{ "id": "R42482", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R42482", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 443685, "date": "2015-04-13", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:13:43.735154", "title": "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview", "summary": "The Constitution requires a count of the U.S. population every 10 years. Based on the census, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is reapportioned among the states. Thus, at least every 10 years, in response to changes in the number of Representatives apportioned to it or to shifts in its population, each state is required to draw new boundaries for its congressional districts. Although each state has its own process for redistricting, congressional districts must conform to a number of constitutional and federal statutory standards, including the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. \nThe VRA was enacted under Congress\u2019s authority to enforce the 15th Amendment, which provides that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous servitude. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits the use of any voting qualification or practice\u2014including the drawing of congressional redistricting plans\u2014that results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority. The statute further provides that a violation is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that political processes are not equally open to members of a racial or language minority group in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate and to elect representatives of choice. In decisions including Thornburg v. Gingles and Bartlett v. Strickland, the Supreme Court further interpreted the requirements of Section 2.\nIn its 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA. Section 4(b) contained a formula prescribing which states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination were required to obtain prior approval or \u201cpreclearance\u201d under Section 5 before changing any voting law, including congressional redistricting plans. Section 5 required those \u201ccovered\u201d jurisdictions to preclear their redistricting plans with either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before implementation. In order to be granted preclearance, the covered jurisdiction had the burden of proving that the proposed voting change neither had the purpose, nor would it have the effect, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or membership in a language minority group. Although the Court invalidated only the coverage formula in Section 4, by extension, Section 5 has been rendered currently inoperable. As a result, the nine states and jurisdictions in six other states previously covered under the formula are no longer subject to the VRA\u2019s preclearance requirement. Section 2 of the VRA, which applies in all jurisdictions, was not at issue in this case.\nIn the 114th Congress, H.R. 885, the \u201cVoting Rights Amendment Act of 2015,\u201d has been introduced. This bill is identical to companion bills H.R. 3899 and S. 1945, the \u201cVoting Rights Amendment Act of 2014,\u201d which were introduced in the 113th Congress. Among other things, the legislation would amend the VRA to reinstitute a coverage formula for Section 5 preclearance. \nBills have also been introduced that would establish certain standards and requirements for congressional redistricting, including H.R. 75, the \u201cCoretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2015\u201d; identical bills, H.R. 219 and H.R. 1347, the \u201cJohn Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act\u201d; H.R. 934, the \u201cRedistricting and Voter Protection Act of 2015\u201d; and H.R. 1346, the \u201cRedistricting Transparency Act of 2015.\u201d", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42482", "sha1": "e07b3e0d827b8fb7b0c46f415b7ae386d3587a52", "filename": "files/20150413_R42482_e07b3e0d827b8fb7b0c46f415b7ae386d3587a52.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42482", "sha1": "ddc0da0f7c33459b9737eefbc6d3eaf388bf9480", "filename": "files/20150413_R42482_ddc0da0f7c33459b9737eefbc6d3eaf388bf9480.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3427, "name": "Voting and Elections" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462616/", "id": "R42482_2014Feb24", "date": "2014-02-24", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview", "summary": "This report provides a legal overview of Section 2 of the VRA, a key provision affecting congressional redistricting, and selected Supreme Court case law. It discusses Sections 4 and 5, and the recent Supreme Court decision holding Section 4(b) unconstitutional, Shelby County v. Holder. Section 4 contained a coverage formula that identified states and jurisdictions that were required to gain federal approval or \"preclearance\" to proposed redistricting plans under Section 5. The report also provides an overview of selected legislation in the 112th and 113th Congresses that would establish additional requirements and standards for congressional redistricting.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140224_R42482_08c79865d808edb6b9f4ea076f71ad4a3d8a46f3.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140224_R42482_08c79865d808edb6b9f4ea076f71ad4a3d8a46f3.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional districts", "name": "Congressional districts" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Election districts", "name": "Election districts" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc267810/", "id": "R42482_2013Aug30", "date": "2013-08-30", "retrieved": "2013-12-03T12:16:12", "title": "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview", "summary": "This report provides a legal overview of Section 2 of the VRA, a key provision affecting congressional redistricting, and selected Supreme Court case law. It discusses Sections 4 and 5, and the recent Supreme Court decision holding Section 4(b) unconstitutional, Shelby County v. Holder. Section 4 contained a coverage formula that identified states and jurisdictions that were required to gain federal approval or \"preclearance\" to proposed redistricting plans under Section 5. The report also provides an overview of selected legislation in the 112th and 113th Congresses that would establish additional requirements and standards for congressional redistricting.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130830_R42482_81fe8c312b1ced7ac0c6f71f7987733b1b1b7419.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130830_R42482_81fe8c312b1ced7ac0c6f71f7987733b1b1b7419.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional districts", "name": "Congressional districts" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Election districts", "name": "Election districts" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462055/", "id": "R42482_2013Apr02", "date": "2013-04-02", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview", "summary": "This report provides a legal overview of two key provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) affecting congressional redistricting \u2014 Sections 2 and 5 \u2014 and selected accompanying Supreme Court case law. It examines a pending Supreme Court case, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, challenging the constitutionality of Section 5. It also provides a summary of selected legislation in the 112th and 113th Congresses that would establish additional requirements and standards for congressional redistricting.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130402_R42482_88b61aca4e72a5a8ae72de41b5c08a7b7fa6e99c.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130402_R42482_88b61aca4e72a5a8ae72de41b5c08a7b7fa6e99c.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional districts", "name": "Congressional districts" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Civil rights legislation", "name": "Civil rights legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Voting rights", "name": "Voting rights" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818806/", "id": "R42482_2013Jan31", "date": "2013-01-31", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130131_R42482_acd854e42755f419d1d0a78a78de48cc5ac8a851.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130131_R42482_acd854e42755f419d1d0a78a78de48cc5ac8a851.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions" ] }