Skip to main content

Voting Rights Act Fast Facts

(CNN) — Here is a look at the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which serves to protect and enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments. It was enacted in response to voter suppression in the 1960s by state governments, local governments and law enforcement.

Important sections

Original jurisdictions: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. Also, subdivisions, mostly counties, in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho and North Carolina.

Jurisdictions are made based on a formula containing two elements: If less than 50% of the voting age population is registered to vote by November 1, 1964, or if less than 50% voted in the 1964 presidential election. It also guarantees the right to register and vote to citizens with “limited English proficiency.”

Section 2: States the right to vote cannot be denied on the basis of race or color.

Section 3: Upholds the ability to enforce the 15th Amendment.

Section 4: Says citizen cannot be denied the right to vote for failed compliance with devices such as literacy tests. It also designates the formulated jurisdictions outlined in Section 5. The requirement for preclearance of voting changes was ruled unconstitutional in a 2013 US Supreme Court decision. “The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance for the new voting changes, unless they are covered by a separate court order entered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.”

Section 5: This section freezes “changes in election practices or procedures in covered jurisdictions” until the new procedures have been subjected to review. Review can only be done by the US Attorney General or by filing a lawsuit before the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Yet Section 5 is basically unenforceable as there is no longer a preclearance requirement in Section 4.

Read More: America has a long history of resisting multiracial democracy.

Timeline

March 7, 1965 – Bloody Sunday – About 600 non-violent voting rights marchers heading to Montgomery, Alabama’s state capital, are attacked by state troopers in Selma.

March 15, 1965 – President Lyndon Johnson, in a speech before a joint session of Congress says: “There is no constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong, deadly wrong, to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.”

August 6, 1965 – Is signed into law by President Johnson to protect and enforce the 15th Amendment.

1970 – Congress extends provisions for five years, changing the formula in Section 4 to reflect 1968 (instead of 1964). Coverage is added in jurisdictions within 10 more states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Wyoming. Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts and Wyoming win “bailout” lawsuits.

1975 – Congress extends provisions for seven years, changes the formula to 1972 and broadens the discrimination description as also encompassing American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives or people of Spanish heritage. This addition to the formula essentially covers Alaska, Arizona and Texas, and includes parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota.

1982 – Congress extends the special provisions in Section 4 for 25 years, but makes no changes.

2006 – Congress renews special provisions and extends the act until 2031.

June 25, 2013 – The US Supreme Court decides (5-4) that formulated jurisdictions under Section 5 no longer have to have new voting laws pre-cleared by the attorney general or the federal district court in the District of Columbia. Chief Justice John Roberts explains that “our country has changed” and the formula “no longer characterize(s) voting in the covered jurisdictions.”

February 11, 2015 – An amendment to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1964 is introduced to the House of Representatives. The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015 is focused on updating a portion of the law after the US Supreme Court struck down an “outdated” portion of VRA that protected racial discrimination in voting.

March 7, 2015 – President Barack Obama signs legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal “to the Foot Soldiers who participated in the Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act.”

September 12, 2018 – The report, “An Assessment of Minority Voting Rights Access in the United States,” is released by the US Commission on Civil Rights. The bipartisan agency concludes that new state laws are making it more difficult for minorities to vote. It also notes that the Justice Department has done less to challenge those discriminatory laws since the Supreme Court struck down a core element of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013.

December 6, 2019 – The House of Representatives votes to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 (introduced February 26). The bill “establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices in these areas may take effect.”

July 22, 2020 – The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 is introduced in the Senate. It is renamed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act after the July 17 death of the congressman and civil rights leader.

July 1, 2021 – The US Supreme Court decides (6-3) that two provisions of an Arizona voting law that restrict how ballots can be cast do not violate the Voting Rights Act that bars regulations that result in racial discrimination. The ruling by the conservative-majority court will limit the ability of minorities to challenge state laws in the future that they say are discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act.

February 7, 2022 – In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court allows a congressional map drawn by Alabama Republicans to remain in place, freezing a lower court ruling that said the map likely violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of African American voters.

June 8, 2023 – In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court upholds a key section of the Voting Rights Act, ordering Alabama officials to redraw the state’s congressional map to allow an additional Black majority district.

August 1, 2024 – The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals narrows the scope of the Voting Rights Act for redistricting cases in a large swath of the South, ruling against the Justice Department and voters of color who had challenged Galveston, Texas’s county commission map for how it had been redrawn to dismantle a district where minorities made up a majority of the population.

May 14, 2025 – The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals shuts down the ability of private individuals to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits challenging election policies that allegedly discriminate based on race in several states. The ruling covers the seven midwestern states covered in the St. Louis-based Circuit. The opinion means that in those states, only the Justice Department can bring lawsuits enforcing a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

April 29, 2026 – In a case examining Louisiana’s congressional plan, the Supreme Court rules 6-3 that a map that had created a second majority-minority district in the state because of a Voting Rights Act challenge amounted to an unconstitutional use of race. The ruling essentially means evidence of a discriminatory motive may be necessary to win Voting Rights Act-based challenges.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Gianni Infantino is in a mire of his own making. With the threat of a European boycott, can he ride out the storm?

(CNN) — Gianni Infantino lives to fight another day – for now.Despite the continued, unprecedented backlash within and outside of FIFA to his ill-conceived and ultimately ill-fated FFE plan, the Swiss – at least on the surface – remains defiant.In any other walk of life, he’d have packed his bags. Soccer governance, though, operates in an alternative reality.Not willing to go of his accord, he clings on to power, emboldened to muddle through the biggest, self-made storm that has engulfed him and his organization in his 10-year tenure.An apologetic statement this week and commitment to not letting history repeat itself has, though, done little to placate the intensifying scrutiny of his leadership.With European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, doubling down on its threat of a boycott of FIFA competitions and battle lines being drawn up across the global footballing landscape, the question still looms: Is Infantino’s latest gambit a stay of execution, an attempted fightback or the start of a prolonged war of attrition?Fragmented landscapePrior to this summer’s World Cup, it was reported that more than 200 of the 211 national associations that make up FIFA had pledged their support to Infantino for his reelection next year.And up until this point the 56-year-old has appeared Teflon.Concerns surrounding his close ties with US President Donald Trump, outrage at exorbitant ticket prices and immigration policies at the World Cup through to still unanswered questions around the overturning of Folarin Balogun’s ban during the tournament all have been largely brushed under the carpet.The fight over the plan to sell off parts of the World Cup and other signature FIFA events to private businesses has tested that bulletproof presidency. And while there’s since been an unrelenting, concerted effort by UEFA to oust Infantino, from a loss of confidence in his leadership to the threat of legal action against him and his associates, there’s not been the united front that had been anticipated when it comes to change.UEFA commands a great deal of power and clout on and off the pitch, but it’s struggling to shake off the perception of this being another attempted European coup.Put simply, it cannot fight this battle alone.Not only does it need global support to maintain its momentum, it too needs to offer a genuine alternative to the status quo.Herein lies the problem.Power strongholdsOutside of Europe, so far only Jordan – one of a handful of countries not to have signed a letter of support for Infantino’s reelection prior to this crisis – has publicly called for Infantino’s resignation.North and Central America and Caribbean governing body CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) have both criticized the FIFA president and rejected the plan.Yet several countries within both confederations have already publicly pledged their loyalty to Infantino, while some are in no rush to commit either way.In a game of fine margins, which way those nations swing could prove crucial.And it’s not just the splitting of votes within confederations where Infantino is pinning his hopes of preserving his position.Like that of his predecessors, João Havelange and Sepp Blatter, Infantino is seeking to rally his core supporters in his traditional power base of Africa.Less wealthy associations within and outside the confederation have relied heavily on FIFA funds via Infantino’s FIFA Forward program, the precursor to FFE, which was introduced by him in 2016.South America’s CONMEBOL has already said it won’t upset the apple cart as it continues its push for a 64-team World Cup in 2030.Meanwhile, the executive committee of the smallest and least wealthy regional confederation, Oceania (OFC), will meet Wednesday to discuss its approach.Numbers gameAlthough severely weakened, Infantino still has his allies and, as it stands, the belief that he has the requisite votes needed to win March’s presidential election.And, at least for now, despite the threat of revolt, internal pressure within FIFA appears to have abated.While some senior figures have spoken out, others have fallen in line.To date, Carlos Cordeiro, formerly Infantino’s senior advisor, is the only high-profile official to have quit.The ball, therefore, is in UEFA’s court as to what to do next.It has several options at its disposal but which one it takes could prove crucial in determining the trajectory of how this saga unfolds.The problem, though, is none of the routes is easily achievable.Short term it could look to initiate an Extraordinary Congress and by default a no-confidence vote in Infantino.UEFA has the numbers to trigger such an action but there’s no guarantee of success.A forcing of an emergency meeting of the FIFA Council is also an avenue but again getting the necessary support may prove too difficult.All indicators, therefore, point toward a challenger being put up to face Infantino in March’s election – the first time an election would be contested since Infantino himself succeeded the discredited Sepp Blatter in 2016.CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani is widely viewed as the most likely rival if enough votes can be generated.The Canadian, though, is yet to publicly comment on the privatization plan fallout or provide an alternative vision to that presented by Infantino.Candidates have until November 18 to put their names forward for the contest.Nuclear optionThis, though, buys Infantino time to ride out the storm, regroup and rebuild.He could offer a route for reform, open up FIFA’s cash reserves or dangle the carrot of new funding. All options are on the table.The question that could cut through all of this is whether UEFA follows through with its threat of a boycott and non-cooperation, both of which could make FIFA ungovernable for Infantino.Not satisfied by Infantino’s walkback, it is a lever that Europe can pull – albeit a dangerous one at the same time.History hasn’t always looked kindly on such a move.A first major test of UEFA’s will is whether its national teams participate in next month’s U-20 Women’s World Cup in Poland.Six nations, including the host, are set to compete although UEFA is yet to publicly confirm how it intends to navigate this.CNN has approached FIFA and Poland’s FA for comment.Time is of the essence and the hopes and dreams of players in the balance.Beyond the pitch, tetchiness from FIFA’s lucrative sponsors amid the constant negative publicity could also prove telling.For now, though, soccer’s civil war appears to be heading toward an entrenched standoff of ideas and values.And, as ever, it rests on the game’s true custodians – the fans and players – to keep the very soul of the game alive and intact.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story