SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"It's time for Congress to restore its full protections by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act," said one Democratic lawmaker.
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."
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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.