61 years after the Voting Rights Act, what’s changed?

You may have heard someone say, “They’ve gutted the Voting Rights Act.” That is strong language — and it helps to understand what it means… 61 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed on August 6, 1965.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the most important civil rights laws in U.S. history. It was passed to stop racial discrimination in voting after generations of poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation, discriminatory district maps, and other barriers that kept Black citizens and other communities of color from full participation in democracy.

For decades, the law worked in two main ways. First, it prevented certain states and local governments with a history of discrimination from changing voting laws without federal approval. This was called “preclearance.” Second, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applied nationwide and prohibited voting practices or district maps that deny or dilute voting power because of race or color. It allowed voters and the federal government to challenge rules or maps that made it harder for protected communities to participate equally in elections.

When people say the Voting Rights Act has been “gutted,” they usually mean that the Supreme Court has weakened both of those tools.

In 2013, the Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder effectively ended the preclearance system. Before that decision, some jurisdictions had to get federal approval before changing voting rules. After the decision, those jurisdictions could make changes first — and voters or advocates would have to challenge them later. That shifted the burden. Instead of preventing discriminatory rules before they went into effect, communities often had to fight them after the harm had already begun.

In 2021, the Court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee made it harder to challenge some voting rules under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, especially rules that affect how people cast ballots. Because that case came from Arizona, it matters especially here. The decision did not erase Section 2, but it made some claims harder to prove.

Then in 2026, the Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais further narrowed how Section 2 can be used in redistricting cases. Civil rights advocates argue that this decision makes it much harder to challenge district maps that weaken the voting power of communities of color. Supporters of the decision argue that it limits excessive race-based districting. Either way, the result is that one of the Voting Rights Act’s most important enforcement tools is now much weaker than it once was.

So “gutted” does not mean the Voting Rights Act has disappeared. It is still on the books. But it does mean that the law has far less power than it once had to stop discriminatory voting changes before they happen or to challenge them successfully afterward.

Why should people of faith care?

Because voting is not only a political process. It is one way neighbors help shape the common good. Public decisions affect whether families have food, whether children have strong schools, whether people can access health care, whether housing is affordable, whether immigrants are treated with dignity, whether communities are safe, and whether every person’s voice counts.

The ELCA’s social teaching calls Lutherans into civic life not as partisans, but as people committed to the well-being of all. Faithful civic engagement includes protecting the ability of eligible voters to participate freely, safely, and fairly.

In Arizona, this concern is close to home. Rural voters, Tribal communities, naturalized citizens, students, older adults, people with disabilities, low-income voters, people without reliable transportation, and people whose names or addresses have changed may all face barriers to registration, identification, ballot access, or trusted voting information.

A weakened Voting Rights Act means those barriers may be harder to prevent and harder to remedy.

For LAMA, the question is not which party benefits. The question is whether every eligible neighbor can participate in public life with dignity. A healthy democracy depends on both secure elections and broad access to the ballot. Those goals should not be treated as opposites.

People of faith can respond by learning how voting rights are changing, sharing accurate nonpartisan election information, helping neighbors check their registration, supporting fair access to polling places and mail voting, volunteering with Election Protection, and speaking up when public policies make it harder for eligible people to vote.

“They’ve gutted the Voting Rights Act” means that one of the strongest tools our nation had to protect voters from discrimination has been significantly weakened. But it does not mean people of faith are helpless. We can still organize, educate, accompany, advocate, and insist that every neighbor’s voice matters.