A new coverage formula would be the new legal test for deciding which states, counties, cities, or other jurisdictions must get federal approval before changing voting rules.

That approval process is called preclearance. Before Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, certain jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination had to submit voting changes to the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before using them. The Supreme Court struck down the old coverage formula, but said Congress could reactivate preclearance by creating a formula based on current conditions.  

What the old formula did

The old formula covered states and localities mainly because of their history of voting discrimination in the 1960s and early 1970s. It looked at things such as whether a jurisdiction had used tests or devices, like literacy tests, and whether voter registration or turnout had been low.

That formula made sense in 1965, but the Supreme Court said in Shelby County that Congress could not keep using old data indefinitely. The Court’s objection was not exactly to preclearance itself; it was to the outdated coverage formula.  

What a new formula would likely include

A modern formula would probably cover jurisdictions based on recent voting-rights violations, not just old Jim Crow history.

For example, versions of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act have proposed covering:

These violations could include court findings of racial discrimination in voting, violations of the Voting Rights Act, or denied/withdrawn preclearance-type changes under the bill’s procedures. The goal is to base coverage on a recent, documented record.  

What preclearance would require

If a jurisdiction were covered, it could not simply change voting rules and use them immediately. It would first have to show that the change does not discriminate against voters because of race, color, or membership in a language-minority group.

That could apply to changes such as:

The key idea is prevention. Without preclearance, a discriminatory rule may go into effect, influence an election, and only later be challenged in court. With preclearance, the rule is blocked unless the jurisdiction can show it is not discriminatory.

It might also include “practice-based preclearance”

Some proposals would not cover only particular states or counties. They would also require preclearance for certain high-risk voting changes wherever they occur.

For example, if a jurisdiction with a racially diverse population tried to close many polling places, reduce language assistance, or make a major redistricting change, that specific change might require federal review even if the jurisdiction is not generally covered.

This is important because discrimination can appear in places that were not covered under the old Southern-focused formula.

Why this might survive Supreme Court review

A stronger new formula would try to answer the Court’s complaint in Shelby County by being:

1. Current — based on recent violations, not just 1960s data.
2. Nationwide — able to cover any state or locality, not just the old South.
3. Evidence-based — tied to documented court findings or official violations.
4. Flexible — allowing jurisdictions to come under coverage or leave coverage depending on their recent record.
5. Targeted — focused on places and practices with demonstrated risk of discrimination.

In plain language:

A new coverage formula would be a modern trigger for federal oversight. If a state or local government has a recent record of racially discriminatory voting practices, it would have to prove that future voting changes are fair before putting them into effect.

That is the heart of restoring the Voting Rights Act.

Back to The Voting Rights Act