Voting Rights Act Past, Present, and the State-Level Future

Chukwuka

Welcome back to The New Sentinel, folks. Chukwuka here, and today—well, I was just lookin’ back at what we covered last episode on redistricting and it struck me: you really can’t talk about elections in this country without running into the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's just foundational. So, let’s set the stage. Before 1965, Black folks in the South, especially in places like Mississippi, faced every obstacle you could imagine just to vote—poll taxes, these so-called literacy tests, grandfather clauses. I mean, in some counties, less than 7% of Black adults were registered to vote. That’s not a typo, o.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

It’s staggering, Chukwuka. And every barrier came with a threat of violence, too—not just paperwork. Even after the Civil War and the Fifteenth Amendment, states found ways to exclude Black voters and other minorities from participation. The Civil Rights Acts of the ‘50s tried to help, but honestly, they didn’t have the teeth to really change things on the ground. What changed everything was the violence in Selma. Bloody Sunday—it was broadcast live. People saw peaceful marchers attacked on that bridge and finally, the country couldn’t look away.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Selma galvanized the nation—sometimes you need a moment that just cuts through, you know? President Johnson gave that “We Shall Overcome” speech, and the Voting Rights Act really had momentum after that. Passed the Senate 77–19, House 333–85. That’s old-school bipartisanship there. The Act banned voting rules that discriminated by race—Section 2—set up the coverage formula in Section 4(b), then Section 5 was the game changer: if your county had a track record, you needed federal approval before you changed any voting procedures. Preclearance wasn’t just a suggestion, it was the law.

Duke Johnson

Yeah, and you know, folks forget—preclearance didn’t target the whole country, just the areas with historic issues. Like Ethan said, it’s all about that Section 4(b) formula. There’s a military phrase—I always say, “target the hot spots, don’t waste resources on cold ground.” That’s what they did. And as much as I talk about limited government, there was a real point to targeting those places because Mississippi, for example, went from 7% registration to nearly 60% by ’69 after the VRA. That’s a direct strike on the problem, not scattershot tactics.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

But it didn’t stop there, right? Over the decades, Congress kept extending and expanding the Act—1970, 1975, 1982, 2006. They banned literacy tests everywhere, gave protections to language minorities—Spanish, Asian, Native American communities, too. Section 2 got stronger, which matters today. Each amendment was a response to new ways states tried to exclude the marginalized. And the impact? Thousands of new Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American elected officials over the years. Entire communities finally had a real say in government.

Chukwuka

True, and I think folks don’t realize how big a jump that is. We talked about ground game last episode, but none of that matters if the field’s been cleared of the competition before the game even starts, right? If you can keep people from voting, you win before turnout. The VRA at its core was about actually giving everyone a chance to play. Okay—so, next up, we're gonna get into how the courts chipped away at this cornerstone and what that's meant for real people. Anybody want to take us there?

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

I’ll jump in here, Chukwuka. When you look at the VRA’s path through the courts, it’s like watching a chess match—one move at a time, changing the whole landscape. Allen v. State Board of Elections, 1969, basically said, “Hey, any change to voting procedures in covered areas—big, small, whatever—needs preclearance.” And—really important—it gave private citizens standing to sue. That was huge because it let people, not just the Justice Department, go after discriminatory rules.

Duke Johnson

Right, and then Beer v. United States, 1976, this was the non-retrogression thing. That meant you couldn’t make changes that made it harder for minorities after they’d already been able to vote. Couldn't go backwards, basically. But, man, where it all turns is 2013, Shelby County v. Holder. Supreme Court struck down that Section 4(b) coverage formula—right out. So, no coverage formula? Means Section 5 preclearance can’t work, even though it’s still on the books technically.

Chukwuka

Shelby was a big deal—undercut the structure. After that, states that used to need preclearance just started passing new voting restrictions left and right. Voter ID laws, polling place shutdowns, purges. Instead of stopping discrimination before it happens, now folks have to file a lawsuit after the harm’s done. That's a bit like putting out the fire only after your house is gone.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

And for those who see this as just legal wrangling, you have to remember who pays the price—the people on the ground. Beer made sure minority voting rights couldn’t move backward, and Thornburg v. Gingles, 1986, gave us a way to prove vote dilution—three big prongs to check if new rules hurt minority power. But with Shelby, litigation is now the only “protection”—and lawsuits take years. Major Graves, you said once you taught Section 5 like an “early warning system.” That’s gone now, isn’t it?

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Yeah, Olga, I used to explain it to my class: with preclearance, you could stop trouble before it started. Now, you don’t spot trouble ‘til folks feel the effects—like pulling out scouts and just hoping you see the ambush coming. Section 2 cases, they’re important, but you’re always reacting, never preventing. Shelby County made preclearance basically inoperable, and the John Lewis VRAA attempts to fix it keep stalling in the Senate.

Duke Johnson

I dunno, I hear what you’re saying but, look, federal oversight always made people in the South feel singled out. I’m not saying all those laws are good, but there’s always tension when DC tells states how to run themselves. Still, you can’t deny—when you lost that coverage formula, the restrictions came back fast. Makes you wonder if some folks were just waiting for the guard to go down. Not good, not good at all.

Chukwuka

You said it, Duke. The old protections got gutted, but the fight moved local and legal—exactly why so many states, especially places like New York, are looking for ways to build new defenses. And that, my friends, is where we head next. Olga, you’ve got insight here, right? How’s New York trying to fill these gaps?

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

Yes, absolutely. When Shelby made federal preclearance mostly toothless, some states didn’t just wait around. New York took action in 2022 with its own law—the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York. And—just to get the legal confusion out of the way—this is not the same as the federal John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which has been stalled in Congress several times now. New York’s law is active and real.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Right, NYVRA says any big changes to local voting—moving a polling site, changing district lines—those need approval from the state. Not just that, it makes sure there’s language assistance for communities that need it. VRA did that federally in the ‘70s, but this brings it to the local level in a state with incredible diversity.

Duke Johnson

I mean, let’s be honest, not every state is gonna go that far, and I got questions about how effective it is without federal teeth. But… I’ll give credit, it’s a proactive approach. Like having, uh, local quick reaction force, y’know? But you still can only defend your patch, unless there’s a bigger command structure. Feds are MIA, so it’s up to states that want stronger protections to do the heavy lifting.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

There’s energy for it, but also so many hurdles. I did some reporting in Queens this year—real melting pot, lots of immigrant voters. There was a Nepalese community there—people who wouldn’t get notices about polling changes if they were only in English. Under NYVRA, cities have to provide ballots and notices in multiple languages, so more people actually know what’s happening and can participate. It’s a leap forward. But it’s a big logistical lift—translation, community outreach, education. I saw folks at the polls with ballots in Nepali for the first time, but some still got confused or anxious. It’s progress but not a fix-all.

Chukwuka

And you need buy-in, right? States that don’t see the advantage or feel threatened by federal rules likely won’t follow New York. Still, it sets a model. And I think after what we talked about these past few episodes—the recurring theme is: when federal action stalls, local efforts often step up. But is it enough to fill the gap nationwide? That’s the billion-dollar question still hanging over all this.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

We’ll have to keep watching. For now, state laws like New York’s may be labs for what future federal reforms could look like—if and when they ever get through Congress. Until then, it’s boots on the ground, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

Duke Johnson

Yeah. And for voters? Stay alert. If your state doesn't have something like preclearance, what you see now isn’t always what you’ll get come next election. Read up. Demand answers. Everyone’s gotta pull security on their own rights, I guess.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

Exactly, Duke. And if you’re in a community that needs help navigating, be loud. There are groups working statewide, but stories matter—real people need to feel these laws, not just see them on paper.

Chukwuka

Alright, I think that wraps it up for today’s episode of The New Sentinel. Thanks, everyone, for tackling this one—this show wouldn’t be the same without the mix of your stories and straight talk. There’s a lot more to discuss and I’m sure we’ll circle back to voting rights, federalism, and democracy in episodes to come. Ethan, Olga, Duke—good to have you all as always. Stay sharp, folks, and talk soon.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Good talk, team. Until next time—keep your eyes on the board and don’t miss the next move.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

Take care, everyone. Protect each other, and your rights, wherever you are.

Duke Johnson

Stay safe out there, and don’t let ‘em catch you off guard. See y’all next round.