The Editor: Can you draft amendments to the VRA of 1965 that overrides the ruling of the SCOTUS in the SCOTUS cases since Shelby.
Read the draft below and a LULAC Resolution below or in PDF here.
ChatGPT: Yes. Congress has the constitutional authority to amend the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and, within constitutional limits, respond legislatively to Supreme Court decisions that interpreted the Act. Congress cannot directly overrule constitutional holdings, but it can revise statutory language, create new evidentiary standards, expand remedies, and establish updated coverage formulas.
A post-Shelby amendment package could be called the:
Voting Rights Restoration and Enforcement Act of 2026
The following draft provisions are designed to address the major Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the VRA since 2013.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the "Voting Rights Restoration and Enforcement Act of 2026."
SECTION 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS
Congress finds that:
(1) The right to vote is fundamental to democratic self-government.
(2) Persistent racial discrimination in voting continues to exist throughout the United States.
(3) Since 2013, a series of judicial decisions have substantially narrowed the protections and enforcement mechanisms established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(4) Congress possesses authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, and Elections Clause to enact appropriate legislation protecting the right to vote from racial discrimination.
(5) It is the intent of Congress to restore, strengthen, and modernize the protections of the Voting Rights Act.
SECTION 3. RESTORATION OF SECTION 5 PRECLEARANCE
(a) Coverage Formula.
A State or political subdivision shall be subject to preclearance if, during the previous twenty-five years:
(1) Three or more voting-rights violations have been found by a federal court; or
(2) Two or more voting-rights violations have been found and one violation was determined to be intentional discrimination; or
(3) The jurisdiction has entered into a consent decree resolving allegations of racial discrimination in voting.
(b) Preclearance Requirement.
Covered jurisdictions shall obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing any voting change.
(c) Burden of Proof.
The covered jurisdiction shall bear the burden of proving that the proposed voting change neither has the purpose nor the effect of diminishing the ability of racial or language minority citizens to participate equally in the political process.
SECTION 4. CLARIFICATION OF SECTION 2 RESULTS TEST
(a) Results Standard.
A violation of Section 2 shall be established whenever, based on the totality of circumstances, members of a protected class have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.
(b) Discriminatory Intent Not Required.
Proof of discriminatory intent shall not be required.
(c) Disparate Impact.
Substantial disparate impact on minority voters shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation.
(d) Burden Shifting.
Upon a showing of substantial disparate impact, the burden shall shift to the jurisdiction to demonstrate that the challenged practice is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
SECTION 5. RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING
(a) Political Party Affiliation.
The existence of partisan affiliation shall not negate evidence of racially polarized voting.
(b) Relevant Evidence.
Courts shall consider voting patterns regardless of whether race and party affiliation are correlated.
(c) Congressional Intent.
Congress expressly rejects any interpretation of federal law suggesting that racial polarization ceases to exist merely because voters of different races support different political parties.
SECTION 6. REDISTRICTING STANDARDS
(a) Race-Conscious Remedies.
States may consider race to the extent necessary to remedy violations of the Voting Rights Act.
(b) Presumption of Validity.
Districts created to comply with the Voting Rights Act shall be presumed lawful unless challengers prove by clear and convincing evidence that race predominated without necessity.
(c) Protection Against Retrogression.
No redistricting plan shall diminish the electoral opportunity previously possessed by minority voters.
SECTION 7. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
(a) Express Cause of Action.
Any aggrieved person, organization, or group of voters may bring a civil action to enforce any provision of this Act.
(b) Organizational Standing.
Civil-rights organizations shall have standing to sue on behalf of affected members.
(c) Attorneys' Fees.
Prevailing plaintiffs shall recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
SECTION 8. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS
(a) Expedited Relief.
Federal courts shall give priority to voting-rights cases.
(b) Election Proximity.
The proximity of an election shall not, standing alone, justify denial of preliminary relief.
(c) Preservation of Existing Rights.
Courts shall consider the risk of voter disenfranchisement as a factor of paramount importance.
SECTION 9. BAIL-IN AUTHORITY
Federal courts may subject any jurisdiction to preclearance upon finding a violation of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment or any provision of this Act.
SECTION 10. NATIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Jurisdictions shall publicly disclose all voting changes not less than 180 days before implementation.
SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.
SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
Relationship to Recent Supreme Court Cases
This draft is aimed at responding to:
- Shelby County v. Holder — restores Section 5 through a new, current coverage formula.
- Abbott v. Perez — shifts burdens of proof and creates presumptions favoring protection of minority voting rights.
- Rucho v. Common Cause — indirectly addresses partisan-racial overlap by clarifying that race claims remain actionable even when intertwined with partisanship.
- Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee — rejects the Brnovich guideposts by codifying a broader disparate-impact standard.
- Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — clarifies that party affiliation does not defeat proof of racially polarized voting or racial gerrymandering claims.
- Louisiana v. Callais — strengthens congressional support for race-conscious districting remedies and continued enforcement of Section 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO RESTORE AND STRENGTHEN THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 IN RESPONSE TO RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT HAVE WEAKENED FEDERAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING
WHEREAS, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 stands as one of the most significant civil rights laws in the history of the United States, enacted to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and to eliminate racial discrimination in voting; and
WHEREAS, Latino voters, African American voters, Native American voters, Asian American voters, and other historically disenfranchised communities have benefited substantially from the protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act; and
WHEREAS, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), throughout its history, has advocated for equal access to the ballot box, fair representation, and the protection of the voting rights of all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) invalidated the coverage formula contained in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, effectively suspending the preclearance protections of Section 5 that had successfully prevented discriminatory voting changes before they could take effect; and
WHEREAS, subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including Abbott v. Perez (2018), Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024), and Louisiana v. Callais (2025), have further narrowed the ability of minority voters and civil rights organizations to challenge voting practices and districting plans that dilute minority voting strength; and
WHEREAS, these decisions collectively have made it more difficult to prevent discriminatory voting laws, challenge racially discriminatory election practices, and ensure that minority communities receive fair and effective representation; and
WHEREAS, Congress possesses express constitutional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, and Elections Clause to enact legislation protecting the right to vote and preventing racial discrimination in the electoral process; and
WHEREAS, the continuing growth and civic participation of the Latino community make robust voting-rights protections essential to ensuring equal political opportunity for future generations; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the League of United Latin American Citizens, assembled in National Convention, hereby calls upon the United States Congress to enact comprehensive legislation restoring and strengthening the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that such legislation should include a modernized preclearance formula requiring jurisdictions with recent histories of voting-rights violations to obtain federal approval before implementing changes affecting voting and elections; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress should reaffirm and strengthen Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by clarifying that voting practices resulting in diminished electoral opportunity for minority voters are unlawful regardless of whether discriminatory intent can be proven; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress should expressly recognize that evidence of racially polarized voting remains relevant even when racial voting patterns correlate with partisan affiliation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress should protect the ability of minority communities to obtain effective remedies in redistricting cases and preserve the ability of federal courts to order districts that provide minority voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress should reaffirm the right of individual voters and civil rights organizations to bring actions enforcing the Voting Rights Act and recover reasonable attorneys' fees when successful; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Congress should provide expedited judicial review of voting-rights cases and ensure that impending elections do not become a barrier to protecting constitutional and statutory voting rights; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that LULAC directs its National President, National Legislative Committee, National Legal Affairs Committee, and Washington, D.C. advocacy representatives to support federal legislation restoring and strengthening the Voting Rights Act and to work in coalition with other civil rights organizations toward that objective; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the leadership of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and all Members of Congress representing jurisdictions in which LULAC councils are organized.
Submitted to the Delegates of the LULAC National Convention Fort Worth, Texas
June 20, 2026.
Submitted
by: LULAC Council No. , Texas
___________________________
Signature
___________________________
Name
of Person Signing
___________________________
Position/Office
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________
Signature
___________________________
Name
of Person Signing
___________________________
Position/Office
No comments:
Post a Comment