How We Are Protecting the Right to Vote on the Anniversary of Shelby v. Holder

Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered one of the most devastating blows to voting rights in our lifetime: Shelby County v. Holder. The ruling struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), which had successfully protected Black, Brown, Indigenous, and other marginalized voters for decades. In her dissent in that case, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that the court’s decision was “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm.” Today, we are drenched in the downpour. Shelby County unleashed a torrent of voter suppression and other discriminatory voting laws unlike anything the country had seen in a generation. The VRA provides many critical mechanisms for ensuring that people from racial and language minorities across the nation can exercise their fundamental right to vote without encountering discriminatory barriers. While the 15th Amendment was adopted in 1870 and — at least on paper — prohibited the denial of the right to vote on account of race or color, in reality, states and localities defiantly continued policies and practices designed to prevent Black and Brown voters from casting ballots. This 10th anniversary of the devastating Shelby County decision confirms our collective need to double down on our efforts to fully restore the VRA to its full power, which Congress must do by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The VRA created strong, enforceable legal protections that rooted out many of these racist voter suppression tactics. As originally designed, it featured a crucial requirement known as “preclearance” that mandated that states and localities with long records of racially discriminatory voting practices seek federal approval before making any alterations to their voting laws. Unlike litigation, which occurs after a law is passed, preclearance uniquely curtailed racially discriminatory measures before they were implemented and could irreversibly taint an election. One decade ago, the Supreme Court dismantled and gutted this crucial prophylactic measure. Now, even places with the most egregious records of racially discriminatory voting practices face an easier path to suppressing the vote of the most marginalized communities. On top of this, eight years after Shelby, the Supreme Court weakened another provision of the VRA — Section 2, a nationwide ban on voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language — making court challenges to discriminatory tactics even harder. The Supreme Court fortunately bucked this trend in its recent decision, Allen v. Milligan, a case brought by the ACLU, the NAACP LDF, and partners. In Milligan, the court upheld a lower court’s ruling that Alabama’s congressional districts map violated Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. In doing so, the court is reaffirming Section 2’s protections against racial gerrymandering. However, while an important victory, this decision simply preserved what remains of the VRA and did nothing to address the previous blows the court dealt. We will continue to challenge anti-voter laws and discriminatory voting practices in the courts. But our work does not end there. This 10th anniversary of the devastating Shelby County decision confirms our collective need to double down on our efforts to fully restore the VRA to its full power, which Congress must do by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Voters across the country still face arbitrary restrictions on absentee voting, bans on providing water to voters as they wait in hours-long lines, drop box limitations, polling site closures, gerrymandering, and other restrictive policies that disproportionately burden voters of color, voters with disabilities, and elderly voters, among others. As we head into another election year, we face an urgent need to grow and activate our collective power. That’s why the ACLU, on this anniversary of Shelby County v. Holder, is launching a brand-new Democracy Defender program, powered by members like you across the country who want to join us on the front lines in our work to protect voting rights and end racially discriminatory voting practices. The right to vote and our democracy face increasing attacks at the federal, state, and local levels. So, we must fight back at every level. Democracy Defenders will do just that. Supporters like you will work alongside us in some of the biggest voting rights battles across the country. Plus, we will keep you in the loop as we work together for equitable access to the ballot, to preserve the integrity of our electoral process, and in defense of the very foundations of our democracy. We need you with us to keep fighting Donate today

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog