What the Voting Rights Act Outlawed: Poll Taxes and Vote Dilution

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed the main tools that state and local governments had used to keep Black Americans and other minorities from the ballot box. What the Voting Rights Act outlawed falls into a few clear categories: literacy tests and similar registration screens, poll taxes in state and local elections, intimidation and coercion of voters, and any voting rule or practice that denies or limits the right to vote on account of race or color. The law also required certain jurisdictions to get federal approval before changing any voting rule, though that piece has been largely disabled by the Supreme Court. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law on August 6, 1965.¹

Literacy Tests and Other Registration Screens

The Act’s most immediate target was the set of screening devices registrars used to decide who could sign up to vote. It banned four categories of “tests or devices”: requiring an applicant to read, write, or interpret any material; requiring proof of educational achievement; requiring proof of “good moral character”; and requiring an already-registered voter to vouch for a new applicant.²

Literacy tests were the most notorious. Registrars would hand applicants passages of state constitutions or other legal text and demand written interpretations, then judge the answers themselves. In practice, white applicants passed and Black applicants with equal or better answers did not. Educational prerequisites, such as demanding a diploma or a particular grade level, sounded neutral but screened out huge numbers of Black citizens who had been denied adequate schooling by the same governments now demanding credentials. The voucher requirement was a closed loop: an applicant needed a registered voter to attest to their character, but in communities where almost no Black residents were registered, almost no one could get a voucher.

The Act suspended these devices in jurisdictions identified by a coverage formula tied to low registration and turnout, and it authorized federal observers to watch registration in those areas.³ Later amendments extended the ban on tests and devices to the entire country.

Poll Taxes in State and Local Elections

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964, had already barred poll taxes in federal elections. Several states kept charging fees to vote in state and local races. The Voting Rights Act declared that conditioning the vote on payment of any fee was unconstitutional and directed the Attorney General to sue jurisdictions that still required payment, seeking court orders under the Fourteenth Amendment.⁴ Putting enforcement in federal hands mattered; a bare declaration would have invited the slow, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction resistance that had blunted earlier civil rights laws.

Intimidation, Coercion, and Election Fraud

The Act made it a federal offense to intimidate, threaten, or coerce anyone for voting, attempting to vote, or helping another person register or vote. The prohibition reaches both government officials and private citizens, and no proof of intent to intimidate is needed as long as the conduct has that effect.⁵

The same section separately criminalized election fraud, including giving false registration information, paying people to register or vote, and voting more than once. A separate provision punishes anyone who deprives a person of rights secured by the Act.⁶ Federal jurisdiction over these crimes meant prosecution did not depend on the willingness of local authorities who might be complicit.

Discriminatory Voting Practices and Vote Dilution

Section 2 of the Act created a broad, permanent, nationwide ban on any voting practice that results in denying or limiting the right to vote based on race or color. It applies to every state and local government.⁷

The critical feature is the “results test.” A plaintiff does not have to prove that officials intended to discriminate. If the political process is not equally open to a protected group, and its members have less opportunity to participate and elect candidates of their choice based on the totality of circumstances, the practice violates the Act.⁷ That matters, because proving what was in a legislator’s mind is nearly impossible.

Section 2 also reaches vote dilution through redistricting. Splitting minority voters across many districts or packing them into a few can violate the Act even when no one is physically kept from voting. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Section 2’s application to single-member redistricting plans in Allen v. Milligan in 2023.⁸

Voting Changes Without Federal Approval

One of the Act’s most innovative provisions was “preclearance.” Rather than making individual voters sue after a discriminatory rule took effect, preclearance required certain jurisdictions to prove in advance that any proposed change to their voting rules would not discriminate. Covered areas had to submit each change to the Department of Justice or get a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing it. Moving a polling place, changing registration deadlines, redrawing districts, altering early voting hours — all required approval, and if the Attorney General objected within 60 days, the change could not take effect.⁹ A separate formula identified which jurisdictions had to comply, based on their history of discriminatory tests and their registration and turnout data.²

In 2013, the Supreme Court held in Shelby County v. Holder that the coverage formula was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data that no longer reflected current conditions. The Court said the formula “can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”¹⁰ The preclearance requirement itself was not struck down, but without a coverage formula it has no practical effect. Congress has not passed a new one. Formerly covered jurisdictions can now change voting rules without federal preapproval, and challenges have to come after the fact, usually under Section 2. The decision also ended the authority to send federal observers to jurisdictions under the old formula.¹¹

English-Only Election Materials

The original 1965 law focused on racial discrimination. In 1975, Congress extended protections to language minorities, defined as American Indian, Asian American, Alaska Native, and Spanish-heritage populations. Under Section 203, covered jurisdictions cannot provide election materials only in English. Ballots, registration forms, voting instructions, and other election documents must be available in the relevant minority language as well. Where a language is primarily oral or historically unwritten, the jurisdiction must provide oral assistance instead.¹²

A jurisdiction is covered if the Census Bureau determines that more than 5 percent of its voting-age citizens belong to a single language minority and are limited-English proficient, or if more than 10,000 voting-age citizens meet that description. A separate 5 percent threshold applies within areas that include part of an Indian reservation. In every case, the group’s illiteracy rate must also exceed the national average.¹³ These requirements remain in effect through August 2032.¹²

Who Can Still Enforce These Bans

With preclearance functionally gone, Section 2 lawsuits are now the main tool for challenging discriminatory voting practices, and the question of who may bring them is unsettled. Federal courts have historically recognized that individual voters and civil rights organizations can file Section 2 suits without waiting for the Justice Department. The Eighth Circuit has ruled otherwise, holding that only the Justice Department can bring Section 2 claims.¹⁴ The Supreme Court has not resolved the split. If the Eighth Circuit’s view spreads, enforcement of what the Act outlaws will depend heavily on the priorities of whichever administration holds power.

1
National Archives. Voting Rights Act (1965)
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10303 – Suspension of the Use of Tests or Devices in Determining Eligibility to Vote
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10305 – Use of Observers
4
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 US Code 10306 – Poll Taxes
5
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10307 – Prohibited Acts
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10308 – Civil and Criminal Sanctions
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10301 – Denial or Abridgement of Right to Vote on Account of Race or Color
8
Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v Milligan, 599 US 1 (2023)
9
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10304 – Alteration of Voting Qualifications
10
Library of Congress. Shelby County v Holder, 570 US 529 (2013)
11
Department of Justice. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
12
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10503 – Bilingual Election Requirements
13
Department of Justice. About Language Minority Voting Rights
14
Congress.gov. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 at 60 Years – Key Supreme Court Decisions Shaping the Law Today