The years since the 2000 presidential election have witnessed unprecedented attention to the mechanics of election administration. Legislators, academics, and the public at large have focused on a variety of practices that had previously been the province of a relatively narrow group of election officials. Among the administrative practices considered under the general rubric of “election reform” are voter registration, provisional voting, ballot security measures, voting machines, early and absentee voting, challenges to voter eligibility, and the process for recounts and contests. Recognizing that every vote really does matter, at least in some elections, the parties have made these areas a new electoral battleground.

     This Article focuses on the cases in which election reform and VRA enforcement intersect. More specifically, it focuses on cases in which minority voters allege that the rules or practices governing the administration of elections result in the disproportionate denial of their votes. The most prominent examples that have arisen in recent years are in the areas of voting equipment, felon disenfranchisement, and voter ID requirements. The question that frames my analysis is how the VRA, particularly Section 2, should apply to these cases. If the controversies in 2000 and 2004 are any indication, the mechanics of election administration will be the subject of continuing litigation in years to come. It is therefore critical that courts develop a fair and workable standard to assess claims that minority voters have been excluded from equally participating in the electoral process.

     This Article addresses the shortcomings in case law and academic literature by suggesting a standard that should govern these Section 2 vote denial claims, recommending a burden-shifting test that borrows from cases interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, to a lesser extent, juror selection cases under the Equal Protection Clause. Under the proposed test, voters would have the initial burden to show that the challenged practice interacts with social and historical conditions, resulting in the disproportionate denial of minority votes. The state or local entity whose practice is challenged would then have the opportunity to show that the practice is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. This test has the advantage of capturing those practices that weaken minorities’ voting strength and may arise from intentional discrimination, while still taking into account governmental ends that may be so strong as to warrant disproportionate barriers to minority participation.