Dr. Samuel B. Hoff is a George Washington Distinguished Professor Emeritus and an internship director at Delaware State University. He has taught and published extensively on constitutional law.
In 2015, I had the privilege of addressing members of the Sussex Unity group in Georgetown during the 50th anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. While mostly covering the history of the law and its benefits, I warned of several issues that could weaken it or reverse gains. Unfortunately, as we commemorate the 60th year since its passage, the entire act is on thin ice.
The passage of the law in 1965 coincided with the outset of the federal policy promoting affirmative action. Because of that, the policy was misunderstood as one that sought redress for historical mistreatment, rather than one that confronted contemporary cases of discrimination. Now, the latter interpretation of the policy is running on fumes due to a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened affirmative action pertaining to education, as well as the Trump administration’s assault on the policy all around. The hope here is that the positive legacy of affirmative action can be distinguished from the invectives inherent in the diversity, equity and inclusion movement, and that its continued allowance in certain sectors of the employment field will eventually circle back.
Because of the depth of discrimination that occurred for long periods in many states, the Voting Rights Act included a provision requiring congressional approval of changes pertaining to voting procedures and elections. There is certainly evidence that such a rule was needed, yet the Supreme Court removed the requirement a dozen years ago. Now, opponents of the law are using the standing test for taking cases as a related tactic to stall challenges to racist voting mechanisms, and a 2023 U.S. appeals court ruling disallowed private groups like the NAACP from initiating such claims. The best response here may be to expand the constitutional areas utilized to file suit in the first place, from simply 14th Amendment equal protection claims to that of First Amendment rights.
The present controversy regarding redistricting is a direct result of the weakening of the Voting Rights Act. What is supposed to be a once-a-decade practice following the census has become enmeshed in the partisan wars of Washington. Following Texas’ draconian effort to revise congressional district boundaries to secure a Republican advantage, several Democratic governors promised to respond in kind, creating what will be constant changes in majorities. That will not only negatively impact how the federal government operates but will hurt constituents, who will be confused by the incessant inconsistencies. In the short term, a truce in the redistricting revolt must transpire, followed by either a court ruling or law that will establish fair, predictable rules for realignment.
President Donald Trump’s recent attack on the mail-in ballot process is yet another case of a national leader backsliding on democracy by trash-talking institutions and longstanding laws. For him, mail-ins are part of the “deep state” controversy that he claims conspired to defeat his reelection bid in 2020. However, statistics show that Trump and Republicans generally are gaining fast on support through mail-in votes. For instance, the Republican share of the mail-in vote total significantly increased from the 2020 presidential election to that in 2024. Further, the strongest mail-in support for Republicans in 2024, measured by household income, came from those earning the most. Finally, though mail-in support for Republicans in 2024 by age was highest among older Americans, stats reveal increasing backing by young voters.
Since its original passage, the Voting Rights Act has been extended in one form or another four times. It is up for renewal again in 2031.
Unless or until attention is paid to its crucial protections, the hard-fought victories in increasing registration, turnout and election of officials for minorities will be endangered. That would be a loss for all.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
