14 THE PUBLIC INTEREST cans is even higher: 41 percent above the norm for native whites of native parentage. Over-inclusion might appear harmless. No deprivation would seem to result from designation. But section 5 makes the inclusion of superfluous groups far from socially benign. The presence of these linguistic groups, in the context of low voter registration or turnout, establishes coverage-and once a political subdivision is covered every change in voting procedure must be submitted for clearance. Between 1975 and 1977 there were 2,000 such submissions. Most, it is true, involved innocuous electoral changes that were immediately cleared. But a significant number, involving annexations, reapportionments, changes from ward to at-large voting, changes in the method of filling a public office, and so forth, were not. Precisely how many conflicts developed is difficult to tell, for disapproval usually results not in litigation, but in negotiation. That is, the voting section of the Civil Rights Division ggests ways in which the electoral arrangement can be altered to secure approval. Such off-therecord negotiations have become the heart of the enforcement procedure. For example, they lay behind the alteration of district lines in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, New York. Only when these negotiations break down, as they did in Richmond, does litigation commence. Through this informal negotiating process, the Department of Justice has become the national arbiter of political conflicts involving racial and ethnic groups. Across the nation, in districts in California, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico, and New York, in addition to the South, the voting section is engaged in adjusting local electoral arrangements in order to augment the power of certain groups and diminish that of others. A continual arriving The Voting Rights Act was a noble response to the callousness of those who for so long permitted and perpetuated the disenfranchisement of Southern blacks. And its accomplishments have been very real: The old political order has crumbled in the South. Politics is no longer a lily-white preserve. But not everything that has resulted from the passage of the act has turned out so well. The transformation in the meaning of political equality-the movement from equal opportunity to equal result -cannot be so simply celebrated. Congress, the courts, and the Department of Justice have taken a course that is frequently ineffective THE ODD EVOLUTION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT 75 and always dangerous. The effort to maximize the political effectiveness of a variety of ethnic and racial groups, even when ultimately successful, is always costly. Proportional racial and ethnic representation inevitably becomes the standard by which to measure that effectiveness, and so citizens become classified for political purposes along racial and ethnic lines. There develops an acquiescence in separate politics for separate racial and ethnic groups, which are then arranged in a hierarchy with those designated for coverage placed at the top. And the problem of costs is compounded by that of ineffectiveness. Williamsburg is a good example. Buying votes or stuffing ballot boxes works, but the drawing of ward lines cannot fix an election. In order to ensure the selection of a black, the Justice Department forced New York to redraw district lines. But factional strife, both within the black community and between blacks and Puerto Ricans, resulted in the election of a white. The underrepresentation of minorities may be a problem, but we have no reliable remedy, and those we attempt to provide don't come free. Even where an increase in minority representation has been suc cessfully engineered, the power of minorities may remain exceedingly limited. Such limitations were recognized in Petersburg, where blacks joined whites to choose economic growth over black numerlcal strength, and are even more apparent in those communities in which minorities are truly in the minority. Neither at the local, state, nor national level will a few more Mexican-American representatives get for the Mexican-American community what it needs most: legislation benefitting the poor. Political alliances are necessary-alliances based on class, rather than race or ethnicity. But the implementation of the Voting Rights Act may be decreasing the possibility of such ties. The political polarization of the society along racial and ethnic lines may be its main accomplishment. In the view of those who have modified and implemented the Voting Rights Act, separate politics for separate racial and ethnic groups appears to have become the norm. Yet if our aim is to create one society-not two or four or twenty-is this the direction in which we want to go? That direction, it is often asserted, is only a temporary one. When the problem disappears, the act will expire. But the act itself is creating a host of new problems. Moreover, it seems well on its way to becoming a permanent part of our political landscape. How would we know when political success had been attained? We have no measure of political arrival. Those who implement the act now use the standard of racial and ethnic proportionality to assess electoral 76 THE PUBLIC INTEREST equity. But proportionality is a destination we shall never reach. We shall always be arriving and never there. The act is due to expire in 1982, but there is no indication of any lessening of enthusiasm for it. The feeling is widespread, as one advocate recently put it, that “governmental units should not do less than is open to them." Until that feeling changes, and until we arrive at a definition of political equity for racial and ethnic groups that once again focuses on access, and foregoes the temptation to secure maximum effectiveness, the Voting Rights Act will be here to stay. EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1981 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m. in room 2237 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Honorable Don Edwards (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Edwards, Washington, Hyde, Sensenbrenner, and Lungren. Also present: Representative Butler. Staff present: Ivy L. Davis, assistant counsel, Helen C. Gonzales, assistant counsel, and Thomas M. Boyd, associate counsel. Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee permit coverage of this hearing, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, in accordance with the rules of the committee. Mr. EDWARDS. The Chair has no objection. It is so ordered. Today we are going to begin our fifth hearing on legislation to extend and amend the Voting Rights Act. This afternoon we will hear testimony on the effect the Voting Rights Act has in the State of Virginia. Before I introduce our first witness, I welcome a former member of the subcommittee who has done work on this subcommittee for many years-we regret that he is no longer a member of the subcommittee (the gentleman from Virginia) Mr. Caldwell Butler. Caldwell. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to participate here today. This is not my regular subcommittee, and I'm disappointed I will not be participating in all your deliberations. But I do want to particularly thank the chairman for giving an opportunity for the people from my State to explain their problems and their suggestions to you. I have been privileged to know substantially all of these witnesses well, and not so well, over the years. And you will find that they are all candid and intelligent people, who-though they may not agree, they are not disagreeable which is part of the way we do business in our State. But we do appreciate your taking this time to listen to them. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Butler. Our first witness is the Honorable Thomas Bliley, Member of Congress from the Third Congressional District of Virginia. Congressman Bliley is a former mayor of the city of Richmond and is here, of course, to share his thoughts with us on the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Bliley, we welcome you. TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Caldwell, I want to thank you for granting me this opportunity to appear before you today. First, as you well know, the entire Voting Rights Act does not expire, only those sections establishing trigger mechanisms in section 4 and preclearance provisions in section 5 expire. It is important to keep this fact in mind during the discussions. These provisions have served their purpose and should be allowed to expire. The remaining sections should be retained and continue to apply to all States. Further, I would suggest that you consider expanding definitions of Federal offenses for interfering with a person's right to register or vote, and set forth stiffer penalties for such violations. Sections 4 and 5, establishing and requiring preclearance, should be allowed to expire next year for the following reasons: One, Congress should never enact legislation dealing with such a basic right as a person's right to vote, unless it applies universally. These sections, as now written, apply only to a limited number of States and communities. If it is a basic right, then it should be dealt with in such a way that the right is protected throughout the Nation. Two, once a State is covered, there is almost no way to get out of it. Virginia has been under the act since its inception, some 17 years now. Yet there has not been one claim of a person being denied the right to register or vote since that time. Voter registration has consistently increased, as has the number of voters participating in elections. Three, in 1965, when the act was passed into law, Congress did not realize it would be extended to cover annexation. Indeed, it was not until the Supreme Court decided, Perkins v. Matthews, in January of 1971, that it was established that annexations are covered by the act. In Virginia, cities are completely independent of counties, and have been since the time of Thomas Jefferson. Likewise, until recently, cities such as Richmond have had the power to annex through State courts. In the course of her 200-year history, Richmond has used the procedure more than 10 times. As recently as 1969 this procedure was used, so that on January 1, 1970, Richmond acquired some 23 square miles of a neighboring county. In May 1970, a council election was held on an at-large basis, with both old and new residents voting. In 1971, following Perkins v. Matthews, the city submitted the annexation to the Justice Department, and the Justice Department noted an objection, instructing the city to go to a ward system, |