Federal?Voting?Rights?Act?of 1965.?
The federal?Voting?Rights?Act (VRA) prohibits racial discrimination in state and local elections in order to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States (US) Constitution.? Section 2 of the VRA (Section 2) prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, color, or language-minority status.??Intentional discrimination based on race or color is prohibited, but also prohibited are practices that have the effect of impairing the ability of members of a racial group to participate equally in the nomination and election of candidates.? In these cases, proof of intentional discrimination is not required to show a violation; instead, a violation is established when the totality of circumstances show that the political process leading to nomination or election in the jurisdiction are not equally open to participation by members of a protected class in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.? Section 2 prohibits both vote dilution and the abridgment of the right to vote.
?
Vote Dilution.? ?Federal courts have recognized two primary forms of vote dilution.? First, vote dilution can be caused by the use of at-large voting methods where voters of the entire jurisdiction elect the members to the governing body; the majority by virtue of its numerical superiority will regularly defeat the choices of minority voters.? Second, vote dilution can occur in district-based elections through a method of drawing voting districts that spreads minority votes throughout the districts ("cracking"), or concentrates minority votes into a small number of districts ("packing"), or both, effectively weakening the minority group's ability to elect its candidates of choice.?
?
Abridgment of Voting Rights. ?Federal courts have described an "abridgment" of the right to vote as an electoral system or practice that impairs voting rights on the basis of race, color, or language-minority group.? Some examples have historically included a poll tax or discriminatory literacy tests.? Abridgment of the right to vote can occur regardless of which racial group is in the majority.?
?
Washington?Voting?Rights?Act.?
In 2018 the state enacted the Washington Voting?Rights?Act (WVRA) to regulate elections in certain counties, cities, towns, school districts, fire protection districts, port districts, and public utility districts (all together, "political subdivisions").? A violation of the WVRA is established when a political subdivision's method of electing its governing body exhibits polarized voting and members of a protected class do not have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of choice as a result of dilution or abridgement of their rights.? Polarized voting is shown when there is a difference in the choice of candidate or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class or coalition of protected classes, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate.?
Political subdivisions may take corrective action to change election systems in order to remedy a potential violation of the WVRA, including through implementation of a district-based election system.? If corrective action is taken by the political subdivision by its own accord, it must provide public notice to its residents about the proposed change to remedy the potential violation and hold a hearing.? ?
?
Any voter who resides in a political subdivision, an organization whose members or volunteers include a voter who resides in the political subdivision, or a tribe located at least in part in the political subdivision (all together, "party") may challenge the political subdivision's electoral system by filing a notice of intent that identifies the protected class(es) who are affected because of alleged vote dilution and polarized voting.? If corrective action is taken in response to such notice, the political subdivision must obtain a court order certifying that the remedy complies with the WVRA and was prompted by a plausible violation.? Courts apply a rebuttable presumption against adopting a political subdivision's proposed remedy.? If the court approves the remedy, it may not be challenged by a lawsuit for at least four years.? The party filing the notice may make a demand to the political subdivision for reimbursement of the costs incurred in conducting the research necessary to file the notice.? Upon receiving such demand, the political subdivision has 60 days to reimburse the party for reasonable costs up to $50,000.
?
If, after the political subdivision receives a notice of intent to challenge the electoral system because of alleged vote dilution and polarized voting, the political subdivision does not remedy the alleged violation within 90 days, a party may file an action against the political subdivision in superior court.? To determine whether voting is polarized in a vote dilution claim, the court assesses the elections pragmatically based on local election conditions.? If a violation is found, the court may order appropriate remedies, including requiring the political subdivision to redistrict or create a district-based election system.? The court may award attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.? Prevailing defendants may be awarded certain costs and fees.??
Washington Voting Rights Act.
Abridgment of voting rights.? Political subdivisions are prohibited from implementing and enforcing any election policy or practice, or to take any action or fail to take any action, that results in, is likely to result in, or is intended to result in a material disparate burden on the ability or opportunity of members of a protected class to vote or participate in any state of the political process.? An election policy or practice includes any prerequisite to voting, method of election, or any other law or action with respect to voting or the administration of elections.? A political subdivision is not in violation of the prohibition on the abridgment of voting rights if the political subdivision demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the election policy or practice is necessary to significantly further a compelling particularized interest, and there is no alternative election policy or practice that would result in less of a disparate burden on members of a protected class.
?
Proof of intent to discriminate against a protected class is not required to bring a cause of action against a political subdivision for violation of the prohibition on abridgment of voting rights.? Circumstances not relevant to demonstrating a violation include:
?
Various provisions of the WVRA that apply to remedying an electoral system in vote dilution claims also apply to, or are amended to also apply to, provisions related to election policies or practices for abridgment claims; for example, notice requirements and demands for reimbursement apply to abridgment claims.? However, certain provisions are amended to apply only in vote dilution cases.
?
A party does not have to meet the notice requirement or wait 90 days to bring an action for a violation of the WVRA, for either a vote dilution or abridgment claim, if:
?
In an action filed,?for either a vote dilution or abridgment claim, in which the plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction with respect to an upcoming election, the court must grant relief if it determines that the plaintiff is more likely than not to succeed on the merits, and it is possible to implement an appropriate remedy that would resolve the alleged violation in the upcoming election.?