Introduction
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) stands as one of the most significant civil rights laws in American history. It was passed to end racial discrimination in voting and enforce the 15th Amendment, making sure every citizen could freely and fairly take part in elections. Over six decades later, debates continue about how much federal government involvement is necessary to protect these rights while still allowing states to manage their own elections.
What is the VRA?
The VRA was passed in response to years of voter suppression, violence, and discrimination in states such as Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Virginia. Events like the 1965 “Bloody Sunday” attack on peaceful marchers in Alabama pushed Congress and President Lyndon Johnson to act. The law banned literacy tests, poll taxes, and other barriers that had kept Black Americans from voting. Over time, Congress has renewed and updated the VRA, expanding protections for Native American, Asian American, Alaskan Native, and Spanish-speaking communities.
Although the Constitution granted states the authority to run their own elections, many Southern states consistently used that power to bypass earlier civil rights laws. Each time courts overruled one discriminatory practice, states would quickly adopt another. This pattern convinced Congress that stronger, proactive oversight was necessary.
Two main sections of the VRA were designed to achieve this. Section 2 of the Act prohibits any voting practices that discriminate based on race or language minority status. Section 5—known as the preclearance provision— required Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and counties with histories of discrimination in California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota to get federal approval before changing their election laws. The preclearance system was designed to stop discriminatory laws before they could take effect, reflecting a shift from reacting to violations toward preventing them altogether.
Preclearance Overturned
In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court overturned the coverage formula that determined which areas were subject to preclearance. The court ruled that the preclearance formula relied on outdated data and unfairly targeted states based on 1960s conditions. Because of this ruling, no state or locality has to receive federal approval before making changes to its election rules.
Arguments in Favor of Strong Federal Voting Protections
Supporters argue that the VRA remains critical for protecting minority voters and ensuring fair elections. The Act dismantled discriminatory systems in the South and helped increase Black voter turnout after its passage. Advocates point out that the end of preclearance led to a wave of restrictive laws. Several states passed new measures that made it harder to vote or added penalties for election workers. Research showed that Black voter turnout decreased by about one percentage point in high-Black population areas after the Shelby decision. Civil rights groups, including the ACLU, continue to describe voting as the “cornerstone of democracy” and argue that federal oversight is still necessary to protect against modern forms of suppression. They contend that the struggle to protect voting rights did not end in 1965; it simply changed form.
Arguments Against Strong Federal Voting Protections
Critics believe some provisions of the VRA, especially preclearance, are outdated and overly intrusive. They argue that some of the worst barriers to voting from the Jim Crow era, such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and discriminatory registration rules, have been removed or substantially reduced. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder noted that voter registration and turnout rates among Black voters had risen dramatically since the 1960s. Non-supporters also argue that it no longer makes sense to single out certain states for federal supervision because it would seem as if those states are being punished for past sins rather than current violations.
Critics also emphasize that preclearance was originally meant to be a short-term emergency measure. It was designed to quickly stop states with long histories of voter discrimination from changing their election laws until fair voting conditions could be established, not to place them under federal oversight forever.
Finally, critics argue that the Constitution gives states responsibility for running elections, so keeping federal oversight forever not only goes beyond the original intent of the VRA but also defies the Constitution’s delegation of powers.
Recent Developments
Even after Shelby, the VRA remains an actively cited law. The Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to use its authority to enforce voting rights protections. Recently, the DOJ sued Oregon and Maine for not providing full access to voter registration list data and filed a separate lawsuit against Fayette County, Tennessee, over redistricting that diluted Black voter strength. Meanwhile, several states have considered or passed new voting legislation. Some are tightening ballot deadlines or adding new election oversight rules. These developments show the ongoing tension between ensuring fair access to voting and maintaining state control over election procedures.
One hotly contested topic related to the VRA is gerrymandering, or the redrawing of election district lines for political advantage. Gerrymandering is not always illegal, but certain redistricting practices violate the VRA when they dilute the voting power of racial or language minority groups. Under Section 2 of the VRA, a map is unlawful if it weakens minority voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice. Courts use the “Gingles factors” to evaluate claims of illegal gerrymandering. These factors include whether minority voters are numerous and compact enough to form a district, tend to vote together, and are consistently defeated by the majority’s voting patterns. If these conditions are met, judges assess the “totality of circumstances” to determine whether the map provides minority voters equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Since the Shelby decision removed federal preclearance, redistricting plans no longer need approval before taking effect. As a result, most voting rights cases now focus on proving racial discrimination or vote dilution after maps are implemented, rather than blocking them beforehand.
Texas
Texas’ new congressional and legislative maps have raised some legal concerns. The Department of Justice and many other civil rights groups argue the maps weaken the political power of Black and Hispanic voters. Lawsuits claim the state used tactics known as packing (concentrating minority voters in a few districts) and cracking (spreading them thin across many districts), both of which limit their ability to elect preferred candidates. In Petteway v. Galveston County (2024), a federal court struck down the county’s map for eliminating its only majority-minority district, ruling it violated Section 2 of the VRA. However, the Fifth Circuit later restricted the ability of several minority groups to form coalition districts, complicating future challenges. Critics say the maps ignore Texas’ growing minority population and protect existing political power, while supporters claim they are drawn along political, not racial,lines. The continuing lawsuits show how consequential redistricting has become in the state.
California
California’s Proposition 50—a ballot measure to redraw state congressional districts to favor Democrats, which passed with overwhelming support in November—came as a response to Texas’ new redistricting plans that favor Republicans. On the whole, California’s redistricting process looks very different from Texas’ process, as California uses an independent citizens’ commission instead of letting politicians draw the maps. Despite its independent redistricting process, California has been critiqued for unfair districting practices related to Proposition 50. Supporters of the measure say it updates representation based on population changes, while critics argue it could split minority communities and violate the “one person, one vote” principle.
A recent lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration claims that by allowing district lines to be drawn without meaningful public input, Proposition 50 risks weakening the political voice of historically marginalized communities. The California Rights Act (CVRA) already offers broader protections than the federal law, by allowing lawsuits against at-large or unfair election systems without needing proof of a majority-minority district. The concern with the new proposal is that drawing districts too quickly or without updated population data could harm the very communities the CVRA aims to protect.
Conclusion
Both Texas and California show how gerrymandering continues to test the boundaries of fair representation in the United States. In Texas, critics argue the maps intentionally weaken minority voting power, while in California, the debate centers on potential unintended effects within a system designed to be impartial. Both cases show that the issues surrounding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remain ongoing some sixty-plus years later.