Center for American Progress

Donate

Center for American Progress

The Protection of Voting Rights Requires State Action
Report

The Protection of Voting Rights Requires State Action

As legislation on voting rights awaits action in Congress—and states continue to pass restrictive, discriminatory voting policies and the courts strip federal voter protections—states must step up and protect the right to vote.

Restoring Social Trust in Democracy, Democracy, Elections, +3 More

Media Contact

[email protected]

Government Affairs

[email protected]

[email protected]

In this article
Photo shows a red sign with blue text that reads
Constituents line up outside an early voting location in Woodbridge, Virginia, during the midterm election, November 2022. (Getty/Sarah Silbiger)

The fight for the right to vote is a story as long as America’s history, and it is far from finished. Over the past decade, states have adopted at least 94 laws that make it harder for Americans to vote,1 and every year, state legislators continue to introduce hundreds more.2 Making matters worse, courts have stripped federal voting laws of critical protections, leaving voters without the tools necessary to defend against the onslaught of these restrictive laws.

To help restore and bolster voter protections, it is critical that Congress pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. However, as explained in the Center for American Progress’ report “8 Ways To Protect American Democracy,” “Federal legislation is not the only path to progress; states can also step up to protect Americans from unequal barriers to voting by passing their own state-level voting rights acts (VRAs).”3

Read more

While federal legislation awaits action in Congress, state VRAs can both help fill the holes left by the courts’ gutting of the federal Voting Rights Act and offer expanded protections not currently available under the federal law. Even if federal legislation passes, state VRAs are still important, as they can provide state-specific protections and open an avenue for voters to protect their rights in state court.

As of February 2024, only six states have implemented some version of a state VRA: California, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington.4 Although additional states, including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Jersey, have state VRA legislation pending, there is still much work to be done.5 It is critical that each state adopt strong voter protections, including a state VRA, in order to preserve the right to vote.

Over the past decade, states have adopted at least 94 laws that make it harder for Americans to vote, and every year, state legislators continue to introduce hundreds more.

This issue brief provides an overview of the important role state VRAs serve in protecting the right to vote and a brief examination of the key components of the six state VRAs.

What is a state VRA?

State VRAs can take many forms, but generally, policymakers and advocates use the term to describe a category of laws designed to protect voters of color from discriminatory voting policies. Accordingly, state VRAs often contain protections similar to those of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. For example, a key component of the federal Voting Rights Act is the prohibition of vote dilution, meaning election practices or procedures that weaken the voting power of members of racial or language minority groups.6 Each of the six state VRAs also includes protections against vote dilution.

However, state VRAs are not merely copies of the federal Voting Rights Act; they can also offer enhanced protections such as reducing the burden on communities of color to bring vote dilution claims. State VRAs are also important because they can help plug the holes that courts have carved into the federal Voting Rights Act. For example, state VRAs can implement preclearance programs and defend against radical legal theories that endanger voting protections.

Vote dilution

Vote dilution occurs when an election practice or procedure minimizes or cancels out the voting power of members of racial or language minority groups such that they do not have an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Examples of vote dilution include certain at-large election systems that drown out voters of color as well as discriminatory gerrymandering, which happens when politicians draw districts that diminish the power of voters of color.7

Although Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits racial vote dilution, bringing a claim under Section 2 can be burdensome and overly technical.8 For instance, if members of a racial minority group are very spread out within a city, it may be impossible to bring a claim under Section 2 because the population is not geographically compact enough to be able to draw a district in which the voters would constitute a majority.

In contrast, nearly every state VRA explicitly notes that a plaintiff does not need to show that the population at issue is geographically compact enough to be able to constitute a majority of a hypothetical district in order to bring a claim.9 This allows for claims of vote dilution to be brought more easily and allows communities of color that are spread throughout a city to be protected from vote dilution.

Moreover, most state VRAs allow plaintiffs to bring vote dilution claims when an election method impairs the ability of members of a protected class—members of a race or language minority group—to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of an election.10 The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has held that the lack of districts in which members of a protected class can influence the outcome of an election is not a violation of Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act.11

Although each of the six state VRAs includes protections against racial vote dilution, not all these protections are equal. For instance, the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) prohibits vote dilution only in at-large election systems,12 and the Oregon Voting Rights Act prohibits vote dilution only in elections for school boards and boards of education.13

Preclearance program

The federal Voting Rights Act used to have an effective preclearance program that required certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to submit proposed changes to election-related policies to the federal government to ensure that the new policy would not have a discriminatory impact. Preclearance provisions are critical, as they can prevent discriminatory policies from being put in place.

But in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were required to go through the federal Voting Rights Act’s preclearance process was unconstitutional—thus rendering the main federal preclearance process inoperable.14 States quickly exploited this gap left in federal protections: In the 10 years since Shelby County v. Holder, states have passed at least 29 restrictive voting laws that would have been subject to preclearance and potentially prevented.15

State VRAs can help address this issue by implementing their own preclearance programs. As explained further below, state VRAs in Connecticut, New York, and Virginia all include a form of a preclearance program.16

In the 10 years since Shelby County v. Holder, states have passed at least 29 restrictive voting laws that would have been subject to preclearance and potentially prevented.

Private right of action

In November 2023, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that there was no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, meaning only the U.S. attorney general can bring lawsuits to enforce Section 2.17 In doing so, the court stripped individuals and civil rights organizations in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota from the main pathway historically used to protect voters from racially discriminatory voting policies.

This is no small matter. Private plaintiffs have been essential to the enforcement of Voting Rights Act protections: “Over the past forty years, there have been at least 182 successful Section 2 cases; of those 182 cases, only 15 were brought solely by the Attorney General.”18 The attorney general realistically does not have the capacity to properly oversee all the jurisdictions covered by Section 2.19 Additionally, not every presidential administration may prioritize voting rights cases, leaving voters defenseless. A law that is not enforced is no law at all, and that is precisely the danger posed by eliminating Section 2’s private right of action.

The 8th Circuit’s decision contradicts roughly half a century of precedent and hundreds of cases that allowed a private right of action under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act—including explicit rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th,20 6th,21 and 11th circuits.22 The 8th Circuit’s decision is also at odds with the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision Allen v. Milligan, a Section 2 lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs.23 Despite this, in January 2024, the 8th Circuit refused to reconsider its decision.24

State VRAs can help stop this radical legal theory by explicitly including a private right of action. Ensuring that a private right of action exists to allow voters and organizations to protect against racial discrimination is essential to upholding the right to vote.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Additional protections

Although the heart of the federal Voting Rights Act is its protections against discriminatory voting policies and election methods, it also includes provisions that more broadly protect the right to vote: For example, Section 11(a) prohibits people “acting under color of law” from failing to tabulate, count, and report a vote,25 and Section 11(b) prohibits voter intimidation.26 State VRAs should be structured similarly, with strong protections against discrimination as their core and additional policies that protect the right to vote more broadly.

Voting involves more than simply casting a ballot. Indeed, the federal Voting Rights Act defines voting to encompass “all action necessary to make a vote effective,” including having a “ballot counted properly.”27 In order to fully protect the right to vote, state VRAs should define voting similarly and include provisions to protect the right of voters to have their votes properly counted—including having a ballot counted, canvassed, certified, and included in the appropriate totals of votes. For example, Virginia’s state VRA prohibits “any person acting under the color of law” from: 1) failing to permit a voter to vote or 2) failing or refusing to tabulate, count, or report the vote of a qualified voter.28

State VRAs should also provide broad protections against voter intimidation. The recent increase in officials interfering with the proper certification of election results makes it more critical that state VRAs both protect voters from intimidation and safeguard all aspects of the voting process from unlawful interference.29 Every voter deserves to cast a ballot free from intimidation and to have the ballot counted according to law.

Several state VRAs have adopted additional protections that are worth adopting in future state VRAs as well. For instance, Connecticut’s, New York’s, and Washington’s state VRAs all include what is known as a “democracy canon.”30 This provision requires courts to interpret statutes in favor of voting rights and equitable access to elections, thus helping defend the rights of voters against harmful interpretations of laws that restrict voting rights. Another innovative policy, which Connecticut included in its state VRA, is creating a public statewide database of election information. Such a database can make elections more transparent and can help with the adoption of better election administration policies and practices. Finally, as a state VRA can provide the necessary momentum to pass critical voting reforms, policymakers and advocates drafting future state VRAs should be sure to review their state’s election laws and add additional provisions as needed to address any existing gaps in voter protections.

While adoption of state VRAs has increased in recent years, there is still much work to be done, and other states should continue pushing these efforts forward. The timeline below shows the trajectory of state-level voting rights legislation, including when each of the six states—California, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington—adopted their state VRAs. Additional detail on each of these state voting rights acts is provided in the next section.

The path toward state voting rights legislation, 1870–2023

Collapsed View Order
1870

1870

The 15th Amendment becomes part of the U.S. Constitution. The 15th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote based on race. However, states still found ways to deprive Black voters of the right to vote, implementing discriminatory laws such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses.

1965

1965

Nearly a century after the passage of the 15th Amendment, Congress passes the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which includes many voter protections. Two key sections of the law are Section 2, which prohibits discriminatory voting policies, and Section 5, which contained a preclearance process. The preclearance process identified states and localities with histories of racially discriminatory voting practices and required that these jurisdictions submit proposed changes to election laws to the federal government for review to ensure the changes wouldn’t harm voters of color.

1975

1975

The federal Voting Rights Act is amended to add Section 203, which requires that certain jurisdictions with populations that have limited English proficiency provide all materials related to elections—such as ballots, voting notices, registration forms, and polling place information—in the language of the population at issue.

2002

2002

California becomes the first state in the country to enact a state voting rights act: the California Voting Rights Act.

2013

2013

The U.S. Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder is decided. The court rules that the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were required to go through the federal Voting Rights Act’s preclearance process is unconstitutional—thus gutting federal preclearance.

2018

2018

Washington enacts the Washington Voting Rights Act; additional protections are later added in a bill titled “Enhancing the Washington voting rights act,” which is signed into law in April 2023.

2019

2019

Oregon enacts the Oregon Voting Rights Act in 2019.

2021

2021

Virginia enacts the Voting Rights Act of Virginia in 2021.

2022

2022

New York adopts a state voting rights act by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York.

2023

2023

Connecticut becomes the latest state to adopt a state voting rights act by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of Connecticut as part of the state’s budget. The Connecticut law is one of the most comprehensive state voting rights acts in the country since it prohibits vote dilution broadly, includes a preclearance provision, and incorporates many additional protections.

A state-by-state examination of state VRAs

As noted above, currently, six states—California, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington—have what advocates consider to be a state VRA.

Below is a brief examination of each state’s act.

California

In 2002, California became the first state in the country to enact a state VRA: the California Voting Rights Act.31

Vote dilution: Like many state VRAs, under the CVRA, a plaintiff does not need to show that the population at issue is geographically compact in order to bring a claim of vote dilution.32

However, the CVRA is incredibly narrow in scope. It applies only to at-large election systems that impair the ability of members of a protected class to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of elections.33 The CVRA does not provide communities with protections from vote dilution in district-based elections. If a voter lives in a city that uses district-based elections where the districts were drawn in a way that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect or to otherwise influence the outcome of an election that voter cannot bring a claim under the CVRA.

Preclearance program: N/A

Additional protections: N/A

Connecticut

In June 2023, Connecticut became the latest state to adopt a state VRA by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of Connecticut (CTVRA) as part of the state’s budget.34 The CTVRA is one of the most comprehensive state VRAs in the country; it prohibits vote dilution broadly, includes a preclearance provision, and incorporates many additional protections.35

Vote dilution and vote impairment: The CTVRA broadly prohibits any policies, procedures, or practices that impair the right to vote for any member of a protected class.36 This broad protection can be crucial in helping to defend against voter suppression. The CTVRA also prohibits any election method that impairs the ability of members of a protected class to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of elections.37

Preclearance program: The CTVRA includes a preclearance provision reminiscent of the bygone Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act. The CTVRA’s preclearance provision requires certain jurisdictions that exhibited indicators of discrimination to obtain approval from the Connecticut secretary of the state or from a state superior court before changing certain election policies.38

Additional protections:

  • Protections from voter intimidation and election interference: The CTVRA includes a section containing protections against voter intimidation, deception, or obstruction that interferes with any elector’s right to vote, including obstructing or interfering with access to ballot drop boxes.39 This section also prohibits any person from impeding or interfering with any election official in a manner that causes interference with a voter’s right to vote or causes a delay in the voting process.40
  • Requirement to interpret statutes in favor of voting rights: The CTVRA also helps to defend voting rights against potential harmful litigation by requiring that any statutes, regulations, or other enactments that relate to the right to vote be interpreted liberally in favor of making the right to vote more accessible, ensuring equitable access for protected class members, and protecting the right to cast a ballot and to have that ballot counted.41 This is commonly referred to as a “democracy canon.”
  • Expanded assistance for voters with limited English proficiency: The CTVRA expands voting assistance for those with limited English proficiency beyond the protections in the federal Voting Rights Act by lowering the threshold needed for a community to receive language assistance protections, meaning more individuals can gain the assistance they need to exercise their right to vote.42
  • Creation of a statewide election database: The CTVRA requires the creation of a publicly accessible statewide database to help with investigating any potential infringement on the right to vote and to help the state and municipalities implement best practices in election administration.43
New York

In June 2022, New York adopted a state VRA by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA).44 The NYVRA is another example of a comprehensive state VRA and is similar in many ways to Connecticut’s state VRA.

Vote dilution and vote denial: The NYVRA broadly prohibits vote denial by replicating the language of Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act.45 Additionally, the NYVRA prohibits any election method that impairs the ability of members of a protected class to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of elections.46 Members of a protected class are not required to be geographically compact to bring a claim under the NYVRA.47

Preclearance program: The NYVRA’s preclearance provision requires certain jurisdictions that have exhibited indicators of discrimination to obtain approval from the civil rights bureau, the office of the attorney general, or a court in the judicial department where the jurisdiction is located before changing certain voting and election policies.48

Additional protections:

  • Protections from voter intimidation and election interference: The NYVRA prohibits “acts of intimidation, deception, or obstruction that affects the right of voters” to access the election process, including interfering with a voter in a way that causes any delay in voting, canvassing, or tabulation of ballots.49
  • Requirement to interpret statutes in favor of voting rights: The NYVRA includes a “democracy canon,” which requires that statutes, rules, and regulations be interpreted in favor of “(a) protecting the right of voters to have their ballot cast and counted; (b) ensuring that eligible voters are not impaired in registering to vote[;] and (c) ensuring voters of race, color, and language-minority groups have equitable access to fully participate in the electoral process in registering to vote and voting.”50
  • Expanded assistance for voters with limited English proficiency: Like the CTVRA, the NYVRA expands voting assistance for those with limited English proficiency beyond the protections in the federal Voting Rights Act by lowering the threshold needed for a community to receive language assistance protections, meaning more individuals can gain the assistance they need to exercise their right to vote.51
  • Expedited judicial proceedings: The NYVRA explicitly notes that actions brought pursuant to the NYVRA will have expedited judicial proceedings.52 This can help voting concerns be resolved more quickly, ideally before an election occurs.
Oregon

Oregon enacted the Oregon Voting Rights Act in 2019.53

Vote dilution: Oregon’s state VRA prohibits vote dilution only in elections for school boards and boards of education in cases where elections impair the ability of members of a protected class to have an equal opportunity to elect candidates or an equal opportunity to influence the outcome of an election.54 The fact that members of a protected class are not geographically compact or concentrated does not preclude a violation.55

Preclearance program: N/A

Additional protections: N/A

Virginia

Virginia enacted the Voting Rights Act of Virginia in 2021.56

Vote dilution and vote denial: Virginia’s state VRA specifically prohibits at-large election methods that impair the ability of members of a protected class to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of an election.57 Similar to many state VRAs, geographical compactness is not required to bring a vote dilution claim against an at-large election.58

Virginia’s state VRA is not limited to protecting against at-large election methods because it replicates the language of Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, broadly prohibiting vote denial or dilution in any election method.59

Variation of a preclearance program: Virginia’s state VRA has a variation of a preclearance program. When a locality wants to adopt a change to certain election-related policies, the proposed policy must go through an extra process to help prevent harmful policies from being enacted.60

A locality must either: 1) publish the proposed policy online and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposed policy for at least 30 days61 or 2) submit the proposed policy to the attorney general, who then decides whether to object to the policy. If the attorney general objects, the locality cannot implement the policy.62

Additional protections:

  • Protections from voter intimidation and election interference: Virginia’s state VRA enhanced existing state laws that prohibit intimidating voters and providing false information to voters.63 Under the Virginia VRA, voters are allowed to seek injunctions and restraining orders to help stop false information and to prevent intimidation and threats.64 Virginia’s state VRA also created a new provision to help protect the election process by prohibiting any person acting under the color of law from: 1) failing to permit a voter to vote or 2) failing or refusing to tabulate, count, or report the vote of a qualified voter.65
  • Assistance for voters with limited English proficiency: Virginia’s state VRA requires that certain localities provide assistance for those with limited English proficiency using thresholds that closely mirror those in the federal Voting Rights Act.66
  • Establishment of a voter education and outreach fund: Virginia’s state VRA establishes a fund designed to help educate voters, and individuals who are qualified to be voters, about their rights under federal and state law.67 This program is funded by penalties from violations of election laws.68
Washington

The state enacted the Washington Voting Rights Act (WVRA) in 2018.69 Washington added additional protections to the WVRA in a bill titled “Enhancing the Washington voting rights act,” which was signed into law in April 2023 and went into effect January 1, 2024.70

Vote dilution: Washington’s act prohibits any election method, including district-based elections, that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of their choice.71 To bring a claim under the WVRA, members of a protected class do not need to show that the population at issue is geographically compact enough to be able to constitute a majority of a district.72

Preclearance program: N/A

Additional protections:

  • Requirement to interpret statutes in favor of voting rights: The WVRA includes a “democracy canon,” which requires that statutes, rules, and regulations be interpreted in favor of protecting the right to vote, “[e]nsuring that eligible voters are not impaired in registering to vote or voting including having their votes counted” and “that voters of race, color, and language minority groups have equitable access to fully participate in the electoral process.”73

Conclusion

The federal Voting Rights Act is no longer enough to fully protect voters. The law’s protections have been significantly gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and lower courts are continuing to try to dismantle its remaining safeguards. States must step up and protect the right to vote by passing state VRAs with strong voter protections. The right to vote is too important—states must help to uphold it.

The author would like to thank Ben Olinsky and Sydney Bryant for their contributions to this issue brief.

Endnotes

  1. Jasleen Singh and Sara Carter, “States Have Added Nearly 100 Restrictive Laws Since SCOTUS Gutted the Voting Rights Act 10 Years Ago,” Brennan Center for Justice, June 23, 2023, available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/states-have-added-nearly-100-restrictive-laws-scotus-gutted-voting-rights.
  2. Brennan Center for Justice, “State Voting Laws,” available at https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/voting-reform/state-voting-laws (last accessed March 2024).
  3. Rebecca Mears and Greta Bedekovics, “8 Ways To Protect American Democracy: Safeguarding Elections in 2024 and Beyond” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2024), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/8-ways-to-protect-american-democracy/.
  4. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., “State Voting Rights Acts: Building a More Inclusive Democracy,” available at https://www.naacpldf.org/ldf-mission/political-participation/state-voting-rights-protect-democracy/ (last accessed March 2024).
  5. Ibid.
  6. U.S. Department of Justice, “Guidance under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10301, for redistricting and methods of electing government bodies” (Washington: 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1429486/download#:~:text=First%2C%20the%20minority%20group%20must,group%20must%20be%20politically%20cohesive.
  7. In 2021, Alabama drew district maps that diminished the power of Black voters. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded the maps likely violated the federal Voting Rights Act due to vote dilution. See Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (June 8, 2023), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/599/21-1086/#tab-opinion-4749966.
  8. As a precondition to bring a claim of vote dilution under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, plaintiffs must show the existence of three factors: 1) The minority group must be “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; 2) the minority group must be “politically cohesive,” meaning a “significant proportion of the minority group supports the same candidates”; and 3) the majority must vote “sufficiently as a bloc to enable it … usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50-51 (June 30, 1986), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/30/.
  9. As noted in this issue brief, California, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington all explicitly note that geographic compactness is not required to bring a vote dilution claim.
  10. Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292, 307 (Cal. 2023), available at https://casetext.com/case/pico-neighborhood-assn-v-city-of-santa-monica-16.
  11. Ibid.; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 445 (June 28, 2006) (plurality opinion), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/399/#tab-opinion-1962153.
  12. California Voting Rights Act of 2001, Elec. Code § 14027 (July 9, 2002), available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&division=14.&title=&part=&chapter=1.5.&article=.
  13. Oregon Voting Rights Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 255.400(1) (June 12, 2019), available at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors255.html; Ibid., § 255.405.
  14. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (June 25, 2013), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/529/#tab-opinion-1970752.
  15. Singh and Carter, “States Have Added Nearly 100 Restrictive Laws Since SCOTUS Gutted the Voting Rights Act 10 Years Ago.”
  16. Casetext, “N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-210,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-2-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-of-new-york/section-17-210-see-note-preclearance (last accessed March 2024); Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368m,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/general-statutes-of-connecticut/title-9-elections/chapter-151-elections-prohibited-acts-and-penalties/section-9-368m-preclearance-of-covered-policy (last accessed March 2024); Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-129,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter1.1/section24.2-129/ (last accessed March 2024).
  17. Ark. State Conference NAACP v. Ark. Bd. of Apportionment, 86 F.4th 1204, 8th Cir. (November 20, 2023), available at https://casetext.com/case/ark-state-conference-naacp-v-ark-bd-of-apportionment-1.
  18. Ibid., 1219 n.8.
  19. As explained by Pam Karlan, former principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice: “There are states, counties, school boards, water districts, city councils. I mean, there are just so many different governmental bodies that are subject to Section 2 that the idea that you’d have one body in the Justice Department as the sole enforcement mechanism makes no sense at all.” See Hansi Lo Wang, “How a Supreme Court justice’s paragraph put the Voting Rights Act in more danger,” NPR, February 26, 2023, available at https://www.npr.org/2023/02/26/1157248572/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-private-right-of-action-arkansas.
  20. Robinson v. Ardoin, 86 F.4th 574, 5th Cir. (November 10, 2023), available at https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24160384/robinson-2023-11-10-5th-circuit-opinion.pdf#page=11.
  21. Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 6th Cir. (September 30, 1999), available at https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/1366686.html.
  22. Ala. State Conference of the NAACP v. Alabama, 949 F.3d 647, 11th Cir. (February 3, 2020), available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/17-14443/17-14443-2020-02-03.html.
  23. Allen v. Milligan.
  24. Ark. State Conference NAACP v. Ark. Bd. of Apportionment, No. 22-1395, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2094, 8th Cir. (January 30, 2024), available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24396590-arkansas-state-conference-naacp-2024-01-30-8th-circuit-order.
  25. Legal Information Institute, “52 U.S. Code § 10307 – Prohibited acts, (a),” available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10307 (last accessed March 2024).
  26. Legal Information Institute, “52 U.S. Code § 10307 – Prohibited acts, (b)”; National Coalition on Black Civic Participation v. Wohl, Civil Action 1:20-cv-08668-VM-OTW (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2022) (U.S. Department of Justice, Statement of Interest of the United States of America, 2022), available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/1527306/download.
  27. Legal Information Institute, “52 U.S. Code § 10310 – Enforcement proceedings, (c)(1),” available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10310 (last accessed March 2024).
  28. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-1005.2,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter10/section24.2-1005.2/ (last accessed March 2024).
  29. Caroline Sullivan, “The Counties That Stalled Certification in the 2022 Primaries,” Democracy Docket, September 30, 2022, available at https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-counties-that-stalled-certification-in-the-2022-primaries/.
  30. SCOTUSblog, “The Democracy Canon,” available at https://www.scotusblog.com/election-law-explainers/the-democracy-canon/ (last accessed March 2024); Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368o,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/general-statutes-of-connecticut/title-9-elections/chapter-151-elections-prohibited-acts-and-penalties/section-9-368o-liberal-construction-required (last accessed March 2024); Casetext, “N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-202,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-2-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-of-new-york/section-17-202-interpretation-of-laws-related-to-the-elective-franchise (last accessed March 2024); Washington State Legislature, “Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 29A.92.720,” available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.92&full=true&pdf=true%20p.3.#29A.92.720 (last accessed March 2024).
  31. California Voting Rights Act of 2001.
  32. Ibid., § 14028(c).
  33. Ibid., § 14027.
  34. Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-368i – 9-368q,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/general-statutes-of-connecticut/title-9-elections/chapter-151-elections-prohibited-acts-and-penalties (last accessed March 2024); Jaden Edison, “Gov. Ned Lamont signs CT voting rights act into law,” CT Mirror, June 12, 2023, available at https://ctmirror.org/2023/06/12/ct-voting-rights-act-law-elections/.
  35. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., “The Connecticut Voting Rights Act, Explained,” available at https://www.naacpldf.org/ldf-mission/political-participation/connecticut-voting-rights-act/ (last accessed March 2024).
  36. Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368j,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/general-statutes-of-connecticut/title-9-elections/chapter-151-elections-prohibited-acts-and-penalties/section-9-368j-eligibility-to-be-an-elector-protected-class-members (last accessed March 2024).
  37. Ibid., § 9-368j(1)(2)(B).
  38. Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368m.”
  39. Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368n,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/general-statutes-of-connecticut/title-9-elections/chapter-151-elections-prohibited-acts-and-penalties/section-9-368n-acts-of-intimidation-deception-or-obstruction-that-interfere-with-any-electors-right-to-vote-prohibited (last accessed March 2024).
  40. Ibid.
  41. Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368o.”
  42. Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368l(b),” available at https://casetext.com/statute/general-statutes-of-connecticut/title-9-elections/chapter-151-elections-prohibited-acts-and-penalties/section-9-368l-additional-languages-for-voting-and-elections-materials (last accessed March 2024).
  43. Casetext, “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368k,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/general-statutes-of-connecticut/title-9-elections/chapter-151-elections-prohibited-acts-and-penalties/section-9-368k-state-wide-database-regarding-election-administration (last accessed March 2024).
  44. Office of New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York Into Law,” Press release, June 20, 2022, available at https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-new-york-law.
  45. Casetext, “N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-206,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-2-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-of-new-york/section-17-206-prohibitions-on-voter-disenfranchisement (last accessed March 2024).
  46. Ibid., § 17-206(2).
  47. Ibid., § 17-206(2)(c)(viii).
  48. Casetext, “N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-210.”
  49. Casetext, “N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-212,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-2-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-of-new-york/section-17-212-prohibition-against-voter-intimidation-deception-or-obstruction (last accessed March 2024); Ibid., § 17-212(b)(iii).
  50. Casetext, “N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-202.”
  51. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York requires that municipalities provide voting materials in the language of the community and language assistance if the number of citizens of voting age that speak a shared language other than English and are limited English proficient individuals: 1) is more than 4,000 citizens of voting age; or 2) is more than 2 percent of the citizens of voting age in the municipality and is not fewer than 300 individuals; or 3) in the case of a municipality that contains part of a Native American reservation, is more than 2 percent of the Native American citizens of voting age within such reservation. See Casetext, “N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-208,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-2-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-of-new-york/section-17-208-effective-712026-assistance-for-language-minority-groups (last accessed March 2024).
  52. Casetext, “N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-216,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-2-john-r-lewis-voting-rights-act-of-new-york/section-17-216-expedited-judicial-proceedings-and-preliminary-relief (last accessed March 2024).
  53. Oregon Legislative Information, “2019 Regular Session,” https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/HB3310 (last accessed March 2024).
  54. Oregon Voting Rights Act; Ibid., § 255.405.
  55. Ibid., § 255.411(4).
  56. Sarah Rankin, “Northam acts on sweeping voting rights measure, other bills,” The Associated Press, March 31, 2021, available at https://apnews.com/article/legislature-bills-voting-rights-legislation-elections-0212f8b6b44fbef8088b3bba8d9fd317.
  57. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-130,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter1.1/section24.2-130/ (last accessed March 2024).
  58. Ibid., § 24.2-130(B).
  59. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-126,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter1.1/section24.2-126/ (last accessed March 2024).
  60. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-129.”
  61. Ibid., § 24.2-129(B).
  62. Ibid., § 24.2-129(D).
  63. Virginia’s Legislative Information System, “2021 Special Session I,” available at https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?212+ful+CHAP0533 (last accessed March 2024).
  64. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-1005(B),” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter10/section24.2-1005/ (last accessed March 2024); Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-1005.1(C),” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter10/section24.2-1005.1/ (last accessed March 2024).
  65. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-1005.2.”
  66. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-128,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter1.1/section24.2-128/ (last accessed March 2024); U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, “About Language Minority Voting Rights,” available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-language-minority-voting-rights (last accessed March 2024).
  67. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-131,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter1.1/section24.2-131/ (last accessed March 2024).
  68. Virginia Law, “Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-104.1,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter1/section24.2-104.1/ (last accessed March 2024).
  69. Austin Jenkins, “Inslee Signs Voting Rights Act, Other Voting Bills Into Law,” Northwest News Network, March 19, 2018, available at https://www.knkx.org/politics/2018-03-19/inslee-signs-voting-rights-act-other-voting-bills-into-law; Washington State Legislature, “Voting Rights Act,” available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.92&full=true&pdf=true (last accessed March 2024).
  70. Washington State Legislature, “HB 1048-2023-24, Enhancing the Washington voting rights act,” available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1048&Year=2023&Initiative=false (last accessed March 2024).
  71. Washington State Legislature, “Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 29A.92.020,” available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.92.020 (last accessed March 2024). Notably, the WVRA states that it was also intended to protect the ability of members of protected class to influence the outcome of an election. See Washington State Legislature, “Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 29A.92.005,” available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.92&full=true&pdf=true%20p.3.#29A.92.005 (last accessed March 2024). Note that the WVRA is “not applicable to cities and towns with populations under one thousand or to school districts with K-12 full-time equivalent enrollments of less than two hundred fifty.” See Washington State Legislature, “Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 29A.92.700,” available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.92&full=true&pdf=true%20p.3.#29A.92.700 (last accessed March 2024).
  72. Washington State Legislature, “Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 29A.92.030(2),” available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.92&full=true&pdf=true%20p.3.#29A.92.030 (last accessed March 2024).
  73. Washington State Legislature, “Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §92.720.”

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Author

Rebecca Mears

Director, Democracy

Team

Democracy Policy

The Democracy Policy team is advancing an agenda to win structural reforms that strengthen the U.S. system and give everyone an equal voice in the democratic process.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.