To kick off its nonpartisan election protection work, Proskauer hosted a presentation on the current U.S. voting rights landscape featuring several Proskauer lawyers and Clay Pierce, a former Equal Justice Works Fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project (ACLU VRP) whose fellowship was co-sponsored by Proskauer. Pierce’s project focused on advancing the right to vote for people with disabilities.

The panel began with a discussion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Since the passage and reauthorization of the VRA, there have been several key Supreme Court cases limiting its scope and effect. The panelists highlighted Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), a 2013 Supreme Court case concerning Sections 4(b) and 5 of the VRA. Section 5 requires districts with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain authorization from the Attorney General or a panel of three Washington, D.C. district court judges to change their election laws. Section 4(b) outlines which districts are eligible to request to make changes to their election laws. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because it was no longer relevant and imposed on states’ rights to determine their own election laws. Id. at 550–551. Justice Ginsburg dissented, noting that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” Id. at 590.

This past June, the Supreme Court again limited the VRA in Louisiana v. Callais, which substantially curtailed protections guaranteed by Section 2 of the VRA. After the 2020 Census, Black voters challenged Louisiana’s congressional map in Robinson v. Ardoin, arguing that it violated Section 2 of the VRA by diluting minority voting strength. See Louisiana v. Callais, 146 S. Ct. 1131, 1148–1149 (2026). In response, Louisiana passed Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), a map that included two majority-Black districts to reflect their one-third share of the population. A group of plaintiffs challenged the map, arguing that the legislature relied too heavily on race when drawing the map and therefore committed unconstitutional racial gerrymandering under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 1151–1152.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s SB 8 map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court found that intentionally drawing legislative districts predominantly based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause unless narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest, and Louisiana lacked such interest. Id. at 1161–1162. It also held that Section 2 of the VRA only applies when the evidence raises a strong inference of intentional racial discrimination in the drawing of districts, and states are permitted to pursue nonracial districting goals, including furthering partisan or political considerations. Id. at 1157. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented, writing that Section 2 focused on the real-world effect of vote dilution, not discriminatory intent, and requiring proof of such discriminatory intent creates an impossible barrier for future VRA plaintiffs. Id. at 1176–1177.

The panelists also discussed the variety of voting laws that apply in states across the country. State legislation concerning voting varies significantly, making it easier to vote in some states than others. For example, the deadline to register to vote differs by state. Some states allow for same day registration while others require an individual to register 30 days before election day. The type of identification needed also varies. For example, in New Jersey, voters only need to show ID and provide a signature when they register to vote but do not need to present ID when voting.

Additionally, in California, all registered voters receive a mail-in ballot without needing to opt in or request one. In other states, such as New York, voters must apply to receive an early mail or absentee ballot. Voting eligibility based on criminal record also differs. In New York, people must re-register to vote after being released from incarceration, but their eligibility to register is automatically restored upon their release. However, in other states, such as Delaware, Virginia, and Florida, individuals convicted of certain felonies are permanently barred from voting unless the government approves restoration of their individual voting rights. Florida also bars formerly incarcerated people who have not paid all fines, fees, costs, and restitution ordered by the court at the time of sentencing from voting.

This fall, Proskauer lawyers will once again volunteer with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as part of LCCRUL’s non-partisan Election Protection hotline, designed to help all eligible voters successfully cast their votes. The hotline fields questions from all over the country, covering issues ranging from registration and polling place questions to reports of barriers to poll access.

Interns Carolina Cali and Gabrielle Wheeler contributed to the drafting of this post.