Main Enforcement Tool
Section 2 is the primary legal mechanism used to challenge district maps and voting rules alleged to dilute minority votes, especially after the 2013 Shelby County decision weakened other parts of the law.
In plain English
When map rules protect minority voters.
It's the part of federal law that lets people sue when election rules or district maps weaken minority voters' ability to elect their preferred candidates.
Simple example
In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Supreme Court applied Section 2 to require Alabama to draw a second majority-Black congressional district; in June 2026, the Court cleared a revised map that eliminated one such district.
Why it matters
What the term actually changes.
Ongoing Debate
How courts interpret Section 2 directly affects how many majority-minority districts exist nationwide and, by extension, the partisan and racial makeup of Congress.
How it works
The mechanics, in practice.
Lawsuits And Standards
Plaintiffs can sue under Section 2, and courts apply a multi-part test from Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) to decide whether a map illegally dilutes minority voting power.
Changing The Rule
Altering Section 2's scope requires either a new Supreme Court ruling reinterpreting the statute or an act of Congress amending the Voting Rights Act.
Related guide
Should the Voting Rights Act require majority-Black districts?
A look at how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act intersects with congressional map-drawing, and why the question is back before voters in 2026.
Read the guide → Related issue brief
Should the Voting Rights Act require maps to preserve majority-Black districts?
A long-running fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has returned to the center of American redistricting law.
Read the brief →You’ve learned the term. Now vote.
Should the Voting Rights Act require maps to preserve majority-Black districts?
Live results — 193 voters
Anonymous · one vote per person