Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have narrowed or limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, especially in recent decades. Here are the major ones, in chronological order:
1. City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)
- Issue: Whether at-large election systems that diluted minority voting power violated the VRA.
- Ruling: The Court held that proof of discriminatory intent, not just discriminatory effect, was required to prove a violation of the 15th Amendment.
- Impact: This made it much harder to challenge discriminatory voting practices.
- Congress’s Response: In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 of the VRA to make clear that discriminatory results, not just intent, could be unconstitutional.
2. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (1997 & 2000)
- Issue: Whether the Department of Justice could block changes in voting laws (under Section 5 preclearance) based on a discriminatory purpose or effect.
- Rulings:
- Bossier Parish I (1997): Section 5 preclearance review applies only to voting changes that make minorities worse off ("retrogression"), not to all discriminatory laws.
- Bossier Parish II (2000): DOJ couldn’t block voting changes just because they were motivated by discriminatory intent unless they were also retrogressive.
- Impact: Narrowed DOJ’s power to deny preclearance.
3. Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003)
- Issue: How to measure "retrogression" in redistricting under Section 5.
- Ruling: The Court said courts should look at the "totality of circumstances," including whether minority voters could still form coalitions, not just the number of majority-minority districts.
- Impact: Made it easier for states to defend redistricting plans that reduced the number of majority-minority districts.
- Congress’s Response: In 2006, Congress reauthorized the VRA and rejected the Court’s looser standard, restoring stronger protections.
4. Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009)
- Issue: A small Texas utility district challenged whether it had to comply with Section 5 preclearance.
- Ruling: The Court avoided the constitutional issue but allowed the district to "bail out" from preclearance.
- Impact: Signaled skepticism about Section 5’s constitutionality, foreshadowing a bigger change.
5. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
- Issue: The constitutionality of Section 4(b), which set the coverage formula for which jurisdictions had to get DOJ preclearance under Section 5.
- Ruling: The Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional, saying the formula was outdated.
- Impact: Effectively gutted Section 5 preclearance, freeing previously covered states (mostly in the South) from federal oversight.
- Result: Many states quickly enacted restrictive voting laws (e.g., voter ID, polling place closures, purges).
6. Abbott v. Perez (2018)
- Issue: Texas’s redistricting maps were challenged as racially discriminatory.
- Ruling: The Court presumed legislatures act in "good faith" and placed a higher burden on challengers to prove discriminatory intent.
- Impact: Weakened the ability of courts to strike down racially gerrymandered maps.
7. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)
- Issue: Whether Arizona’s restrictions on ballot collection and out-of-precinct voting violated Section 2 of the VRA.
- Ruling: The Court upheld the laws, announcing new "guideposts" that make it harder to prove vote-denial claims under Section 2.
- Impact: Significantly weakened Section 2, the main tool left after Shelby County, by allowing many restrictive laws to survive.
- Click here for the full answer.
