So far in this year’s legislative sessions, three states have introduced state voting rights acts. If the bills pass, Arizona, Colorado and Maryland will join the eight other states that already have VRAs: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington.
California was the first state to pass a voting rights act in 2002, and Illinois followed in 2011. Legislative action on state VRAs picked up in the late 2010s—between 2018 and 2024, six states enacted them. These laws apply to local jurisdictions and commonly include extensive provisions for language assistance, preclearance by a state entity for any proposed voting procedure changes, protections against vote dilution, and guidelines for determining what is a violation of voting rights.
Many state VRAs are modeled after the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Among other things, the federal law prohibits race-based denial of the right to vote and protects the voting rights of people with disabilities or limited English proficiency. The VRA also plays an important role in redistricting.
Federal VRA litigation involves complex factors that are not written in the statute but have been interpreted by courts over time. Many state VRAs include these details in their statutory text instead of leaving it up to case law. For example, state VRAs commonly require evidence that voters are polarized along racial lines to prove the government has violated the law—a tenet adopted by decades of litigation in federal cases.
Some court cases, notably in Washington and New York states, have involved arguments that these state VRAs violate the U.S. Constitution because they are too focused on race. “You’re seeing a number of jurisdictions where polarized voting ... is not where it was in the 1960s,” Katherine McKnight, a partner at the law firm BakerHostetler, says. “Voting is polarized, but it’s not along racial lines—it’s along political lines.” A law designed to address the racial discrimination of the 1960s, she says, may no longer be fit to address today’s issues.
On the other hand, says Ruth Greenwood, director of the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, state VRAs can be a powerful tool for protected classes who feel inadequately represented in local government. “They go beyond the federal VRA and ... specifically empower communities to advocate for their rights in ways you no longer can under the federal VRA,” she says.
Some state VRAs expand on the federal law to explore new approaches to election-related funding and data gathering. For example, Connecticut’s law requires the state to develop a database for use in evaluating VRA claims, conducting redistricting and administering elections. Minnesota’s and Virginia’s VRAs establish funds for voter education and outreach purposes. These approaches can require partnering with secretaries of state or state universities to maintain and process data and identify revenue sources for funds.
With all these complexities, what do experts suggest state lawmakers consider when drafting a state VRA? Greenwood recommends “look(ing) at the decisions that have happened so far (in challenges to state VRAs) to get a sense of how (statutory) language will be interpreted” by courts. Rob Tucker, another partner at BakerHostetler, says state lawmakers should identify the specific problems they are trying to address and take care not to “overcorrect” with extremely stringent requirements that make compliance too difficult.
Greenwood, McKnight and Tucker all emphasize there is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to state VRAs; each law should be informed by the unique population and dynamics of the state.
Visit NCSL’s State Voting Rights Acts webpage for details on all the approaches states have taken so far.
Helen Brewer is a senior policy specialist and Brenna Nelson is a policy analyst in NCSL’s Elections and Redistricting Program.