State Voting Rights Act

By implementing preclearance measures and combating racial vote dilution, SVRAs create stronger protections for minority voters at the state level.

Its most potent provision was the preclearance requirement under Section 5, which mandated that certain jurisdictions with histories of discrimination obtain federal approval before changing voting laws.

[10] However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) invalidated the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, effectively weakening the VRA's protections.

[13] Additionally, redistricting cycles following the Shelby County decision have led to significant dilution of political power for communities of color, with fewer opportunities to elect candidates of their choice.

The California Voting Rights Act (CAVRA) and similar laws in other states have removed the first Gingles precondition, which requires that a minority group be geographically compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district.

While Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits such practices, the 2021 Supreme Court decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee introduced new factors making it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in these cases.

In response, some SVRAs, like those in New York and Connecticut, omit or replace the more restrictive Brnovich factors, providing broader protections for voters of color.