Law How The Voting Rights Act Lets Biden’s DOJ Insist Georgia’s Photo ID Requirement Is Racist

Further, under the Voting Rights Act, the federal government may seek injunctive relief to block voting laws from taking effect.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act currently prohibits any "Standard, practice, or procedure" that "Results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." The "Results in" language here proves key, because when Congress first passed the law in 1965, Section 2 prohibited only a "Standard, practice, or procedure" "To deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." As originally drafted the Voting Rights Act only prohibited intentional discrimination.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden, wherein the high court held that Section 2 only bars "The purposefully discriminatory denial or abridgment by the government of the freedom to vote" on account of race or color, Congress amended the language of Section 2 to prohibit practices that "Result[]" in the "Denial or abridgment" of the right to vote.

The Seventh Circuit upheld Wisconsin's voter ID law against a Section 2 challenge, while the Fifth Circuit rejected Texas's Voter ID law.

In Brnovich, the en banc court held that Arizona's "Out-of-precinct" provision, which required voters to cast their ballots in the correct precinct, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In striking Arizona's voting law, the Ninth Circuit focused heavily on the disparate impact of the challenged provision, as opposed to whether minority voters have an "Equal opportunity" to vote.

The gist of the DOJ's entire lawsuit against Georgia is that select provisions of the Election Integrity Act impact black voters at a higher rate than white voters.
 

https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/28/how-the-voting-rights-act-lets-bidens-doj-insist-georgias-photo-id-voting-requirement-is-racist/