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

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 1.1 Civil rights movement
* 2 Legislative history
* 3 Key features
* 3.1 Section 2
* 3.2 Sections 4 and 5
* 3.2.1 Shelby County v. Holder
* 4 Effect on redistricting
* 5 Noteworthy cases
* 5.1 Background
* 5.2 The district court's ruling
* 5.3 The circuit court's ruling
* 6 Recent news
* 7 See also
* 8 External links
* 9 Footnotes

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.

In April 2023, a three-judge panel of judges on the 11th Circuit reversed most of the district court's ruling. The judges did uphold the lower court's ruling that parts of a ban on solicitation of voters within 150 feet of a polling place were unconstitutionally vague.[37]

#### 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:[38]

* 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 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.[38]

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, who was appointed by President Barack Obama (D), ruled 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.[39]

“  | 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.[39]

Walker also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to 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."[39]

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.[39]

#### 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.[40]

In September 2022, a three-judge panel comprised of judges William Pryor, Britt Grant, and Jill Pryor heard oral arguments on the merits of the case. In April 2023, the judges ruled 2-1 that much of the law was constitutional and refuted Walker's ruling that aspects of the law were racially discriminatory. The majority opinion, written by Judge William Pryor, who was appointed by President George W. Bush (R), said:[37]

“  |

The Supreme Court has warned against conflating discrimination on the basis of party affiliation with discrimination on the basis of race ...To be sure, as the organizations point out, “[i]ntentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party” is impermissible ... But we must be careful not to infer that racial targeting is, in fact, occurring based solely on evidence of partisanship. Evidence of race-based discrimination is necessary to establish a constitutional violation.[17]

| ”

|
|

In her dissent, Judge Jill Pryor, who was appointed by Obama, wrote that the district court ruling was correct in ruling that it "committed no reversible error when it concluded that these provisions violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as section 2 of the Voting Rights Act."[37]

The ruling did find that one provision, the ban on solicitation of voters within 150 feet of the polling place with an intent of "engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter," was unconstitutionally vague.

The case was sent back to Walker, who closed the case on February 8, 2024.[41]

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."[42]

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.[42][43]

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.[42][43]

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.[44]

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

## See also[edit]

* Fifteenth Amendment

* Election policy on Ballotpedia

* Redistricting

## External links[edit]

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

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 OurDocuments.gov, "Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)," accessed July 21, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 History.com, "Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015
3. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.," accessed July 21, 2015
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Archives.gov, "The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27," accessed July 21, 2015
5. ↑ PBS, "Enforcement Acts," accessed July 21, 2015
6. ↑ JimCrowHistory.org, "Jim Crow Legislation Overview", accessed July 21, 2015
7. ↑ Archives.gov, "Civil Rights Act of 1957," accessed July 21, 2015
8. ↑ AARegistry.org, "Civil Rights Act of 1960 signed," accessed July 21, 2015
9. ↑ History.com, "Selma to Montgomery Marches," accessed July 21, 2015
10. ↑ PBS, "Selma March," accessed July 21, 2015
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Senate.gov, "The Senate Passes the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Justice.gov, "The Voting Rights Act of 1965," accessed July 21, 2015
13. ↑ House.gov, "The Voting Rights Act of 1965," accessed July 21, 2015
14. ↑ GovTrack.us, "TO PASS H.R. 6400, THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT," accessed July 21, 2015
15. ↑ GovTrack.us, "TO PASS S. 1564, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965," accessed July 22, 2015
16. ↑ presidency.ucsb.edu, "409 - Remarks in the Capitol Rotunda at the Signing of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 22, 2015
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.
18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Justice.gov, "Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Justice.gov, "Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act," accessed July 22, 2015
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
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
22. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "CERTIORARI GRANTED ," accessed July 6, 2015
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
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 League of Women Voters, "11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling," April 27, 2023
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 The Florida Senate, "CS/CS/CS/SB 90: Elections," accessed May 25, 2021
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 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
40. ↑ 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
41. ↑ League of Women Voters, "District Court Final Order on Remand," February 8, 2024
42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed October 6, 2020
43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed October 6, 2020
44. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, decided July 1, 2021

v • e

Election policy

Voting policy|

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

* * *

Ballot access for state and federal candidates|

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

* * *

Ballot access for political parties|

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

* * *

Ballot access for presidential candidates|

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

* * *

Redistricting|

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

* * *

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates