Section 2 allows individuals, non-governmental organizations and the attorney general to file civil actions in order to seek injunctions, preventive, and permanent relief from the section’s violation. Having noted that, many will agree that the section was destined to achieve greater heights in voter right protection than it is currently. However due to its broad text, section 2 has failed to address comprehensively the problem of discrimination in the states which have a History of discrimination, leave alone providing a lasting solution.
Section 2 of the Voter Rights Act is more reactive than being proactive in the essence that often the damage has already been done to a group of voters by a state that cannot be remedied after a voting –related deadline, or an election has passed. Moreover the cost and expediency of voter rights Act enforcement under section 2 has proved to be a nightmare for the plaintiffs’ who cannot afford the resources required to litigate fact-intensive cases. Though this has since been resolved through the partly involvement of the department of justice to essentially assume plaintiffs’ costs for section 2 suits by either initiating the action itself or intervening in support of the plaintiff, it’s still a course for concern for the cost effectiveness availed by the section.
It’s well known that section 2 vote dilution standards are fairly well developed in the courts. In the section’s vote dilution cases, plaintiffs are usually required to first pass the Gingles test-from the case Thornburg v. Gingles- then an effect test. This is intended to prove that the plaintiff’s vote has been diluted based on the current voting district boundaries by proving that had the boundaries been drawn differently, the minority population would have the voting power to elect a candidate of its choice. However as earlier noted, this seems to be more of reactive than