The Supreme Court is once again at the center of the ongoing debate surrounding the Voting Rights Act (VRA), with recent and pending cases challenging its foundational protections against racial discrimination in voting. From the controversial gutting of its preclearance provision in 2013 to current battles over redistricting and voter access, the future of the VRA and its role in ensuring equitable democratic participation remains a pivotal legal and political issue, continuously redefining the landscape of American elections.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), a landmark piece of federal legislation, has long served as a crucial bulwark against racial discrimination in voting. Yet, decades after its passage, this foundational law continues to be a battleground at the U.S. Supreme Court. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the Court is poised to further reshape the VRA’s application, most recently by hearing arguments in a case concerning the composition of Louisiana electoral districts, a dispute that could significantly alter the Act’s key anti-dilution protections.
A Pillar of Democracy: The Voting Rights Act’s Enduring Legacy
Enacted in 1965, the VRA responded to nearly a century of systemic voter suppression against African Americans, despite the guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. These constitutional amendments, adopted after the Civil War, aimed to secure equal protection and the right to vote regardless of race. However, obstacles like literacy tests, poll taxes, and other discriminatory practices persisted for decades.
The VRA introduced comprehensive legislation to address these issues. Two of its most significant provisions were Section 5, which mandated federal “preclearance” for voting changes in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, and Section 2, which prohibited any voting practice that resulted in a denial or abridgement of voting rights on account of race or color, even in the absence of explicit discriminatory intent. Section 5 was temporary legislation, reauthorized multiple times—in 1970, 1975, 1982, and most recently in 2006 for another 25 years—following extensive congressional hearings and evidence of continued discrimination.
The Shelby County Watershed: A Turning Point for Federal Oversight
The VRA faced a significant challenge in 2009 with Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, where the Supreme Court largely left Section 5 intact but Chief Justice John Roberts hinted at the provision’s potential obsolescence. Four years later, this concern materialized in the landmark 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, did not strike down Section 5 itself but invalidated the formula in Section 4(b) used to determine which states and localities were subject to its preclearance requirements. This effectively rendered Section 5 inoperable, as there was no longer a mechanism to identify covered jurisdictions.
The ruling sparked considerable debate. Opponents of Section 5 argued that the VRA was a “relic of the past” and that racial discrimination in voting had dramatically diminished, citing evidence of increased African American voter turnout. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts noted, “In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different nation,” as reported by the New York Post. However, civil rights advocates, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), warned of persistent threats to minority voter access, emphasizing Section 5’s role in “beating back discriminatory voting measures,” as stated by Debo P. Adegbile.
Redefining Section 2: The Brnovich Era and Disparate Impact
Following the erosion of Section 5, Section 2 of the VRA gained increased significance as a primary defense against discriminatory voting practices. However, Section 2 itself faced judicial scrutiny. In 2021, the Supreme Court heard a pair of cases, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, challenging Arizona’s policies on “ballot harvesting” and out-of-precinct voting. These cases sought to clarify whether Section 2 prohibited election laws that disproportionately impacted minority voters, even without proof of discriminatory intent.
The core of the debate centered on whether Section 2 demands an “equal-outcome command” or merely an “equal-treatment requirement.” Critics argued that an expansive reading, invalidating laws based solely on disparate impact, could compel state legislators to consider race in electoral law crafting, potentially conflicting with the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which generally prohibits race-based decision-making. The Court ultimately adopted a narrower interpretation, upholding Arizona’s policies and making it more challenging to prove Section 2 violations based on disparate impact alone.
The Battle for Representation: Louisiana’s Redistricting on Trial
The latest legal confrontation surrounding the VRA involves Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map. Louisiana, where African Americans comprise approximately a third of the population, has six U.S. House districts. Following the 2020 Census, the Republican-controlled state legislature adopted a map that included only one Black-majority district. A group of Black Louisiana voters sued, arguing that the map diluted their voting power in violation of Section 2.
A federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, leading the state legislature to draw a new map with a second Black-majority district. This revised map then faced a separate lawsuit from “non-African American” voters, who contended that the new district was excessively guided by racial considerations, violating the equal protection principle. A three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling, decided against the map, prompting the current appeal to the Supreme Court. Notably, the state of Louisiana has shifted its stance, now urging the justices to forbid race-conscious map-drawing altogether.
This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on redistricting and Section 2. In 2023, the Court ruled 5-4 that a Republican-drawn electoral map in Alabama violated Section 2, siding with Black voters and calling for an additional Black-majority congressional district. This decision saw Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh join the Court’s three liberal justices to form a majority, offering a glimmer of hope to VRA advocates. However, the Louisiana case presents another critical test, with the Court hearing arguments for the second time this year after initially sidestepping a decision in June.
The Road Ahead: Implications for Voting Rights and American Democracy
The Supreme Court’s ongoing engagement with the VRA signifies a critical juncture for American democracy. Civil rights organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project continue to emphasize the persistent need for the Act’s protections, highlighting modern discriminatory practices, albeit more subtle than those of the past. Conversely, groups like the Cato Institute argue that the VRA, particularly Section 5, is an outdated federal intrusion on state prerogatives.
The resolution of these cases will have profound legal and political ramifications for decades to come. A decision invalidating Section 2, or narrowing its scope further, could potentially allow for the reconfiguration of numerous House districts, impacting minority representation and the balance of power in Congress. The debate touches on fundamental questions: to what extent can states group individuals by race in electoral policy, and how should individual equal protection rights be balanced against the need to ensure fair and equitable group representation?
As the Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June, the decisions will undoubtedly shape the future of voting rights in the United States, determining how effectively the nation can address persistent challenges to achieving true equality in the democratic process.
