The 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act: a Legislative History, 40 Wash

Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 40 | Issue 4 Article 3 Fall 9-1-1983 The 1982 Amendments To The otV ing Rights Act: A Legislative History Thomas M. Boyd Stephen J. Markman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons Recommended Citation Thomas M. Boyd and Stephen J. Markman, The 1982 Amendments To The Voting Rights Act: A Legislative History, 40 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1347 (1983), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/ wlulr/vol40/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE 1982 AMENDMENTS TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT: A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THOMAS M. BOYD* STEPHEN J. MARKMAN** This [A]ct flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny.' President Lyndon B. Johnson August 6, 1965 Probably the "most important civil rights bill [ever] enacted by Con- gress,"2 the Voting Rights Act of 19651 marked the "end of the beginning"' in the drive for black access to the ballot box. The Act was, and following the enactment of the 1982 amendments still is, a complex statute. The temporary provisions apply principally to Southern States, and the per- manent provisions affect voting practices throughout the country.5 First amended in 1970,' then again in 1975,' the Act underwent a dramatic substantive transformation in June of 1982.' In order to understand fully how the 1982 amendments came about, and how the legislative process * Associate Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Represen- tatives. B.A., 1968, Virginia Military Institute; J.D., 1971, University of Virginia School of Law. ** Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. BA., 1971, Duke University; J.D., 1974, University of Cincinnati School of Law. The editorial views expressed in this article are those of the authors and are not intended to reflect the position of any member of the Congress of the United States. ' Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Book II, at 840 (1965) U.S. Government Printing Office: 1966 (Washington, D.C.)[hereinafter cited as Public Papers]. 2 Committee on the Judiciary,H.R. REP. No.227,97th Cong. (1965), reprintedin 1st Sess. 3 (1981)[hereinafter cited as House Report]. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973(a-(p) (1976). 'See Public Papers, supra note 1, at 636 (paraphrasing Winston Churchill). 5 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973(a)-(p) (1976). The national provisions of the Act include a perma- nent ban of literacy tests, added in 1975 to the temporary ban in effect until that time, § 4(e)(1); elimination of the poll tax, S 10(a;, criminal penalties for using intimidation or the like to influence the exercise of the vote, S 11(b), et seq.; criminal penalties for altering ballots once cast, § 12(b) et seq.; and, in Title II, provisions that apply requirements for bilingual ballots through a nationwide "trigger" § 203(b). Id. Title III provides for enforce- ment of the Twenty-sixth Amendment's grant of suffrage to eighteen year-olds. Id. Pub. L. No. 91-285, 84 Stat. 315 (1970). Pub. L. No. 94-73, 89 Stat. 400 (1975). Pub. L. No. 97-205, 96 Stat. 131 (1982). 1347 1348 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:1347 affected their form and content, it is necessary to review the original act, its early amendments, and the Supreme Court decision that galvanized support for change. I. THE ACT As originally passed, the Voting Rights Act sought to suspend the use of certain tests and devices9 that historically frustrated blacks" from exercising their Fifteenth Amendment rights." The Act accomplished this feat by eliminating the use of such tests or devices in states and counties, including all parts of covered states, 2 (a) that maintained them as a precon- dition to registration and voting on November 1, 1964, and (b) in which less than fifty percent of the total voting-age population was registered on November 1, 1964, or in which less than fifty percent of those registered voted in the Presidential election held in that month.13 These jurisdictions were subsequently required to submit all new qualifications, prerequisites, standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting14 to the Justice ' 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(c) (1976). As defined in 5 4(c), the phrase "test or device" means "that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class." Id. -0 42 U.S.C. S 1973b(a) (1976). In the first sentence of 5 4(a), which is 257 words long, only citizens who face voting discrimination "on account of race or color" were protected. Id. The second sentence, added in 1975, extends the protection by reference to members of a "language minority group," as defined in S 14(c)(3). Id. 11 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a) (1976). Ratified on February 3, 1870, but often unenforced, the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment are as follows: SECTION 1. The right of 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. SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by ap- propriate legislation. U.S. CONST. amend. XV. 1" See United States v. Sheffield, 435 U.S. 110, 117-34 (1978) (S 5 applies to all entities having power over any aspect of electoral process). 11 42 U.S.C. S 1973b(b) (1976) (S 4(b) of Act). 42 U.S.C. S 1973c (1976) (S 5 of Act). In Allen v. State Board of Elections,the Supreme Court analyzed the legislative history to support the view "that Congress intended to reach any State enactment which altered the election law of a covered State in even a minor way." 393 U.S. 544, 566 (1976). Section 5 now provides in relevant part: Whenever a State or political subdivision ... [covered under S 4] ... shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on ... [the applicable date of comparison: i.e., November 1, 1964 for jurisdictions covered in 1965; November 1, 1968 for those covered in 1970; and November 1, 1972 for those covered in 1975] ... such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the ef- 1983] VOTING RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENTS 1349 Department or to the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia to assure that the proposed change did not discriminate against covered minorities."5 The "preclearance" requirement suggested that pre-existing standards and practices that discriminated against minorities were not subject to federal approval unless altered. The Act contained no affir- mative language requiring jurisdictions to review and discard practices, such as the election of candidates on an at-large basis, because of their possible impact on the weight of the minority vote. The only means of escape for jurisdictions covered by preclearance was through a little-used process commonly known as "bailout". Under section 4(a) of the Act, a covered state or political subdivision could bailout only if it could prove, to the satisfaction of the Federal Court for the District of Columbia, that it had not used a discriminatory test or device for a specified period of years prior to the filing of a declaratory judge- ment petition. At first, the applicable period of years lasted from 1965 until 1970, or five years. Then, with the extension of the Act until 1975, the time period was similarly extended to ten years. In 1975, when the Act was extended a second time for seven additional years, the time period became seventeen years, once again reaching back to 1965. Few jurisdictions that came under the original coverage of section 4(a), therefore, could qualify for bailout. Those jurisdictions which qualified for bailout were required to establish that, while they may have maintained a prohibited test or device in 1964, they did not operate it in a discriminatory manner within the prescribed period. 8 Since subdivisions of states were ineligi- ble for bailout until the states themselves became eligible," no legislative fect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in [S 4(f)(2), protecting language minorities], and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice or procedure: Provided, That such qualification ..

Load more