Sec. 2. Vote dilution, denial, and abridgment claims
1,651 words·~8 min read·
/bill/117/hr/4/rds/section-2A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
Section 2(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ( 52 U.S.C. 10301(a) ) is amended— by inserting after applied by any State or political subdivision the following: for the purpose of, or ; and by striking as provided in subsection
(b)and inserting as provided in subsection (b), (c), (d), or
(f). Section 2(b) of such Act ( 52 U.S.C. 10301(b) ) is amended— by inserting after A violation of subsection
(a)the following: for vote dilution ; by inserting after the period at the end the following: For the purposes of this subsection: ; by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: To prevail in demonstrating that a representational, districting, or apportionment scheme results in vote dilution, a plaintiff shall, as a threshold matter, establish that— the members of the protected class are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; the members of the protected class are politically cohesive; and the residents of that district who are not the members of the protected class usually vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable them to defeat the preferred candidates of the members of the protected class. Upon a plaintiff establishing the required threshold showing under paragraph (1), a court shall conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote dilution to determine whether there was a violation of subsection (a), which shall include the following factors: The extent of any history of official voting discrimination in the State or political subdivision that affected the right of members of the protected class to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the political process. The extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized. The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the members of the protected class, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other qualifications, prerequisites, standards, practices, or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the members of the protected class. If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the protected class have been denied access to that process. The extent to which members of the protected class in the State or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination, both public or private, in such areas as education, employment, health, housing, and transportation, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. In conducting a totality of the circumstances analysis under paragraph (2), a court may consider such other factors as the court may determine to be relevant, including— whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the protected class, including a lack of concern for or responsiveness to the requests and proposals of the members of the protected class, except that compliance with a court order may not be considered evidence of responsiveness on the part of the jurisdiction; and whether the policy underlying the State or political subdivision’s use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. In making this determination, a court shall consider whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in question was designed to advance and materially advances a valid and substantiated State interest. A class of citizens protected by subsection
(a)may include a cohesive coalition of members of different racial or language minority groups. ; and Section 2 of such Act ( 52 U.S.C. 10301 ), as amended by subsections
(a)and (b), is further amended by adding at the end the following: A violation of subsection
(a)resulting in vote denial or abridgment is established if the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure— results or will result in members of a protected class facing greater costs or burdens in participating in the political process than other voters; and the greater costs or burdens are, at least in part, caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that have produced or produce on the date of such challenge discrimination against members of the protected class. In determining the existence of a burden for purposes of subparagraph (A), the absolute number or the percent of voters affected or the presence of voters who are not members of a protected class in the affected area shall not be dispositive, and the affected area may be smaller than the jurisdiction to which the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure applies. The challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure need only be a but-for cause of the discriminatory result described in paragraph
(1)or perpetuate a pre-existing burdens or costs. The factors that are relevant to a totality of the circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote denial or abridgement pursuant to this subsection include the following: The extent of any history of official voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision that affected the right of members of the protected class to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the political process. The extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized. The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used photographic voter identification requirements, documentary proof of citizenship requirements, documentary proof of residence requirements, or other voting practices or procedures, beyond those required by Federal law, that impair the ability of members of the minority group to participate fully in the political process. The extent to which minority group members bear the effects of discrimination, both public or private, in areas such as education, employment, health, housing, and transportation, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. The use of overt or subtle racial appeals either in political campaigns or surrounding adoption or maintenance of the challenged practice. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction, provided that the fact that the minority group is too small to elect candidates of its choice shall not defeat a claim of vote denial or abridgment. Whether there is a lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of minority group members, including a lack of concern for or responsiveness to the requests and proposals of the group, except that compliance with a court order may not be considered evidence of responsiveness on the part of the jurisdiction. Whether the policy underlying the State or political subdivision's use of the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is tenuous. In making a determination under this clause, a court shall consider whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in question was designed to advance and materially advances a valid and substantiated State interest. Subject to paragraph (4), such other factors as the court may determine to be relevant. The factors described in subparagraph (A), individually and collectively, shall be considered as a means of establishing that a voting practice amplifies the effects of past or present discrimination in violation in subsection (a). A plaintiff need not show any particular combination or number of factors to establish a violation of subsection (a). The factors that are relevant to a totality of the circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote denial or abridgement do not include the following: The degree to which the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has a long pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date. The use of an identical or similar qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in other States or jurisdictions. The availability of other forms of voting unimpacted by the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure to all members of the electorate, including members of the protected class, unless the jurisdiction is simultaneously expanding such other practices to eliminate any disproportionate burden imposed by the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Unsubstantiated defenses that the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is necessary to address criminal activity. A violation of subsection
(a)for the purpose of vote denial or abridgement is established if the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is intended, at least in part, to dilute minority voting strength or to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2). Discrimination on account of race, color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) need only be one purpose of a qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure to demonstrate a violation of subsection (a). A qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure intended to dilute minority voting strength or to make it more difficult for minority voters to cast a ballot that will be counted violates this subsection even if an additional purpose of the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is to benefit a particular political party or group. The context for the adoption of the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure, including actions by official decisionmakers before the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure, may be relevant to a violation of this subsection. Claims under this subsection require proof of a discriminatory impact but do not require proof of a violation pursuant to subsection
(b)or (c). For purposes of this section, the term affected area means any geographic area, in which members of a protected class are affected by a qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure allegedly in violation of this section, within a State (including any Indian lands). .
Connectionstraces to 1
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 2
Vote dilution, denial, and abridgment claims
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources