Fact check: Can the Voting Rights Act of 1965 restrict state congressional district changes?

1. Summary of the results

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 can restrict state congressional district changes, but its power has been significantly weakened by a series of Supreme Court rulings ^[1]. The Act originally included a preclearance provision that required states and localities with a history of discriminatory voting practices to obtain federal approval before making changes to election laws and policies ^{[2] [3]}.

However, the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder effectively gutted this key provision, eliminating the preclearance requirement that had been a cornerstone of voting rights protection ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Additionally, the Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee decision made it harder to prove discrimination under Section 2 of the Act ^[4].

The Act's legacy is being eroded by courts, lawmakers, and a government retreating from enforcement, making it increasingly difficult to protect voting rights ^[5]. This has resulted in states having "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several critical pieces of context:

• The Act faces new existential threats beyond past Supreme Court decisions. There is currently a novel legal argument being pursued that private individuals and groups do not have the right to sue to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ^[6]. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this argument, it could effectively end the law's protections for minority voters ^[6].
• The Supreme Court has requested new briefing in a Louisiana redistricting case that raises questions about the constitutionality of intentionally drawing congressional districts where Black or Latino voters make up the majority ^[7]. This could further erode the Act's power to protect minority voters.
• The weakening of the Act particularly threatens Native American voting rights and the ability of individuals to file voting rights challenges ^[8].
• The erosion of voting rights protections could lead to "a patchwork of democracy where rights depend on ZIP code and skin color" ^[5], highlighting the geographic and racial disparities that may emerge.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question is misleadingly simple and fails to acknowledge the dramatic weakening of the Voting Rights Act's power over the past decade. By asking whether the Act "can" restrict state congressional district changes without temporal context, it implies the Act retains its original strength, which is factually incorrect given the Supreme Court's systematic dismantling of its key provisions ^{[1] [4]}.

The question also omits the critical distinction between the Act's theoretical legal framework and its practical enforcement capabilities. While Section 2 of the Act technically still exists, the removal of preclearance requirements and the raising of evidentiary standards have made it far more difficult to successfully challenge discriminatory redistricting practices ^{[4] [2] [3]}.

Furthermore, the question fails to acknowledge that the Act's future effectiveness is currently under direct legal assault, with pending cases that could eliminate private enforcement mechanisms entirely ^[6].