Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

6 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Opinion of the Court 

  The House bill “originally passed . . . under a loose under-
standing that §2 would prohibit all discriminatory ‘effects’ 
of voting practices, and that intent would be ‘irrelevant,’ ” 
but “[t]his version met stiff resistance in the Senate.”  Mis-
sissippi  Republican  Executive  Committee  v.  Brooks,  469 
U. S. 1002, 1010 (1984) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (quoting 
H. R. Rep. No. 97–227, at 29).  The House and Senate com-
promised, and the final product included language proposed 
by Senator Dole.  469 U. S., at 1010–1011; S. Rep. No. 97–
417, at 3–4; 128 Cong. Rec. 14131–14133 (1982) (Sen. Dole 
describing his amendment). 
  What is now §2(b) was added, and that provision sets out 
what  must  be  shown  to  prove  a  §2  violation.    It  requires 
consideration of “the totality of circumstances” in each case 
and demands proof 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 pro-
tected class “in that its members have less opportunity than 
other members of the electorate to participate in the politi-
cal process and to elect representatives of their choice.”  52 
U. S. C. §10301(b) (emphasis added).  Reflecting the Senate 
Judiciary Committee’s stated focus on the issue of vote di-
lution,  this  language  was  taken  almost  verbatim  from 
White. 
  This concentration on the contentious issue of vote dilu-
tion reflected the results of the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tee’s  extensive  survey  of  what  it  regarded  as  Fifteenth 
Amendment  violations  that  called  out  for  legislative  re-
dress.  See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 97–417, at 6, 8, 23–24, 27, 29.  
That survey listed many examples of what the Committee 
took  to  be  unconstitutional  vote  dilution,  but  the  survey 
identified  only  three  isolated  episodes  involving  the  out-
right denial of the right to vote, and none of these concerned 
the  equal  application  of  a  facially  neutral  rule  specifying 
the  time,  place,  or  manner  of  voting.    See  id.,  at  30,  and