The Voting Rights Act is a 1965 federal law that bans racial discrimination in every part of the voting process in the United States, and yes, it is still in effect — but the version enforced by courts today is a shadow of what Congress wrote. The statute signed by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965 remains on the books and still prohibits literacy tests, protects language-minority voters, guarantees assistance for voters who need it, and forbids intimidation at the polls. What has changed is enforcement. A series of Supreme Court decisions between 2013 and 2026 have dismantled the law’s most powerful mechanism and narrowed the reach of its permanent nationwide ban.
What the Law Prohibits
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, declared that the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”1Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fifteenth Amendment For nearly a century, Southern states got around that promise through literacy tests, poll taxes, voucher requirements, “good moral character” assessments, and outright intimidation. A white applicant might be asked to sign his name; a Black applicant was told to interpret an obscure clause of the state constitution on the spot.
The murder of voting-rights workers in Mississippi and the violent attack on peaceful marchers in Selma, Alabama, in early 1965 forced Congress to act.2National Archives. Voting Rights Act (1965) The law that followed did four things at once: it eliminated the registration barriers that had kept Black voters off the rolls, created a system to block discriminatory election changes before they took effect, established a permanent nationwide right to sue over discriminatory voting practices, and set criminal penalties for interfering with voters.
The registration barriers went first. Literacy tests were banned outright. So were requirements that applicants demonstrate “good moral character” or obtain a voucher from an already-registered voter.2National Archives. Voting Rights Act (1965) What remained were objective qualifications: age, citizenship, and residency. In states where Black registration had been kept in the single digits, tens of thousands of new voters were enrolled within a year.
Section 2: The Permanent Nationwide Ban
Section 2, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301, is the broadest tool in the law. It bans any voting practice anywhere in the country that results in denying or weakening a citizen’s right to vote because of race, color, or membership in a language-minority group.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10301 – Denial or Abridgement of Right to Vote on Account of Race or Color Unlike many discrimination claims, Section 2 does not require proof that officials intended to discriminate. A challenger can prevail by showing that, under the totality of circumstances, the political process is not equally open to members of a protected group.
The Department of Justice can file Section 2 suits, and historically, private individuals and civil rights organizations have filed them as well.4Department of Justice. Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Section 2 is used most often to challenge redistricting plans that dilute minority voting strength, either by splitting cohesive communities across multiple districts (“cracking”) or overconcentrating them in a single district (“packing”). The test for those challenges, established in Thornburg v. Gingles in 1986, asks whether the minority group is large and compact enough to form a majority in a single district, whether it votes cohesively, and whether the white majority votes as a bloc that usually defeats the minority group’s preferred candidate.5Justia. Thornburg v. Gingles
Language Assistance
Amendments in 1975 extended protection to language-minority voters. Under Section 203, covered jurisdictions must provide all election materials — ballots, registration forms, polling-place instructions, voter information pamphlets, and public notices — in the applicable minority language as well as English.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10303 – Suspension of the Use of Tests or Devices A jurisdiction is covered when its limited-English-proficient voting-age citizens from a single language group exceed either 10,000 people or 5% of all voting-age citizens, and the group’s illiteracy rate is higher than the national average.7Department of Justice. About Language Minority Voting Rights The Census Bureau determines and publishes the list of covered jurisdictions.8United States Census Bureau. Section 203 Language Determinations
Help at the Polling Place
Section 208 guarantees that any voter who needs help because of blindness, a disability, or an inability to read or write can bring someone of their choosing into the voting booth to assist them.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10508 – Voting Assistance for Blind, Disabled or Illiterate Persons The only people excluded from serving as an assistant are the voter’s employer, an agent of that employer, or an officer or agent of the voter’s union. The right covers the entire voting process, from registering to casting a ballot. A polling place that refuses to let a disabled voter bring a family member or friend as an assistant is violating federal law.
Intimidation and Criminal Penalties
Section 11(b) makes it illegal to intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone for voting, attempting to vote, or encouraging others to vote.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10307 – Prohibited Acts The prohibition applies to both government officials and private citizens, and the person doing the intimidating does not need to intend to intimidate. The law looks at whether the behavior has the effect of intimidating voters. Aggressive poll-watching, following voters to their cars, photographing people entering polling places, and threatening criminal prosecution against eligible voters can all violate this provision.
The VRA also carries criminal penalties for other election offenses. Giving false information to register or vote, falsifying documents submitted to federal election examiners, or voting more than once in a federal election can result in a fine of up to $10,000, up to five years in prison, or both.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10307 – Prohibited Acts
The Preclearance System Is No Longer Working
The VRA’s most aggressive enforcement mechanism was Section 5’s preclearance requirement. Jurisdictions with a documented history of discrimination could not change anything about their voting rules — moving a polling place, redrawing a district line, changing early-voting hours — without first proving to either the U.S. Attorney General or the D.C. federal district court that the change would not discriminate.11Department of Justice. About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act The burden was on the jurisdiction, not the voters. Discriminatory changes were blocked before they reached a single election. At its peak, the coverage formula in Section 4(b) reached all or parts of 16 states, mostly in the South.
In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the system. In Shelby County v. Holder, a 5–4 majority struck down the Section 4(b) coverage formula as unconstitutional, ruling that it was based on decades-old data that no longer reflected current conditions.12Justia. Shelby County v. Holder The Court did not strike down Section 5 itself, but without a valid formula identifying which jurisdictions need preclearance, Section 5 has no practical effect. Congress could pass a new formula. It has not.
The immediate result was a wave of voting-law changes in previously covered states. Within hours of the ruling, some jurisdictions announced new voter-ID requirements and redistricting plans that had been blocked or would have required review. Enforcement of the VRA shifted almost entirely to after-the-fact litigation under Section 2, a slower and more expensive process than blocking bad laws before they take effect.
Section 2 Has Been Narrowed Twice
Two more Supreme Court decisions have made Section 2 harder to use.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) made challenges to voting rules harder to win. The Court upheld two Arizona restrictions and laid out a set of factors for evaluating whether a voting rule violates Section 2, including how much of a burden the rule imposes, whether it departs from standard election practices as they existed in 1982, and the strength of the state’s justification for the rule.13Justia. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee The decision signaled that ordinary time, place, and manner regulations would receive considerable deference from the courts.
Louisiana v. Callais, decided in April 2026, delivered the most significant blow yet. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court made it substantially more difficult to challenge racially discriminatory redistricting maps under Section 2. Going forward, states can defend against racial gerrymandering claims by arguing their map-drawing was motivated by partisanship rather than race, even where race and party affiliation overlap so heavily that disentangling them is practically impossible. Many voting-rights litigators believe the new evidentiary bar will make most Section 2 redistricting challenges unwinnable.
A separate open question is who can even bring a Section 2 case. In 2023, the Eighth Circuit ruled that only the federal government can, stripping private enforcement from seven states in the middle of the country. The Supreme Court temporarily stayed that ruling while considering whether to take the case, but as of 2026, the question remains unresolved.
What This Means for Voters in 2026
The statute still exists, and its text has not changed. Literacy tests are still banned. Language assistance is still required in covered jurisdictions. Section 208 still guarantees your right to bring someone into the booth to help you. Section 11(b) still forbids intimidation at the polls. If you encounter any of these violations, you can report them to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division or to a state election official.
What has changed is the machinery for stopping discrimination before it happens and for challenging discriminatory maps and rules after the fact. Preclearance is dormant. Section 2 litigation is slower, narrower, and more uncertain than it was a decade ago. The law on the books and the law as courts enforce it are increasingly different things.