In a similar vein, plaintiffs and the NAACP contend that, given Congress' expressed intention to expand § 2 protection in the 1975 and 1982 amendments, not allowing minority coalition claims would be wholly inconsistent with the purpose of the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 Act prohibited any practice that abridged the right of any citizen to vote “on account of race or color.”
Chisom, 501 U.S. at 392, 111 S.Ct. at 2362–63 (citing 79 Stat. 437). It offered legislative protection to African–American voters only. Angelo N. Ancheta & Kathryn K. Imahara,
Multi–Ethnic Voting Rights: Redefining Vote Dilution in Communities of Color, 27 U.S.F. L.Rev. 815, 815 & n. 2 (1993)(Voting Rights Act was originally enacted as protective legislation for disenfranchised African Americans in the Deep South)(citing S.Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 4–7 (1982),
reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 177, 181–84);
see also H.R.Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1965), reprinted in 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2437, 2440. In 1975, Congress expanded the original prohibition against discrimination “ ‘on account of race or color’ ” to include “ ‘race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2)’ of the Act.”
Chisom, 501 U.S. at 392, 111 S.Ct. at 2362 (citing 89 Stat. 402). The new subsection (f)(b)(2) brought within the statute's purview members of “a language minority group,”
see id. at 393 n. 18, 111 S.Ct. at 2363 n. 18 (citing 89 Stat. 401), then identified as those of Hispanic origin, American Indians, Asian Americans and Alaskan natives.
42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(1);
see S.Rep. No. 295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1975),
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 774, 790. The 1982 amendments “further expanded the protection afforded by § 2,”
id. at 392,
111 S.Ct. at 2362, by abrogating
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980) (holding that “vote dilution” claims were actionable only if challenged practice was product of purposeful discrimination).