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