What the Voting Rights Act Eliminated: Literacy Tests and Poll Taxes

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 eliminated literacy tests, poll taxes in state and local elections, and the power of certain jurisdictions to change their voting rules without federal approval. It also created a permanent, nationwide ban on any voting practice that denies or limits the right to vote based on race, and later amendments ended English-only election materials in areas with large non-English-speaking populations. Congress passed the law because the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee against racial discrimination in voting had gone largely unenforced for nearly a century, and lawsuits against individual counties could not keep pace with new discriminatory tactics.¹

Literacy Tests and Qualification Devices

Before the Act, many jurisdictions required prospective voters to pass a reading or comprehension test before they could register. Local registrars had complete discretion over who passed and who failed. A white applicant might be asked to read a single sentence, while a Black applicant was handed an obscure constitutional provision and told to explain its legal significance on the spot. The “correct” answer was whatever the registrar decided it was.²

The Act’s coverage formula, now codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10303, identified the worst offenders using two criteria: the jurisdiction had maintained a test or device as of November 1, 1964, and fewer than half of its voting-age residents were either registered or had actually voted in that year’s presidential election.³ Any jurisdiction that tripped both prongs immediately lost the right to administer these exams. Six Southern states and dozens of additional counties fell under the formula when it first took effect.²

Congress did not stop at the coverage formula. It expanded the ban on literacy tests nationwide in 1970 and made that nationwide ban permanent in 1975. No state or county anywhere in the country can require a voter to pass a knowledge test to register or cast a ballot. To make the ban stick where it had been ignored before, the Act also authorized the Attorney General to send federal examiners directly into covered jurisdictions to register qualified voters, bypassing local officials entirely.¹

Poll Taxes in State and Local Elections

The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, had already banned poll taxes in federal elections for president and Congress. It left state and local contests untouched, and that loophole mattered. Several states continued charging fees for municipal and county elections, knowing that a voter who could not afford the tax would stay home for every race on the ballot, not just the federal ones.

Section 10 of the Act, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10306, closed that gap. Congress declared that requiring a poll tax as a condition of voting served no legitimate government interest, imposed unreasonable financial hardship on people with limited means, and in some places existed specifically to prevent Black citizens from voting. The statute directed the Attorney General to file lawsuits immediately against any jurisdiction still enforcing these fees.⁴

The following year, the Supreme Court finished the job. In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the Court ruled that conditioning the right to vote on payment of any fee violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wealth, the Court held, has no relationship to voting qualifications, and the right to vote is too fundamental to be burdened by a price tag.⁵ Between the Voting Rights Act and Harper, poll taxes were dead at every level of government.

Racially Discriminatory Voting Practices Everywhere

Literacy tests and poll taxes were the most visible barriers, but they were far from the only ones. Jurisdictions had a deep playbook: moving polling places without notice, redrawing district lines to split minority communities, switching from district elections to at-large systems that diluted minority voting power, and imposing registration deadlines designed to catch people off guard. Section 2 of the Act addressed all of these and anything else a jurisdiction might invent.

Section 2, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301, is the broadest and most permanent provision in the law. It prohibits any voting requirement or procedure, anywhere in the country, that results in denying or limiting the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group.⁶ It has no expiration date and applies to every state and county, not just those identified by the coverage formula.

When Congress amended Section 2 in 1982, it added a “results test” so that plaintiffs no longer had to prove a jurisdiction intended to discriminate. It is enough to show that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the political process is not equally open to minority voters and they have less opportunity to participate and elect candidates of their choice.⁶ Courts weigh factors including the history of discrimination in the jurisdiction, racially polarized voting patterns, and whether minority candidates have been able to win elections.⁷

Unilateral Changes to Voting Rules in Covered Jurisdictions

Congress recognized that banning existing discriminatory practices was not enough. A jurisdiction could comply with a court order on Monday and pass an equally discriminatory replacement rule on Tuesday. Section 5, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10304, broke that cycle by requiring covered jurisdictions to get federal approval before implementing any change to their voting rules.⁸

Preclearance covered everything: moving a polling location, changing district boundaries, switching from elected to appointed positions, altering registration deadlines, or any other change affecting how people vote. A jurisdiction could either sue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaration that the change was not discriminatory, or submit the change to the Attorney General, who had 60 days to object. If DOJ objected, the change could not take effect.⁹ The burden of proof sat on the jurisdiction seeking the change, not on the voters who would be affected. That reversal of the usual burden was what made preclearance work.

Section 5 is still on the books, but it has been effectively dormant since 2013. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b)’s coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was built on voting data from the 1960s and 1970s and no longer reflected current conditions in the covered states.¹⁰ Without a coverage formula, there is no mechanism to determine which jurisdictions must seek preclearance, and previously covered jurisdictions no longer need federal approval before changing their voting rules.⁹ Congress could revive preclearance by enacting a new formula, but it has not done so. A separate provision, Section 3(c), still lets a federal court impose preclearance-like requirements on a jurisdiction found to have violated voting rights.

English-Only Election Materials

The 1965 Act focused primarily on race-based discrimination. In 1975, Congress recognized that language barriers were shutting out millions of eligible citizens and added Section 203, now codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10503. This provision prohibits covered jurisdictions from providing ballots, registration forms, and other election materials exclusively in English.¹¹

A jurisdiction falls under this requirement when more than five percent of its voting-age citizens belong to a single language-minority group and have limited English proficiency. The Census Bureau updates the determinations every five years.¹² The groups specifically covered are Spanish-speaking, Asian American, Native American, and Alaska Native communities. Covered jurisdictions must provide all election materials in the relevant minority language alongside English. Where the minority language is traditionally oral or unwritten, the jurisdiction must provide oral assistance and instructions instead of printed translations.¹¹ The bilingual requirements are currently set to remain in effect through August 2032.

Voter Intimidation and Interference

The Act did not just remove barriers. It also made it a federal crime to interfere with someone’s right to vote. Under 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b), no one may intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting, attempting to vote, or encouraging others to vote. The prohibition applies whether the person acting is a government official or a private citizen.¹³

The Act’s criminal sanctions provision, 52 U.S.C. § 10308, backs up these prohibitions with real consequences. Anyone who deprives or attempts to deprive a person of rights protected under the Act faces up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $5,000. The same penalties reach anyone who conspires with others to interfere with those rights or who tampers with ballots or voting records in a jurisdiction where federal observers have been assigned.¹⁴ Beyond criminal prosecution, the Attorney General can bring civil actions seeking injunctions to stop ongoing violations, and federal courts can appoint observers to monitor elections in jurisdictions where problems have been documented.¹⁵ These enforcement tools remain fully operational and were not affected by Shelby County.

1
National Archives. Voting Rights Act (1965)
2
Department of Justice. Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10303 – Suspension of the Use of Tests or Devices in Determining Eligibility to Vote
4
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10306 – Poll Taxes
5
Justia Law. Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10301 – Denial or Abridgement of Right to Vote on Account of Race or Color
7
Department of Justice. Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10304 – Alteration of Voting Qualifications and Procedures
9
Department of Justice. About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act
10
Justia Law. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)
11
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10503 – Bilingual Election Requirements
12
United States Census Bureau. Section 203 Language Determinations
13
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10307 – Prohibited Acts
14
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10308 – Civil and Criminal Sanctions
15
Department of Justice. Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section