About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (January 10, 2022)

handle is hein.crs/govefcl0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congess-na Reeac Uevc S January 10, 2022 The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, S. 4 (117th Congress): Legal Overview The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, S. 4 (117th Congress), currently pending in the Senate, would primarily amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). In part, S. 4 appears to respond to Supreme Court decisions that evaluated provisions of the VRA. This In Focus provides background regarding relevant Court rulings and an overview of selected provisions of S. 4. Brnovich v. DNC Interpreted Section 2 Section 2 of the VRA, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301, authorizes the federal government and private citizens to challenge discriminatory voting practices, including minority vote dilution. Specifically, Section 2(a) prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing a voting practice that results in a denial or abridgement of the right ... to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority. Further, Section 2(b) provides that a violation is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, electoral processes are not equally open to participation by members of a racial or language minority group in that the group's members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives of their choice. Historically, Section 2 of the VRA has been invoked primarily to challenge redistricting maps, known as vote dilution cases. In a 2021 ruling, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (DNC) (141 S. Ct. 2321), which is considered a vote denial case, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 2 of the VRA in the context of state voting rules. While not establishing a standard to govern all Section 2 challenges to state voting rules, the Court identified certain guideposts, including five specific circumstances for courts to consider: amount of the burden imposed by the challenged voting rule; degree to which the challenged voting rule differs from voting practices in effect in 1982, when Congress last amended Section 2, including whether the voting rule has a long pedigree; amount of any disparities in how the challenged voting rule affects members of different racial or ethnic groups; opportunities afforded by a state's entire system of voting; and strength of the governmental interests served by the challenged voting rule, writing that prevention of election fraud is a strong and entirely legitimate state interest. Shelby County v. Holder Invalidated Section 4(b) Section 4(b) of the VRA established criteria, known as a coverage formula, prescribing which states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination were required to obtain prior approval or preclearance under Section 5 before changing a voting law. In a 2013 ruling, Shelby County v. Holder (570 U.S. 529), the Supreme Court invalidated the coverage formula in Section 4(b), thereby rendering the preclearance requirements in Section 5 inoperable. Section 4(b) covered nine states and jurisdictions within six other states in 2013. Prior to Shelby, under Section 5, those jurisdictions were required to obtain preclearance from either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for any proposed change to a voting law (including changes to redistricting maps), based on the coverage formula established by voter turnout and registration data from the 1960s and early 1970s. The Court held that the application of the coverage formula to the covered states and jurisdictions was unconstitutional because it departed from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states without justification based on current data. Overview of S. 4 (1 I 7th Congress), as Introduced Section 10 1. Vote Dilution and Denial Claims Currently, Section 2(a) of the VRA expressly provides that violations occur when a state voting law results in denying or abridging the right to vote. Section 101 would amend Section 2(a) to expand violations to state laws enacted for the purpose of' denying or abridging the right to vote. Section 101 would also amend Section 2(b) of the VRA by providing that a violation of Section 2(a) applies expressly to vote dilution claims, instructing courts to apply the legal standard set forth in a 1986 Supreme Court ruling, Thornburg v. Gingles (478 U.S. 30), to adjudicate such claims. In Gingles, the Court held that Section 2 requires that vote dilution challenges to redistricting maps show that members of the protected class compose a majority in a single-member district and are politically aligned; and that the other residents in the district vote as a bloc to defeat the protected class's preferred candidates. Section 101 would further specify that a protected class may include a cohesive coalition of members of different racial or language minority groups. For vote denial claims, Section 101 would clarify the statutory language interpreted by the Supreme Court in Brnovich, and would specify that a violation is established https:/1 crsreports .cong ress.gc

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most