US-SOS.INFO

Effects of Gutting the Voting Rights Act

(ChatGPT)

Critics of the Court’s Voting Rights Act decisions point to recent redistricting and voting-rights litigation as evidence that the protections struck down or weakened by the Court were still needed. Federal courts and voting-rights advocates have continued to identify disputes involving racial gerrymandering, vote dilution, and barriers to minority political participation in a number of states. According to these critics, such developments demonstrate that the conditions Congress sought to address when it repeatedly reauthorized the Voting Rights Act had not disappeared.

From this perspective, the practical effect of weakening the Act was to weaken the Constitution’s ability to protect the voting rights guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment. The amendment itself remains part of the Constitution, but constitutional rights are only as effective as the mechanisms available to enforce them. Critics therefore argue that reducing Congress’s enforcement tools has made the Fifteenth Amendment substantially less effective in practice and has weakened one of the Constitution’s most important safeguards against racial discrimination in voting.

Primary Legal Sources

1. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

  • The Supreme Court invalidated the Section 4(b) coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance.
  • The majority argued that the formula relied on outdated data.
  • The dissent (Justice Ginsburg) argued that Congress had compiled extensive evidence showing continued discrimination and that removing preclearance was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Reference:

  • Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

2. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (2021)

  • Established standards that many voting-rights advocates argue make Section 2 claims more difficult to win.
  • Frequently cited by critics as further weakening the Voting Rights Act.

Reference:

  • Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (2021)

Evidence of Continuing Problems After Shelby

3. Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023)

  • The Supreme Court held that Alabama’s congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
  • Demonstrates that courts continue to find vote dilution affecting minority voters.

Reference:

  • Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023)

4. Louisiana Redistricting Litigation

Robinson v. Ardoin

  • Federal courts repeatedly found that Louisiana’s congressional map likely diluted Black voting strength.
  • Often cited as evidence that racial vote dilution remains a contemporary issue.

Reference:

  • Robinson v. Ardoin, various decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana and subsequent appeals.

Congressional Findings

5. Voting Rights Act Reauthorization of 2006

  • Congress reauthorized the Act for 25 years after compiling a legislative record of more than 15,000 pages.
  • The record documented continuing voting discrimination and included hundreds of objections and enforcement actions.

Reference:

  • Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-246.

Scholarly Sources

6. Richard Hasen

  • One of the nation’s leading election-law scholars.
  • Has argued that Shelby County substantially weakened federal voting-rights enforcement.

Reference:

  • Richard L. Hasen, Election Meltdown (2020).

7. Ellen Katz

Reference:

  • Ellen Katz et al., “Documenting Discrimination in Voting,” University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative.

Civil-Rights and Policy Analysis

8. Brennan Center for Justice

  • Tracks post-Shelby voting restrictions and litigation.
  • Frequently cited by courts, scholars, and journalists.

Reference:

  • Brennan Center for Justice, The Effects of Shelby County v. Holder and related reports.

Linking to the Fifteenth Amendment

For the specific claim that weakening the Voting Rights Act weakened enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment, the strongest support comes from:

  1. The text of the Fifteenth Amendment itself:
    • Section 1 guarantees voting rights regardless of race.
    • Section 2 grants Congress power to enforce that guarantee.
  2. Justice Ginsburg’s Shelby dissent:
    • Argues that Congress’s enforcement power should receive substantial deference because Congress is expressly empowered by the Amendment to enforce voting rights.
  3. The 2006 Congressional findings:
    • Congress concluded that discrimination remained sufficiently widespread to justify continued enforcement mechanisms.

A concise footnote could read:

Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 after compiling an extensive record of continuing voting discrimination. Critics of Shelby County v. Holder argue that invalidating the Act’s coverage formula weakened Congress’s ability to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee against racial discrimination in voting. See Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-246; Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023).

That footnote would be suitable for a printable article and relies primarily on Supreme Court opinions and congressional findings rather than advocacy organizations.

Back to How to Fix the Nation