Mr. BOYD. If you think it does, do you think the subcommittee should consider expanding the act to cover the country where it does exist, in order to be fair?

Mr. ENGSTROM. If polarization is present elsewhere, preclearance would be very effective.

If I thought we could enforce preclearance effectively nationwide, I would support it. My concern there, when you talk about it being onerous, is not on submitting authorities but on the Justice Department.

From everything I understand, the Justice Department could not take on that task today. If it had the resources to review all of those changes, I would have no objection to nationwide application. Mr. BOYD. You oppose, generally speaking, at-large elections which involve bloc voting, do you not?

Mr. ENGSTROM. I would oppose them in contexts where there are racially polarized voting patterns.

Mr. BOYD. Do you favor proportional representation?

Mr. ENGSTROM. Are you talking about as an outcome or as a voting system? There is a proportional representation election system.

Mr. BOYD. Either.

Mr. ENGSTROM. I think there are advantages to a proportional representation system. That would be distinct from our system of territorial districting, plurality election, et cetera. I am talking about the single transferable vote as used in Ireland and elsewhere-maybe even some of the list systems used on the continent. But if we are going to use territorial districting and plurality elections, I don't believe we can expect proportional results. The system is not designed to produce proportional results. Scientific literature shows that it isn't. With that system I don't think proportional representation, as a result, is a proper goal.

Mr. BOYD. Professor Cotrell, on H.R. 3112, if you feel it would not pass the Congress, what alternative would be acceptable for you? I would also ask Professor Engstrom to answer that, too.

Mr. COTRELL. At this early stage in the hearings I would hope the Rodino bill and its Senate counterpart would pass. I think it would have a devastating effect, as my testimony has indicated, if it did not.

Mr. BOYD. And assuming it doesn't?

Mr. COTRELL. I respect the question. I would have to go back to the drawing boards to see what we could salvage. I would hope it would pass intact.

Mr. BOYD. If one hypothesizes that H.R. 3112 cannot pass the Congress――

Mr. ENGSTROM. That is the Rodino bill, which continues the act as it is.

Mr. BOYD. For 10 years, and expands section 2. If one hypothesizes it cannot pass in its present form, what alternative would you propose, and what alternatives would be acceptable to you? Mr. ENGSTROM. Alternatives to this bill?

Mr. BOYD. To H.R. 3112. Or are no other alternatives acceptable? Mr. ENGSTROM. I really haven't given it considerable thought. I would not say that no other alternatives are acceptable. I don't think I have confronted myself with all possible alternatives.

The only thing I have seen, I guess, would be the Hyde bill, H.R. 3473.

Mr. BOYD. That is one. Bailout has been suggested as another. Mr. ENGSTROM. Changing the bailout provisions?

Mr. BOYD. Yes.

Mr. ENGSTROM. I don't know what alternative I would suggest. I have heard people express concern with the coverage formula, partly because it is not nationwide, partly because of questions about the way it is linked to the question of past discrimination. I have tried to think of a better coverage formula, and I have to admit I have not successfully convinced myself that I know of one. I have also thought that for those who raise questions about places where there is no longer racial discrimination, where there isn't polarized voting, I would think, rather than change the coverage formula, changing the bailout procedure may be a more fruitful thing.

Again, I have no mechanism to offer for making that change. Mr. BOYD. You would agree the District Court for the District of Columbia in the City of Rome case made an affirmative finding— and Dr. Saye might wish to elaborate-that Rome had no discrimination but was covered under the act because it is a part of the State of Georgia.

Mr. ENGSTROM. As I remember the case, the District Court's finding was that Rome was, in effect, pure, as a city, but it was covered because it was part of the State of Georgia.

Mr. BOYD. Dr. Saye, did you have anything you wanted to add on that point?

Mr. SAYE. No, thank you, but just one word more: I just hope if you are going to pass the Civil Rights Act in this year, 1981, or 1982, that you won't start out amending this hodgepodge of 1965. At least the language of it, the formula, I think, is very, very poor language-just from a grammatical point of view, if nothing else. It is very difficult. People don't know what the language means. The court, itself, is divided. It is 5 to 4 on this bailout provision, for example. It could have gone the other way.

I think that you are capable of drawing something in clearer English to be followed. I am not sure that the City of Rome intentionally violated the law in not submitting annexation. They didn't think annexing a new subdivision was a racially motivated voting thing, but as it is interpreted today, it is. It is very difficult to know what the law is.

Mr. BOYD. You pointed that out earlier in your testimony, that Mayor Jackson, of Atlanta, failed to submit a provision. We certainly wouldn't want to suggest there was any discriminatory intent there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Gentlemen, thank you very much for very splendid testimony.

We meet again tomorrow morning at 9:30.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 28, 1981.]

EXTENSION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

THURSDAY, MAY 28, 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 9:30 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Edwards (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Edwards, Hyde, and Sensenbrenner. Staff present: Ivy L. Davis and Helen C. Gonzales, assistant counsel; and Thomas M. Boyd, associate counsel.

Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today we are going to begin the seventh in our series of hearings on legislation to extend and amend the Voting Rights Act.

This morning's hearing will focus on the progress that has occurred in Mississippi since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. We will also hear testimony that indicates serious problems continue to exist there in spite of that progress.

I should like to note that the committee invited a number of the witnesses from Mississippi, who were suggested to us on behalf of the minority members of the subcommittee. All of those witnesses, however, indicated a preference to testify at our hearing in Montgomery, Ala., on June 12. That hearing will concentrate on issues relating to both Alabama and Mississippi.

Our first witnesses today will be a panel presentation-two gentlemen well known to all people interested in civil rights for many years. The first one, a personal friend of mine for many years, Dr. Aaron Henry, president, Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP. And the second witness, a member of the panel, will be Rims Barber, who is the project director for Mississippi for the Children's Defense Fund in Jackson, Miss.

Dr. Henry, we welcome you.

Before you begin, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.

Mr. HYDE. I have no opening statement to make, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. Dr. Henry, you may proceed.

RIMS

TESTIMONY OF DR. AARON HENRY, PRESIDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE CONFERENCE, NAACP, ACCOMPANIED BY BARBER, MISSISSIPPI PROJECT DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND, JACKSON, MISS.

Dr. HENRY. Congressman Edwards and Congressman Hyde, certainly other members of this distinguished committee, I appreciate the tedious assignment you have of carefully analyzing the need to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

My name is Aaron E. Henry and I am the president of the Mississippi State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It is in that capacity that I appear before you today to share my experiences as a citizen of Mississippi since the passage of the historic Voting Rights Act in 1965. Let me assure you, at the outset, of my confidence, particularly, Don, in you and this relationship has existed certainly during and prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I am aware that others who have preceded me in appearing before this committee have given you a historical overview; however, I believe that it might be well to briefly highlight conditions in Mississippi prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act, to put my remarks in the proper context.

Although the 15th amendment to the Constitution was passed in the 1860's and blacks had a brief period when they were able to exercise the right to vote, it was not until 1965, after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, that black citizens of my State were able to enjoy the rights of citizenship. The act and its administrative remedies have resulted in the increase of some 320,000 citizens registered to vote from the black community, from around 20,000 that were registered before the act was passed.

Mississippians have paid a dear price for the precious right to vote. In 1956 Rev. George W. Lee was murdered in Belzoni, Miss., because he refused to take his name off the voting rolls.

A few years later, Vernon Dahmer of Hattiesburg, Miss., was the victim of a white mob which saturated his house with flammable material and then ignited it. Although trapped like an animal, Dahmer opened fire on the murderers, marking their car which led to their apprehension and sentencing for the denial of his civil rights. Vernon Dahmer's crime was voter registration activitieshe actually was involved in paying poll taxes for the people who were afraid to go to the courthouse to pay themselves for fear of economic reprisal and physical harm.

Those of us in NAACP can never forget the assassination of our field director, Medgar Evers on June 12, 1963. Medgar encouraged Mississippi blacks to go to the registrar's office and register and vote.

The Nation nor the world can ever forget the brutal lynching of Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Mickey Schwerner in the summer of 1964. Their crime was helping to make democracy work in Mississippi for all of its citizens. Although these three were murdered and buried, they did not die in vain because black folks kept on trying to become full fledged citizens despite the painful consequences.

There have been some changes in Mississippi, although we still have a long way to go. Mississippi has the largest number of black

elected officials of any State in the Union-around 300. We have more blacks in the State legislature than any other State except Georgia.

While these figures certainly are impressive and we appreciate them, I would hurriedly mention that population of blacks in Mississippi is around 38 percent to 40 percent, and the number of black elected officials that are involved or presently exist in the State of Mississippi is less than 5 percent. So we can hardly rest on that laurel, as it is time now, to show that the Voter Rights Act has done the job that it was intended to do.

You should be aware, members of the subcommittee, that there were four blacks in the legislature prior to 1980. That came about as a result of a court ruling in a redistricting suit, where three additional blacks gaining seats in the legislature, making a total of four at that time.

You will recall, Don, that Robert Clark was elected to the Mississippi Legislature back in 1957. And as a result of fifth circuit action with regard to the demanding that in the total redistricting operations that was handled by Counsel Frank Parker, the city of Jackson was required to subdivide. In that process, three additional blacks were elected to the legislature, making a total of four, which is some 3 years later after the first act with regard to the fifth circuit's ruling saying that they had to do it.

Now, Conner v. Waller is the suit that finally resulted in the redistricting of Mississippi.

You will recall in 1964, 64 country bumpkins from the State of Mississippi, both black and white, motored to Atlantic City, N.J., and presented ourselves before the Democratic National Committee demanding the opportunity for blacks, women, and youth to be a part of the political system of our country.

We were not completely successful on the initial activity, but as a result of that invasion, we called it, we have certainly put reform as an action process into the total political system, both Republican and Democrat, in this country, because prior-in the delicate posture of 1964 from Mississippi, there were 64 white males over 40. Not a single woman, not a single black.

Of course, since the 1964 convention, and after that, the appointment of Equal Rights Committee headed by Governor Hughes of New Jersey, we have been able to establish the beginning at least, of a reform structure within the political system that now includes blacks, women, and youths in almost everything that we do.

As I say, the Conner suit was filed in Mississippi after we came back from attempting to become involved in national politics in 1964. We thought that certainly the same things should happen in Mississippi. So we tried to transport the same action that we took before the National Democratic Convention in Atlantic City for the courthouses of Mississippi. Of course, this was 1 year before the Voter Rights Act was passed.

When we in Mississippi talk about sucess of black political action in my State, we are really responding to the results of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Attitudes of black and white Mississippians have improved significantly, as a result of the Voting Rights Act and we believe strongly that if the act and its protections are lifted, there would be desire and action taken by much of the white