Fifteenth Amendment — Prohibiting Racial Discrimination in Voting
The Fifteenth Amendment (ratified 1870) provides: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was the last of the three Reconstruction Amendments (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth) — designed to guarantee that formerly enslaved people could participate in democratic self-government. For nearly a century after ratification, the Amendment was systematically circumvented through literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, white primaries, racial gerrymandering, and outright violence. The Supreme Court struck down some of these devices (Guinn v. United States, 1915 — grandfather clauses; Smith v. Allwright, 1944 — white primaries; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 1960 — racial gerrymandering), but state and local governments continually invented new methods of disenfranchisement. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 — enacted under the Fifteenth Amendment's Section 2 enforcement power — was the transformative statute that finally made the Amendment effective, banning discriminatory voting practices nationwide (Section 2) and requiring jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to obtain federal preclearance before changing voting rules (Section 5). In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court effectively disabled the preclearance regime by striking down the coverage formula (Section 4(b)) as unconstitutionally outdated — leaving Section 2's nationwide prohibition as the primary enforcement mechanism. In Brnovich v. DNC (2021), the Court further narrowed Section 2, making it harder to challenge facially neutral voting rules that disproportionately burden minority voters. In Louisiana v. Callais, 24-109 (April 29, 2026), a 6-3 Court (Alito majority; Kagan dissent) substantially narrowed Section 2's vote-dilution prong — holding that the statute did not require Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district and reading Allen v. Milligan (2023) much more narrowly than civil rights litigators had understood it. Justice Kagan's dissent described the decision as rendering Section 2 "all but a dead letter." The Fifteenth Amendment remains the constitutional foundation for voting rights protection, but its practical enforcement depends heavily on congressional action — and after Callais the current statutory framework is significantly weaker than at any point since 1965.
Current Law (2026)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Constitutional provision | Fifteenth Amendment, §§ 1–2 (ratified 1870) |
| Prohibits | Denial or abridgment of voting rights on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude |
| Applies to | Federal, state, and local elections |
| Key statute | Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. §§ 10301–10314) |
| Section 2 | Nationwide prohibition on voting practices that result in denial of equal opportunity to vote based on race |
| Section 5 (preclearance) | Effectively disabled — Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck down coverage formula |
| Key cases | Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Brnovich v. DNC (2021), Allen v. Milligan (2023), Louisiana v. Callais (2026) |
| Enforcement power | Congress has broad Section 2 power to enforce through "appropriate legislation" |
Legal Authority
- U.S. Constitution, Amend. XV, § 1 — "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"
- U.S. Constitution, Amend. XV, § 2 — "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation"
- 52 U.S.C. § 10301 — Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (nationwide prohibition on discriminatory voting practices)
- 52 U.S.C. § 10303 — Section 4 of the VRA (coverage formula — struck down by Shelby County)
- 52 U.S.C. § 10304 — Section 5 of the VRA (preclearance requirement — inoperative without valid coverage formula)
How It Works
Ratified in 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment gave Black men the right to vote — and then watched it be systematically dismantled. After the Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction, Southern states deployed a toolkit of facially neutral disenfranchisement devices: literacy tests administered selectively to fail Black applicants, poll taxes priced to exclude poor Black voters (later banned by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment), grandfather clauses exempting those whose ancestors could vote before the Civil War, white primaries excluding Black voters from the only elections that mattered in one-party states, and racial gerrymandering to dilute Black voting power. Violence and intimidation supplemented every legal mechanism. By 1940, only 3% of eligible Black adults in the Deep South were registered. Congress responded using its Fifteenth Amendment Section 2 enforcement power to enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — widely regarded as the most effective civil rights statute in American history. VRA Section 2 prohibits any voting practice that "results in" denial or abridgment of the vote on account of race, enforceable through nationwide litigation. VRA Section 5 required jurisdictions with documented discrimination histories (identified by Section 4(b)'s coverage formula) to obtain federal preclearance — advance DOJ or court approval — before changing any voting rule, shifting the burden from minority voters who had to sue after the fact to covered states who had to prove their changes were nondiscriminatory before implementation.
The preclearance system was effectively disabled by Shelby County v. Holder (2013), in which the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b)'s coverage formula as unconstitutionally based on decades-old data that no longer reflected current conditions. Without the formula, Section 5 has no operative trigger, and Congress has not enacted a replacement. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) further narrowed Section 2 by articulating new analytical guideposts that make it significantly harder to challenge facially neutral voting rules — voter ID requirements, out-of-precinct ballot rejection, and ballot collection restrictions — even when they disproportionately burden minority voters. Allen v. Milligan (2023) preserved Section 2's application to redistricting, requiring Alabama to draw an additional majority-Black congressional district, confirming that vote dilution claims through racial gerrymandering remain a viable legal tool. With preclearance gone, Section 2 litigation — brought by DOJ's Voting Section or private plaintiffs — is now the primary federal mechanism for challenging discriminatory voting practices, with stronger footing on gerrymandering claims than on time-place-and-manner restrictions.
How It Affects You
If you're a voter and believe a voting rule reduces minority voting power, the Voting Rights Act Section 2 is your primary federal remedy — but using it requires understanding the current legal landscape. Section 2 prohibits any voting standard, practice, or procedure that "results in" denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or color. The Supreme Court's Brnovich v. DNC (2021) made Section 2 challenges harder by establishing five factors courts must weigh: the size of the disparate burden, how far a rule departs from 1982 practices, the size of any voting opportunity gap, the state's justification, and the prevalence of fraud. Section 2 claims require statistical evidence of disparate impact and, usually, expert witnesses and legal counsel — these are resource-intensive cases. If you believe a rule was intentionally designed to suppress minority votes, a 14th Amendment equal protection intentional discrimination claim under Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977) may also apply. Organizations that provide free legal assistance on voting rights claims: NAACP Legal Defense Fund (naacpldf.org), Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (lawyerscommittee.org), and the ACLU Voting Rights Project (aclu.org/voting-rights).
If you're a state or local election official designing or administering voting rules, the post-Shelby County landscape requires proactive attention to Section 2 compliance. Preclearance under VRA Section 5 no longer applies broadly (since Shelby County v. Holder, 2013), but Section 2 remains fully enforceable and applies to voting rules immediately upon implementation. Courts evaluate the "totality of circumstances" — including historical discrimination in the jurisdiction, the extent of racial bloc voting, the state's policy rationale, and whether minority communities have equal electoral access. Factors that increase legal risk: adopting rules that have a clear historical precedent in voter suppression (reducing polling locations in minority precincts, changing registration rules after minority registration surges), and adopting rules with weak documented policy justification. The Election Assistance Commission (eac.gov) and National Conference of State Legislatures (ncsl.org/elections) publish VRA compliance guidance. Document your policy rationale thoroughly — courts scrutinize the evidentiary record for signs of discriminatory purpose.
If you're serving on a redistricting commission or legislature drawing congressional or state legislative maps, Allen v. Milligan (2023) reaffirmed that Section 2 can require drawing majority-minority districts where three conditions are met: the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in a reasonably configured district; the group is politically cohesive (votes together); and the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidate. Courts will scrutinize maps that "crack" minority communities across multiple districts or "pack" them into a single district well beyond what Section 2 requires. In states with significant minority populations, redistricting litigation is nearly inevitable — document your process, demographic analysis, and the competing interests you weighed. Some states (New York, Virginia, Washington, Connecticut) have enacted their own state VRA equivalents with preclearance-like provisions that impose additional requirements beyond federal law. For state-specific guidance, the Brennan Center for Justice (brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/redistricting) publishes annual redistricting guides.
If you're a member of Congress or following federal voting rights reform, restoring meaningful preclearance requires Congress to enact a new Section 4(b) coverage formula based on current data — the Shelby County Court left that door open explicitly. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would establish a new coverage formula and restore preclearance for jurisdictions with recent voting rights violations; it has passed the House but failed to overcome a Senate filibuster. In the absence of preclearance, enforcement depends on DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Voting Section (justice.gov/crt/voting-section), which brings Section 2 cases and investigates voting discrimination complaints. File complaints at civilrights.justice.gov. State-level VRAs — currently enacted in New York, Virginia, Washington, and Connecticut — provide a partial substitute for federal preclearance in those jurisdictions and are a model for other states.
State Variations
The Fifteenth Amendment applies to all federal, state, and local elections:
- Some states have enacted their own voting rights acts with preclearance-like provisions (New York's John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, Virginia, Washington, Connecticut)
- State courts may provide stronger protections under state constitutional voting guarantees
- Election administration varies enormously by state — voter ID laws, early voting, mail voting, registration deadlines
- The impact of Shelby County varies by state — formerly covered jurisdictions have enacted significantly more voting restrictions since 2013
Implementing Regulations
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote based on race — enforced through Section 2 legislation. The primary implementing statute is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. §§ 10301+). 28 CFR Part 51 (DOJ preclearance procedures) implemented Section 5 before Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively suspended it. 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (Section 2 results test) remains the principal enforcement mechanism, as interpreted in Brnovich v. DNC (2021).
Pending Legislation
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would create a new Section 4(b) coverage formula based on recent violations — restoring preclearance for jurisdictions with patterns of discrimination. Introduced but not passed in the 118th or 119th Congress. For related voting rights legislation — see Voting Rights Act and Federal Elections. For the broader franchise expansion — see Voting Expansion Amendments.
Recent Developments
Allen v. Milligan (2023) was a significant victory for voting rights — the Court's 5-4 decision preserved Section 2's application to redistricting, requiring Alabama to draw an additional majority-Black congressional district. The decision was surprising given the Court's conservative majority and signals that vote dilution claims remain viable. Since Shelby County (2013), states previously subject to preclearance have enacted hundreds of voting restrictions — including strict voter ID laws, precinct closures, registration purges, and limits on mail and early voting. Several states have responded by enacting state-level voting rights acts with their own preclearance mechanisms. The tension between election security measures and voter access continues to define Fifteenth Amendment and VRA litigation.
- SAVE Act and citizenship verification (2025): The SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act), passed in the House in 2025, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Voting rights advocates argue the requirement would disenfranchise millions of eligible citizens who lack ready access to passports or birth certificates — disproportionately affecting Black, Hispanic, and Native American voters in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment and VRA Section 2. The bill is pending in the Senate.
- Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024): The Supreme Court's 8-1 decision raised the bar for plaintiffs challenging district maps as racial gerrymanders — requiring proof that race, not partisan considerations, was the predominant factor. The decision makes it harder to challenge "bleached" majority-white districts as intentional vote dilution when a state can credibly claim partisan (not racial) motivation. Combined with Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) holding partisan gerrymandering nonjusticiable, the ruling narrows both racial and partisan gerrymandering challenges.
- Voting Rights Act preclearance legislation: Congress has repeatedly failed to restore VRA preclearance after Shelby County — most recently the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which passed the House in 2021 but was blocked by Senate filibuster. The 119th Congress has not advanced VRA restoration legislation. Without preclearance, states must defend voting changes after implementation through costly litigation rather than submitting them for pre-approval.
- Native American voting rights: Federal courts have continued to require states to provide accessible polling places on or near tribal lands, with recent cases in Montana and Alaska ordering in-person voting options for Native communities historically excluded from easy ballot access. The Fifteenth Amendment's application to tribal sovereignty questions — whether tribal nations can require proof of membership to vote in tribal elections, separate from federal/state elections — remains distinct from the majority of VRA litigation.
- Louisiana v. Callais, 24-109 (April 29, 2026): A 6-3 Supreme Court (Alito majority joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett; Kagan dissenting joined by Sotomayor and Jackson) held that Section 2 did not require Louisiana to create a second majority-Black district, and that the State therefore lacked a compelling governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause to use race in drawing one. The decision substantially narrows Allen v. Milligan's reading of Section 2 and the Gingles framework's vote-dilution remedy. Kagan's dissent argued the ruling renders Section 2 "all but a dead letter"; civil rights organizations have characterized it as "eviscerating" the VRA. As of May 2026, Alabama AG Steve Marshall is asking the Supreme Court to lift the Allen v. Milligan injunction in light of Callais before the May 19, 2026 primary; the lower three-judge panel denied a parallel state request, holding only the Supreme Court can address the substance. The Fifteenth Amendment's congressional enforcement power remains intact, but the statutory enforcement vehicle has been substantially weakened.