Voting Rights Act

Voting policy

Election dates
Voter identification laws
Election coverage on Ballotpedia


State information
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The act was passed in 1965 with the intent of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The act contains provisions that prohibit state and local governments from passing voting laws that result in discrimination against a racial group, such as enacting literacy tests and other devices that have historically been used to disenfranchise racial minorities.^[1]^[2]

In addition to the general provisions that apply nationally, the act also contains special provisions, such as Section 5, that apply only to specific jurisdictions. Section 5 prohibits certain districts from implementing any change in voting law without prior approval from the United States Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Shelby County v. Holder, a 2013 United States Supreme Court case, struck down the coverage formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to Section 5 as unconstitutional, rendering Section 5 unenforceable.^[1]^[3]

Background[edit]

A trio of amendments, in addition to civil rights laws, were passed after the Civil War that expanded citizenship and voting rights. The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished and prohibited slavery and established a degree of citizenship for former slaves. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the nation's first civil rights law. It declared all males born in the United States to be citizens, "without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude." However, it did not offer any protection for voting rights. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, expanded citizenship, granting it to all people “born or naturalized in the United States." The amendment also included the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no state may deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. However, the Fourteenth Amendment did not specifically address voting rights.^[4]

The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited voting rights discrimination on the basis of race. To enforce these amendments, Congress also passed the Enforcement Act in 1870. This act criminalized the obstruction of voting rights and provided for federal supervision of the electoral process. However, states continued to suppress black voters' rights. Southern states legalized disenfranchisement in the form of Jim Crow laws, literacy tests, property requirements, and other laws designed to suppress black voter rights.^[4]^[5]^[6]

Protesters in Selma, Alabama, March 1965

Civil rights movement[edit]

In the 1950s, the American civil rights movement sought increased protection of voting rights. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and later the Civil Rights Act of 1960. These acts allowed the attorney general to sue on behalf of those whose Fifteenth Amendment rights were violated, allowed federal courts to appoint referees to register voters in jurisdictions that had engaged in racial voting discrimination, and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's voter registration or act of voting.^[7]^[8]

In 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) made Selma, Alabama, a focus of the voter rights campaign. Of Selma's 15,000 eligible black voters, only 300 had managed to register, due to the state government's opposition to black voter registration. King and the SCLC planned a protest march from Selma to Montgomery, the state capital city. A group of 600 people started the march on March 7, and were beaten back in an attack by Alabama state troopers wielding whips, nightsticks and tear gas. The attack was televised and drew civil rights leaders to the town in protest.^[9]^[10]^[11]

In response, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for voter rights legislation. In a speech before Congress, he outlined how Southern states were denying black voters their rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law, and hearings began on a voting rights bill soon after.^[2]^[12]

Legislative history[edit]

Johnson sent Congress a voting rights bill in March 1965. It was jointly sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Montana) and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois). The bill received 66 sponsors in the Senate, and after amending by the Senate Judiciary Committee, was sent to the Senate floor. The bill passed the Senate 77-19 and was sent to the House of Representatives.^[11]

On August 3, 1965, the House of Representatives passed a stronger bill 328-74. A conference committee reconciled the two bills into one, which both bodies adopted in a vote of 336-88 in the House and 78-20 in the Senate. The bill was sent to Johnson, who signed it into law on August 6, 1965.^[11]^[13]^[14]^[15]

Lyndon Johnson signs Voting Rights Act of 1965

Johnson said the following in his signing statement:^[16]

“	The central fact of American civilization--one so hard for others to understand--is that freedom and justice and the dignity of man are not just words to us. We believe in them. Under all the growth and the tumult and abundance, we believe. And so, as long as some among us are oppressed--and we are part of that oppression--it must blunt our faith and sap the strength of our high purpose. Thus, this is a victory for the freedom of the American Negro. But it is also a victory for the freedom of the American Nation. And every family across this great, entire, searching land will live stronger in liberty, will live more splendid in expectation, and will be prouder to be American because of the act that you have passed that I will sign today.^[17]	”
—President Lyndon B. Johnson

Non-permanent provisions of the Voting Rights Act, such as Sections 4 and 5, were renewed in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006. In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to declare that a plaintiff could establish a violation of Section 2 without having to prove discriminatory purpose.^[12]

Key features[edit]

Section 2[edit]

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. Section 2 is a permanent section and does not need renewal.^[1]

Section 2 reads:^[1]

“

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.^[17]

”

The Supreme Court held in 1980 in the case Mobile v. Bolden that Section 2 is a restatement of the protections of the Fifteenth Amendment. Section 2, along with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also prohibits jurisdictions from gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial minorities.^[18]

In 1982, Congress concluded that Section 2 should be amended to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the section if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.^[18]

Sections 4 and 5[edit]

Section 4 provided a formula for identifying which jurisdictions had engaged in racial discrimination, and remedies to alleviate the discrimination. The first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the jurisdiction maintained a "test or device" such as a literacy test restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element was whether less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Jurisdictions identified under Section 4 were subject to Section 5. Section 4 was amended in 1982 to provide a method of "bail-out," allowing a jurisdiction to seek to no longer be subject to Section 4 if they have eliminated the voting procedures that inhibited equal access to the electoral process.^[19]

Section 5 provides that the jurisdictions identified in Section 4 be subject to preclearance, which means that they must seek approval from the United States Attorney General of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prior to making changes to their voting laws.^[19]

Shelby County v. Holder[edit]

See also: Shelby County v. Holder

See also: Arguments for and against restoring Section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act

Chief Justice John Roberts

In 2010, Shelby County, Alabama, a jurisdiction subject to preclearance, sued the United States Attorney General, challenging Section 4(b) and 5 as unconstitutional. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in 2011 that the evidence before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify the re-authorization of Section 5 and the continued use of the formula in Section 4(b). Shelby County appealed. On May 18, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the previous decision, concluding that the use of Section 5 was still justified and that the coverage formula was still acceptable. Shelby County appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on the question of "whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution."^[20]^[21]^[22]

On June 25, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional, as it exceeded Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, reasoned that the disparate treatment of the states was "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day" and that a state cannot be subject to preclearance because of past discrimination. The court did not determine whether Section 5 is also unconstitutional. However, because Section 5 only applies to jurisdictions covered by 4(b), Section 5 is effectively rendered inoperable unless Section 4(b) is replaced.^[23]

Effect on redistricting[edit]

See also: Redistricting and Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power." ^[24]

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups comprise a majority of the district's total population.^[25]^[26]^[27]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking. Cracking occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.^[25]^[26]^[27]

Some critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts results in "packing." Packing occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.^[25]^[26]^[27]

Noteworthy cases[edit]

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (2025)

Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment (2023)

The League of Women Voters of Florida v. Laurel Lee (2022)

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

On July 16, 2025, a one page order from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh stayed a decision from the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, pausing the lower court's decision pending a response from the full high court to a petition of certiorari in the case.^[28]

On May 14, 2025, a three-judge panel of 8th Circuit Court ruled 2-1 in the case that individuals do not have a private right of action to bring suit for alleged violations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) through a separate chapter of U.S. Code, 42 U.S. Code § 1983.^[29] This section allows individuals and private organizations to bring suit for some violations of constitutional and statutory rights.^[30] In November 2023, a three-judge panel of the same court found that there is no private right of action under Section 2 of the VRA in a 2-1 decision in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment.

The majority opinion, written by Raymond Gruender and joined by Jonathan Kobes, relied in part on the court's decision in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment.^[30]^[31] Gruender wrote that, "[b]ecause § 2 [of the VRA] does not unambiguously confer an individual right, the plaintiffs do not have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce § 2 of the [VRA]."^[29] Gruender was nominated to the court by former president George W. Bush (R), while Donald Trump (R) nominated Kobes in 2018.

In a dissenting opinion, chief judge of the court Steven Colloton wrote, "Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based on § 2 [of the VRA] that have resulted in judicial decisions. The majority concludes that all of those cases should have been dismissed because § 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not confer a voting right. Consistent with all other courts to address the issue, I conclude that § 2 [of the VRA] confers an individual right and that the enforcement scheme described in the Act is not incompatible with private enforcement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983."^[29] Former president George. W Bush nominated Colloton to the court and he became its chief judge in 2024.

The ruling only applied to the seven states — Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota — in the 8th Circuit. Between 1999 and the panel's ruling, at least three other circuit courts have held that individuals do have a private right of action to enforce Section 2, including the 5th Circuit Court in 2023.^[32]^[33]^[34] According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2021, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, "suggested in a concurring opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee that whether Section 2 may be enforced by private parties remains 'an open question.'"^[34]

Plaintiffs in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment did not appeal the 2023 ruling to the Supreme Court. Rick Hasen, professor at UCLA School of Law, wrote that "they [likely] held off because they had a backup theory for how there could still be a private right of action" through § 1983.^[30] The 8th Circuit Court foreclosed that possibility through the May 14 decision in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe.

On November 20, 2023, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment that there is no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in certain states. As a result of this decision, the U.S. Department of Justice is the only entity qualified to sue the seven states within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota) for violations of Section 2. Individual voters and private organizations have filed the majority of lawsuits for violations of Section 2. For example, 182 of these lawsuits were argued successfully between 1982 and 2022, and all but 15 of them were filed either by individual voters or private organizations.^[35]^[36]

On March 31, 2022, Judge Mark E. Walker, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, struck down three state election laws: one regulating the availability and supervision of ballot drop boxes, one imposing delivery requirements on third-party voter registration groups, and one barring certain activities at or near polling places and drop boxes. Walker also ordered that Florida submit any future changes to these policies for federal preclearance for a period of 10 years.

However, on May 6, 2022, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the state's motion for a stay of the district court's ruling, allowing the disputed legal provisions to take effect and reversing the lower court's preclearance order.

Below is a summary of key developments in this case, starting with background about the law itself, then moving on to the district court's ruling (and reactions to it), and concluding with a discussion of the appellate court's order.

Background[edit]

On May 6, 2021, Gov Ron DeSantis (R) signed SB90, making a series of changes to Florida's election laws, including (but not limited to) the following:^[37]

Vote-by-mail:
- Requiring that voters requesting mail-in ballots (in person, in writing, or by telephone) provide either their Florida identification card numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.
- Reducing the duration of a mail-in ballot request form from two election cycles to one.
Drop boxes: Requiring that a secure drop box at a location other than the office of the county supervisor be open only during early voting hours, under the in-person monitoring of an employee of the supervisor's office.
Registration delivery: Requiring third-party voter registration organizations (3PVROs) to deliver applications to the Division of Elections or the Supervisor of Elections in the counties in which the applicants reside within 14 days of completing the applications (previously, 3PVROs could return completed applications to any Supervisor of Elections).
Solicitation: Barring anyone from "engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter," either inside a polling place or within 150 feet of a drop box or the entrance of a polling place (this prohibition can be construed to apply to "line warming" activities, such as giving out water, snacks, umbrellas, etc.).

The Florida House of Representatives and the Florida State Senate approved the final version of SB90 by votes of 77-40 and 23-17, respectively, on April 29, 2021. In the House, the vote split along party lines: all Republicans present voted in favor, and all Democrats present voted against. In the Senate, the vote also split largely along partisan lines, with one Republican (Sen. Jeff Brandes) joining the chamber's 16 Democrats in opposing the bill. SB90 took immediate effect.^[37]

Several groups, including the League of Women Voters of Florida and the Florida State Conference of Branches and Youth Units of the NAACP, filed four separate lawsuits, alleging that the aforementioned provisions were intentionally racially discriminatory, in violation of the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act. The suits were consolidated at trial.

The district court's ruling[edit]

Walker, a Barack Obama (D) appointee, noted that claims of racial discrimination must be judged against the test the U.S. Supreme Court established in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. The test incorporates the following factors:^[38]

The historical context.
"[T]he specific sequence of events leading up to" the challenged law's passage, including "procedural and substantive departure" and "contemporary statements and actions of key legislators."
The impact of the challenged law, including the"foreseeability of the disparate impact, knowledge of that impact, and the availability of less discriminatory alternatives."

Walker concluded that Florida's historical racial, political, and electoral contexts, as well as the specific sequence of events leading up to SB90's passage, supported the plaintiff's claims.^[38]

Walker then addressed the impact of SB90, dealing with each of the challenged provisions in turn:^[38]

Vote-by-mail: Walker found that the racial impact of both the request and identification provisions was "unclear."
Drop boxes: Walker found that SB90's drop-box provision "increases the time, transportation, and information costs of voting by drop box." Walker concluded that these costs would "fall more heavily on Black voters."
Registration delivery: Walker held that, because 3PVROs "overwhelmingly serve minority communities," the registration delivery provision "disproportionately harms Black and Latino voters."
Solicitation: Walker concluded that SB90's solicitation provision "will have a disparate impact on minority voters because minority voters are disproportionately likely to wait in line to vote, and because the provision discourages third parties from helping those waiting to vote."

Walker turned next to the question of whether these impacts were foreseeable and within the actual knowledge of legislators. Walker concluded, "The evidence before this Court not only suggests that the Legislature had such knowledge, but also that it specifically sought it out." With respect to the availability of less discriminatory alternatives, Walker found that "less discriminatory alternatives to each challenged provision not only were available but were presented to and rejected by the Legislature."^[38]

Having considered impacts, Walker framed the question of intent as follows:^[38]

“

The main question … is whether the Legislature enacted SB90 purely to secure an electoral advantage for the Republican party without regard to whether it harmed minority voters, or whether SB90 was enacted, at least in part, to target minority voters in order to secure an electoral advantage for the Republican Party.^[17]

”

Walker concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that the Legislature acted with discriminatory intent in adopting the vote-by-mail request and identification provisions. However, Walker found that the remaining challenged provisions "specifically target Black voters," in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Walker permanently enjoined (i.e., barred) enforcement of these provisions.^[38]

Finally, Walker turned to the question of relief under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act. Under Section 3(c), a court, upon finding that a political subdivision (e.g., a state or a municipality) has committed intentional racial discrimination in voting, can mandate that the subdivision preclear changes to voting regulations with either the court or the U.S. Attorney General "for such a period as [the court] may deem appropriate."^[38]

Walker concluded that relief under Section 3(c) was warranted in this case. Accordingly, Walker barred Florida officials from enacting any law or regulation governing 3PVROs, drop boxes, and line-warming activities without first clearing such changes with the court or the U.S. Attorney General for a period of 10 years.^[38]

Reactions[edit]

Cecile Scoon, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida said, “Senate Bill 90 was clearly an anti-voter measure that raised barriers to voting for marginalized groups with specific impacts on elderly voters, voters with disabilities, students and communities of color. The League is gratified that once again the constitutional rights of all of Florida’s voters have superseded partisan politics and that the targeted attack on Black voters will be stopped.”^[39]

In an interview, DeSantis described Walker's ruling as "the judicial equivalent of pounding the table" and suggested that an appeal was in the works: "I think that that's going to be reversed on appeal. The only question is how quickly it gets reversed on appeal, but it's not going to be able to withstand appellate scrutiny."^[40]

In a statement, Florida House Speaker Chris Sprowls (R) called Walker's ruling "an egregious abuse of his power," adding: "The illogical leaps and unsupported inferences in Judge Walker's opinion amount to a 288-page accusation of discriminatory intent based on limited analysis of data he thinks the Legislature might have had, the uncritical and complete acceptance of the comments of Democratic lawmakers, and a total disregard for other viewpoints."^[41]

Legal commentators discussed Walker's ruling within the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court held that preclearance mechanism contained in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Joe Patrice, writing for Above the Law, said, "While [Shelby] didn’t necessarily bar the door on a court reinstating preclearance requirements, no one thought to test the scope of the Court’s animosity toward this provision until now." Rick Hasen, writing for Election Law Blog, said, "This is a huge deal, and the district court's analysis is probably right, but there is good reason to believe that this case could be reversed on appeal by the much more conservative 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court."^[42]^[43]

The circuit court's ruling[edit]

On May 6, 2022, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the state's motion for a stay of the district court's ruling, allowing the disputed legal provisions to take effect and reversing the lower court's preclearance order. The panel comprised judges Kevin Newsom, Barbara Lagoa, and Andrew Brasher. In its unsigned order, the court cited the Purcell principle, which holds that "federal district courts ordinarily should not enjoin state election laws in the period close to an election."^[44]

“

According for Purcell, we hold that the state is entitled to a stay of the district court's order enjoining the operation of SB90's Drop-Box, Registration-Delivery, and Solicitation Provisions and subjecting Florida to preclearance. The district court's determination regarding the legislature's intentional discrimination suffers from at least two flaws, either of which justifies a stay. And, although we think it presents a closer question, we hold that the district court's determination that the Solicitation Provision is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is sufficiently vulnerable.^[17]

”

The circuit court's May 6 order did not represent a decision on the merits. Instead, the order stayed the district court's order pending resolution of the appeal to the circuit court.^[44]

See also: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

In 2016, several arms of the Democratic Party sued Arizona for its out-of-precinct policy and its ballot-collection law. Democrats claimed the Arizona policy and law violated the First, 14th, and 15th Amendments, as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act "by adversely and disparately impacting the electoral opportunities of Hispanic, African American, and Native American Arizonans."^[45]

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied Democrats' petition for preliminary injunctions. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling. In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit granted a preliminary injunction, which the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the next day.^[45]^[46]

In October 2017, the district court held a trial on the merits, ultimately ruling in favor of the state of Arizona. The district court held that Democrats had failed to meet their burden for proving a Section 2 claim. On appeal, a divided 9th Circuit panel affirmed the district court's ruling. In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit reversed the panel's decision. A 7-4 majority held the out-of-precinct policy violated Section 2 and a 6-5 majority held the ballot-collection law violated Section 2 and the 15th Amendment. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R), in his official capacity, and the Arizona Republican Party, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.^[45]^[46]

On July 1, 2021, in a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the challenged laws did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.^[47]

Click here for more information about the ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts

On June 25, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional, as it exceeded Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The majority reasoned that the disparate treatment of the states was "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day" and that a state cannot be subject to preclearance because of past discrimination.^[23]

The court did not determine whether Section 5 is also unconstitutional. However, because Section 5 is only applied to jurisdictions covered by 4(b), Section 5 is effectively rendered inoperable unless Section 4(b) is replaced.^[23]

Roberts wrote the following for the majority opinion:^[23]

“	If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula. [...] Regardless of how one looks at the record, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the "pervasive," "flagrant," "widespread," and "rampant" discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation.^[17]	”
—Justice John Roberts

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The dissent argued that Congress had sufficient evidence to determine that the formula of Section 4(b) was still valid. The dissent acknowledged voter discrimination had decreased, but attributed it to the Voting Rights Act itself.^[23]

Ginsburg wrote the following for the dissent:^[23]

“	Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.^[17]	”
—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Voting Rights Act. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Voting Rights Act - Google News

External links[edit]

Transcript of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
President Johnson's signing statement

Footnotes[edit]

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 OurDocuments.gov, "Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 History.com, "Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ ^4.0 ^4.1 Archives.gov, "The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ PBS, "Enforcement Acts," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ JimCrowHistory.org, "Jim Crow Legislation Overview", accessed July 21, 2015
↑ Archives.gov, "Civil Rights Act of 1957," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ AARegistry.org, "Civil Rights Act of 1960 signed," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ History.com, "Selma to Montgomery Marches," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ PBS, "Selma March," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ ^11.0 ^11.1 ^11.2 Senate.gov, "The Senate Passes the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ ^12.0 ^12.1 Justice.gov, "The Voting Rights Act of 1965," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ House.gov, "The Voting Rights Act of 1965," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ GovTrack.us, "TO PASS H.R. 6400, THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ GovTrack.us, "TO PASS S. 1564, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965," accessed July 22, 2015
↑ presidency.ucsb.edu, "409 - Remarks in the Capitol Rotunda at the Signing of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 22, 2015
↑ ^17.0 ^17.1 ^17.2 ^17.3 ^17.4 ^17.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
↑ ^18.0 ^18.1 Justice.gov, "Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015
↑ ^19.0 ^19.1 Justice.gov, "Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 22, 2015
↑ USCourts.gov, "Shelby County, Alabama, Appellant v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellees," accessed July 6, 2015
↑ USCourts.gov, "SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA,Plaintiff,v.ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.," accessed July 6, 2015
↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "CERTIORARI GRANTED ," accessed July 6, 2015
↑ ^23.0 ^23.1 ^23.2 ^23.3 ^23.4 ^23.5 SupremeCourt.gov, "Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.," accessed July 6, 2015
↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
↑ ^25.0 ^25.1 ^25.2 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
↑ ^26.0 ^26.1 ^26.2 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
↑ ^27.0 ^27.1 ^27.2 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
↑ Law360, "Justice Kavanaugh Pauses 8th Circ.'s Voting Rights Ruling," July 16, 2025
↑ ^29.0 ^29.1 ^29.2 United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, "No. 23-3655 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, Opinion," May 14, 2025
↑ ^30.0 ^30.1 ^30.2 Election Law Blog, "Eighth Circuit, on 2-1 Vote, Holds Private Plaintiffs Cannot Enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through a Section 1983 Action, a Ruling Which if Applied Nationally Would Devastate Voting Rights Act Enforcement in the United States," May 14, 2025
↑ NPR, "A federal appeals panel has made enforcing the Voting Rights Act harder in 7 states," May 14, 2025
↑ AP News, "Federal appeals court deals a blow to Voting Rights Act, ruling that private plaintiffs can’t sue," November 20, 2023
↑ Washington Monthly, "A Body Blow to the Voting Rights Act," November 21, 2023
↑ ^34.0 ^34.1 Congressional Research Service, "Recent Developments in the Rights of Private Individuals to Enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," November 21, 2023
↑ Election Law Blog, "Divided 8th Circuit panel finds Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not allow private plaintiffs to sue," November 20, 2023
↑ United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, "No. 22-1395 Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment," November 20, 2023
↑ ^37.0 ^37.1 The Florida Senate, "CS/CS/CS/SB 90: Elections," accessed May 25, 2021
↑ ^38.0 ^38.1 ^38.2 ^38.3 ^38.4 ^38.5 ^38.6 ^38.7 United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, "League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc. v. Lee: Final Order Following Bench Trial," March 31, 2022
↑ League of Women Voters of Florida, "LEAGUE VICTORY: Federal Court Strikes Down Florida Voter Suppression Law (Senate Bill 90)," March 31, 2022
↑ Governing, "Judge Overrules Most of Florida’s 2021 Election Law," March 31, 2022
↑ Twitter, "Chris Sprowls: 3:05 PM · Mar 31, 2022," March 31, 2022
↑ Above the Law, "District Courts Telling Supreme Court To Buzz Off Right And Left," April 4, 2022
↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Federal District Court Strikes Down Restrictive Florida Voting Rules, Imposes Requirement That Florida Submit Certain Voting Changes to Court for Preclearance Under Section 3(c) of Voting Rights Act Upon Finding of Intentional Discrimination; Appeal Likely," March 31, 2022
↑ ^44.0 ^44.1 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, "League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc. v. Lee: Order of the Court," May 6, 2022
↑ ^45.0 ^45.1 ^45.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed October 6, 2020
↑ ^46.0 ^46.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed October 6, 2020
↑ U.S. Supreme Court, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, decided July 1, 2021

[ourdoc-1] 1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 OurDocuments.gov, "Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)," accessed July 21, 2015

[history-2] 2.0 ^2.1 History.com, "Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015

[shelby-3] SupremeCourt.gov, "Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.," accessed July 21, 2015

[Amendments-4] 4.0 ^4.1 Archives.gov, "The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27," accessed July 21, 2015

[Enforce-5] PBS, "Enforcement Acts," accessed July 21, 2015

[JimCrow-6] JimCrowHistory.org, "Jim Crow Legislation Overview", accessed July 21, 2015

[cra-7] Archives.gov, "Civil Rights Act of 1957," accessed July 21, 2015

[cra2-8] AARegistry.org, "Civil Rights Act of 1960 signed," accessed July 21, 2015

[march-9] History.com, "Selma to Montgomery Marches," accessed July 21, 2015

[march2-10] PBS, "Selma March," accessed July 21, 2015

[senate-11] 11.0 ^11.1 ^11.2 Senate.gov, "The Senate Passes the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015

[justice-12] 12.0 ^12.1 Justice.gov, "The Voting Rights Act of 1965," accessed July 21, 2015

[house-13] House.gov, "The Voting Rights Act of 1965," accessed July 21, 2015

[track-14] GovTrack.us, "TO PASS H.R. 6400, THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT," accessed July 21, 2015

[govsenate-15] GovTrack.us, "TO PASS S. 1564, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965," accessed July 22, 2015

[signing-16] presidency.ucsb.edu, "409 - Remarks in the Capitol Rotunda at the Signing of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 22, 2015

[quotedisclaimer-17] 17.0 ^17.1 ^17.2 ^17.3 ^17.4 ^17.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[sec2-18] 18.0 ^18.1 Justice.gov, "Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015

[sec45-19] 19.0 ^19.1 Justice.gov, "Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 22, 2015

[CADC1-20] USCourts.gov, "Shelby County, Alabama, Appellant v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellees," accessed July 6, 2015

[ECF1-21] USCourts.gov, "SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA,Plaintiff,v.ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.," accessed July 6, 2015

[Supreme2-22] SupremeCourt.gov, "CERTIORARI GRANTED ," accessed July 6, 2015

[SupremeDec-23] 23.0 ^23.1 ^23.2 ^23.3 ^23.4 ^23.5 SupremeCourt.gov, "Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.," accessed July 6, 2015

[24] Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015

[indy-25] 25.0 ^25.1 ^25.2 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011

[atlantic-26] 26.0 ^26.1 ^26.2 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013

[naacp-27] 27.0 ^27.1 ^27.2 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015

[28] Law360, "Justice Kavanaugh Pauses 8th Circ.'s Voting Rights Ruling," July 16, 2025

[howeopinion-29] 29.0 ^29.1 ^29.2 United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, "No. 23-3655 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, Opinion," May 14, 2025

[elbhowie-30] 30.0 ^30.1 ^30.2 Election Law Blog, "Eighth Circuit, on 2-1 Vote, Holds Private Plaintiffs Cannot Enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through a Section 1983 Action, a Ruling Which if Applied Nationally Would Devastate Voting Rights Act Enforcement in the United States," May 14, 2025

[nprhowie-31] NPR, "A federal appeals panel has made enforcing the Voting Rights Act harder in 7 states," May 14, 2025

[32] AP News, "Federal appeals court deals a blow to Voting Rights Act, ruling that private plaintiffs can’t sue," November 20, 2023

[33] Washington Monthly, "A Body Blow to the Voting Rights Act," November 21, 2023

[crssec2-34] 34.0 ^34.1 Congressional Research Service, "Recent Developments in the Rights of Private Individuals to Enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," November 21, 2023

[elb-35] Election Law Blog, "Divided 8th Circuit panel finds Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not allow private plaintiffs to sue," November 20, 2023

[dd-36] United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, "No. 22-1395 Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment," November 20, 2023

[FloridaSB90-37] 37.0 ^37.1 The Florida Senate, "CS/CS/CS/SB 90: Elections," accessed May 25, 2021

[walkerfinalorder-38] 38.0 ^38.1 ^38.2 ^38.3 ^38.4 ^38.5 ^38.6 ^38.7 United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, "League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc. v. Lee: Final Order Following Bench Trial," March 31, 2022

[39] League of Women Voters of Florida, "LEAGUE VICTORY: Federal Court Strikes Down Florida Voter Suppression Law (Senate Bill 90)," March 31, 2022

[40] Governing, "Judge Overrules Most of Florida’s 2021 Election Law," March 31, 2022

[41] Twitter, "Chris Sprowls: 3:05 PM · Mar 31, 2022," March 31, 2022

[42] Above the Law, "District Courts Telling Supreme Court To Buzz Off Right And Left," April 4, 2022

[43] Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Federal District Court Strikes Down Restrictive Florida Voting Rules, Imposes Requirement That Florida Submit Certain Voting Changes to Court for Preclearance Under Section 3(c) of Voting Rights Act Upon Finding of Intentional Discrimination; Appeal Likely," March 31, 2022

[uscoaSTAY-44] 44.0 ^44.1 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, "League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc. v. Lee: Order of the Court," May 6, 2022

[petitionB-45] 45.0 ^45.1 ^45.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed October 6, 2020

[petitionARP-46] 46.0 ^46.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed October 6, 2020

[ope-47] U.S. Supreme Court, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, decided July 1, 2021

Voting Rights Act

Contents

Background[edit]

Civil rights movement[edit]

Legislative history[edit]

Key features[edit]

Section 2[edit]

Sections 4 and 5[edit]

Shelby County v. Holder[edit]

Effect on redistricting[edit]

Noteworthy cases[edit]

Background[edit]

The district court's ruling[edit]

Reactions[edit]

The circuit court's ruling[edit]

Recent news[edit]

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

Footnotes[edit]