S-2523-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4821)
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would restore and update the preclearance process under the Voting Rights Act, requiring states and political subdivisions with recent records of voting rights violations to obtain approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before new voting laws or procedures can take effect. A state would be subject to preclearance for 10 years if it had 15 or more voting rights violations in the past 25 years, or 10 or more violations with at least one committed by the state itself. Individual counties or localities would be covered if they had 3 or more violations in the same period. The bill would also require public notice of voting practice changes, authorize DOJ document requests for enforcement, establish factors courts must weigh in voting rights challenges, and add protections for election workers and infrastructure.
Who benefits
Racial and language minority voters in states and localities with histories of voting discrimination, who would gain a proactive legal shield before discriminatory rules take effect. Civil rights organizations that litigate voting rights cases, who would gain clearer legal standards and DOJ enforcement tools. Election workers who would receive new legal protections. Voters broadly who benefit from public notice requirements for voting practice changes. Federal courts, which would receive clearer statutory guidance on how to evaluate voting rights challenges.
Who is hurt
State and local governments subject to preclearance, who would face added administrative costs, delays in implementing election law changes, and reduced autonomy over election administration. State legislators who argue election law is a core state prerogative under the Tenth Amendment. Election administrators in covered jurisdictions who would need to navigate a federal approval process before routine changes. Taxpayers in covered states who may bear the cost of compliance and potential litigation. Political parties or candidates whose preferred electoral rules in covered states could be delayed or blocked pending federal review.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted the original preclearance formula, and that voting rights violations have measurably increased in the years since — with documented cases of discriminatory redistricting, voter ID laws, and polling place closures disproportionately affecting minority voters. They contend the bill's formula is forward-looking and evidence-based, tying coverage to a jurisdiction's own recent violation record rather than decades-old data, directly addressing the Court's objection in Shelby County. They further argue that preclearance is uniquely effective because it stops discrimination before it harms voters, rather than requiring costly after-the-fact litigation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill imposes an unequal burden on certain states that conflicts with the constitutional principle of equal state sovereignty, the same concern the Supreme Court raised in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). They contend that the violation-counting formula is subject to manipulation because many "violations" are determined by partisan litigation outcomes rather than objective standards, and that the bill effectively allows federal courts and DOJ to veto state election laws that are facially neutral. They further argue that existing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act already provides a remedy for discriminatory voting practices nationwide, making the preclearance regime an unnecessary and constitutionally suspect layer of federal oversight.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to enact voting rights legislation rests primarily on the Fifteenth Amendment's enforcement clause (Section 2), which grants Congress power to enforce the right to vote free from racial discrimination. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court struck down the original Section 4(b) coverage formula as insufficiently grounded in current conditions, while leaving open the possibility that Congress could enact a new, updated formula. This bill is a direct legislative response to that ruling. The Tenth Amendment and the equal sovereignty principle cited in Shelby County remain active points of constitutional tension for any preclearance regime.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOJ) gains significant authority to review and approve or deny state voting law changes before they take effect; checks include judicial review through the U.S. District Court for D.C. as an alternative preclearance path, the violation-threshold formula limiting which jurisdictions are covered, and the 10-year coverage period after which jurisdictions may seek bailout.
Historical precedent
The original Voting Rights Act of 1965 established preclearance under Section 5, which was reauthorized multiple times and upheld in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) and City of Rome v. United States (1980), before its coverage formula was struck down in Shelby County v. Holder (2013).