SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘John R. Lewis Voting 
Rights Advancement Act of 2021’’. 
SEC. 2. VOTE DILUTION, DENIAL, AND ABRIDGMENT 
CLAIMS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(a) of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301(a)) is amended— 
(1) by inserting after ‘‘applied by any State or 
political subdivision’’ the following: ‘‘for the purpose 
of, or’’; and 
(2) by striking ‘‘as provided in subsection (b)’’ 
and inserting ‘‘as provided in subsection (b), (c), (d), 
or (f)’’. 
(b) VOTE DILUTION.—Section 2(b) of such Act (52 
U.S.C. 10301(b)) is amended— 
(1) by inserting after ‘‘A violation of subsection 
(a)’’ the following: ‘‘for vote dilution’’; 
(2) by inserting after the period at the end the 
following: ‘‘For the purposes of this subsection:’’; 
(3) by adding at the end the following new 
paragraphs: 
‘‘(1) To prevail in demonstrating that a rep-
resentational, districting, or apportionment scheme 
results in vote dilution, a plaintiff shall, as a thresh-
old matter, establish that—
‘‘(A) the members of the protected class 
are sufficiently numerous and geographically 
compact to constitute a majority in a single- 
member district; 
‘‘(B) the members of the protected class 
are politically cohesive; and 
‘‘(C) the residents of that district who are 
not the members of the protected class usually 
vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable them to de-
feat the preferred candidates of the members of 
the protected class. 
‘‘(2) Upon a plaintiff establishing the required 
threshold showing under paragraph (1), a court shall 
conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis with 
respect to a claim of vote dilution to determine 
whether there was a violation of subsection (a), 
which shall include the following factors: 
‘‘(A) The extent of any history of official 
voting discrimination in the State or political 
subdivision that affected the right of members 
of the protected class to register, to vote, or 
otherwise to participate in the political process. 
‘‘(B) The extent to which voting in the 
elections of the State or political subdivision is 
racially polarized.
‘‘(C) The extent to which the State or po-
litical subdivision has used voting practices or 
procedures that tend to enhance the oppor-
tunity for discrimination against the members 
of the protected class, such as unusually large 
election districts, majority vote requirements, 
anti-single shot provisions, or other qualifica-
tions, prerequisites, standards, practices, or 
procedures that may enhance the opportunity 
for discrimination against the members of the 
protected class. 
‘‘(D) If there is a candidate slating proc-
ess, whether the members of the protected class 
have been denied access to that process. 
‘‘(E) The extent to which members of the 
protected class in the State or political subdivi-
sion bear the effects of discrimination, both 
public or private, in such areas as education, 
employment, health, housing, and transpor-
tation, which hinder their ability to participate 
effectively in the political process. 
‘‘(F) Whether political campaigns have 
been characterized by overt or subtle racial ap-
peals.
‘‘(G) The extent to which members of the 
protected class have been elected to public office 
in the jurisdiction. 
‘‘(3) In conducting a totality of the cir-
cumstances analysis under paragraph (2), a court 
may consider such other factors as the court may 
determine to be relevant, including— 
‘‘(A) whether there is a significant lack of 
responsiveness on the part of elected officials to 
the particularized needs of the members of the 
protected class, including a lack of concern for 
or responsiveness to the requests and proposals 
of the members of the protected class, except 
that compliance with a court order may not be 
considered evidence of responsiveness on the 
part of the jurisdiction; and 
‘‘(B) whether the policy underlying the 
State or political subdivision’s use of such vot-
ing qualification, prerequisite to voting, or 
standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. 
In making this determination, a court shall consider 
whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, 
practice, or procedure in question was designed to 
advance and materially advances a valid and sub-
stantiated State interest.
‘‘(4) A class of citizens protected by subsection 
(a) may include a cohesive coalition of members of 
different racial or language minority groups.’’; and 
(4) VOTE DENIAL OR ABRIDGEMENT.—Section 
2 of such Act (52 U.S.C. 10301), as amended by 
subsections (a) and (b), is further amended by add-
ing at the end the following: 
‘‘(c)(1) A violation of subsection (a) resulting in vote 
denial or abridgment is established if the challenged quali-
fication, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure— 
‘‘(A) results or will result in members of a pro-
tected class facing greater costs or burdens in par-
ticipating in the political process than other voters; 
and 
‘‘(B) the greater costs or burdens are, at least 
in part, caused by or linked to social and historical 
conditions that have produced or produce on the 
date of such challenge discrimination against mem-
bers of the protected class. 
In determining the existence of a burden for pur-
poses of subparagraph (A), the absolute number or 
the percent of voters affected or the presence of vot-
ers who are not members of a protected class in the 
affected area shall not be dispositive, and the af-
fected area may be smaller than the jurisdiction to
which the qualification, prerequisite, standard, prac-
tice, or procedure applies. 
‘‘(2) The challenged qualification, prerequisite, stand-
ard, practice, or procedure need only be a but-for cause 
of the discriminatory result described in paragraph (1) or 
perpetuate a pre-existing burdens or costs. 
‘‘(3)(A) The factors that are relevant to a totality of 
the circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote 
denial or abridgement pursuant to this subsection include 
the following: 
‘‘(i) The extent of any history of official voting- 
related discrimination in the State or political sub-
division that affected the right of members of the 
protected class to register, to vote, or otherwise to 
participate in the political process. 
‘‘(ii) The extent to which voting in the elections 
of the State or political subdivision is racially polar-
ized. 
‘‘(iii) The extent to which the State or political 
subdivision has used photographic voter identifica-
tion requirements, documentary proof of citizenship 
requirements, documentary proof of residence re-
quirements, or other voting practices or procedures, 
beyond those required by Federal law, that impair
the ability of members of the minority group to par-
ticipate fully in the political process. 
‘‘(iv) The extent to which minority group mem-
bers bear the effects of discrimination, both public 
or private, in areas such as education, employment, 
health, housing, and transportation, which hinder 
their ability to participate effectively in the political 
process. 
‘‘(v) The use of overt or subtle racial appeals ei-
ther in political campaigns or surrounding adoption 
or maintenance of the challenged practice. 
‘‘(vi) The extent to which members of the mi-
nority group have been elected to public office in the 
jurisdiction, provided that the fact that the minority 
group is too small to elect candidates of its choice 
shall not defeat a claim of vote denial or abridgment. 
‘‘(vii) Whether there is a lack of responsiveness 
on the part of elected officials to the particularized 
needs of minority group members, including a lack 
of concern for or responsiveness to the requests and 
proposals of the group, except that compliance with 
a court order may not be considered evidence of re-
sponsiveness on the part of the jurisdiction. 
‘‘(viii) Whether the policy underlying the State 
or political subdivision’s use of the challenged quali-