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, as well as 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 regardless of whether there was outright denial of the right to vote.  Some examples have historically included a poll tax or literacy tests.  Abridgment of the right to vote can occur regardless of which racial group is in the majority.  Abridgment is also commonly referred to as vote suppression or vote denial.

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").  In 2023 the Washington Supreme Court stated that the WVRA expressly protects against two types of voting discrimination:  abridgment and dilution.  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.  A political subdivision may remedy a violation or potential violation of the WVRA either voluntarily or upon notice by a voter challenging the political subdivision's electoral process.

Political subdivisions may voluntarily take corrective action to change their electoral system to remedy a potential violation of the WVRA, including through implementation of a district-based election system.  If the political subdivision voluntarily takes corrective action, it must provide public notice to its residents about the proposed remedy 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 or classes 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 proposed by the political subdivision 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 the political subdivision does not remedy the alleged violation within 90 days after the political subdivision receives a notice of intent from a voter challenging the electoral system, 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.  

Cities and towns with a population of under 1,000 and school districts with enrollment under 250 students are exempt from requirements under the WVRA but may still voluntarily change their election system to remedy a potential violation. 

Washington Voting Rights Act.

Abridgment of voting rights.  Statutory provisions concerning the existing WVRA prohibition on vote dilution and abridgement are reorganized and further modified.  A separate standard is established for when a political subdivision's implementation or enforcement of an election policy or practice would violate the WVRA's prohibition on the abridgment of voting rights.  Under the newly created standard,a violation occurs when a political subdivision implements or enforces any election policy or practice or takes any action or fails 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 stage of the political process.  However, 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 narrowly tailored and necessary to further a compelling, particularized interest, and there is no alternative election policy or practice that would haveless of a disparate burden on members of a protected class.

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.  

Proof of intent to discriminate against a protected class is not required to bring an abridgment claim against a political subdivision.  Circumstances not relevant to, and which may not be considered by a court when, determining a violation include:

• the total number or share of protected class members not materially burdened by the election policy or practice;
• the degree to which the election policy or practice has a long pedigree or was in widespread use at an earlier date;
• the use of an identical or similar election policy or practice in other jurisdictions;
• the availability of other forms of voting unimpacted by the election policy or practice; and
• defenses that the election policy or practice is necessary to address criminal activity, including voter fraud, or to bolster voter confidence in election integrity that is not supported by substantial evidence. 

Other changes are made throughout the WVRA to specify the applicability of existing provisions to vote dilution, the abridgment of the right to vote, or both.  For example, provisions concerning remedies under the WVRA are amended to specify that implementing a district-based election system applies to vote dilution claims.  In addition, a definition for "election system" is added to mean the method of electing the governing body of a political subdivision or any election policy or practice administered by the political subdivision.  

Further, 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:

• the party is seeking preliminary relief with respect to an upcoming election;
• the party is seeking to intervene in or join an existing action; or
• following the party's notice to the political subdivision, the political subdivision enacted a change that would not remedy the violation identified in the notice. 

When a plaintiff files either a vote dilution or abridgement claim and seeks a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction with respect to an upcoming election, the court must grant relief if it determines that:  (1) the plaintiff is more likely than not to succeed on the merits; and (2) that it is possible to implement an appropriate remedy that would resolve the alleged violation in the upcoming election.