How the Voting Rights Act Was Built - and How the Supreme Court Took It Apart
Some weeks are good, but lately the bad weeks have been coming far more often and have become harder to get through as we watch core democratic protections steadily erode. Last week was another one of those weeks, and I know many of you, like me, are trying to understand how far this dismantling of our voting rights can go, whether there’s a bottom to it, and a way to stop it.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was one of the most important civil rights laws in American history. Born out of Selma and the broader Civil Rights Movement, it prohibited racial discrimination in voting and created two major enforcement tools:
Section 2 (Results Test): A voting rule that resulted in discrimination even without proof of intent was illegal.
Section 5 (Preclearance): States with long records of discrimination had to get federal approval before changing voting laws or maps.
For nearly 50 years, the VRA was the backbone of multiracial democracy. Then the Supreme Court began taking it apart through three major cases.
The Three Cases That Gutted the Voting Rights Act:
1. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
The Court struck down the formula that determined which states needed preclearance. Without that formula, Section 5 became unenforceable. States immediately moved forward with laws that had previously been blocked: voter ID laws, polling place closures, and aggressive redistricting.
2. Brnovich v. DNC (2021)
The Court upheld Arizona voting restrictions and adopted a narrow reading of Section 2, making it far harder to challenge discriminatory voting rules even when they disproportionately affect minority voters.
3. Louisiana v. Callais (2026)
The Court effectively rewrote Section 2 back into an intent test, even though Congress explicitly made it a results test in 1982. The ruling makes it extremely difficult to challenge racial vote dilution in redistricting. Justice Kagan wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter.”
Why This Makes Gerrymandering Even More Consequential
With Section 2 no longer a reliable check on discriminatory maps, redistricting now plays out with far fewer federal guardrails. In an all‑out gerrymander scenario, Republicans would hold a structural advantage for two reasons: they control more state governments that draw the maps, and the geographic distribution of voters naturally produces more Republican‑leaning districts. The GOP governs far more states, including large and growing ones like Texas and Florida, giving them more opportunities to draw districts to their advantage. Democratic voters are concentrated in cities, while Republican voters are spread across suburban and rural areas.
But there is a limit. When a party stretches its voters too thin with a slim 51% majority to maximize seats, it creates very unstable districts that can flip in a national shift. That’s the dummymander: a map that looks strong in a neutral year but can collapse under even modest electoral pressure. In other words, if a party stretches its voters too thin to win every district, even a tiny shift in turnout - just a couple of percentage points-can flip the whole map, and they can lose all those seats at once.
Why This Matters in Berks County
With the Supreme Court pulling back federal protections, the future of voting rights runs straight through states like Pennsylvania and counties like Berks. The rules that determine how people vote, how districts are drawn, and how election offices function are shaped in Harrisburg. That means state legislators, state courts, and the Berks County Election Board have more influence over voting access than Congress does.
If you care about protecting our voting rights, you need to pay attention to your state and county elections. The state houses are where the decisions are made that will determine whether we have a fair election system.