The Voting Rights Act: What It Does and How Courts Have Shaped It
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is one of the most consequential federal election laws in American history, designed to prohibit racial discrimination in voting. Over nearly six decades, Congress has amended it and the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it in ways that continue to shape how elections are run today.
Why the Voting Rights Act Was Passed
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, declares that the right to vote cannot be denied "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Yet for decades afterward, many jurisdictions used devices such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and other mechanisms that, in practice, prevented large numbers of citizens — especially Black Americans in parts of the country — from registering and voting.
Congress responded by passing the Voting Rights Act, which President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law on August 6, 1965. Rather than relying only on case-by-case lawsuits, the VRA created broad national protections and, for certain areas, a powerful federal oversight system. The law has been reauthorized and amended several times since, including major updates in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006.
Section 2: A Nationwide, Permanent Protection
Section 2 applies everywhere in the United States, permanently. It prohibits any voting practice or procedure that "results in a denial or abridgement" of the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Importantly, after a 1982 amendment, plaintiffs do not have to prove that officials intended to discriminate — they can challenge practices based on their discriminatory results.
Section 2 is the tool most often used today to challenge things like redistricting maps that allegedly dilute minority voting strength. Courts analyze these "vote dilution" claims under a framework the Supreme Court set out in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), which lays out preconditions a group must show, followed by a review of the "totality of circumstances." Section 2 cases are litigated after a practice is already in place; the burden is generally on those bringing the lawsuit.
Section 5 and Preclearance
Section 5 was different: it required certain jurisdictions to get federal approval before changing their voting rules. This process, called "preclearance," meant a covered state, county, or locality had to demonstrate to either the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, D.C., that a proposed change — anything from moving a polling place to redrawing district lines — would not make minority voters worse off.
Preclearance shifted the usual burden. Instead of voters having to sue after a change took effect, covered jurisdictions had to prove in advance that the change was not discriminatory. Supporters viewed this as a way to stop problems before they happened, particularly in places with a documented history of discrimination. Critics argued it imposed significant federal control over local decisions and treated some jurisdictions differently from others.
The Coverage Formula (Section 4(b))
Which places had to seek preclearance was determined by a separate provision, Section 4(b), known as the "coverage formula." It identified covered jurisdictions based largely on whether they had used certain tests or devices and had low voter registration or turnout in elections of the 1960s and early 1970s. This formula was the trigger that made Section 5 apply to a given area.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
The most significant modern change to the VRA came in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data and no longer reflected current conditions. The Court reasoned that the formula imposed a substantial burden on certain states based on circumstances from the 1960s and 1970s, and that the country had changed dramatically since then.
The Court did not strike down Section 5 itself. Instead, it left Section 5 on the books but without a valid formula to determine which areas it applies to. In practical terms, this meant that no jurisdiction was subject to preclearance unless Congress passed a new coverage formula — which it has not done as of this writing. The dissenting justices argued that preclearance had been effective and that Congress had ample evidence to justify renewing it in 2006.
What Changed After Shelby County
With preclearance effectively dormant, voting-rule changes in formerly covered areas no longer required advance federal approval. Observers across the spectrum describe the practical effects differently:
- Some emphasize that states and localities gained more autonomy to update election procedures without a federal pre-approval step.
- Others point to subsequent changes in voting rules and maps that they argue would previously have been reviewed in advance, and that now can only be challenged through after-the-fact litigation.
Either way, the burden of challenging a contested rule generally shifted back to voters and advocacy groups, who must file lawsuits — often lengthy and costly — typically under Section 2.
Later Supreme Court Decisions
Two more recent cases further shaped how the VRA operates:
- Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021): The Court addressed how Section 2 applies to "time, place, and manner" voting rules (as opposed to redistricting). It identified several factors or "guideposts" courts should weigh when deciding whether a rule imposes an unlawful burden, such as the size of the burden, the degree to which it departs from standard practices, and the state's interests, including preventing fraud. The decision was generally viewed as making certain Section 2 challenges to voting procedures harder to win, though it did not eliminate them.
- Allen v. Milligan (2023): In a case about congressional districts, the Court reaffirmed the longstanding Gingles framework for vote-dilution claims under Section 2 and declined to substantially narrow it. This decision confirmed that Section 2 remains an active and meaningful tool in redistricting disputes.
Together, these rulings illustrate that the VRA's protections remain in force but that their precise scope continues to be defined case by case.
The Ongoing Legal and Policy Debate
Because the VRA touches both civil rights and the everyday administration of elections, it sits at the center of a genuine, good-faith debate. The main competing concerns are often framed this way:
- Voter access: Some argue that without preclearance, harmful changes can take effect and remain in place for one or more election cycles before courts can review them, and that after-the-fact litigation is slow and expensive. They favor restoring some form of advance federal review.
- Election integrity and local control: Others argue that states have a legitimate interest in setting their own election procedures — including measures intended to prevent fraud and maintain public confidence — and that federal pre-approval of routine changes is unnecessary or overly intrusive given today's conditions.
There is also an active debate about who can bring VRA lawsuits. Courts have considered whether private individuals and groups (as opposed to only the federal government) may sue to enforce certain provisions — a question that could significantly affect how the law is enforced going forward. Reasonable people, judges, and lawmakers disagree on these issues, and several remain unsettled.
What This Means for Voters
For an individual voter, the most important takeaway is that the rules governing registration, voter identification, mail voting, polling locations, and district lines are set by a mix of federal law, state law, and court decisions — and they can change. The VRA continues to prohibit racial discrimination in voting nationwide through Section 2, even though the preclearance system is currently inactive.
Because specific election procedures vary widely from state to state and can be updated between elections, you should always confirm the current rules where you live. Your state's Secretary of State or state election office is the authoritative source for registration deadlines, ID requirements, and voting options. National nonpartisan resources can also help you locate official information.
Bottom Line
The Voting Rights Act remains a cornerstone of American election law. Section 2's nationwide ban on racially discriminatory voting practices is still fully in effect, while Section 5's preclearance system is dormant after Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the formula that determined where it applied. Later cases like Brnovich and Allen v. Milligan have refined how the law works in practice. The debate over how best to protect both voter access and election integrity is ongoing — and to be sure your own vote counts, verify your state's current rules with official election authorities.