Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 26

20 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Opinion of the Court 

like  “majority  vote  requirements,”  “anti-single  shot  provi-
sions,”12 and a “candidate slating process.”13  See Gingles, 
478 U. S., at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted).  Fac-
tors  two,  six,  and  seven  (which  concern  racially  polarized 
voting, racially tinged campaign appeals, and the election 
of  minority-group  candidates),  ibid.,  have  a  bearing  on 
whether a districting plan affects the opportunity of minor-
ity voters to elect their candidates of choice.  But in cases 
involving  neutral  time,  place,  and  manner  rules,  the  only 
relevance of these and the remaining factors is to show that 
minority  group  members  suffered  discrimination  in  the 
past (factor one) and that effects of that discrimination per-
sist (factor five).  Id., at 36–37.  We do not suggest that these 
factors should be disregarded.  After all, §2(b) requires con-
sideration of “the totality of circumstances.”  But their rel-
evance is much less direct. 
  We also do not find the disparate-impact model employed 
in Title VII and Fair Housing Act cases useful here.  The 
text  of  the  relevant  provisions  of  Title  VII  and  the  Fair 
Housing Act differ from that of VRA §2, and it is not obvious 
why  Congress  would  conform  rules  regulating  voting  to 

—————— 

12 Where voters are allowed to vote for multiple candidates in a race for 
multiple  seats,  single-shot  voting  is  the  practice of  voting  for  only  one 
candidate.  “ ‘ “Single-shot voting enables a minority group to win some 
at-large seats if it concentrates its vote behind a limited number of can-
didates and if the vote of the majority is divided among a number of can-
didates.” ’ ”    Gingles,  478  U. S.,  at  38–39,  n. 5  (quoting  City  of  Rome  v. 
United States, 446 U. S. 156, 184, n. 19 (1980)); see also United States 
Commission  on  Civil  Rights,  The  Voting  Rights  Act:  Ten  Years  After 
206–207 (1975). 

13 Slating has been described as “a process in which some influential 
non-governmental organization selects and endorses a group or ‘slate’ of 
candidates, rendering the election little more than a stamp of approval 
for the candidates selected.”  Westwego Citizens for Better Govt. v. West-
wego, 946 F. 2d 1109, 1116, n. 5 (CA5 1991).  Exclusion from such a sys-
tem can make it difficult for minority groups to elect their preferred can-
didates.  See, e.g., White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 766–767, and n. 11 
(1973) (describing one example).