Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · BILL · 116th Congress · S. 949 (Introduced in Senate) — To expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics r... · Sec. 2001

Sec. 2001. Findings reaffirming the commitment of Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965

423 words·~2 min read·/bill/116/s/949/is/section-2001·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress finds the following: The right to vote for all Americans is sacrosanct and rules for voting and election administration should protect the right to vote and promote voter participation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ( 52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.) has empowered the Department of Justice and Federal courts for nearly a half a century to block discriminatory voting practices before their implementation in States and localities with the most troubling histories and ongoing records of racial discrimination.
There continues to be an alarming movement to erect barriers to make it more difficult for Americans to participate in our Nation’s democratic process. The Nation has witnessed unprecedented efforts to turn back the clock and erect barriers to voting for communities of color, which have faced historic and continuing discrimination, as well as disabled, young, elderly, and low-income Americans. The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), gutted decades-long Federal protections for communities of color that face historic and continuing discrimination, emboldening States and local jurisdictions to pass voter suppression laws and implement procedures that restrict voting, such as those requiring photo identification, limiting early voting hours, eliminating same-day registration, purging voters from the rolls, and reducing the number of polling places.
Congress is committed to reversing the devastating impact of this decision. Racial discrimination in voting is a clear and persistent problem. The actions of States and localities around the country after the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, including at least 10 findings by Federal courts of intentional discrimination, underscore the need for Congress to conduct investigatory and evidentiary hearings to determine the legislation necessary to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and combat continuing efforts in the United States that suppress the free exercise of the franchise in communities of color.
The 2018 midterm election provides further evidence that systemic voter discrimination and intimidation continues to occur in communities of color across the country, making it clear that democracy reform cannot be achieved until Congress restores key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress must remain vigilant in protecting every eligible citizen’s right to vote. Congress should respond by modernizing the electoral system to— improve access to the ballot; enhance the integrity and security of our voting systems; ensure greater accountability for the administration of elections; restore protections for voters against practices in States and localities plagued by the persistence of voter disenfranchisement; and ensure that Federal civil rights laws protect the rights of voters against discriminatory and deceptive practices.
Connectionstraces to 1
1 reference not yet in our index
  • 570 U.S. 529
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 2001
Findings reaffirming the commitment of Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Cites 2Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.