Why Today is a Big Day for Voting Rights

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today struck down Louisiana’s congressional map and issued a ruling that eviscerates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and opens the door for states to enact discriminatory maps with impunity. As a result, Black voters and other voters of color could face the elimination of districts across the country that have provided fair representation. Section 2 has long served as the primary nationwide protection against discriminatory voting systems following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which eliminated the Act’s preclearance system. Today’s ruling effectively eliminates that remaining enforcement mechanism in all but name. With a severely narrowed Section 2, voters challenging racially discriminatory maps and voting laws will face higher legal barriers and fewer statutory protections. The decision affects not only congressional redistricting but challenges to state legislative and local election systems across the country. “This decision is a profound betrayal of the legacy of the civil rights movement. By gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court has weakened the primary legal tool that voters of color rely on to challenge discriminatory maps and election systems. In practical terms, this means that even where racial discrimination in voting is clear and ongoing, communities will be left without the most significant weapon they have to stop states from drawing districts that dilute their political power. Representation for Black, Latino, Native, and other voters of color will increasingly depend on the goodwill of legislatures rather than enforceable law, allowing discriminatory systems to persist unchecked and making meaningful political representation far harder to achieve,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “The Supreme Court has reversed decades of progress toward a multiracial democracy in the name of partisan politics. The 6-3 majority decision is the height of hypocrisy and exemplifies the Court’s waning credibility on matters of civil rights and racial justice. The ruling is devastating for Black Louisiana voters and for fair representation for all voters of color,” said Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. “It also undermines the legitimacy of institutions that rely on fair maps to represent the American people. This is a day of shame for the Supreme Court. The majority’s claim that it is preserving our most sacred voting protections is disingenuous. It has rendered key voting protections that have served this country for than 60 years null and void. Section 2 was rightly named the crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement by earlier compositions of this Court. Today, however, the Roberts Court has allowed discrimination to run rampant as long as state mapmakers cite even the most tenuous justification. This is a setback for our country and our constitution which grants Congress the authority to address the scourge of racial discrimination in voting. We will demand new legislation to protect voters and continue to fight to defend and advance civil rights for all people and to protect our democracy as our institutions continue to fail us. This fight will continue in the courts, in statehouses, in the streets and most importantly at the ballot box until the promise of our multiracial democracy is realized. What the Court did not do and cannot do is take away our fundamental right to vote, and it is incumbent on every American to exercise that right now more than ever in service of our democracy.” The plaintiffs in Robinson v. Ardoin are a group of Louisiana voters, including individual Black voters and civic organizations, who challenged the state’s congressional map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Louisiana, and the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), along with pro bono counsel. The congressional map at issue in the Callais case was enacted by the Louisiana State Legislature in response to the Robinson litigation. However, during the second oral arguments in the case, the Robinson appellants were the only parties continuing to defend the congressional map with two majority-Black districts after state officials declined to do so. “Today’s loss of our current voting districts in no way means that Louisiana’s congressional map should not reflect the people living and voting in Louisiana,” said the Robinson appellants. “Black voters, not just in Louisiana but across the country, cannot be ignored, and our political power cannot be denied forever. This fight was never just about one map but about the continuously silenced Black voices that just want a fair shot at participation in the political process. We deserve our vote to matter as much as any other. We are constitutionally owed the opportunity to elect candidates who represent us and our communities. And we will not stop in our march, nor spare any resource in our fight to make sure that the sun will eventually rise on an America with free and fair elections for all of its people. "Today’s decision is a significant setback for our multiracial democracy. By gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court has undermined one of the last remaining tools that protected voters from racial discrimination in redistricting,” said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “This cruel decision is a devastating blow to Black and brown Louisiana voters, who have fought for decades to see their voices fairly represented. By stripping away Section 2 protections, the court leaves communities here vulnerable to maps that dilute their political power and undermine the hard-won promise of a multiracial democracy. But on the ground in Louisiana, we remain committed to protecting every voter’s right to participate and ensuring that our communities are not silenced." The ruling has immediate consequences for communities currently engaged in redistricting litigation and for voters seeking relief from discriminatory practices such as vote dilution, restrictive registration requirements, and changes to election administration that disproportionately burden communities of color. While today’s decision sharply limits federal voting rights protections, advocacy and enforcement efforts will continue through legislative action, state constitutional claims, and other available legal avenues.

SALT LAKE CITY — A coalition of voting rights groups filed a motion to dismiss the Department of Justice’s complaint in U.S. v. Henderson. The groups released the following statement: Utah’s election system is safe, secure, and efficient. The Department of Justice does not have a legal right to obtain the state’s unredacted voter list. This list contains Utahns’ private information, including information protected under state and federal law. Unlawfully disclosing this information threatens voter privacy and the removal of eligible voters from voter rolls. We are determined to act as a firewall against the Trump administration’s aggressive effort to gain access to the sensitive data of millions of Utah voters. There is no lawful or legitimate reason to hand over sensitive voter information to federal agencies to interfere with state election administration. Copy of the motion here.

Voting rights groups should be allowed to intervene as defendants in Louisiana's suit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission through which the state seeks to require additional proof of citizenship, argued the League of Women Voters of Louisiana and others in a motion to intervene in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

ANCHORAGE – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska, with Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the ACLU Voting Rights Project, filed a lawsuit challenging the Alaska Division of Elections’ (DOE) unconstitutional actions when it shared Alaska’s unredacted Voter Registration List with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in December 2025. The plaintiffs represented in the suit are the League of Women Voters of Alaska and the Alaska Black Caucus. In May 2025, the DOJ issued demands for full, unredacted voter rolls from almost every state and the District of Columbia in a reported effort to create an unauthorized national voter database. The State of Alaska complied with this effort, agreed to share constitutionally protected information with the DOJ, and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) where the state also agreed to promptly “clean” its voter list at the DOJ’s later instruction. Alaska was in the minority when it complied with this demand; twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia refused to share the sensitive information contained in their voter registration lists. The State of Alaska agreed to share confidential information, including the full name, date of birth, residential address, state driver’s license number, or the last four digits of the voter’s social security number. Revealing this information puts Alaskans’ identities and voting records at risk. The suit contends that the disclosure of sensitive voter information to the DOJ violates Alaskans’ right to privacy and that the actions agreed to in the MOU conflict with voter list maintenance requirements under Alaska law, risking the unlawful disenfranchisement of Alaska voters. Theresa J. Lee, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project: “Alaskans have a right to participate in our democracy without fear that their most sensitive personal information will be exposed or misused. By handing over unredacted voter data and participating in a federal power grab that could trigger improper voter roll purges, the state has put both privacy and democracy at serious risk. Elections depends on trust in our systems, and that trust is undermined when the government treats voters’ personal information as expendable.” Marianne Mills, co-president for the League of Women Voters of Alaska: "Protecting voters' confidential information is a non-partisan issue. Alaskan voters must be able to trust that the agency tasked with administering our statewide elections is doing everything in its power to protect Alaskans' privacy and lawful right to vote." Doyle Williams, board chairman of the Alaska Black Caucus: "The Alaska Black Caucus is deeply concerned that the actions of the Alaska Division of Elections undermine the very core of our democracy by risking the disenfranchisement of voters. Sharing unredacted voter registration data not only invades the privacy of Alaskans but also threatens to silence the voices of those who have fought tirelessly for their right to vote. We stand united in this lawsuit to protect the rights of all Alaskan voters and to ensure that their personal information remains secure.” Eric Glatt, legal director for the ACLU of Alaska: “The right to vote and our right to privacy are two core values held dear by Alaskans. Rather than fiercely defending the rights of Alaska’s voters, our Division of Elections acceded to federal overreach. Now, we are asking the court to step in and ensure that DOE upholds its constitutional and legal obligations to Alaskans.” John Davisson, deputy director and director of Enforcement for Electronic Privacy Information Center: "Voters rightly expect public officials at all levels of government to safeguard their privacy. When Washington fails at that task, states must hold the line. We're proud to help Alaskans hold the Division of Elections accountable and fight to protect our democracy." In the filing, the plaintiffs are seeking a court order for the DOJ to destroy its copies of the Alaska voter registration list that were shared, to void the MOU, and prevent the transmission of any further unredacted voter roll information to the DOJ.