The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

April 25, 2023 R47520

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development April 25, 2023
and Policy Background
R. Sam Garrett
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is one of the most significant elections statutes ever
Specialist in American
enacted. The law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or language-minority
National Government
status in registration and voting nationwide. The VRA also provides protections for

blind, disabled, or illiterate voters.

Congress designed the VRA to remedy and prevent pervasive racial discrimination in registration and voting,
especially in southern states, which continued for a century after the Civil War ended. Although Reconstruction of
the South enfranchised many African American men, the federal government’s practical role in protecting
minority voting rights in the South was substantially limited between the end of Reconstruction, after the 1876
presidential election, and congressional passage of the VRA in 1965. Discrimination in voting and elections
remained entrenched throughout much of the nation into the 1960s, when congressional momentum toward the
VRA coincided with other civil rights efforts and increased media attention to the subject. This historical
background is invariably part of the congressional context surrounding the VRA.
After passing the VRA in 1965, Congress amended the law in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. On these
occasions, the House and Senate agreed that unique federal action was necessary to protect voting rights for racial
minorities and members of certain language-minority groups. Despite that general consensus, congressional
sentiment about how or whether to address voting rights through the VRA was not always unanimous. The
legislative record reveals generally consistent support for equality in voting rights, and also passionate debate
about the proper roles of the federal government and the states in achieving that equality and administering
federal elections.

The 2006 amendments, the most recent, reauthorized the act’s Section 4(b) “coverage formula” for a process
known as “preclearance.” That formula, based on 1960s and 1970s voter participation data, determined which
states and political subdivisions (e.g., counties) were required to seek preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General
or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making changes to their voting or election
administration practices. The Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision invalidated the coverage
formula, thus rendering preclearance inoperable. However, other portions of the VRA remain intact. In particular,
Section 2 of the act contains a nationwide prohibition on voting qualifications based on race, color, or language-
minority status. The Section 2 provisions do not expire. Unlike the act’s preclearance provisions, Section 2 must
be enforced after the fact through litigation. The 2006 amendments also extended the act’s Section 203 language-
minority provisions until 2032.

Recent Congresses have considered amending the VRA, largely in response to Shelby County and another
Supreme Court decision, the 2021 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee ruling. The House passed
legislation containing a new coverage formula, in addition to other provisions, in the 116th (H.R. 4) and 117th (also
H.R. 4) Congresses. The legislation was not enacted.
This report provides an overview of the complex political history that led to the VRA, and of more than 60 years
of legislative history surrounding the statute’s enactment, major amendments, and related developments.
Understanding the policy challenges that Congress faced as it developed the VRA and the statutory provisions it
agreed upon to address those challenges could help provide a foundation for future congressional consideration of
policy options, regardless of whether or how the House and Senate decide to proceed.

Congressional Research Service

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Congressional Research Service

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Introduction
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is one of the most consequential elections laws ever
enacted.1 At different points over more than 50 years since its enactment, the VRA has both stood
relatively insulated from, and been inseparably part of, broader policy debates about the
boundaries of the federalist nature of voting and elections in the United States. As discussed
below, the VRA also has both been derided as an unconstitutional usurpation of states’ rights and
praised as Congress’s boldest effort to enforce constitutional protections guaranteeing equal
access to the polls. This report provides an overview of the historical and policy issues that
shaped the statute, and that provide context for ongoing congressional consideration of voting
rights policy issues.2 The report emphasizes the period from the Civil War through the VRA’s
1965 enactment, and also addresses major amendments that occurred through 2006, when
Congress most recently altered the statute.
This report is designed for a general congressional audience. Substantial scholarly, policy, legal,
and journalistic literature addresses the topics discussed herein in great detail and from varying
perspectives. This report synthesizes some of that literature to provide an overview of key
themes. It briefly identifies selected litigation for policy and historical context, but it is not a
constitutional or legal analysis. It also does not discuss the relationship between the VRA and
redistricting in detail. Other CRS products provide additional detail on litigation and
redistricting.3
A Note on U.S. Code Citations
Due to subsequent organizational changes, this report includes U.S. Code citations that did not
exist when the public laws discussed below were enacted.4 As enacted and amended, provisions
in the VRA generally cited previous Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which contained federal election
law at the time. A 2014 “editorial reclassification” consolidated these and other federal election
provisions into a new Title 52 of the Code. As the Office of Law Revision Counsel (the House
office that maintains the U.S. Code) explains, “No statutory text is altered by such editorial

1 For a short discussion of some of the issues addressed herein, see CRS In Focus IF12284, Voting Rights Act: Brief
Policy Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.
2 The report relies on congressional and other governmental documents, federal statutes, scholarly publications, and
media reports produced at different times and using different methodologies. The report generally uses racial and ethnic
terms (e.g., African American, Alaska Native, American Indian, Black, White, etc.) as they appear in the cited source, if
applicable. In some cases, those sources contain additional information about which specific ethnic or racial groups, or
languages, are included in the underlying data. If not using a cited source, the terms African American and Black
generally are used interchangeably.
3 On the VRA and legal issues, see, for example , CRS Testimony TE10033, History and Enforcement of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10624, Voting Rights Act: Supreme Court
Provides “Guideposts” for Determining Violations of Section 2 in Brnovich v. DNC, by L. Paige Whitaker. On the
relationship between the VRA and redistricting, see, for example, CRS Insight IN11618, Congressional Redistricting
Criteria and Considerations, by Sarah J. Eckman; CRS Report R45951, Apportionment and Redistricting Process for
the U.S. House of Representatives, by Sarah J. Eckman; and CRS In Focus IF12250, Congressional Redistricting: Key
Legal and Policy Issues, by L. Paige Whitaker and Sarah J. Eckman.
4 On the old and new election-law citations, see U.S. House of Representatives, Office of Law Revision Counsel,
“Editorial Reclassification, Title 52, U.S. Code,” http://uscode.house.gov/editorialreclassification/t52/index.html.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

reclassification projects, other than necessary updates to references to reflect the reorganization.
Relevant provisions are merely transferred from one place to another in the Code.”5
Relevance for Congress
Recent Congresses have considered amendments to the VRA, and Members have expressed
various views about how, or whether, to alter the statute.6 Since 2013, much of the debate has
concerned the implications of the end of the preclearance process (discussed below), a result of
the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. If Congress chooses to continue
examining the VRA, the extensive legislative record could be both a tremendous resource and
overwhelming. Political and historical developments that preceded the VRA are similarly long
and complicated. This report provides an overview of some of the most enduring historical
themes and policy background from the VRA’s development in Congress.
A key question facing Congress could be how relevant the historical factors discussed in this
report remain today, and are likely to be in the future. Some might argue that the VRA’s success
renders preclearance unnecessary in the current environment. From this perspective, evidence of
greatly improved political participation among racial and language-minority groups might
demonstrate that the VRA’s most burdensome requirements are no longer necessary. Some also
might caution that the VRA’s nationwide prohibition on discriminatory voting practices, found in
Section 2 of the act, provides adequate safeguards given the substantial progress achieved since
1965. From a different perspective, others might argue that the same empirical evidence could
signal that the VRA is still necessary, and that progress will be or has been lost without the
statute’s full protections. In addition to regular legislative and oversight interest in the VRA,
Congress could choose to respond to ongoing litigation (which is beyond the scope of this report)
involving the statute, including at the U.S. Supreme Court.7
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have primary jurisdiction over the VRA.8 In
addition, the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Rules and Administration
Committee have primary jurisdiction over federal elections issues and frequently hold oversight
or legislative hearings that address election administration or voting issues related to the VRA.9
The Department of Justice (DOJ) administers and enforces the statute, with support from agencies
such as the Census Bureau and Office of Personnel Management (OPM).10 As such, multiple

5 See U.S. House of Representatives, Office of Law Revision Counsel, “Editorial Reclassification,”
http://uscode.house.gov/editorialreclassification/reclassification.html.
6 On consideration of different proposals, see, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, From
Selma to Shelby County: Working Together to Restore the Protections of the Voting Rights Act, 113th Cong., 1st sess.,
July 17, 2013, S.Hrg. 113-332; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, The Need to Enhance the Voting Rights Act: Preliminary Injunctions,
Bail-In Coverage, Election Observers, and Notice, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 29, 2021, Serial No. 117-30.
7 See, for example, CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10624, Voting Rights Act: Supreme Court Provides “Guideposts” for
Determining Violations of Section 2 in Brnovich v. DNC, by L. Paige Whitaker.
8 The House and Senate parliamentarians provide authoritative advice regarding the referral of legislation and the
jurisdiction of committees and should be consulted for guidance on questions on these subjects.
9 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Voting
Rights and Election Administration in America, 116th Cong., 1st sess., October 17, 2019; and U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, Protecting the Freedom to Vote: Recent Changes to Georgia Voting Laws
and the Need for Basic Federal Standards to Make Sure All Americans Can Vote in the Way that Works Best for Them,
117th Cong., 1st sess., July 19, 2021, S.Hrg. 117-47.
10 Other agencies, such as the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) or the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
conduct public education, research, or both that can be relevant for VRA policy issues.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

congressional committees could be directly or indirectly involved in overseeing issues related to
the statute.11
Highlights of VRA Provisions
After the 2013 Shelby County decision, Section 2 of the act is perhaps the statute’s most
consequential language. These provisions prohibit discrimination in registration or voting based
on race, color, or membership in certain language-minority groups. They apply nationwide.
Section 203 of the act contains provisions, which are operable until 2032, triggering the language-
minority requirements. Under these provisions, some jurisdictions must provide materials such as
ballots and registration information in English and in other covered languages for voters whose
English proficiency is limited. Table 1 identifies selected sections of the VRA and corresponding
policy areas that organize the statute.
Table 1. Selected VRA (as Amended) Sections and Policy Provisions
VRA Section(s) as Amended
Policy Provisions Addressed
2
Nationwide prohibition on voting qualifications based on race, color, or
language-minority status
3
Establishes judicial enforcement process for certain jurisdictions (“bail-in”
provisions)
4
Establishes coverage formula for identifying jurisdictions subject to
preclearance process (§4(b)); prohibits English-only elections and requires non-
English elections materials in certain jurisdictions
Note: §4(b) coverage formula inoperable post-Shelby County (2013)
5
Establishes preclearance requirements providing for federal review of elections
or voting changes before implementation in certain jurisdictions
Note: §4(b) coverage formula triggering §5 preclearance inoperable post-Shelby
County (2013)
203
Establishes and provides for enforcement of language-minority provisions in
certain jurisdictions
208
Requires assistance for blind, disabled, or il iterate voters
Source: CRS analysis of statutory provisions.
Note: The table does not address every section of the act.
Historical Factors That Influenced the VRA
During the span of a few years during and after the Civil War, many African Americans were
freed from slavery, voted and elected Black people to high office during Reconstruction, and then
lost many of their recent political gains during a period known as Jim Crow. From approximately
1877 until the 1960s, state governments in the former Confederacy established various legal and
cultural barriers to African American political participation that, in practice, nullified many of the
protections guaranteed through the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.12 By the 1890s, many of the political gains that Black Americans had achieved

11 See CRS Report R45302, Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.
12 The Confederacy originally included 11 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. See U.S. House of Representatives, “Reconstruction’s New
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

during Reconstruction were largely erased, especially in registration and voting in southern
states.13 The VRA marked the culmination of federal efforts to remedy Jim Crow voting barriers
for African Americans. This section provides brief historical background on how social and
political forces shaped the period between the Civil War and enactment of the VRA. Table 2
below lists selected events that influenced the VRA’s development.14
Table 2. Chronology of Selected Historical Events Influencing the Voting Rights Act
Date
Event
April 9, 1865
Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee surrenders to U.S. Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at
Appomattox, Virginia, effectively ending the Civil War; Reconstruction already
underway or begins in former Confederate states
April 14, 1865
President Abraham Lincoln (R) assassinated in Washington, DC; Vice President
Andrew Johnson (D) assumes the presidency
December 6, 1865
Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified, prohibiting slavery and
“involuntary servitude,” except as criminal punishment, in the United States or
anywhere in its jurisdiction
July 9, 1868
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified, guaranteeing equal
protection under law to citizens, and superseding previous “three-fifths”
apportionment for congressional representation; suffrage not extended to women
or those under age 21
February 3, 1870
Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified, prohibiting denial or
abridgment of voting rights based on “race, color, or previous condition of
servitude”
November 7, 1876
General election between Rutherford B. Hayes (R) and Samuel Tilden (D) results
in contested presidential election outcome, leading to the “Compromise of 1877”
in which Hayes is elected President and Reconstruction ends
Approximately 1877-1896
Jim Crow system of racial segregation established throughout the former
Confederacy; continues until approximately the 1960s
May 18, 1896
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537), effectively
limiting federal authority over racial desegregation in the states
April 3, 1944
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in Smith v. Allwright (321 U.S. 649), invalidating
the “white primary”
March 7-25, 1965
Three Selma-to-Montgomery, Alabama, voting rights marches held; March 7
“Bloody Sunday” attack on marchers at Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma
March 15, 1965
President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) addresses joint session of Congress and calls for
passage of voting rights legislation
March 17, 1965
Representative Emanuel Celler (NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,
introduces H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965

Order,” note 6, https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Fifteenth-Amendment/
Reconstruction/.
13 For an overview of historical, political, and jurisprudential developments during the period, see, for example,
Michael J. Klarman, “The Plessy Era,” The Supreme Court Review, vol. 1998 (1998), pp. 303-414.
14 This report generally includes party affiliations for historical reference. Party alignments have varied throughout
American history. For an overview of the scholarly literature on party and issue alignments and realignments, see, for
example, Edward G. Carmines and Michael W. Wagner, “Political Issues and Party Alignments: Assessing the Issue
Evolution Perspective,” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 9 (2006), pp. 67-81; and James L. Sundquist,
Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States, Revised ed.
(Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1983).
Congressional Research Service

4

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Date
Event
March 18, 1965
Senator Mike Mansfield (MT), majority leader, introduces S. 1564, the Voting
Rights Act of 1965
August 6, 1965
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-110)
March 7, 1966
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (383 U.S. 301),
upholding constitutionality of certain VRA provisions
June 22, 1970
President Richard M. Nixon (R) signs VRA amendments (P.L. 91-285)
August 6, 1975
President Gerald R. Ford (R) signs VRA amendments (P.L. 94-73)
April 22, 1980
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden (446 U.S. 55),
interpreting VRA §2 to require proof of discriminatory intent; spurs congressional
action on 1982 VRA amendments
June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan (R) signs VRA amendments (P.L. 97-205)
June 30, 1986
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in Thornburg v. Gingles (478 U.S. 30),
establishing review standards for VRA §2 “vote-dilution” claims in redistricting
maps
August 26, 1992
President George H.W. Bush (R) signs VRA amendments (P.L. 102-344)
July 27, 2006
President George W. Bush (R) signs VRA amendments (P.L. 109-246)
June 22, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District
Number One v. Holder (557 U.S. 193), addressing certain political subdivisions’
eligibility for release from VRA §4 preclearance coverage formula
February 27, 2013
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in Shelby County v. Holder (570 U.S. 529),
invalidating VRA §4(b) preclearance coverage formula
July 1, 2021
U.S. Supreme Court issues decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
(141 S. Ct. 2321), providing “guideposts” for VRA §2 violations
Source: CRS summary relying on various historical sources, including CRS products, the Congressional Record,
Proquest Congressional legislative histories, Proquest Historical Newspapers, and National Park Service
historical summaries.
Reconstruction and Continuing Barriers to Voting Despite Post-
Civil War Enfranchisement Efforts
Two post-Civil War constitutional amendments would later prove foundational to the VRA, as
noted below. The Jim Crow system of racial discrimination that arose after the Civil War rendered
both amendments practically ineffective, thus ultimately providing congressional justification for
the VRA almost a century later.
 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to “[a]ll persons
born or naturalized in the United States” and precludes states from abridging
those rights without due process. Section 2 requires congressional apportionment
among the states based, in part, on the “whole number of persons in each State”
(as opposed to the now-superseded three-fifths language that applied to slaves in
Article 1, Section 2, clause 3). The states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in
1868.15

15 Until ratification of the 19th and 26th Amendments, the Constitution did not enfranchise women and those age 18 and
older, respectively.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

 Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibits federal or state
denial or abridgement of voting rights based on “race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.” Section 2 of the amendment authorizes congressional
enforcement of those provisions through legislation.
Federal troops maintained Black men’s voting rights in the South during Reconstruction.
However, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments had little practical effect once
Reconstruction ended. According to one legal scholar, “the Fifteenth Amendment’s most familiar
legacy may be its flagrant disregard by the Southern States during Jim Crow” through “facially
neutral schemes like literacy tests, poll taxes, and property qualifications” used to disenfranchise
Black voters.16 Brief highlights appear below.
Reconstruction
The federal government began preparations for unifying the country well before the end of the
Civil War, although these plans did not necessarily include political equality. The 1863
Emancipation Proclamation freed some enslaved Americans but did not confer voting rights.17
Improved access to the polls among African American men occurred during Reconstruction.
Reconstruction generally refers to the period between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the
withdrawal of federal troops from the South in 1877.18 Detailed discussion of Reconstruction is
beyond the scope of this report, but the period is noteworthy because it marked dramatic federal
intervention in state and local governance to protect voting rights. Although Reconstruction ended
what many considered the most egregious forms of racial discrimination in political life, it was
short-lived.
Congress and President Abraham Lincoln (R) pursued competing Reconstruction plans.19 A
faction known as “Radical Republicans” in Congress designed their own, more restrictive
alternative to the President’s “Ten Percent Plan.” After Lincoln’s assassination, the Radical
Republican vision of strong federal authority, particularly in civil rights, ran counter to new
President Andrew Johnson’s (D) comparatively passive approach to the federal role in rebuilding
the South.20 In particular, the March 2, 1867, Reconstruction Act (the first of four such laws),

16 Travis Crum, “The Unabridged Fifteenth Amendment,” Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research
Paper 23-03-03, posted to Social Science Research Network, forthcoming in Yale Law Journal, vol. 133 (2023), 2023,
p. 3, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4390108.
17 For a brief overview of the proclamation, see U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “The
Emancipation Proclamation,” https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation.
18 Historian Eric Foner has noted that some scholars consider Reconstruction as beginning earlier in the 1860s, when
the Union Army began occupying parts of the South during the Civil War. According to Foner, “basically, we’re
talking about the period after the American Civil War. Or another way of putting it is we’re talking about the historical
process by which the country brings itself together after the Civil War and also tries to come to terms with the
consequences of the abolition of slavery.” See NPR, “Historian Eric Foner on the ‘Unresolved Legacy of
Reconstruction,’” Fresh Air transcript, June 5, 2020 (originally broadcast Jan. 9, 2006), https://www.npr.org/2020/06/
05/870459750/historian-eric-foner-on-the-unresolved-legacy-of-reconstruction.
19 For an overview, see James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Ballantine,
1988), pp. 689-717. See also U.S. House of Representatives, “Wade-Davis Bill,” https://history.house.gov/Records-
and-Research/Listing/lfp_011/.
20 According to Foner, “[a]t the core of Congressional Radicalism were men whose careers had been shaped by the
slavery controversy: Charles Sumner [Massachusetts], Benjamin Wade [Ohio], and Henry Wilson [Massachusetts] in
the Senate; Thaddeus Stevens [Pennsylvania], George W. Julian [Indiana], and James M. Ashley [Ohio] in the House....
The driving force of Radical ideology was the utopian vision of a nation whose citizens enjoyed equality of civil and
political rights secured by a powerful and beneficent national state.” See Eric Foner, A Short History of Reconstruction:
Congressional Research Service

6

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

championed by Radical Republicans, established military governance in 11 formerly Confederate
states.
Under the new law, Union Army officers served as governors of the affected states and filled
public administration roles, sometimes working with local officials, until civilian governments
loyal to the Union could be restored.21 In addition to protecting Black voters from violence and
intimidation from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, federal troops fulfilled some election
administration duties. In some cases, the latter function included general-officer policymaking on
issues such as voter eligibility and registration.22 Under the 1867 statute, readmission to the
Union depended on states rewriting their constitutions with voter approval (including African
Americans) and ratifying the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.23
This approach also had important political implications. According to one historical analysis,
[t]he Radical Republican majority in Congress feared that unless blacks were allowed to
vote, Democrats and ex-rebels would quickly regain control of the national government. In
the presidential election of 1868, in fact, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant defeated his Democratic
opponent, Horatio Seymour, by fewer than 305,000 votes; the new black vote probably
decided the election.24
A congressional agreement to settle the disputed 1876 presidential election between the
eventually victorious Rutherford B. Hayes (R) and Samuel Tilden (D) resulted in the end of
Reconstruction in 1877.25 Once U.S. troops withdrew, the federal ability to protect minority
voting rights in the South was substantially limited until Congress enacted the VRA in 1965.
Political Parties and Continuing Disenfranchisement
Party allegiances might also help explain the ineffectiveness of pre-VRA voter protections. In a
significant contrast to the present day, after Reconstruction, the Democratic Party held most
political power in the South.26 African American support for Lincoln’s Republican Party began to
wane as early as 1928, but the Democratic Party, favored by most Whites, maintained substantial
power.27
One-party control in many areas, even entire states, meant that the party often wielded at least as
much power as the government itself. Even where voter protections were enshrined in law, they

1863-1877, updated ed. (New York: Harper Perennial, 2014) p. 104.
21 For an overview focusing on the U.S. Army role in Reconstruction, see Mark L. Bradley, The Army and
Reconstruction, 1865-1877, U.S. Army Center of Military History, CMH Pub 75-18 (Washington, DC: 2015),
https://history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/75/75-18.html.
22 See, for example, Mark L. Bradley, The Army and Reconstruction, 1865-1877, U.S. Army Center of Military
History, CMH Pub 75-18 (Washington, DC: 2015), pp. 38-42, https://history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/75/75-18.html.
23 See, for example, U.S. Senate, “The Civil War: The Senate’s Story,” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/
common/generic/Civil_War_AdmissionReadmission.htm.
24 See “The Black Vote: A Long, Painful Struggle,” in Guide to U.S. Elections, ed. Deborah Kalb, 7th ed. (New York:
Sage, 2016), https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/the-cq-press-guide-to-us-elections-7e/i782.xml?term=
Voting%20Rights%20Act.
25 See, for example, C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of
Reconstruction, revised ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1956); and Edward B. Foley, Ballot Battles: The History of
Disputed Elections in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 117-149.
26 On the absence of two-party competition in the South after the Civil War, see, for example, V.O. Key, Jr., Southern
Politics in the State and Nation, 1st ed. (New York: Knopf, 1949), pp. 551-553.
27 See, for example, John Hope Franklin and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of
African Americans, 10th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2021), pp. 467-469.
Congressional Research Service

7

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

could be avoided.28 These and other voting barriers meant that, practically, African Americans
remained disenfranchised throughout much of the South.
Party-based disenfranchisement took several forms. Selected examples appear below.
 Some states relied on voting methods that exaggerated the influence of sparsely
populated rural areas over more heavily populated urban ones. For example,
Georgia instituted a “county unit” representation system weighted heavily in
favor of rural areas that were controlled by local political bosses.29
 Primaries that were tantamount to general elections largely excluded African
Americans and Republicans.30 Some state Democratic parties barred non-Whites
from participating in primaries—a practice that the U.S. Supreme Court did not
invalidate as an equal protection violation until 1944.31
 Some states, such as South Carolina and Louisiana, instituted “grandfather
clauses.” These lineage-based options for determining voting eligibility were
designed, at least in part, to enfranchise poor Whites who otherwise would have
been disqualified by property or literacy requirements.32
 Democratic parties in southern states also applied poll taxes, generally beginning
in the 1880s, ostensibly to raise revenue. However, the poll taxes had widely
disparate effects on poor and Black voters, and contributed to the party’s
dominance across the South.33
Congressional Momentum Toward the VRA
By the 1950s and early 1960s, popular and congressional advocacy for a greater federal role in
protecting voting rights began to succeed.34 In Congress, the House and Senate began developing

28 For example, Jimmy Carter, writing of the period between Reconstruction and the 1960s in Georgia, stated that
“Whenever the governor and the legislature faced legal challenges to the existing procedures or wished to change them
without passing new laws, the simplest solution was for the state Democratic party to amend its rules. Since there was
no viable Republican party ... a Democratic nomination for office was tantamount to election.” See Jimmy Carter,
Turning Point: A Candidate, a State, and a Nation Come of Age (New York: Times Books, 1992), p. 11.
29 See, for example, Albert B. Saye, “Georgia’s County Unit System of Elections,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 12, no.
1 (1950), pp. 93-106; Scott E. Buchanan, “The Effects of the Abolition of the Georgia County-Unit System on the 1962
Gubernatorial Election,” Southeastern Political Review, vol. 25, no. 4 (1997), pp. 687-704; and Charles S. Bullock III
and Jessica L. McClellan, “The County Boss in Statewide Elections: A Multivariate Analysis of Georgia’s Bifactional
Politics,” Politics & Policy, vol. 32, no. 4 (2004), pp. 740-755.
30 In some cases, Democratic Whites managed to form factional alliances with southern Blacks, although those
alliances generally faded over time. See, for example, John Samuel Ezell, The South Since 1865, 2nd ed. (New York:
Macmillan, 1975), pp. 174-197. In addition, in a few areas, such as the mountain regions of eastern Tennessee and
western North Carolina, the Republican Party maintained strong influence. See, for example, V.O. Key, Jr., Southern
Politics in the State and Nation, 1st ed. (New York: Knopf, 1949), pp. 280-283; and Gordon B. McKinney, “The
Political Uses of Appalachian Identity After the Civil War,” Appalachian Journal, vol. 7, no. 3 (1980), pp. 200-209.
31 Such contests were called “White primaries.” See, for example, V.O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in the State and
Nation, 1st ed. (New York: Knopf, 1949), pp. 619-643. On invalidation, see Smith v. Allwright (321 U.S. 649).
32 See, for example, V.O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in the State and Nation, 1st ed. (New York: Knopf, 1949), p. 538.
33 In practice, the poll tax was a required fee for voting. See, for example, V.O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in the State
and Nation, 1st ed. (New York: Knopf, 1949), pp. 578-618.
34 For a brief overview of the push for federal involvement during the period, see, for example, Richard K. Scher,
Politics in the New South: Republicanism, Race and Leadership in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed. (Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, 1997), pp. 240-250.
Congressional Research Service

8

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

a substantial legislative history that fostered the VRA. That history shows that House and Senate
debate over voting rights has consistently been passionate, often controversial, and always
complex.
As became increasingly obvious outside the South, those seeking to disenfranchise African
American voters used various techniques even into the mid-20th century, many of which were
later included in the VRA’s prohibitions on registration and voting prerequisites known as “tests”
or “devices.” In a 1962 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Kenneth Keating (R-New
York) summarized findings from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reports that highlighted
techniques including
 election registrars being deliberately absent when African Americans attempted
to register, or ignoring African Americans when registrars were present;
 requiring a “voucher system,” in which other voters in the precinct had to
confirm the person’s identity—an impossibility in precincts where no African
Americans were registered;
 disqualifying African American voters for minor discrepancies on forms, such as
underlining rather than circling prefixes;
 requiring substantially different standards for White and for African American
voters in interpreting their answers to literacy tests; and
 employing “outright intimidation” for attempting to participate, including
“economic reprisals, threats, and official interrogations,” and violence.35
Some opponents of the VRA and predecessor legislation argued that tests and devices that the
VRA later prohibited were state prerogatives, were necessary for an informed electorate, or both.
For example, a Georgia attorney told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1962 that bills
prohibiting literacy tests would “seek to establish a government of the ignorant, by the ignorant,
and for the ignorant.”36
Congress also debated the extent to which the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits denying
suffrage based on race, color, or previous servitude, precluded the federal or state governments
from imposing tests or devices. In a precursor to debate over the VRA, for example, Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Sam Ervin (D-North Carolina) argued that “Congress and the
States intended the 15th amendment to mean exactly what it said. The color of a man cannot be a
reason to grant or deny him the right to vote. But, all other qualifications, which have no
reasonable relation to race or color, are left entirely to the wisdom of the States.”37 Congress and
federal courts, including the Supreme Court, eventually determined that the tests and devices that

35 See Statement of Sen. Kenneth B. Keating in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights, Literacy Tests and Voter Requirements in Federal and State Elections, 87th Cong., 2nd sess.,
March 27, 28, and April 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12, 1962, pp. 3-4.
36 See Statement of Charles J. Bloch in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights, Literacy Tests and Voter Requirements in Federal and State Elections, 87th Cong., 2nd sess.,
March 27, 28, and April 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12, 1962, p. 351.
37 See Statement of Sen. Sam Ervin in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights, Literacy Tests and Voter Requirements in Federal and State Elections, 87th Cong., 2nd sess.,
March 27, 28, and April 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12, 1962, p. 19. Ervin, as chair of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,
was a prominent opponent of the Johnson Administration’s civil rights and voting rights proposals, including during
heated exchanges with Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. For a historical overview, see, for example, Karl E.
Campbell, “Claghorn’s Hammurabi: Senator Sam Ervin and Civil Rights,” The North Carolina Historical Review, vol.
78, no. 4 (2001), pp. 431-456; and Logan Sawyer III, “Originalism from the Soft Southern Strategy to the New Right:
The Constitutional Politics of Sam Ervin Jr.,” Journal of Policy History, vol. 32, no. 1 (2021), pp. 32-59.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 17 link to page 17 The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

the VRA prohibited, such as literacy tests, were, in fact, based primarily on race and thus
constitutionally impermissible.
Media coverage was also especially important in rallying political and public support for federal
action on voting in the spring of 1965. On March 7, 1965, state and local police, and private
citizens, attacked a group of voting-rights activists who were marching from Selma, Alabama, to
the state capital at Montgomery.38 The violent confrontation at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, near
the start of the march, attracted national media attention and served as a catalyst for VRA action
in Congress.39
Development of the 1965 VRA
The original version of the VRA became P.L. 89-110 on August 6, 1965. President Lyndon B.
Johnson signed the act fewer than five months after introduction. Despite objections from some
southern Democrats, broad support in both chambers facilitated the bill’s enactment.
One of the most noteworthy aspects of the VRA is that it changed the federal approach to
ensuring minority voting rights. The VRA was designed, at least in part, to prevent voting
discrimination before it happened, by prohibiting certain practices and by requiring some
jurisdictions to seek approval through the preclearance process before changing how they
administered elections. Other federal statutes at the time, such as the 1957, 1960, and 1964 Civil
Rights Acts, enforced their voting protections through after-the-fact litigation—a mechanism that
was regarded as largely ineffective by the time Congress considered the VRA.40 Table 3 below
provides an overview of the initial statute. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1965 act’s
coverage formula and preclearance requirements in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966).41
Table 3. Brief Summary of Major Provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, as Enacted
VRA Section
Policy Issue
Brief Summary
2
Prohibition on race-based
Prohibited states or political subdivisions from imposing
voting practices
race- or color-based qualifications or prerequisites in any
voting “standard, practice, or procedure”
3(c)
Court supervision/“bail-in”
Authorized judicial oversight of states and political
provisionsa
subdivisions
4
Prohibition on “tests or
Prohibited race- or color-based tests or devices (e.g.,
devices”
literacy tests) in federal, state, or local elections in covered
states or jurisdictions; established criteria for jurisdictions
covered under §4(b) to be released from preclearance
coverage or “bail out” (Note: See also the “Preclearance
Requirements Affecting Some Jurisdictions ” section of this
report.)

38 See, for example, Roy Reed, “Alabama Police Use Gas and Clubs to Rout Negroes,” The New York Times, March 8,
1965, p. 1. For a brief overview of the early 1960s period, see also, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and César E. Chávez Voting Rights Reauthorization
and Amendments Act of 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., July 26, 2006, S.Rept. 109-295, pp. 8-10.
39 The day’s events came to be known as “Bloody Sunday.”
40 See, for example, Charles S. Bullock III, Ronald Keith Gaddie, and Justin J. Wert, The Rise and Fall of the Voting
Rights Act (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2016), pp. 20-21.
41 383 U.S. 381. For additional detail, see, for example CRS Testimony TE10033, History and Enforcement of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10583, Supreme Court Considers
Standard for Voting Rights Act Claims, by L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service

10

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

VRA Section
Policy Issue
Brief Summary
4(b)
Coverage formula for §5
Applied to jurisdictions that maintained prohibited tests or
preclearance
devices and in which the Census Bureau determined that, in
the 1964 presidential election, less than 50% of the voting
age population (VAP) was registered to vote or less than
50% of the VAP voted
5
Preclearance requirement
For jurisdictions under the §4(b) coverage formula, required
for proposed voting
preapproval or “preclearance” by U.S. Attorney General or
changes in certain
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for voting
jurisdictions
changes
6, 7, 9
Election examinersb
Permitted U.S. Civil Service Commission (now the Office of
Personnel Management) “examiners” to maintain
registration lists in federal, state, or local elections in certain
jurisdictions
8
Election observers
Where examiners were appointed, and at the Attorney
General’s request, permitted U.S. Civil Service Commission
(now Office of Personnel Management) to assign persons
“for the purpose of observing whether persons who are
entitled to vote are being permitted to vote” and whether
votes were “properly tabulated”; observers reported to the
examiner and to the Attorney General or a federal court, as
applicable
10
Pol taxes
Congressional finding declaring pol taxes were a
“precondition to voting” that imposed financial hardship on
voters and were unrelated to “any legitimate State interest”
in administering elections; directed Attorney General to
seek enforcement against pol taxes
Source: CRS analysis of statutory provisions.
Notes: Some provisions are discussed in additional detail elsewhere in this report. Some provisions were
subsequently amended or affected by litigation.
a. For discussion of VRA §3(c), see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10771, Voting Rights Act: Section 3(c) “Bail-In” Provision,
by L. Paige Whitaker.
b. For one brief historical explanation of the distinction between “examiners,” “observers,” and “monitors,”
see the House Judiciary Committee report accompanying the 1970 VRA amendments, which notes that the
1965 statute “authorizes the Attorney General to provide for the appointment of Federal examiners to list
qualified applicants to vote and Federal election observers to monitor the casting and counting of ballots in
such jurisdictions.” See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Extension of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, 91st Cong., 1st sess., July 28, 1969, H.Rept. 91-397, p. 1, note 1; emphasis added. The 2006 VRA
amendments repealed examiner authorities and replaced some with references to “observers.” As enacted,
see P.L. 109-246.
President Johnson was heavily involved in developing the VRA, delivering a dramatic speech on
March 15, 1965, a week after the March 7 events in Selma. He challenged Congress to enact a
new federal law guaranteeing voting rights and prohibiting the tests and devices that had been
used to preclude effective implementation of the Fifteenth Amendment. According to Johnson:
[T]he harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting
simply because they are Negroes. Every device of which human ingenuity is capable has
been used to deny this right. The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the
day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and
if he manages to present himself to the registrar, he may be disqualified because he did not
spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application. And if he
manages to fill out an application he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of
whether he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain
Congressional Research Service

11

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

the most complex provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to
prove that he can read and write. For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is
to show a white skin.... No law that we now have on the books ... can ensure the right to
vote when local officials are determined to deny it.42
Johnson allies in Congress—in this case, largely a combination of Republicans and northern
Democrats—moved quickly to advance what became the Voting Rights Act. Legislative activity
in both the House and the Senate was extensive. Only a small portion of that activity is discussed
below.
Two days after Johnson’s speech, Representative Emanuel Celler, a Brooklyn Democrat and chair
of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Hearings on the Celler bill, and on several others, began the same week.43 Senate Majority Leader
Mike Mansfield (D-Montana), along with Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois), and
several cosponsors, introduced Johnson’s proposal in the Senate as S. 1564.44 Ultimately, S. 1564
served as the legislative vehicle for the enacted version of the VRA.
Despite overall congressional support for the VRA, the legislation faced immediate opposition
from some Members, particularly southern Democrats. Opponents argued that the legislation
violated the Constitution by exceeding congressional authority to regulate state election
processes, that it penalized only southern states, and that it was being rushed through Congress.
On the first day of debate, for example, Senator James Eastland (D-Mississippi), Judiciary
Committee chair, argued that the bill
flies directly in the face of the Constitution of the United States.... Let me make myself
clear: I am opposed to every word and every line in the bill. I believe that it is an unheard
of thing.... This bill would apply to only five States. It is sectional legislation. It is regional
legislation.... [The bill’s sponsors] were able to come together only yesterday morning.
Then the bill was dropped in the hopper, and it is proposed to refer it to the Judiciary
Committee, with only 15 days’ time to consider it. I do not see that it is an orderly,
legislative process.45
VRA supporters countered that the legislation was necessary to implement the Fifteenth
Amendment, which the Jim Crow era had rendered ineffective. Responding, in part, to Senator
Eastland’s comments above, Senator Dirksen argued:
In 1870, when the 15th amendment was approved, it was asserted that no citizen of the
United States—and I emphasize “no citizen of the United States”—shall be deprived of or
denied his voting rights or have such voting rights abridged by the United States, or by any
State, because of race or color. We could be prepared to come into the Chamber with a
thousand cases and show that that is precisely what happened. It is almost astounding, the
ruses, the devices, the schemes which were employed to deny that right. After a period of
95 years, we are trying to catch up with the 15th amendment to the Constitution, which in
good faith was ratified by the States and was intended to be enforced, because it is provided
in the second section [of the amendment] that Congress shall have the power to implement

42 U.S. President (Lyndon B. Johnson), “Special Message to Congress: The American Promise,” Public Papers of the
Presidents of the United States, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 282.
43 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. 5, Voting Rights: H.R. 6400 and Other
Proposals to Enforce the 15th Amendment to the Constitute of the United States, 89th Cong., 1st sess., March 18, 19, 23,
24, 25, 29, 30, and 31, and April 1, 1965, Serial no. 2.
44 For an overview of congressional action on the 1965 act, see “Voting Rights Act of 1965,” in CQ Almanac 1965, 21st
ed. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1966), pp. 533-566, http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal65-1259649.
45 Sen. James Eastland, “Enforcement of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” Debate in the
Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition (March 18, 1965), p. 5388.
Congressional Research Service

12

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

and to do the necessary things to give effect to the 15th amendment. Thus on
constitutionality and on working time, the Senate should be satisfied. How long do we have
to thresh old straw?... [Voting rights] is not a problem in one section of the country.46
House legislative activity also highlighted the majority view that previous efforts to enforce
constitutionally guaranteed voting rights had been largely unsuccessful. VRA proponents also
argued that existing civil rights laws did too little to protect voters before disenfranchisement
occurred, and relied too heavily on after-the-fact litigation for enforcement. For example, the
House Judiciary Committee report accompanying that chamber’s lead proposal, H.R. 6400,
lamented that Civil Rights Acts enacted in 1957, 1960, and 1964 had only limited effect on the
franchise. According to the report,
[p]rogress has been painfully slow, in part because of the intransigence of State and local
officials and repeated delays in the judicial process. Judicial relief has had to be gaged [sic.]
not in terms of months—but in terms of years.... The judicial process affords those who are
determined to resist plentiful opportunity to resist.... Barring one contrivance too often has
caused no change in result, only in methods.47
Preclearance Requirements Affecting Some Jurisdictions
Sections 4 and 5 of the 1965 version of the VRA worked together to establish a process known as
“preclearance.” These provisions were among the act’s most noteworthy because they required
federal approval for all manner of election administration and voting changes in affected
jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County decision invalidated the Section 4(b)
preclearance coverage formula.48 Consequently, even though Shelby County did not directly affect
the preclearance process specified in Section 5, the coverage formula to trigger preclearance is
inoperable. Therefore, preclearance is inoperable (unless a federal court orders coverage under
Section 3 of the VRA). 49 Although the Sections 4 and 5 preclearance process is no longer in
effect, these provisions were so substantial that they remain a subject of historical congressional
interest and provide important context for ongoing VRA policy discussions.
Preclearance required certain jurisdictions to obtain DOJ or U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia approval before implementing changes to voting standards, practices, procedures,
prerequisites, or qualifications. The Attorney General had 60 days to review proposed changes.50
Under the Section 4(b) formula as enacted in 1965, jurisdictions were subject to preclearance if
 the Attorney General determined that the jurisdiction maintained a prohibited
“test or device” as of November 1, 1964; and

46 Sen. Everett Dirksen, “Enforcement of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” Debate in the
Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition (March 18, 1965), p. 5394.
47 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Voting Rights Act of 1965, 89th Cong., 1st sess., June 1, 1965, pp.
10-11.
48 570 U.S. 529.
49 As DOJ has noted, courts could still order preclearance for jurisdictions under VRA Section 3(c). See the
introductory text accompanying U.S. Department of Justice, “Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5,”
https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-previously-covered-section-5.
50 52 U.S.C. §10304.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 19 The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

 the Census Bureau determined that, in the 1964 presidential election, less than
50% of the voting age population (VAP) was registered to vote, or less than 50%
of the VAP voted.51
Prohibited tests or devices included “any requirement” for voting or registration demonstrating
ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter (e.g., literacy tests); educational
achievement or knowledge; good moral character; or voucher by other voters.52
When the VRA was initially enacted in 1965, Section 4(b) covered six states entirely: Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. In addition, 39 counties in North
Carolina were covered in 1965-1966.53 In subsequent VRA amendments, Congress extended the
coverage formula to include data from the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections.54 These
extensions brought new jurisdictions, including some outside the South, under VRA preclearance
requirements. Some jurisdictions also “bailed out” of preclearance requirements through Section
4’s provisions permitting them to petition the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for
relief.55
After the 1965 VRA was enacted, preclearance became the norm in much of the country for
decades. Figure 1 below shows the jurisdictions that were covered by the Section 4(b) coverage
formula, and thus subject to Section 5 preclearance, when the Shelby County decision was issued
in 2013.

51 52 U.S.C. §10303(b).
52 52 U.S.C. §10303(c). These provisions appeared in Section 4(c) of the original statute.
53 See North Carolina determinations in U.S. Department of Justice, “Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5,”
https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-previously-covered-section-5. Three counties in Arizona, one in Hawaii, and
one in Idaho were later determined to trigger the formula. See Charles S. Bullock III and Ronald Keith Gaddie, The
Triumph of Voting Rights in the South (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2009), p. 19; and “The Formula
for Coverage Under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act” in U.S. Department of Justice, “Section 4 of the Voting Rights
Act,” https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-4-voting-rights-act#bailout_list.
54 See the 1970 and 1975, amendments respectively. These are P.L. 91-285 and P.L. 94-73.
55 52 U.S.C. §10303.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 20 link to page 21

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Figure 1. Jurisdictions Covered by VRA Section 5 Preclearance at the Time of the
2013 Shelby County Decision

Source: CRS figure from data in U.S. Department of Justice, “Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5,”
https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-previously-covered-section-5.
Notes: “Year of DOJ Determination” refers to the “Date” column in the cited source, which indicates the year
coverage became effective. As discussed in the text of this report, determinations were based on presidential
election cycles that preceded determination years (e.g., 1965 determinations based on 1964 data).
Participation After the 1965 VRA
The 1965 statute had an immediate and substantial impact on political participation among
African Americans. Although precise figures vary based on data and methodology, research
consistently shows that registration disparities between Whites and racial minorities that had
existed for decades began to narrow after the VRA.56 Table 4 and Figure 2 below show

56 Variability in registration and turnout data generally is beyond the scope of this report. In brief, data can vary
because of factors such as whether census data (and which variables) or other data (e.g., state voter files, exit polls, or
surveys) are analyzed; which population is studied (e.g., the voting-age population, the citizen population, or the
voting-eligible population); the accuracy of self-reported survey data and social-desirability bias (i.e., the belief that
some responses are more acceptable than others); nonresponse rates; changes in racial and ethnic variable labels and
choices for survey respondents; and when different demographic groups or variables were added to time-series survey
data. Substantial scholarly literature addresses these and related methodological topics. All these factors, and others,
can affect data interpretation and can limit comparability over time and across data sources. See, for example, Stephen
Ansolabehere, Bernard L. Fraga, and Brian F. Schaffner, “The Current Population Survey Voting and Registration
Supplement Overstates Minority Turnout,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 84, no. 3 (2022), pp. 1850-1855; Kurt Bauman,
How Well Does the Current Population Survey Measure the Composition of the U.S. Voting Population? U.S. Census
Bureau, SEHSD Working Paper 2018-25,2018, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/
2018/demo/SEHSD-WP2018-25.pdf; Jacob Fabina and Zachary Scherer, Voting and Registration in the Election of
November 2020, U.S. Census Bureau, P20-585, 2022, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/
publications/2022/demo/p20-585.pdf; Michael P. McDonald, “The True Electorate: A Cross-Validation of Voter
Registration Files and Election Survey Demographics,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 4 (2007), pp. 588-602;
Michael P. McDonald, “Voter Turnout Demographics,” United States Elections Project, http://www.electproject.org/
Congressional Research Service

15

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

registration figures, compiled by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission based on census and other
data, in selected southern states before and after VRA enactment. Congress relied extensively on
these and other Civil Rights Commission data when considering the VRA and amendments.57
Table 4. Estimated Voter Registration in Selected Southern States Before and After
VRA Enactment
See table notes for additional methodological information
White Pre-Act
Non-White Pre-
White Post-Act
Non-White Post-
Registration
Act Registration
Registration
Act Registration
State
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Alabama
69.2%
19.3%
89.6%
51.6%
Arkansas
65.5%
40.4%
72.4%
62.8%
Florida
74.8%
51.2%
81.4%
63.6%
Georgia
62.6%
27.4%
80.3%
52.6%
Louisiana
80.5%
31.6%
93.1%
58.9%
Mississippi
69.9%
6.7%
91.5%
59.8%
North Carolina
96.8%
46.8%
83.0%
51.3%
South Carolina
75.7%
37.3%
81.7%
51.2%
Tennessee
72.9%
69.5%
80.6%
71.7%
Texas
—
—
53.3%
61.6%
Virginia
61.1%
38.3%
63.4%
55.6%
Total
73.4%
35.5%
76.5%
57.2%
Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Political Participation: A Study of the Participation by Negroes in the
Electoral and Political Process in 10 Southern States Since Passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, report produced
pursuant to P.L. 85-315, May 1968, Appendix VII, Table 1, pp. 222-223.
Notes: “Pre-Act” and “Post-Act” data generally appear to have been published in 1965 and 1967 respectively.
The “Total” column in the table refers to the listed states. See methodological and data notes accompanying the
cited source for additional information. Note 2 accompanying Table 1 in U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Political
Participation (ful citation in table source, above), states that the data rely on various “official and unofficial”
sources that “vary widely in their accuracy.” The cited source does not list pre-VRA Texas data.

home/voter-turnout/demographics; and the “Measuring Voter Turnout” text box in “Elections: An Expanding
Franchise,” in Guide to U.S. Elections, ed. Deborah Kalb, 7th ed. (New York: Sage, 2016), https://sk.sagepub.com/
cqpress/the-cq-press-guide-to-us-elections-7e/i782.xml?term=Voting%20Rights%20Act.
57 See, for example, testimony and written statement of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chair Arthur S. Flemming,
and commission staff, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,
Extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, hearings on S. 407, S. 903, S. 1297 [Sic. S. 1279], S. 1409, and S. 1443,
94th Cong., April 8, 9, 10, 22, 29, and 30, and May 1, 1975, pp. 73-213.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 22

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Figure 2. Estimated Percentage Difference in Voter Registration Between Blacks and
Whites in Selected Southern States Before and After VRA Enactment

Source: CRS figure based on data in written statement of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chair Arthur S.
Flemming, and commission staff, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights, Extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, hearings on S. 407, S. 903, S. 1297 [Sic. S. 1279],
S. 1409, and S. 1443, 94th Cong., April 8, 9, 10, 22, 29, and 30, and May 1, 1975, Attachment 3, p. 100.
Notes: See the cited source for additional data and methodological information. The “Total” column in the
figure refers to the listed states.
Development of Major VRA Amendments
Section 2 of the 1965 VRA prohibits voting discrimination nationwide and remains in effect.
However, Congress set expiration dates for some of the law’s other provisions. Congress
periodically chose to amend the VRA to extend some expiring provisions, among other changes.
Table 5 below lists selected legislative-history resources accompanying the VRA’s 1965
enactment and subsequent amendments.
At least three common themes appear in the legislative histories accompanying the VRA
amendments, as discussed below the table. First, majorities in Congress consistently agreed that
the VRA’s temporary provisions needed to be extended to protect minority voting rights
consistent with the Fifteenth Amendment. Second, empirical evidence in the legislative record
showed dramatic increases in minority political participation after the VRA was enacted. Third,
although majorities in Congress supported amending and extending the VRA throughout the act’s
history, some Members consistently argued that the law unfairly targeted the South.
Congressional Research Service

17

Table 5. Selected Legislative History Resources for VRA Enactment and Major Amendments
House Bill and
House
Senate Bill
Senate
Conference
Year
Sponsor
House Report
Passage
and Sponsor
Report
Senate Passage
Report
Public Law
1965
H.R. 6400
H.Rept. 89-439
333-85
S. 1564
S. Rept. 89-
On S. 1564:
S. Rept. 89-
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Celler
(07/09/1965)
Mansfield
162
77-19
711
P.L. 89-110
(05/26/1965)
(08/02/1965)
(08/06/1965)
1970
H.R. 4249
H.Rept. 91-397
234-179
—
—
On H.R. 4249:
—
Voting Rights Act
Celler
(12/11/1969)
64-12
Amendments of 1970
(3/13/1970)
P.L. 91-285
(06/22/1970)
1975
H.R. 6219
H.Rept. 94-196
341-70
S. 1279
S.Rept. 94-
On H.R. 6219:
—
—
Edwards
(06/04/1975)
Hart
295
77-12
P.L. 94-73
(07/24/1975)
(08/06/1975)
1982
H.R. 3112
H.Rept. 97-227
389-24
S. 1992
S.Rept. 97-
On H.R. 3112:
—
Voting Rights Act
Rodino
(10/05/1981)
Mathias
417
85-8
Amendments of 1982
(06/18/1982)
P.L. 97-205
(06/29/1982)
1992
H.R. 4312
H.Rept. 102-655
237-125
S. 2236
S.Rept. 102-
On H.R. 4312:
—
Voting Rights Language
Serrano
(07/24/1992)
Simon
315
75-20
Assistance Act of 1992
(08/07/1992)
P.L. 102-344
(08/26/1992)
2006
H.R. 9
H.Rept. 109-478
390-33
S. 2703
S.Rept. 109-
On H.R. 9:
—
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa
Sensenbrenner
(07/13/2006)
Specter
295
98-0
Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act
(07/20/2006)
Reauthorization and
Amendments Act of 2006
P.L. 109-246
(07/27/2006)
Source: CRS table based on information obtained from Congress.gov; Congressional Quarterly Almanacs; Proquest Congressional; Proquest Legislative Insight; and U.S.
House of Representatives, Calendars of the United States House of Representatives and History of Legislation.
Notes: Some of the cited sources vary in related bil s and legislative actions compared with the data in the table. See the cited sources for additional legislative
documents.
CRS-18

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

1970 Amendments: Extending Expiring Provisions
The 1970 amendments principally extended the timeline contained in the VRA Section 4(a)
prohibition on tests or devices. In extending the act’s provisions, Congress determined that,
despite progress since 1965, disparities between White and non-White registration and voting
were still too wide. Congress also feared a return to past discriminatory practices in covered
jurisdictions if the act’s temporary provisions were permitted to expire.58
The original statute permitted jurisdictions to seek exemptions five years after enactment—in
August 1970. The 1970 VRA amendments extended expiring provisions to August 1975. The
amendments also added another Section 4 preclearance trigger for jurisdictions that maintained
tests or devices, and that met the same participation criteria specified in the 1965 act (originally
using 1964 data): less than 50% of the VAP was registered to vote, or less than 50% of the VAP
voted. In the 1970 amendments, in addition to maintaining the original Section 4(b) coverage
formula based on 1964 data, the coverage formula was amended to include 1968 participation
data. The new trigger added jurisdictions in 10 states, including parts of California and New York,
to Section 5 coverage. However, several jurisdictions “bailed out” through litigation under
Section 4 of the act.59
1975 Amendments: Extending Expiring Provisions and Adding Language-
Minority Provisions
Because the 1970 amendments set a 1975 expiration date for some VRA provisions, Congress
again faced a decision about whether to extend the act. In this case, Congress elected to extend
expiring provisions for seven years—to 1982—rather than five to avoid disrupting the 1980
redistricting cycle.
The 1975 amendments added preclearance protections for some members of language-minority
groups, and expanded the prohibition on tests or devices to include providing English-only ballots
or English-only voting information or assistance, in jurisdictions that met a new trigger for
populations with limited English abilities. Language-minority provisions appear primarily in
Section 203 of the VRA. Under these provisions, covered jurisdictions (discussed below) were
required to provide the same voting and election information in covered languages as they did in
English. This includes, for example, registration materials, candidate qualifying information,
voting information, ballots, and other assistance in federal, state, and local elections.60
The new language trigger covered jurisdictions in which, as determined by the Census Bureau,
more than 5% of the citizen VAP constituted a “single language-minority,” were of limited
English proficiency, and had depressed literacy rates.61 Language minorities included “persons

58 See, for example, discussion of disparate state experiences and registration data in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on the Judiciary, Extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 91st Cong., 1st sess., July 28, 1969, H.Rept. 91-397, pp. 2-
7.
59 See “The Formula for Coverage Under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act” in U.S. Department of Justice, “Section 4
of the Voting Rights Act,” https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-4-voting-rights-act#bailout_list.
60 On the language-minority provisions as enacted, see §203, P.L. 94-73. As currently codified, see 52 U.S.C. §10503.
See also U.S. Department of Justice, “Language-minority Citizens,” https://www.justice.gov/crt/language-minority-
citizens.
61 On the language-minority provisions as enacted, see §203, P.L. 94-73. As currently codified, see 52 U.S.C. §10503.
See also U.S. Department of Justice, “Language-minority Citizens,” https://www.justice.gov/crt/language-minority-
citizens. The amendments defined “illiteracy” to mean “the failure to complete the fifth primary grade.”
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 22 The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish heritage.”62 As
discussed below, Congress amended the language trigger in 1992. The 1975 language-minority
population trigger brought all of Alaska, Arizona, and Texas under Section 5 preclearance, among
other jurisdictions.63 The 1975 amendments also added 1972 participation data to the existing
1964 and 1968 data noted above.64
Proponents of the language-minority provisions argued that they were a logical extension of the
act’s general goals of advancing the franchise, and based on a pattern of historical voting
difficulties among minorities. Citing a series of hearings in early 1975, a House Judiciary
Committee report explained that:
The Subcommittee [on Constitutional Rights] heard extensive testimony on the question
of representation of language-minority citizens, that is, the rules and procedures by which
voting strength is translated into political strength. The central problem documented is that
of dilution of the vote—arrangements by which the votes of minority electors are made to
count less than the votes of the majority. Testimony indicated that racial discrimination
against language-minority citizens seems to follow density of minority population.... The
way lines are drawn for election districts have a significant effect on the ability of voters
to elect the candidate of their choice.65
Just as arguments favoring the 1975 amendments generally were similar to previous arguments
supporting the VRA, opponents expressed generally similar reservations. For example, similar to
previous and then-contemporary objections to the act’s preclearance trigger designed to guard
against racial discrimination, some opponents of the 1975 amendments questioned whether the
new trigger for language minorities was appropriate, and whether jurisdictions that did not
display histories of intentional discrimination against language minorities were being unfairly
covered under the new preclearance requirements. In urging his colleagues to support a motion to
recommit on the 1975 amendments, Representative Robert McClory (R-Illinois) argued that
It is my feeling that the [VRA] has been very salutary and has been very good.... [T]he act
has protected the voting rights of all Americans, giving them the opportunity to serve in
public office, and allowing some to serve in the Congress of the United States. The
committee bill which we have before us takes on a whole new concept.... It is not based on
the subject of race or color.... [T]he basis for including language-minority group is not
factual but statistical, with no reference at all to the question of whether or not there is
discrimination.66
As Table 5 shows, the amendments passed both chambers by wide margins.
Congress extended the Section 203 protections in 1992. At that time, it also adjusted the coverage
trigger from the existing 5% threshold to include an alternative, numerical threshold of 10,000

62 On the language-minority provisions as enacted, see §207, P.L. 94-73. As currently codified, see 52 U.S.C. §10503.
For additional discussion of legislative history and the development of language terms, see, for example, Rosina
Lozano, “Vote Aquí Hoy: The 1975 Extension of the Voting Rights Act and the Creation of Language Minorities,”
Journal of Policy History, vol. 35, no. 1 (2023), pp. 68-90.
63 See “The Formula for Coverage Under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act” in U.S. Department of Justice, “Section 4
of the Voting Rights Act,” https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-4-voting-rights-act#bailout_list.
64 On the 1975 amendments as enacted, see §202, P.L. 94-73.
65 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Voting Rights Act Extension, 94th Cong., 1st sess., May 8, 1975,
H.Rept. 94-196, pp. 18-19. A substantially similar quotation appears in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Voting Rights Act Extension, 94th Cong., 1st sess., July 22, 1975, S. Rept. 94-295, p. 27.
66 Rep. Robert McClory, “Voting Rights Act Extension,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 121, part
13, p. 16916.
Congressional Research Service

20

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

“limited-English proficient voting age citizens,” or some American Indian and Alaska Native
populations. Covered jurisdictions must provide non-English language assistance.67
1982 Amendments: Extending Expiring Provisions and Clarifying
Congressional Intent Regarding Section 2
In 1982, much of the legislative history argued that the VRA had been largely successful in
meeting the act’s basic goals of increasing access to registration and voting. However, the House
and Senate also determined that the statute needed renewal to guarantee sustained progress and to
guard against less overt forms of discrimination. A Senate Judiciary Committee report—which
would become an important hallmark of congressional intent—stated that maintaining
preclearance was necessary because
[R]egistration is only the first hurdle to full effective participation in the political process....
[A] broad array of dilution schemes were employed to cancel the impact of the new black
vote [after 1965 VRA implementation]. Elective posts were made appointive; election
boundaries were gerrymandered; majority runoffs were instituted to prevent victories under
a prior plurality system; at-large elections were substituted for election by single-member
districts, or combined with other sophisticated rules to prevent an effective minority vote.
The ingenuity of such schemes seems endless.... Congress anticipated this response. The
preclearance provisions of Section 5 were designed to halt such efforts.68
Congress also decided not to alter the existing preclearance process specified in Sections 4 and 5.
The Senate report, for example, noted that although some objections to formula-based
preclearance remained in Congress, “the suggestion that we should consider ‘nationwide’
preclearance is misleading. The existing preclearance provision was based on a formula tailored
to meet problems of voting discrimination wherever they occur. The provision is not limited to
any particular region of the country. To the contrary, it now applies to literally the four corners of
America.” 69 The report also noted that Section 2 protections already applied nationwide. The
1982 amendments extended the preclearance process for 25 years.70
The 1982 amendments also responded to a 1980 Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v.
Bolden that interpreted Section 2 to require proof of discriminatory intent.71 Congress amended
the law to provide that Section 2 is violated if a challenger can prove a discriminatory effect or a
discriminatory intent.72 Furthermore, Congress specified that a Section 2 violation is “established
if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to
nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation”
by voters protected under the act, and that members of the protected class (group) “have less
opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect

67 As enacted, see P.L. 102-344. As currently codified, see 52 U.S.C. §10503. See discussion in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., July 8, 1992,
H.Rept. 102-655.
68 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Voting Rights Act Extension, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., May 25, 1982,
S.Rept. 97-417, p. 6.
69 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Voting Rights Act Extension, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., May 25,
1982, S.Rept. 97-417, p. 15.
70 As enacted, see §2, P.L. 97-205.
71 446 U.S. 55.
72 For discussion, see, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Voting Rights Act Extension,
97th Cong., 2nd sess., May 25, 1982, S.Rept. 97-417, pp. 16-30; and CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10583, Supreme Court
Considers Standard for Voting Rights Act Claims, by L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 22 The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

representatives of their choice.”73 The Senate report specified that determining the “totality of the
circumstances” included several factors (which were not necessarily all required or mutually
exclusive), such as historical discrimination in a jurisdiction; the extent of racially polarized
voting; use of at-large elections; whether political campaigns were characterized by racial
appeals; and the extent to which discrimination affected education or employment, among other
factors. As another CRS product explains, this legislative history would later influence the
Supreme Court’s 1986 holding in Thornburg v. Gingles that “established a three-prong test for
proving vote dilution under Section 2 of the VRA.”74
Traditionally, this 1982 statutory language in Section 2 has been important in redistricting
challenges, such as to boundaries that allegedly weaken racial or language-minority political
influence, or overwhelm those groups’ voting power through at-large elections. Such challenges
are generally considered “vote dilution” claims. By contrast, more recent “vote denial” claims
have concerned state election administration practices, voting laws, or both. For example, the
2021 Brnovich decision interpreted Section 2 in the context of Arizona provisions regulating
ballots cast outside of a voter’s precinct, and methods of ballot collection. Other CRS products
discuss legal precedent that is beyond the scope of this report.75
The 1982 amendments also added protections for blind, illiterate, or disabled voters by specifying
that these individuals may receive voting assistance from someone of their choice, except for an
employer or union representative.76 As Table 5 shows, the 1982 amendments passed both
chambers by wide margins. They remain the most substantial VRA amendments since that time.
2006 Amendments: Extending Preclearance, and Final Major Amendments Pre-
Shelby County
The 1982 amendments had extended preclearance requirements for 25 years; Congress did not
substantially revisit the VRA until the mid-2000s. (As noted previously, Congress adjusted the
language-minority trigger for Section 203 protections in 1992.77) In 2006, Congress again
reauthorized the act’s Section 4(b) preclearance formula, but did not update the formula with
more recent participation data. As noted above, Congress most recently updated the coverage
formula to include 1972 election-cycle data, which the Supreme Court criticized in the Shelby
County ruling.
As with previous VRA amendments, the House and Senate relied heavily on empirical evidence
from governmental and nongovernmental sources to justify the 2006 amendments.78 The House

73 As enacted, see §3, P.L. 97-205. As currently codified, see 52 U.S.C. §10301(b).
74 478 U.S. 30. See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10699, Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Voting Rights Act Challenge to
Congressional Redistricting Map and Stays Lower Court Ruling: Implications for Congress, by L. Paige Whitaker; and
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Voting Rights Act Extension, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., May 25, 1982,
S.Rept. 97-417, pp. 28-29.
75 For additional discussion, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10583, Supreme Court Considers Standard for Voting Rights
Act Claims, by L. Paige Whitaker.
76 As enacted, see §5, P.L. 97-205. As currently codified, see 52 U.S.C. §10508.
77 As enacted, see P.L. 102-344. As currently codified, see 52 U.S.C. §10503. The 1992 amendments and
accompanying legislative history were limited compared with the other amendments discussed in this report. Hence,
this report does not address the 1992 amendments in a separate section.
78 See, for example, Appendix III, “Comprehensive List of the Evidence Offered Concerning Voting Discrimination
Gathered By The House and Senate” in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa
Parks Coretta Scott King, and César E. Chávez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, 109th
Cong., 2nd sess., July 26, 2006, S.Rept. 109-295.
Congressional Research Service

22

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Judiciary Committee alone “assembled over 12,000 pages of testimony, documentary evidence
and appendices from over 60 groups and individuals, including several Members of Congress.”79
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees also held hearings that included bicameral Member
participation and submissions for the record. The House and Senate also considered “identical
proposals to renew and amend” the VRA (H.R. 9 and S. 2703, sponsored by Judiciary Committee
Chairs Sensenbrenner and Specter, respectively).80
Overall, Congress determined that, despite substantial progress in minority-voter participation
since 1965, continuing statutory protections were necessary. According to the House Judiciary
Committee report accompanying the 2006 reauthorization, “the evidence before Congress reveals
that 40 years have not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination
following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th Amendment and to ensure that
the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.”81 The House
Judiciary Committee cited more than 700 DOJ objections to preclearance requests that the
department found discriminatory in violation of the VRA’s Section 5 preclearance requirements
since 1982.82
The 2006 amendments extended Section 203 language-minority provisions until 2032.83 They
also repealed authorities in Sections 6, 7, and 9 of the act regarding the appointment of federal
examiners, supervised by OPM, to maintain registration lists in some jurisdictions. Congress
determined in hearings that the examiner program had not been employed since the early 1980s,
and that subsequent National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) provisions made continuing the
program unnecessary.84 DOJ may still deploy election observers in some circumstances.85
The preclearance extension did not last long. As another CRS product discusses, the Supreme
Court in Shelby County found that the application of the Section 4(b) “coverage formula to the
covered states and jurisdictions was unconstitutional because it departed from the ‘fundamental
principle of equal sovereignty’ among the states without justification based on current data.”86

79 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2006, H.Rept. 109-478, p. 5.
80 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks Coretta Scott King, and César E.
Chávez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., July 26, 2006, S.Rept.
109-295, p. 2, which notes that “On April 27, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing at which members
of the House of Representatives submitted the voluminous record it had developed over the previous six months.”
81 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2006, H.Rept. 109-478, p. 2.
82 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2006, H.Rept. 109-478, p. 21.
83 As enacted, see §7, P.L. 109-246. As currently codified see 52 U.S.C. §10503(b)(1).
84 On the NVRA generally, see CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 and Subsequent Developments, by Sarah J. Eckman.
85 For additional background, see, for example, Office of Personnel Management, “Voting Rights Program,” 73
Federal Register 18715-18716, April 7, 2008; U.S. Department of Justice, “About Federal Observers and Election
Monitoring,” https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-federal-observers-and-election-monitoring; and U.S. Department of
Justice, “Fact Sheet on Justice Department’s Enforcement Efforts Following Shelby County Decision,”
https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/876246/download.
86 See CRS In Focus IF12015, The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, S. 4 (117th Congress):
Legal Overview, by L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service

23

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Recent Legislative Developments and Concluding
Comments
The developments discussed in the preceding pages provide a foundation for understanding the
policy challenges Congress tried to address when it enacted the VRA and continued to pursue
when it amended the statute. They are, however, by no means the only issues that the House and
Senate might consider in the future.
Since 2013, Congress has debated policy questions such as
 whether state-level voting and elections changes post-Shelby County need
additional federal oversight or enforcement, and whether the VRA’s Section 2
nationwide protections are adequate to do so compared with the now-inoperable
Section 4 (and, by extension, Section 5) preclearance provisions;87
 if a new preclearance mechanism is required, whether it should be based on
historical or geographic evidence of discrimination in voting or whether a
national standard based on recent or current practices should be developed;88 and
 how or whether provisions other than Section 2, such as those related to Section
3’s court-ordered “bail-in” provisions, and election observers, also might be
revised.89
Recent Congresses have taken different approaches to addressing the VRA. As the preceding
discussion shows, VRA amendments were historically included in legislation devoted to that
subject. In recent Congresses, however, some VRA legislation also has addressed other elections
and voting topics. Most legislation addressing the VRA in recent Congresses has not substantially
advanced beyond introduction. Some recent legislation that did advance has proposed
amendments establishing a new preclearance coverage formula post-Shelby County; clarifying
congressional intent about what constitutes Section 2 violations post-Brnovich; or both. These
bills did not become law.
 In the 116th Congress, the House passed H.R. 4, as did the House in the 117th
Congress (a bill also numbered H.R. 4). Both bills were titled the Voting Rights
Advancement Act (VRAA); the latter was also named for former Representative
John Lewis (D), who was beaten and jailed in the 1965 Selma march. The
legislation would have, among other things, established an updated “rolling”
coverage formula that could be triggered nationwide on an ongoing basis. The

87 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties, Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the State of Texas, 116th Cong., 1st sess., May 3,
2019, Serial No. 116-18; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, Oversight of the Voting Rights Act: A Continuing Record of Discrimination, 117th
Cong., 1st sess., May 27, 2021, Serial No. 117-24.
88 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, From Selma to Shelby County: Working
Together to Restore the Protections of the Voting Rights Act, 113th Cong., 1st sess., July 17, 2013, S.Hrg. 113-332; and
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties,
The Need to Enhance the Voting Rights Act: Practice-Based Coverage, 117th Cong., 1st sess., July 27, 2021, Serial No.
117-37.
89 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties, The Need to Enhance the Voting Rights Act: Preliminary Injunctions, Bail-In Coverage,
Election Observers, and Notice, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 29, 2021, Serial No. 117-30.
Congressional Research Service

24

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Senate did not invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to its companion bill, S.
4, in November 2021.90
 Also during fall 2021, the Senate considered, but did not invoke cloture on, the
motion to proceed to the Freedom to Vote Act, S. 2747. That bill primarily
concerned other elections, voting, and campaign finance matters, and also
included some amendments to the VRA language-minority provisions.
 In January 2022, the House approved the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act
and sent it to the Senate in the form of an amendment between the houses on an
unrelated bill, H.R. 5746. The Senate did not agree to a cloture motion on the
text. The legislation combined elements of some of the bills noted above and
addressed aspects of campaign finance, election administration, and voting rights.
Despite the VRA’s regular renewal through 2006, some have argued that traditional alliances in
Congress and across the federal government, which had facilitated support for the VRA, have
shifted. For example, some scholars have labeled the VRA a “superstatute” whose dominance,
until Shelby County, relied on consensus among the three branches of government that federal
intervention was required to protect constitutional rights.91 This consensus, in turn, relied on a
shared understanding of how discrimination had affected—and continued to affect—voting. This
consensus, they argue, stands in contrast to the post-Shelby County environment, in which “the
discrimination consensus is disintegrating,” particularly without an updated coverage formula.92
As long as Congress considers how or whether to address voting rights policy in the United
States—as it has done regularly for more than a century—it likely will need to understand what it
has already done, where it agreed and disagreed, and what political and policy factors shaped
those debates. Future VRA debates could begin by considering how and to what extent the
preceding history remains relevant for policy choices.

Author Information

R. Sam Garrett

Specialist in American National Government

90 For additional discussion of recent legislation, see, for example CRS In Focus IF11908, Voting Rights Act and H.R. 4
(117th Congress): An Overview, by L. Paige Whitaker and R. Sam Garrett; and CRS In Focus IF12015, The John R.
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, S. 4 (117th Congress): Legal Overview, by L. Paige Whitaker.
91 Guy-Uriel E. Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rowher, “The Voting Rights Act in Winter: The Death of a Superstatute,”
Iowa Law Review, vol. 100 (2015), pp. 1389-1439.
92 Guy-Uriel E. Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rowher, “The Voting Rights Act in Winter: The Death of a Superstatute,”
Iowa Law Review, vol. 100 (2015), pp. 1393, 1422.
Congressional Research Service

25

The Voting Rights Act: Historical Development and Policy Background

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47520 · VERSION 1 · NEW
26

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Apr. 25, 2023

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

American Law

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON