Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/677

 502us2$30I 09-08-95 14:43:51 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 491 (1992)

519

Stevens, J., dissenting

mond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358 (1975), reapportionment and redistricting plans, Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S., at 532–533, and the introduction of numbered posts and staggered terms, Lockhart v. United States, 460 U. S. 125, 131, 132, 134–135 (1983). The reenactment of § 5 in 1970, Pub. L. 91–285, 84 Stat. 314,17 in 1975, Pub. L. 94–73, 89 Stat. 400,18 and in 1982, Pub. L. 97–205, 96 Stat. 131,19 reflected congressional approval of Allen’s broad interpretation of the Act. Indeed, congressional comments quoted in our opinion in Perkins v. Matthews, supra, expressly endorsed an interpretation of § 5 that takes into account white resistance to progress in black registration. “One Congressman who had supported the 1965 Act observed, ‘When I voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I hoped that 5 years would be ample time. But resistance to progress has been more subtle and more effective than I thought possible. A whole arsenal of racist weapons has been perfected. Boundary lines have been gerrymandered, elections have been switched to an at-large basis, counties have been consolidated, 17

“After extensive deliberations in 1970 on bills to extend the Voting Rights Act, during which the Allen case was repeatedly discussed, the Act was extended for five years, without any substantive modification of § 5.” Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S., at 533 (footnote omitted); see Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S., at 38–39. 18 “Again in 1975, both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, in recommending extension of the Act, noted with approval the ‘broad interpretations to the scope of Section 5’ in Allen and Perkins v. Matthews.” Dougherty, 439 U. S., at 39. 19 “[T]he legislative history of the most recent extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982 reveals that the congressional commitment to its continued enforcement is firm. The Senate Committee found ‘virtual unanimity among those who [had] studied the record,’ S. Rep. No. 97–417, p. 9 (1982), that § 5 should be extended. And, as it had in previous extensions of the Act, Congress specifically endorsed a broad construction of the provision.” NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm’n, 470 U. S., at 176 (footnote omitted).