5

-5-
In April, 1981, republican senator Charles Mathias of Maryland in the senate and many others, and democratic representative Peter Rodino of New Jersey in the house and many others introduced extension legislation.

In May, June, and July, the house sub-committee on civil and constitutional rihts heard over 100 witnesses testify in Washington, Alabama, and Texas thatg the Act's provisions were needed still, that racial and language discrimination continue, that federal protection at the ballot box is still required.
In early October, the house of representatives voted 389 - 24 to extend the act.
The lopsided vote should have demonstrated to president Reagan that there is no organized opposition to renewal of what's been called "the most effective civil rights law passed this century."

The house version importantly shifts a great burden by requiring only that victims of political discrimination prove the effect, and not the intent, of discriminatory acts. How do you provethat a southern legislature "intended" to discriminate when its new district lines made black voters a permanent political minority? How do you prove that a western state's elections board intended to discriminate when they eliminated the bilingual ballots Spanish-speaking voters need to know what it is they're voting for? How do you know the intentions of a school board that switched from district to at-large elections to keep black parents from influencing the education their children receive?