Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Can the Voting Rights Act of 1965 be used to stop new restrictive voting laws before the 2026 midterm elections?
Executive Summary
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) still provides tools — primarily Section 2 litigation and Department of Justice enforcement — that can challenge restrictive voting laws, but reestablishing nationwide preclearance before 2026 would require new congressional legislation and faces significant political and judicial hurdles. Pending proposals like the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore preclearance mechanisms, yet passage, implementation, and likely litigation mean preclearance is unlikely to be broadly restored in time to block most 2026 changes [1] [2] [3].
1. The Old Power That Remains: Courts and Section 2 as an Active Roadblock
Federal courts and Section 2 of the VRA remain active tools to block discriminatory voting laws, and recent federal enforcement demonstrates that litigation can halt specific programs and practices. The Department of Justice has brought and won cases such as United States v. State of Alabama, where a preliminary injunction stopped a voter removal program, showing that targeted lawsuits can produce near-term relief when plaintiffs demonstrate discriminatory effect or intent under Section 2 or other statutes [4] [5] [6]. Civil-rights organizations and private law firms are actively litigating dozens of cases across many states, which can force temporary injunctions or keeps laws from taking effect while suits progress; however, these results are fact-specific, costly, and unpredictable, and they cannot automatically preempt all new laws nationwide before the 2026 midterms [7] [6].
2. The Missing Nationwide Shield: Shelby County and the Loss of Preclearance
The Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision removed the VRA’s preclearance formula, eliminating the automatic requirement that certain jurisdictions obtain federal approval before changing voting rules — a removal that directly enabled a wave of restrictive laws. Restoring that preclearance power is the principal mechanism that would most clearly prevent new laws from taking effect without federal review. Legislative proposals like the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act seek to create a new formula based on recent violations and disparate impact standards, and would reimpose preclearance on jurisdictions meeting objective thresholds. Passage of such legislation would be transformative, but it must survive likely litigation and be enacted quickly to block 2026-vintage laws [1] [2] [3].
3. Legislation on the Table — Ambition Meets Political Reality
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and related bills would expand preclearance criteria to target jurisdictions with repeated violations or discriminatory effects, and would subject certain nationwide categories of changes to automatic review. Proponents argue these bills are designed to respond to the post-Shelby landscape by using transparent, modernized triggers, while opponents contend they federalize too much election authority and invite judicial second-guessing. Congressional passage is not guaranteed; even if enacted, the new law would face immediate constitutional challenges. The practical implication is that legislative remedy exists but timing, partisanship, and subsequent court fights make broad preclearance before 2026 improbable [1] [3] [8].
4. On-the-Ground Reality: Litigation Dockets Are Busy but Limited
A surge of litigation — dozens of cases in multiple states — illustrates both capacity and constraints of enforcement. Major law firms and advocacy groups are pursuing 50–70 suits alleging discriminatory laws, which has already yielded injunctions and settlements in some jurisdictions; these targeted victories can protect voters in specific states or localities. Yet litigation outcomes depend on the legal theory used (Section 2 disparate-impact or intent, other statutory claims), available evidence, timelines, and appellate review. Even an active litigation ecosystem cannot substitute for a restored preclearance regime because injunctions are case-specific, require proof, and are subject to appeals that may not conclude before 2026 [7] [4] [6].
5. Judiciary and Executive Choices Will Decide the Near-Term Impact
The federal judiciary’s composition and the Department of Justice’s enforcement priorities will strongly influence whether the VRA can block new laws in the short run. The DOJ’s recent cases show willingness to sue and seek preliminary relief; however, courts may interpret Section 2 and related statutes narrowly or permit changes to stand pending appeals. Simultaneously, a newly enacted preclearance statute would itself be litigated up to the Supreme Court, introducing additional delay. Therefore, while targeted litigation and DOJ actions can and do stop some laws, they are insufficient to guarantee broad prevention of restrictive laws before the 2026 midterms without rapid legislative success [4] [9] [2].
6. Bottom Line: Tools Exist — But a Nationwide Stopgap Is Unlikely Before 2026
The VRA remains a powerful instrument for challenging discriminatory voting laws via Section 2 suits and DOJ enforcement, and legislative fixes would restore preclearance to stop laws proactively. Nevertheless, the combined realities of a fractured Congress, predictable legal challenges, and time needed for enactment and judicial resolution mean that most new restrictive laws filed or enacted in the next year will be fought case-by-case rather than uniformly precleared away, with outcomes hinging on litigation timelines and enforcement choices [1] [8] [5].