The history of voting in the United States is a long evolution from a system designed for landholding white men to one that is more inclusive—though still imperfect as we are seeing continued threats to voter access. In the nation’s early years, voting rights were determined by property ownership, race, and gender, reflecting a political system built to preserve existing power structures. Over the 19th century, restrictions based on property were gradually eliminated, expanding participation among white men but still excluding women, people of color, and many immigrants.

  

For women, the right to vote was the result of nearly a century of activism, organizing, and public pressure. From the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 to decades of marches, petitions, and civil disobedience, suffragists challenged entrenched beliefs about gender and citizenship. Their persistence led to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, prohibiting voting discrimination based on sex. However, many women—particularly Black, Native American, Asian American, and Latina women—continued to face legal and practical disenfranchisement for decades due to poll taxes, literacy tests, citizenship restrictions, racial violence, and lack of language translation. Women of color played essential roles in expanding voting rights not only for themselves but for their communities.

 

People of color, especially Black Americans, faced some of the most significant and sustained voter suppression in U.S. history. Even after the 15th Amendment promised that race could not determine voting eligibility, Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, intimidation tactics, and systemic barriers that effectively stripped Black citizens of their political power. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 became a watershed moment, targeting discriminatory practices and enabling millions to participate more fully in democracy. Non-English speaking immigrants have also confronted language-based obstacles for generations. The 1975 amendments to the Voting Rights Act required language assistance in jurisdictions with large populations of citizens with limited English proficiency, acknowledging that meaningful access includes understanding the process. Together, these struggles illustrate the ongoing effort to make voting not just a legal right, but a practical and inclusive reality for all.

 

While significant gains have been made in the past century, these gains continue to be threatened. The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments (one of the steps in hearing a case) in Louisiana v. Callais that could impact the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This case is about whether it is constitutional for a state to draw a congressional map that intentionally creates a “majority-minority” district. In Louisiana, a second district where Black voters form a majority was created in order to remedy a past violation of the VRA. Lower courts concluded that the previous map diluted Black voting power and ordered the creation of a second majority-Black district.

 

But when the Supreme Court took up the case, it reframed the issue: instead of deciding strictly on whether the map was an unlawful racial gerrymander, the court asked whether such remedial race-conscious map-drawing itself might violate the Constitution (under the Equal Protection Clause).

  

If the Court rules that the creation of majority-minority districts — even when required by the VRA — is unconstitutional, it could effectively dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the most powerful tool minority voters and advocates use to challenge racially discriminatory maps. What does this mean in plain speak? That the very protections that were passed to ensure that voting rights were not different based on race could be overturned.

  

Simply put, this is a threat to civil rights. One of our rights enshrined in multiple constitutional amendments is that as citizens of the United States, the federal government is tasked with protecting our right to vote. The amendments reinforce that voters cannot be discriminated against due to sex, race, or lack English language proficiency. This case should be ruled on in late spring – early summer 2026, and has the potential to have profound impacts on voting rights.