The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the federal law that bans racial discrimination in voting, and most of its core protections are still in force today. Section 2 permanently prohibits discriminatory voting practices in every state. Federal law still bars voter intimidation, guarantees language assistance in qualifying areas, and lets voters with disabilities or limited literacy bring a helper into the booth. What no longer functions is the Act’s preclearance system, which required certain jurisdictions to get federal approval before changing voting rules. The Supreme Court disabled that mechanism in 2013, and Congress has not replaced it.
What Section 2 Still Prohibits Nationwide
Section 2 is the broadest surviving provision. It permanently bans any voting practice or procedure that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, and it applies to every state and local jurisdiction in the country.1U.S. Department of Justice. Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act It has no expiration date.
A violation does not require proof that officials intended to discriminate. Courts apply a results test that looks at the totality of circumstances. If the political process is not equally open to participation by minority voters, the practice is unlawful regardless of why it was adopted.1U.S. Department of Justice. Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Redistricting plans that dilute minority voting power, overly burdensome registration requirements, and polling place closures that disproportionately affect minority communities can all be challenged under Section 2.
The catch: Section 2 lawsuits happen after a law takes effect. A discriminatory rule can govern an entire election cycle before a court rules on it.
Why Preclearance No Longer Works
Section 5 of the Act created preclearance, a system that required certain jurisdictions to get federal approval before changing any voting law or procedure. A covered jurisdiction could not enforce a new rule until either the U.S. Attorney General approved it or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a favorable ruling, and the burden fell on the jurisdiction to prove the change would not make minority voters worse off.2U.S. Department of Justice. About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act Everything from moving a polling place to redrawing district lines to adopting a new voter ID requirement had to clear that review.
In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court held that the formula was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data (literacy test use and voter turnout figures from the 1960s and early 1970s) that no longer reflected current conditions.3Library of Congress. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) Section 5 still exists on paper, but without a valid coverage formula it has nothing to operate on. No jurisdiction is currently required to submit voting changes for federal review.
The practical shift is enormous. Before Shelby County, the federal government could block a discriminatory voting change before it ever took effect. Now, challengers must sue under Section 2, prove discrimination after the fact, and wait for a court ruling that can take years.
How Section 2 Cases Are Decided Now
Two Supreme Court decisions have reshaped Section 2 litigation, one narrowing the path and one leaving the redistricting framework intact.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)
In Brnovich, the Court laid out five factors courts should weigh when evaluating whether a voting rule violates Section 2:4Legal Information Institute. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
- The size of the burden the rule imposes. Small inconveniences are not enough, and courts should tolerate what the Court called the “usual burdens of voting.”
- Whether the rule departs from standards common in 1982, when Congress amended Section 2, or from practices in widespread use today.
- The size of any racial disparity in impact. Small disparities are less likely to indicate an unequal system.
- The state’s entire voting system. If multiple ways to vote exist, one restrictive option must be evaluated alongside the alternatives.
- The strength of the state’s interest, such as preventing fraud.
Together, these factors raised the bar for plaintiffs. A rule that makes voting somewhat harder for minority voters can survive if the burden is modest, the rule has historical precedent, the disparities are small, other voting options exist, and the state can articulate a legitimate reason.
Allen v. Milligan (2023)
Two years later, the Court pushed back the other way in a redistricting case. Allen v. Milligan reaffirmed the framework from Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) for evaluating whether a map illegally dilutes minority voting power. A plaintiff must show that the minority group is large and compact enough to form a majority in a reasonably drawn district, that it votes cohesively as a bloc, and that white voters vote as a bloc in a way that usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidates.5Legal Information Institute. Allen v. Milligan The Court rejected Alabama’s argument that plaintiffs should have to prove a map contains fewer minority-majority districts than a hypothetical race-neutral plan would produce, keeping the existing standard in place.
Who Can Bring a Section 2 Case
A less visible but potentially significant issue is who can file Section 2 lawsuits at all. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that only the U.S. Attorney General can bring Section 2 cases, meaning private individuals and civil rights organizations cannot sue on their own. Other federal circuits have long recognized a private right of action under Section 2. If the Supreme Court eventually adopts the Eighth Circuit’s view, enforcement would depend entirely on whether the sitting Attorney General chooses to pursue cases.
Court-Ordered Preclearance Under Section 3(c)
One provision has gained attention since Shelby County. Section 3(c), sometimes called the “bail-in” or “pocket trigger,” lets a federal court order a jurisdiction to preclear future voting changes for a set period after finding that it violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment’s voting protections.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10302 – Proceeding to Enforce the Right to Vote It is permanent and does not depend on the now-invalidated coverage formula.
The tool has been used sparingly. Between 1965 and 2013, courts ordered Section 3(c) preclearance in roughly 18 jurisdictions, and a handful of additional cases have been pursued since Shelby County. In 2022, a federal district court ordered Florida to preclear changes to laws governing voter registration organizations, ballot drop boxes, and certain polling place activities for ten years, though an appellate court stayed that order pending appeal. Section 3(c) requires winning a constitutional violation lawsuit first, which limits its reach.
Language Assistance Requirements
Section 203, added in 1975, requires certain jurisdictions to provide voting materials and assistance in languages other than English, including ballots, registration forms, and instructions. A jurisdiction is covered if more than five percent of its voting-age citizens belong to a single language minority group and have limited English proficiency, or if more than 10,000 such citizens live within a single political subdivision.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10503 – Bilingual Election Requirements The Census Bureau determines coverage based on American Community Survey data updated in five-year cycles.
Section 4(e) provides a separate, permanent protection for citizens educated in Puerto Rican schools where the primary language of instruction was Spanish. No jurisdiction can deny these citizens the right to register or vote based on an English-language requirement, even on the mainland, and this rule applies regardless of whether the jurisdiction meets the Section 203 coverage thresholds.8U.S. Department of Justice. Section 4 Of The Voting Rights Act
Local election officials must ensure translated materials are accurate enough for voters to participate effectively, and the mandate covers every stage of the election process from registration through casting a ballot. Section 203 is a temporary provision that requires periodic reauthorization; Sections 2 and 4(e) are permanent.
Voter Assistance for People With Disabilities
Section 208 guarantees that any voter who needs help casting a ballot because of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write can receive assistance from a person of their choosing.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10508 – Voting Assistance for Blind, Disabled or Illiterate Persons The only restriction is that the helper cannot be the voter’s employer, an agent of that employer, or an officer or agent of the voter’s union. This is a permanent provision that applies everywhere.
The right to choose an assistant is self-determined. A voter does not need to prove any particular level of disability, and the provision also protects voters with limited literacy who might otherwise struggle with complicated ballot language.
Voter Intimidation and Criminal Penalties
Section 11(b) makes it illegal to intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone for voting, attempting to vote, or helping others register and vote.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10307 – Prohibited Acts The protection covers voters, poll workers, volunteers, people running registration drives, and anyone providing language assistance at polling places. Courts have interpreted intimidation broadly to include physical threats, close surveillance of voters near polling places, and improper threats of criminal prosecution. The prohibition applies to private individuals and government officials alike.
Criminal penalties back these protections. Anyone who provides false information to establish eligibility to register or vote, who pays or accepts payment for registering or voting, or who votes more than once in a federal election faces up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10307 – Prohibited Acts Separate provisions target election officials and private individuals who knowingly intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone for registering to vote or exercising rights under the Act, with fines under Title 18, imprisonment of up to five years, or both.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 20511 – Criminal Penalties These penalties are permanent.
Which Provisions Are Permanent and Which Are Temporary
Not every part of the Act works the same way. Some provisions are permanent and need no renewal. Others are temporary and must be reauthorized by Congress.
Permanent provisions include Section 2 (the nationwide ban on discriminatory practices), Section 3(c) (the court-ordered bail-in remedy), Section 11 (the intimidation ban), the civil and criminal penalties in Sections 11 and 12, Section 208 (voter assistance), and the ban on literacy tests, which was originally temporary and made permanent in 1975.
Temporary provisions, last reauthorized in 2006 for 25 years, include Section 4(b) (the coverage formula, currently unenforceable), Section 5 (preclearance, inoperative without a valid coverage formula), Section 203 (bilingual voting materials), and the federal examiner and observer provisions tied to the coverage formula. The 2006 reauthorization extended these through 2031, but Sections 4(b) and 5 will remain dormant unless Congress passes a new coverage formula that satisfies the Supreme Court.
How to Report a Voting Rights Violation
If you experience or witness voter intimidation, discriminatory registration practices, or any other voting rights violation, you can file a complaint with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The DOJ provides an online reporting form at civilrights.justice.gov that walks through a seven-step process covering your contact information, what happened, where it happened, and when.12Civil Rights Division (Department of Justice). Report a Civil Rights Violation Reporting is voluntary and you can remain anonymous by leaving the contact section blank.
You can also report by phone at (202) 514-3847 or the toll-free number 1-855-856-1247, or by mailing a written complaint to the Civil Rights Division at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001. Filing a complaint does not guarantee enforcement action, but it puts the DOJ on notice and can contribute to broader investigations into patterns of discrimination.
Efforts to Restore Preclearance
Since Shelby County, Congress has repeatedly introduced legislation to create a new coverage formula. The most prominent effort is the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, reintroduced in the 119th Congress in early 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.13Congress.gov. H.R.14 – 119th Congress (2025-2026) – John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025 The bill would establish an updated formula based on recent voting rights violations rather than the decades-old data the Supreme Court found inadequate. Previous versions passed the House but stalled in the Senate. Until Congress acts, preclearance stays dormant, Section 2 remains the primary enforcement path, and Section 3(c) remains the only way to impose preclearance obligations on individual jurisdictions.