This article, written by David Hunter during his time at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, was published only a little over a year after the signing of the 1975 Voting Rights Act Extension and Expansion took place. Hunter’s position as a law student gives a unique insight into the legal implications of the Act and breaks down each article of the Extension. Hunter breaks down the 1975 Act into three distinct parts; “…expiration of certain provisions of the Act is delayed,… coverage of the Act is expanded geographically,… a new remedy-the requirement of bilingual elections-is applied to a large part of the country.” As Hunter explains, the act of extending the amendments already in place under the 1965 Voting Rights Act draws few objections; however the new requirement to provide bilingual voting materials is more problematic. He posits that it is problematic because the Act is entering uncharted territory and has no precedent in case law and because of a number of “infelicities” he believes are present in the draft.
Hunter makes note of information of interest not mentioned in the other sources. Texas was never under special protection as ordered in the 1965 Act. This was because Texas was never recorded employing tests such as literacy tests banned under the 1965 Act. Of course, because Texas did not fall under special protection, this does not mean that voting practices were free of discrimination. We know this is true because of the need for the Expansion. Hunter gives valid criticism of the applicability of certain provisions of the Act. He explains that although the act defines language minorities covered under the law as Asian Americans (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Filipino American), American Indians, Alaskan natives, or persons of Spanish heritage, the only group who has one singular language is Spanish speakers. This then raises the question of which language should be implemented if there are multiple different languages represented? He goes on to cite problems regarding how a bilingual election is to take place (it is not specified in the 1975 Act), and inconsistencies with Title II and III of the Act which outline which counties and whole states have to adhere to the Expansion and how states or counties covered can bail out. Hunter’s analysis of the legal implications of the 1975 Voting Rights Act Extension and Expansion is extremely important in understanding a purely legal, unbiased analysis of the 1975 Act. It is essential to understand how the Act can realistically be implemented and what that implementation means for Chicanos. It is always necessary to be educated on an Act impacting one’s community and what to speak out against if it doesn’t align with your vision for a continued expansion of Chicano civil rights.
“The special provisions of the Voting Rights Act and the bilingual requirements of the 1975 Act were intended to apply only where they are needed and only for a limited period of time. Jurisdictions can remove themselves from coverage (‘bail out’) by making an appropriate showing to an appropriate court. In addition, Title III automatically expires on August 6, 1985. A jurisdiction covered under the Act as originally passed, or as amended in 1970, can bail out by proving to -the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that during the 17 years preceding the filing of the action no test or device was used with a discriminatory purpose or effect. The use of a test is disregarded if ‘(1) incidents of such use have been few in number and have been promptly and effectively corrected by state or local action, (2) the continuing effect of such incidents has been eliminated, and (3) there is no reasonable probability of their recurrence in the future. ‘ Although a number of jurisdictions have bailed out from the 1965 or 1970 coverage, no Southern State covered as a whole has bailed out. Title II bailout differs only in the proof that is required. The absence of a discriminatory use of English-only elections must be proved, and 10 years of nondiscrimination are required rather than 17. A jurisdiction can bail out from Title III coverage by proving to the local federal district court that ‘the illiteracy rate of the applicable language minority group within the State or political subdivision is equal to or less than the national illiteracy rate.'”
Hunter, David H. “The 1975 Voting Rights Act and Language Minorities.” Catholic University Law Review 25, Cath. U. L. Rev. 250 (1976). https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol25/iss2/4.