Voting Rights Act is hollowed out by Supreme Court after 61 years

President Lyndon B. Johnson recognized the historic significance of the legislation he was about to sign on August 6, 1965. In an uncommon gesture, he left the Oval Office to conduct the signing ceremony on Capitol Hill, acknowledging the political courage shown by lawmakers whose votes might cost them their seats. This landmark legislation, the Voting Rights Act, came five months after the “Bloody Sunday” attack on civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, which had catalyzed support for the bill.

Over the following six decades, the Voting Rights Act became one of the nation’s most consequential laws, safeguarding minorities against discrimination at polling places and enabling the election of thousands of Black and Hispanic representatives across all government levels.

On Wednesday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a major component of the law that had protected against racial discrimination in voting and representation. This decision follows a court ruling more than a decade ago that had already undermined another crucial element of the law, leading to restrictive voting legislation in numerous states. Voting rights advocates now express deep concerns about what lies ahead for minority communities.

“It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation,” said Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter. “It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that’s not exaggeration.”

Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Washington office, described the court’s systematic weakening of the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday’s ruling, as “burying it without the funeral.”

The Supreme Court’s decision came in a congressional redistricting case from Louisiana after the state created a district that gave it a second Black congressional representative. The court found this map to be an unconstitutional gerrymander because race was considered in drawing the district lines. In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court’s conservative justices stated that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was designed to protect voters from intentional discrimination.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, argued that the standard to demonstrate intentional discrimination creates “an almost insurmountable barrier for challenges to any voting rights issues to prove discrimination.”

Voting rights experts contend that the ruling leaves the Voting Rights Act as merely a shell of its former self and will open the door for political mapmakers at all levels—from local school boards to state legislatures to Congress—to undermine minority representation.

“We’re witnessing the evisceration of America’s greatest legislative landmark at the hands of a far right Supreme Court,” said Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York.

Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, warned that the decision will enable more aggressive “cracking and packing” of populations to dilute their votes, “not just in congressional districts but also in state legislatures, county commissions, school boards and city councils.”

The impact of the Voting Rights Act over decades has been substantial and measurable. Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor at Howard University and former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, noted that there were approximately 1,500 Black elected officials nationwide in 1970, compared to more than 10,000 today.

“And it isn’t because of the goodness of people’s hearts,” she emphasized, attributing this progress directly to Black communities, civil rights activists, and lawyers having the tools, through the Voting Rights Act, to challenge efforts aimed at diminishing the voting strength of Black and Hispanic voters. Most Section 2 cases have involved representation in local governments.

The consequences extend beyond mere numbers. Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, explained that a loss of representation, particularly in state legislatures and Congress, will mean minority communities losing their voice on critical issues such as healthcare, education, and necessary public infrastructure improvements.

“States can now point to partisan objectives to justify maps that strip voters of color of representation, and federal courts will have little basis to intervene,” she said.

The landmark law had undergone amendments over the years, but the most significant change came in 2013 with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. That decision effectively eliminated a provision requiring certain jurisdictions to obtain preclearance for voting-related changes.

This ruling paved the way for primarily Republican-controlled states to pass a wave of restrictive election legislation, especially following President Donald Trump’s false claims that widespread fraud cost him reelection in 2020.

In a surprising 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Section 2 in a redistricting case from Alabama—a decision it essentially reversed on Wednesday.

The immediate impact of the ruling places Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields of Louisiana on the endangered list. This isn’t Fields’ first experience with redistricting complications; he served two terms in the 1990s before the state redrew his congressional district.

“I’ve been down this road before, you know, 33 years ago,” Fields remarked.

Shomari Figures, who won the Alabama seat created after the court’s 2023 decision, noted that while the ruling doesn’t alter that state’s current congressional districts, it significantly raises the bar for proving future racial discrimination in redistricting cases.

“It will lead to states, primarily in the South, launching immediate efforts to redraw districts in ways that will dilute the impact of Black voters and drastically reduce the number of realistic opportunities to elect Black members to Congress,” he warned.