NCSL - National Conference of State Legislatures

06/04/2025 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 06/04/2025 10:48

State Voting Rights Acts

Related Topic:Elections

Key Takeaways

  • In addition to the federal Voting Rights Act, several states have enacted their own Voting Rights Acts to outlaw discrimination in voting, electoral processes and redistricting.

  • In contrast to the federal VRA, which covers political jurisdictions ranging from congressional districts to the local government level, state VRAs cover local jurisdictions but generally don't apply to congressional districts.

  • Some distinguishing elements among state VRAs include requiring preclearance, prohibiting voter intimidation, vote dilution provisions, creation of coalition and crossover districts, private rights of action and creation of voting-related databases or funds.

The federal Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 and amended twice since then, outlawed race-based discrimination, specifically race-based denial of the right to vote. It also protects voting rights of people with disabilities or limited English proficiency and plays an important role in redistricting.

State VRAs parallel or build upon the federal VRA's approach to combatting voting discrimination. Nine states have enacted their own Voting Rights Acts: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. Several more states saw bills introduced that did not become law, reflected on the map and in Table 2 below.

These state VRAs mirror the federal VRA in many ways and are often more detailed than the federal act, because the meaning of the federal VRA has been interpreted by courts over time beyond the statutory text. Some state VRAs codify these interpretations in their text. While the federal VRA covers political jurisdictions ranging from congressional districts to counties and townships, state VRAs generally cover local jurisdictions and do not apply to congressional districts.

This page summarizes common state VRA provisions and provides an interactive map and tables showing the provisions within each state's law. Some states may have some of these provisions, such as language assistance, elsewhere in their laws but not in their Voting Rights Acts. In addition to the information on this page, many state VRAs include provisions on how courts must weigh certain elements of legal claims. State VRAs also commonly lay out procedures for localities to follow when attempting to remedy an alleged violation.

NCSL provides these statutory resources for informational purposes only. This does not constitute legal advice.

Common State VRA Provisions

Factors in a Court Case

State VRAs often come into play in election or redistricting related litigation. When deciding whether a jurisdiction has violated the VRA, state and federal courts consider a particular set of factors developed by federal courts in various cases over the years. These factors have not been written into federal statute, but several state VRAs codify versions of them. Click on a state name in the tables below to see what factors each VRA incorporates.

Preclearance & Vote Dilution

Federal redistricting requirements have largely been developed by federal courts over decades and are not written in statute. Many state VRAs codify federal approaches to redistricting and in some cases change or expand on those approaches. Firstly, the federal VRA and all state analogues prohibit vote dilution. Vote dilution occurs when electoral districts distribute specific nonwhite populations in a way that denies those communities an effective opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Second, VRAs commonly establish preclearance systems. Under preclearance, some or all jurisdictions must receive approval from the government before implementing changes to their election laws. Preclearance applies to new district maps and new election policies, such as changes to polling place locations, hours or dates. Section 5 of the federal VRA contains a preclearance provision, though it is currently unenforceable because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, declaring unconstitutional the formula set out in Section 4 of the federal VRA that was used to determine whether a state was subject to preclearance. The table below indicates which state VRAs include their own active preclearance provisions.

Majority-minority and Opportunity Districts

Questions remain as to what kind of electoral districts the federal VRA requires or permits. The VRA protects the right to an opportunity district, which is a district where a specific nonwhite population has the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice without being consistently defeated by white voters. Whether a particular district provides sufficient opportunity for a racial group to elect their candidates of choice is evaluated in light of voting behavior and various other factors in that district. When the majority of the population in a district belongs to a specific nonwhite racial group, the district is known as a majority-minority district. Majority-minority districts often provide nonwhite communities the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice as required by the VRA.

Coalition and Crossover Districts

Some advocates argue that the federal VRA requires jurisdictions to draw a coalition or crossover district. In a coalition district, multiple communities of color combine to form a politically cohesive majority. For example, the majority in a coalition district may consist of Black and Hispanic communities with similar political interests and voting patterns in the same region of a state or locality. In crossover districts, voters of color and white voters who tend to vote with the voters of color make up enough of the district to give the voters of color the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. While states can be ordered to draw majority-minority or influence districts under the federal VRA, it is unclear whether the same is true for coalition or crossover districts. Some states have clarified that their VRAs include the right to those types of districts. If race improperly predominates in the mapmaking process, opportunity districts, majority-minority districts, coalition or crossover districts may run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Clicking on a state on the map below will show whether the state's VRA explicitly covers coalition and crossover districts.

Polarized Voting

People who bring a lawsuit under the federal VRA must demonstrate the existence of racially polarized voting. This means they must demonstrate that a specific nonwhite population consistently votes cohesively and is regularly defeated by the white population in the area that consistently votes in the opposite way. All state VRAs require a showing of polarized voting to prove that a violation of law has occurred. Some state VRAs specifically require a demonstration of racially polarized voting, while others use the term "polarized voting," which may or may not extend beyond the context of race-based issues.

Databases & Funds

Several state VRAs require the state to develop a database for use in evaluating VRA claims and informing best practices in redistricting and election administration. These databases often must include extensive political and voter history data and various demographics. Some state VRAs require the state to partner with universities to maintain these databases. Some state VRAs also establish funds for various purposes including voter education and outreach efforts. Clicking on a state on the map below shows whether the state's VRA establishes a database or fund.

Private Right of Action

Several state VRAs permit voters or organizations to bring a lawsuit against a local government for violations of a state VRA. The ability of private, non-government actors like these to sue is called a private right of action.

While the U.S. has a long history of individual voters and organizations bringing lawsuits under the federal VRA, debate exists among federal courts over whether the federal VRA allows this. For example, in 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled there is no private right of action to enforce the VRA. In other words, some argue it is unclear whether the federal VRA includes a private right of action. In the absence of a private right of action, only the U.S. Department of Justice could bring a federal VRA lawsuit. The table below indicates what states explicitly include a private right of action in their VRAs.

Read More

Modal title

×
Table 1: State Voting Rights Acts

State

Preclearance

Private Right of Action

Language Assistance

Factors for Determining Violations

California

Cal. Elec. Code § 14025 - 32

No

Yes

No

  • History of discrimination.
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that enhance vote dilution.
  • History of unequal access to election administration or campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment and health.
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns.

Colorado

SB 1 (2025)

No

Yes

No

  • Extent of polarized voting.
  • Analysis of relevant election results, including ballot questions.
  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection. 
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures at lower rates than other members of the community. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office. 
  • History of unequal access to election administration or campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to protected class membership. 
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or in efforts to pass a challenged policy.

Connecticut

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-368j - q

Yes

Yes

Yes, Required when:

  • More than 2% of citizen voting age population has limited English proficiency.
  • More than 4,000 of the citizen voting age population has limited English proficiency.
  • More than 2% of the Native American citizen voting age population on a reservation has limited English proficiency.
  • History of discrimination
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office.
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that enhance vote dilution.
  • History of unequal access to election administration or campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures at lower rates than other members of the community.
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection.
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or in efforts to pass a challenged policy.
  • Extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to protected class membership.
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.
  • Whether the challenged policy was designed to (and does) materially advance a valid and substantiated state interest.

Illinois

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 10, § 120/5-1 et seq.

No

Not specified

No

  • Not specified.

Minnesota

Minn. Stat. § 200.50 - 200.59

No

Yes

No

  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection.
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class.
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or by government officials.
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office.
  • Extent to which protected class members have faced barriers to accessing the ballot or receiving financial or other support.
  • Extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to protected class membership.
  • Extent of polarized voting.
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that enhance vote dilution.
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.
  • Whether the challenged policy was designed to (and does) materially advance a valid and substantiated state interest.

New York

N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-200 et seq.

Yes

Yes

Yes. Required when:

  • At least 300 individuals who compromise more than 2% of the voter eligible population speak a single shared language and have limited English proficiency.
  • More than 4,000 of the citizens of voting age speak a single shared language and have limited English proficiency.
  • More than 2% of the Native American citizen voting age population on a reservation speak a single shared language and have limited English proficiency.
  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office.
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that enhance vote dilution.
  • History of unequal access to election administration or campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures at lower rates than other members of the community.
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection.
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns.
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.
  • Whether the challenged policy has a substantiated compelling policy justification.

Oregon

Or. Rev. Stat. § 255.400 et seq.

No

Yes

No

  • History of discrimination.
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that enhance vote dilution.
  • History of unequal access to campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment and health.
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns.

Virginia

Va. Code § 24.2-125 et seq.

No.

Certain changes to election procedures are subject to a waiting period and can obtain approval to skip the waiting period.

Yes

Yes. Required when:

  • More than 5% of the citizen voting age population speak a single shared language and have limited English proficiency.
  • More than 10,000 of the citizens of voting age speak a single shared language and have limited English proficiency.
  • More than 5% of the Native American citizen voting age population on a reservation speak a single shared languagd and have limited English proficiency.
  • Unequal access to nomination and election processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office.

Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.92 et seq.

No

Yes

Yes. Required when:

  • At least 5% of the political subdivision or at least 500 residents have limited English proficiency.
  • Presence of racially polarized voting.
  • History of discrimination.
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that enhance vote dilution.
  • History of unequal access to campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment and health.
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns.
Table 2: Proposed Legislation

State

Preclearance

Private Right of Action

Language Assistance

Factors for Determining Violation

Alabama

SB 7 / HB 60 (2025)

Yes

Yes

Yes. No specified threshold.

  • Not specified.

Arizona

SB 1490 (2024)

SB 193 (2025)

No

Yes

Yes. Required when:

  • More than 2% of citizen voting age population has limited English proficiency.
  • More than 4,000 members of the citizen voting age population have limited English proficiency.
  • More than 2% of Native American voting age population has limited English proficiency.
  • The illiteracy rate of a single language minority group is higher than the national illiteracy rate.
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office. 

Colorado

SB 1 (2025)

No

Yes

No

  • Extent of polarized voting.
  • Analysis of relevant election results, including ballot questions.
  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection. 
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures at lower rates than other members of the community. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office. 
  • History of unequal access to election administration or campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to protected class membership. 
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or in efforts to pass a challenged policy.

Florida

SB 1522 / HB 1035 (2024)

Yes

Yes

Yes

  • History of discrimination. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office. 
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that enhance vote dilution. 
  • History of unequal access to election administration or campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures at lower rates than other members of the community. 
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class. 
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection. 
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or in efforts to pass a challenged policy.
  • Extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to protected class membership. 
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.  
  • Whether the challenged policy was designed to (and does) materially advance a valid and substantiated state interest. 

Georgia

HB 484 (2021)

No

Not specified

n/a

  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office. 

Maryland

SB 342 / HB 1043 / HB 1044 (2025)

SB 878 (2023)

Yes (HB 1044, SB 878)

Yes

Yes (SB 878). Required when:

  • At least 100 individuals who comprise at least 2% of the eligible voter population speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • More than 4,000 voters speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.

HB 1043 and SB 878:

  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office.
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that enhance vote dilution.
  • History of unequal access to election administration or campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures at lower rates than other members of the community. (SB 878 only)
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection.
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or in efforts to pass a challenged policy.
  • Extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to protected class membership.
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.
  • Whether the challenged policy was designed to (and does) materially advance a valid and substantiated state interest.

Prohibited factors:

  • Number of protected class members not affected by the challenged policy.
  • Whether the challenged policy was widely used in the past. 
  • Whether policies similar or identical to the challenged policy have been used in other jurisdictions. 
  • The availability of other forms of voting. 
  • Unsubstantiated defenses that the challenged policy is necessary to address criminal activity. 
  • Evidence of intent to discriminate (HB 1043 only)

Michigan

No

Yes

Yes. Required when:

  • Before Jan. 1, 2030, more than 5% of the voting-eligible population speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • Before Jan. 1, 2030, a voting-eligible population of more than 10,000 in a locality speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • Beginning Jan. 1, 2030, at least 600 individuals in the voting eligible population speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • Beginning Jan. 1, 2030, a voting-eligible population of at least 100 individuals comprising at least 2.5% of the voting eligible population in a locality speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class. 
  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection. 
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or by government officials. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have faced barriers to accessing the ballot or receiving financial or other support. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures at lower rates than other members of the community. 
  • Extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to protected class membership. 
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that may impair the right to vote or participate in the political process. 
  • The presence of racially polarized voting. 
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.  
  • Whether the challenged policy was designed to (and does) materially advance a compelling and substantiated state interest. 
  • The extent to which officials have undertaken efforts to remedy racial disparities that have improved conditions for the protected class.

Prohibited considerations:

  • Number of protected class members not affected by the challenged policy.
  • Whether the challenged policy was widely used in the past. 
  • Whether policies similar or identical to the challenged policy have been used in other jurisdictions. A court may consider this factor if another jurisdiction has used the challenged practice to comply with the VRA or other voting rights law.
  • The availability of other forms of voting. 
  • Unsubstantiated defenses that the challenged policy is necessary to address criminal activity. 
  • Mere invocation of bolstering voter confidence or preventing fraud. 
  • Lack of evidence of intent to discriminate.

Missouri

HB 2873 (2024)

Yes

Yes

Yes. Required when:

  • More than 2% of voting age citizens of a political subdivision are members of a single language minority group or have limited English proficiency
  • More than 4,000 voting age citizens of a political subdivision are members of a single language minority group or have limited English proficiency
  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office. 
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that may enhance vote dilution.
  • Extent to which protected class members have faced barriers to accessing the ballot or receiving financial or other support. 
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures at lower rates than other members of the community.
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class.
  • Extent to which protected class members are disadvantaged in other areas that may hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns.
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.
  • Whether the challenged practice has a compelling policy justification.

New Jersey

AB 4083/SB 3009 (2024)

Yes

Yes

Yes. Required when:

  • At least 100 individuals who comprise at least 2% of the eligible voter population speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • More than 4,000 voters speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office. 
  • The use of voting qualifications or rules that may enhance vote dilution.
  • Extent to which protected class members have faced barriers to accessing the ballot or receiving financial or other support. 
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class. 
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection.  
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or by government officials. 
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.  
  • Whether the political subdivision has a compelling justification for the challenged policy that is supported by evidence.

Prohibited factors:

  • Causes of voting patterns other than racially polarized voting, including partisan explanations.
  • Evidence that subgroups within a protected class have different voting patterns.
  • Whether a protected class is geographically compact.
  • Number of protected class members not affected by the challenged policy.
  • Whether the challenged policy was widely used in the past. 
  • Whether policies similar or identical to the challenged policy have been used in other jurisdictions. 
  • The availability of other forms of voting. 
  • Unsubstantiated defenses that the challenged policy is necessary to address criminal activity. 
  • Mere invocation of bolstering voter confidence or preventing fraud. 
  • Lack of evidence of intent to discriminate.

Texas

HB 5258 (2025)

Factors for Determining Violations:

  • History of discrimination.
  • Extent to which protected class members have been elected to office.
  • The use of election policies or practices that enhance vote dilution.
  • History of unequal access to election administration or campaign finance processes.
  • Extent to which protected class members have historically made political expenditures.
  • Lower voter turnout rates among the protected class.
  • Extent to which protected class members experience the effects of discrimination in areas including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use or environmental protection.
  • Use of racial appeals in political campaigns or in efforts to pass a challenged policy.
  • Extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to protected class membership.
  • Elected officials' lack of responsiveness to protected class communities.
  • Whether the challenged policy was designed to (and does) materially advance a valid and substantiated state interest.

Prohibited considerations:

  • Causes of polarized voting, including partisan explanations.
  • Number of protected class members not affected by the challenged policy.
  • Whether the challenged policy was widely used in the past. 
  • Whether policies similar or identical to the challenged policy have been used in other jurisdictions. 
  • The availability of other forms of voting. 
  • Mere invocation of bolstering voter confidence or preventing fraud. 
  • Unsubstantiated defenses that the challenged policy is necessary to address criminal activity. 
  • Lack of evidence of intent to discriminate.
  • Whether the protected class typically elects candidates of their choice in approximate proportion to their share of the population.

Yes

Yes

Yes. Required when:

  • At least 200 individuals who comprise at least 2% of the eligible voter population speak a language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • More than 4,000 eligible voters speak a single shared language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
  • For a local government that contains part of a Native American reservation, more than 2% of the Native American eligible voter population is proficient in a language other than English and have limited English proficiency.
NCSL - National Conference of State Legislatures published this content on June 04, 2025, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on June 04, 2025 at 16:48 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at support@pubt.io