Page:Allen v. Milligan.pdf/39

32 of proceeding in a process or course of action.” Brief for Alabama 51 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the manner of proceeding in the act of voting entails determining in which districts voters will vote. The fact that the term “procedure” is preceded by the phrase “qualification or prerequisite to voting,” 52 U. S. C. §10301(a), does not change its meaning. It is hard to imagine many more fundamental “prerequisites” to voting than determining where to cast your ballot or who you are eligible to vote for. Perhaps for that reason, even Alabama does not bear the courage of its conviction on this point. It refuses to argue that §2 is inapplicable to multimember districting, though its textual arguments apply with equal force in that context.

The dissent, by contrast, goes where even Alabama does not dare, arguing that §2 is wholly inapplicable to districting because it “focuses on ballot access and counting” only. (opinion of ). But the statutory text upon which the dissent relies supports the exact opposite conclusion. The relevant section provides that “[t]he terms ‘vote’ or ‘voting’ shall include all action necessary to make a vote effective.” Ibid. (quoting 52 U. S. C. §10310(c)(1); emphasis added). Those actions “includ[e], but [are] not limited to, … action[s] required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having such ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast.” §10310(c)(1). It would be anomalous to read the broad language of the statute—“all action necessary,” “including but not limited to”—to have the crabbed reach that posits. And we have already discussed why determining where to cast a ballot constitutes a “prerequisite” to voting, as the statute requires.

The dissent also contends that “applying §2 to districting rests on systematic neglect of … the ballot-access focus of the 1960s’ voting-rights struggles.” (opinion of ). But history did not stop in 1960. As we have explained, Congress adopted the amended §2 in response to