§5 had been the key to securing voting rights for blacks in the south, and that failure to extend it
would enable whites to regain control of the political process through subtle means difficult to
challenge. Congress reacted in 1982 by not only extending §5, but also by amending the
language of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to alter the result of Bolden. The 1982 amendment
introduced language of "result" in §2 similar to the language of §5, but followed it with a new
section (b) as a compromise.

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or
procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the
United States to vote on account of race or color,... as provided in subsection (b)
of this section.

(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the
totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to
nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to
participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this
section 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. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to
office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be
considered: Provided, that nothing in this section establishes a right to have
members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the
population.228

There are still significant distinctions between §2 and §5 of the Voting Rights Act. Only
jurisdictions subject to §5 must clear new voting laws with the Department of Justice. But §2
goes beyond §5 in some respects. Under §5, the court looked to see whether the change had the
effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race compared to the previous
situation. §2 is not a comparative statute and is not triggered by any change in law. It applies its
"resulting in denial or abridgment" prohibition to all existing voting laws.

The senate report on §2 listed a variety of objective factors to be used in determining
whether a violation occurs: racially polarized voting, success of minority candidates, past racial
discrimination and its lingering effects on participation in the political process, access to the
party slating process, history of official discrimination touching the right of members of the
minority to participate in the political process, discriminatory election practices with indirect
effects, racial campaign tactics, government responsiveness to minority interests, the force of the
government interest in maintaining the policy which effects minority voting power, and existence
of a potential remedy.

In 1986 the Supreme Court decided Thomburg v. Gingles,229, which held that the use of

163