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

2 Fordham L. Voting Rts. & Democracy F. 1 (2023-2024)

handle is hein.journals/fdhmlwvt2 and id is 1 raw text is: ARTICLES DISCRIMINATORY INTENT CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT Amandeep S. Grewal* This Article addresses a new controversy over whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Actprohibits laws that exhibit only discriminatory intent, in the absence of discriminatory results. Lower courts have long embraced an intent approachfor Section 2. And the Department of Justice has rested its entire ongoing case against Georgia's controversial voting bill on an intent approach. However, this Article shows that the Supreme Court's decision in Brnovich v. DNC effectively rejects the intent approach to Section 2. In April 2023, the Eleventh Circuit reversed its prior cases and now rejects an intent theory. This puts in peril numerous voting rights challenges in the southeastern United States. This Article urges Congress to add an intent test to Section 2, offers draft language for Congress to codify, and explains the anomalies and inequities that may arise if the legislature fails to act. INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 2 I. DEVELOPMENT OF SECTION 2 OF THE VRA.................................. 4 II. SURVIVAL OF THE INTENT TEST IN THE LOWER COURTS........... 10 A. Acceptance of Intent Test ................................................ 11 B. Rejection of the Intent Test............................................. 12 III. THE INTENT TEST IN THE SUPREME COURT ......................... 15 A. The Court's Rejection of the Intent Test ......................... 15 B. Observance of the Judicial Role .................................... 21 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONGRESS .................................. 24 A. Reasons for Codification................................................ 24 1. Integration of the VRA Scheme................................. 25 2. Protections for Language Minorities ......................... 27 B. Proposed Codification: Section 2A Intent Test.............. 29 C O N CLU SIO N ............................................................................ . 32 * Orville L. and Ermina D. Dykstra Professor in Income Tax Law, University of Iowa. I would like to thank Travis Crum, Derek Muller, and Michael Pitts for their helpful critiques and suggestions. 1

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