Dole Press Release on Voting Rights Act Compromise, May 3, 1982

Item

Other Media

s-press_058_007_007_tr.txt

Transcription (Scripto)

Read Full Text Only (TXT)

Extent (Dublin Core)

2 Pages

File Name (Dublin Core)

s-press_058_007_007

Title (Dublin Core)

Dole Press Release on Voting Rights Act Compromise, May 3, 1982

Date (Dublin Core)

1982-05-03

Date Created (Dublin Core)

1982-05-03

Congress (Dublin Core)

97th (1981-1983)

Topics (Dublin Core)

See all items with this valueSuffrage

Policy Area (Curation)

Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues

Creator (Dublin Core)

Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021

Record Type (Dublin Core)

press releases

Names (Dublin Core)

See all items with this valueUnited States. Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982

Rights (Dublin Core)

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/

Language (Dublin Core)

eng

Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core)

https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=14&q=

Physical Location (Dublin Core)

Collection 006, Box 58, Folder 7

Institution (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Archival Collection (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Senate Papers-Press Related Materials, 1961-1996

Full Text (Extract Text)

(Page 1)
News from Senator
BOB DOLE
(R - Kansas) 2213 Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MONDAY, MAY 3, 1982
CONTACT: WALT RIKER (202) 224-6521
(Break)
DOLE ANNOUNCES VOTING RIGHTS COMPROMISE
(Line)
WASHINGTON -- Senator Robert Dole (R .-Kan) announced today that he and Senators DeConcini (D .-Ariz), Grassley (R .-Iowa), Kennedy (D .-Mass), and Mathias (R .-Md), will offer a compromise version of the Voting Rights Act for Senate Judiciary Committee consideration during the Committee sessions scheduled for this week. Dole, who is a key Republican member of the Committee, indicated that they have been working on the compromise for the last two weeks.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain states and political subdivisions with a history of discrimination are required to preclear any voting changes with the Department of Justice or Federal District Court in Washington. In August of this year, some of these jurisdictions will be eligible to bailout of this preclearance requirement. Civil rights groups have argued that there is still a need for preclearance, and thus are pushing for legislation to extend this requirement.
Last August, the House passed a bill extending the preclearance provisions of the Act for an indefinite period of time. The House bill contains a provision, however, which would allow covered jurisdictions to bailout of the preclearance requirements if they could show that they were free of a violation of the Act for the ten years preceding the application for the exemption. In addition, the House bill contained a controversial amendment to Section 2 of the Act, which is the basic guarantee that voting rights will not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority. In 1980, the Supreme Court held, in the case of Mobile v. Bolden, that plaintiffs must prove discriminatory intent before a violation of Section 2 can be established. The House bill would overturn the Mobile decision by amending Section 2 to prohibit any voting practice which has a discriminatory result, regardless of the purpose behind it.
The House bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Mathias and Kennedy last fall with 65 cosponsors. Nevertheless, it has encountered opposition in the Judiciary Committee, where many Committee members have argued that the results standard contained in the House bill would be interpreted to require proportional representation. Civil rights groups and other supporters of the House language have argued, however, that the courts applied a results standard in voting rights cases prior to the controversial Mobile decision, and that these pre-Mobile standards did not mandate proportional representation. House bill proponents also asserted that discriminatory intent was too difficult to prove to make enforcement of the law effective, and that if the basic right to vote has been denied or abridged, plaintiffs shouldn't have to show that the violation was intentional to obtain relief.
(MORE )
(Page 2)
The compromise proposal which Dole revealed today would retain the results standard. However, it would add a new subsection to Section 2 of the Act clarifying the legal standards which should apply under the results test. Specifically, it would codify language from the 1973 Supreme Court case of White v. Regester, which was the controlling precedent for the "results" standard used by the courts prior to the Mobile decision. The compromise would clarify, as did the White line of cases, that the focus of voting rights suits should be on access to the political process, not election results. The new subsection also contains a strengthened disclaimer concerning the proportional representation. Specifically, it states that a court can consider the extent to which minorities have been elected under the challenged voting procedure as "one circumstance", but explicitly provides that the section does not establish a right to proportional representation.
The compromise also includes a change on the preclearance issue. Under the House bill and the Senate legislation now before the Committee, a jurisdiction could be subject to the preclearance requirement in perpetuity. The compromise would place a 25 year cap on the preclearance provisions of the law, and would also require Congress to review the need for the requirement in 15 years.
Finally, the compromise would extend the bilingual assistance requirements of the Act to 1992, and would require that the blind, disabled, and illiterate be allowed to have an assistant of their own choosing in the polling booth. Similar provisions are included in the Mathias/Kennedy proposal.
At a news conference announcing the compromise today, Dole, speaking for himself and the cosponsors of the compromise, stated that "we believe that a voting practice or procedure which is discriminatory in result should not be allowed to stand, regardless of whether there exists a discriminatory purpose. By addressing the legitimate concerns which have been raised about the legislation, our compromise will strengthen it and broaden its bipartisan support."
The compromise offered by Dole has the support of key sponsors of the House bill as well as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which represents 160 organizations active in civil rights issues.
-30-

(Page 1)
News from Senator
BOB DOLE
(R - Kansas) 2213 Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MONDAY, MAY 3, 1982
CONTACT: WALT RIKER (202) 224-6521
(Break)
DOLE ANNOUNCES VOTING RIGHTS COMPROMISE
(Line)
WASHINGTON -- Senator Robert Dole (R .-Kan) announced today that he and Senators DeConcini (D .-Ariz), Grassley (R .-Iowa), Kennedy (D .-Mass), and Mathias (R .-Md), will offer a compromise version of the Voting Rights Act for Senate Judiciary Committee consideration during the Committee sessions scheduled for this week. Dole, who is a key Republican member of the Committee, indicated that they have been working on the compromise for the last two weeks.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain states and political subdivisions with a history of discrimination are required to preclear any voting changes with the Department of Justice or Federal District Court in Washington. In August of this year, some of these jurisdictions will be eligible to bailout of this preclearance requirement. Civil rights groups have argued that there is still a need for preclearance, and thus are pushing for legislation to extend this requirement.
Last August, the House passed a bill extending the preclearance provisions of the Act for an indefinite period of time. The House bill contains a provision, however, which would allow covered jurisdictions to bailout of the preclearance requirements if they could show that they were free of a violation of the Act for the ten years preceding the application for the exemption. In addition, the House bill contained a controversial amendment to Section 2 of the Act, which is the basic guarantee that voting rights will not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority. In 1980, the Supreme Court held, in the case of Mobile v. Bolden, that plaintiffs must prove discriminatory intent before a violation of Section 2 can be established. The House bill would overturn the Mobile decision by amending Section 2 to prohibit any voting practice which has a discriminatory result, regardless of the purpose behind it.
The House bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Mathias and Kennedy last fall with 65 cosponsors. Nevertheless, it has encountered opposition in the Judiciary Committee, where many Committee members have argued that the results standard contained in the House bill would be interpreted to require proportional representation. Civil rights groups and other supporters of the House language have argued, however, that the courts applied a results standard in voting rights cases prior to the controversial Mobile decision, and that these pre-Mobile standards did not mandate proportional representation. House bill proponents also asserted that discriminatory intent was too difficult to prove to make enforcement of the law effective, and that if the basic right to vote has been denied or abridged, plaintiffs shouldn't have to show that the violation was intentional to obtain relief.
(MORE )
(Page 2)
The compromise proposal which Dole revealed today would retain the results standard. However, it would add a new subsection to Section 2 of the Act clarifying the legal standards which should apply under the results test. Specifically, it would codify language from the 1973 Supreme Court case of White v. Regester, which was the controlling precedent for the "results" standard used by the courts prior to the Mobile decision. The compromise would clarify, as did the White line of cases, that the focus of voting rights suits should be on access to the political process, not election results. The new subsection also contains a strengthened disclaimer concerning the proportional representation. Specifically, it states that a court can consider the extent to which minorities have been elected under the challenged voting procedure as "one circumstance", but explicitly provides that the section does not establish a right to proportional representation.
The compromise also includes a change on the preclearance issue. Under the House bill and the Senate legislation now before the Committee, a jurisdiction could be subject to the preclearance requirement in perpetuity. The compromise would place a 25 year cap on the preclearance provisions of the law, and would also require Congress to review the need for the requirement in 15 years.
Finally, the compromise would extend the bilingual assistance requirements of the Act to 1992, and would require that the blind, disabled, and illiterate be allowed to have an assistant of their own choosing in the polling booth. Similar provisions are included in the Mathias/Kennedy proposal.
At a news conference announcing the compromise today, Dole, speaking for himself and the cosponsors of the compromise, stated that "we believe that a voting practice or procedure which is discriminatory in result should not be allowed to stand, regardless of whether there exists a discriminatory purpose. By addressing the legitimate concerns which have been raised about the legislation, our compromise will strengthen it and broaden its bipartisan support."
The compromise offered by Dole has the support of key sponsors of the House bill as well as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which represents 160 organizations active in civil rights issues.
-30-

(Page 1)
News from Senator
BOB DOLE
(R - Kansas) 2213 Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MONDAY, MAY 3, 1982
CONTACT: WALT RIKER (202) 224-6521
(Break)
DOLE ANNOUNCES VOTING RIGHTS COMPROMISE
(Line)
WASHINGTON -- Senator Robert Dole (R .-Kan) announced today that he and Senators DeConcini (D .-Ariz), Grassley (R .-Iowa), Kennedy (D .-Mass), and Mathias (R .-Md), will offer a compromise version of the Voting Rights Act for Senate Judiciary Committee consideration during the Committee sessions scheduled for this week. Dole, who is a key Republican member of the Committee, indicated that they have been working on the compromise for the last two weeks.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain states and political subdivisions with a history of discrimination are required to preclear any voting changes with the Department of Justice or Federal District Court in Washington. In August of this year, some of these jurisdictions will be eligible to bailout of this preclearance requirement. Civil rights groups have argued that there is still a need for preclearance, and thus are pushing for legislation to extend this requirement.
Last August, the House passed a bill extending the preclearance provisions of the Act for an indefinite period of time. The House bill contains a provision, however, which would allow covered jurisdictions to bailout of the preclearance requirements if they could show that they were free of a violation of the Act for the ten years preceding the application for the exemption. In addition, the House bill contained a controversial amendment to Section 2 of the Act, which is the basic guarantee that voting rights will not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority. In 1980, the Supreme Court held, in the case of Mobile v. Bolden, that plaintiffs must prove discriminatory intent before a violation of Section 2 can be established. The House bill would overturn the Mobile decision by amending Section 2 to prohibit any voting practice which has a discriminatory result, regardless of the purpose behind it.
The House bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Mathias and Kennedy last fall with 65 cosponsors. Nevertheless, it has encountered opposition in the Judiciary Committee, where many Committee members have argued that the results standard contained in the House bill would be interpreted to require proportional representation. Civil rights groups and other supporters of the House language have argued, however, that the courts applied a results standard in voting rights cases prior to the controversial Mobile decision, and that these pre-Mobile standards did not mandate proportional representation. House bill proponents also asserted that discriminatory intent was too difficult to prove to make enforcement of the law effective, and that if the basic right to vote has been denied or abridged, plaintiffs shouldn't have to show that the violation was intentional to obtain relief.
(MORE )
(Page 2)
The compromise proposal which Dole revealed today would retain the results standard. However, it would add a new subsection to Section 2 of the Act clarifying the legal standards which should apply under the results test. Specifically, it would codify language from the 1973 Supreme Court case of White v. Regester, which was the controlling precedent for the "results" standard used by the courts prior to the Mobile decision. The compromise would clarify, as did the White line of cases, that the focus of voting rights suits should be on access to the political process, not election results. The new subsection also contains a strengthened disclaimer concerning the proportional representation. Specifically, it states that a court can consider the extent to which minorities have been elected under the challenged voting procedure as "one circumstance", but explicitly provides that the section does not establish a right to proportional representation.
The compromise also includes a change on the preclearance issue. Under the House bill and the Senate legislation now before the Committee, a jurisdiction could be subject to the preclearance requirement in perpetuity. The compromise would place a 25 year cap on the preclearance provisions of the law, and would also require Congress to review the need for the requirement in 15 years.
Finally, the compromise would extend the bilingual assistance requirements of the Act to 1992, and would require that the blind, disabled, and illiterate be allowed to have an assistant of their own choosing in the polling booth. Similar provisions are included in the Mathias/Kennedy proposal.
At a news conference announcing the compromise today, Dole, speaking for himself and the cosponsors of the compromise, stated that "we believe that a voting practice or procedure which is discriminatory in result should not be allowed to stand, regardless of whether there exists a discriminatory purpose. By addressing the legitimate concerns which have been raised about the legislation, our compromise will strengthen it and broaden its bipartisan support."
The compromise offered by Dole has the support of key sponsors of the House bill as well as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which represents 160 organizations active in civil rights issues.
-30-