Date: 1981-10-05
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia. which would establish the jurisdiction of threejudge Federal district courts In localities covered by the special provisions of the act to heardeclaratory judgment suits for the granting of bailout under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act Extension of 1981 . It Is not a mere rhetorical exercise to mention the constructive work and able contributions which the gentleman has made in Judiciary Committee action on H.R. 3112. and I commend the gentleman for offering his amendment today. At Issue here Is not whether or not legislation to extend the 1965 Voting Rights Act is necessary. Indeed. I favor passage of H.R. 3112 as necessary to preserving and protecting. the right of all Americans to vote. The committee report very aptly notes that the right to vote is preservative of all other rights and I would not and will not endorse any action which. In my judgment. would serve to threaten access of all citizens of voting age to that most cherished franchise. At Issue here is the credibility of the Federal Judicial system itself. H.R. 3112 would extend sole jurisdiction of the District Court for the District of Columbia to hear declaratory judgment suits for granting bailout. I question the wisdom and logic of this action for several reasons but am particularly disturbed over the underserved slap which this action throws in the face of Federal district judges who presently serve on the bench In areas outside the District of Columbia. I have faith. and I believe the American people share that faith. in the soundness of the Federal judicial system. This faith is founded on the recognition that some of the most historic and courageous decisions handed down on civil rights litigations in the history of American jurisprudence have been rendered by judges of southern heritage sitting on Federal courts located south of the MasonDixon line. To call for the District Court for the District of Columbia to have sole Jurisdiction to hear declaratory Judgment on suits for granting bailout under the Voting Rights Act is to place in disrepute the very system of Jurisprudence which has so ably served this country for over 200 years. I speak from firsthand observations as a practicing attorney of 30 years experience before the courts that the men and women who sit on the bench of the Nations Federal district courts are citizens of character and of integrity grasping a keen awareness of what Is Just. what Is right. and what is consistent with the constitutional protections of the rights and privileges associated with U.S. citizenship. Logistically. the broadened standard for bailout provided In the bill will very likely result In an escalation of Octobei5. 1981 such suits to be filed. I question seriously. in light of the already crowded docket of the District of Columbia District Court. whether that single court alone will be sufficient to handle all bailout cases. The reasons for proposing the amendment presently under question are sound. It Is not good practice to remove a case from the unique circumstances which shape the electoral affairs of a locality. To do so makes it difficult to acertain the true facts and to render sound judicial judgments. It is not good government to Impose upon local Jurisdictions the considerable expense of sending representatives of the political subdivision to Washington. to the expense of having to hire a Washington lawyer familiar with litigating cases. in the District of Columbia. to the expense of lUringing witnesses from the locality to testify. Mr. Chairman. I have had experiences in the past In representing school districts in Texas. and as a matter of fact. the first administrative law judge hearing conerning school desegration that was held we had to come to Washington from Waskom. Tex. We had to bring a school superintendent and seven members of that board. We had to bring a host of witnesses.