•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to outlaw voting practices that deprive or abridge minorities’ voting rights on account of race. This amendment outlaws both intentional discrimination and disparate impacts. For the past thirty years, private citizens have used Section 2 to challenge redistricting maps that dilute minority voters’ voices.

In Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court protected Section 2 when it held that Alabama’s redistricting map diluted minority voters’ right to vote. The Court rejected Alabama’s proposal for a new test to compare states’ maps to computer-generated redistricting maps that did not consider race. The Court correctly recognized that this proposal was an oversimplified view of Section 2. The Court’s mistake came from not addressing the fact that computers are an inadequate tool to recognize discriminatory impacts. As computers continue to improve and society tasks them with increased responsibilities, the Court must recognize their faults and limit the role it permits computers to play in lawsuits. This is especially important with Section 2 and other anti-discrimination laws that task courts with determining whether a practice has a discriminatory effect. Discriminatory impacts require a multifaceted analysis of facts and circumstances, which computers—that do not consider race—cannot adequately perform.

First Page

737

Share

COinS