Common State VRA Provisions
Factors in a Court Case
State VRAs often come into play in election or redistricting related litigation. When deciding whether a jurisdiction has violated the VRA, state and federal courts consider a particular list of factors developed by federal courts in various cases over the years. These factors have not been written into federal statute, but several state VRAs codify versions of them. They are reflected in the table below.
Preclearance & Vote Dilution
Federal redistricting law has largely been developed by federal courts over decades and is not written in statute. Many state VRAs codify federal approaches to redistricting and in some cases change or expand on those approaches. Firstly, the federal VRA and all state analogues prohibit vote dilution. Vote dilution occurs when electoral districts distribute specific nonwhite populations in a way that denies those communities an effective opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Second, VRAs commonly establish preclearance systems. Under preclearance, some or all jurisdictions must receive approval from the government before implementing changes to their election laws. Preclearance applies to new district maps and new election policies, such as changes to polling place locations, hours or dates. Section 5 of the federal VRA contains a preclearance provision, though it is currently unenforceable because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, declaring unconstitutional the formula set out in Section 4 of the federal VRA that was used to determine whether a state was subject to preclearance. The table below indicates which state VRAs include their own active preclearance provisions.
Majority-minority and Opportunity Districts
Questions remain as to what kind of electoral districts the VRA requires or permits. The VRA protects the right to an opportunity district, which is a district where a specific nonwhite population has the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice without being consistently defeated by white voters. Whether a particular district provides sufficient opportunity for a racial group to elect their candidates of choice is evaluated in light of voting behavior and various other factors in that district. When the majority of the population in a district belongs to a specific nonwhite racial group, the district is known as a majority-minority district. Majority-minority districts often provide nonwhite communities the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice as required by the VRA.
Coalition and Crossover Districts
Some advocates argue that the federal VRA requires jurisdictions to draw a coalition or crossover district. In a coalition district, multiple communities of color combine to form a politically cohesive majority. For example, the majority in a coalition district may consist of Black and Hispanic communities with similar political interests in the same region of a state. In crossover districts, voters of color and white voters who tend to vote with the voters of color make up enough of the district to give the voters of color the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. While states can be ordered to draw majority-minority or influence districts under the federal VRA, it is unclear whether the same is true for coalition or crossover districts. Some states have clarified that their VRAs include the right to those types of districts. If race predominates in the mapmaking process, opportunity districts, majority-minority districts, coalition or crossover districts can run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Clicking on a state on the map below will show whether the state's VRA explicitly covers coalition and crossover districts.
Polarized Voting
People who bring a lawsuit under the federal VRA may have to demonstrate the existence of racially polarized voting. This means they must demonstrate that a specific nonwhite population consistently votes together and is regularly defeated by the white population in the area that consistently votes in the opposite way. All state VRAs require a showing of polarized voting to prove that a violation of law has occurred. Some state VRAs specifically require a demonstration of racially polarized voting, while others use the term "polarized voting," which may or may not extend beyond the context of race-based issues.
Databases & Funds
Several state VRAs require the state to develop a database for use in evaluating VRA claims and informing best practices in redistricting and election administration. These databases often must include extensive political and voter history data and various demographics. Some state VRAs require the state to partner with universities to maintain these databases. Some state VRAs also establish funds for various purposes including voter education and outreach efforts. Clicking on a state on the map below shows whether the state's VRA establishes a database or fund.
Private Right of Action
While the U.S. has a long history of individual voters and organizations bringing lawsuits under the federal VRA, there is debate among federal courts over whether the federal VRA allows this. For example, in 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that there is no private right of action to enforce the VRA. In other words, some argue it is unclear whether the federal VRA includes a private right of action. In the absence of a private right of action, only the U.S. Department of Justice could bring a federal VRA lawsuit. The table below indicates what states explicitly include a private right of action in their VRAs.