Hatch Act (1939, amended 1993)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321–7326)

2) Why It Was Done
The Hatch Act was passed to prevent federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity, ensuring that government functions are carried out in a nonpartisan, impartial manner.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
While the First Amendment protects political speech, Congress determined federal employees’ political activities could create conflicts of interest or coercion in the workplace. This Act carved out restrictions.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
The Act was enacted to enforce the 15th Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It responded to widespread voter suppression, including literacy tests, poll taxes, and intimidation.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
The 15th Amendment (1870) banned racial discrimination in voting, but enforcement was weak. States, especially in the South, used Jim Crow laws to suppress minority votes. The Act gave federal government direct enforcement power.

Voting Rights Act – Timeline of Key Laws & Amendments

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is one of the most important civil rights laws in U.S. history. It outlawed discriminatory voting practices and enforced the 15th Amendment. Over time, Congress expanded its protections — but recent court rulings have weakened them.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

• Prohibited literacy tests and other barriers to minority voting.
• Required jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to obtain federal preclearance before changing voting laws (Section 5).
• Authorized federal examiners to oversee elections in problem areas.

1970 Amendments

• Lowered the voting age in federal elections to 18 (later confirmed nationwide by the 26th Amendment).
• Expanded language assistance requirements.

1975 Amendments

• Extended protections to “language minority groups” (Spanish, Native American, Asian American, Alaskan Natives).
• Required bilingual voting materials in covered jurisdictions.

1982 Amendments

• Extended Section 5 preclearance for 25 years.
• Allowed plaintiffs to prove voting discrimination by showing discriminatory “effect,” not just intent.

2006 Reauthorization

• Renewed key provisions (including Section 5) for 25 more years with near-unanimous bipartisan support.

Supreme Court: Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

• Struck down the VRA’s coverage formula (Section 4(b)), effectively disabling preclearance under Section 5.
• After Shelby, states previously under preclearance could change voting laws without federal approval.

Recent Developments

• Congress has considered updates like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, but none have passed.
• The VRA’s Section 2 (ban on racial discrimination in voting) remains in effect, though litigation is ongoing in several states.

Why It Matters Today

The Voting Rights Act remains a cornerstone of American democracy. It:

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA, 1971; amended by BCRA 2002)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
FECA was enacted to regulate campaign finance, requiring disclosure of contributions and expenditures, setting limits on donations, and establishing enforcement mechanisms.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Earlier laws like the Tillman Act (1907) and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1925) attempted campaign finance reform but were weakly enforced. FECA created a comprehensive framework.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Arkansas amended its state constitution to impose term limits on its U.S. Senators and Representatives. The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, holding that states cannot add to the qualifications for Congress set in the U.S. Constitution.

3) Why It Mattered
The decision confirmed that only the Constitution itself can define qualifications for federal office, ensuring uniformity across all states.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
The 2000 presidential election came down to disputed results in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual recount, but the U.S. Supreme Court halted it, ruling that the lack of uniform recount standards violated the Equal Protection Clause. The decision effectively awarded Florida’s electoral votes—and the presidency—to George W. Bush.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Citizens United, a nonprofit, produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) restricted such electioneering communications by corporations and unions. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that these restrictions violated the First Amendment, holding that corporations and unions have the same free speech rights as individuals in the context of political spending.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required certain states and localities with histories of racial discrimination to get federal preclearance before changing voting laws. Shelby County, Alabama, challenged the coverage formula in Section 4(b). The Supreme Court struck down the formula as outdated, effectively nullifying preclearance.

3) Why It Mattered
The decision gutted one of the most powerful tools for preventing racial discrimination in voting. States previously covered by preclearance quickly passed restrictive voting laws.

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Voters in North Carolina and Maryland challenged congressional maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions beyond the reach of federal courts.

3) Why It Mattered
This case closed the door on federal challenges to partisan gerrymandering, leaving the issue to state courts and legislatures. It was a major setback for efforts to curb extreme redistricting.