To amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes.
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
IntroducedMr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schumer, …
Summary
What This Bill Does
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025 restores and strengthens federal oversight of state and local voting laws that was weakened by the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision. It creates a new formula to determine which states and localities must get federal approval before changing their voting rules, based on their recent history of voting rights violations rather than decades-old data.
Who Benefits and How
Racial and language minority voters - including Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American communities - benefit from stronger federal protections against discriminatory voting practices. The bill makes it easier to challenge restrictive voting laws in court and ensures minority communities receive advance notice of election rule changes. Civil rights organizations and voting rights attorneys gain expanded ability to sue on behalf of voters, with better chances of recovering legal fees when they win.
Who Bears the Burden and How
State and local election officials in jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination face the most significant new requirements. They must submit voting changes to federal review, maintain public databases of election rule changes, and comply with stricter transparency requirements. States that have recently passed restrictive voting laws - particularly those enacted since January 2021 - may face legal challenges under the bill's new retrogression standard. Small jurisdictions (under 10,000 population) can receive federal grants to help with compliance costs.
Key Provisions
- Establishes a new coverage formula: States with 15+ voting rights violations in the past 25 years (or 10+ including at least one by the state itself) must preclear voting changes with the federal government
- Creates "practice-based preclearance" requiring federal review of specific types of voting changes in jurisdictions with 20%+ minority populations, including changes to voter ID, polling place closures, and redistricting
- Strengthens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by clarifying vote dilution and denial standards, codifying the Thornburg v. Gingles test, and prohibiting voting changes that make it harder for minorities to vote (retroactive to January 1, 2021)
- Extends bilingual election requirements through 2037 and adds protections for Native American voters on tribal lands
- Creates new criminal penalties for voter intimidation and for election officials who refuse to certify valid election results
- Expands the Attorney General's enforcement powers and allows private citizens to bring voting rights lawsuits more easily
Evidence Chain:
This summary is derived from the structured analysis below. See "Detailed Analysis" for per-title beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
Primary Purpose
Amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to establish new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions are subject to federal preclearance requirements, and strengthens protections against vote denial, dilution, and discrimination.
Policy Domains
Legislative Strategy
"Restore and strengthen federal voting rights protections that were weakened by Shelby County v. Holder (2013), using a new coverage formula based on recent voting rights violations rather than historical data"
Likely Beneficiaries
- Racial minority voters (African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans)
- Language minority groups
- Native American/Alaska Native voters on tribal lands
- Civil rights organizations
- Voting rights advocacy groups
- Federal election oversight agencies (DOJ)
Likely Burden Bearers
- State governments in covered jurisdictions
- County and local election administrators
- Political subdivisions with history of voting rights violations
- States seeking to change election laws without federal review
- Political parties benefiting from restrictive voting practices
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "the_court"
- → United States District Court for the District of Columbia
- "the_attorney_general"
- → United States Attorney General
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
A final judgment finding denial or abridgement of voting rights on account of race, color, or language minority group; denial of declaratory judgment under sections 3(c) or 5; objection by the Attorney General; or consent decree/settlement admitting liability for voting discrimination
Specific types of voting changes that require preclearance: changes to method of election, changes to political subdivision boundaries, redistricting changes, changes to documentation requirements, changes to multilingual materials, and changes that reduce voting locations or opportunities
When political processes are not equally open to participation by members of a protected class, resulting in less opportunity to participate and elect representatives of their choice, governed by Thornburg v. Gingles standard
When members of a protected class face greater difficulty complying with a voting standard, practice, or procedure, and such difficulty is caused by or linked to social and historical conditions producing discrimination
Any American Indian or Alaska Native area, as defined by the Census Bureau
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology