Voting Rights and the Cases that Shaped Them

Piece by Ella Harvey

In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, was a revolutionary step. It prohibited the denial of voting rights based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." However, while this amendment intended to enfranchise African Americans, many states, particularly in the South, enacted poll taxes, literacy tests, and other discriminatory practices aimed at maintaining white control over the ballot. Many Black citizens, despite their right to vote, faced harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence if they attempted to exercise this right.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked a powerful legislative response to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. Among its many provisions, the Act banned literacy tests and established "preclearance" for states and jurisdictions with histories of voter suppression, meaning they could not change voting procedures without federal approval. In combination with the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which banned poll taxes, the Voting Rights Act fortified the protection of voting rights for African Americans and other marginalized groups.

Yet, recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened key components of the Voting Rights Act, particularly preclearance, with far-reaching implications for voting rights today.

Cases

The Supreme Court’s historical rulings on voting rights underscore how electoral laws evolve—and in some cases, regress—in response to social, political, and judicial pressures.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

In Reynolds v. Sims, Alabama voters challenged the apportionment of the state legislature, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time, Alabama counties each had one representative and one senator, regardless of population differences. The result was severe underrepresentation of urban areas and overrepresentation of rural ones.

The Court’s decision in Reynolds v. Sims established the principle of “one person, one vote,” mandating that legislative districts must have roughly equal populations. This case marked a foundational step toward ensuring fair representation in American elections and remains essential in modern redistricting practices.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Following the Watergate scandal, Congress enacted the Federal Election Campaign Act to curb campaign spending and enhance transparency in federal elections. Buckley v. Valeo addressed whether these restrictions infringed on First Amendment rights.

The Court found a critical distinction between campaign contributions and expenditures. While it upheld limits on individual contributions to prevent corruption, it struck down caps on overall campaign expenditures, viewing such limits as a restriction on free speech. This case not only reshaped campaign finance law but also established two types of political advertising: express advocacy (explicitly supporting a candidate) and issue advocacy (focused on political issues broadly).

Miller v. Johnson (1995)

In Miller v. Johnson, the Court addressed racial gerrymandering in Georgia. State lawmakers had redrawn districts to create a third majority-Black district, but the design connected distant Black communities across the state, with some parts over 260 miles apart.

The Court ruled that this redistricting violated the Equal Protection Clause, labeling it as racial gerrymandering. This decision underscored the importance of equal representation and established a precedent for scrutinizing racial motivations in redistricting cases, setting limits on how states can consider race when redrawing districts.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

One of the most consequential decisions in recent years, Citizens United v. FEC examined restrictions on corporate funding for political advertisements under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The Court ruled that corporations and unions have First Amendment rights to fund independent political broadcasts. This decision lifted restrictions on corporate political spending, significantly impacting campaign finance by permitting unlimited “dark money” from corporations, wealthy individuals, and other entities.

Critics argue that Citizens United gives an unfair political advantage to the wealthiest Americans, while advocates defend it as a protection of free speech. This ruling intensified debates around campaign finance reform and fueled movements advocating for transparency in electoral funding.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

In a landmark decision with widespread ramifications, the Court in Shelby County v. Holder dismantled the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, arguing it was an outdated burden on states and unconstitutional. Preclearance had required certain jurisdictions, mainly Southern states, to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws or procedures—a safeguard that prevented discriminatory practices.

Since the decision, voting rights advocates claim that states have enacted restrictive voting laws, disproportionately affecting minority communities. Opponents of the ruling argue that other sections of the Voting Rights Act continue to offer adequate protections against discrimination.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

In McCutcheon v. FEC, the Court addressed aggregate limits on individual contributions to political parties and candidates, which had been imposed by the BCRA to limit the influence of wealthy donors. The Court found that these aggregate limits violated the First Amendment because they did not prevent corruption or meet the standard of review set by prior campaign finance cases.

This decision further reshaped campaign finance by enabling wealthy individuals to make substantial contributions to political fundraising committees, heightening concerns about the influence of money on politics.

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims were not justiciable in federal courts, meaning they could not be decided upon by federal judges. The case was a response to allegations of extreme partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina, where district maps were designed to favor one political party significantly.

This ruling marked a setback for advocates of nonpartisan redistricting reform, as it placed the onus on state courts and legislatures to address partisan gerrymandering, potentially limiting federal oversight of future redistricting efforts.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

The 2000 presidential election was one of the most contentious in American history. The Supreme Court intervened in Bush v. Gore, reversing a Florida Supreme Court decision that had mandated a manual recount of ballots, citing inconsistencies in recount procedures across counties. The Court ruled that a lack of uniform standards violated the Equal Protection Clause, effectively halting the recount and securing George W. Bush’s victory.

The decision highlighted the power of the Court in election outcomes and spurred subsequent reforms in election law and ballot counting procedures nationwide.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2022)

The most recent influential case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, involved a challenge to South Carolina’s 2022 congressional district map, which allegedly diluted the voting power of African American communities. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of South Carolina, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and the law firm Arnold & Porter argued that the map was racially gerrymandered, making African American voters a minority in nearly all districts.

The Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be used as a stand-in for political characteristics, affirming the illegality of racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. However, the district court permitted the disputed map to remain for the 2024 election, a decision with significant implications for South Carolina’s electoral landscape.

Today, the stakes of these legal precedents resonate as efforts to expand voting access contend with challenges that could shape future elections. With new cases likely to reach the Supreme Court, the direction of American democracy continues to hinge on this institution’s interpretations of the Constitution, a reminder of the power wielded by those entrusted with safeguarding our most fundamental democratic right.