
By Sasha Alex Lessin, Ph.D. (Anthropology, UCLA)
1865–1965 Backstory: A CENTURY OF STRUGGLE FOR THE RIGHT OF BLACK AMERICANS TO VOTE
THE CIVIL WAR ENDED SLAVERY, BUT NOT WHITE DOMINATION
The Union’s victory in 1865 destroyed the Confederacy and enabled the abolition of slavery throughout the United States through the 13th Constitutional Amendment.
Eleven states had seceded and formed the Confederacy: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Four other slaveholding states—Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri—remained in the Union. Slavery persisted in some territories and other jurisdictions until federal abolition.
Reconstruction governments gradually restored their congressional representation. Tennessee regained representation in 1866; the other former Confederate states followed between 1868 and 1870.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established national citizenship and equal protection under the law. The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited federal and state governments from denying voting rights because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. For the first time, large numbers of formerly enslaved Black men voted, helped write new state constitutions, served in legislatures, and participated in governing the South. Black women remained excluded from voting under the same sex-based restrictions that applied to American women until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920.
The 15th Amendment had promised Black men voting rights, but white supremacists organized to destroy their ability to exercise those rights.
1865–1877: WHITE SUPREMACISTS ATTACKED BLACK VOTERS AND RECONSTRUCTION GOVERNMENTS
Former Confederate leaders, their supporters, and terrorist organizations sought to restore control over Southern politics, land, and labor. White supremacists, including the Ku Klux Klansmen, attacked Black voters, teachers, ministers, officeholders, and white Republicans who supported Reconstruction. The supremacists murdered political organizers, burned schools and churches, assaulted families, threatened employers and tenants, and brutalized communities preparing to vote. Federal troops, federal prosecutors, and Reconstruction governments sometimes suppressed this violence. Congress passed Enforcement Acts in 1870 and 1871 to defend voting rights and combat organized intimidation. But resistance continued. The Compromise of 1877 ended federal military support for the remaining Republican Reconstruction governments in the South. As white Democratic governments regained control, they dismantled many Reconstruction reforms and increasingly excluded Black citizens from political power.
1877–1965: SOUTHERN GOVERNMENTS USED TERROR, SEGREGATION, AND ECONOMIC COERCION TO SUPPRESS BLACK VOTERS

Southern white supremacists developed an interlocking system of racial domination.
They used lynching, mob violence, beatings, threats, and political assassinations to intimidate Black citizens.
They imposed poll taxes, which prevented impoverished citizens from voting unless they could pay.
They administered literacy tests and constitutional interpretation tests selectively, allowing many white applicants to register while rejecting Black applicants.
They created grandfather clauses, exempting many white voters from requirements imposed on Black voters.
They manipulated registration offices, voting rolls, primary elections, and district boundaries to exclude Black political participation.
They enforced racial segregation in schools, transportation, housing, restaurants, hospitals, and other public institutions.
They used vagrancy laws, discriminatory policing, fines, convict leasing, and forced prison labor to control Black workers. Some people convicted under these systems were compelled to labor under brutal conditions.
Landowners and employers threatened eviction, dismissal, debt collection, and denial of credit against Black citizens who registered or attempted to vote.
Discriminatory educational systems denied Black children resources available to white children, and then voting officials used unequal education as a pretext to reject Black applicants.
The system varied across states and decades, but its central purpose was consistent: to preserve white political supremacy by restricting Black political, educational, and economic independence.
DIXIE SEGREGATIONIST DOMINATORS, INCULCATED IN ANUNNAKI DOMINATION OF ENLIL-YAHWEH, DEMANDED WHITE POLITICAL CONTROL
White segregationists declared: We intend to keep control of our state. Washington has no right to tell us who can vote, where our children attend school, or how we run our communities.
We will use every power the law gives us to preserve our way of life. These matters belong to the states, not Washington.
BLACKS, EMBODYING THE WISDOM OF THE GREAT ANUNNAKI GODDESS OF CRETE, REPLIED
“You call it your way of life, but you built it on our exclusion. Our people work your fields, pay taxes, raise families, build churches, teach children, and serve this country. Yet you threaten us when we register to vote. We demand equal schools, fair wages, protection from violence, and the right to elect officials who answer to us. The Constitution belongs to us, too. A state cannot claim freedom for itself while denying freedom to its citizens.
1955–1965: BLACK AMERICANS ORGANIZED A MASS MOVEMENT FOR VOTING RIGHTS
Black Americans had resisted disenfranchisement for generations through lawsuits, petitions, churches, schools, newspapers, labor organizations, and local political campaigns. During the modern Civil Rights Movement, activists intensified their organizing. The NAACP challenged discriminatory laws in court. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, associated with Martin Luther King Jr., organized nonviolent campaigns. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee organized voter registration drives and helped establish local movements, particularly in Mississippi and Alabama. The Congress of Racial Equality organized direct-action campaigns against segregation. Black women, including Ella Baker, Fannie Lou Hamer, Amelia Boynton Robinson, and Diane Nash, provided indispensable leadership. During Freedom Summer in 1964, volunteers and local organizers challenged Mississippi’s systematic exclusion of Black voters. The murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner exposed the dangers activists faced. In Selma, Alabama, organizers confronted voter-registration discrimination. On March 7, 1965, Alabama state troopers and local law-enforcement officers attacked peaceful marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The violence became known as Bloody Sunday. Television coverage showed Americans the brutality used against citizens seeking constitutional rights. Eight days later, President Lyndon B. Johnson addressed Congress and called for federal voting-rights legislation. He declared: “We shall overcome.” Civil-rights organizers continued their campaign. The Selma-to-Montgomery march later that month dramatized their demand for federal protection.
AUGUST 6, 1965: PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT INTO LAW
The 89th United States Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, formally Public Law 89-110, and President Johnson signed it on August 6, 1965. Congress enacted the law to enforce the 15th Amendment’s prohibition against racial discrimination in voting. The 15th attacked the mechanisms that had prevented Black Americans and other racial minorities from exercising their constitutional rights. SECTION 2 — PROHIBITED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING, prohibited voting qualifications, practices, and procedures that denied or abridged voting rights on account of race or color. Congress later strengthened Section 2 in 1982 and set a results-based standard for certain discrimination claims. Section 4 designated specific jurisdictions that needed Federal oversight and set a coverage formula identifying jurisdictions with histories of discriminatory voting tests and low voter registration or turnout. Section 5 also required preclearance: Federal approval before covered jurisdictions changed voting rules. Covered states and localities had to obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice or the federal district court in Washington, D.C., before implementing changes to their voting laws or procedures. They had to demonstrate that the proposed changes did not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. This system was called preclearance; it prevented covered jurisdictions from implementing discriminatory changes first and forcing affected voters to challenge them afterward.

THE ACT SUSPENDED DISCRIMINATORY VOTING TESTS AND AUTHORIZED FEDERAL EXAMINERS. Federal officials could help register eligible voters in jurisdictions where discriminatory practices had obstructed registration. Citizenship, age, residency, and other eligibility requirements remained, and voting restrictions affecting people with felony convictions continued in many states. Nevertheless, the Act dramatically expanded Black Americans’ practical ability to exercise voting rights the Constitution had promised nearly a century earlier.
1965–1970: BLACK VOTER REGISTRATION ROSE DRAMATICALLY
The Voting Rights Act produced substantial changes in Southern voter registration.
In Mississippi, where intimidation and discriminatory registration procedures had excluded most Black adults from the electorate, Black voter registration rose from approximately 6.7% in 1964 to 59.8% in 1967.
Across the South, federal enforcement helped remove registration barriers, expand participation, and strengthen Black political organizing.
Black citizens increasingly won elections to school boards, city councils, county offices, state legislatures, and Congress.
The Act did not eliminate racial inequality, political intimidation, or discriminatory election practices. But it gave the federal government stronger tools to challenge them.
It also helped transform Southern politics by expanding the electorate and enabling Black communities to exercise greater influence over public institutions.
2006: CONGRESS OVERWHELMINGLY RENEWED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Four decades after its enactment, Congress examined evidence that voting discrimination continued.
The House voted 390–33 to renew major protections.
The Senate voted 98–0.
Republican President George W. Bush signed the renewal on July 27, 2006.
Congress extended the special federal oversight provisions for another 25 years.
Lawmakers from both major parties concluded that the protections remained necessary.
Yet in 2013, five Supreme Court justices invalidated the formula that made preclearance operative.
That decision began the next chapter of our investigation:
WHO WEAKENED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT—AND WHY?

In 2006, a Republican president and overwhelming majorities of both parties in Congress agreed that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remained necessary. But in 2013 and 2026, Supreme Court majorities composed entirely of Republican-appointed justices restricted two of its central protections.
WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS TO LIMIT ITS ENFORCEMENT?
To answer this question, we review constitutional philosophy, the history of voting discrimination, the evolution of party politics, and the balance of power between Congress and the judiciary. We examine Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s work on voting-rights legislation during the Reagan administration, John Lewis’s legislative efforts, and the Senate’s failure to restore preclearance from the 1980s to the 2013 and 2026 decisions.
Supreme Court decisions began with Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and culminated in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was not formally repealed.
Instead, Supreme Court rulings narrowed two of its principal protections in 2013, Shelby County v. Holder, and 2026, Louisiana v. Callais.
In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court invalidated the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions needed federal approval before changing election rules. This disabled the existing preclearance system. The ruling was 5 to 4.
In 2026, in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court restricted Section 2’s ability to address electoral systems that dilute minority voting strength without proof of discriminatory intent. The ruling was 6–3.
Successive Supreme Court majorities concluded that restrictions on federal voting-rights enforcement were constitutionally necessary, despite evidence of continuing discrimination. Congress did not repeal the Voting Rights Act. Supreme Court rulings narrowed its protections. Justices who supported those decisions said they were enforcing constitutional limits. Their opponents argued that they were dismantling essential protections against racial discrimination. Supreme Court majorities said restrictions on federal voting-rights enforcement were constitutionally necessary, despite evidence of ongoing discrimination.
-
1965 — THE PEOPLE WON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT: Selma, Lyndon Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and congressional passage.
-
1981–1982 — JOHN ROBERTS OPPOSED EXPANDING VOTING PROTECTIONS: The Reagan Justice Department and the debate over discriminatory intent versus discriminatory effects.
-
2013 — THE SUPREME COURT DISABLED PRECLEARANCE: Shelby County v. Holder.
-
2013–2025 — STATES CHANGED ELECTION RULES: Voter registration, polling places, identification requirements, and redistricting.
-
2026 — THE COURT RESTRICTED SECTION 2: Louisiana v. Callais and its implications.
-
WHY? — TWO CONFLICTING CONCEPTIONS OF EQUALITY: The majority’s concern about race-conscious government action versus the dissenters’ concern that discrimination could persist without effective legal remedies.
Supreme Court decisions began with Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and culminated in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was not formally repealed. Instead, Supreme Court rulings substantially narrowed two of its principal protections:
2013 — Shelby County v. Holder: The Court invalidated the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions needed federal approval before changing election rules. This effectively disabled the existing preclearance system.
2026 — Louisiana v. Callais: The Court sharply restricted Section 2’s ability to address electoral systems that dilute minority voting strength without proof of discriminatory intent. The ruling was 6–3.
Successive Supreme Court majorities concluded that restrictions on federal voting-rights enforcement were constitutionally necessary, despite evidence of continuing discrimination.
Two Supreme Court decisions are central to your article: Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Louisiana v. Callais (2026).
Distinguish three things: who voted for the decisions, what constitutional arguments they gave, and what political consequences followed.
Congress did not repeal the Voting Rights Act. Its protections were narrowed by Supreme Court rulings. That distinction matters because the justices who supported those decisions maintained that they were enforcing constitutional limits, while their opponents argued that they were dismantling essential protections against racial discrimination.
WHO VOTED TO WEAKEN THE ACT?
2013 — SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER
JUNE 25, 2013 · SUPREME COURT VOTE
MAJORITY:5 voted to invalidate the coverage formula
DISSENT: 4 voted to preserve the formula
| Voted to invalidate | Voted to preserve |
|---|---|
| John Roberts — wrote majority opinion | Ruth Bader Ginsburg — wrote dissent |
| Antonin Scalia | Stephen Breyer |
| Anthony Kennedy | Sonia Sotomayor |
| Clarence Thomas | Elena Kagan |
| Samuel Alito |
All five majority justices were appointed by Republican presidents. The four dissenters were appointed by Democratic presidents.
What motivated the majority, according to its written opinion?
Chief Justice Roberts argued that the United States had changed since 1965. The original formula singled out certain states and counties for special federal supervision because of their histories of discrimination.
Roberts reasoned that the formula relied on outdated conditions and treated states unequally. He argued that Congress needed to establish a coverage formula reflecting contemporary circumstances.
Justice Thomas went further. He believed the federal preclearance requirement itself had become unconstitutional.
What did the dissenters say?
Justice Ginsburg argued that Congress had carefully examined extensive evidence of continuing voting discrimination before renewing the law in 2006.
Her reasoning was that the Voting Rights Act had helped reduce discrimination precisely because it prevented discriminatory election changes before they could take effect.
She warned that disabling this preventive protection could permit discrimination to return.
2026 — LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS
APRIL 29, 2026 · SUPREME COURT VOTE
MAJORITY 6, Restricted Section 2’s application
DISSENT 3, Opposed the restriction
| Voted with majority | Dissented |
|---|---|
| Samuel Alito — wrote opinion | Elena Kagan — wrote dissent |
| John Roberts | Sonia Sotomayor |
| Clarence Thomas | Ketanji Brown Jackson |
| Neil Gorsuch | |
| Brett Kavanaugh | |
| Amy Coney Barrett |
Thomas wrote a separate concurrence joined by Gorsuch. All six majority justices were appointed by Republican presidents, and all three dissenters by Democratic presidents.
Why did the six justices vote this way?
Justice Alito argued that the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause restricts the government’s use of race when drawing congressional districts.
The majority concluded that Louisiana had not established a compelling legal justification for drawing its second majority-Black congressional district. It interpreted Section 2 more narrowly to avoid what it regarded as unconstitutional racial classifications.
Thomas and Gorsuch expressed especially strong opposition to using race in redistricting.
Why did the three dissenters disagree?
Justice Kagan argued that Congress had deliberately amended Section 2 in 1982 to prohibit election practices that produced discriminatory results, even when plaintiffs could not establish a discriminatory motive.
She warned that the new decision would make many vote-dilution cases substantially harder to win, contrary to Congress’s explicit choice.
WHO TRIED TO SAVE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT?
CONGRESS — INCLUDING REPUBLICANS — TRIED TO PRESERVE IT
The Voting Rights Act once enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. In 2006, Congress renewed its major protections for another 25 years.
In 2006, CONGRESS REAUTHORIZED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT by votes of 90–33
in the House of Representatives and 98–0 in the United States Senate.
Republican President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization on July 27, 2006.
Congress had assembled a substantial evidentiary record documenting continuing discrimination.
Lawmakers concluded that federal supervision remained necessary to prevent discriminatory voting changes.
Yet seven years later, five Supreme Court justices invalidated the coverage formula that Congress had overwhelmingly renewed.
ERIC HOLDER AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Attorney General Eric Holder defended the law in Shelby County.
The Obama administration argued that Congress possessed constitutional authority under the Fifteenth Amendment to protect citizens against racial discrimination in voting.
The government maintained that Congress’s extensive investigation justified continuing preclearance.
Why did Holder lose? Five justices disagreed that the existing formula remained constitutionally justified. The majority’s interpretation prevailed, despite the congressional record.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG AND THE THREE OTHER DISSENTERS
In 2026, Justice Kagan continued that argument. She maintained that the Court was overriding Congress’s deliberate decision to protect voters from discriminatory results, not merely intentional discrimination.
Why did they fail? Their constitutional interpretations did not command a majority of the Court. Supreme Court dissents can influence future cases and legislation, but they do not determine the immediate judgment.
JOHN LEWIS, CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS, AND THE SENATE FILIBUSTER
After Shelby County, Representative John Lewis and other lawmakers pursued legislation to restore and modernize federal voting-rights protections.
The House passed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in August 2021, 219–212.
In January 2022, Senate Democrats attempted to advance combined voting-rights legislation.
The effort failed because Republicans opposed the legislation, and Senate rules generally required 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema supported voting-rights legislation but opposed changing the filibuster rules to pass it by a simple majority.
Thus, the legislation failed to advance despite support from the Democratic caucus.
BLACK VOTERS AND CIVIL-RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS IN LOUISIANA
In the litigation that eventually produced Louisiana v. Callais, Black voters including Dr. Press Robinson and Edgar Cage challenged Louisiana’s congressional district map.
They argued that the map diluted Black voting power by providing only one majority-Black district in a state where approximately one-third of residents were Black.
They received legal assistance from organizations including:
-
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund
-
The American Civil Liberties Union
-
The NAACP Louisiana State Conference
-
Power Coalition for Equity and Justice
They initially secured judicial rulings supporting the creation of a second majority-Black district.
However, opponents challenged the revised map as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. In April 2026, six Supreme Court justices accepted that challenge.
The civil-rights organizations argued that the ruling undermined Congress’s protections against vote dilution. The majority held that Louisiana had not demonstrated a constitutionally sufficient justification for the district’s racial design.
WHAT WERE THE POLITICAL MOTIVES?
Here we should separate documented arguments from interpretations of political objectives.
The justices’ stated reasoning: The majorities emphasized constitutional limits on federal authority over states and on government use of racial classifications. Their opinions did not say that their purpose was to help a political party win elections.
The progressive interpretation: Critics, including civil-rights organizations, argue that weakening preclearance and vote-dilution remedies benefits political interests that can gain seats through restrictive election practices or district maps that reduce minority voting power.
The historical question: Why did the Court restrict protections that Congress had repeatedly renewed with bipartisan support, even as civil-rights organizations continued to document discrimination?
That question can be investigated through the justices’ prior writings, congressional testimony, the Reagan-era Justice Department record, and the practical consequences of the rulings. It would be important not to equate partisan consequences automatically with proof of an individual justice’s private motive.
PRIMARY SOURCES
These links provide the evidence behind the people, votes, and legal arguments:
In 2006, a Republican president and overwhelming majorities of both parties in Congress agreed that the Voting Rights Act remained necessary. In 2013 and 2026, Supreme Court majorities composed entirely of Republican-appointed justices restricted two of its central protections.

