<x-flowed>I agree that sections 5(b), (c), and (d) are less than transparently clear and completely direct in stating a "purpose or effect" standard that encompasses a reversal of Bossier II and Ashcroft.  Section 5(b) sounds a lot like "purpose to retrogress" though perhaps 5(c) in combination with the findings gets you back to the pre-Bossier constitutional purpose standand. Section 5(d) indicates that something different from Ashcroft is intended, though it may not be clear whether that something is simply the pre-Ashcroft approach.  Also, whle the focus on whether minority citizens may elect their preferred candidates is a focus that is relevant to most potential objections (those dealing with redistrictings and election method changes), it is not really the focus in some (e.g., polling place changes).   I wonder whether all this ambiguity is thought to serve some purpose or is it just a case of too many legislative cooks being involved in preparing this brew?

Lastly, it should be noted that this legislation, if adopted this year, would extend Section 5 (and the observer authorization) to 2031, while extending Section 203 to 2032.  There wouldn't seem to be any policy reason for this, so it must be something that the drafters overlooked.

Mark Posner

</x-flowed>