[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 NORTH CAROLINA COURTS CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

  (Mr. TUCKER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, in support of the true 
interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. A court earlier this summer 
ruled the new district map of Louisiana unconstitutional. The holding 
of that case indicates that when race is a significant factor in 
drawing district lines, strict guidelines must be followed and 
compactness and distinct regional interests must be considered.
  However, just the other day in North Carolina, a court ruled that a 
district drawn based on race was constitutional so long as the 
redistricting plan comports with the strict constitutional standard of 
being narrowly tailored to further the State's compelling interest in 
complying with the Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the fundamental question here is, when Congress passed 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was it doing so for appearances, or did 
it do so to make a real difference. I believe that what Congress 
planted in 1965, bore fruit in 1992, and I commend the court in North 
Carolina for recognizing these results and giving the correct 
interpretation.

                          ____________________