The Justice Department once described the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted. President Lyndon B. Johnson, when he signed the bill on Aug. 6, 1965, called it “one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom.”
The act has opened the door for more Americans to have a voice in our democratic process. Sadly, though, opponents continue to undermine and obstruct access to the ballot. The Voting Rights Act is, as yet, a promise unfulfilled.
Just last week, for example, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals contradicted its own precedent that has stood for 35 years when it overturned a lower court’s ruling that a redistricting plan in Galveston County, Texas, violated Section 2 of the Act. The Court overruled its previous standard allowing politically cohesive Black and Latino voters to join together in claiming that an election system or districting plan denied them an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.
When signed into law, the VRA was the first legislation to forbid outright rules that denied voting rights on account of race or color. It also outlawed literacy tests and required jurisdictions to provide bilingual ballots if enough of their voters had limited English proficiency.
Importantly, in Section 4(b), the act identified localities whose history of discrimination was egregious enough to warrant special oversight. Section 5 contained the consequential idea of preclearance: those identified localities would now have to submit potential voting rule changes for federal approval. They could no longer suppress votes at whim.
For almost half a century, this vital piece of legislation empowered the Justice Department to stop localities from obstructing voters of color from participating fully in the electoral process. Section 5 thwarted such barriers nearly 1,200 times.
But in 2013 the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, found Section 4(b) of the VRA unconstitutional. Without it, Section 5’s protective shield vanished. Shelby flung wide open floodgates to voter suppression and opponents wasted no time barreling through them.
States introduced restrictive voting measures on and after Shelby's day and continued eroding voting rights since then. Last year, according to Brennan Center for Justice—a law and policy institute—nearly a hundred new laws restricted voting rights since 2013; many were passed by states previously identified by Section 4(b)’s formula.
As a small sample: In 2021 alone at least 19 states passed 34 laws meant to abridge voting rights; in 2022 eight states passed eleven such laws; and by mid-2023 at least fourteen states had passed seventeen more.
In 2024 barriers continue mounting.
Some courts seemingly unconstrained by either precedent or statutory language spurred this destructive process with decisions further curtailing protections while fueling litigation assaults against even Section Two despite its recent Supreme Court upholding (in June).
These threats are grave but responses remain unstinting:
We challenged restrictive state/county laws nationwide—for instance convincing federal courts striking down Arizona's requirement registrants list birthplaces/provide citizenship proof;
Challenging Texas’ restrictions on voter assistance including disabled/illiterate voters;
Challenging Georgia's bans government entities distributing unsolicited absentee applications/moving deadlines/prohibiting food/water distribution lines;
Suing Galveston County Texas' redistricting plan (overturned last week);
Ensuring Oneida County New York processes timely registrations/inclusion rolls federally qualified voters;
Protecting Georgian voters intimidation/threats/coercion (Fair Fight vs True Vote);
Defending VRA racial discrimination bans e.g., redistricting plans diluting minority strengths (Alpha Phi Alpha vs Raffensperger/Nairne vs Ardoin);
Supporting absentee presidential election protections (IATSE vs Mashburn);
Filing unfair practice challenge briefs across multiple federal trial courts;
Monitoring polls/jurisdictions receiving complaints via call centers—since January '21 monitored elections seventy-six jurisdictions twenty-four states;
Safeguarding non-English speakers Union County NJ/Pawtucket RI ensuring broad registration access disabilities paratransit/state-funded services NJ etc.
Civil Rights Movement heroes fought bled died securing precious vote-rights now deteriorating amid legislative judicial ground struggles we must face honoring sacrifices freedoms stakes too high anything less won't suffice.