ACLU Statement on Reintroduction of Voting Rights Advancement Act

Selma Jubilee revelers annual trek across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama reminds us why we can never stop advocating for enfranchisement for Black Americans.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, voting rights advocates argued before the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais that a congressional map that was in place during the 2024 election cycle should remain because it satisfies both the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The coalition made the case that the 2024 map fairly recognizes the political power of Black Louisianians, who make up one-third of the state's population while balancing other redistricting priorities—in stark contrast to the discriminatory map passed by the state legislature in 2022, which federal courts determined likely violated the VRA by including only one majority-Black district. “Today’s Supreme Court argument is about a fundamental building block of U.S. democracy: the guarantee that every citizen’s vote counts equally, regardless of race,” said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. “For too long, discriminatory districting meant that Black Louisianans’ voting power was illegally diluted. After we proved that the Louisiana legislature’s 2022 map violated the Voting Rights Act, the legislature did the right thing and drew a new, fair, and legal map, with a second majority-Black district. The Supreme Court should uphold that map. Ensuring Black voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice is bigger than Louisiana—it’s about making the promise of the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act a lived reality for all Americans.” “The Supreme Court must affirm what we have long known in Louisiana: fairness is not a privilege; it is a right.” said ACLU of Louisiana Executive Director Alanah Odoms. “For too long, Black voters in Louisiana have been denied the fundamental promise of democracy—the power of their vote. We hope the court rejects the tired and baseless claims of reverse discrimination and instead upholds the truth — that every voice deserves to be heard, every vote deserves to count.” “The protections of the VRA and equal protection clause were designed to prevent discrimination and ensure that Black voters are not shut out of the political process,” said Stuart Naifeh, LDF redistricting manager. “This case represented an effort to turn back the clock and undermine hard-fought efforts to achieve a map that finally reflects Louisiana’s communities and provides an equal voice to Black voters. But there can be no question that the current map is lawful, fair, and should remain in place. The Supreme Court should not undermine lawmakers’ agency in remedial map-drawing nor the VRA protections that Black voters have been fighting for in Louisiana for the last four years — and across the nation for generations.” Heeding the federal courts’ directive to pass lawful districts, the state legislature passed a new map in 2024 that added a second majority-Black voting district, marking a victory for the NAACP Louisiana State Conference, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and nine individual Black voters who sued the state under Section 2 of the VRA in Robinson v. Landry (then Robinson v. Ardoin). Section 2 prohibits state and local governments from using any voting map or procedure that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen...to vote on account of race or color.” However, after the new map was enacted in January 2024, a group of self-described “non-African American” voters sued the state in a different federal district court in Callais v. Landry, arguing the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander for improperly prioritizing race. The same Robinson litigants intervened to defend the map, arguing that the state properly balanced the requirements of the VRA and with the protections of the equal protection clause. The Robinson litigants pointed to lawmakers’ stated political objectives when passing the map — including protecting incumbents like Speaker of the House Mike Johnson — as evidence that race alone did not dictate the map’s district lines. When the district court found the map unconstitutional and overturned it, the Robinson litigants and state defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which paused the lower court’s ruling and allowed for the 2024 map to remain in place for the 2024 election cycle. The Supreme Court later also agreed to hear the case, now consolidated under Louisiana v. Callais. “Black voters had an unprecedented opportunity to make our voices heard in 2024’s congressional elections because multiple federal courts deemed that the protections of the Voting Rights Act should continue to ensure Black voters have an equal voice in our political process,” said Dr. Press Robinson, the lead named litigant for the Robinson Intervenor-Defendants. “Our vote is our voice, but without fair maps, the voice of Black Louisianians can’t be heard. Today, we made our voice loud and clear to the U.S. Supreme Court— defend the 2024 map and uphold the promises of fairness and equality in our elections.” Along with Dr. Robinson, the Robinson Intervenor-Defendants include Dr. Dorothy Nairne, Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis, Dr. Alice Washington, Bishop Edwin René Soulé, Edgar Cage, Rev. Clee Earnest Lowe, Ambrose Sims, and Martha Davis, along with organizational plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice President and the NAACP Louisiana State Conference. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Legal Defense Fund, ACLU of Louisiana, Harvard Election Law Clinic, Louisiana Justice Institute, Louisiana attorney John Adcock, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. “In Louisiana, our communities know about the power of coming together. In our fight for fair maps, we’ve done just that,” said Power Coalition for Equity and Justice President and CEO Ashley Shelton. “Communities and advocates from across the state have spoken — ensuring fairness in the voting process means enacting maps that give Black voters the opportunity to elect candidates of choice. We cannot turn back in our fight for fair maps.” “My mother had to pass a literacy test the first time she registered to vote, and Black voters are still facing barriers at the ballot box today,” said Dr. Dorothy Nairne. “This fight is generational. In Louisiana, our fight for fair maps is about making sure democracy works for everyone. I don't want my children or children's children to have to face this same fight. It's gotta end here and now.” “Our fight is about making sure those in power see us, hear us, and respect our collective voice,” said Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis. “For years, Black Louisianians have been calling for fairness in our political maps and representation in our democratic processes. When the Louisiana legislature passed a map that restored power to Black voters, it was a huge, bipartisan win. We can’t go back to maps that stifle Black voices. We have faith the Supreme Court will agree.” “Federal courts found Louisiana’s 2022 Congressional maps violated the Voting Rights Act, a crucial piece of civil rights legislation enacted because of the bravery of civil rights protestors who were subjected to horrific violence on Bloody Sunday in Selma, Ala. 60 years ago,” said Louisiana NAACP president Michael McClanahan. “We are continuing their fight by defending the new map enacted in 2024 by the Louisiana legislature — a map that ensures every voice is heard. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will agree the map is fair, constitutional, and lets all voices be heard.” “Generations of Black Louisianians have been disempowered in the voting booth, resulting in unfair and unequal representation in Congress,” said Dr. Alice Washington. “When we achieved a fair congressional map, our community for the first time in far too long felt hope that all voices would be heard. We can’t go back. We must keep Louisiana moving forward.” “After years of struggle, Black voters in Louisiana were finally able to elect their candidates of choice in two districts in 2024,” said Ambrose Sims. “It was a huge step forward for all of us across the state. We cannot afford to fall back. A map with only one majority-Black voting district would continue to undermine the political power of Black Louisianians. Our communities will continue to fight until our right to fair political representation is affirmed.” "When our community started this fight for fair maps and fair political representation, we had faith that equality would prevail,” said Bishop Edwin René Soulé. “Today, that faith remains steadfast. We wholeheartedly believe the Supreme Court will uphold the political power of Black Louisianians. Our voices can no longer be ignored.” “The power of the community is much stronger than the power of any one individual,” said Edgar Cage. “Achieving fair voting districts was a big task, but we accomplished it by building community support. Now, we’re fighting to keep the congressional map in place. Though our fight has evolved, I’m confident we’ll be successful if we stand together.” “Black Louisianians must be able to elect candidates to Congress who will stand up for their health, safety, education and infrastructure needs,” said Rev. Clee Earnest Lowe. “We have already passed a map that makes this vision a reality. We cannot turn back the clock now to a reality that denies our community an equal voice in the political process. Power must be shared for our democracy to thrive. We must have faith the Supreme Court will agree.” “The 2024 voting map passed by our Legislature satisfies both the requirements of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act,” said Martha Davis. “It evens the scales so that everyone has the same opportunity at the ballot box. As we recognize the struggles of those who fought for the VRA 60 years ago, we must honor their fight by safeguarding its promise for future generations.” “This case gives a voice to Louisiana’s voters,” said Alora Thomas-Lundborg of the Harvard Election Law Clinic. “The Court has a chance to ensure that every Louisianans' voice is given equal weight and that legislatures attempt to comply with lawful court orders are not upended through collateral attack.” “This has been a long fight for justice in Louisiana,” said Tracie Washington of the Louisiana Justice Institute. “Today’s argument marks one more step in a winding path towards fairness in our state’s political systems and sustained representation in our nation’s highest offices. We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring Black voters have an equal voice in Louisiana’s congressional elections.”

WASHINGTON — With the 60th anniversary of the Selma to Mongtomery marches just around the corner, the American Civil Liberties Union urges Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA), reintroduced today to restore and strengthen critical federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. The bill seeks to counteract the damage inflicted by Supreme Court rulings that have severely weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), including Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021). The reintroduction of the VRAA comes at a time when voting rights face unprecedented federal threats like the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which Congress is currently considering. The SAVE Act would lead to widespread disenfranchisement of millions of eligible voters by requiring citizenship documents like birth certificates and passports to be presented in person every time someone registers or re-registers to vote, and by requiring faulty voter roll purges. This voter suppression measure would disproportionately disenfranchise voters of color, naturalized citizens, young and older voters, and even married women who change their last name. “Since the Supreme Court first gutted the Voting Rights Act over a decade ago, we have seen a coordinated effort to further roll back voting rights that Selma’s brave foot soldiers fought and bled for. Instead of pushing anti-voter legislation like the SAVE Act that would lead to widespread disenfranchisement, especially for voters of color, Congress should be working to advance the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to combat relentless efforts by states to restrict access to the ballot,” said Xavier Persad, senior policy counsel with the ACLU. “This legislation is vital to protecting our democracy and ensuring that every eligible voter — no matter their race, background, or zip code — can freely and fairly cast their ballot.” The VRAA would reestablish much-needed federal protections against racially discriminatory voting laws. Since the Supreme Court gutted the most crucial protection in Shelby — preclearance — states have enacted restrictive voter ID requirements, racially discriminatory maps, and voter roll purges that disproportionately impact Black, Latino, Indigenous, and other communities.

RALEIGH, N.C. — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of North Carolina have submitted an amicus brief in the North Carolina Court of Appeals urging the court to reject an attempt by Judge Jefferson Griffin to invalidate 65,500 ballots cast by North Carolinians in the 2024 state Supreme Court race. Judge Griffin ran against incumbent Justice Allison Riggs in last year’s state Supreme Court election. Although the election remains uncertified, it is undisputed that Riggs received 734 more votes than Griffin. Following the election, Judge Griffin filed a petition alleging that the North Carolina Board of Elections had, for nearly two decades, improperly accepted voter registrations without the inclusion of a driver’s license or social security number. Similarly, the petition alleged that the board had improperly invited and accepted overseas absentee ballots without requiring photo identification. On that basis, the petition asks North Carolina’s courts to scrap more than 65,500 ballots. The ACLU’s brief argues that, because voters relied on these longstanding and formal practices, negating 65,500 votes as the judge’s petition seeks would violate the North Carolina Constitution and binding precedents from the North Carolina Supreme Court. “In North Carolina, voters choose their judges, judges don’t choose their voters. Throwing out ballots from eligible voters who cast their ballots in reliance on the procedures prescribed by government officials would be profoundly unfair and a grave violation of the rights of every North Carolinian — Republican, Democrat, or independent,” said Matthew Segal, co-director of the ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative. The brief further explains that the judge’s petition points to no evidence that the 65,500 voters the case seeks to disenfranchise, if properly instructed, would have failed to register and vote using what the petition deems the right procedures. Even if the board had implemented unlawful procedures — which, as the board and the respondent have shown, it did not — otherwise eligible voters should not pay for those procedural errors. “Judge Griffin’s insistence on throwing out over 65,000 votes disregards the will of the people in service of a political power grab. Our judicial system is dependent on respecting the will of the people in choosing their judges. The ongoing effort to disqualify the ballots of eligible voters undermines the constitutional guarantee that ‘political power is vested in and derived from the people.’ North Carolina voters have spoken, it is time to respect their choice and move on,” said Kristi Graunke, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina.