The Voting Rights Act is in Jeopardy (Again)
By: Gabs Villemarette
Edited By: Valerie Lane and David Liu
Recently, the Supreme Court directed their attention to Louisiana v. Callais, which concerns Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This section allows for race to be considered when redrawing districts from the local to the congressional level, with the intent of preventing districts that “result in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”[1] Conservative-leaning Associate Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas have clearly expressed their belief that the creation of minority districts has its basis in outdated research on racial discrimination, and therefore, racial demographics should not be considered when creating congressional districts. Even Associate Justice Kavanaugh, often regarded as a “swing vote,” argued that the Voting Rights Act has served its purpose “for a limited period of time.” [2]
This would not be the first time voting rights have faced a sudden change from the Supreme Court. The 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision led by Chief Justice Roberts effectively struck down Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. [3] Section 4 required states and localities with a history of racialized voter discrimination to receive “preclearance,” or approval by the federal government, before making any changes to their election process. [4] The intended purpose was to focus on states and counties with a history of racial discrimination. The ruling stated that Section 4 was unconstitutional since the formula used to determine which areas had discriminatory histories was, at that point, over half a century old. The court claimed modern voter discrimination is less severe comparatively. Thus, these sections of the Voting Rights Act had outlived their purpose in combating racial tensions as they existed in the 20th century.
Despite the similarities between the 2013 ruling and the current arguments of other conservative justices, the comparatively moderate Chief Justice Roberts seems much more hesitant to fully eliminate Section 2 based on his lack of involvement. His neutrality may be because of the rise in discriminatory voting laws following the Shelby County v. Holder decision was authored by Justice Roberts himself. The decision allowed previously-outlawed strict voter ID requirements that have appeared in predominantly red states like Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi. In these same predominantly red states, which were previously covered by the preclearance of Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, over 1,500 polling places were closed in the five years following Shelby County v. Holder. [5] Such examples of voter suppression will only become more common with the continued denigration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, with little standing in the Supreme Court’s way.
There is already an incoming wave of pushback on the state level. Within the past few years, many states have been trying to preemptively counter the Supreme Court with their own legislation. This legislation is likely a response to the Court's recent decisions; only California and Illinois had their own voting rights acts prior to Shelby County v. Holder, whereas seven more states have enacted voting rights laws following the aforementioned decision. The most recent states to enact their own voting rights laws have been Connecticut (2023), Minnesota (2024), and Colorado (2025), in an attempt to enshrine their minority voters’ rights. [6] Despite these small victories, many states have yet to introduce their own Voting Rights Act entirely. [6] The Voting Rights Acts combat disenfranchisement by reducing voter dilution and intimidation, ultimately increasing voter turnout, especially among groups that are underrepresented in the American legal system. [7]
However, the efficacy of this state-side strategy is lacking, as the states that have introduced legislation have no way to guarantee that they will pass; Michigan's Voting Rights Act was struck down in the state House of Representatives this year. [8] Notably, most states that have successfully passed Voting Rights Acts are deep blue states, leaving voters in red states with little possibility of passing a state-wide Voting Rights Act. A lack of voter protections will, of course, impact minority voters in red and swing states, with no guarantee of minority districts to give representation to those who arguably need it most. The largest weakness of these state Voting Rights Acts (VRAs) is their lack of scope in comparison to the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, even if they pass successfully. On the state level, VRAs cannot address congressional districts as Section 2 currently does; they solely apply to the local government level, which is also covered by the federal VRA. So, while the states are putting a valiant effort to uphold voting rights, the fate of minority congressional districts is still left to the Louisiana v. Callais Supreme Court ruling.[6]
These new challenges to established civil rights legislation brings into question the future of American democracy. If the court decides to repeal Section 2, it becomes more likely that Republicans will gain between 19-27 House seats after congressional districts are redrawn. [9] This single decision by the Supreme Court has the potential to reshape the American congressional landscape in favor of Republican interests at the expense of minority voters, especially in the South.
Notes:
1. 52 U.S. Code § 10301, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10301
2 . Zach Montellaro, Josh Gerstein and Andrew Howard, ‘Conservative Justices Seem Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act,’ Politico, October 15, 2025, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/15/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-argument-00609187
2. ‘Shelby County v. Holder.’ Oyez. Accessed November 21, 2025.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96.
3. ‘Shelby County v. Holder,’ Brennan Center for Justice, August 4, 2018, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/shelby-county-v-holder
4. ‘How Shelby County v. Holder Broke Democracy,’ Legal Defense Fund, https://www.naacpldf.org/shelby-county-v-holder-impact/
5. ‘State Voting Rights Acts,’ National Conference of State Legislatures, June 4, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/state-voting-rights-acts
6. Lata Nott, ‘Strengthening Democracy Through State Voting Rights Acts (State VRAs),’ Campaign Legal Center, April 29 2025,
https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/strengthening-democracy-through-state-voting-rights-act s-state-vras
7. ‘The Michigan Legislature Fails to Act, Delivers a Devastaing Blow to Voting Rights,’ Legal Defense Fund https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/the-michigan-legislature-fails-to-act-delivers-a-devastating-blow-to-voting-rights/
8. ‘What Happens in the South Doesn’t Stay in the South,’ Black Voters Matter Fund & Fair Fight Action, October 8 2025,
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000199-c097-dae2-ab9d-ded7d6fb0000
Bibliography:
52 U.S. Code § 10301, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10301
‘How Shelby County v. Holder Broke Democracy,’ Legal Defense Fund,
https://www.naacpldf.org/shelby-county-v-holder-impact/
‘The Michigan Legislature Fails to Act, Delivers a Devastaing Blow to Voting Rights,’ Legal Defense Fund https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/the-michigan-legislature-fails-to-act-delivers-a-devastating-blow-to-voting-rights/
Montellaro, Zach, Josh Gerstein and Andrew Howard, ‘Conservative Justices Seem Poised to Weaken Voting Rights Act,’ Politico, October 15, 2025, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/15/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-argument-00609187
Nott, Lata ‘Strengthening Democracy Through State Voting Rights Acts (State VRAs),’ Campaign Legal Center, April 29 2025,
https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/strengthening-democracy-through-state-voting-rights-act s-state-vras
‘Shelby County v. Holder,’ Brennan Center for Justice, August 4, 2018,
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/shelby-county-v-holder
‘Shelby County v. Holder.’ Oyez. Accessed November 21, 2025.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96.
‘State Voting Rights Acts,’ National Conference of State Legislatures, June 4, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/state-voting-rights-acts
‘What Happens in the South Doesn’t Stay in the South,’ Black Voters Matter Fund & Fair Fight Action, October 8 2025, https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000199-c097-dae2-ab9d-ded7d6fb0000