SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
terri sewell
Voting Rights Act 'On Life Support' Amid Right-Wing Attacks
"It's time for Congress to restore its full protections by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Aug 06, 2025
As the Voting Rights Act turned 60 on Wednesday, advocates highlighted right-wing attacks on the landmark legislation and called on Congress to pass a long-stagnant bill aimed at restoring and strengthening one of the most important civil rights laws in U.S. history.
The VRA, signed into law in 1965 by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson amid a groundswell of civil rights activism, was meant to ensure that state and local governments could not "deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."
However, the law has been eroded in recent decades by Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country, including through racially rigged and other gerrymandered congressional maps, restrictions on voter registration, reduction in early voting options, and voter identification laws. These measures disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters, and some GOP officials have admitted that they are intended to give Republican candidates an electoral edge.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, which eviscerated a key section of the law that required jurisdictions with a history of racist disenfranchisement to obtain federal approval prior to altering voting rules. In 2021, the nation's high court voted 5-4 in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee to uphold Arizona's voting restrictions—even as Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that they disproportionately affect minorities.
"Instead of anniversary toasts, election law experts are preparing eulogies for the landmark legislation."
Now, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority is poised to "end voting rights as we know them," as Mother Jones reporter Pema Levy put it Tuesday. That's because the justices said last week that they would rehear a case that could result in them striking down Section 2 of the VRA, what University of California, Los Angeles legal scholar Richard L. Hasen calls "the last remaining pillar" of the law.
"Instead of anniversary toasts, election law experts are preparing eulogies for the landmark legislation, which conservative lawyers have attacked on multiple fronts in recent years, after the U.S. Supreme Court took square aim at the statute's constitutionality last week," Jim Saksa wrote Tuesday for Democracy Docket.
As Hasen explained:
Louisiana v. Callais, the case that was the subject of last Friday's order, is a voting case over the drawing of the state's six congressional districts. Louisiana has a one-third Black population, but after the 2020 census the state Legislature drew a districting plan, passed over a Democratic governor's veto, that created only one district in which Black voters would be likely to elect their candidate of choice.
Before Callais, Black voters had successfully sued Louisiana in a case called Robinson v. Ardoin, arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required drawing a second congressional district giving Black voters that opportunity. Section 2 says minority voters should have the same chance as other voters to elect their candidates of choice, and courts have long used it to require new districts when there is a large and cohesive minority population concentrated in a given area, when white and minority voters choose different candidates, and when the minority has difficulty electing its preferred representatives.
However, a group of non-Black voters argued in a lawsuit that the consideration of race in creating a second minority-majority district violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the 15th Amendment's ban on federal and state governments denying citizens the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
"To me, this is it," Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, a law professor at Indiana University Bloomington, told Democracy Docket. "I would bet my left arm that they will tell us that Section 2 is in violation of the 15th Amendment."
Civil rights defenders including numerous Democratic lawmakers urged Congress to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation first introduced in 2021 whose sponsors said will "update and restore critical safeguards of the original Voting Rights Act."
"Sixty years ago today, the Voting Rights Act became law thanks to the perseverance of civil rights activists. Today, our sacred right to vote remains under attack," Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), one of the bill's primary sponsors, said on social media Wednesday. "We must protect our democracy and honor those who risked everything by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act."
Although the bill passed the then-Democrat controlled House of Representatives in 2021, it failed to pass the Senate and a subsequent bid to advance the legislation failed the following year.
Calling for passage of the bill, Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.)—whose home state played a critical role in the civil rights struggle—said on the social media site Bluesky that the VRA "is on life support after being gutted by the Supreme Court and far-right judges."
The Voting Rights Act was signed into law exactly 60 years ago. But today, it is on life support after being gutted by the Supreme Court and far-right judges.It’s time for Congress to restore its full protections by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. 🗳️
[image or embed]
— Rep. Terri A. Sewell (@sewell.house.gov) August 6, 2025 at 6:35 AM
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said on Bluesky that "60 years ago today, the Voting Rights Act became law. Now, we have an administration conducting voter suppression in real time. In Texas, Republicans are trying to gut our democracy by redrawing maps to erase five Democratic seats—before a single vote is cast."
"The fight continues," Crockett added. "We owe it to those who marched, bled, and believed to keep pushing until every voice is heard and every vote counts."
The ACLU said: "Democracy can't wait. Congress must protect our voting rights at the federal level by passing the reintroduced John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act."
However, passing the bill will be next to impossible, given Republican control of both houses of Congress and President Donald Trump in the White House. That doesn't mean voting rights defenders should give up, Legal Defense Fund president and director-counsel Janai Nelson stressed Wednesday.
"If we are to continue the pursuit of the multiracial democracy that the VRA set in motion 60 years ago and if we are to honor our republican form of government founded on representation by the people, we must be unwavering in our commitment to fulfill the promise of Selma, refuse to cede any further ground, and mobilize in support of equal voting rights and fair elections," Nelson said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Victory for Voting Rights,' Federal Judges Adopt New Alabama Congressional Map
"Today's order means for the first time, Black voters in two congressional districts will have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice," said the head of the state's ACLU branch.
Oct 05, 2023
Following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and Alabama Republicans' open defiance of a federal tribunal's order to reconfigure the state's racially gerrymandered congressional districts, a three-judge panel on Thursday adopted a new map that will be used in the 2024 elections.
Proponents hailed the ruling by U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, District Judge Anna Manasco, and District Judge Terry Moore as a win for democracy. The move creates a second "opportunity district" where voters will have a fighting chance to elect a second Black member of Congress for the first time since Reconstruction.
"Today's order means for the first time, Black voters in two congressional districts will have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice," JaTaune Bosby Gilchrist, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama—which represented plaintiffs in the case—said in a statement.
"It is unfortunate that federal courts were forced to put in place a congressional map that state lawmakers refused to admit is the right thing to do, but we are thankful for their intervention," she added. "Our democracy is strongest when we make it possible for every vote to be counted. Putting in place fair voting maps moves us closer to that reality."
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.)
said: "While we celebrate this historic victory, the continued resistance that we face from state officials should not be lost on anyone. This long and arduous battle over Alabama's congressional map serves as a solemn reminder that efforts to deny fair representation to Black and minority voters are still alive and well."
Alabama state Sen. Merika Coleman (D-19) said that "today, we celebrate a victory for voting rights for all Alabamians."
"For two years, we have fought vigorously to end racial gerrymandering in Alabama and we are pleased with this landmark decision," she added. "Not only will this positively affect Alabama, but it will also help remedy the racial gerrymandering that is occurring throughout our nation. Fair maps ensure that no matter what your race, ethnicity, or political leaning, your vote counts."
While the new map does not include a second majority-Black district, it does create one in which 48.7% of voting-age residents are Black. The special master tasked with creating three map options asserted that the candidate preferred by a majority of Black voters has won 16 of the prior 17 elections in the district.
In 2022, a federal district court ordered Alabama's Republican-controlled legislature to draw a new congressional map after one approved by lawmakers and GOP Gov. Kay Ivey was found to dilute Black voting power because it contained just one majority African-American district. The court—which ruled that the GOP map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment—ordered the state to create two Black "opportunity districts."
The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June ruled 5-4 in Allen v. Milligan—with right-wing Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh joining their three liberal colleagues in the majority—to affirm the district court's ruling.
Following Allen v. Milligan, Ivey held a special legislative session to create a new map, which she approved in July, declaring that state lawmakers know "our people and our districts better than the federal courts or activist groups."
Despite the courts' rulings, Alabama Republicans' new map—the Livingston Congressional Plan 3—still did not contain a second majority Black district. The map's sponsor, state Sen. Steve Livingston (R-8), said then-U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told him that he was "interested in keeping my majority."
A federal tribunal consisting of two appointees of former President Donald Trump and one appointee of former President Ronald Reagan then blocked the new map, declaring that "we are deeply troubled that the state enacted a map that the state readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires."
Alabama then requested—and was denied—another Supreme Court intervention. A special master tasked by the district court subsequently submitted three new possible maps, or remedial plans, for consideration. Marcus, Manasco, and Moore selected Remedial Plan 3.
Similar challenges to GOP-draw, racially rigged congressional maps are playing out in
Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alabama Voters Prep for Another Map Fight After Republicans Flout SCOTUS Ruling
A group of plaintiffs pledged not to rest until the state "complies with the Voting Rights Act and enacts a map with two districts where Black voters have a real opportunity to elect their candidates of choice."
Jul 23, 2023
Voters in Alabama are preparing for another legal battle after the state's GOP-dominated Legislature and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey on Friday approved new congressional districts that critics say defy a surprising recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The latest map "is really a slap in the face, not only to Black Alabamians but to the Supreme Court," state Rep. Barbara Drummond (D-103) asserted during a floor debate this week, according to ABC News.
Legal experts and voting rights advocates were shocked last month when two right-wing members of the high court joined the three liberal justices for a ruling in Allen v. Milligan that sided with Black voters who argued that Alabama's map was racially gerrymandered by the state's GOP legislators in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA).
"Following the U.S. Supreme Court order, I called the Alabama Legislature into a special session to readdress our congressional map," Ivey said Friday. "The Legislature knows our state, our people, and our districts better than the federal courts or activist groups, and I am pleased that they answered the call, remained focused, and produced new districts ahead of the court deadline."
Meanwhile, Scott Douglas, executive director at Greater Birmingham Ministries, one of the Allen plaintiffs, declared Friday that "Alabama lawmakers appear hell-bent on preventing Black voters from fully participating in the democratic process and they are blatantly ignoring their constituents, federal law, and the highest court of the land to disenfranchise us."
"Alabama lawmakers appear hell-bent on preventing Black voters from fully participating in the democratic process."
The plaintiffs from Allen—represented by the Alabama and national ACLU, the Legal Defense Fund, and two law firms—have already pledged to challenge the updated map, which was sponsored by state Sen. Steve Livingston (R-8) and does not include a second majority-Black district.
"Let's be clear: The Alabama Legislature believes it is above the law. What we are dealing with is a group of lawmakers who are blatantly disregarding not just the Voting Rights Act, but a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court and a court order from the three-judge district court," the plaintiffs said Friday in a joint statement.
"Even worse, they continue to ignore constituents' pleas to ensure the map is fair and instead remain determined to rob Black voters of the representation we deserve. We won't let that happen," they added. "Since the beginning of the redistricting process, we have testified before the state Legislature, sent letters, and proposed maps—then we sued to defend Black representation and won. We will not rest until the state of Alabama complies with the Voting Rights Act and enacts a map with two districts where Black voters have a real opportunity to elect their candidates of choice and the Legislature fulfills its duty to obey the law."
A federal court hearing about the new districts is set for August 14. As The Associated Press reported Saturday:
The state's Republican legislative supermajority boosted the percentage of Black voters in the majority-white 2nd Congressional District, now represented by Republican Rep. Barry Moore, from about 31% to almost 40%. The plan also dropped the Black voting-age population in the state's sole majority Black district, now represented by Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell, to 50.65%.
[...]
Republicans, who have been reluctant to create a Democratic-leaning district, are gambling that the court will accept their proposal or that the state will prevail in a second round of appeals.
The office of Republican Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall claimed that "the Legislature's new plan fully and fairly applies traditional principles in a way that complies with the Voting Rights Act."
"Contrary to mainstream media talking points, the Supreme Court did not hold that Alabama must draw two majority-minority districts," the office added. "Instead, the court made clear that the VRA never requires adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles."
However, Sewell said in a statement that "the Supreme Court was very clear... This map does not comply with the Supreme Court's order and is an insult to Black voters across our state. I fully expect that it will be rejected by the courts."
If a three-judge panel finds that the Alabama districts approved Friday violate the VRA, it can appoint a special master to draw another map. Political boundaries for the 2024 election could help determine who has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, which is now narrowly controlled by the fractured Republican Party.
Citing GOP attacks on voting rights, Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate on Tuesday reintroduced the Freedom to Vote Act—a move that was widely praised by democracy defenders, even though the bill is unlikely to pass this session given current divisions in Congress.
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Years After Supreme Court Gutted Voting Rights, Advocates Say Congress Must Reverse Damage
At least 29 of the voter suppression laws passed since the Shelby v. Holder County decision would have been subject to the preclearance provision that the ruling ended.
Jun 25, 2023
Since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder exactly 10 years ago Sunday, at least 29 states have enacted nearly 100 restrictive laws including many that are racially discriminatory, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.
The nonpartisan law and policy think tank said Friday that at least one-third of the voting restrictions—29 of them—passed in the last decade were enacted in 11 states which would have been subject to preclearance, the anti-discrimination rule that provided crucial protections as part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) before Shelby was decided.
Under preclearance, jurisdictions that had histories of barring people from voting based on their race were required to get federal approval before introducing new voting policies.
"Without this guardrail, voters lost a bulwark against discriminatory voting policies, and states previously subject to preclearance were free to implement discriminatory restrictions on voting access without advance checks," wrote Jasleen Singh and Sara Carter at the Brennan Center. "Many states did exactly that. Along with a prior decision narrowly interpreting constitutional protections for voting rights, Shelby County also sent a message to the nation that the federal courts would no longer play their historic role as a robust protector of voting rights."
"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County. Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."
Texas wasted no time in announcing that a strict voter ID law, previously blocked by preclearance, would go into effect the same day that Shelby was handed down. Similar restrictions, which have been found to have a disproportionate effect on low-income voters and people of color, followed in at least nine states including Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina.
Since 2020—when the coronavirus pandemic upended voting and Republicans spread baseless lies about so-called "voter fraud" after former President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection—GOP state legislators have largely turned their focus to restricting measures that offer flexibility to voters, such as mail-in ballots, said the Brennan Center.
"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County," wrote Singh and Carter. "Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."
"For example," they added, "the Brennan Center studied a 2021 Texas law requiring a voter to include their driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number on mail ballot applications and mail ballots and requiring the number to match the individual’s voter file data. During Texas's March 2022 primary, thousands of mail ballots and mail ballot applications were rejected, disproportionately cast by Latino, Asian, and Black voters."
A number of state legislatures have also taken advantage of the Shelby ruling as they have drawn new district maps.
Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and a senior fellow at the Ford Foundation, said Sunday that she knew in 2013 that the Shelby ruling was "catastrophic," but did not predict that the Republican Party would "turn voter suppression into part of its national policy."
Before 2013, said Democracy Docket, which offers analysis and expert commentary on voting rights, the U.S. Department of Justice had blocked more than 3,000 proposed voter suppression laws under the VRA.
The Brennan Center pointed out that within its ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court stated that Congress could pass a new
"coverage formula" to determine which jurisdictions would be covered by a preclearance provision.
"And it should," wrote Singh and Carter, "by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act to its full strength, as well as the Freedom to Vote Act to set nondiscriminatory baseline national standards for voting and elections."
In an op-ed at Newsweek on Sunday, U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) wrote that another voting rights-related ruling by the Supreme Court earlier this month, Allen v. Milligan, was "energizing" as the high court affirmed that Alabama had racially gerrymandered its electoral map.
However, she said, "we cannot rely on this Supreme Court, or the courts generally, to consistently protect our freedom to vote. We must, together, act."
In addition to passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, she wrote, "we must also engage in robust voter education and outreach efforts, empowering communities with knowledge and resources to help overcome anti-voting barriers."
While Ifill said she did not predict the extent to which the GOP would go to stop marginalized communities from voting, she "also did not predict the extraordinary determination of voters, who, even at the height of a deadly global pandemic refused to be bowed," she said. "That they would stand in line and risk their very lives to vote, despite efforts of Republicans and the indifference of the Supreme Court.
"The Shelby decision was catastrophic, yes," she added. "But we didn't give in and we won't give in. We will find a way to overcome every obstacle to our right to participate as first class citizens in American political life. We will vote and organize and litigate, and legislate until we win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy