While all eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court’s potential gutting of the federal Voting Rights Act, a quieter but equally consequential battle is brewing in at least nine states. These states have enacted their own voting rights laws—modeled after or even stronger than the federal statute—and legal experts warn they could soon face a wave of lawsuits if the Court delivers a sweeping blow to Section 2 of the landmark 1965 law.
“It’s entirely possible, and I think likely, that if the people who succeed at a sweeping reimagining of Section 2 are successful at the Supreme Court, that their next move is going to be a more sweeping attack on state Voting Rights Acts,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president at the Brennan Center for Justice .
Table of Contents
- Which States Have Their Own Laws?
- How State Laws Go Beyond Federal Protections
- Why They Could Be Targeted
- Legal Strategy Behind the Threat
- What Happens Next?
- Sources
Which States Have Their Own Laws?
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least nine states have passed their own versions of the Voting Rights Act:
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Illinois
- Minnesota
- New York
- Oregon
- Virginia
- Washington
These laws were largely enacted in response to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which dismantled a key enforcement mechanism of the federal Voting Rights Act. Since then, Democratic-led states have moved to fill the void with stronger, locally tailored protections.
How State Laws Go Beyond Federal Protections
Many of these state laws don’t just mirror the federal statute—they expand it. For example:
- Virginia’s law requires local election officials to seek public feedback or preapproval from the state attorney general before making changes like moving polling places or altering voter registration procedures.
- Connecticut mandates language assistance in areas where more than 2% of voting-age residents have limited English proficiency.
- California and New York allow private citizens to sue over discriminatory voting practices—a provision that could be especially critical if the Supreme Court eliminates that right under federal law.
“These state laws are, frankly, even more muscular than the federal version,” Crayton noted .
Why They Could Be Targeted
The immediate threat stems from two pending Supreme Court cases:
- Louisiana v. Callais: Challenges whether race can be used in drawing electoral districts under Section 2.
- Turtle Mountain Band v. Howe: Questions whether private citizens—not just the federal government—can enforce the Voting Rights Act.
If the Court rules that Section 2 is unconstitutional or unenforceable by private parties, conservative legal groups are expected to pivot quickly to challenge state laws that rely on similar legal logic.
“Once the federal foundation is gone, the blueprint for attacking state laws is already drawn,” said voting rights attorney Marc Elias.
Legal Strategy Behind the Threat
Conservative litigators have long argued that any government policy that explicitly considers race—even to remedy discrimination—violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This “colorblind Constitution” theory underpinned the Court’s 2023 decision ending race-conscious college admissions.
Now, that same reasoning is being applied to redistricting and voting access. Legal experts say state voting rights laws—which often require race-conscious analysis of voter impact—are vulnerable to the same constitutional challenge.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Louisiana case by mid-2026. A decision in the North Dakota case could come as early as November 2025.
If either ruling weakens or eliminates Section 2, lawsuits against state laws could follow within months. Already, right-leaning groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Alliance Defending Freedom have signaled interest in such challenges.
For now, advocates are urging states to prepare. “Don’t wait for the Court to act,” said Myrna Pérez of the Brennan Center. “Strengthen your laws, build coalitions, and get ready to defend them in court.”
