The Straight Take on Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still law. It has not been gutted, but it has been narrowed over time. It began in 1965 with strong federal oversight designed to stop racial discrimination in voting. In 1982, Congress strengthened it by making clear that people could challenge unfair laws based on what actually happens, not just what lawmakers intended.
The biggest shift came in Shelby County v. Holder, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the formula that required certain states to get federal approval before changing voting laws. That decision effectively ended the preclearance system unless Congress creates a new formula.
In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court made it harder to prove that some voting rules are discriminatory by tightening the standards courts use. However, it did not remove the ability to challenge laws based on their effects.
Then in Allen v. Milligan, the Court showed the law still has force. Alabama’s congressional map was struck down because it weakened Black voting power, and the state was required to redraw it.
More recent rulings on gerrymandering follow that same pattern. The Court has raised the bar for proving discrimination in district maps, which makes these cases harder to win. At the same time, the law itself remains in place and continues to be used in court.
The full picture is straightforward. The Voting Rights Act has not been erased. Its reach has been narrowed, and enforcement is more limited than it once was. It still exists, and it still matters, but it operates under stricter rules than in the past.
Gerrymandering itself is not new. The term dates back to 1812, when Elbridge Gerry approved a distorted district map in Massachusetts, giving the practice its name. It is still being debated today. Gerry + Salamander = Gerrymander.
BTW: This article wouldnt post on NB. I'm going to start noting each one.
The biggest shift came in Shelby County v. Holder, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the formula that required certain states to get federal approval before changing voting laws. That decision effectively ended the preclearance system unless Congress creates a new formula.
In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court made it harder to prove that some voting rules are discriminatory by tightening the standards courts use. However, it did not remove the ability to challenge laws based on their effects.
Then in Allen v. Milligan, the Court showed the law still has force. Alabama’s congressional map was struck down because it weakened Black voting power, and the state was required to redraw it.
More recent rulings on gerrymandering follow that same pattern. The Court has raised the bar for proving discrimination in district maps, which makes these cases harder to win. At the same time, the law itself remains in place and continues to be used in court.
The full picture is straightforward. The Voting Rights Act has not been erased. Its reach has been narrowed, and enforcement is more limited than it once was. It still exists, and it still matters, but it operates under stricter rules than in the past.
Gerrymandering itself is not new. The term dates back to 1812, when Elbridge Gerry approved a distorted district map in Massachusetts, giving the practice its name. It is still being debated today. Gerry + Salamander = Gerrymander.
BTW: This article wouldnt post on NB. I'm going to start noting each one.
Comments