08-08-2025
It's been 60 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed. Will it make it to 61?
ANXIOUS ANNIVERSARY — The Voting Rights Act was signed into law 60 years ago this week. What the law will look like when it reaches its 61st anniversary next year is a big question.
The landmark piece of legislation — which helped usher in an era of increased minority representation across American politics — has slowly been chipped away by the Roberts Supreme Court over the last 12 years. And a pair of court battles over the next year could leave the future of the law even more uncertain.
These new cases came 'within the Overton window because of what the justices themselves have done to encourage people to think more aggressively as it relates to the Voting Rights Act,' said Wendy Weiser, the vice president for democracy at the liberal advocacy organization the Brennan Center for Justice. 'These are radical changes that would do significant damage to voting rights.'
Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act has predominantly come through Section 2 of the law — which broadly prohibits discrimination in election practices on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group — after the Supreme Court in 2013 rendered the other major pillar moot. Back then, the court struck down the part of the VRA that determined which jurisdictions had a history of discrimination and needed to get federal permission before changing their voting laws.
Section 2 has been used to challenge voting practices — like restrictive registration requirements — that have disproportionately affected minority voters. But one of the biggest ways Section 2 enforcement has played out in practice has been the creation of 'majority-minority' congressional and legislative districts in which minority voters make up enough of the electorate to elect a candidate of their choosing. There are dozens of such districts across the country that are drawn to explicitly be majority Black, Latino or Asian — a practice the Supreme Court is now scrutinizing.
The first case starts in Louisiana, where a majority Black district that sprawled across the state was challenged by a group of self-identified non-Black voters as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The court initially heard arguments appealing that case in March. But earlier this summer, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of announcing it will rehear the case. In a short order issued last week, the justices called for parties to be prepared to argue whether the 'intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.'
The question posed by the court does not explicitly mention either the Voting Rights Act or Section 2. But the implication is fairly straightforward, according to UCLA law professor Rick Hasen: The court's conservative jurists could find that the Reconstruction era amendments — which were passed initially to protect newly-freed slaves — demand a 'colorblind' reading of the inherently race-conscious Voting Rights Act, and either strike it down or significantly limit its scope.
The court could find that 'the 14th and 15th Amendments should be read not as providing a way for Congress to protect Blacks and other minorities from discrimination in voting and elsewhere, but instead that it's a command that everything be race neutral,' Hasen, who has been critical of the court's erosion of the VRA, told Nightly. 'A kind of race neutral reading of the Constitution would potentially read out Congress's power to enact race conscious remedies to protect minority voters.'
Merely asking the question does not guarantee the court will scrap the practice of drawing majority-minority districts — Chief Justice John Roberts, who has generally looked to roll back the VRA over his career, was the surprise author of a majority opinion in 2023 that upheld a key provision. But at least one conservative justice has written recently that the law should be gutted, with Clarence Thomas writing in June that the court's previous rulings have placed 'the VRA in direct conflict with the Constitution.' The VRA has acted as a restraint in this hyper-partisan era of redistricting, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 federal courts couldn't police so-called partisan gerrymandering. A universe without VRA-protected districts would allow mapmakers of all political persuasions to further push the bounds of remapping.
Beyond the Louisiana case, another significant challenge to Section 2 is making its way through the federal judiciary. The vast majority of Section 2 litigation has been initiated by private parties, such as individual citizens or civil rights groups. But in a case out of North Dakota, the conservative 8th Circuit ruled that a 'private right of action' does not exist and that only the federal government can bring these cases. That, in effect, would eliminate most of the enforcement of the VRA and leave the remaining trickle up to the whims of whatever administration is in the White House — particularly under the Trump administration, which has totally overhauled the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. That ruling was stayed by the Supreme Court last month as an appeal is crafted. But that was over the objection of three of the conservative justices — Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
The North Dakota case does not present as direct an attack on Section 2 as the one from Louisiana. But a ruling that kills the right for private parties to sue would render the VRA effectively moot, Hasen said. 'While a ruling that private parties couldn't sue wouldn't look like a death knell, when you've got most cases — the lion's share — being brought by private parties, and you have a Trump Department of Justice that has not and does not appear to be interested in bringing any additional Section 2 lawsuits,' he said, 'it would essentially be rendering Section 2 a dead letter.'
Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at zmontellaro@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @ZachMontellaro.
What'd I Miss?
— Billy Long out as IRS commissioner: President Donald Trump plans to remove Billy Long as commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, a White House official said today. Long was sworn in less than two months ago to lead the tax agency. The former Missouri lawmaker had previously sponsored legislation to eradicate the IRS. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will serve as the agency's acting commissioner, the White House official — who was granted anonymity to discuss personnel moves — said.
— Trump to consider Fannie and Freddie public offerings this year: President Donald Trump is considering selling stock in mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac later this year, a senior administration official said today. 'The president is weighing all his options,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss plans that have not yet been finalized. The details of a potential public offering, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, would value the two companies at around $500 billion and involve selling 5 percent to 15 percent of their stock. However, there is still debate surrounding whether the entities would go through the initial public offering process separately or together.
— U.S. attorney's office subpoenas New York AG Letitia James: The U.S. attorney's office in Albany has issued two subpoenas to New York Attorney General Letitia James stemming from a pair of politically charged civil cases against President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, according to a person familiar with the matter. The subpoenas are an escalation of the Trump administration's scrutiny of James, who has positioned herself as a ferocious opponent of the president. The Department of Justice earlier this year opened a separate investigation into mortgage fraud allegations against James, which she has denied.
— Appeals court panel quashes Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings over Alien Enemies Act deportations: A divided federal appeals court panel has thrown out U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's bid to pursue criminal contempt for Trump administration officials he says defied his orders in March by sending 130 Venezuelan men to a prison in El Salvador. The ruling can be appealed further. If it remains in place, it appears to sharply diminish — but not completely rule out — the possibility that lawyers or other officials in the administration could face contempt charges over their conduct during the high-profile deportation showdown.
— Trump administration demands $1B from University of California-Los Angeles: The Trump administration is pushing the University of California-Los Angeles to enter a $1 billion settlement that would resolve alleged civil rights violations, restore hundreds of millions of dollars of frozen federal research grants, and force the school to adopt major changes to how it operates. The proposed agreement is certain to be subject to intense negotiations between the University of California and the White House. The administration's opening demand marks a major effort to expand the scope of a monthslong political and policy offensive against higher education institutions — this time against a flagship campus at one of the country's largest public university systems.
AROUND THE WORLD
LONDON CALLING — Keir Starmer today led international condemnation of Israel over a major military escalation in the Gaza Strip in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to take over Gaza City.
Germany suspended arms exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza, Spain 'strongly' condemned the stepped-up Israeli offensive, and the United Nations called for an immediate halt to the Israeli operation.
'The Israeli government's decision to further escalate its offensive in Gaza is wrong, and we urge it to reconsider immediately,' the British prime minister said in a statement early today. 'This action will do nothing to bring an end to this conflict or to help secure the release of the hostages. It will only bring more bloodshed,' he said.
Britain and its allies are working on a long-term plan to secure peace in the region as part of a two-state solution, but 'without both sides engaging in good faith in negotiations, that prospect is vanishing before our eyes,' the U.K. leader said.
Turkey also lambasted Netanyahu's decision, which was approved by Israel's security cabinet early today. Ankara called on Israel to stop its plans.
CIVILIANS OUT — Ukraine is evacuating hundreds of people from Korabel, an island district of Kherson city in southern Ukraine, after Russia last week severely damaged the only bridge connecting the suburb with the rest of the city.
'There are still about 600 people left out of 1,800 who were living there before the strike. At least 200 will be evacuated today. And Russians continue to attack the bridge and the area during evacuation,' Oleksandr Tolokonnikov, deputy head of the Kherson regional administration, said today.
The few people left in Korabel have no gas, no electricity, no shops and no public transportation.
The bridge attack prompted fears that Russians are planning to retake Kherson. Russia seized the city of 300,000 in the early days of its full-scale attack on Ukraine in 2022, but was driven out later that year.
Nightly Number
RADAR SWEEP
HOMEWARD BOUND — Clint Smith's family was one of the first let back into their Gentilly, New Orleans home after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in October 2005. And when he stepped foot back into the neighborhood as a teenager, he saw the extent of the devastation — and also the continued character of the neighborhood. Over the years following, Katrina became more than just a storm for his neighbors — it became a reference point and a 'before/after' moment for those who survived. Twenty years later Smith, now an essayist, reflects on what it meant to return home, and the concept of home after disaster, for The Atlantic.
Parting Image
Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
