Following up on this post linking to Bob Bauer’s paper on Georgia v. Ashcroft and asking questions about the meaning of the Georgia v. Aschroft “fix” in the current VRA renewal bill, I posed two hypotheticals on the election law listserv:

As many people on the list know, current section 5 provides that the DOJ cannot grant preclearance to a change in a voting procedure unless the jurisdiction can show that the change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title.”
The proposed revision to section 5 would further define the applicable standard to explain that
“Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard practice or procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to elect their preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section.”
So here are my two hypotheticals. I thought it would be useful to hear from list members whether the DOJ should grant preclearance under (a) the Beer standard (pre-Georgia v. Ashcroft);
(b) the current Georgia v. Ashcroft standard; and
(c) the proposed revision to section 5.
Discussion of these hypotheticals among list members might clarify both existing law (i.e., what does Ga. v. Ashcroft mean) and the meaning of the proposed revision.
Hypo 1: A jurisdiction’s old redistricting plan had one majority-minority district. The new plan it submits for preclearance has no majority minority districts, but creates two “influence” districts. Should the DOJ grant preclearance?
Hypo 2: In a jurisdiction with racially polarized voting, under the existing plan white-preferred candidates were elected in 11 of 12 districts. The new districting plan it submits for preclearance creates a second majority minority district, so that white preferred candidates are elected in only 10 districts now. Should the DOJ grant preclearance?
If the answer is ‘it depends’ or ‘we need more information,’ what does it depend on and what more information would we need?
Finally, it is possible that Hypo 1 and Hypo 2 are the same jurisdiction (i.e., an existing jurisdiction with 1 majority-minority district). Is it possible that preclearance cannot be granted for either change?

David Becker gave his answer and this follow up to my additional questions. In his answer, David set forth his view of what motivated black Georgia legislators to support the redistricting plan in Georgia v. Ashcroft. Bob Bauer has now responded. The end of Bob’s post reproduces David’s original answer to me in a more readable form.