You’re reading State Court Report Every other week newsletter. Subscribe to receive in your inbox.
The United States has just celebrated its 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. However, the law is not what it was before, and future Supreme Court term risks further weakening its protections.
State law and constitution could help the Supreme Court bridge the voting gap if it further erodes landmark law. But while these regulations may become even more important, the alternatives to strong federal standards are also poor. State courts have clearly complicated records in protecting voting rights. There is also the risk that courts could further limit the state’s ability to develop future race-conscious laws and remedies.
Shelby County vs Holder It notoriously obstructed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and blocked the application of clauses that required jurisdiction from submitting proposed voting changes before enabling history with a history of discrimination. Other judgments further restricted the protection of the law.
The next Supreme Court term could be even more consequential. The judge will immediately decide whether to hear the appeal of the 8th Circuit ruling that found Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could be enforced only by the Department of Justice, not by individuals or organizations, and that it could be determined that decades of practice breaks and many voters are not protected. The Supreme Court has maintained its ruling for now in the 8th Circuit.
And Louisiana vs. Freythe court considers the constitutional challenge to parliamentary districts drawn to comply with the requirements of the law that election maps provide minority communities with equal opportunities to elect representatives of their choice. The court first heard the case the previous semester, but later ordered a reopening of the district’s constitutionality. This is a rare move that suggests that the judiciary can broadly reduce enforceability of the law or limit the use of race-conscious remedies to address violations.
What does the weakened voting rights law mean for the state? There are many state provisions that plaintiffs may resort to if the Supreme Court agrees to the Eighth Circuit, and that private plaintiffs cannot enforce the law. At least eight states have passed voting rights laws, providing greater protection against discriminatory voting laws, policies and practices than the federal versions. Additionally, some state constitutions may explicitly refer to the voting rights laws, require compliance with the law when drawing districts, and open the door to state law claims for violations of certain voting rights laws. More broadly, 49 state constitutions expressly grant a positive right to vote, and some state Supreme Courts interpret these provisions as providing more robust voter protection than the state constitution itself. Plaintiffs may aim for state law and constitutional provisions that also prohibit racism.
You may also see additional protections enacted in the law. Some legislatures considering state voting rights laws could face more pressure on action, and in 25 states with civic initiative processes, voters could organize to further strengthen their state’s constitutional and statutory protections.
But in the end, the outcome is a rights patchwork that still leaves many voters behind. States with the worst voting rights record are unlikely to step up with new protections. And there is no initiative process, especially in many of these states in the southern part. Furthermore, the state Supreme Court generally does not show leadership on the issue of voting.
Domination Charis It would also limit the protection of state voting rights by imposing additional federal constitutional hurdles on the protection of race-conscious voters. Recent Florida Supreme Court lawsuits; Black voter issues v. Byrdyou can get a glimpse into what this actually looks like. The state High Court therefore ruled that the federal equal protection clause banned the creation of majority administration voting districts under the state’s constitutional provisions that otherwise demand it. The court argued that compliance with state constitutional requirements did not establish compelling state interests justifying districts where racial considerations prevailed.
State law plays a key role in protecting voters, even as the Supreme Court further limits race-conscious protection or remedies. For example, racially neutral rezoning requirements under state law, such as the preservation of communities of interest, could assume greater importance in the assessment of state districts, as well as state bans on partisan gerrymandering. State rules governing the processes used to draw constituencies may also be even more important.
But just as important as state law, it doesn’t replace strong national standards that protect all voters.
Alicia Bannon is Editor-in-Chief State Court Report. She is also the director of the Brennan Judicial Center’s Judicial Program.
Suggested Quote: Alicia Bannon, The future of Scotus and the state’s voting rights protectionsᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (August 19, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/scotus-and-future-tate-voting-rights-protections
