KVIG Informative

The Voting Rights Act has long been described as the crown jewel of the civil rights movement. Over six decades, Congress and the Supreme Court have repeatedly redefined how much it can do, and an April 2026 ruling is the latest chapter.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965. Congress passed it under its authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, after decades of state efforts to suppress the voting rights of Black citizens through tools such as literacy tests and poll taxes.

Two Key Provisions The Congressional Research Service describes two provisions that have mattered most. Section 2 prohibits voting practices or procedures, anywhere in the country, that result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on the basis of race or color. Sections 4 and 5 worked together: a coverage formula identified jurisdictions with histories of discrimination, and Section 5 required them to get federal approval, known as preclearance, before changing their election rules.

Three Rulings That Narrowed and Reshaped the Law In Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, the Supreme Court held the coverage formula unconstitutional, which left the preclearance requirement inoperable. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee in 2021, the Court held that two Arizona rules, restrictions on out-of-precinct voting and limits on third-party ballot collection, did not violate Section 2, and it identified factors for judging such claims without setting a single test for all of them. In Allen v. Milligan in 2023, the Court ruled 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, that Alabama’s congressional map likely violated Section 2 by diluting Black voting power, and it reaffirmed the framework from the 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles. Legal commentators noted at the time that the decision left open a conflict between race-conscious remedies under the statute and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Louisiana v. Callais That conflict reached the Court in a Louisiana case. After the 2020 census, Louisiana drew a congressional map with one majority-Black district. A federal court found the map likely violated Section 2 because it lacked a second, and Louisiana then drew one. Challengers argued that the second district was itself an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court heard the case, then asked for reargument on the constitutionality of Section 2.

On April 29, 2026, the Court ruled 6-3 in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that compliance with Section 2 did not give Louisiana a compelling interest to justify using race in drawing the map, making it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The majority also interpreted the key phrases of Section 2 and set out the criteria a challenger must now meet. Justice Alito wrote that Section 2 was designed to enforce the Constitution, not collide with it, and the majority said its reading is the best reading of the statutory text and keeps the provision within Congress’s authority under the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Dissent and the Critics Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, argued that the ruling hollows out Section 2 and threatens a half-century of gains in voting equality, and she described it as the latest in a series of rulings aimed at the Act. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who joined 22 other attorneys general in a brief defending Section 2, said past rulings that weakened the Act were often followed by new state laws restricting ballot access for voters of color. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which took part in the litigation, called the decision devastating for Black voters in Louisiana.

The Other View The majority framed the central question as whether the Constitution permits the intentional use of race to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Those who agree with the outcome argue that the Equal Protection Clause limits race-based districting even when a statute is the reason for it, and that Section 2 has to be read in a way that fits that limit. The disagreement is therefore about how two constitutional commitments, equal treatment regardless of race and effective protection against vote dilution, should be reconciled.

What Happens Next The statute remains law. What has changed is what courts will require of plaintiffs and states, and how that plays out in redistricting will emerge case by case. Congress has the power to amend the Act, and supporters of broader protections urge passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore preclearance and strengthen Section 2. Some states have also enacted their own state voting rights acts. Whether Congress or the states act, and what future courts decide, will determine how the principle of 1965 is applied in the years ahead.