The right to vote has been undercut across the country and remains at risk—especially for Black voters and other voters of color.
We are seeing attacks, not progress, on voting rights at the national level. The Trump Administration’s Project 2025 agenda includes plans to undermine enforcement of protections against voting discrimination. Instead of strengthening these protections by enacting the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, leadership in Congress is pushing anti-voter legislation that will add more barriers to the ballot. And increasingly hostile federal courts—including the United States Supreme Court—have undercut the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Six decades after the passage of this landmark civil rights law, the attacks continue.
As Black voters and other voters of color across the country face the greatest assault on their voting rights since the Jim Crow era, a growing number of states are acting to protect the right to vote and safeguard our democracy. With the passage of State Voting Rights Acts, states can provide key protections to their constituents that prevent and guard against discriminatory voting practices and policies. With a Congress that has yet to strengthen federal voting rights legislation and federal courts continuing to erode the federal Voting Rights Act, states must lead by example to protect our right to vote.
Even after Congress restores and strengthens the federal VRA (as it must), State Voting Rights Acts will remain important tools for fighting discrimination.
Momentum is growing, as several states — including California (2002), Washington (2018), Oregon (2019), Virginia (2021), New York (2022), Connecticut (2023), and Minnesota (2024) — have enacted State VRAs. Other states such as Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey have made progress towards enacting similar legislation in recent years.
Not surprisingly, state-level protections that prevent unequal access to the ballot are extremely popular. A 2024 survey showed that more than three-quarters (78%) of voters support a voting rights act in their state, with strong majorities across race and party lines.
Voters continue to face persistent barriers to exercising their right to vote. Conditions that foster voting discrimination — such as unfairly drawn districts that weaken the voting power of Black voters and other voters of color, inaccessible polling locations, insufficient language assistance for voters who don’t speak English, and even outright voter intimidation — severely impact the ability of voters to participate in our democracy fully and fairly.
These barriers have increased in recent years, with restrictive voting policies enacted across the country and Supreme Court decisions such as in Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. DNC that upended or eroded essential protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The consequences are dire, disproportionately impacting Black voters and other voters of color, voters with disabilities, and limited English-speaking voters.
State VRAs provide essential protections to promote fair participation and build a democracy that works for all. By enforcing comprehensive, clear standards, State VRAs prevent discrimination and expand opportunities to people disproportionately impacted by voter suppression.
Addressing racial vote dilution — which occurs in unfair districts or election systems that weaken or drown out people’s voices based on their race--and addressing barriers that deny voting opportunities in a way that is efficient and effective for both voters and local governments within the state.
Launching a “preclearance” program that requires local governments with records of discrimination to prove that certain voting changes won’t harm voters based on their race before these changes can go into effect.
Creating strong protections against voter intimidation, deception, or obstruction at the ballot box.
Expanding language assistance for voters with limited English proficiency so every eligible voter can participate effectively.
Implementing a central public repository for election and demographic data with the goal of fostering transparent, evidence-based practices in election administration.
Instructing judges to interpret laws and rules in the most pro-voter, pro-democracy way possible.
State VRAs are an important tool to ensure that all voters can fairly and fully participate in our democracy, especially Black voters and other voters of color who historically have been denied this right. State VRAs give voters and community groups tools not only to address voting discrimination, but also to prevent it from happening in the first place. In recent years, efforts to implement discriminatory voting practices and policies have increased across the nation, and we are now seeing attacks rather than progress on voting rights at the national level, making this legislation all the more urgent and necessary.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “federal VRA”) was enacted to ensure all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice. When it was passed in 1965, the federal VRA was intended to protect Black voters from discriminatory Jim Crow era voting laws and gave voters a mechanism to challenge these laws in federal court. However, several of the federal VRA’s protections against discrimination, including Section 5 preclearance, have been weakened or dismantled in recent years. State VRAs restore some of these critical protections for voters at the state level and streamline others to make them more cost-effective for voters and local governments.
Yes. State VRAs provide critical protections that are not ensured at the federal level. First courts have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965, especially since 2013 and Congress must enact the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and strengthen this landmark civil rights law. Next, even if the full protections of the federal VRA are restored—which appears unlikely given the current leadership in Congress—federal law will never beable to fully address the particular needs and threats to the right to vote in each state. State VRAs also allow voters to protect their rights in state court in a way that is streamlined and more cost-effective than federal litigation for all parties, which can be essential as federal courts grow more hostile. Critically the laws also provide a mechanism for voters and local governments to resolve discrimination collaboratively and avoid litigation altogether. State VRAs provide efficient, practical ways to identify and resolve barriers to equal participation in our democracy.
Preclearance aims to stop discrimination before it occurs. It is based on the simple principle that when it comes to a matter as fundamental as the right to vote, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
State VRAs that contain a preclearance program can adopt a framework to determine which local governments come under the preclearance requirement based on a recent record of voting rights or civil rights violations or other recent evidence of racial discrimination. For those counties, cities, or other local government entities that come under the preclearance protection, the legislation provides a streamlined, administrative process to get an expert review of key voting changes before they go into effect, to ensure they will not harm people based on race.
State VRA preclearance programs are inspired by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was one of the most effective provisions ever designed for eradicating voting discrimination and widely considered the “heart” of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the framework that determined which jurisdictions were covered by the federal VRA’s Section 5 preclearance process, making the provision inoperable. Before being dismantled, Section 5 of the VRA prevented and halted thousands of discriminatory voting policies. A strong State VRA restores and modernizes this essential protection.
State VRAs provide strong protections in the local redistricting process, where every ten years, local governments redraw the lines that shape electoral districts. Redistricting protections in State VRAs help to ensure the fairness of local district maps, that can dilute the voices of Black voters and other voters of color. And State VRAs can address discrimination resulting from at-large elections, where there are no districts, so all voters get to vote for each candidate. In communities where voting preferences tend to break down across racial lines, this can allow a majority group to win all the seats on a city council or county commission, and deny any representation to other groups within the community. Local redistricting in covered jurisdictions can also be subject to the preclearance process, which ensures that discriminatory maps aren’t used in the first place, so voters don’t have to go to the polls in unfair districts while they fight in court to protect their rights.
Yes. While some state laws focus on increasing voting access through affirmative policies that set rules or practices like automatic voter registration or early voting, State VRAs focus particularly on enacting protections that make voting fairer and free of discrimination. Multi-pronged and comprehensive in approach, State VRAs address voting discrimination, including practices and policies that present challenges to voters of color, first-time voters, rural voters, and limited English-speaking voters.
Voting Rights
State VRAs can provide key protections to their constituents that prevent and guard against discriminatory voting practices and policies. Learn more about LDF’s work to advance state VRAs.
LDF Original Content
A tandem approach of restoring and expanding federal voting rights legislation along with passing individual state VRAs is essential for providing the most robust voting protections for all voters.
LDF Original Content
How States with discriminatory maps have shirked their responsibilities to their constituents, paving the way for the passage of oppressive legislation.
