pre-
clearance of voting changes in order to overcome the local rooted
efforts of resistance.
After 15 years the mechanics of the Voting Rights Act have
improved the status of the right to vote for blacks and the percent-
ages of registered blacks have increased dramatically since 1965.
For example, since 1962 the number of black registered. voters has
almost tripled in the 11 Southern States.
From. available information, however, the council analysis sug-
gests that it would be a tragic mistake for this committee to
assume that the right to register and vote has been accomplished
in most areas of the South. Our analysis suggests that resistence
continues to be widespread. Among 182 counties and parishes with
more than 20 percent black population in North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana, the council found only 4 counties
where the rate of registered blacks among the black population
was greater than the white rate of registration.
The most important element of this analysis is the rate of change
in improving black registration. In the case study of the parishes
and counties in these two Southern States, the council has found
that in more than 80 percent of the 74 parishes where improve-
ments have been made in closing the gap between the percentage
of black registered and the percentage of the black population the
improvements occurred at a faster annual rate between 1957 and
1966 than from 1966 to 1980.
Hence, Mr. Chairman, I think the analysis of past and present
registration data offers us some important observations.
No. 1, the differences between the rate of registration among
blacks and whites continues to be substantial and widespread;
No. 2, the differences between the rates of black and white
registration and probably the problems which accompany such sub-
stantial differences exist in those areas of the South where the
black population is not substantial as much as it does where the
black population is 20 percent or more; and No. 3, the improve-
ment in registration has continued over the past 23 years~ although
the rate of improvement has slackened since 1966.
With these observations in mind, I would now like to turn the
subcommittee's attention to how well full political participation
has been accomplished today in the South. While we know that
barriers and difficulties with registration have been the starting
point of frustrating blacks' right to vote and to have that vote
count, they have certainly not been the only techniques.
According to the preliminary analysis on the composition of
countywide governing bodies, we found relatively few jurisdictions
whose governing bodies reflected the racial composition of its popu-
lation. While we are not advocating proportional representation as
such, the data does point to the widespread and massive underre-
presentation of blacks on countywide governing bodies, in spite of
increased registration rates and the overwhelming black majorities
in many of these jurisdictions.
PAGENO="0929"
1803
Of the approximately 168 counties included in this part of our
survey, all of which are above 20-percent black, 102 were underre-
presented by a full 100 percent. In 16 other counties blacks were
underrepresented by 50 percent or more. In only 8 of the 168
counties were blacks represented on county governing bodies in
parity with their local population percentages.
This committee has not focused on the State of North Carolina
during its hearings. Perhaps it stems from the notion that histori-
cally racial moderation has been as trademark of the State. How-
ever, the State has one of the lowest rates of black representation
on county governing bodies in the South. Of the counties on the
section 5 application and included in our analysis, blacks are un-
derrepresented by at least 80 percent. Blacks serve on the govern-
ing bodies of only 10 counties, in spite of large black populations
and increased black registration rates.
For most jurisidictions in the State, blacks still have not been
able to win a single county commission post. In 34 of the North
Carolina counties blacks are underrepresented by 100 percent. In
one county blacks are underrepresented by 50. Only in two of the
counties surveyed were blacks adequately represented.
According to a case study undertaken by the SRC it appears that
electoral schemes in many of the counties were changed when
blacks reached a specific percentage of the county's registration
rate.
While Justice Stewart admonishes that past discrimination
cannot in the manner of original sin condemn governmental action
that is not itself unlawful, the history of racial discrimination in
voting in North Carolina intimates that the absence of blacks in
public office is not the offspring of immaculate conception.
Between 1965 and 1980, in the face of the most stringent execu-
tive procedures and the development of the most sympathetic case
law on voting, white North Carolina officials in the county court-
houses and State assembly maintained a quiet campaign of resist-
ance in hauntingly familiar ways. As in the past, the events unfold
from the pages of work on the North Carolina Legislature.
In an analysis of the acts of the North Carolina Legislature, 193
separate enactments have been identified since 1965 that concern
voting changes in the 39 counties covered under section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. They represent a considerable dedication of
legislative time to matters of local governance and electoral
schemes.
CQmpared to the number of similar kinds of enactments passed
by the general assembly for all 100 counties from 1925 to 1940,
during disfranchisement, these figures represent twice as many
changes for less than half the number of counties. It also appears
that this remarkable interest in local elections and forms of gov-
ernment occurred after the Voting .Rights Act's passage.
Although the legislature has been greatly interested in voting
changes in 40 of North Carolina's counties, it and the local govern-
ments have not been eager to inform the Justice Department of
their work. As table I demonstrates, the Justice Department rec-
ords verify that barely 20 percent of these legislative acts have
been submitted for review under the requirements of section 5.
PAGENO="0930"
1804
Although there is some margin of error because of the imprecise
means of identification by the Justice Department, the overwhelm-
ing majority of legislative changes have not been submitted for
review and do not comply with the law. Most of these changes were
made as long as 10 years ago and are problably in full implementa-
tion at this time.
The failure to submit changes by local governments and legisla-
tive officers cannot be attributed to a lack of knowledge about the
Voting Rights Act's requirements. The Justice Department has
received submissions about changes in the form of legislative acts,
annexations, or revised practices about each of the counties under
the act; moreover, the fact that 39 of the legislative acts from at
least 15 of the 40 counties have been submitted demonstrates a
selective judgment about compliance.
Table I confirms that selective judgments have been made about
changes that are submitted for review; 31 of the 39 acts submitted
for review between 1965 and 1979-80 percent-have been ap-
proved by Justice, and the figure may be higher because some
submissions are still pending.
There is a possible explanation for what appears to be massive
noncompliance. It may well be that the local govenments or the
officers of the general assembly do not consider the legislative acts
to be changes relating to voting or electoral schemes. It may also
be possible that white officials do not believe that all the enact-
ments concern voting although each clearly touches upon such
matters as terms of offices, methods of selection, and procedures
for voting.
Since it can be assumed that even the most inefficient legislative
body would not pass 154 separate local acts to simply restate exist-
ing law, and that all public officials are aware of the connection
between voting and elections, a benign explanation for these non-
submissions has not been readily apparent.
Throughout North Carolina, during the 15 years, changes have
occurred in practices relating to methods of election, numbers of
commissioners, and terms of office. The trends have shown increas-
ing preference for at-large elections and decreasing preference for
nominations and elections by districts.
Some changes in terms of office show the greatest shifts. In 1965
29 counties had straight 2-year terms. By 1978 the number had
dropped to four. The preference has been for staggered terms; in
1965 48 counties preferred some form of staggered term but by 1978
69 staggered their commission terms.
Changes in any of these areas vitally affect voting. For blacks
who are a minority among registered voters in any jurisdiction,
multimember, at-large elections can dilute voting strength, and a
small number of elective county commissioners decreases the op-
portunity forblacks to aggregate their voting strength.
While the term of office obviously decides the frequency of elec-
tions, the staggering of terms can lessen the number of members
who would be before voters in any election:
While the analysis suggests that black counties made substantial
moves in some areas to negate black voting strength, the pattern
does not appear consistent. In fact, of the changes that were made
in electoral schemes only by black counties, more appeared positive
PAGENO="0931"
1805
than negative. Yet no one element of an electoral scheme stands
alone and only in combination with others and in the context of
local black voting strength can the full impact of any scheme be
understood.
For example, in Blandon County where 39 percent of the popula-
tion is black, an at-large election procedure predates 1965. Since
passage of the Voting Rights Act the county has increased the
number of members on its board but has changed the term of office
from 2 straight years to 4 staggered years. With the positive in-
crease in numbers and the negative decrease in the term of office,
~he effects might be considered the same in 1978 as in 1965 since
the two changes would balance out.
The political arithmetic of voting does not add up on that fash-
ion. In Blandon and in other counties, one positive change may be
overcome by a more decisive negative change. In Blandon in 1965,
blacks constitute 39 percent of the population and 21 percent of the
total registered voters. In 1965 blacks had an opportunity at every
election to vote for five members in an at-large scheme. After 1971
with the elimination of the antisingle-shot voting law, Blandon
voters could use bullet ballots to improve their chances of electing
a sympathetic candidate.
By 1978, the change to staggered terms not only nullified the
positive effect of increasing the number of positions for which
voters could cast ballots in any election. Hence, the effects Of
voting change in Blandon County has been to substantially dilute
black voting strength.
In fact, 18 of the 50 counties with 25 percent or more black
population or under section 5 reduced significantly the maximum
number of candidates to be elected in any at-large election for
county commission in any election year; 8 of the 18 are covered
under the Voting Rights Act~
Remarkably, only two black counties increased the number of
positions for any election year and both added an additional at-
large position to an electoral scheme which already had candidates
elected at-large~ For example, Richmond County changed from
electing two commissioners at-large with residency requirements
and one commissioner without a requirement of residency, to an
election scheme with two at-large commissioners and to other at-
large commissioners with residency requirements.
There are also 10 black counties which moved away from district
requirements for residence or single-member districts. In Onslow, a
county covered by section 5, the 1965 electoral scheme provided for
five members of the county commission who were nominated by
districts and elected at-large. By 1978 the scheme provided for only
three commissioners to be elected in any election and all were
nominated and elected at-large.
As a matter of fact, only 2 of the 50 black counties provide for
elections by districts. In Camden County, two candidates are elect-
ed from districts and one from the county at-large, and in Washing-
ton three candidates run from separate districts. These exceptions
to the rule may be no exception at all, however. In both counties
the distribution of population within districts shows that no dis-
trict, as presently constituted, probably has a majority black popu-
lation.
PAGENO="0932"
1806
Given the presence of racial bloc voting, the overall effect of
these changes in electoral schemes is apparent when correlated
with the percentage of black registered voters. In most jurisdictions
every registered black voter would have to turn out to the polis
and use single-shot voting, in order to have even a chance of
electing a responsive candidate, unless whites forgot election day.
In 37 of the 60 counties, the turnout of all registered black voters
to exercise a single-shot vote would not be sufficient mathematical-
ly to assure the election of a responsive candidate by their own
votes. In effect, short of a political miracle, they are locked out of
the political system.
Of the 10 counties which have a black elected official, only two
have more than one. Both have at-large procedures, but both also
have five elected members who appear before the voters in every
election year. In Durham and Jones Counties, the method of elec-
tion that existed in the first county commissions in North Carolina
are the methods which now permit the greater representation of
black voters.
Finally, most black counties which changed their electoral
schemes from 1965 to 1978 are counties where blacks either in-
creased substantially their representation in the registered voting
list or where blacks constitute more than 40 percent of the regis-
tered voters. Hence, changes occurred where the political arithme-
tic showed threatening signs of increased black voting participa-
tion.
In concluding this analysis on what has happened to the voting
rights of minorities in the South, since the passage of the Voting
Rights Act in 1965, a disturbing trend continues to emerge, particu-
larly in two areas: the right of minorities to exercise their fran-
chise, and the right to have that vote counted.
What we find is that once black registration comes within strik-
ing distance of electing candidates responsive to their needs, the
county courthouses and the State assemblies become genuinely
interested in proposing and implementing new election schemes.
These manipulations have resulted in the massive underrepresen-
tation of blacks that is reflected in our analysis. This trend of
underrepresentation is pervasive, even in jurisdictions where one
could reasonably expect black candidates to easily defeat unrespon-
sive elected officials.
This committee, since the beginning of its hearings, has received
a broad range of testimonies from public officials, academicians,
organizations, and private citizens on how the South is continuing
to deny black citizens equal access to the political processes. The
SRC's analysis concludes, without a shadow of a doubt, that these
continuing problems have been manifest in the black registration
data and in the composition of local governing bodies throughout
the South.
* The fact that a full 102 counties, of the 168 counties surveyed,
are 100 percent underrepresented reminds us that the progress
envisioned since the last renewal of the act has not materialized.
Rather, what stands out, is that the impact of the flurry of legisla-
tive activity under 1965 is directly reflected in the lack of black
representation on the countywide governing bodies.
PAGENO="0933"
1807
It was hoped by blacks and others that after passage of legisla-
tion like the Voting. Rights Act with provisions to monitor, the
impact of election changes, the absence of problemsthat had previ-
ously hampered blacks, such, as literacy tests, poli taxes, and the
like, would open the way. for blacks and other minorities to vote
and insure that their vote was counted. However, the underlying
premise behind this wishful thinking rested on the fact that white
officials would comply with the law and be fair in their treatment
of all people in the South, allowing them equal access to the
franchise.
What our analysis shows is that very few white officials, who
control southern politics and southern government, find it in their
best interest to comply or to apply `the law uniformly. What we
find, instead, are* new means to prevent minorities from truly
exercising their franchise. This results' in continuing widespread
disparity between the rate of registration among blacks and whites.
This disparity exists all over the South, both in the areas where
blacks represent a substantial majority, or where they represent 20
percent or less of the population.
Even more importantly, though the rate of registration for mi-
norities has improved in the last `quarter of a century, the rate Of
improvement has slackened since the passage of the Voting Rights
Act in 1965.
I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, that
much of this is due to the fact ~that white officials choose to
disregard the law and fail to submit changes as required by the
Voting Rights Act. As the SRC analysis indicates, many southern
officials have found it more convenient to not make the necessary
submissions~
The analysis clearly indicates that none of the white elected
officials who are in positions to influence the outcome of State
election procedures, in terms of insuring that they are equitable,
has in the words of my 96-year-old grandmother in Alabama "con-
fessed religion and been baptized."
Rather the data shows that the "mourners bench is still filled
with sinners and the revival must continue." Perhaps some of the
officials have started to pray, but have a long way to go before the
continuing need for the revival can be called into question. In the
State of South Carolina, as in other jurisdictions in the South,
there is no county where blacks are in firm control of their politi-
cal destiny. Rather the evidence continues to show that election
schemes are being manipulated to continue the repressive and~
unresponsive regimes that have come to symbolize the State's his-
tory.
Even in counties where blacks are overwhelmingly the major-
ity-60 percent and above-the most they can do is elect a small
percentage of the total number of county councilors. The eyidence
suggests that these egregious actions by State officials are not
coincidental.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
That is a very sophisticated study, and we're going to take it up
right after this vote.
We will recess for 5 minutes. .,
PAGENO="0934"
1808
[Recess.]
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
I think that all of us up here would agree that a number of facts,
trends, whatever you might call them, have become evident in the
series of hearings that we have had. One is that a lot of voting
changes never get submitted; it's a voluntary system; there are no
sanctions to be imposed when a jurisdiction just decides not to
submit or doesn't know that the jurisdiction issupposed to submit.
And your testimony seems to indicate that there is a lack of
diligence or a lack of attention paid by the Justice Department in
finding out about some of these submissions. Is that correct?
Mr. BROWN. It certainly does. But With the limited budget that
the Justice Department has, I don't know whether or not they can
be faulted 100 percent for all of the nonsubmissions. I think elected
officials, at least when a person wins office and swears to uphold
the public trust, have certain responsibilities that come with that
trust. And to me, part of that trust is upholding the laws, as they
are enacted either by the Congress, the statehouse, or the county
commissions. And I certainly think that by our analysis that has
not happened.
Now, one of the other things that we've done-well, let me just
backtrack for a second. We have another project in Atlanta that is
looking exclusively at nonsubmissions. We were unable to have
that information available for this committee at this time, but we
are certainly trying to have this report available by the end of
July.
And just from looking at some of the preliminary data in these
reports, particularly in Georgia and Louisiana and North Carolina
and South Carolina, there are laws that havebeen changed-and I
would imagine the other members of the county commissions don't
necessarily know that they have been changed, because they have
pretty much been enacted by the State legislature or by the legisla-
tive delegation from those particular areas, and they are very
egregious acts in many cases.
They have had the effect of diluting black political participation
in most of the jurisdictions that we have looked at.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, people aren't necessarily going to change-I
think that's a dream-without something more. I think it's a little
bit of a dream that you think you can just expect people to do,
which, if it worked, it would be a wonderful world if we expect
everybody to behave as the law might intend them to behave and
make their submissions with regularity and faithfulness and so
forth when they know it does affect people's voting rights.
Let's take North Carolina for the moment. Apparently you are
testifying that your organization has found out that North Caroli-
na, through its legislation, has, in effect, violated the Voting Rights
Act in quite a number of instances by passing laws having to do
with local jurisdictions and the voting laws there that have-the
results of which have been to deny minorities their electoral rights.
Is that correct?
Mr. BROWN. That appears to be precisely what our analysis
indicates, because in most of those areas where the laws have been
changed and have not been submitted, particularly in the predomi-
nantly black counties blacks are not in any visible role in the
PAGENO="0935"
1809
government. And we find-well, the trend apparently is that as
soon as the blacks reach a certain percentage point of the total
number of registered voters, then there is some interest expressed
in the electoral schemes.
So we can only conclude that these changes were undertaken
solely for the pUrpose of diluting the increased black voting
strength in these particular jurisdictions.
We also take exception with the number of people who say that
the jurisdictions do not know what kind of changes should be
submitted. We have lived under this act for the last 15 years, and I
think that through the courts' interpretations, through the Justice
Department regulations, through the city attorneys, I certainly
believe that these local officials know what kind of changes should
be submitted to the Justice Department.
But I think it is done for the purpose of canceling out this
increased voting strength, because after all, these county officials
and the State assemblymen can count, they have calculators at
their disposal, and the same census information and the same voter
registration information that is made available to anybody else is
at their disposal as well.
I see, when the figures reach 35 to 40 percent, then there's. an
interest in tinkering with the scheme.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, you are recommending and your organiza-
tion recommends that this piece of legislation that we are consider-
ing be reported favorably. That's the first recommendation you
have made.
Mr. BROWN. Exactly.
Mr. EDWARDS. What recommendation are you going to make to
this subcommittee so that in the event the extension does go
through that it is not made* a nullity or weakened considerably by
nonenforcement? What's your recommendation?
Mr. BROWN. We have not reached that stage at this point. The
report that we are preparing will certainly contain recommenda-
tions directed at both the Congress and the Justice Department on
ways to strengthen the enforcement and monitoring of section 5.
There's one other thing we found, too, about the changes. In
most jurisdictions, the changes take place-well, the changes gen-
erally take place in jurisdictions that don't have an active citizen
group-perhaps: might nOt have an NAACP, League of Women
Voters group, or any other group that monitors the election proc-
ess. It generally happens in areas that are predominantly rural:
and that, as I said, contain large black populations where nobody is
looking over their shoulders to see what it is that they are doing.
So they do it very quietly, because it is not discussed in the State
legislatures.
Generally the legislators introduce the changes, and by a gentle-
man's agreement, the bills are not even discussed. They just pretty
much move on through the legislative process.
So to reiterate what I said earlier, the report that we are prepar-
ing will contain recommendations to address some of these prob-
lems that our analysis has uncovered.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. You'd sort of like to hear what they
say in private, wouldn't you-discussing them over a drink or a
glass of water or something?
PAGENO="0936"
1810
Ms. Davis?
Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brown, it's your statement that the analysis which SRC has
conducted shows that the gap between registration between white
voters and black voters is as significant in jurisdictions with small
numbers of blacks as the jurisdictions with large black populations.
Is that true?
Mr. BROWN. That's right.
Ms. DAVIS. Does your analysis review the kinds of voting changes
that have occurred in those jurisdictions? For example, I think
your suggestion is where you have a significant black population,
you've noticed changes in the electoral system and the voting laws.
Do you notice any changes in the jurisdictions that have minimal
black populations as well?
Mr. BROWN. According to the computer analysis that we did of
the 168 majority black counties in the South, the average-I guess
the average gap that existed between the black and white registra-
tion rate was somewhere around 20 percent.
Now we also found that the same 20-percent gap existed in the
small counties as well, even in counties that only had a 2-percent
black population. We also feel that these kinds of actions, such as,
you know, the lack of having an accessible voting mechanism, have
added greatly to the underrepresentation that has been reflected
here in this testimony. We find that it's just totally unconscionable,
that in a State that is 38-percent black, that you can only elect 10
people throughout the State to sit on a county commission. And we
feel that the registration gap, the changes in electoral schemes,
and all of these factors have added greatly to this massive under-
representation.
Ms. DAVIS. Let me ask you this question. During testimony in the
field hearing in Montgomery last week, I believe one of the wit-
nesses suggested that Congress might consider changing or amend-
ing the Voting Rights Act such that some jurisdictions that are
presently covered would no longer be covered by section 5. Ibelieve
the suggestion was that in jurisdictions within insignificant minor-
ity populations, it was not necessary to have a section 5 preclear-
ance provision.
Do you have any response to that?
Mr. BROWN. I certainly think the data shows the same kind of
disparities that exist in the counties with large black populations
exist in areas with small black populations. And our position down
in Atlanta is that the 15th amendment does not mandate a per-
centage of the population before the protection can~.be invoked that
is provided in the amendment. We also believe that as long as the
disparities that are reported here in the computer analysis exist,
then of course there certainly should be some continuing protection
afforded black folks, even in counties that are perhaps under 20
percent black.
Ms. DAVIS. Inyour review of the impact of the Voting Rights Act
in the covered jurisdictions, I believe you also looked at Alabama to
some degree. Again back to our hearings in the field, there was
some suggestion-we've had testimony on various reidentification
bills that have been introduced in the Alabama legislature and the.
apparent gentlemen's agreements between local legislators and
PAGENO="0937"
1811
other members of their body-there was a suggestion by one of the
witnesses that the reidentification bills were not racially motivat-
ed. Do you have any information available to you that suggests
that was not the case in all the--
Mr. BROWN. Absolutely not. I think there is a fine line, a line
that is totally indistinguishable, between the two acts. You know,
the kind of reidentification bills that have been proposed there for
the black belt counties are clearly egregious, and regardless of
whether or not they were undertaken with the intent of diluting
black votes, they certainly have had that effect. And I personally
would like to say that the race factor was the only and the sole
motivating factor behind these kind of actions.
I have not seen these types of reidentification bills introduced for
other parts of the States where the black population is not so great.
We're talking about a region of Alabama where the black. popula-
tibn for the average county there is 64 percent. And these counties
have never been able to elect a black or even a responsive legisla-
tor.
So I certainly think that it is racially motivated. And even if it
wasn't, it certainly has had that effect. And the effects certainly
have been very devastating.
Ms. DAvIs. One final question. Do you have any recommenda-
tions on how the bail-out provision might be amended to. encourage
jurisdictions to improve their election processes and to enable juris-
dictions that don't discriminate to get out--
Mr. BROWN. We have not given very much thought to that
process because most of the jurisdictions that we've looked at,
clearly have problems. The registration gaps are very wide, if you
just look at or if you would even visit some of these smaller
populated, small black populated counties and just look at where
the voting precincts are, they oftentimes. are far removed from the
black areas. People generally have to drive long distances. They
are oftentimes located in places where blacks know that they are
not welcomed.
For example, in Moultrie, Ga., the Lions Club there conducts the
elections, and the Lions Club has had a segregated history in the
city since its creation. These are the kinds of things that we find.
And perhaps they may appear racially neutral on their face, but of
course these kinds of things have had a devastating impact result-
ing in the lack of black elected officials in these areas.
So regarding bailouts, we really have not gotten to that point
yet, because we feel that the jurisdictions that are under coverage
now have not complied with the present provisions of the act.
Perhaps there might be some jurisdictions somewhere that are
nondiscriminatory in their actions, but in our analysis we have not
found any. We have not looked at every little town in the South
that's under coverage, but we certainly looked at 168 counties that
are majority black, or at least over 20-percent black; we looked at
36 counties that have a black population that ranged from 2 to,
say, 10 percent, and in those areas we found no difference in how
the black citizens' right to vote is manipulated by white officials in
* all these areas.
So, again, I will welcome the time when we can find some juris~
dictions that are not discriminating in our region and these juris-
PAGENO="0938"
1812
dictions can come forth and prove that they are not discriminating.
But at this point we have not found such jurisdictions.
Ms. DAVIS. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Boyd?
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brown, do I understand your testimony, then, to be that so
far as your organization is concerned, you are unable to find any
jurisdictions in the South which have conformed to the 1965 act by
submitting all those proposals they were obligated to submit, and
by avoiding the use of test or devices in accordance with provisions
of the act?
Mr. BROWN. I certainly did not say that, Counsel. I've said that
nonsubmissions are so pervasive and so massive, we have not had
the opportunity to look at the jurisdictions that have, perhaps,
complied fully with the law. But there have been a substantial
number of jurisdictions that have not complied with the law, and
until compliance with the law is made, then of course I cannot
imagine anybody talking about coming out from under coverage.
Mr. BOYD. I think coming out from under coverage would only
impact on those jurisdictions which have complied.
Mr. BROWN. As I said earlier, we've not found such jurisdictions.
Mr. BOYD. You also said you haven't looked for them.
Mr. -BROWN. Exactly.
Mr. BOYD. Throughout these hearings we've spoken in terms of
extending the act in the case of H.R. 3112 for a period of 10 years.
As I read the statute, there is no date of expiration applied to the
act. In fact, all provisions of the act, including administrative pre-
clearance are permanent. The only thing~that expires on August 6
of 1982 is the 7-year prohibition.: against eligibility for bailout. It
doesn't. mean that the jurisdiction is automatically able to receive
bailout by way of declaratory judgment by that date, and if that
jurisdiction fails, after August 6 of 1982 it still is subject to admin-
istrative preclearance under section 5.
Is that your understanding as well?
Mr. BROWN. Would you repeat that again-the last part of what
you said?
Mr. BOYD. If they fail pursuant to their filing for declaratory
judgment in the district court for the District of Columbia on
August 7, 1982, they're still covered by administrative bailout.
Mr. BROWN. Exactly.
Mr. BOYD. Would it be ~better from the standpoint of minority
voters in certain portions of this country if bailout were available
now rather than~ prohibited until 1982 and perhaps beyond with
the passage of H.R 3112, if bailout created an incentive for positive
improvement, given the fact that the Voting Rights Act only re-
quires the maintenance of the status quo?
Mr. BROWN. As I said earlier, Counsel, we have not had the
opportunity to look very closely, at any bailout provisions. As I said,
perhaps there are jurisdictions that are. nondiscriminatory in their
actions, but m. st of our efforts have been directed at trying to
counteract some of the massive discrimination that continues to
exist in the States that are presently under coverage.
Perhaps at some time, we will start looking at that.
PAGENO="0939"
1813
You know, the situation there in the South is terrible. I find that
it is totally unfounded that black folks cannot elect candidates to
office that they want to represent them. I think that does not exist
for other people in this country, perhaps, except the Hispanics in
the Southwest.
But I just find it very painful that in a county that is 64- to 70-
percent black, that black folks cannot elect a candidate, not to say
a black candidate, but a responsive candidate to even consider part
of their needs. So that is where the bulk of our efforts have been in
the South.
Mr. BOYD. Do you agree then with my reading of the statute, to
the effect that bailout, to the extent it exists in the statute, only
comes into play in 1982 at the earliest and then-even then it does
not permit the Department of Justice opposing bailout, to take into
consideration jurisdictions which, as you have said, have failed
continuously to submit that which they were obligated to submit
or, alternatively, have had objections consistently to that which
they have indeed submitted.
Mr. BROWN. I don't necessarily subcribe to that reading, you
know, of the statute. As I said earlier, Mr. Counsel, we are not in a
position to talk about the bailout provisions as of today.
Mr. BOYD. I'm talking about reading the statute.
Mr. BROWN. I still maintain that we are not in a position to talk.
about that today, because we have just not given consideration to
any of those issues that you have raised.
We feel that if the special provisions of the act, with an effects
test, are not extended beyond their expiration date--~
Mr. BOYD. That's where we go back to this whole argument that
the special provisions don't expire, what expires is the prohibition
against eligibility for a bailout. The special provisions never expire.
Mr. BROWN. It's my understanding the only thing that would
perhaps permit a jurisdiction to bail out would be to show that
they have not used the test or device.
Mr. BOYD. Anywhere in their territory for a period of 17 years or
27--
Mr. BROWN. As I said, we have not looked that far. All of our
efforts are going toward trying to extend special provisions and, if
possible, strengthening the enforcement of the act to get at some of
the nonsubmissions that we have documented in our analysis.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. EDWARDS. I'm not sure if it was your testimony, but one of
the witnesses today pointed out that the registrars have become
little dictators in different parts.
Mr. BROWN. Exactly.
Mr. EDWARDS. This happened in California, too, with the lan-
guage provisions, where they decided what the law would be and
all of their prejudices and racial animosities came to the fore, and
they made it as difficult as possisble. I should think, if we are ever
going to even consider a bailout, that one-before we even consider
it, we ought to find some jurisdictions where the State or the
county would have instructed their registrars to behave them-
selves. ..
Mr. BROWN. Exactly.
PAGENO="0940"
1814
Mr. EDWARDS. They would have manuals and everything else.
We had a witness in Alabama where they were-the registrar
would hide the registration book under the judge's desk and things
like that, so that people would be afraid to go into the judge's office
and register.
Mr. BROWN. Exactly, Mr. Chairman.
We also believe the States are equally as guilty, and it becomes
difficult to distinguish who is to bear the blame, because the Gover-
nor signs all of the special legislation before it becomes law, in
spite of the fact that he knows the egregious nature of some of the
local acts that have been passed through the different legislatures.
So, I certainly agree with you. I think it was V. 0. Keyes who
originally said that in the South the county registrars become one-
man dictators themselves. He said that to be a fact. And that
certainly has happened.
And I think as long as these kind of actions happen, it's impossi-
ble to talk about bailouts.
I think the State of Alabama is as much responsible for those
bailout provisions-I'm sorry, those reidentification bills that were
discussed during the field hearings-as the State legislators who
introduced the bills, because they were passed by thç full legisla-
ture and signed into law by the Governor, even though they only
applied to the local counties.
So, I find it extremely difficult to distinguish at this point how
an effective bailout provision would even work.
So perhaps when we cross that bridge, we will start looking at
that. But as I said, most of our efforts have been trying to counter-
act some of the continued repression that exists in our region.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
Excellent testimony. Thank you.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
0