What is the Voting Rights Act, and why does the recent Supreme Court ruling threaten minority voters’ rights?

For more than six decades, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which guaranteed access to the ballot for millions of citizens in the United States, was considered one of the greatest achievements of the civil rights movement. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling has once again brought into sharp focus the extent to which that progress remains intact. The ruling, which limits one of its key legal tools, has raised alarms about a potential setback in the political representation of historically marginalized communities.

What is the Voting Rights Act?

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a federal law passed in 1965 to eliminate racial discrimination in U.S. electoral processes. Championed by President Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of the civil rights struggle, its goal was to ensure that all citizens could vote without legal or administrative barriers based on their race.

Before its passage, it was common for Southern states to impose barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes, or bureaucratic requirements designed to exclude African American voters. The law prohibited these practices and gave the federal government tools to monitor and correct abuses.

How did it protect minority voting rights?

One of the pillars of the law has been the so-called “Section 2,” which allows for the challenge of electoral systems that reduce the voting power of racial minorities. This has been key to combating gerrymandering—that is, the manipulation of electoral districts to favor certain parties or dilute the influence of specific communities.

Thanks to this tool, for decades it was possible to block electoral maps that fragmented or concentrated African American and Latino voters with the aim of limiting their political influence. The law not only guaranteed access to the ballot but also more equitable representation.

Its impact has been clear: in 1970, there were around 1,500 African American elected officials nationwide; today there are more than 10,000. And that increased representation has allowed issues such as health, education, and infrastructure in historically marginalized communities to gain greater visibility on the political agenda.

The 2026 ruling

In recent years, the Supreme Court has progressively narrowed the scope of the law. A key turning point was the Shelby County v. Holder ruling, which eliminated the requirement for prior federal oversight for certain states with a history of discrimination. That mechanism required local authorities to obtain approval before changing their voting rules, which for decades served as a preventive barrier against new restrictions.

Following that decision, several states passed stricter election laws or redrew districts without prior federal oversight. Although many of these measures were challenged in court, the process is often lengthy and occurs after the rules have already taken effect, reducing the effectiveness of the protection.

The most recent blow came on Wednesday, when the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional district designed to ensure African American representation. In a split decision, the court reinterpreted the scope of Section 2 and ruled that it applies only in cases of intentional discrimination, not when the effect of a law or electoral map is unequal.

This change significantly raises the legal bar: now, those who file discrimination complaints must demonstrate that there was an explicit intent to exclude, which can be much harder to prove in court.

Experts warn that this new standard could make it easier for state legislatures to redraw districts more aggressively, reducing minority representation. In particular, Southern states could eliminate districts where Black and Latino communities had a better chance of electing their candidates.

Some estimates suggest that several districts currently represented by African American lawmakers could disappear or be redrawn in the coming years. The future of the law will depend on both new court rulings and potential legislative reforms.

Lawmakers in several states, such as Tennessee and Georgia, have already made calls to redraw districts, while Florida approved a new electoral map on the very day of the ruling. Furthermore, figures such as Donald Trump have openly encouraged these changes, which analysts interpret as an attempt to reshape the political balance in Congress.

The dispute is not limited to Republican-controlled Southern states. In Virginia, for example, a Democratic-led effort to redraw districts—which has the potential to alter the state’s political balance—remains stalled in the courts.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition