Summary
The Supreme Court made a pivotal decision in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder that fundamentally changed voting rights protection across America [1]. The Court struck down a key formula that required certain states with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws, creating a patchwork system where discriminatory practices now flourish nationwide and gerrymandering has exploded.
This analysis examines the decision’s impact and makes the case for comprehensive civil rights protections that apply uniformly across all 50 states.
This Analysis Examines the Supreme Court’s 2013 Decision • the Immediate Aftermath and Nationwide Spread of Discrimination • Why Current Patchwork Protection Fails • a Comprehensive Solution With National Standards • Addressing Concerns About Federal Control • Current Threats to Democracy.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Original Framework
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was landmark civil rights legislation designed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting [2]. Congress included three key provisions:
- Section 2: Nationwide prohibition on voting practices that discriminate based on race
- Section 4(b): Coverage formula identifying jurisdictions with histories of discrimination
- Section 5: Preclearance requirement for covered jurisdictions to get federal approval before changing voting laws
The Preclearance System
The original framework covered jurisdictions that used literacy tests or similar barriers as of November 1, 1964, and had voter registration or turnout below 50% in the 1964 presidential election. This formula covered nine Southern states entirely, along with parts of seven other states, Alaska, and various counties nationwide. Any voting change in covered areas required federal preclearance, including moving polling places and redrawing district lines.
The Shelby County Decision (2013)
The Case
Shelby County, Alabama, filed a constitutional challenge targeting Section 4(b)’s coverage formula. County officials argued the formula violated federalism principles and equal state sovereignty, claiming the South had changed dramatically since 1965 and the preclearance requirement was outdated and punitive.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Court decided 5-4 against the coverage formula, striking down Section 4(b) while leaving Section 5 intact so preclearance could continue with a new formula and preserving Section 2’s nationwide protections against discriminatory voting practices.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, arguing that “things have changed dramatically” since 1965 and citing increased voter registration and turnout among minorities in covered states [1].
The Dissent
Justice Ginsburg wrote a powerful dissent, comparing the majority’s logic to “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet” [1]. Ginsburg argued that preclearance worked precisely because it prevented discrimination before it occurred.
A Nationwide Problem Emerges
Immediate Consequences in Previously Covered States
Previously covered jurisdictions had restrictive voting legislation ready but couldn’t implement it under federal preclearance. They began enacting these prepared changes immediately after the Shelby decision.
Texas implemented a strict voter ID law within hours of the decision. Attorney General Greg Abbott announced “With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately” [3].
Alabama released plans to enforce photo ID law on June 28, 2013, just three days after the Shelby County decision [4].
Mississippi announced the same day that the state would move forward with voter ID law now that it was “unobstructed by the preclearance requirement” [4].
North Carolina signed one of the most restrictive voter laws in the country less than two months later. Known as the “monster voter suppression law,” it reduced early voting, eliminated same-day registration, banned out-of-precinct voting, ended pre-registration for 16-year-olds, and instituted a strict voter photo ID requirement [4].
This coordinated response revealed that states had been preparing for the moment federal oversight ended.
Why the Coverage Formula Was Already Inadequate
The Shelby decision’s impact extended far beyond previously covered states because extreme partisan manipulation was already happening outside the coverage formula’s reach. The most telling example occurred two years before Shelby even happened.
Wisconsin implemented extreme partisan redistricting in 2011 as part of a Republican project known as REDMAP, which was created to maximize partisan bias using new statistical and mapping software. The 2011 Wisconsin redistricting became “one of the most successful partisan gerrymanders in the history of the country,” yet Wisconsin was never a covered jurisdiction under Section 4(b) [5][6].
REDMAP allowed Republicans to gain 675 legislative seats across the United States following the 2010 election, with key victories in Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia [7]. This demonstrated exactly the kind of systematic vote dilution that preclearance was designed to prevent, but it was happening outside the geographic limitations of federal oversight.
The Spread Beyond the South
The Court’s ruling sent a clear signal nationwide that federal voting rights enforcement was ending, and state politicians everywhere received this message.
Gerrymandering Explosion: REDMAP’s effects became clear in the 2012 House elections, where Republicans secured control by a 33-seat margin despite Democratic candidates collectively receiving over 1 million more votes than Republican candidates [6]. Multiple states embraced extreme partisan redistricting regardless of party control—Republicans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina drew maps so extreme that state courts struck them down, while Democrats engaged in aggressive gerrymandering in Maryland, Illinois, and New York.
Voter Suppression Tactics: States across the country adopted new restrictions including aggressive voter purges in Georgia, Ohio, and Indiana; widespread polling place closures in rural and minority communities; and voter ID laws that expanded from 2 states in 2000 to 36 states by 2023.
The Data Documents the Damage
Research since 2013 documents the nationwide scope of the problem, with sophisticated tracking by Princeton University’s Gerrymandering Project providing objective measurements of district manipulation [8]. Counties with discrimination histories closed polling places at higher rates after Shelby [9]. The difference between white and nonwhite voter turnout grew since 2012, reaching 18 percentage points in 2022 midterm elections [10]. Previously covered jurisdictions increased voter purge rates by 1.5 to 4.5 percentage points [11].
Piecemeal Protection Fails
The Current Inadequate Framework
The post-Shelby landscape relies on three inadequate approaches: Section 2 litigation that is expensive and time-consuming with lawsuits filed after discrimination occurs; state-level protections that are inconsistent and politically vulnerable; and federal intervention limited to emergency situations.
The Problems with Reactive Enforcement
Lawsuits are “expensive, time consuming, and allow discriminatory policies to be in effect until they’re resolved” [12]. Historical litigation required “as many as 6,000 man-hours spent combing through registration records in preparation for trial” with “ample opportunities for delay afforded voting officials” [2].
The current reactive system creates four major problems:
Delayed Justice: Section 2 lawsuits take years while discriminatory practices remain in effect during litigation.
Resource Inequality: Well-funded state actors outlast under-resourced civil rights groups.
Easy Circumvention: Defenders of discriminatory practices can change one small piece of their law and restart the entire court process, forcing opponents back to square one.
Elections Pass: Discriminatory maps and laws affect multiple election cycles before resolution.
Case Study: The 2020-2022 Redistricting Cycle
Recent redistricting revealed current protections’ inadequacy. Alabama required multiple federal court interventions to create a second majority-Black district [13]. Louisiana faced similar prolonged litigation over racial gerrymandering [14]. Texas continues ongoing battles over discriminatory maps affecting Latino voters [15]. Meanwhile, Florida and Wisconsin enacted aggressive gerrymanders with minimal federal oversight.
The Case for National Application
Constitutional Foundation
Comprehensive civil rights protections rest on solid constitutional ground. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applies to all states, the Fifteenth Amendment’s voting rights protections have no geographic limitations, and the Constitution grants Congress broad power to enforce voting rights.
The Original Vision
The VRA’s architects intended national protection from the beginning. Senator Jacob Javits noted in 1965 that voting discrimination was “a national problem requiring a national solution” [16]. While the immediate focus was the South, the broader vision was nationwide protection.
Modern Realities
Contemporary challenges transcend the historical South-focused framework. Technology enables sophisticated data analytics for precision gerrymandering anywhere, while population shifts mean discrimination can emerge in previously unaffected areas. Extreme partisanship incentivizes voting restrictions regardless of geography, and federal elections require uniform protection.
Modern Civil Rights Protection
Core Provisions of a Modern Framework
Universal Preclearance with Streamlined Process: All states must obtain federal approval for voting changes that substantially affect elections, with clear standards based on discriminatory impact and expedited review to prevent delays in legitimate changes.
Multiple Review Options: States can choose DOJ review or “bring case directly to federal court,” and if DOJ denies, the “state can still bring its case to court” [17]. Expedited review would be available for emergency situations.
Evidence-Based Coverage: The John Lewis Voting Rights Act uses a violations-based formula covering states with “15 or more voting rights violations within the last 25 years” or “10 or more violations and at least 1 committed by the state itself” [18]. This provides objective criteria rather than arbitrary geographic targeting, with regular review and updating of coverage.
Enhanced Section 2: Private right of action with attorney fee provisions, preliminary relief available to prevent discrimination during litigation, and pattern and practice authority for the Justice Department.
Redistricting Requirements: Algorithmic auditing of proposed maps for discriminatory impact, public transparency in redistricting data and methods, and independent commissions with federal oversight authority.
Voting Access Standards: Minimum early voting periods in all states, polling place accessibility and availability standards, and uniform voter registration procedures and deadlines.
Addressing Concerns
Concern 1: Administrative Burden
Critics worry about excessive paperwork and delays, but the evidence shows these concerns are overblown. DOJ historically “approved 99.86 percent of submissions when preclearance was in effect” [17].
Attorneys general from previously covered states explain the process is “streamlined to minimize burden,” requires materials “ordinarily both readily accessible and easy to assemble,” taking “only a few minutes to prepare.” Most submissions require “only one or two pages of documentation,” and smaller changes like polling place moves “require almost no documentation and are routinely approved” [17].
Concern 2: Federal Control and Partisan Manipulation
Critics fear federal bureaucrats will impose partisan preferences, but federal oversight would be based on constitutional principles rather than political control. DOJ “must consider only whether the proposed change to voting rules would result in discrimination against minority voters” and “cannot simply block laws it does not like” [17].
Federal oversight would be based on constitutional principles—equal protection and non-discrimination—rather than partisan preferences or policy choices. Clear standards would focus on discriminatory impact, not federal political control, with safe harbors for routine administrative changes.
Concern 3: States’ Rights and Democratic Governance
Critics argue federal oversight undermines state sovereignty, but the evidence shows the opposite. Preclearance actually enhanced rather than undermined democratic governance. Covered jurisdictions “began adopting voting laws and redistricting plans with an eye to satisfying the concerns of minority voters and ensuring that the new laws would secure federal preclearance” [19].
States knew they had to get federal approval, so BEFORE submitting changes, they would:
- Consult with civil rights groups, minority communities, election officials
- Work out agreements (“we’ll move the polling place but add early voting hours”)
- Build consensus so they could show DOJ: “Look, everyone agrees this works”
- This meant better, more inclusive processes from the start
Instead of top-down federal control, preclearance created incentives for bottom-up inclusive governance. States became more responsive to all their citizens, not less, and federal oversight actually improved state-local democracy.
The Unmeasurable Chilling Effect
The “specter of preclearance is a powerful deterrent: covered jurisdictions saw approval for 99.86% of proposed changes when it was in effect, suggesting they rarely attempted to implement harmful policies” [20].
We cannot count the discriminatory laws that were never proposed because officials knew they wouldn’t pass preclearance. Self-censorship prevented worse abuses as bad ideas died in committee rather than becoming costly litigation. Jurisdictions “quickly moderated many of the worst abuses” [19] because they knew federal oversight existed.
The Urgency of Reform: Current Threats in Real Time
Current Threats: Real-Time Power Grabs
The dangers of the current system are happening right now. As of July 2025, multiple states are pursuing mid-decade redistricting with the goal of controlling the 2026 midterm elections.
Texas: President Trump explicitly requested this redistricting effort, and Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session with the goal of redrawing congressional maps for five additional Republican House seats [21]. Trump told reporters: “Texas will be the biggest one. And that’ll be five” [22]. This extraordinary mid-decade redistricting comes despite Texas already holding 25 of 38 congressional seats under maps drawn after the 2020 census.
Ohio: Maps must be redrawn under state law, and earlier maps were gerrymandered by Republicans who could make the delegation even more overwhelmingly Republican and eliminate two Democratic seats [23].
Florida: Governor Ron DeSantis wants to redraw Florida’s maps again, building on his 2022 engineering that gave Republicans four more seats and arguably maintained the GOP House majority [23].
Missouri: The White House is pushing state legislators to consider a special session with the goal of redrawing maps and eliminating the state’s sole remaining Democratic seat [23].
This coordinated effort represents exactly what the Shelby decision enabled—a nationwide assault on democratic representation happening in real time with the goal of entrenching power regardless of voters’ will.
The Window for Action
Several factors create an opportunity for reform. Public awareness has increased through high-profile cases highlighting voting rights issues [24]. Courts increasingly recognize gerrymandering harms [25]. Bipartisan support exists for some voting reforms [26].
International Perspective
The United States increasingly appears as an outlier among democracies, with its democracy rating in steep decline. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index has classified the U.S. as a “flawed democracy” since 2016, ranking 28th out of 167 nations in 2024 [27]. The global Democracy Index score reached a historic low of 5.17 in 2024, with more than one-third of the world’s population now living under authoritarian rule [28].
Even more troubling, American political scientists who study democracy are sounding unprecedented alarms. Bright Line Watch, a consortium of experts from the University of Chicago, Dartmouth, University of Michigan, and University of Rochester, found that over 500 political scientists believe “the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism” [29].
Their democracy rating for the U.S. plummeted from 67 out of 100 after Trump’s November 2024 election to just 55 out of 100 by February 2025—the lowest score since monitoring began in 2017. The experts predict further decline to 47 by 2027, which “would put U.S. democracy between experts’ 2022 assessments of the Philippines and Brazil” [30].
International observers note American tolerance for extreme gerrymandering where most democracies use independent redistricting, voter suppression where international observers have criticized U.S. voting access, and electoral manipulation that raises democratic backsliding concerns from international partners. Harvard professor Steven Levitsky, co-author of “How Democracies Die,” concluded: “We’ve slid into some form of authoritarianism. It is relatively mild compared to some others. It is certainly reversible, but we are no longer living in a liberal democracy” [29].
Restoring the Promise of Equal Democracy
The Shelby County decision revealed that voting discrimination is not a regional problem confined to America’s past but a national challenge requiring a national solution. The decision enabled restrictive voting practices to spread nationwide while weakening federal oversight, creating exactly the discriminatory patchwork the original Voting Rights Act was designed to prevent.
The solution is not returning to 1965’s framework but fulfilling its promise through comprehensive civil rights protection ensuring every American citizen can participate equally in democracy, regardless of location. This requires applying the full force of federal civil rights law to all 50 states, using modern tools to address contemporary threats like sophisticated gerrymandering and data-driven voter suppression.
The evidence shows that smart federal standards with proper safeguards actually enhance rather than undermine good governance. Preclearance encouraged stakeholder consultation, prevented costly post-implementation litigation, built stronger community consensus, and made state and local officials more responsive to all constituents.
The choice is clear: we can continue with a system where voting rights depend on geography and political luck, or we can build the national democracy the Constitution promises. Equal protection under law means equal access to the ballot box, everywhere in America.
Justice Ginsburg warned that we threw away our umbrella in a rainstorm. It’s time to rebuild it, stronger and broad enough to cover every American.
References
[1] Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/529/
[2] Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89-110. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/voting-rights-act
[3] Brennan Center for Justice. “The Effects of Shelby County v. Holder.” 2013. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/effects-shelby-county-v-holder-voting-rights-act
[4] NAACP Legal Defense Fund. “Impact of Shelby County v. Holder: Voter Suppression and Discriminatory Redistricting.” March 2025. https://www.naacpldf.org/shelby-county-v-holder-impact/
[5] Wikipedia. “Redistricting in Wisconsin.” Updated January 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_in_Wisconsin
[6] Wikipedia. “REDMAP.” Updated October 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
[7] WisContext. “Why Wisconsin Became A Pivotal Front In Nationwide Redistricting Fight.” November 2018. https://wiscontext.org/why-wisconsin-became-pivotal-front-nationwide-redistricting-fight
[8] Princeton Gerrymandering Project. “Redistricting Report Card.” 2024. https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/
[9] Brennan Center for Justice. “The Impact of Voter Suppression on Communities of Color.” 2021. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color
[10] Brennan Center for Justice. “Growing Racial Disparities in Voter Turnout, 2008–2022.” 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/growing-racial-disparities-voter-turnout-2008-2022
[11] Feder, Catalina and Michael G. Miller. “Voter Purges After Shelby.” American Politics Research 48, no. 6 (2020): 687-692. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X19870649
[12] Brennan Center for Justice. “Restoring the Voting Rights Act.” August 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/restoring-voting-rights-act
[13] Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. ___ (2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
[14] Galmon v. Ardoin, Civil Action No. 22-178 (M.D. La. 2024). https://www.lamd.uscourts.gov/
[15] Petteway v. Galveston County, 3:22-cv-00057 (S.D. Tex. 2024). https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/
[16] Senate Judiciary Committee. Hearings on S. 1564, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 206 (1965). https://www.congress.gov/
[17] Brennan Center for Justice. “Debunking False Claims About the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.” 2021. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-false-claims-about-john-lewis-voting-rights-act
[18] Wikipedia. “John Lewis Voting Rights Act.” Updated December 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Voting_Rights_Act
[19] Brennan Center for Justice. “Preclearance Under the Voting Rights Act.” 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/preclearance-under-voting-rights-act
[20] Brennan Center for Justice. “Pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.” 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/pass-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act
[21] Texas Tribune. “Texas redistricting plans draw criticism at public hearing.” July 24, 2025. https://www.texastribune.org/
[22] CNN Politics. “White House eyeing five-seat GOP pickup in Texas in midterms.” July 15, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/politics
[23] CNN Politics. “Analysis: Republicans want to game the next election.” July 24, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/politics
[24] Pew Research Center. “Public’s Views of Democracy & Government, Elections.” 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/
[25] Common Cause v. Rucho, 318 F. Supp. 3d 777 (M.D.N.C. 2018). https://www.courtlistener.com/
[26] Brennan Center for Justice. “Voting Laws Roundup: What to Expect in 2024.” 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup
[27] Visual Capitalist. “Mapped: The State of Democracy Around the World.” March 10, 2025. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-state-of-democracy-around-the-world/
[28] Axios. “Global democracy score hits historic low.” February 27, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/02/27/global-democracy-score-record-low-report
[29] NPR. “Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism.” April 22, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist
[30] Yahoo News. “Political scholars agree US headed toward authoritarianism.” April 22, 2025. https://www.yahoo.com/news/political-scholars-agree-us-headed-195500122.html