<P> Section 2 prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure...in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right...to vote on account of race," color, or language minority status . The Supreme Court has allowed private plaintiffs to sue to enforce this prohibition . In Mobile v. Bolden (1980), the Supreme Court held that as originally enacted in 1965, Section 2 simply restated the Fifteenth Amendment and thus prohibited only those voting laws that were intentionally enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose . In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to create a "results" test, which prohibits any voting law that has a discriminatory effect irrespective of whether the law was intentionally enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose . The 1982 amendments provided that the results test does not guarantee protected minorities a right to proportional representation . </P> <P> When determining whether a jurisdiction's election law violates this general prohibition, courts have relied on factors enumerated in the Senate Judiciary Committee report associated with the 1982 amendments ("Senate Factors"), including: </P> <Ol> <Li> The history of official discrimination in the jurisdiction that affects the right to vote; </Li> <Li> The degree to which voting in the jurisdiction is racially polarized; </Li> <Li> The extent of the jurisdiction's use of majority vote requirements, unusually large electoral districts, prohibitions on bullet voting, and other devices that tend to enhance the opportunity for voting discrimination; </Li> <Li> Whether minority candidates are denied access to the jurisdiction's candidate slating processes, if any; </Li> <Li> The extent to which the jurisdiction's minorities are discriminated against in socioeconomic areas, such as education, employment, and health; </Li> <Li> Whether overt or subtle racial appeals in campaigns exist; </Li> <Li> The extent to which minority candidates have won elections; </Li> <Li> The degree that elected officials are unresponsive to the concerns of the minority group; and </Li> <Li> Whether the policy justification for the challenged law is tenuous . </Li> </Ol> <Li> The history of official discrimination in the jurisdiction that affects the right to vote; </Li>

Two provisions of the voting rights act of 1965