Commemorating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on Its 59th Anniversary

As some employers prepare to remind workers of their right to vote and their right, in some states, to take time off to go to the polls this presidential election year, employers and voters alike might reflect on how far the nation has come since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted. The changes have been dramatic, though some voting discrimination remains, as the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in a controversial decision in 2013 rendering part of the law—its “preclearance” process—inoperable.

After the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—including Title VII’s prohibition on employment discrimination—Martin Luther King Jr. told then President Lyndon B. Johnson that more work was needed. King called on Johnson to support a voting rights bill.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which marks its 59th anniversary on Aug. 6, reduced discriminatory practices that prevented Black citizens from voting and led to a dramatic increase in the participation of Black voters in U.S. elections. The law, which has been extended several times, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or language-minority status in registration and voting nationwide. The law also provides protections for blind voters and voters with disabilities.

Selma March as a Catalyst

Before the Voting Rights Act, Black citizens were largely blocked from voting, said Armand Derfner, a lawyer with Derfner & Altman in Charleston, S.C., and an expert on voting rights.

The march from Selma to Montgomery, Ala., on March 7, 1965, was a catalyst for change. John Lewis, who later served in Congress for 33 years, helped lead a march of approximately 600 people for voting rights. Once the protestors were on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, law enforcement told them to disperse. The marchers stood their ground, and state troopers hit them with clubs and bullwhips and teargassed them. Lewis’ skull was fractured by the blows.

“The brutal footage from that day 59 years ago shocked and galvanized the nation, leading to the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act,” said Jo Deutsch, director of legislative strategy for the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C.

In a March 15, 1965, speech, Johnson told the House of Representatives, “The last time a president sent a civil rights bill to the Congress, it contained a provision to protect voting rights in federal elections. That civil rights bill was passed after eight long months of debate. And when that bill came to my desk from the Congress for my signature, the heart of the voting provision had been eliminated. This time, on this issue, there must be no delay, or no hesitation or no compromise, with our purpose.”

After the Voting Rights Act was enacted, it “changed things overnight,” Derfner said. One significant difference was that literacy tests were removed as obstacles to voting. Before the act, Derfner said, local registrars in states with the worst discrimination would typically say white voters passed their literacy tests and Black voters didn’t. After the act, if a local registrar attempted to bar a Black citizen from voting, a federal official would take over the local voting, he added.

By 1966, only a year after passage of the Voting Rights Act, the percentage of registered Black voters soared. For example, the pre-act nonwhite registration percentage was 19.3% in Alabama, while the post-act nonwhite registration percentage was 51.6%, according to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Congress amended the law in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006, determining that unique federal action was necessary to protect voting rights for racial minorities and members of certain language-minority groups, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The 2006 amendments reauthorized the act’s preclearance process. That process determined which states and counties had to get preapproval from the U.S. attorney general or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making changes to their voting or election administration practices.

2013 Supreme Court Decision

However, the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision rendered preclearance inoperable.

“Voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that,” the Supreme Court said. “The question is whether the act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the states, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.” The court concluded that the preclearance measures didn’t, explaining that “the framers of the Constitution intended the states to keep for themselves, as provided in the 10th Amendment, the power to regulate elections.” In addition, the court said, “not only do states retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states.”

The court went on to say, “The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic provisions.” In 1966, the court had found these departures justified due to the blight of racial discrimination in voting. But in 2013, it did not, saying things had changed dramatically and parity in voting was nearly achieved.

While the court noted that any racial discrimination in voting is too much, it ruled that Congress must ensure the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.

In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that between 1982 and 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory. When it extended the Voting Rights Act in 2006, Congress found that the changes blocked by preclearance were “calculated decisions to keep minority voters from fully participating in the political process.”

She added, “The number of discriminatory changes blocked or deterred by the preclearance requirement suggests that the state of voting rights in the covered jurisdictions would have been significantly different absent this remedy.”

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Other portions of the Voting Rights Act remain intact. Section 2 of the act contains a nationwide prohibition on voting qualifications based on race, color, or language-minority status, and these provisions do not expire.

In Allen v. Milligan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that a districting plan adopted by the state of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Gerrymandering isn’t the only voter suppression issue. After President Joe Biden’s win in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election, some officials were concerned about whether voter drop boxes were secure. The number of drop boxes for voters was then cut in Atlanta, which voted primarily for Biden, possibly disenfranchising just enough voters to change the outcome in subsequent elections, Derfner said.

Employers’ Role

Many states require employers to let employees take time off to vote.

In those that don’t, employers might still let workers leave for some amount of time to go to the polls, Derfner said. For example, an employer might let someone clock out early to cast their vote, he noted.

Employers also might remind people when Election Day is—Tuesday, Nov. 5, this year—and encourage them to exercise their right to vote, he said.

Related Resource: SHRM’s HR Votes.