Is quantitative evidence required to establish a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

⁵ The majority opines that "[w]hile 2 itself does not require quantitative evidence, past cases suggest that such evidence is typically necessary to establish a disproportionate burden." Maj. Op. at 381. The majority also notes that plaintiffs' briefs rely on vote dilution cases but not vote denial cases in arguing that statistical evidence is not required to establish a 2 violation. Maj. Op. at 382 fn. 14. I perceive no reason why the type of 2 case on which plaintiffs rely is of consequence to their argument about what 2 itself requires. Likely plaintiffs could not rely on a vote denial case for the stated proposition because of the practical reality that in a vote denial case, quantitative evidence of the effect of a rule on voting behavior is only available after an election has occurred, at which point the remedial purpose of the Voting Rights Act is no longer served. Plaintiffs in vote dilution cases, in contrast, can often gather and analyze quantitative data before an election. See, e.g. , Thornburg v. Gingles , 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986).