Voting Rights Act of 1965

De **Voting Rights Act of 1965** be a landmark piece of federal legislation insyd de United States wey dey prohibit racial discrimination insyd voting. Na e be signed into law by Presido Lyndon B. Johnson during de height of de civil rights movement on August 4, 1965.wey Congress later amend de Act five times make e expand ein protections. Dem design am make e enforce de voting rights wey be protected by de Fourteenth den Fifteenth Amendments to de United States Constitution, na de Act sought make e secure de right to vote give racial minorities thru out de country. especially insyd de South. According to de U.S. Department of Justice, de Act be considered e be de most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation dem ever enact insyd de country. Na de National Archives and Records Administration state: "Na de Voting Rights Act of 1965 be de most significant statutory change insyd de relationship between de federal den de state governments insyd de area of voting since de Reconstruction period dey follow de Civil War".

De act dey contain chaw provisions wey dey regulate elections. De act ein "general provisions" dey provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 be a general provision wey dey prohibit state den local government from make dem dey impose any voting rule wey "dey result insyd de denial anaa abridgement of de right of any citizen make dem vote on account of race anaa color" anaa membership insyd de language minority group. Oda general provisions specifically dey outlaw literacy tests den similar devices wey na be historically used make dem disenfranchise racial minorities. De act sanso dey contain "special provisions" wey dey apply to certain jurisdictions per. A core special provision be de Section 4 requirement, wich prohibit certain jurisdictions from make dem dey implement any change wey dey affect voting widout first receiving confirmation from de U.S. attorney general anaa de U.S. District Court for D.C. wey de change no dey discriminate against protected minorities. Anoda special provision dey require jurisdictions wey dey contain significant language minority populations make dem provide bilingual ballots den oda election materials.

Section 4 den chaw oda special provisions apply to jurisdictions dem encompass by de "coverage formula" na dem prescribe insyd Section 4(b). Na de coverage formula be originally designed make e encompass jurisdictions wey engage insyd egregious voting discrimination insyd 1965, wey Congress update de formula insyd 1970 den 1975. Insyd *Shelby County v. Holder* (2013), na de U.S. Supreme Court struck down de coverage formula as unconstitutional, wey dey reason am say na e be obsolete. Na de court no strike down Section 5, buh widout a coverage formula, Section 5 be unenforceable. De jurisdictions wich na dem previously be covered by de coverage formula massively increase de rate of voter registration purges after de Shelby decision.

Insyd 2021, na de *Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee* Supreme Court ruling reinterprete Section 2 of de Voting Rights Act of 1965, substantially dey weaken am. Na de ruling interpret de "totality of circumstances" language of Section 2 make e mean say e no dey generally prohibit voting rules wey dey disparate impact on de groups wey e seek make e protect, wey dey include a rule dem block under Section 5 before de Court inactivate dat section insyd *Shelby County v. Holder*. For particular, na de ruling hold say na fears of election fraud fi justify such rules widout evidence wey na any such fraud occur insyd de past anaa dat na de new rule fi make elections safer.

Research dey show dat na de Act successfully den massively increase voter turnout den voter registrations, in particular among black people. Na dem sanso link de state Act to concrete outcomes, such as greater public goods provision (such as public education) give areas plus higher black population shares, more members of Congress wey dey vote give civil rights-related legislation, den greater Black representation insyd local offices.

## Background
At firs. De United States Constitution gree make each state fit decide how dem go take check who go fit vote. But after de Civil War, dem pass three Reconstruction Amendments wey limit dis power. De Thirteenth Amendment (1865) talk say no more slavery 'unless na punishment for crime'; de Fourteenth Amendment (1868) gree say anybody wey dem bon or naturalize for United States fit be citizen and dem go get due process and equal protection; and di Fifteenth Amendment (1870) talk say '[t]he right of citizens for de United States to vote no go fit deny or cut down by de United States or by any State sekof of race, color, or any past condition of servitude.' Dis Amendments sef give Congress power to make sure dem enforce de rules through 'correct legislation.'

To make de Reconstruction Amendments work, Congress dey pass Enforcement Acts for 1870s. Dem acts make am illegal if you go try block person from voting plus dey put federal eye for electoral wahala, include voter registration. But for 1875, Supreme Court come strike some parts of de law as e no gree with de constitution for United States v. Cruikshank and United States v. Reese. After Reconstruction Era finish for 1877, dem no dey follow these laws well again, e for 1894, Congress come cancel most of demma rules.

Southern states dey try make e hard for racial minorities to vote during den after Reconstruction. From 1868 to 1888, dem dey use all kinds of fraud plus violence for South to hold down African-American vote. From 1888 to 1908, Southern states come legalize am by bringing Jim Crow laws; dem change constitution den pass law wey go limit how people fit vote, like literacy tests, poll taxes, property ownership, moral character checks, plus some rules wey go allow person wey no fit vote cause him grandpapa don vote (wey dey leave many African Americans wey grandfathers be slave or no fit vote). During this time, Supreme Court dey mostly back efforts wey dey discriminate against minorities. For Giles v. Harris (1903), dem hold say no matter wetin happen with Fifteenth Amendment, judiciary no fit force states to register racial minorities to vote.

Before dem pass de Voting Rights Act for 1965, many people dey try stop Southern states from denying black voters demma chance to vote. Dem dey use literacy tests, poll taxes, plus other bureaucratic wahala to block dem. African Americans dey face plenty serious issues like harassment, intimidation, economic punishments, and even physical violence wen dem wan register or vote. As a result, no plenty African Americans fit register as voters, so dem no get much political power at all, both for demma areas plus for de whole country. During de 1950s, de Civil Rights Movement come put pressure on de federal government to help protect de voting rights of minority groups. For 1957, Congress pass de first civil rights law since Reconstruction: de Civil Rights Act of 1957. This law give the attorney general power to sue for people wey their Fifteenth Amendment rights dey denied, create the Civil Rights Division for Department of Justice to enforce civil rights through court case, plus set up de Commission on Civil Rights to check how dem dey deny people demma voting rights. More protections come for de Civil Rights Act of 1960, wey allow federal courts to pick referees wey go handle voter registration for places wey de practice voting discrimination against  racial minority groups.

Even though dem acts help courts fix federal voting rights wahala, de strict legal standards make am hard for de Department of Justice to carry dem cases well. Like, to win case against any state wey dey use literacy test, dem need prove say de rejected voter-registration forms of racial minorities be like de accepted forms of whites. Dis one mean say dem go compare thousands of applications for each state county, plus e fit take months. De department wan try but dem get wahala from local election officials wey go dey claim say dem lose de voter registration records of racial minorities, remove dem wey don register from de electoral lists, plus just resign so de registration go stop. Plus, de department dey always need to appeal cases plenty times before de judiciary go fit help because many federal district court judges no dey support racial minorities to vote. So, from 1957 to 1964, de rate wey African-American voters register for de South increase small-small even as de department dey fight 71 voting rights cases. Dem try stop Southern states from disfranchising people, but overall, na small success dem get, for some areas e no even work well at all. sekof de Department of Justice no fit stop de discriminatory election style wey dey happen one-by-one; as dem fit prove one unconstitutional, dem go just bring another one wey go start de whole wahala again.

Congress no take am easy say discrimination dey happen plenty for racial minorities for public places and government services, so dem pass Civil Rights Act for 1964. De act get some voting rights protection; e say make registrars share literacy tests well well to everybody wey wan vote and dem go accept application wey get small errors, plus e create say if person get sixth-grade education, e fit read well well to vote. But still, even as civil rights leaders dey lobby, de Act no fit stop most voting discrimination. President Lyndon B. Johnson see am, den after 1964 elections wey Democrats carry majorities for both Congress, e tell Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach make e draft “de goddamndest, toughest voting rights act wey you fit”. But Johnson no push am for public side that time; him advisers talk say e go cost am politically if he dey chase voting rights bill too soon after Congress don pass Civil Rights Act for 1964, plus Johnson dey fear say if e dey champion voting rights, e fit spoil hin Great Society reforms by vexing Southern Democrats for Congress.

After de 1964 elections, civil rights groups like Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) plus Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) dey push make de government protect voting rights for de minorities. Demma efforts lead to protests for Alabama, especially for Selma, wey Sheriff Jim Clark ein police dey swear for any African-American wey wan register to vote. For de Selma wahala, James Forman from SNCC talk say: 'Our plan, as usual, be to make U.S. government come join if dem go arrest people— plus if dem no come, e go show say government no dey with us plus e go make more people wake up for black matters. Our slogan for this movement be 'One Man, One Vote.'

For January 1965, Martin Luther King Jr., James Bevel, plus some other civil rights leaders gather for plenty peaceful protests for Selma, but police plus white counter-protesters no gree, dem begin beat people waa. For January den February, dis protests dey trend for media, everybody dey talk am for de issue wey concern voting rights. King plus some other protesters wey dey march for February 1, dem arrest dem because dem no  follow de anti-parade law; dis one make plenty people join de march and dem too dey get arrest. On February 4, Malcolm X come give strong speech for Selma, he talk say many African Americans no dey support King’s peaceful style; later, he go talk say he wan make whites fear so dem go support King. De next day, King come out from jail plus him letter wey him write about voting rights, “Letter From A Selma Jail,” show for De New York Times.

As wahala for Selma dey gather national attention, President Johnson change him mind say him go delay voting rights law. On February 6, him go announce say him go send proposal go Congress. Johnson no talk wetin dey insyde de proposal or de time him go show am for Congress.

For February 18 wey people dey for Marion, Alabama, state troopers yawa break for corner night wey dem dey shout for voting rights, as officer James Bonard Fowler shoot den kill young African-American protester Jimmie Lee Jackson wey no carry anything plus dey protect em mama. Dis event  ginger us, plus na Bevel start am, so on March 7, SCLC and SNCC start di first Selma to Montgomery march wey dem plan make dem waka go capital, Montgomery, to show sey voting rights no dey and to go tell Governor George Wallace how dem dey feel. For de first march, police on horse catch dem for Edmund Pettus Bridge wey dey near Selma. Police fire tear gas for crowd plus dem dey trample protesters. De video wey everybody see, dem call am 'Bloody Sunday', make plenty people vex for de country. On March 9, dem do another march wey dem call 'Turnaround Tuesday'. That evening, three white ministers wey join de march, dem attack dem on de street and beat dem with clubs by four Ku Klux Klan members. De worst one wey don suffer na Reverend James Reeb from Boston, wey die on Thursday, March 11.

After wetin happen for Selma, President Johnson talk for TV joint Congress meeting on March 15, him call on lawmakers say make dem pass strong voting rights law. For him speech, him  use de words 'we go fit overcome', like de slogan wey civil rights people dey use. Two days later, dem introduce de Voting Rights Act of 1965 for Congress, as civil rights leaders, wey plenty federal soldiers dey protect, lead 25,000 people waka from Selma go Montgomery.

## Legislative history
Dem try wey dem dey use court matter to stop bad election wahala no dey work well for U.S. Department of Justice, plus de federal anti-discrimination laws no plenty to fight de wahala wey state officials dey give for 15th Amendment enforcement. So de Congress talk say dem need new big federal law to free people from state disfranchisement. De U.S. Supreme Court talk am clear for South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) like dis:

##### Original bill

##### Senate

De Voting Rights Act wey dem introduce for Congress on March 17, 1965, na S. 1564, plus na Mike Mansfield wey be de Senate majority leader (D-MT) plus Senate minority leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) sponsor am. Dem two dey work with Attorney General Katzenbach to fit draft de bill language. Even though Democrats dey hold two-thirds of de seats for both chambers after de 1964 Senate elections, Johnson dey fear say Southern Democrats go filibuster de law because dem don oppose other civil rights matter. E call Dirksen make e help gather Republican support. Dirksen no plan to support voting rights law dis quick after e don support de Civil Rights Act of 1964, but when e hear about de police wahala for Selma on Bloody Sunday, e talk say e ready to accept dis 'revolutionary' law. Sekof Dirksen dey help Katzenbach write de law, dem come dey call am de 'Dirksenbach' bill. After Mansfield plus Dirksen bring de bill, 64 more senators join am as co-sponsors, with 46 Democrats plus 20 Republicans insyde de mix.

De bill get plenty special terms wey dey target some state plus local governments: one "coverage formula" wey go fit check which place go follow de Act other special terms ("covered jurisdictions"); one "preclearance" requirement wey no go allow covered jurisdictions change dem voting procedure without first get approval from de U.S. attorney general or de U.S. District Court for D.C. say de changes no dey discriminatory; plus dem suspend "tests or devices", like literacy tests, for covered jurisdictions. De bill too allow make federal examiners dey register voters, plus federal observers dey monitor elections, for covered jurisdictions wey dem find say dem dey do bad discrimination. De bill set de special provisions to expire after five years.

Dis formula wey dem dey use cover some places cause plenty wahala for congress matter. E go fit cover any place if (1) dem dey use “test or device” since November 1, 1964, plus (2) less than 50 percent of people wey fit vote for dia place no register or no vote for November 1964 election. Dis formula no reach plenty areas apart from Deep South. To make some lawmakers wey think say de bill dey gree only South people calm down, dem add one rule wey say no be no racial discrimination for voting around everywhere. De bill too get way wey place wey dem cover fit “bail out” if dem fit show for federal court say dem no use any “test or device” wey go discriminate for de last 5 years before dem ask for bail out. Plus, de bill get “bail in” way wey federal courts fit apply remedy for places wey no dey cover but fit still dey discrimination.

De bill first land for Senate Judiciary Committee, and di chair, Senator James Eastland (D-MS), no gree am with some other Southern senators wey dey insyde de committee. To make sure say de bill no go die for committee, Mansfield come suggest motion wey go make de Judiciary Committee report de bill come outsyde by April 9, plus de Senate waka pass am strong with vote of 67 to 13. As de committee dey check de bill, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) dey lead effort to change de bill to stop poll taxes. Even though de Twenty-fourth Amendment wey ban poll taxes for federal elections don ratify one year before, Johnson administration plus de sponsors of de bill no add any provision wey go stop poll taxes for state elections sekof dem dey fear say courts go fit cancel de legislation as unconstitutional. Plus, by excluding poll taxes from de definition of “tests or devices”, de coverage formula no touch Texas or Arkansas, wey reduce opposition from dem two states strong congressional teams. But, with support from some liberal committee members, Kennedy's way to stop poll taxes gree by 9-4 vote. As response, Dirksen come with another amendment wey say if state get at least 60 percent of people wey fit vote registered or if dem get voter turnout wey pass national average from last presidential election, dem go free. This amendment wey no go cover all states except Mississippi pass during meeting wey three liberal members no dey. Dirksen say him go remove de amendment if dem go take away de poll tax ban. For de end, dem report de bill outsyde  committee on April 9 by 12-4 vote without any recommendation.

For April 22, full Senate don start dey talk about de bill. Dirksen naim talk first for de bill side, e talk say “we need law if we wan make sure say de Fifteenth Amendment ... go work well well, plus if we wan make Declaration of Independence really mean something.” Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) reply say de bill go cause “despotism and tyranny”, plus Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) argue say de bill no dey constitutional as e go take state dem right under Article I, Section 2 of de Constitution to set voter qualifications, plus de bill dey target only some pipo. For May 6, Ervin drop amendment wey go remove de coverage formula's automatic trigger plus make federal judges fit appoint federal examiners to handle voter registration. Dis amendment no go well, 42 Democrats plus 22 Republicans vote against am. After long talk, Ted Kennedy's amendment wey wan stop poll taxes sef no work, e end 49–45 for May 11. But e be so say, de Senate talk say dem go include provision wey go allow attorney general fit sue any place, whether dem dey covered or not, to contest dem use of poll taxes. Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY) bring amendment wey go make English-illiterate citizens wey don finish at least sixth grade for non-English school fit vote, plus e pass 48–19. Southern lawmakers come try bring plenty amendments to make di law weak, but all of dem fall flat, dem all no work.

For May 25, Senate don vote for cloture,by 70–30 vote, so dey fit avoid filibuster wahala plus limit wetin dem go talk about de bill. On May 26, dem pass de bill by 77–19 vote (Democrats 47–16, Republicans 30–2); na only senators wey dey represent Southern states  oppose am, dem vote against am.

##### House of Representatives
Emanuel Celler (D-NY), wey be Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, bring de Voting Rights Act come House of Representatives on March 19, 1965, as H.R. 6400. Dis Judiciary Committee na de first one wey check de bill. De ranking Republican for de committee, William McCulloch (R-OH), generally gree make people get better voting rights, but he no support de ban wey dey stop poll tax and de coverage formula, so he lead de fight against de bill for committee. Dem finally gree de bill on May 12, but dem no submit de report until June 1. De bill get two amendments from subcommittee: one wey go punish person wey go disturb de right to vote plus another wey go ban all poll taxes. De ban on poll tax get support from de Speaker of de House John McCormack. De bill come next go Rules Committee, wey de chair, Howard W. Smith (D-VA), no gree accept de bill plus hold am down till June 24, wen Celler start de process to push de bill out from committee. Under pressure from de people wey want de bill, Smith finally allow de bill come out one week later, plus de full House begin debate de bill on July 6.

To tackle de Voting Rights Act, McCulloch bring one bill wey dem dey call H.R. 7896. Dis bill go allow attorney general fit appoint federal registrars after dem receive 25 serious complaints say dem dey discriminate for one area, plus e go put nationwide ban on literacy tests for people wey fit show say dem don reach sixth-grade education. McCulloch bill get support from House minority leader Gerald Ford plus Southern Democrats join am as option for de Voting Rights Act. Johnson administration see H.R. 7896 as serious wahala for the Voting Rights Act to pass. But support for H.R. 7896 begin decline as William M. Tuck come talk say e prefer H.R. 7896 because de Voting Rights Act go make sure say African Americans fit vote. Dis talk make plenty supporters of H.R. 7896 vex, plus de bill con fail for House with 171–248 vote on July 9. Later that night, de House come pass de Voting Rights Act with 333–85 vote (Democrats 221–61, Republicans 112–24).

##### Conference committee
Chambers don set up conference committee make dem settle wahala wey dey between House and Senate version of di bill. Big matter na di poll tax wey dey cause palava; Senate version gree make attorney general fit sue states wey dey use poll tax to discriminate, but House version just ban all poll tax straight up. At first, di committee members no fit gree. To fit broker compromise, Attorney General Katzenbach come draft law wey talk say poll tax no be constitution matter and make Department of Justice sue di states wey still dey collect poll tax. To calm di worries of liberal committee members wey dey feel say dis matter no dey strong enough, Katzenbach come call Martin Luther King Jr. for support wey make dem agree. King's backing fit break di stalemate, plus on July 29, di conference committee come report dem own version from committee. De House don approve dis version of de conference report for de bill on August 3 with 328–74 vote (Democrats 217–54, Republicans 111–20), plus de Senate follow am on August 4 with 79–18 vote (Democrats 49–17, Republicans 30–1). On August 6, President Johnson sign de Act into law, with King, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, plus other civil rights leaders wey dey for de signing ceremony.

##### Amendments

Congress dey pass big amendments for de Act for 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, plus 2006. Each time dem amend, e be sekof de special provisions for de Act go finish soon. De Act suppose finish for 1970, but Congress dey renew de special provisions sekof of de wahala wey still dey for voting discrimination. Congress add de coverage formula plus de special provisions wey dey follow am, like Section 5 wey need preclearance, for five years for 1970, seven years for 1975, plus 25 years for both 1982 plus 2006. For 1970 plus 1975, dem plus dat, dem even extend de coverage formula by adding new trigger dates for 1968 plus 1972.For 1975, coverage dey enlarge again wen Congress change wetin 'tests or devices' mean. E fit cover any area wey dey give English-only election info, like ballots, if dem get one language minority wey dey more than five percent of voting-age people for dat area. Dis expansion bring plenty areas join coverage, even many no dey for South. To make am pa, de special provisions wey dem don reauthorize, Congress come liberalize de bailout matter for 1982, allow jurisdictions wey fit waka comot coverage once dem follow de Act plus do something wey go help increase minority political participation.

On top de original special rules dem dey reauthorize, Congress also chop plenty new provisions join de Act. For example, dem expand de ban wey dey on 'tests or devices' to cover everywhere for 1970, plus by 1975, de ban don become permanent sha. Also, for 1975, Congress widen de Act make e fit protect language minorities from voting wahala. Dem define 'language minority' as people wey be American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or people wey get Spanish background. Congress come add some new provisions, like de preclearance requirement plus Section 2 wey dey stop discriminatory voting laws, to make sure language minorities no go face discrimination. Congress come put bilingual election matter for Section 203 wey make election officials for some areas wey get plenty people wey no sabi English, must provide ballot and voting info for their language. E been wan expire after 10 years, but Congress come reauthorize Section 203 for 1982 for seven years, then e later expand plus reauthorize am for 1992 for 15 years, plus for 2006, dem reauthorize am again for 25 years. Bilingual election requirement dey cause serious wahala. Some people wey support am talk say, dem need am make new citizens fit vote well, but others dey argue say, e go cost plenty money wey no go fit cover.

Some of de changes wey dem make, na because of court verdicts wey Congress no gree. For 1982, Congress change de law to overturn De Supreme Court case Mobile v. Bolden (1980), wey talk say Section 2 fit only stop discrimination wey dem plan well. Congress come expand Section 2 give am clear say any voting wahala wey go cause discrimination dey banned, no matter whether na intentional or not. Dis 'results test' wey dem create, shift plenty vote dilution cases from preclearance wahala to Section 2 cases. For 2006, Congress change de law again to overturn two Supreme Court cases: Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (2000), wey talk say Section 5 preclearance fit block only voting changes wey dem do for 'retrogressive' purpose instead of any wahala, PLUS Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003), wey set broader test to check if redistricting plan dey cause wahala under Section 5, limit no be only if minority fit choose demma candidates. Since Supreme Court don quash the coverage formula wey no dey jom for Shelby County v. Holder (2013), plenty bills don show for Congress make dem fit create new coverage formula and change some other things; but none of dem bills don pass.

## Provisions

De act get two types of provisions: "general provisions", wey dey apply for de whole country, den "special provisions", wey dey apply to only certain states den local governments. "De Voting Rights Act be aimed for de subtle, as well as de obvious, state regulations wey get de effect of denying citizens dema right to vote because of dema race. Moreover, compatible plus de decisions of dis Court, de Act dey give broad interpretation to de right to vote, recognizing say voting dey include "all action necessary to make a vote effective." 79 Stat. 445, 42 U.S.C. § 19731(c)(1) (1969 ed., Supp. I). See *Reynolds v. Sims*, 377 U. S. 533, 377 U. S. 555 (1964)." Most provisions dem design to protect de voting rights of racial den language minorities. De term "language minority" mean "persons wey be American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." De act ein provisions dem color by numerous judicial interpretations den congressional amendments.

##### ''Early enforcement hurdles''
Even tho e don pass, VRA still dey face three big wahala:

# Literacy test wahala: Plenty counties don swap banned tests with 'good moral character' talk (like Alabama wey in 1966 dem require say voter wey want register go fit recite Constitution well well). Supreme Court come strike dem down for United States v. Louisiana (1966), but e still dey slow—by 1967, DOJ don file 71 lawsuits make people fit register.
# Economic wahala: Planters like Mississippi’s Theodore Bilbo Jr. dey threaten to push sharecroppers wey go register; e cause dem to bring de 1966 'Voter Registration Protection Act' (42 U.S.C. § 1971(e)) wey fit allow federal law suit against private people.
# Jurisdictional wahala: South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) gree say VRA dey valid, but local officials dey use Section 4 'bail-in' process start some delay—Mississippi Hinds County take 18 months before dem follow federal court order.

##### General provisions

##### General prohibition of discriminatory voting laws
Section 2 no gree any place make dem fit do any kind of voting wahala wey go make person no fit vote because of him race, color, or language wey e dey belong to. This Section 2 get two ways wey e dey protect people from voter discrimination for laws wey don already start, unlike Section 5 wey no dey like that. First, e no allow anybody to discriminate people based on race or color wen dem dey vote. Second, e no make election practices wey go fit deny person right to vote based on race or color. If dem violate dis second protection on purpose, e go still be violation of de Fifteenth Amendment. Supreme Court don gree say private people fit sue to make this rules work.  For Mobile v. Bolden (1980), Supreme Court talk say wen dem first make am for 1965, Section 2 just dey repeat Fifteenth Amendment, so e only dey ban those voting laws wey dem create or keep for discrimination reason. For 1982, Congress change Section 2 make e get "results" test, wey dey stop any voting law wey go fit cause discrimination effect, no matter whether dem purposely make am or maintain am for dat reason. De 1982 change talk say de results test no go fit guarantee protected minorities dem get di right to proportional representation. For de case Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), de United States Supreme Court talk say di 1982 change for section 2 mean say de main gist of Section 2 claim be say some electoral law, practice, or structure dey interact with social plus historical wahala wey dey cause inequality for de chances wey black and white voters dey get to choose de reps wey dem like. De United States Department of Justice talk say section 2 no be just one permanent plus nationwide rule wey fit stop discrimination for voting based on any voting standard, practice, or procedure wey go make any citizen lose im right to vote sekof of race, color, or if dem dey belong to language minority group, but e still dey stop state plus local officials from adopting or maintaining voting laws wey go dey discriminate intentionally based on race, color, or language minority group.

De United States Supreme Court talk say dem get mind for Section 2 and wetin change for 1982 for Chisom v. Roemer (1991). Dem show say now, you no need prove say you get bad mind to show say dem break § 2. Plaintiffs fit win under § 2 if dem fit show say election wey dem dey contest don cause dem to lose de right to vote sekof of color or race. Congress no just put de results test insyde de part wey use to be full § 2, dem also call dat part subsection (a) plus add new subsection (b) wey talk say to use results test, you gatz look all de circumstances. Section 2(a) dey use results test, so you no need to prove say dem get bad intent to show say dem break de section. Section 2(b) gree guidance on how to apply de results test. Dem create framework to check if jurisdiction's election law dey violate de general rule from Section 2 wey don change.

Section 2 dey stop voting wahala wey fit make some people no fit vote sekof of demma race, color, or if dem belong to language-minority group. E talk say if political processes no dey open for everybody, den dem don deny dem right to vote. Base on [52 U.S.C. 10301](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:10301%20edition:prelim)),[...]  if we check subsection (b), e go show say if dem break the rule for subsection (a), we go fit see say as e be, political processes wey lead to nomination or election no dey open for all citizens wey dey protected under subsection (a). This means members of dis group get less chance to take part for de political process plus to choose den select demma own representatives.

Arizona Attorney General office talk say dem wan check the law wey fit show if election law for jurisdiction dey violate Section 2 wey dem don change and why dem adopt Section 2 for de new form:

If you wan show say dem violate Section 2 wey dem amend, you go need prove say, based on wetin dey happen, de State’s “political processes” no dey open for everybody wey suppose fit join, especially de protected class. Dem members get less chance pass others wey fit vote to choose di representatives wey dem like. Na dis tin wey amended Section 2 dey try stop: “less chance pass others wey fit vote,” wen you check de State’s “political processes” as one whole. Dem change de language make e fit avoid need for direct proof of bad intention wey no dey easy to get, but dem no wan use any how “disparate impact” test wey fit spoil normal voting method. S. REP. NO. 97–417, at 28–29, 31–32, 99 (1982)

For Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), de United States Supreme Court come drop some wajam for how to check Section 2 wahala. De slip opinion talk say for Syllabus part sey, "De Court no wan drop any test we go cover all VRA [Section 2] challenges wey fit talk about time, place, or way to cast ballot. E go just dey okay to see some guide wey go lead to de Court decision for dis matter." De Court drop dis guide dem wey we go use check de state rules under Section 2. E include: how heavy de burden wey de rule dey create, how de rule change from wetin we don dey do before, how de racial imbalance be, plus how much chance dem dey give voters wen dem dey look all de election rules.

When dem dey find out if any place law for election dey go against wetin Section 2 of VRA talk, courts dey use some factors wey Senate Judiciary Committee report for 1982 amendments talk about, wey dem dey call 'Senate Factors', including:

# History dey show say dem dey discriminate wey fit affect de right to vote;
# How voting for de jurisdiction insyde dey show racial divide for de place;
# De way dem dey use majority vote matter, big electoral districts wey too plenty, ban on bullet voting, plus other things wey fit make voting discrimination better;
# E be if dem go allow minority candidates enter de candidate slating process, if dem get any;
# How far dem minority people for dis area dey face wahala for money matter like school, job, plus health;
# E fit be clear or small small racial code talk wey dey happen for campaigns;
# How many minority candidates don win elections;
# De way wey  those people dem elect  no dey mind de wahala wey minority group dey face; plus
# Whether de policy justification for de  law wey dem challenge be tenuous.
De report show say no all or plenty of dem factors dey need to dey for electoral thing make e lead to discrimination, plus e also show say dis list no be complete, make court fit consider extra evidence if dem like.

— Justice Black on the right to vote as the foundation of democracy in *[[:en:Wesberry_v._Sanders|Wesberry v. Sanders]]* (1964).

Section 2 no allow two kind discrimination: "vote denial", wey dey mean say person no fit cast im ballot or make dem count im vote well, plus "vote dilution". wey de strength or effectiveness of person vote go dey reduced. Most Section 2 wahala dey concern vote wey dem dey dilute, especially when people dey talk say de way dem redistrict or de way dem use at-large/multimember elections dey make am hard for minority voters to cast enough votes wey go fit help dem elect de candidates wey dem like. Wen dem do at-large election, e fit spoil minority voters votes, sekof de strong majority group fit take all de seats for de place. Dem redistricting plans fit gerrymander am, make votes wey minority people cast dey dilute. Dem go fit 'pack' plenty minority voters for small districts or 'crack' dem by spreading dem small for plenty districts.

For Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), Supreme Court talk say dem dey call am "vote dilution through submergence" when dem dey complain say when area use at-large/multimember election or gerrymandered redistricting, e dey scatter minority votes. Dem set legal way wey go fit check this matter under Section 2.[a] Under Gingles test, plaintiffs(person wey take anoda go court) must show say three things dey:

# De racial or language minority group dey plenty plus dey close enough to fit form majority for one single-member district';
# De minority group dey be 'politically tight' (dis mean say dem members fit vote di same way); plus
# De majority dey vote together well well to fit ... normally to burst de minority candidate wey dem like'.
De first condition wey dem dey call "compactness" na im dey talk whether dem fit create majority-minority district. De second and third conditions na wetin dem dey group as "racially polarized voting" or "racial bloc voting", plus e dey talk whether de voting patterns of de different racial groups be different. If person wey dey sue fit prove say these conditions dey, den e go need show, using de other Senate Factors plus evidence, say for de whole situation, de jurisdiction's redistricting plan or de way dem dey do at-large or multimember elections dey reduce de chance wey de minority group get to select candidates wey dem like.

Wen dem go fit dey litigate again, dem define how dis "vote dilution through submergence" matter dey be. For Bartlett v. Strickland (2009), Supreme Court talk say, di first Gingles precondition go only fit happen if dem fit draw one district wey di minority group go dey majority of voting-age citizens. Dis one mean say, people wey dey sue no go fit win submergence case for places wey di minority group no dey big reach majority for di district, but dem dey big enough make dem fit choose dia favorite candidates plus some votes from di majority group. Cross check be say, Supreme Court never touch if different protected minority groups fit join body wey go satisfy di Gingles preconditions as coalition, and lower courts dey cut on dis matter.

De Supreme Court talk some more about de "totality of the circumstances" test wey dey Johnson v. De Grandy (1994). Dem court yan say just having de three Gingles preconditions no fit mean say person go dey responsible for vote dilution if oda tins dey against am, especially wen we dey talk about redistricting wahala. Dem court also talk say even if de three Gingles preconditions fit dey, jurisdiction no go fit carry any blame for vote dilution if dem redistricting plan get enough majority-minority districts wey match d minority people population. Dis decision clear say Section 2 no need make jurisdictions increase majority-minority districts. Dem also separate how majority-minority districts be, wey go fit give minorities chance to choose who dem want, from how election results be, wey Section 2 no fit promise minorities.

Dem get wahala wey concern de third Gingles precondition wey no fit resolve. For Gingles matter, de Supreme Court no gree if plaintiffs go prove say de majority racial group dey vote together sekof dem dey motivated by race matter no be other tins wey fit join with race, like party affiliation. Plenty justices talk say if dem go need such proof, e go go against wetin Congress want make Section 2 be, as 'results' test, but Justice White talk say de proof dey important to show how de electoral scheme fit lead to racial discrimination. Since Gingles, lower courts don dey argue about de matter too.

E be true say plenty Section 2 case dem dey talk about how dem dey dilute vote with submergence, but dem still fit talk about other ways vote fit dey diluted for this law. For Holder v. Hall (1994), Supreme Court talk say if minority vote dey diluted sekof small size of body wey dey govern, like one-person county commission, dem no fit bring dat matter under Section 2. Court come reason say no standard size wey no dey dilute vote for governing body, so no relief go fit happen under Section 2. Anoda way wey vote fit dey dilute na wen dem say candidate go need majority vote to win. Dis majority-vote matter fit mek person wey minority group like, wey fit don win if na simple plurality vote, lose o after plenty voters team up behind anoda candidate for runoff election. Supreme Court never talk if we fit carry such claims come under Section 2, plus lower courts don get different ideas about am.

Apart from all de talk say dem dey dilute votes, courts don still look into cases wey concern vote denial under Section 2. De Supreme Court for de case of Richardson v. Ramirez (1974) gree say law wey dey take away felons' right no fit violate Section 2 because Section 2 of de Fourteenth Amendment dey allow such laws. One federal court for Mississippi talk say if you get 'dual registration' system wey make person register differently for state elections plus local elections, e fit dey violate Section 2 if e dey affect people wey no be equal based on de Senate Factors. From 2013, lower federal courts dey start dey look challenges wey people bring against voter ID laws under Section 2.

##### Specific prohibitions
Dis law get plenty rules wey no go let anybody disturb person wey wan vote well. One of de rules dey for Section 201, wey talk say no place fit force person make dem do any 'test or device' before dem go fit register to vote or cast dem ballot. 'Test or device' mean tings like reading tests, education wahala, proof say you be good person, plus any requirement wey say person must get someone wey go vouch for dem wen dem dey vote. Before dem pass de Act, dis devices na dem main tools dem dey use for places to stop minority people from voting. Before, the Act fit pause tests or devices for some places wey dey under Section 4(b), but later, Congress push the ban for everywhere plus make am permanent. For matter wey relate, Section 202 no go allow area make dem put any 'time wey you go stay' rule wey go talk say person suppose don stay for dey more than 30 days before e fit vote for presidential election.

Section 11 get plenty protections for voters. Section 11(a) no allow anybody wey dey use law to refuse person wey qualify make e vote or no go count am ballot. Section 11(b) too no dey make anybody intimidate, harass, or force another person make e vote or try to vote. Two parts for Section 11 talk about voter fraud: Section 11(c) no go make person wey sabi submit fake voter registration make e fit vote for federal election, and Section 11(e) no allow person vote twice for federal election.

Eii, at long last, Section 208 talk say no jurisdiction fit stop anybody wey no sabi English or get de disability from bringing person wey dem choose go help am for de ballot box. Only exceptions be say de assistant no fit be agent for de person work or union.

##### Bail-in
Section 3(c) get one "bail-in" or "pocket trigger" way wey places wey no fit follow Section 4(b) go fit still need preclearance. So if dem catch any place wey dey treat voters bad based on race, go fit make dem follow de rules wey de Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments talk. Court fit tell dem say, any change wey dem wan make for demma election laws, dem go need first get approval from federal government. But e get as courts dey look de Fourteenth plus Fifteenth Amendments say dem only fit catch intentional discrimination, so to bail in one place, de person wey go carry de matter go court must show say that place dey use voting way wey fit discriminate on purpose.

Section 3(c) get im own preclearance talk wey dey different from Section 5 preclearance plenty ways. Unlike Section 5 wey dey cover jurisdiction untill dem fit come out from Section 4(a) coverage, bailed-in jurisdictions go still dey under preclearance as long as court talk so. Plus, court fit fit tell jurisdiction make dem only preclear specific voting changes. For example, New Mexico wey bail-in for 1984 last for 10 years plus only need preclearance for redistricting plans. This one dey different from Section 5 wey require coverage to preclear all voting changes wey dem get.

E be like sey Section 3(c) no dey get much use for de Act early days; no state fit bail in till 1975. From 1975 to 2013, 18 jurisdictions don bail in, wey include 16 local governments plus states of Arkansas plus New Mexico. Even though de Supreme Court talk sey Section 4(b) formula no fit work for Shelby County v. Holder (2013), dem no talk sey Section 3(c) no good. So, dem fit still bail in jurisdictions plus make dem go through Section 3(c) preclearance.After de Shelby County matter, courts start to consider requests from de attorney general plus other plaintiffs to bail in Texas plus North Carolina, plus for January 2014, one federal court bail in Evergreen, Alabama.

Section 3(a) talk say, dem fit use narrow bail-in process for federal observer certification. If court gree say one jurisdiction violate the voting rights wey Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments dey guarantee, dem fit certify am to receive federal observers. Dem jurisdictions wey court don certify under Section 3(a) no go need preclearance.

##### Special provisions
##### Coverage formula

Section 4(b) get wetin dem dey call 'coverage formula' wey go fit show which states and local governments go follow di Act special provisions (except di Section 203(c) bilingual election matter, wey dey follow another formula). Congress wan make di coverage formula cover di places wey dey do plenty discrimination. Jurisdiction go dey covered by di formula if:

# Since November 1, 1964, 1968, or 1972, dem dey use some 'test or device' to block people from registering den voting; plus
# Less than half di people wey fit vote no register for November 1, 1964, 1968, or 1972; or less than half de people wey fit vote no show face for de presidential election for November 1964, 1968, or 1972.

When dem first bring de law come, de coverage formula only get November 1964 dates; later dem add more dates wey be November 1968 plus November 1972, wey make more places join de coverage. For de coverage formula, de term 'test or device' mean di same four things wey dem ban for di whole country by Section 201—literacy tests, educational or knowledge requirements, proof say person dey good morally, plus say person need somebody to vouch for am wen e dey vote—plus one extra ting wey dey Section 4(f)(3): if more than five percent of citizens wey fit vote na members of one language minority group, any practice wey make dem provide registration or election materials only for English. De kinds of places wey dis coverage formula fit apply to na states an de 'political subdivisions' of states. Section 14(c)(2) talk say 'political subdivision' be any county, parish, or 'any other part of a State wey dey organize registration for voting.'

As Congress added new triggering dates to the coverage formula, new jurisdictions were brought into coverage. De 1965 coverage formula included de whole of Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, plus Virginia; plus some subdivisions (mostly counties) for Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, plus North Carolina. The 1968 coverage don result for de partial coverage of Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, plus Wyoming. Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming filed successful "bailout" lawsuits, as also provided by section 4. De 1972 coverage covered the whole of Alaska, Arizona, plus Texas, den parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, plus South Dakota.

De special rules we dem put insyde de Act suppose finish for 1970, but Congress gree renew am for extra five years. For 1975, dem extend de special rules again for seven more years. Then for 1982, dem extend de coverage formula again, dis time for 25 years, but dem no change anything for de coverage formula, plus for 2006, dem extend de coverage formula again for another 25 years.

E be like de history no smooth, de coverage formula dey cause wahala because e dey put some areas for spotlight, plenty from Deep South. For de case wey dem call Shelby County v. Holder (2013), de Supreme Court talk say de coverage formula no dey work well because dia criteria don old plus e dey go against equal state sovereignty plus federalism principles. De other special yanga wey dey depend on de coverage formula, like Section 5 preclearance requirement, still dey valid law. But without correct coverage formula, dem no fit enforce dem.

##### Preclearance requirement
Section 5 say any place wey fit enter this matter go need federal approval, wey dem dey call 'preclearance', before dem fit change demma election law. That place go need show say de change no dey discriminate based on race or language matter; if dem no fit show am, federal government go deny dem preclearance plus de change go no fit take effect. Supreme Court talk say Section 5 cover plenty for Allen v. State Board of Election (1969), say any small change for how dem dey vote go need preclearance. E still talk say if dem no get de preclearance, private people fit sue dem for demma local court before three judges. For this Section 5 'enforcement actions', court go check if de area make any voting change wey dem covere, plus if e don get preclearance. If de area no get de preclearance wey dem suppose to get, court go command de area make dem get am before dem carry out de change. But court no go fit reason whether de change suppose to pass or not.

Jurisdictions fit ask for preclearance through either 'administrative preclearance' or 'judicial preclearance'. If dem wan go for administrative preclearance, de attorney general go check if de change wey dem propose get any discriminatory reason or effect. Once de jurisdiction submit de change, de attorney general get 60 days to raise any objection. If dem need extra time, dem fit extend am for another 60 days if de jurisdiction bring more information later. If de attorney general raise objection, de change no go fit clear plus dem no go fit use am. Attorney general wey gree no fit make dem review am for court, but if e bring wahala, de jurisdiction fit look for court approval by demself, plus de court fit just ignore de attorney general wahala if dem like. If jurisdiction wan seek court approval, dem go file case against de attorney general for U.S. District Court for D.C. Three judges go check if de voting change get any discriminatory wahala, plus de one wey lose fit carry am go Supreme Court directly. Private people fit join de court case for dis preclearance lawsuits matter.

Many times, Supreme Court don talk about wetin be "discriminatory effect" plus "discriminatory purpose" for Section 5 matter. For Beer v. United States (1976), Court talk say if voting change wan get bad discriminatory effect, e suppose cause "retrogression" (backsliding). So, if voting change dey cause discrimination, but e no dey cause more discrimination than before, dem no fit deny am preclearance because e get discriminatory effect. Like for example, if dem change poll tax to expensive voter registration fee, e no be "retrogressive" change sekof e dey cause same level of discrimination, no more. Dem dey use de Senate report for di Act well, as court talk say de retrogression standard be di right way to sabi wetin 'discriminatory effect' mean, sekof Section 5 na to make sure say de progress wey minority dey make no go spoil sekof of new 'discriminatory' ways. De retrogression standard dey apply whether de voting change dey cause people no fit vote or make dem vote no strong.

For 2003, Supreme Court wey dey Georgia v. Ashcroft talk say courts no go fit just check say new redistricting plan get retrogressive wahala sekof e reduce minority-majority districts. Dem court people stress say judges suppose check plenty other things under de 'totality of de circumstances, like if de redistricting plan dey increase de number of 'influence districts' wey minority group fit use change election outcome small. For 2006, Congress come turn this decision upside down by amending Section 5, wey go talk clear say 'if you dey reduce protected minority fit elect demma own candidates, e mean say you dey deny or abridge them right to vote base on Section 5. Still, e dey unclear wetin this language really mean plus how courts go fit interpret am.

Before 2000, dem dey talk say de "discriminatory purpose" part for Section 5 fit mean any kind discrimination, which be de same way dem dey check if wahala be unconstitutional. For Reno v. Bossier Parish (Bossier Parish II) (2000), Supreme Court change am small, dem talk say for any voting change to get "discriminatory purpose" under Section 5, e go need to happen for retrogressive reason. So, if dem wan use voting change to discriminate against minority, e dey okay under Section 5 as long as e no dey try increase de wahala wey dey already. This change make plenty cases wey dem deny preclearance base on discriminatory purpose  reduce. For 2006, Congress come overturn Bossier Parish II by amending Section 5 to clear say "purpose" mean "any discriminatory purpose."

##### Federal examiners plus observers
Till 2006 wey dem change de Act, Section 6 allow make dem appoint 'federal examiners' to check some area wey dey handle voter registration. Dem fit give federal examiners to any area if de attorney general talk say e fit do am.

# Justice Ministry collect like 20 or more serious complaints wey say de area no gree  make de residents vote sekof of race or if dem belong to minority language group; or
# Dem need federal examiners to fit make sure say people go fit enjoy de voting rights wey dem promise for de Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.

Federal examiners get power to register voters, check voter registration applications, plus keep voter rolls. De aim of dis federal examiner ting na to stop areas from denying protected minorities de right to vote by doing bad tings for voter registration, like saying no to qualified people, deleting qualified voters from rolls, plus de reduce de time wey people fit register. Dem use federal examiners plenty after de Act come out, but as time pass, e no dey matter like before; 1983 na de last year wey federal examiner register person to vote. For 2006, Congress stop dis provision.

Insyde de Act wey de original plan dey, for any place wey dem don certify for federal examiners, de attorney general fit require make dem appoint "federal observers". By 2006, de federal examiner part don turn only for appointing federal observers. Wen Congress remove de federal examiner part for 2006, dem change Section 8 make e allow federal observers to go places wey fit de same certification wey dem use appoint federal examiners.

Federal observers dey follow how poll workers and voters dey behave for polling places for de time of de election plus how election officials dey calculate ballots. Dem goal be make shore say minority voters fit participate by catching den write down any bad behavior wey fit happen, like election officials wey go deny qualified minority people demma right to vote, or if dem dey intimidate voters on election day, or if dem no dey count vote properly. De bad behavior wey federal observers catch fit also serve as proof for any court case later. Between 1965 plus de Supreme Court for 2013 strike down de coverage formula for Shelby County v. Holder, attorney general don certify 153 local governments for 11 states. E be sekof of time plus resource wahala, federal observers no fit go every certified place for every election. Some other provisions allow certified places to 'bail out' from demma certification.

##### Bailout
For Section 4(a), any area wey dey covered fit ask for exemption wey dem dey call 'bailout.' To get dis exemption, dem need to go meet three judges for de D.C. District Court wey go judge say dem fit bail out. Originally, if any area no use any test or method wey dey discriminate insyde de 5 years wey dem dey request for bailout, e go qualify to bail out. So, any place wey wan bail out for 1967 go need show say dem no misuse any test or device since at least 1962. Until 1970, dem wey covered go really need prove say dem no misuse any test since before de law come out five years earlier for 1965, wey make am hard for plenty places wey dem cover  to bail out. But, Section 4(a) still talk say  places wey dem cover no fit use any tests or devices anyhow, even dem no fit misbehave; so under de original law, dem fit bail out for 1970 just by following this rule. But as dem dey change de law for 1970 plus 1975 to add special rules, Congress also increase de time wey covered places must no misuse test to 10 years and then to 17 years, respectively. Dis extensions still make dem show say dem no use test or device anyhow since dem pass di Act for 1965.

For 1982, Congress change Section 4(a) so e go dey easier to do bailout for two ways. First, dem talk say if state dey cover, local governments for that state fit bail out even if state no fit bail out. Second, dem soft de eligibility rules by changing de 17-year rule to new one, so any  place wey dey cover fit bail out if dem fit show say for de last 10 years before dem ask for bailout:

# De jurisdiction no use any test or device wey go discriminate or get bad effect;
# No court don talk say dem deny or take away voting right sekof of race or language minority matter;
# De jurisdiction  de comply with de preclearance requirement;
# De federal government no assign federal examiners to de jurisdiction;
# De jurisdiction don kukuma stop all di wahala wey dey make dem do election wey no fair; plus
# De jurisdiction don take serious action to stop voter fear plus make voting easier for de  minorities dem de protect.
Also, Congress talk say any place wey wan collect bailout go show proof of how minority people dey register den vote, plus how e don change over time compare to majority people. If court find say dem fit collect de bailout, dem go give judgment wey go favor dem. Court go still dey oversee matters for de next 10 years plus fit put dem back under coverage if dem still dey do voting discrimination.

De 1982 change wey dem make for bailout eligibility start to work on August 5, 1984. From that time till 2013, 196 places don bail out through 38 bailout moves; each time, attorney general gree for de bailout request. From that time till 2009, all de places wey bail out dey for Virginia. For 2009, one municipal utility place for Texas bail out after Supreme Court de Supreme Court's opinion in *[[:en:Northwest_Austin_Municipal_Utility_District_No._1_v._Holder|Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder]]* (2009), talk say local governments wey no register voters fit bail out. After dis ruling, jurisdictions don succeed for at least 20 bailout moves before Supreme Court talk say de coverage formula be unconstitutional for Shelby County case (2013).

Separate rules fit allow any area wey don get federal observers to waka comot from dem certification alone. Under Section 13, attorney general fit cancel that area certification if 1) more than 50 percent of de area minority wey fit vote don register, plus 2) dem no dey see any reason say de people go face voting wahala again. Another option be say de District Court for D.C. fit order dem make dem cancel de certification.

##### Tings wey Bilingual election dey require
Two laws dey require some places to give election materials to voters for different languages: Section 4(f)(4) plus Section 203(c). Any place wey dey under dis law must provide all de materials wey concern election—like voter registration tings, ballots, notices, plus instructions—for de language of any minority group wey dey live insyde de jurisdiction. Dis language minority groups wey dis law protect be Asian Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, plus Native Alaskans. Congress bring dis laws to clear language wahala plus fight against language discrimination wey dey affect de groups dem de protect.

Section 4(f)(4) dey apply to any area wey Section 4(b) formula fit cover wey more than five percent of people wey fit vote sabi one language wey no plenty. Section 203(c) get one formula wey no be de same as Section 4(b), so places wey only fall under 203(c) no go dey face de Act other special rules, like preclearance. Section 203(c) formula dey cover areas wey dis conditions dey:

One small language group dey wey no sabi English pass di whole country; plus Either:                                                                                                                                  a. De number of people wey no too sabi English for dis group be at least 10,000 wey fit vote or e big enough make e be at least five percent of di voters for di area; or                         b. De area be political zone wey get Indian reservation, and more than five percent of di American Indian or Alaska Native wey fit vote na members of one language group wey no sabi English well.: 223–224 

Section 203(b) talk say 'limited-English proficient' be those wey no fit speak or understand English well enough to join de  electoral process. Dem go check wetin jurisdictions fit meet Section 203(c) criteria every ten years after dem finish de decennial census; na dat time dem go fit add new jurisdictions wey go dey under coverage plus  some fit lose demma coverage. Plus, under Section 203(d), any jurisdiction fit try ‘bail out’ from Section 203(c) coverage if dem fit show for court say no language minority group for demma area dey suffer higher English illiteracy rate pass national rate. After 2010 census, dem cover 150 places for 25 states under Section 203(c), plus California, Texas, den Florida dey whole state level.

## Impact

De Voting Rights Act really change the game, o. By de end of 1965 , dem don register quarter million new Black voters, e be federal examiners  wey help with one-third of dem. By 1966, only four out of 13 southern states fit say less than 50 percent African Americans don register to vote. Wen dem pass de law for 1965, e make racial discrimination for voting reduce sharp. As dem stop literacy tests plus bring federal examiners and observers, plenty people wey be racial minorities fit register to vote.  Almost 250,000 African Americans don register for 1965, plus one-third of dem na federal examiners make am happen. For de areas wey dem cover, less than one-third (29.3 percent) of de African American pipo don register for 1965; by 1967, de number don increase to more than half (52.1 percent), plus plenty African American pipo don register to vote for 9 out of 13 Southern states. E come be like say more African Americans dey enter office: between 1965 plus 1985, de number wey dem elect as state legislators for de 11 former Confederate states jump from 3 to 176.Nationwide, de number of African American wey dey run for office increase from 1,469 for 1970 to 4,912 for 1980. By 2011, e don reach around 10,500. E get as language minority groups also dey register well-well when Congress bring bilingual election law for 1975 and change am for 1992. For 1973, the percent of Hispanics wey don register to vote na 34.9 percent; by 2006, dat one near double. The number of Asian Americans wey don register for vote in 1996 increase by 58 percent by 2006.

After de Act start work well to help stop dem wey dey try make minorities no fit vote, de Act come turn be like hammer wey people dey use to fight against racial vote dilution. From de 1970s, de attorney general dey always raise Section 5 wahala anytime dem dey change how people go vote wey go make minority votes no count well, like when dem dey carry land join some places, change de voting boundaries, plus dem election methods like at-large elections, runoff requirements, plus banning bullet voting All together, 81 percent (2,541) of de preclearance wahala wey happen between 1965 plus 2006 na based on vote dilution. Claims wey dem bring under Section 2 dey mostly concern how dem dey dilute votes. From when dem create Section 2 results test for 1982 till 2006, at least 331 Section 2 cases don result wey dem publish judicial opinions. For the 1980s, 60 percent of Section 2 cases dey challenge at-large election systems; for the 1990s, 37.2 percent dey challenge at-large systems and 38.5 percent dey challenge redistricting plans. Overall, plaintiffs wey win, na 37.2 percent out of the 331 cases, and dem dey more likely to win cases wey dem bring against covered jurisdictions.

Wen dem give chance for racial minorities, de Act make de Democratic and Republican parties realign. From 1890 to 1965, dem take Black disenfranchisement make de Democratic Party dey run tinz for South area. After Johnson sign de Act, de new Black voters wey get chance start dey ginger de Democratic Party to shift left for de South; dis one make de Southern white conservatives change dem mind from Democratic go Republican party. Dis trend make de two parties dey polarize ideologically, wit de Democratic Party becoming more Liberal plus de Republican Party more Conservative. Dem trends dey cause competition between de two parties,  wey de Republicans take advantage by using de Southern strategy. For de following decades, dem create majority-minority districts to fix de racial vote dilution wahala, wey also help dis matter. As dem dey pack de liberal-leaning minorities insyde small minority-majority districts, plenty surrounding districts turn more white, conservative, plus Republican. E be true sey dis one fit increase di number of minority representatives as dem plan am, but e also reduce de Democratic representation for white people and boost de Republicans overall. By mid-1990s, dey trends come bring political change: Democratic Party plus Republican Party don dey divide well well, one dey liberal plus de other dey conservative; plus both dey fight for votes for de South, with Republican Party dey hold most power for Southern politics.

Research show say de Act really boost voter turnout plus voter registration, especially for African Americans. De act dey connect with real matter, like better public goods (like education) for areas wey get plenty black people, plus more members of Congress wey dey support civil rights law. One 2016 study for de American Journal of Political Science find say members of Congress wey represent areas wey get preclearance requirement dey show more support for civil rights law pass those wey no dey represent de covered areas. One 2013 Quarterly Journal of Economics study show say de Act make more people go vote, plus e increase public goods wey state government dey give to places wey get more black population. For 2018 study wey com from De Journal of Politics, dem find say Section 5 of de 1965 Voting Rights Act help black people register to vote increase by 14–19 percent, white people by 10–13 percent, plus overall voter turnout increase by 10–19 percent. Additional results for Democratic vote share suggest say some of this turnout increase fit come from white people wey dey react. One study wey dem do for American Economic Journal for 2019 show say preclearance really make minority people turn out plenty, even reach 2012 (the year before Supreme Court ruling stop de preclearance). Dem estimate say preclearance bring 17 percentage points increase for minority turnout. One study wey dey come from 2020 show say places wey don dey cover preclearance, their voter registration purges increase big time after that 2013 Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, wey dem scatter di 'coverage formula' for Section 4(b) of di VRA wey dey determine which place suppose report dem changes for election for federal approval. Another study wey come from 2020 talk say VRA coverage fit cut di chances and start of political wahala by half.

## Constitutionality

### Voter eligibility provisions
Early for de history of enforcement of de Act, de Supreme Court of de United States be rather quick to address both de constitutionality of de Act for ein entirety as well as de constitutionality of several provisions wey dey relate to voter qualifications den prerequisites to voting. During de following year, for 1966, two legal cases dem adjudicate by de Court regarding de Act. On de seventh day of March, for de landmark case of *South Carolina v. Katzenbach* (1966), de Supreme Court hold say de Voting Rights Act of 1965 be constitutional method to enforce de Fifteenth Amendment. A few months later, on de thirteenth day of June, de Supreme Court hold say section 4(e) of de Voting Rights Act of 1965 be constitutional for de case of *Katzenbach v. Morgan* (1966). Dis section dey prohibit jurisdictions from administering literacy tests to citizens wey attain sixth-grade education for American school for wey de predominant language be Spanish, such as schools for Puerto Rico. Although de Court don earlier hold say literacy tests no violate de Fourteenth Amendment, for de case of *Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections* (1959), de Katzenbach-Morgan case allow Congress to enforce Fourteenth Amendment rights—such as de right to vote—by prohibiting conduct wey e deem to interfere plus such rights, even if dat conduct no go be independently unconstitutional. After Congress create nationwide ban on all literacy tests den similar devices for 1970, for de case of *Oregon v. Mitchell* (1970), de Supreme Court uphold de ban as being constitutional.
 For dat case, de Court sanso address de constitutionality of various oda provisions wey dey relate to voter qualifications den prerequisites to voting; de Court uphold Section 202 of de 1965 law, wey dey prohibit every state den local government from requiring people to live for dema borders for longer dan 30 days before allowing dem to vote for presidential election. Additionally, de Court uphold de provision wey dey lower de minimum voting age to 18 years for federal elections, but e hold say Congress exceed ein power by lowering de voting age to 18 for state elections; dis precipitate de ratification of de Twenty-sixth Amendment de following year, wey lower de voting age for all elections from 21 years to 18 years for age. De Court be deeply divide for de Oregon-Mitchell case den majority of de justices no agree on one rationale for de holding.

### Section 2 results test
De question of constitutionality regarding section 2 of de Voting Rights Act of 1965, wey get general prohibition on discriminatory voting laws, no be definitively explain by de Supreme Court. As amend for 1982, section 2 dey prohibit any voting practice wey get discriminatory effect, irrespective of whether de practice be enact or be administer for de purpose of discriminating. Dis "results test" contrast plus de Fourteenth den Fifteenth Amendments, both of wey directly prohibit only purposeful discrimination. Given dis disparity, whether de Supreme Court go uphold de constitutionality of section 2 as appropriate legislation wey dem pass to enforce de Fourteenth den Fifteenth Amendments, den under wetin rationale, remain unclear.

For *Mississippi Republican Executive Opinion v. Brooks* (1984), de Supreme Court summarily affirm, without written opinion, lower court ein decision say 1982 amendment to section 2 be constitutional. Justice Rehnquist, join by Chief Justice Burger, dissent from de opinion. Dem reason say de case present complex constitutional issues wey warrant full hearing. When making later decisions, de Supreme Court be more likely to disregard previous judgment if e lack written opinion, but for lower courts de Supreme Court ein unwritten summary affirmances be as binding as be Supreme Court judgments plus written opinions. Partially due to *Brooks*, de constitutionality of de section 2 results test don since be unanimously uphold by lower courts.

De case of *Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee* (2021) evaluate de applicability of section 2 of de 1965 law for de wake of de decision for de case of *Shelby County v. Holder* (2013). De Democratic National Committee assert set of Arizona election laws den policies be discriminatory towards Hispanics den Native Americans under section 2 of de Voting Rights Act of 1965. While lower courts uphold de election laws, an *en banc* Ninth Circuit reverse de decision den find dese laws to be for violation of section 2 of de 1965 law. De Arizona law be uphold by de Supreme Court after e introduce de means to review section 2 challenges.

### Coverage formula and preclearance
De Supreme Court don uphold de constitutionality of de Section 5 preclearance requirement for three cases. De first case be *South Carolina v. Katzenbach* (1966), wey dem decide about five months after de Act ein enactment. De court hold say Section 5 constitute valid use of Congress ein power to enforce de Fifteenth Amendment, reasoning say "exceptional circumstances" of pervasive racial discrimination, combine plus de inadequacy of case-by-case litigation for ending dat discrimination, justify de preclearance requirement. De court sanso uphold de constitutionality of de 1965 coverage formula, talking say e be "rational for both practice den theory" den say de bailout provision provide adequate relief for jurisdictions wey no go deserve coverage.

De Supreme Court again uphold de preclearance requirement for *City of Rome v. United States* (1980). De court hold say because Congress get explicit constitutional power to enforce de Reconstruction Amendments "by appropriate legislation", de Act no violate principles of federalism. De court sanso explicitly uphold de "discriminatory effect" prong of Section 5, stating say even though de Fifteenth Amendment directly prohibit only intentional discrimination, Congress fi constitutionally prohibit unintentional discrimination to mitigate de risk say jurisdictions go engage for intentional discrimination. Finally, de court uphold de 1975 extension of Section 5 because of de record of discrimination wey continue to persist for de covered jurisdictions. De court further suggest say de temporary nature of de special provisions be relevant to Section 5 ein constitutionality.

De final case for wey de Supreme Court uphold Section 5 be *Lopez v. Monterey County* (*Lopez II*, 1999). For *Lopez II*, de court reiterate ein reasoning for *Katzenbach* den *Rome*, den e uphold as constitutional de requirement say covered local governments obtain preclearance before implementing voting changes wey dema parent state require dem to implement, even if de parent state no be itself covered jurisdiction.

De 2006 extension of Section 5 be challenge before de Supreme Court for *Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder* (2009).  De lawsuit be bring by municipal water district for Texas wey elect members to water board. De District wish to move voting location from private home to public school, but dat change be subject to preclearance because Texas be covered jurisdiction. De District no register voters, den thus e no appear to qualify as "political subdivision" wey eligible to bail out of coverage. Although de court indicate for dicta (non-binding part of de court ein opinion) say Section 5 present difficult constitutional questions, e no declare Section 5 unconstitutional; instead, e interpret de law to allow any covered local government, including one wey no register voters, to obtain exemption from preclearance if e meet de bailout requirements.

For 5–4 decision for *Shelby County v. Holder* (2013), de Supreme Court strike down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional. De court reason say de coverage formula violate de constitutional principles of "equal sovereignty of de states" den federalism because ein disparate treatment of de states be "based on 40 year-old facts wey get no logical relationship to de present day", rendering de formula outdated. De court no strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction go be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enact new coverage formula. After de decision, several states wey be fully or partially covered—including Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, den South Carolina—implement laws wey be previously deny preclearance. Dis prompt new legal challenges to dese laws under oda provisions wey unaffect by de court ein decision, such as Section 2. Research don show say de coverage formula den de requirement of preclearance substantially increase turnout among racial minorities, even as far as de year before *Shelby County*. Chaw jurisdictions wey don previously be cover by de coverage formula increase de rate of voter registration purges after *Shelby County*. On July 1, 2021, de Act ein preclearance requirements be further weaken for de state den local level following de *Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee* for 6-3 Supreme Court ruling wey hold say Section 2 preclearance provisions no fi apply to out-of-precinct voting or ballot collecting.
### Racial gerrymandering
While Section 2 den Section 5 dey prohibit jurisdictions from drawing electoral districts wey dilute de votes of protected minorities, de Supreme Court don hold say for chaw instances, de Equal Protection Clause of de Fourteenth Amendment dey prevent jurisdictions from drawing district lines to favor protected minorities. De court first recognize de justiciability of affirmative "racial gerrymandering" claims for *Shaw v. Reno* (1993). For *Miller v. Johnson* (1995), de court explain say redistricting plan be constitutionally suspect if de jurisdiction use race as de "predominant factor" for determining how to draw district lines. For race to "predominate", de jurisdiction must prioritize racial considerations over traditional redistricting principles, wey include "compactness, contiguity, [and] respect for political subdivisions or communities wey define by actual shared interests." If court conclude say racial considerations predominate, den de redistricting plan be consider "racially gerrymander" den must be subject to strict scrutiny, meaning say de redistricting plan go be uphold as constitutional only if e be narrowly tailor to advance compelling state interest. For *Bush v. Vera* (1996), plurality of de Supreme Court assume say complying plus Section 2 or Section 5 constitute compelling interests, den lower courts don allow only dese two interests to justify racial gerrymandering.
### Standing
De standing requirements of de VRA be question for de 2023 case *Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment*, launch by de NAACP to challenge de redistricting maps on de basis dem dilute black votes. While chaw previous challenges to redistricting under de VRA don be bring by groups like de NAACP or voters within de state, de Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals hold, 2-1, for November 2023, say strict reading of de VRA no permit private rights of action, den only de United States Attorney General get standing to bring challenges. Such ruling, if uphold, get significant potential to upend chaw existing den current redistricting challenges under Section 2 of de VRA, according to legal scholars.

## Check am too
##### Federal laws

* National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)
* Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
* Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)
* Civil Rights Act of 1964

##### Attempted federal legislation

* For the People Act (2019 and 2021)
* John Lewis Voting Rights Act (2019 and 2021)

##### State laws

* State Voting Rights Act
* California Voting Rights Act
* Voting Rights Act of Virginia
* John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York

##### More

* Voter suppression in the United States
* Women's suffrage in the United States

## References


## External links

* 
* Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended (PDF/details) in the United States Government Publishing Office (GPO) Statute Compilations collection
* Voting Rights Act of 1965 as enacted (details) in the US Statutes at Large
* Text of original Act and 1970, 1975, and 1982 amendments (PDF). Archived from the original on March 7, 2019.
* Voting Rights Enforcement and Reauthorization: An Examination of the Act's Section 5 Preclearance Provision, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
* Voting Rights Act: Past, Present, and Future Archived October 9, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Justice Talking

* The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Background and Overview (PDF), Congressional Research Service
* ''"The Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March: Shaking the Conscience of the Nation"'', a National Park Service Teaching with Historic Places lesson plan
* Voting Rights Act: Evidence of Continued Need: Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, Second Session, March 8, 2006, Vol. 1 Vol. 2 Vol. 3 Vol. 4
* The Great Society Congress
* 111 Congressional Record (Bound) - Volume 111, Part 2 (May 25, 1965 to June 8, 1965), *Congressional Record* Senate May 26 vote roll call p.&nbsp;11752
* 111 Congressional Record (Bound) - Volume 111, Part 12 (July 7, 1965 to July 16, 1965), *Congressional Record* House July 9 vote roll call pp.&nbsp;16285–16286
* 111 Congressional Record (Bound) - Volume 111, Part 14 (July 28, 1965 to August 9, 1965), *Congressional Record* House August 3 conference report vote roll call p.&nbsp;19201
* 111 Congressional Record (Bound) - Volume 111, Part 14 (July 28, 1965 to August 9, 1965), *Congressional Record* Senate August 4 conference report vote roll call p.&nbsp;19378