How voting rights just became an employment issue

The debate about voting rights has properly attracted the nation’s attention. There is no right more fundamental to this democratic republic than universal franchise—the right to vote. Just how and why the fairest, cleanest, electoral process ever is under a variety of legislative attacks and limitations is cause for profound concern. We also now have a first look at how the U.S. Supreme Court will assess the voter suppression legislation passed in a number of states. The decision shows why the issue is important for employers.

Disparate impact

In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Arizona’s purportedly neutrally and universally applied restrictions on certain voting practices were at issue. The restrictions were to be assessed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, generally believed to address “voter dilution.”

Significantly, Section 2 is all that’s left of the Act after a previous Court ruling rendered Section 5’s more sweeping provisions ineffective. But Section 2 isn’t without power. As amended by Congress in 1982, it doesn’t require proof of intentional discrimination. Any voting practice with a disparate impact (particularly regarding race) could be the basis for a Section 2 violation, regardless of the practice’s intent.