[4]: 644–645  In 2006, Congress amended the Act to overturn two Supreme Court cases: Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (2000),[9] which interpreted Section 5 to prohibit voting changes that were enacted or maintained for a "retrogressive" discriminatory purpose instead of any discriminatory purpose, and Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003),[10] which established a broader test for determining whether a redistricting plan had an impermissible effect under Section 5 than assessing only whether a minority group could elect its preferred candidates.

[11]: 207–208 In response to the Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down the current coverage formula as unconstitutional,[12] several amendment acts were proposed, all of which failed to make progress.

[1]: 6−8 President Richard Nixon's administration, which hoped to politically capitalize on the alienation of Southern white voters from the Democratic Party that the Act was causing, sought to reauthorize but weaken the law.

Attorney General John N. Mitchell proposed a 3-year extension with amendments to extend the ban on "tests or devices" nationwide and abolish both the coverage formula and the preclearance requirement.

Opposed by liberals and supported by Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans, this proposal initially passed in the House of Representatives,[2]: 204–205  but it was rejected by the Senate, which crafted its own compromise bill.

[2]: 211  Specifically, Congress amended the definition of "test or device" to prohibit laws requiring ballots and voting information be provided exclusively in English in jurisdictions where a single-language minority group comprised more than 5% of the voting-age population.

[25] Organizations in The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the National Education Association (NEA), organized to pressure Congress both to extend the special provisions and to expand the Act's general prohibition on discriminatory voting laws.

[24]: 1387 The House of Representatives, which was the first chamber to consider amendments,[24]: 1380  conducted seven weeks of hearings on amendatory legislation at which over 100 witnesses testified, most of whom supported extending the Act's special provisions by at least 10 years.

[1]: 17  President Ronald Reagan's administration largely stayed out of the debate as the legislation worked its way through the House.

[26] The House ultimately passed legislation maintaining the coverage formula and permanently extending the special provisions.

[7]: 23  The Senate also agreed to liberalize the bailout procedure to allow a covered state or local government to escape coverage by proving to the U.S. District Court for D.C. that it had complied with the Voting Rights Act and undertook constructive efforts to expand opportunities for political participation in the 10 years preceding its bailout request.

[4]: 523  The bailout procedure was also amended to allow a local government to bail out of coverage even if its parent state was covered.

[7]: 23 [27] The provision Congress most intensely focused on amending was Section 2, which prescribes a general prohibition of discriminatory voting laws.

[24]: 1388–1389  Furthermore, some members of Congress, such as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), raised concerns that a results test would fundamentally alter American democracy by requiring courts to impose proportional representation for protected minority groups as a remedy.

[24]: 1392  To assuage this concern, Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) proposed legislative language explicitly disclaiming that a results test would require proportional representation.

[4]: 645 As the bilingual election requirement in Section 203(c) neared expiration in 1992, Congress considered legislation to extend and expand it.

[34] Proponents argued that the lack of bilingual assistance hindered recently naturalized citizens from exercising their voting rights and that the country had a history of acceptance toward linguistic pluralism.

Opponents argued that the Voting Rights Act was never meant to protect language minorities and that the bilingual assistance provision was a costly unfunded mandate.

[11]: 180  Furthermore, conservatives believed that the primary beneficiaries of the special provisions were African Americans, who overwhelmingly and increasingly voted for Democratic Party candidates.

[11]: 180–181 In 2005, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution began holding hearings on amending the Voting Rights Act.

Few witnesses at the hearings testified against reauthorizing the special provisions, and the committee focused primarily on assembling evidence of discrimination in voting.

The bill also proposed to amend the Act to overturn two recent Supreme Court cases: Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (2000),[9] which interpreted Section 5 to prohibit voting changes that were enacted or maintained for a "retrogressive" purpose instead of any discriminatory purpose, and Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003),[10] which established a broader test for determining whether a redistricting plan had an impermissible effect under Section 5 than assessing only whether a minority group could elect its preferred candidates.

One group of legislators, led by Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R–GA), argued that the reauthorization unfairly targeted certain jurisdictions for long-past discrimination.

[38][39] Another group of 80 legislators signed a letter originated by Congressman Steve King (R–IA) arguing that the Act's bilingual election requirements constituted costly unfunded mandates.

[11]: 186–189  The day after the committee report was filed, President George W. Bush signed the bill in a morning ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House on July 27, 2006, one year in advance of the 2007 expiration date.

[41] The audience at the signing ceremony included family members of Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, the reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, and other civil rights leaders.

[44] Again in 2019, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan) introduced bipartisan legislation to update the Voting Rights Act.