Impact of Eliminating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act on Black Voter Rights

President Lyndon B. Johnson moves to shake hands with Martin Luther King Jr. while others look on after Johnson signed the federal Voting Rights Act into law at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 6, 1965.

Yoichi Okamoto/Lyndon B. Johnson Library

By Brenton Allen McClanahan

BMB Empower Network

October 16, 2025

Scripture consistently condemns partiality and calls for fair treatment for everyone. Leviticus 19:15 states,"You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." This principle of treating all people without bias is relevant to the fairness of voting processes. Similarly, Deuteronomy 1:16–17 instructs judges to hear cases righteously, emphasizing that all individuals, regardless of status, should be heard equally. The warning against favoritism found in James 2:1–4 further supports the idea that social standing should not result in special treatment. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 represents a significant milestone in the quest for equality in the United States, particularly in its battle against racial discrimination in the electoral process. Among its key components, Section 2 is particularly vital as it protects the voting rights of minority populations, with a focus on Black voters. Recent debates surrounding the potential repeal of this section have sparked serious concerns about the implications for these rights. This blog post will delve into the historical significance of Section 2, the contemporary challenges facing Black voters, and the dire consequences that could arise from its removal.

Overview of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a nationwide and permanent safeguard against discriminatory voting practices or procedures based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Its primary purpose is to ensure equal opportunity for all citizens to participate in the political process and elect their preferred representatives. The 1982 amendment to Section 2 established a "results test," allowing challenges to voting requirements that result in discrimination, even without proof of intent.

This crucial development addressed the Supreme Court's previous ruling, which had made proving intentional discrimination a significant burden. The amended Section 2 examines the "totality of the circumstances" to determine if minority voters' ability to participate equally and elect their preferred candidates has been infringed upon. This results-based standard is vital, as discriminatory effects can arise from seemingly neutral policies.

Current Challenges Facing Black Voters

Although Section 2 provides certain protections, Black voters continue to face significant obstacles. Strategies such as voter ID laws, gerrymandering, and aggressive voter roll purges disproportionately impact Black communities. In a 2021 report revealed that in states with stringent voter ID requirements, Black voters were 34% less likely to possess the necessary identification compared to their white peers.

Furthermore, gerrymandering undermines the political influence of Black communities by dividing historically Black voter centers into multiple districts, thereby diluting their voting power. These persistent challenges highlight the critical importance of robust protections like those offered by Section 2; without them, the risk of disenfranchisement increases, making it harder for Black voices to be represented in the electoral process.

Specific Protections Afforded to Black Voters by Section 2

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act focuses on two key types of voting discrimination: vote dilution and vote deprivation. These provisions have played a crucial role in protecting the electoral influence of Black voters, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights upheld in the democratic process.

Vote Dilution Claims

Vote dilution often occurs in redistricting efforts or at-large voting systems that hinder minority groups from electing their preferred candidates. To establish a claim of vote dilution based on the criteria set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, plaintiffs must satisfy three essential conditions: first, the minority group must be large and geographically concentrated enough to form a majority in a single-member district; second, the group must exhibit political cohesion, indicating a tendency to vote similarly for their chosen candidates; and third, the white majority must typically vote as a bloc, thereby defeating the minority's preferred candidates.

In addition to these prerequisites, courts evaluate the broader context through a "totality of the circumstances" approach, which considers factors such as historical discrimination, socioeconomic inequalities, and the degree of racially polarized voting.

Section 2 challenges have effectively addressed redistricting plans that either fragment minority communities—known as "cracking"—or excessively concentrate them into a limited number of districts—referred to as "packing"—thus diminishing their overall electoral power.

Historical and Contemporary Impact of Section 2 Enforcement

Section 2 has significantly influenced Black political engagement and representation since its introduction. The Voting Rights Act (VRA), particularly through Section 2, catalyzed a remarkable rise in Black voter registration and political office occupancy, particularly in the Southern states. A striking example is Mississippi, where Black voter registration skyrocketed from 28,500 in 1965 to an impressive 406,000 by 1984.

In recent years, Section 2 has proven to be essential in the fight against discriminatory practices in redistricting and voting. The ACLU has effectively utilized this provision in various legal challenges, notably in the case of Allen v. Milligan. In a surprising ruling, the Supreme Court determined that Alabama's congressional map likely infringed upon Section 2 by discriminating against Black voters. This decision prompted the creation of a new map for the 2024 elections, which includes two congressional districts that offer Black voters a genuine chance to elect representatives of their choice. Similarly, in Louisiana, a previous map that allowed for only one majority-Black district was found to violate Section 2, resulting in a revised map that includes two such districts. These cases highlight the vital role Section 2 plays in ensuring that Black voters have the opportunity to elect officials who are attuned to their needs and concerns.

Increased Voter Suppression

The removal of Section 2 could encourage states to implement more stringent voting regulations without adequate oversight, potentially escalating voter suppression tactics. Research from the Brennan Center for Justice indicates that states with harsher voting laws experienced a 17% decline in Black voter turnout in recent elections.

This trend could manifest in various ways, such as imposing stricter voter ID requirements, limiting early voting opportunities, and shutting down polling places in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Such actions would disproportionately impact Black voters, significantly obstructing their access to the ballot box.

Erosion of Legal Protections

Eliminating Section 2 would significantly undermine the legal protections against racial discrimination in voting, potentially instilling a chilling effect that deters individuals and organizations from challenging unfair practices due to a lack of legal options.

This provision has historically enabled civil rights advocates to fight against voter suppression, and its removal would reduce accountability for states engaging in discriminatory actions. As a result, Black voters may face increased risks of disenfranchisement, further eroding their electoral rights and representation.

Diminished Political Representation Half of The Congressional Black Caucus Will Be GONE!

If Section 2 is diminished, Republicans could potentially secure an additional 27 safe seats in the U.S. House, with at least 19 of those directly resulting from the erosion of Section 2 protections. This change could establish one-party dominance in the House for decades. Experts caution that a sweeping ruling against Section 2 may facilitate severe gerrymandering, effectively disenfranchising many Black voters in Congress. Alarmingly, up to 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus could find themselves at risk of losing their positions if Section 2 is significantly weakened.

State and Local Representation

The weakening of Section 2 is poised to have a profound impact primarily at the local government level, influencing city councils, county commissions, and school boards. Historically, Section 2 has been instrumental in challenging discriminatory at-large electoral systems that disenfranchised Black voters. Its erosion could encourage jurisdictions to revert to these exclusionary practices, undermining the political power of marginalized communities. A notable example is the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which dismantled Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This decision led to immediate shifts in voting policies that diluted Black political influence, as seen in Galveston County, Texas, where the lack of preclearance enabled the redrawing of district lines to create majority-white districts, effectively sidelining Black and Hispanic voters from electing their preferred candidates.

Mechanisms of Reduced Representation

Racial Gerrymandering

​Without the protections of Section 2, state legislatures could more easily manipulate electoral maps to undermine Black voting power through tactics such as "cracking," which disperses Black communities across various districts, and "packing," which consolidates them into a limited number of districts. This manipulation would lead to a decrease in majority-Black districts, severely restricting the ability of Black voters to elect candidates of their choice. A notable example occurred in Louisiana, where a federal judge mandated the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district; however, this ruling could be overturned if Section 2's provisions are weakened. The Supreme Court's ongoing deliberations regarding the potential limitation of race-based districts under Section 2 underscore the significant risks involved.

Disproportionate Impact of Restrictive Voting Laws

Section 2 has played an essential role in contesting laws that, while ostensibly race-neutral, disproportionately impact Black voters. Its absence would likely lead to the easier adoption of restrictive voter ID laws, limitations on absentee voting, and other procedural hurdles that suppress Black voter participation. Historically, such legislation has had a particularly adverse effect on African Americans, especially those with lower incomes or limited access to necessary identification. The aftermath of the Shelby County decision highlighted how states that were once subject to pre-clearance swiftly enacted voter ID laws and other measures that undermined the voting rights of Black citizens.

Poll Closures and Hostile Voting Environments

Research shows that the closure of polling places disproportionately impacts Black and minority voters, resulting in longer wait times, confusion, and decreased voter turnout. Section 2 can be instrumental in challenging these discriminatory practices by highlighting their adverse effects. Without this provision, addressing the "hostile voting environments" stemming from inadequate resources and neglect in communities of color becomes significantly more difficult, ultimately leading to further declines in voter participation.

Felony Disenfranchisement

​Felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect Black Americans, stemming from a history of racially biased criminal justice systems. ​While some challenges under Section 2 have been made, its removal would weaken an important avenue for advocacy against these laws, which continue to disenfranchise a significant portion of the Black population

The Role of Advocacy and Community Engagement

As challenges to Section 2 emerge, the role of advocacy and community engagement becomes increasingly crucial. It is essential for grassroots organizations, civil rights advocates, and local leaders to unite in their efforts to highlight the significance of protecting voting rights. By raising awareness and mobilizing communities, they can ensure that the importance of these protections is recognized and upheld.

Mobilizing Voter Registration

A powerful way to combat voter suppression lies in mobilizing voter registration efforts. Organizations should focus on ensuring that Black voters know their rights and possess the resources required to register and vote.

This may include disseminating information about upcoming elections, providing assistance with registration forms, and supporting individuals facing difficulties at polling places. By empowering Black voters to engage in the electoral process, communities can combat voter suppression effectively.

Legal Challenges and Advocacy

Alongside grassroots mobilization, legal efforts play a crucial role in defending voting rights. Civil rights groups continue to challenge discriminatory practices in court and advocate for policies promoting fair access to the ballot.

By conducting legal challenges, these organizations can hold states accountable for their voting laws and support Black voters' rights, ensuring they can fully participate in democracy.

Words from Dr. Martin Luther King

In his last and prophetic book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? He says “There are already structured forces in the Negro community that can serve as the basis for building a powerful united front—the Negro church, the Negro press, the Negro fraternities and sororities, and Negro professional associations. We must admit that these forces have never given their full resources to the cause of Negro liberation. There are still too many Negro churches that are so absorbed in a future good “over yonder” that they condition their members to adjust to the present evils “over here.” Too many Negro newspapers have veered away from their traditional role as protest organs agitating for social change, and have turned to the sensational and the conservative in place of the substantive and the militant. Too many Negro social and professional groups have degenerated into snobbishness and a preoccupation with frivolities and trivial activity. But the failures of the past must not be an excuse for the inaction of the present and the future. These groups must be mobilized and motivated. This form of group unity can do infinitely more to liberate the Negro than any action of individuals.”

The Ongoing Fight for Voter Rights By Passing The John Lewis Voting Rights Act

The potential elimination of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act poses a serious threat to Black voter rights. The historical context of this provision highlights its crucial role in combating racial discrimination and ensuring equal access to the ballot.

As we navigate the current voting rights landscape, it is important to acknowledge the challenges Black voters face and the potential repercussions of removing essential protections. Advocacy, community engagement, and legal challenges will be essential in the battle to protect Black Americans' voting rights.

The fight for equality and justice in the electoral process continues. By standing together and advocating for voting rights, we can strive toward a future where every voice matters, and every vote counts.

What Will Passing The John Lewis Voting Rights Act do if Passed

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act seeks to safeguard voters against discrimination based on race while establishing essential standards for voter accessibility. This important legislation is crafted to enhance voting rights by empowering the government to more effectively address and eliminate discriminatory practices in the electoral process.

Purpose and Background

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 14), named in honor of the esteemed civil rights leader John Lewis, seeks to update and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This landmark legislation was designed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting and dismantle barriers that disproportionately affected minority voters.

However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder in June 2013 struck down a crucial element of the VRA, significantly diminishing federal oversight of discriminatory voting practices.

As a result, many states and local jurisdictions have since enacted restrictive voting measures, underscoring the urgent need for the John Lewis Act to restore protections and ensure equitable access to the ballot for all citizens.

Key Provisions and Intended Impact

Restoring Pre clearance

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act aims to restore the "preclearance" system, which was a crucial component of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

This system mandated that states and local jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination seek federal approval before implementing any changes to their voting laws. However, the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder dismantled this requirement, paving the way for discriminatory practices such as strict voter ID laws and the closure of polling places.

By reinstating pre-clearance, the Act would ensure that any modifications to election laws or polling locations in affected areas undergo scrutiny by the Department of Justice or a federal court. Furthermore, it would create a nationwide pre-clearance framework to prevent voting policies that have historically disenfranchised voters of color.

Strengthening Section 2

The proposed Act aims to enhance Section 2 of the original Voting Rights Act (VRA), empowering voters to challenge discriminatory voting laws in court. While Section 5 seeks to prevent anti-voter legislation from taking effect, Section 2 serves as a vital tool for those who have already experienced discrimination at the polls. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) would establish clearer standards for assessing VRA-related lawsuits and introduce additional safeguards against discriminatory practices, ensuring that Black and brown Americans can exercise their right to vote under equitable conditions.

Addressing Modern Voter Suppression

The proposed Act aims to enhance Section 2 of the original Voting Rights Act (VRA), empowering voters to challenge discriminatory voting laws in court. While Section 5 seeks to prevent anti-voter legislation from taking effect, Section 2 serves as a vital tool for those who have already experienced discrimination at the polls. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) would establish clearer standards for assessing VRA-related lawsuits and introduce additional safeguards against discriminatory practices, ensuring that Black and brown Americans can exercise their right to vote under equitable conditions.

Potential Impact on Elections and Representation

The proposed Act seeks to safeguard the rights of voters, ensuring that their voices are heard and that elections remain free and fair. In the absence of such protections, restrictive voting laws could continue to disproportionately affect minority communities. This legislation is designed to uphold democratic integrity and guarantee that every eligible voter has the opportunity to participate in the electoral process. The reintroduction of the Act in Congress signifies a persistent commitment to revitalizing the full power of the Voting Rights Act.

Lastly: Kamala Harris VS Donald Trump on Voting Rights Section 2

Vice President Kamala Harris is a dedicated supporter of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, having been appointed by President Biden to lead the charge for its enactment. She has consistently urged Congress to pass this crucial legislation, highlighting its role in strengthening voting rights nationwide. With her legal background, she recognizes that this law is essential for restoring the protections established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Following the 2024 election and Donald Trump's return to the White House, his administration implemented significant measures to curtail new civil rights and voting rights cases while also dismissing existing ones. This strategy indicates a notable shift in the Department of Justice's policies, which, as highlighted by voting rights advocates and analysts, threatens to undermine voter engagement and participation. Additionally, Trump's appointment of three Supreme Court justices, who largely support weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, further exacerbates concerns about the future of voting rights in the country.