ABSTRACT
In 2013 the Supreme Court declared a key provision of the 2006 VRA Reauthorization and Amendments Act unconstitutional. This chapter outlines two alternative interpretations of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) based on the goals ascribed to the law, the way outcomes are framed, the benchmarks against which outcomes are measured, and the conclusions ultimately drawn. Policy analysts particularly interested in making sense of elite interpretations of the VRA as Congress debates how to respond to the Shelby decision. The VRA has long been an object of debate among legal and political scholars. The policy goals, framing language, and benchmarks that determine support for the VRA comprise two distinct analytical paradigms. First of these is the "antidiscrimination paradigm" because it focuses on the extent to which the VRA has ameliorated racial discrimination since 1965. Second the "nondiscrimination paradigm" because it focuses on whether the VRA has eradicated racial discrimination in US elections.
