Today, the justices consider an upside-down reading of the 14th Amendment. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

A federal agency called the Election Assistance Commission is considering requiring a passport or other proof of citizenship when registering to vote using the federal voter registration form.



The commission is currently accepting public comments on this issue, but misleading messages have flooded in. You can do something about this attack on the freedom to vote: ADD A COMMENT NOW

[link removed]



This week, I’m turning The Briefing over to my colleague Kareem Crayton, an eminent scholar on race, politics, and the Voting Rights Act, to share his thoughts on a major Supreme Court case being heard today.

—Michael Waldman

Celebrated as a crowning legislative achievement of the civil rights era, the Voting Rights Act was adopted to guarantee that all Americans enjoy the right to vote regardless of race. This morning, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that may destroy one of the law’s key tools of enforcement.

In March 1965 in Selma, Alabama, nonviolent protestors marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and faced attacks at the hands of state police, sacrificing their bodies for the cause of equal access to the ballot. The widespread public reaction to the televised footage of the incident led President Lyndon Johnson and Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act. The law, passed with bipartisan support, forbade state and local policies and practices that would deny or prevent people from voting because of their race. Later amendments prohibited not only policies that were intentionally discriminatory but also those that produced discriminatory effects.

Part of the “Second Reconstruction,” the Voting Rights Act aimed to settle the prolonged struggle to make good on the promises contained in the 14th and 15th Amendments — America’s answer to its original sin of enslavement. From the moment of its adoption, the law helped reshape political bodies from the local to the federal level and dramatically expanded the electorate. It shielded against new discriminatory voting laws and schemes to dilute voting power. And it gave voters of color the right to challenge existing rules that denied them equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Republicans and Democrats repeatedly embraced the statute, last reauthorizing the law in 2006 (when Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress).

Throughout its history, however, the Voting Rights Act has also faced attacks. In recent years, it has been weakened by the Supreme Court. In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, for example, the Court effectively tossed out Section 5 of the law, a provision requiring certain states (most of them in the South) to get approval from the federal government before changing voting rules. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said that decision was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

She has been proven right. In the years since, states have enacted dozens of laws making it harder to vote. A Brennan Center report

[link removed]

found that since 2008, the racial turnout gap — the difference in voter participation between white and nonwhite citizens — has consistently increased, reaching 18 percentage points in the 2022 midterms. And the shift is most pronounced in the very places where Section 5 used to apply.

In its decision to eliminate Section 5, though, the Supreme Court was quick to point out that Section 2 remained a valid tool to enforce the Voting Rights Act. That reassurance leads us to the troubling case before the Court today. In Louisiana v. Callais

[link removed]

, the Court has invited argument on whether Section 2 is unconstitutional. Put another way, the Court will tell us whether this civil rights landmark and its decades of progress in securing the right to vote are to be reaffirmed or cast aside.

The case centers around Louisiana’s congressional map. In 2020, Republicans in the state drew a map that blatantly diluted the Black electorate. Black Louisianans comprised a third of the state’s population but had a realistic shot at electing a candidate in just one of six created districts. Black voters sued under Section 2, and a court struck down the map, forcing state lawmakers back to the drawing board. The court had offered alternative maps to comply with Section 2, but lawmakers drew a different map to cater to their partisan interests. A group of white voters then challenged the new map, arguing that it was predominantly race-driven and violated the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

Last year, the Supreme Court considered ruling on that challenge but surprisingly delayed its decision and invited the parties to address a high-stakes and perilous question: Is Section 2 itself constitutional?

The State of Louisiana now argues that it and other states shouldn’t be required to take race into account when drawing maps at all. This argument applies a peculiar reading of the 14th Amendment, the core of Reconstruction and the civil rights revolution, to demand a rollback of protections against the very tactics that Reconstruction saw coming. The argument invites a return to the era when race was a barrier to entry for political representation — the cruel and painful experience of political exclusion that made passage of the Voting Rights Act necessary in the first place.

To be clear, race discrimination in voting isn’t merely a thing of the past. Repeatedly in Louisiana, as in several other states in recent years, courts have found both intentional discrimination and vote dilution that have denied equal political opportunity and contributed to a growing racial gap. In the Supreme Court arguments this morning

[link removed]

, at least some justices appeared open to the concept of either severely limiting Section 2 or eliminating the provision altogether. The latter result would inject chaos into the redistricting process at every level of government, right on the eve of a national election.

No matter the outcome, it ultimately remains our collective charge as Americans to defend the equal right to vote. In 1965, it took the courage and determination of protesters marching in Selma to ensure equal access to the ballot. Today, it will take all of us to engage at all levels of government and bring about a renewed push to reaffirm our most fundamental constitutional values.





Criminalizing Dissent

Last month, President Trump issued an executive order and memo seeking to turn the full force of the government against “Antifa,” which he designated a “domestic terrorist organization.” While claiming to go after violence, the administration portrays an imagined left-wing conspiracy and opens the door to punishing even loose connections to speech it disfavors. “Both the order and the memo are ungrounded in fact and law,” Faiza Patel writes, adding that “many individuals and organizations will be vilified and harmed for their constitutionally protected activities and others will be muzzled as they fear the consequences of associating with or speaking up for groups that have been targeted.” Read more

[link removed]

Interactive Timeline of Federal Threats to Elections

This year, a new threat to free and fair elections has emerged: the federal government itself. The current administration is actively working to rewrite election rules, intimidate election officials, and pull back federal support for safeguarding voters and the electoral process. The Brennan Center’s new interactive timeline tracks the administration’s campaign to undermine our elections. Read more

[link removed]

Following the Money

As the 2025–26 election cycle unfolds, the Brennan Center has published the first edition of a new periodic roundup of stories focused on money in politics. This installment highlights the artificial intelligence industry’s efforts to influence federal regulatory decisions, a surge in super PAC support for a term-limited president, and record-breaking spending in gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. Read more

[link removed]

Vote with Confidence

Local election officials across California have begun mailing ballots to registered voters ahead of the state’s upcoming special election. Like their counterparts nationwide, they take great care during every election to guarantee that voters are safe and ballots are secure. Thanks to the dedication of these officials and to strong state and federal laws against voter intimidation, Gowri Ramachandran writes in CalMatters, “I expect Nov. 4 to be another straightforward, peaceful Election Day. For voters, having a voting plan and knowing who to call in the event any issues arise can make things even smoother.” Read more

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: The Power of the Purse

[link removed]

Tuesday, October 28, 2–3 p.m. ET



The Constitution gives Congress the authority to decide how much the federal government spends and for what purposes. While presidents and Congress have always engaged in a push-and-pull over funding, President Trump has taken unprecedented steps to ignore this constitutional framework and impose his own spending priorities.



Since taking office, his administration has attempted to freeze financial assistance, terminate already-awarded scientific research grants, prevent states from accessing emergency disaster relief, and circumvent federal statutes through unlawful “pocket rescissions.” Join us for a live virtual event with experts who will break down the efforts to undermine Congress’s funding authority, the lawsuits challenging them, and the impact of these actions on Americans’ daily lives. RSVP today

[link removed]



Want to keep up with Brennan Center events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Elizabeth Goitein on the dangers of turning troops against Americans // THE INTERCEPT

[link removed]

Joseph Nunn on the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act // FORBES

[link removed]

Michael Waldman on Trump’s use of military language and tactics against domestic threats // THE WASHINGTON POST

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]