Voting Rights Act Fuels Biden’s Attack on Georgia Voting Law | Eastern NC Now

Margot Cleveland of the Federalist explains how the Voting Rights Act plays into the Biden administration’s challenge against Georgia’s new voting law.

ENCNow
Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the John Locke Foundation. The author of this post is Mitch Kokai.

    Margot Cleveland of the Federalist explains how the Voting Rights Act plays into the Biden administration's challenge against Georgia's new voting law.

  • On Friday, the Biden administration filed suit against Georgia, challenging numerous aspects of the state's Election Integrity Act of 2021. While many of the allegations contained in the nearly 50-page complaint struck a surreal chord, assessing the merits (or lack thereof) of the lawsuit requires an understanding of the Voting Rights Act. ...
  • ... As originally drafted, then, the Voting Rights Act only prohibited intentional discrimination. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden, wherein the high court held that Section 2 only bars "the purposefully discriminatory denial or abridgment by the government of the freedom to vote" on account of race or color, Congress amended the language of Section 2 to prohibit practices that "result[]" in the "denial or abridgment" of the right to vote.
  • To prevail on a Section 2 claim, then, the Department of Justice need not establish a state such as Georgia intended to deny or abridge the right to vote based on race or color. Rather, Section 2(b) provides that a violation "is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes . . . are not equally open to participation" because members of a particular race or color "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice."
  • Based on this statutory language, courts have developed a two-step analysis to determine if a practice violates Section 2. First, courts ask whether the practice provides members of a particular race or color "less opportunity" than others "to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." Second, the burden must be "caused by or linked to 'social and historical conditions' that have or currently produce discrimination."

Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published )
Enter Your Comment ( text only please )




Biden’s Penchant for Caving to Pressure John Locke Foundation Guest Editorial, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Derek Bok’s Higher Expectations — Our Colleges Should Accomplish More


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

massive data collection by license plate readers on highways and streets threaten freedom
“I’m from America, 250 years ago we were way bigger than 6/1 dogs, and look at us thriving now.” Justin Gaethje pulls off an all time sports upset.
There are many people who overlook the brilliance of the US Constitution. They argue that it is outdated and unfit to adequately govern such a modern nation as ours in the 21st century.

HbAD1

"I plan to keep his counsel close until our paths cross again," JD Vance said on Thursday.

HbAD2

On Tuesday, Democratic Gov. Josh Stein signed an executive order creating the bipartisan Health Care Affordability Commission that he said will look at ways to make healthcare more affordable for North Carolinians.
"Margo’s Got Money Troubles" explores how financial desperation drives women to OnlyFans. That’s not empowering. It’s exploitative.

HbAD3

 
 
Back to Top