What Happens if the U.S. Supreme Court Guts the Voting Rights Act?

You’re reading State Court Report’s biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to receive it in your inbox. 

The United States just marked the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. But the law isn’t what it once was, and the upcoming Supreme Court term risks weakening its protections even further. 

State laws and constitutions have the potential to help fill the voting rights gap should the Supreme Court further erode the landmark law. But while these provisions could become even more important, they’re also a poor substitute for a strong federal standard. State courts have a decidedly mixed record in protecting voting rights, and there is a risk that the Court may further limit states’ ability to craft race-conscious laws and remedies going forward.

Shelby County v. Holder infamously gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, blocking application of a provision that required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to submit proposed voting changes for preclearance before they could take effect. Other rulings further limited the law’s protections. 

The next Supreme Court term could be even more consequential. The justices will soon decide whether to hear an appeal of an Eighth Circuit ruling that held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can only be enforced by the Department of Justice — not by individuals or organizations — a decision that broke with decades of practice and would leave many voters unprotected. The Supreme Court has stayed the Eighth Circuit’s ruling for now.

And in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court will consider a constitutional challenge to a congressional district that was drawn to comply with the law’s requirement that election maps give minority communities an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The Court first heard the case in its previous term but then ordered reargument on the constitutionality of the district — a rare move suggesting that the justices could broadly curtail the law’s enforceability or limit the use of race-conscious remedies to respond to violations.

What would a weakened Voting Rights Act mean for the states? If the Supreme Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that private plaintiffs can’t enforce the law, there are a number of state provisions that plaintiffs may turn to. At least eight states have passed voting rights acts, often providing greater protections against discriminatory voting laws, policies, and practices than the federal version. A few state constitutions also explicitly reference the Voting Rights Act and require compliance with the law in drawing districts, potentially opening the door to state law claims for certain Voting Rights Act violations. More broadly, 49 state constitutions expressly confer an affirmative right to vote, and some state supreme courts have interpreted these provisions to offer more robust voter protections than the state constitutions themselves. Plaintiffs may look to state laws and constitutional provisions barring racial discrimination as well.

We also are likely to see additional protections enacted into law: Some legislatures that have been considering state voting rights acts could face more pressure to act, and in the 25 states with citizen initiative processes, voters could organize to further bolster state constitutional and statutory protections.

But ultimately, the results will be a rights patchwork that still leaves many voters behind. States with the worst records on voting rights are not likely to step up with new protections. And many of these states, particularly in the South, lack initiative processes. Nor have their state supreme courts generally shown leadership on voting issues.

A ruling in Callais that imposes additional federal constitutional hurdles on race-conscious voter protections would also limit state voting rights protections. A recent Florida Supreme Court case, Black Voters Matter v. Byrd, offers a glimpse of what this might look like in practice. There, the state high court ruled that the federal Equal Protection Clause prohibited the creation of a majority-minority voting district under a state constitutional provision that otherwise required it. Compliance with the state constitutional requirement, the court argued, did not establish a compelling state interest justifying a district in which racial considerations predominated.

Even if the Supreme Court further limits race-conscious protections or remedies, state law will still have an important role to play in protecting voters. For example, race-neutral redistricting requirements under state law, like the preservation of communities of interest, could take on greater significance in assessing state election districts, as could state prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering. State rules governing the process used for drawing electoral districts could also matter even more.

But as important as state law would be, it’s no substitute for a strong national standard that protects all voters.

Alicia Bannon is editor in chief for State Court Report. She is also director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Alicia Bannon, SCOTUS and the Future of State Voting Rights Protections, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Aug. 19, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/scotus-and-future-state-voting-rights-protections