Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 27

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

21 

Opinion of the Court 

those  regulating  employment  and  housing.    For  example, 
we think it inappropriate to read §2 to impose a strict “ne-
cessity  requirement”  that  would  force  States  to  demon-
strate  that  their  legitimate  interests  can  be  accomplished 
only by means of the voting regulations in question.  Steph-
anopoulos, Disparate  Impact,  Unified  Law,  128  Yale  L. J. 
1566,  1617–1619  (2019)  (advocating  such  a  requirement).  
Demanding such a tight fit would have the effect of invali-
dating  a  great  many  neutral  voting  regulations  with  long 
pedigrees that are reasonable means of pursuing legitimate 
interests.  It would also transfer much of the authority to 
regulate election procedures from the States to the federal 
courts.  For those reasons, the Title VII and Fair Housing 
Act models are unhelpful in §2 cases. 

D 
  The  interpretation  set  out  above  follows  directly  from 
what §2 commands: consideration of “the totality of circum-
stances” that have a bearing on whether a State makes vot-
ing “equally open” to all and gives everyone an equal “op-
portunity” to vote.  The dissent, by contrast, would rewrite 
the text of §2 and make it turn almost entirely on just one 
circumstance—disparate impact. 
  That is a radical project, and the dissent strains mightily 
to obscure its objective.  To that end, it spends 20 pages dis-
cussing  matters  that  have  little  bearing  on  the  questions 
before us.  The dissent provides historical background that 
all Americans should remember, see post, at 3–7 (opinion of 
KAGAN, J.), but that background does not tell us how to de-
cide these cases.  The dissent quarrels with the decision in 
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. 529 (2013), see post, at 
7–9, which concerned §§4 and 5 of the VRA, not §2.  It dis-
cusses  all  sorts  of  voting  rules  that  are  not  at  issue  here.  
See post, at 9–12.  And it dwells on points of law that nobody 
disputes: that §2 applies to a broad range of voting rules, 
practices,  and  procedures;  that  an  “abridgement”  of  the