How Americans vote: a timeline, 1965 to today
A dated list of changes to how Americans vote: district maps, polling places and drop boxes, voting laws and rules, and courts and election officials. Each entry says who did what and when, shows what became of it, and links to the page it rests on. Attempts that failed are listed as failed. Entries that rest on a news report name the outlet.
Nationwide
2026
-
Democratic plaintiffs ask for fast-tracked discovery in their suit over federal pressure on election officials
On October 23, 2026, the plaintiffs in DSCC v. Trump (No. 1:26-cv-03674-JEB, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) filed a motion for expedited discovery. The plaintiffs are the DSCC, the DCCC, the Democratic Governors Association, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem S. Jeffries, the Nevada State Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez. The motion asks for all non-privileged communications the defendants have sent since July 1, 2026 to state or local election officials demanding or requesting that they remove specific registered voters from statewide lists, refuse ballots to specific voters, or set aside or not count ballots returned by specific voters, plus answers to interrogatories. It says the plaintiffs are "seriously contemplating" a request for emergency relief before the November 3 election, and cites an October 21, 2026 order allowing narrow expedited discovery in NAACP v. DHS in the same court.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Federal judge bars Homeland Security election field operations aimed at people believed to be citizens in nine states
On October 21, 2026, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in California Nurses Association v. Mullin (No. 4:26-cv-10680), a suit by the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara and the Voto Latino Foundation. The order says that in August 2026 the Department of Homeland Security started an "Unlawful Voter Initiative" that had Citizenship and Immigration Services build lists of people to investigate, and that an August 31 guidance told agents to prioritize field questioning about voter eligibility in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. The court enjoined the department from election-related field operations and interviews in those nine states that involve people it knows, suspects or should reasonably suspect are U.S. citizens, and from field operations there based wholly on records from its voter eligibility matching. The order runs until polls close on November 3, 2026, and was stayed until 5 p.m. on October 23, 2026.
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
Appeals in the Massachusetts Executive Order 14399 and Postal Service cases are voluntarily dismissed
On October 15, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit entered judgment in Nos. 26-1987, 26-1988, 26-1989 and 26-1991, appeals in State of California v. United States Postal Service and League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump. Upon the appellants' unopposed motions, the court ordered "that these appeals be voluntarily dismissed" under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2), with the mandate to issue forthwith. The judgment was entered on the district court docket on October 16, 2026.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
Federal court vacates Justice Department voter-roll policy in Common Cause v. Department of Justice
On October 9, 2026, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, who challenged a Civil Rights Division policy of demanding state voter registration lists and urging removals. The opinion says "The Court therefore sets aside and vacates the challenged policy under the Administrative Procedure Act." The Justice Department argued it has statutory authority for the policy.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Democratic leaders and party committees sue to bar federal orders removing voters or holding back ballots
The Associated Press reported on October 21, 2026 that Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Governors Association sued in federal court in Washington (the AP says the suit was filed Tuesday, October 20). The suit names President Trump, the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Markwayne Mullin. It asks for an order barring the administration from removing legally registered voters from statewide voter lists or denying ballots to them, and a ruling that the administration illegally threatened state election officials with prosecution. It cites the Justice Department's suit over California mail ballots. The AP reports the case was assigned to Chief Judge James Boasberg and that the Justice Department said its actions are grounded in law.
- Democrats sue to block Trump administration from usurping states' authority to administer elections (AP, Oct. 21, 2026) ↗ News report, Associated Press (via WKMG)
- "Democratic-Aligned Groups Sue Over Federal Crackdown on Voting" (quoting The New York Times) ↗ News report, Election Law Blog
- Docket, DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03674 (D.D.C., filed October 20, 2026) ↗
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Supreme Court grants stay in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, on voter citizenship checks
On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam order on an application for stay, granted the government's request in a case about the modified SAVE program, which lets state and local agencies check the citizenship status of registered voters against Social Security Administration records. The Court said it was "likely to reverse the District Court's holding that the federal defendants violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA." The order says that Executive Order 14248 directed the Department of Homeland Security to put new systems in place for that purpose.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Federal court in Washington enjoins the Postal Service ballot mail rule
On September 13, 2026, Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary injunctions against the Postal Service's final ballot-mail rule in three consolidated cases. The opinion says "no statute grants the Postal Service the power to issue key parts of the Rule" and that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rule was ultra vires.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
First Circuit refuses to stay the Massachusetts preliminary injunction against parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule
On September 4, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered a memorandum and order granting the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump and the related states' case (Nos. 1:26-cv-11549 and 1:26-cv-13917), and the federal defendants and twelve intervening states appealed the same day. On September 10, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Nos. 26-2029 to 26-2032) denied the motions for a stay. Its order says the district court concluded the final rule was likely unconstitutional and found it would be impossible for states to comply in the time left before November 3, and that the appellants "have failed to meet their burden for disturbing any aspect of the district court's preliminary injunction order." The Postal Service's request for an administrative stay was denied as moot.
- League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, 1st Cir. Nos. 26-2029 to 26-2032, order of court entered September 10, 2026 (D. Mass. Doc. 296) ↗
- Docket, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-11549 (D. Mass.), entries 285 to 287 (September 4, 2026) ↗
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
Federal court in Massachusetts temporarily stays parts of the Postal Service ballot-mail rule for the 2026 election
On August 27, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part the plaintiffs' motions for a temporary restraining order in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (No. 1:26-cv-11549) and State of California v. United States Postal Service (No. 1:26-cv-13917). The court granted "an emergency fourteen-day stay" of listed sections of the final rule as to elections on or before November 3, 2026, including the sections making the ballot mail envelope standards and registration in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory, and ordered that the Postal Service defendants "may take no further preparatory steps" to implement them for those elections. The motions for preliminary injunctions remained under advisement.
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
Federal court in Massachusetts finds the government violated its injunction by issuing the Postal Service ballot-mail rule
On August 25, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled on an emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (No. 1:26-cv-11549). The order says the Postal Service completed rulemaking on Friday evening, August 21, 2026, by sending a final rule implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14399 to the Office of the Federal Register, although the injunction barred "initiating or completing rulemaking" for the November 3, 2026 election. The court "finds that Defendants violated the court's Preliminary Injunction but imposes no remedy other than identifying the violation."
Source last checked Oct 24, 2026
-
Supreme Court stays the Massachusetts injunction against parts of Executive Order 14399 in Trump v. California
On August 24, 2026, in No. 26A124 (with No. 26A139), the Supreme Court granted the Government's application for a stay in a per curiam opinion. The Court wrote that "the Government is likely to prevail on the merits of its argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment," because the Order "imposes no obligations on the States" and the States had not shown an injury that gives them standing. The injunction entered in No. 1:26-cv-11581 (D. Mass.) is stayed pending appeal to the First Circuit and any petition for certiorari. The Court added that its ruling "does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful." Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed dissents. The application in No. 26A139 was denied as moot.
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Federal court in Massachusetts enjoins Postal Service implementation of Section 3 of Executive Order 14399
On August 11, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump. As to elections on or before November 3, 2026, the court "ENJOINS the USPS's implementation of Section 3 of the EO."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Watson v. Republican National Committee
On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day."
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
Federal court in Massachusetts declares parts of Executive Order 14399 void in a suit by states
On June 25, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to a group of states and the District of Columbia. The court ordered and declared that "Sections 2 and 3 of the EO are legally void as they are ultra vires and unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers, and that Section 5 of the EO is merely precatory," and enjoined agencies from implementing Sections 2 and 3 for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier federal election in the plaintiff states.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Federal court in Washington denies preliminary injunctions against Executive Order 14399
On May 28, 2026, Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied motions for preliminary injunctions in three consolidated cases against Executive Order 14399. On the postal-rulemaking provision the court wrote that, because the Postal Service had not yet issued a proposed rule, "Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Supreme Court vacates the Eighth Circuit judgment in Turtle Mountain v. Howe and remands in light of Louisiana v. Callais
On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the petition in No. 25-253, vacated the Eighth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais. Justice Jackson dissented, writing that the case "presents only the question of Section 2's private enforceability, which our decision in Louisiana v. Callais ... did not address," and that she would summarily reverse. The docket records the Court's judgment as issued on June 22, 2026.
Source last checked Oct 21, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Louisiana v. Callais
On April 29, 2026, after reargument on October 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held: "Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
Justice Department's voter roll lawsuits reach 29 states and the District of Columbia
On February 26, 2026, the Justice Department announced lawsuits against Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia and New Jersey over their full voter registration lists. Court outcomes in the individual suits are not recorded in this entry. The release says this "brings the Justice Department's nationwide total to 29 states and the District of Columbia."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
On January 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election."
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
2025
-
Federal court permanently bars the Election Assistance Commission from implementing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248
On October 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined the Election Assistance Commission, its commissioners and its executive director from implementing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248. The court wrote that "this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes" to federal election procedures.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Justice Department sues Oregon and Maine for statewide voter registration lists
On September 16, 2025, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division announced lawsuits against Oregon and Maine and their secretaries of state, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 by refusing to provide unredacted statewide voter registration lists and information on voter list maintenance. Court outcomes in the individual suits are not recorded in this entry.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Supreme Court stays Eighth Circuit mandate in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe
On July 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an application in No. 25A62, staying the issuance of the mandate of the Eighth Circuit in No. 23-3655 pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have denied it. The applicants wrote that "private plaintiffs can no longer enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in the Eighth Circuit" as a result of the decision below. Later steps in the case are not recorded in this entry.
- Docket 25A62, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (U.S. Supreme Court) ↗
- Application for stay, No. 25A62 (U.S. Supreme Court docket) ↗
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Federal court in Massachusetts blocks parts of Executive Order 14248 in a suit by 19 states
On June 13, 2025, Judge Denise Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction in a suit by attorneys general of nineteen states. The court enjoined implementation of Sections 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 7(a) and 7(b) of Executive Order 14248, and said the injunction as to Sections 2(a), 2(d) and 3(d) applies as to all states.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Eighth Circuit holds private plaintiffs cannot use Section 1983 to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
On May 14, 2025, a divided Eighth Circuit panel in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, No. 23-3655, wrote that "private plaintiffs" cannot "maintain a private right of action for alleged violations of § 2 through 42 U.S.C. § 1983." It vacated the North Dakota district court's judgment and remanded with instructions that the case be dismissed for want of a cause of action. Chief Judge Colloton dissented, writing that he would affirm the district court's judgment. The panel relied on its 2023 decision in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, which held that Section 2 has no implied private right of action.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Federal court in Washington blocks parts of Executive Order 14248
On April 24, 2025, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary injunctions in three consolidated cases. The court enjoined the Election Assistance Commission from implementing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248 (documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form) and enjoined certain agencies from implementing Section 2(d). It denied the motions as to Sections 2(b), 7(a) and 7(b).
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2024
-
Supreme Court decides Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The District Court's finding that race predominated in the design of District 1 in the Enacted Plan was clearly erroneous" in a challenge to South Carolina's congressional map.
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Trump v. Anderson
On March 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Trump excluded from Colorado's 2024 Presidential primary ballot."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
2023
-
Supreme Court decides Moore v. Harper
On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review." The case arose from a challenge to North Carolina's congressional map.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Allen v. Milligan
On June 8, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's finding that voters had shown a reasonable likelihood of success in claiming that the congressional map Alabama adopted for its 2022 elections (HB1) violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The lower court had preliminarily barred Alabama from using that map.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2021
-
Supreme Court decides Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
On July 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Arizona's out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 do not violate § 2 of the VRA, and HB 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose." The case concerned rules on counting ballots cast in the wrong precinct and on who may collect early ballots.
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2020
-
Supreme Court denies Texas's motion to file a suit over other states' 2020 election procedures
On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered in Texas v. Pennsylvania: "The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2019
-
Supreme Court decides Department of Commerce v. New York, on a census citizenship question
On June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a challenge to the Commerce Secretary's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The syllabus says "The Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire," and the judgment was "affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Rucho v. Common Cause
On June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided cases from North Carolina and Maryland in which voters challenged congressional maps as partisan. The Court held that such claims present "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2018
-
Supreme Court decides Gill v. Whitford
On June 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to Wisconsin's state legislative map as a partisan one. The Court held that "The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA."
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U.S. 756 (2018), U.S. Reports, Volume 584 (Supreme Court) ↗
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980 (U.S. June 11, 2018), syllabus and opinions (Cornell Legal Information Institute copy) ↗
Source last checked Oct 22, 2026
-
President terminates the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
Executive Order 13820, dated January 3, 2018 and published January 8, 2018, revoked Executive Order 13799 and states that "the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is accordingly terminated."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2017
-
Supreme Court decides Cooper v. Harris
On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed North Carolina's congressional Districts 1 and 12. The syllabus says the lower court "did not err in concluding that race furnished the predominant rationale for District 1's redesign and that the State's interest in complying with the VRA could not justify that consideration of race."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
President establishes the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
Executive Order 13799, dated May 11, 2017 and published May 16, 2017, established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, chaired by the Vice President, to "study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2016
-
Supreme Court decides Evenwel v. Abbott
On April 4, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "a State or locality may draw its legislative districts based on total population," according to its syllabus.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
2013
-
Supreme Court decides Shelby County v. Holder
On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and that its formula can no longer be used as a basis for requiring places to get federal approval ("preclearance") before changing voting procedures.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Arizona's evidence-of-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal Form applicants, is pre-empted by the NVRA's mandate that States 'accept and use' the Federal Form."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
President establishes the Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Executive Order 13639, dated March 28, 2013 and published April 3, 2013, established the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. The order says the commission "shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections."
Source last checked Oct 20, 2026
2009
-
Supreme Court decides Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder
On June 22, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act "must be interpreted to permit all political subdivisions, including the district, to seek to bail out from the preclearance requirements," and so did not decide the constitutional question. The syllabus also says the Act "now raises serious constitutional concerns."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides Bartlett v. Strickland
On March 9, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a North Carolina ruling. A three-Justice opinion concluded that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act "does not require state officials to draw election-district lines to allow a racial minority that would make up less than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the redrawn district to join with crossover voters to elect the minority's candidate of choice."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
2008
-
Supreme Court decides Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
On April 28, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling upholding Indiana's photo identification law (SEA 483). Justice Stevens, joined by two other Justices, concluded that "the evidence in the record does not support a facial attack on SEA 483's validity."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
2006
-
Supreme Court decides Purcell v. Gonzalez
On October 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Ninth Circuit order that had blocked Arizona's new voter identification requirements before the November election. The Court said that vacating the order "shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the requirements" and expressed "no opinion on the correct disposition of the appeals."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides LULAC v. Perry
On June 28, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court decided challenges to Texas's 2003 congressional redistricting. The Court's syllabus says "Texas' redrawing of District 23's lines amounts to vote dilution violative of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
2000
-
Supreme Court decides Bush v. Gore
On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order for manual recounts. The Court's syllabus says "any recount seeking to meet 3 U.S.C. § 5's December 12 'safe-harbor' date would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1993
-
Supreme Court decides Shaw v. Reno
On June 28, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court held that voters stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that a reapportionment plan was "so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate districts on the basis of race," without sufficient justification.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1986
-
Supreme Court decides Thornburg v. Gingles
On June 30, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court decided its first case under the 1982 version of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The syllabus says minority voters who contend that a multimember form of districting violates Section 2 "must prove that the use of a multimember electoral structure operates to minimize or cancel out their ability to elect their preferred candidates."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1980
-
Supreme Court decides City of Mobile v. Bolden
On April 22, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower-court ruling against Mobile, Alabama's at-large election system. Four Justices concluded that "Racially discriminatory motivation is a necessary ingredient of a Fifteenth Amendment violation." Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 1982.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1970
-
Supreme Court decides Oregon v. Mitchell
On December 21, 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the 1970 Voting Rights Act Amendments. The Court's syllabus says the 18-year-old minimum-age requirement is valid for national elections but not valid for state and local elections, and that the literacy test provision is valid.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1969
-
Supreme Court decides Allen v. State Board of Elections
On March 3, 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Private litigants may invoke the jurisdiction of the district courts to obtain relief under § 5" of the Voting Rights Act, according to the Court's syllabus.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
1966
-
Supreme Court decides Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
On March 24, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "a State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The case concerned Virginia's poll tax.
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
-
Supreme Court decides South Carolina v. Katzenbach
On March 7, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided South Carolina's challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court held that "the sections of the Act properly before this Court are a valid effectuation of the Fifteenth Amendment."
Source last checked Oct 23, 2026
How this timeline is built
Every entry rests on at least one source that was opened and read, and that source states the date and the fact. Courts, legislatures, election offices, the Justice Department, the Census Bureau, the Federal Register and Congress.gov come first. A news report is used only when no official page states the fact, and it is labeled with the outlet's name. Encyclopedias are not used as sources. History starts in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. County names come from the Census Bureau's 2024 Gazetteer. Congressional district numbers are those in use for the 2026 election; an event is tagged to a district only when its source names that congressional district.
When a later event changes an earlier one, such as a law later struck down, both entries are listed and point to each other. This page does not predict outcomes or say which party a change helps. U.S. House maps for 2026 · Back to the 2026 voting center.