The Voting Rights Cycle for African Americans (updated essay)

Voting rights for African Americans can be viewed as a repeating cycle from disenfranchisement and suppression (1789 to 1867) to enfranchisement and expansion (1867 to 1877) to disenfranchisement and suppression (1877 to 1965) to enfranchisement and expansion (1965 to 2013) and to disenfranchisement and suppression (post 2013). This essay looks at these periods and the factors that led to changes in the cycle of voting rights for African Americans in the United States.

1789 to 1867 – Disenfranchisement and Suppression

African Americans were not citizens until 1867 and could not vote. At the end of the Civil War in 1865, African Americans across the south held Freedmen’s Conventions and lobbied the national government for the passage of what would become the 14th Amendment (guarantee of citizenship rights for African Americans) and the 15th Amendment (guarantee of voting rights for African American men). Despite this, southern states moved quickly at the same time to make sure that African American males could not vote. They began enacting black codes that were designed specifically to limit the rights of newly freed African Americans to vote. In addition, the KKK and other segregationist groups used violence and intimidation to prevent African Americans from exercising voting rights.

1867 to 1877 (Reconstruction Era) – Enfranchisement and Expansion

The Reconstruction Era, created by the Radical Republicans in Congress, witnessed a dramatic expansion of the franchise and expansion of voting rights for African Americans. With the passage of the Reconstruction Act in 1867, the 14th Amendment in 1868, and the 15th Amendment in 1870 through the end of Reconstruction in 1877, federal examiners, supported by the US military, moved into the south and began the task of registering eligible voters. Some of these examiners were African Americans. For example, federal examiners, which included 52 African Americans, registered more than 80 percent of eligible male voters in the spring and fall of 1867 in the state of Georgia. As a direct result of this massive effort throughout the south, more than 1500 African American men were elected to office in southern states, including 20 members to the US House of Representatives and two US Senators. African Americans were elected to positions such as Lt. Governors, state senators and representatives, sheriffs, superintendents of schools, tax collectors, and members of city councils. Many led the fight to replace the black codes that had been passed in 1865 and 1866 with laws that protected the voting rights of African American citizens. They played a major role in the election of Republican Ulysses S. Grant as President and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. This expansion of the franchise for African Americans and voting rights came to an end in 1877 when the Republican Party agreed to return Southern states to home rule and end the military occupation in exchange for their support of the Republican candidate for president, Rutherford B. Hayes.

1877 to 1965 (Jim Crow Era) – Disenfranchisement and Suppression

The backlash to the dramatic enfranchisement and expansion of voting rights for African Americans during Reconstruction was the establishment of the Jim Crow system throughout the United States. It was led primarily by the Democratic Party in the south, most white southerners, and a Supreme Court that was favorable to these actions such as in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) and Plessy v Ferguson (1896). The Supreme Court, operating under the concept of dual federalism, essentially focused on the industrial revolution and the growth of the national economy while leaving individual rights to the actions of state governments and courts. Black codes (literacy tests, grandfather clauses, white primaries, poll taxes, voter roll purges, etc.) were enacted or re-enacted in state after state. They were designed specifically to disenfranchise and suppress African American voters. This, coupled with massive violence and intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan and other white segregationist groups, effectively rendered the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution impotent and led to a massive disenfranchisement and suppression of African American voters throughout the south and parts of the North until 1965. To illustrate, only seven percent of eligible African American were registered to vote in Mississippi in 1964. The vast majority of African Americans who were elected to office during Reconstruction quickly lost their positions. It was extremely rare to find an African American elected to a political office during the Jim Crow era.

Several factors led to the end of Jim Crow. These include the migration of African Americans from the rural south to the industrialized north; the more public and often heroic role of African Americans in WWII; and the NAACP chipping away at black codes over time via a growing activism by the Supreme Court such as Smith v Alright (1944) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The appearance of a new generation of African Americans and African American leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Ralph David Abernathy, Medgar Evers, Ruby Bridges, Claudette Colvin, etc., who were willing to engage in direct political activism and public confrontations via boycotts, sit-ins, Freedom Rides, and marches and demonstrations were crucial just as the simultaneous growth of a national media that brought pictures of these confrontations into every household in America was a necessity (think about the importance of the video of the murder of George Floyd). Finally, it required a President Lyndon Johnson who was willing to stake his future and the future of the Democratic Party on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

1965 to 2013 – Enfranchisement and Expansion

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 with its subsequent reauthorizations in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006 was the primary vehicle that led to dramatic increases in enfranchisement and expansion of voting rights for African Americans. Federal registrars went into areas that had a history of voting rights discrimination and began the process of registering African American voters. Eight days after the act became law, federal examiners registered 381 new African American voters in Selma, Alabama in one day. This was more than had registered to vote in the previous 65 years. By November, more than 8,000 new African American voters were registered and the following year, segregationist Sheriff Jim Clark who had led “Bloody Sunday,” was voted out of office due to African American voters. In 1964 only seven percent of African Americans were registered to vote in Mississippi and by 1969, more than 67 percent were registered to vote. This happened throughout the states and counties identified in the act. Only 23 percent of African Americans were registered to vote in those states and counties identified as having a voting rights discrimination history in 1964. By 1969, 61 percent were registered to vote. By 1985 there were more African Americans elected to office in the south than in the rest of the country combined.

To provide a check on any attempt to disenfranchise and suppress the African American vote, the states and counties that were identified in the 1965 Voting Rights Act had to receive a preclearance from the Department of Justice before any election laws could be changed. This prevented state legislatures from enacting voting or election legislation that would disenfranchise or suppress voting rights of African Americans and other minorities. The 2006 reauthorization of the act passed with a nearly unanimous vote in the US House and Senate. The highlights of this period of enfranchisement and expansion were the election of the first African American president; the presidential election of 2008 which was the most racially diverse and ethnically diverse voter turnout in US history at that time; and the election of 2012 in which more African Americans voted than whites as a percentage of eligible voters for the first time in history.

The backlash to this period of dramatic enfranchisement and expansion of voting rights for African Americans could be seen as early as the Reagan administration and was led by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Reagan gave voice to the white backlash to the African American civil rights demands for economic equity of the late 60s and 70s, the creation of majority-minority voting districts, minority business set-asides, affirmative action, bussing to achieve integration of public schools, and the expansion of the welfare state that supported what he called “welfare queens.” It was during the Reagan years that white working and middle classes and white evangelical Christians largely from the rural south and Midwest, became politically powerful in the Republican Party in their opposition to feminism, abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, and what they believed to be the impending loss of the country’s “Christian culture” not only to the growing secularization among young people but also the increased presence of other religions, nationalities, and races in America. White working-class individuals were just beginning to see the impact of de-industrialization on their livelihood and position in communities. These groups believed that a conservative Supreme Court was the best way to prevent the changes that they believed were eclipsing their position in America. By 2005, with the addition of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Court, one could see the beginning of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that would ultimately gut most of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

By the early to mid-1990s the shifting electoral bases for Democrats and Republicans had become evident with conservatives shifting to the Republican Party and liberals to the Democratic Party. Republicans consisted of primarily white Americans and the Democrats consisted of a multiracial coalition. African Americans had been a dominant force in the Democratic Party since 1965 and is illustrated by the fact that in the last 60 years Democratic presidential candidates received an average of almost 90 percent of the African American vote. A deepening of de-industrialization, the Great Recession under Bush and Obama, and the elections of 2008 and 2012 awakened white working- and middle-class Republicans to the very rapidly changing demographic and cultural shifts that were altering what they believed an America and an American should be. Demographics pointed to white Americans becoming a minority by 2035-50. Their America, as they saw it, was rapidly slipping away and their future position in society was becoming less secure. This ultimately played a role in their active support for voter disenfranchisement and suppression of people of color at the state level.

Post-2013 – Disenfranchisement and Suppression

It was the conservative majority on the US Supreme Court that completely cleared the way for Republican-led states, almost all in the south, to enact legislation that suppresses voting rights. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the US Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision suspended Section 5 requiring states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting (identified in section 4B) to get approval from the federal government before they could make changes to election rules, a process known as preclearance. To get permission or preclearance, the state or locality had to prove that any changes would not fall harder on racial and ethnic minorities than on white voters.  In the majority opinion, pointing to the fact that the racial turnout gap narrowed to near-zero in the elections of 2008 and 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the Voting Rights Act had done its job and preclearance could be suspended. In effect, the Supreme Court erased the most important component of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5 preclearance, which was responsible for preventing the enactment of election laws which discriminate against minorities.  Within days of the decision, Republican led states previously under the act began enacting laws which suppress the voting rights of minority voters.

Partisan gerrymandering is intertwined with issues of racial discrimination because African Americans vote disproportionately for the Democratic Party.  Gerrymandering for partisan purposes was declared legal by the Supreme Court decision Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) which declared such claims beyond federal court jurisdiction.  Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the 5-4 majority opinion. Federal courts are charged with resolving cases and controversies of a judicial nature.  He argued that questions of a political nature are “nonjusticiable,” and the courts cannot resolve such questions such as partisan gerrymandering.  He argued that in the absence of any “limited and precise standard” for evaluating partisan gerrymandering, federal courts cannot resolve such issues.  Roberts ignored the fact that academics and think tanks had developed several different reliable measures of partisan gerrymandering.  Partisan gerrymandering was now legal.  At the same time, he argued that racial gerrymandering remains illegal under the Voting Rights Act and 14th Amendment. This created a situation where politicians can draw districts favoring their party but cannot draw maps primarily based on race.  But what if the maps are drawn for partisan purposes but specifically engage in racial gerrymandering to achieve that end?

Despite the existence of voter suppression laws in many states and the worst pandemic in the history of the United States, the turnout (number of voters) for the 2020 presidential election was the highest in history and as a percentage of registered voters it was the highest in more than 100 years. Voters in some urban areas stood in line for more than 6 hours to vote. Many local voting registrars made decisions to make it easier to vote by mail to provide greater safety of voters during the pandemic. Biden won largely due to the African American vote, especially African American women; the extensive access to the mail-in ballot; the Asian American vote; votes by independents; the suburban vote, and the largest voter turnout (number of voters). The election was the most scrutinized and litigated in history and there was no evidence found of voter fraud. It should have been celebrated. Instead, President Trump and his Republican supporters began pushing the “Big Lie” that he had won and that the election was characterized by massive fraud.

On July 1 of 2021, the Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision in Brnovich v. the Democratic National Committee, ruled that recently enacted voting legislation in Arizona, which banned ballot collection of absentee and mail-in ballots by a third party and out of precinct voting, did not reach a significant level of disparate impact (discrimination effect or racial discrimination) nor did it show intent to discriminate and thus did not warrant protection from section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In effect, the ruling placed a higher standard of evidence to enact section 2. Despite a 5-4 ruling in Allen V. Milligan in 2023 which ordered Alabama to redraw its congressional district lines because of racial gerrymandering, the Brnovich case raised the standards of proof and made it much more difficult to use the Voting Rights Act to challenge racial gerrymandering.  These cases laid the groundwork for the recent Louisiana v. Callais decision (2026).

These Court rulings coupled with the “Big Lie” concerning the 2020 presidential election have led to new state restrictions placed upon voters since January of 2021 which have been shown to have disparate effects on minorities and people of color.  Perhaps even more significant, Republican led state legislators redrew district lines prior to the midterm elections in 2022. Typically, midterm elections favor the party that does not occupy the White House.  Were it not for the significance of the abortion issue and a large turnout, Republicans more than likely would have won a large majority in the House and the Senate. Meanwhile, voter suppression legislation in mostly Republican-led southern states continued to be passed at the state level.  These suppression actions included more stringent voting identification for absentee and mail-in ballots, reducing the overall time frame and the time each day in which early voting can take place, new or more stringent identification requirements for voter registration such as proof of citizenship, limiting the number of ballot drop off locations, especially in largely African-American districts, elimination of same day registration, and voter roll purges.

On April 27, 2026 the Supreme Court upheld its shadow docket ruling in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (2025) which upheld the midterm Texas redistricting map.  Several Hispanic and/or African American populations in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin were specifically divided in the midterm gerrymandering process.  Texas claimed the districts were redrawn for partisan gerrymandering purposes, not for racial gerrymandering.  In a 6 to 3 decision the court agreed with Texas. 

On April 29, 2016 the Supreme Court destroyed what little remained of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court eliminated the law’s protections against lawmakers drawing maps (gerrymandering) that dilute the political power of minorities such as African Americans. The opinion’s reasoning is based in part on a claim that is misleading and not factual. Stating that black and white turnout reached parity in “two of the five most recent Presidential elections,” Justice Samuel Alito assured Americans that racial disparities in voting are no longer a problem. But Alito’s claim represents “cherry-picking,” as he was not referring to recent elections, but to those in 2008 and 2012, the years that Barack Obama ran for president. In the three most recent presidential elections, the trend shows exactly the opposite. The indisputable fact is the racial turnout gap is widening, and the Roberts Court is partially responsible (Brennan Center).

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in her dissenting opinion stated “Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power…”  According to Ben Schneer of the Harvard Kennedy School, “if a state can make the case that the reason they drew a particular map was for partisan advantage, that’s a legitimate end now and can be used to protect against claims that a map is racially discriminatory. If a state can just argue, no, this is just done to gain political power, adding more Republican…seats, it’s very hard to see a way in which courts will rule against a map, even when it diminishes minority representation in practice…And we’re going to see that continue to play out over the next few years with the combination of this mid-decade redistricting and this recent Supreme Court decision.”  Republican-led southern states such as Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana immediately moved to further redraw their district lines to eliminate black majority districts under the motive of increasing Republican districts. Others are moving in that direction. These actions will reduce African American representation in Congress and state legislatures.

Where Do We Go from Here?

America is in another disenfranchisement and suppression cycle for African American voters. Is there anything that can be done to reverse it?  Some states, such as Michigan and Colorado, have developed Independent Regulatory Commissions, which draw legislative district lines in such a way as to avoid both partisan and racial gerrymandering.  According to the Campaign Legal Center and the Rainey Center these have been somewhat successful.  The problem is that most state legislators do not want to give up the power to redraw district lines.  Another option is for Congress to pass legislation to prevent both partisan and racial gerrymandering.  All of the current Republicans in the Senate who voted to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2006 are now in opposition to such legislation.  As long as Republicans control at least one house of the Congress or the Presidency this will not happen.  Should Democrats control the House, Senate, and the Presidency in the future, it is possible, but it still would require 60 votes in the Senate which would be unlikely.  Should the Republicans continue down the path of not expanding its voting base to people of color, changing demographics (birthrates) in America will eventually catch up with them and voting rights will probably be restored at some point between 2035 and 2050 when the country becomes a majority minority country (minorities outnumber whites). But can American democracy survive the wait?

See also my essays in my blog “The Voting Rights Cycle for African Americans” of July 15, 2021; “Commentary of Recent Voting Suppression Efforts” of March 10, 2021; “Voting Rights in America” of August 20, 2020; and “The New Florida Voting and Election Laws” of June 23, 2021. Facts and figures are from Ben Schneer, Sarah Pruitt, the Brennan Center for Justice, Edmund Drago, and Alex Tausanovitch. Any misstatements of facts are mi