Voting Rights Under Attack
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
The Voting Rights Act at 60
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) stands as a landmark federal law in the United States. It prohibits racial discrimination in voting (afj.org). This act was put in place to make sure that the voting rights promised by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were actually enforced, especially for African Americans in the Southern states. The VRA was designed to break down the many legal walls at the state and local levels that stopped Black people from voting. It offered the first real promise of full political participation for Black Americans across the South. Since 1965, the VRA has protected voters of color from practices that make it harder for them to vote and those that unfairly reduce their voting power (aclu.org).
The VRA also provided a strong system for challenging unfair practices and required federal oversight in areas that had a history of trying to stop people from voting (afj.org). However, as we approach the 60th anniversary of this vital law in 2025, it is not a time for celebration. Instead, it is a moment of deep concern. There are ongoing attacks on voting rights, and the protections of the VRA have been chipped away by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court (stateline.org). These courts have argued that the discrimination that led to the law no longer exists. This situation highlights a troubling trend where the very foundations of our democracy are being challenged.
Understanding Section 2 and Its Challenges
Section 2 of the VRA is a crucial part of the law. It states that no voting rule or practice can deny or limit the right to vote for any U.S. citizen because of their race or color. This section aims to prevent both “vote dilution” and “vote denial.” Vote dilution happens when practices reduce how effective a group's votes are, even if they are allowed to cast a ballot. This can happen through things like gerrymandering, which is drawing election districts in a way that puts a certain group at a disadvantage. It can also happen with at-large election systems, where all voters choose representatives from one large area, which can hurt minority groups who live in specific neighborhoods. Vote denial, on the other hand, is a more direct way of stopping people from voting. It involves outright preventing individuals from registering to vote or casting a ballot through unfair laws or practices, like the literacy tests or poll taxes that the VRA outlawed. “Abridgement” is a broad term that covers any action that restricts or limits the right to vote.
Currently, legal theories are emerging that challenge the ability of individuals and groups to sue under Section 2 of the VRA (democracydocket.com). This could potentially limit enforcement only to the U.S. Attorney General. Opponents of the VRA claim that Section 2 does not clearly state that individuals or groups have a “private right of action,” meaning they cannot sue to enforce it (democracydocket.com). If this argument holds, only the U.S. Attorney General would be able to bring such lawsuits. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case involving Native American tribes, has already ruled that only the Justice Department can bring such claims (portside.org). This decision goes against what other lower courts have decided. Lawyers for the tribes in the North Dakota redistricting case are appealing this to the Supreme Court. They argue that citizens in the states covered by the 8th Circuit have fewer enforceable voting rights than those in other states (portside.org). This legal battle highlights a significant threat to the VRA's enforcement, as it could severely limit the ability of affected communities to challenge discriminatory voting practices.
The Impact of Shelby County v. Holder
A major turning point in the weakening of the VRA was the Supreme Court's decision in *Shelby County v. Holder* in 2013 (stateline.org). In this ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the formula in Section 4(b) of the VRA was unconstitutional (reuters.com). This formula was used to identify states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting. These identified areas were then required to get “preclearance” from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington D.C. before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures. The purpose of preclearance was to stop discriminatory practices from being put into action before they could harm minority voters. The Court argued that the formula was based on old data and interfered with states' rights (reuters.com).
The *Shelby County* decision effectively made Section 5, the preclearance provision, useless because there was no longer a way to determine which places were subject to it (reuters.com). This had a huge impact, as it took away a key tool that prevented discriminatory voting practices from being implemented. The Supreme Court's decision in *Shelby County v. Holder*, which claimed that discrimination no longer existed as it did in 1965, gave states like Texas free rein to engage in disenfranchisement (newsone.com). This decision opened the door for many states to enact new voting laws, such as strict voter ID requirements, cuts to early voting, or polling place closures, without federal review. This makes it harder for certain populations, especially minorities, to cast a ballot (aclu.org). A weakened Section 2 also makes it more difficult to challenge these unfair practices in court, leaving voters with fewer legal ways to protect their right to vote. This can lead to longer lines, fewer polling places, confusion over new rules, and ultimately, a reduced ability for eligible citizens to register, vote, and have their votes counted fairly.
Key Moments in Voting Rights Act History
Voting Rights Act Enacted: Prohibits racial discrimination in voting, establishing federal oversight and preclearance for certain jurisdictions. (afj.org)
Shelby County v. Holder: Supreme Court invalidates Section 4(b) of the VRA, effectively ending the preclearance requirement. (reuters.com)
60th Anniversary of VRA: Marked by concerns over ongoing attacks on voting rights and potential further weakening of Section 2. (democracydocket.com)
The Supreme Court's Current Stance
The Supreme Court is currently ready to look at the validity of a key part of the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2 (reuters.com). The Court heard arguments in March but did not make a ruling. Instead, the justices asked for more questions to be addressed (reuters.com). Election law experts suggest that the Court might be considering whether Section 2 goes against a “colorblind understanding of the Constitution” (reuters.com). This could greatly change how racial discrimination in voting is handled. Given that the Court currently has a conservative majority, there is worry that this could lead to the VRA being weakened even more. This would make it harder to challenge discriminatory voting practices and further reduce protections for minority voters.
Justice Clarence Thomas has also spoken about an “intractable conflict” between the Court's interpretation of Section 2 of the VRA and the Fourteenth Amendment (democracydocket.com). This suggests a possible future weakening of the law. The current assault on democracy is connected to a long-term attack on federal courts, which has created loopholes that anti-voter efforts are now exploiting (newsone.com). The Supreme Court's decision in *Shelby County v. Holder*, which claimed that discrimination had ended, gave states like Texas the freedom to engage in disenfranchisement (newsone.com). This situation shows how crucial the upcoming Supreme Court decisions are for the future of voting rights in the United States.
State-Level Efforts to Protect Voting Rights
Despite the setbacks at the federal level, some states are taking action by creating their own versions of the Voting Rights Act to protect access to voting (stateline.org). For example, New York's and Washington state's voting rights acts have successfully stood up against legal challenges in recent years (stateline.org). These state-level laws function as a crucial line of defense when federal protections are weakened. They often mirror the federal VRA's goals by prohibiting discriminatory voting practices within their borders. However, their effectiveness can vary depending on the specific provisions included and the political will to enforce them.
Advocates are also proposing bold new policy ideas, including bringing back a stronger Voting Rights Act, to improve voting access for Black and Brown communities in the Deep South (splcenter.org). These state-level efforts are vital because they can address local voting issues more directly and provide protections that the federal VRA can no longer offer due to Supreme Court rulings. While they cannot replace a strong federal law, they show a commitment to protecting voting rights and can serve as models for other states. The success of these state laws demonstrates that it is possible to create effective voting rights protections even in a challenging legal environment.
Key Voting Rights Terms Explained
Practices that reduce the effectiveness of a group's votes, even if they are allowed to cast a ballot. This can happen through gerrymandering or at-large election systems. Source: aclu.org
Directly preventing individuals from registering to vote or casting a ballot due to discriminatory laws or practices. Source: aclu.org
Allows individuals or private organizations to file lawsuits in federal court to challenge voting practices that violate the VRA. Limiting this right would significantly reduce challenges to discriminatory practices. Source: democracydocket.com
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act has been reintroduced in the Senate to restore and expand the protections of the VRA (newsone.com). This proposed law aims to rebuild the VRA's protective framework after it was weakened by court decisions. If passed, it would bring back geographic preclearance under an updated formula. This means that states and localities with a recent history of voting rights violations would again need federal approval for any changes to their voting laws (newsone.com). The Act would also create new nationwide practices of preclearance for voting practices that are known to have discriminatory effects (newsone.com).
Furthermore, the bill would strengthen protections against vote dilution, denial, and abridgement (newsone.com). These issues have been seen in many states since the *Shelby County v. Holder* decision. The Act also seeks to expand the types of voting practices subject to review and improve the ability of the Department of Justice and private citizens to challenge discriminatory voting laws. Over 200 civil rights and democracy organizations have signed on in support of its reintroduction (newsone.com). This widespread support shows the urgent need to restore the VRA's power and ensure that all citizens have fair access to the ballot box.
A Broader “Freedom Package” for Democracy
Beyond the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, there is a call for a broader “freedom package” of pro-democracy reforms. This package is considered necessary to protect communities and hold “anti-voter” politicians accountable (newsone.com). This comprehensive approach recognizes that protecting voting rights requires more than just one piece of legislation. It involves a suite of reforms designed to strengthen democratic processes across the board. This package includes the Freedom to Vote Act, which aims to set national standards for voting access, and the Native American Voting Rights Act, which addresses specific barriers faced by Indigenous communities (newsone.com). Additionally, the DC statehood bill is part of this package, which would grant full voting representation to the residents of Washington D.C. (newsone.com).
These initiatives collectively aim to create a more inclusive and equitable democracy. They address various aspects of voting rights, from registration and casting ballots to fair representation and the ability of communities to shape their governance. The “freedom package” seeks to counter the ongoing attacks on voting rights by establishing robust protections and ensuring that the voices of all citizens, especially those from marginalized communities, are heard and respected. This holistic approach is seen as essential for safeguarding the future of American democracy and ensuring that the principles of fairness and equality are upheld.
Texas: A Battleground for Voting Rights
Texas has become a central point for current efforts to deny Black political power through redistricting (newsone.com). Texas Republicans are trying to gain five extra congressional seats through a mid-decade redistricting effort (newsone.com). This move is seen as an attempt to deny and restrict Black voters' right to fair representation. Texas has the largest Black population in the country, with over four million Black Texans (newsone.com). This makes the state a critical battleground for voting rights. Mid-decade redistricting refers to changing electoral district boundaries outside of the usual once-a-decade census-driven process. This tactic can be used to manipulate election outcomes and reduce the political influence of certain groups.
This mid-decade redistricting is viewed as an attack not only on access to voting but also on representation (newsone.com). It could potentially limit resources for communities. As Resha Thomas, project director for the Texas Black Action Fund, stated, this move is “grounded in fear” from those who are used to holding power (newsone.com). The fear of Black power and political representation has historically driven anti-democracy factions in the United States. This is why the Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965, even though the 15th Amendment had been passed almost a century earlier. If this effort succeeds in Texas, it could set a dangerous example for other states (newsone.com). This highlights the ongoing struggle to ensure fair representation and prevent the erosion of voting rights in areas with significant minority populations.
Texas: A Key State in Voting Rights
The Broader Meaning of Voting Rights
There is a growing call for a broader understanding of voting rights, one that goes beyond simply casting a ballot (newsone.com). This perspective emphasizes that voting is about the ability of communities to shape their governance and reflect their values. The focus should shift from merely “going to the ballot box” to understanding that the purpose of voting is for communities to express their values and dignity in how they are governed (newsone.com). The right to vote is directly connected to all other rights and issues that come from it (newsone.com). This means that when voting rights are attacked, it impacts everything from access to healthcare and education to economic opportunities and justice.
Complacency and the acceptance of restrictions on core freedoms, such as protest and free speech, have contributed to the current challenges to voting rights (newsone.com). The great heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, both leaders and everyday people, fought, bled, and died to secure the precious right to vote (justice.gov). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a transformative piece of legislation aimed not only at prohibiting racial discrimination in voting but also at proactively protecting the voting rights of racial minorities (afj.org). It provided a strong system for challenging discriminatory practices and required federal oversight in areas with a history of voter suppression (afj.org). The current concern on its 60th anniversary comes from the systematic weakening of the Act through Supreme Court decisions, leading many to fear a return to discriminatory practices. This broader understanding emphasizes that protecting voting rights is not just about elections; it is about ensuring that communities have the power to shape their own destinies and uphold their dignity.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
