With federal courts gradually weakening the Voting Rights Act, several states are working to restore protections for minority voters through their own versions of the landmark law established during the Civil Rights Movement.
Democratic lawmakers in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey are introducing legislation aimed at reinstating these safeguards, following in the footsteps of seven other states that have enacted similar laws in recent years.
However, passing these bills remains a challenge, even in traditionally Democratic states. For example, Michigan’s Voting Rights Act failed in the state House after clearing the Senate last year. Other Democratic-led states also face legal obstacles that could prevent such measures from becoming law. Meanwhile, New York and Washington state have successfully defended their voting rights acts against legal challenges over the past two years.
The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a pivotal law, enacted during a time of widespread racial discrimination in voting. Black Americans and their allies fought tirelessly—often facing violence—to secure their right to vote and end the injustices of Jim Crow laws. For decades, the act has been used to prevent policies and redistricting efforts that suppress or dilute minority voting power.
In recent years, federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have weakened these protections, arguing that the conditions that led to the law’s passage no longer exist. A major turning point came in 2013 when the Supreme Court invalidated a key provision that required certain jurisdictions with histories of voter suppression to seek federal approval before making election changes.
Some state lawmakers believe it’s time for state governments to step in.
“You can’t rely on the federal government to do the right thing,” said Maryland state Senator Charles Sydnor III, who is sponsoring his state’s Voting Rights Act.
Maryland’s proposed law, which recently passed the state Senate, seeks to ensure fair representation for minority communities in local elections. If enacted, it would allow voters or the state attorney general to challenge district maps or voting procedures that weaken minority representation. A court ruling in favor of such challenges could require redistricting or procedural changes.
Sydnor has introduced similar bills multiple times, though earlier versions included stronger protections modeled after voting rights laws in states like Connecticut and New York. These provisions required local governments to seek approval before making election-related changes but were ultimately removed from Maryland’s current version.
The bill passed the Maryland Senate without Republican support. Republican Senator Steve Hershey expressed concerns about its language and potential impact on rural voters.
Across different states, the proposed voting rights laws vary in scope but share a common goal: reinstating protections that were once part of the federal law.
“When the federal government and courts fail to protect us, states must take action,” said Sylvia Albert, a voting rights advocate at Common Cause.
The weakening of the Voting Rights Act has been an ongoing issue. Originally designed to counteract racist voting restrictions such as literacy tests and poll taxes, the law has faced several Supreme Court rulings that have diminished its effectiveness.
In 2013, the Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder removed the requirement for preclearance, which had prevented states with histories of voter suppression from enacting discriminatory laws. This ruling affected not only the South but also other areas with documented voting rights violations, including parts of California, Michigan, and New York.
Subsequent rulings further undermined the law. In 2021, the Court upheld restrictions in Arizona that made it harder for certain groups to collect and submit absentee ballots. Next week, the Court will hear a case involving Louisiana’s congressional map, which could further weaken protections under the Voting Rights Act.
Louisiana’s legislature, despite the state’s significant Black population, drew a congressional map in 2022 that limited Black-majority districts to just one out of six. A lower court ordered a new map with an additional Black-majority district, but opponents are now challenging it. The outcome of this case could determine the future of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices.
“Voter suppression in Louisiana is like putting a boot on the neck of Black voters,” said Alanah Odoms of the ACLU of Louisiana. “We’re simply asking for that boot to be removed.”
Another ruling in 2023, issued by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, further weakened Section 2 by determining that only the federal government—not individual voters or civil rights groups—can file lawsuits under it. This decision impacts several states, including Arkansas, Iowa, and Missouri.
Despite these challenges, voting rights advocates believe state-level action is crucial. Earlier this month, thousands gathered in Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when peaceful protesters were brutally attacked while marching for voting rights.
Federal efforts to restore lost protections, including legislation named after civil rights leader John Lewis, have stalled in Congress. With the current political landscape, the chances of federal action remain slim.
The Trump administration also signaled a retreat from enforcing voting rights protections, and some Republican officials have urged the Justice Department to drop lawsuits against state voting laws.
Given these realities, states are taking matters into their own hands. Harvard Law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos points out, however, that many of these new voting rights laws are being passed in states that were not covered under the original federal protections—leaving gaps in key areas.
“It’s a huge problem that these bills can’t be passed politically in the South,” he said. “The original law was meant to protect minority voters in those very states.”
Still, even in states with relatively strong voting protections, lawmakers see room for improvement. In Colorado, Democratic state Senator Julie Gonzales is sponsoring a Voting Rights Act that aims to prevent racial gerrymandering, make it easier for voters to challenge suppression tactics, and expand language access for ballots.
“We are witnessing the erosion of bedrock civil rights protections,” Gonzales said. “It’s time for us to act.”
