Note: This is an educational course, not legal advice.
The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) says the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and gives Congress power to enforce it. For nearly a century, many states got around it with literacy tests, poll taxes and intimidation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was Congress's answer. This topic builds on fundamental rights and on Congress's enforcement powers.
| Part of the VRA | What it does | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Section 2 | nationwide: bars any voting practice that results in denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race (a "results" test since the 1982 amendments) | in force; applied in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) |
| Section 4(b) | the coverage formula: which states and counties were covered, based on tests and turnout data | struck down in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) |
| Section 5 | covered places had to get federal approval ("preclearance") before changing voting rules | not struck down, but has no effect without a coverage formula |
Why it works
Section 2 today. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) the Court set three preconditions for a vote dilution claim: the minority group is large and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a district; it is politically cohesive; and the majority usually votes as a bloc to defeat its preferred candidates. Courts then look at the totality of circumstances. In 2026 the Court narrowed how Section 2 applies to redistricting. Two kinds of gerrymandering claims. Racial gerrymandering, drawing districts mainly by race, is subject to strict scrutiny under equal protection (Shaw v. Reno (1993)), and vote dilution claims arise under Section 2. But in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) the Court held 5 to 4 that claims of partisan gerrymandering present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts; the Chief Justice noted that state courts, state constitutions and Congress may address them. Justice Kagan's dissent argued courts could manage such claims.
Key idea
Section 2 of the VRA bars voting practices that result in denying or abridging the vote on account of race; Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) set the preconditions for vote dilution claims. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck down the preclearance coverage formula. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) left partisan gerrymandering claims to the political process and state courts.
Worked example: Which claim?
Voters say their state's legislature drew congressional districts to help one party win more seats. Can a federal court hear the claim?
- This is a partisan gerrymandering claim.
- Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) held such claims are political questions for federal courts.
- Voters may pursue claims under a state constitution in state court, or ask Congress or the state to act.
Answer: Not in federal court after Rucho.
Worked example: Section 5 after Shelby
After Shelby County, must Alabama get federal approval before changing its voting rules?
- Shelby struck down Section 4(b), the formula that decided who was covered.
- Section 5 still exists but covers no one without a formula.
- Section 2 still applies nationwide, through lawsuits.
Answer: No; preclearance has no effect without a coverage formula, though Section 2 suits remain.
Common mistake
Mixing up racial and partisan gerrymandering claims. Racial claims can be heard in federal court under the Constitution (Shaw) and the VRA (Gingles); after Rucho, purely partisan claims cannot.