By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The struggle for the right to vote remains a central theme in the story of American democracy. Recently, a federal court blocked a major executive attempt to restrict voter registration rules (ag.state.mn.us). On June 24, 2026, a federal judge permanently stopped an executive order that required strict proof of citizenship (ag.state.mn.us). This decision marked a major victory for civil rights advocates across the nation (ag.state.mn.us).

On that same day, lawmakers introduced federal legislation in Congress to protect ballot access (house.gov). Known as the "Right to Vote Act," this bill aims to create an affirmative right to vote (senate.gov). Together, these events show that the historical battle for the ballot box is far from over. This ongoing conflict reveals the deep divisions regarding who is allowed to participate in American democracy.

The legal challenge began when President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14248 in March 2025 (ag.state.mn.us). This order attempted to withhold federal funding from states that did not require documentary proof of citizenship (ag.state.mn.us). Specifically, it threatened to strip Help America Vote Act funds from states like Minnesota (ag.state.mn.us). Additionally, the order directed states to throw out mail-in ballots received after Election Day (ag.state.mn.us).

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison led a coalition of 19 state attorneys general to challenge this policy (ag.state.mn.us). They argued that the executive branch had exceeded its constitutional authority (ag.state.mn.us). In June 2026, the federal court agreed and permanently blocked the executive order (ag.state.mn.us). This ruling preserved millions of dollars in federal election funding (ag.state.mn.us). More importantly, it protected the rights of voters who rely on mail-in ballots and accessible voting systems (ag.state.mn.us). This represents a major victory against voter disenfranchisement in the United States.

Source: Brennan Center, VoteRiders, and CDCE Survey Data (brennancenter.org)

To understand this modern clash, one must look at the history of voting barriers. After the Civil War, the nation ratified the 15th Amendment to protect Black voters (archives.gov). However, Southern states quickly enacted local laws to bypass these protections (constitutioncenter.org). They created grandfather clauses, literacy tests, and poll taxes to silence Black voices (constitutioncenter.org, naacp.org).

Louisiana enacted the first grandfather clause in 1896 (constitutioncenter.org). Other states quickly followed (constitutioncenter.org). This rule exempted people from literacy tests only if their ancestors could vote before the Civil War (constitutioncenter.org). Since newly freed Black people had been enslaved, they were completely shut out (constitutioncenter.org). Later, civil rights activists fought back against these barriers. On March 7, 1965, peaceful marchers in Selma, Alabama, were brutally beaten on "Bloody Sunday" (naacp.org). This national tragedy galvanized public support (naacp.org). Consequently, it forced Congress to pass the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 (naacp.org).

Supporters of strict registration rules often argue that undocumented voting is a widespread problem (brennancenter.org). They push bills like the "SAVE America Act" to mandate physical proof of citizenship (brennancenter.org). However, studies show that non-citizen voting is incredibly rare (brennancenter.org). A national audit of the 2016 election found only 30 suspected cases of non-citizen voting out of 23.5 million ballots (brennancenter.org). This is a rate of only 0.0001 percent (brennancenter.org).

Even conservative states have confirmed these findings through official audits (michigan.gov). In September 2025, the Republican Secretary of State in Louisiana conducted a massive study (michigan.gov). The audit reviewed over 74 million votes cast over a forty-year period (michigan.gov). It found only 79 possible cases of non-citizens voting (michigan.gov). The secretary concluded that non-citizen voting is not a systemic issue in Louisiana (michigan.gov). Therefore, these strict rules do not solve a real problem. Instead, they create unnecessary barriers for eligible American citizens (brennancenter.org).

Source: Brennan Center National Audit of 42 Jurisdictions (brennancenter.org)

Requiring physical papers to register to vote has a devastating impact on millions of citizens (brennancenter.org). According to national surveys, approximately 21.3 million voting-age Americans lack ready access to their birth certificates or passports (brennancenter.org). This represents about nine percent of the eligible population (brennancenter.org). Furthermore, about 3.8 million citizens completely lack any form of citizenship documentation (brennancenter.org).

These requirements fall heavily on marginalized groups (brennancenter.org). Eleven percent of voting-age citizens of color do not have ready access to these documents (brennancenter.org). In contrast, only eight percent of white citizens face this issue (brennancenter.org). Many older Black citizens were born at home during the era of legal segregation (brennancenter.org). Consequently, they were never issued official birth certificates (brennancenter.org). Obtaining replacement documents requires time, money, and travel (brennancenter.org). For low-income voters, these requirements function as a modern-day poll tax (brennancenter.org).

The struggle over voting rules also involves the balance of power between federal and state governments. This system, known as federalism, gives states primary control over local election administration (justia.com). However, federal laws like the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) provide vital financial support (eac.gov). Passed in 2002, HAVA modernizes voting equipment and ensures accessibility (eac.gov).

HAVA was created in response to the controversial 2000 presidential election (eac.gov). It established the Election Assistance Commission to distribute federal funds and set standards (eac.gov). These funds help local jurisdictions secure voting technology and train workers (eac.gov). When Executive Order No. 14248 threatened to withhold these funds, it threatened local election security (ag.state.mn.us). Depriving counties of resources makes it harder to run smooth elections (eac.gov). Consequently, the federal court's decision was critical to preserving the integrity of local voting systems (ag.state.mn.us).

In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act to expand ballot access (justice.gov). This law is commonly known as the "Motor Voter" act (justice.gov). It established a uniform federal mail-in registration form (justia.com). To prove citizenship, the federal form relies on self-attestation under penalty of perjury (justia.com). This process eliminates the need for physical paperwork during registration (justia.com).

The Supreme Court defended this federal standard in the 2013 case Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (loc.gov). Arizona had passed a law requiring physical proof of citizenship to register (loc.gov). Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court (loc.gov). He ruled that the federal law preempted the state law (loc.gov). Under the Constitution, states must accept and use the federal form (loc.gov). Therefore, the recent executive action directly contradicted established Supreme Court precedent (ag.state.mn.us).

While the 1993 law provided some relief, the Supreme Court has weakened other major protections (fairelectionscenter.org). In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (fairelectionscenter.org). This section contained the preclearance formula (fairelectionscenter.org). This formula required states with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing election laws (fairelectionscenter.org).

Without preclearance, states immediately passed restrictive voting laws (fairelectionscenter.org). These included strict voter ID requirements, polling place closures, and limits on early voting (fairelectionscenter.org). Later, the Supreme Court further weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the Brnovich decision (ct.gov). These rulings made it much harder to challenge discriminatory laws in court (ct.gov). Consequently, civil rights advocates must now fight these battles state by state (fairelectionscenter.org). This makes federal legislative intervention more urgent than ever (house.gov).

The introduction of the "Right to Vote Act" in June 2026 represents a direct response to these judicial setbacks (house.gov). Senator Jon Ossoff and Representative Summer Lee designed this bill to create the first-ever statutory right to vote (senate.gov). Surprisingly, the United States Constitution does not explicitly guarantee this right (harvardlawreview.org). Instead, it only lists reasons why the government cannot deny the vote (harvardlawreview.org).

This negative framing allows states to pass laws that make voting difficult (harvardlawreview.org). The "Right to Vote Act" would change this dynamic by establishing a clear federal right (senate.gov). If passed, any state law that restricts ballot access would face strict judicial scrutiny in court (senate.gov). This means the state must prove its law serves a compelling interest (wikipedia.org). Furthermore, the state must use the least restrictive means possible to achieve that goal (wikipedia.org). This shifts the legal burden from the voter back to the government (senate.gov).

Under the proposed Act, any restrictive policy is immediately challenged in court.

The state must prove that its restriction serves an essential, undeniable purpose.

The state must prove it could not achieve its goals through any less burdensome method.

In addition to racial disparities, strict document laws create massive administrative hurdles for other groups (brennancenter.org). For example, women who change their names after marriage or divorce face unique challenges (brennancenter.org). Their current legal names often do not match the names on their birth certificates (brennancenter.org). Correcting these discrepancies requires securing marriage licenses and court orders, which takes time and money (brennancenter.org).

Furthermore, document requirements are often circular (brennancenter.org). An individual often needs a birth certificate to get a driver's license (brennancenter.org). However, they also need a government ID to order a copy of their birth certificate (brennancenter.org). This leaves many eligible voters locked out of the system entirely (brennancenter.org). Students and young voters who move frequently also struggle to maintain matching documentation (brennancenter.org). Consequently, strict verification rules disproportionately silence younger and transient populations (brennancenter.org).

Ultimately, the battle over voting rules is a battle over the future of American democracy (ag.state.mn.us). The recent federal court victory highlights the importance of legal resistance (ag.state.mn.us). By blocking the executive order, the court ensured that states can continue to run accessible elections (ag.state.mn.us). However, court victories are often temporary and subject to appeal (fairelectionscenter.org).

To secure lasting change, federal legislation remains essential (house.gov). The "Right to Vote Act" offers a comprehensive solution to protect the ballot box (senate.gov). By codifying a statutory right to vote, Congress can establish a permanent shield against suppression (senate.gov). This legislative effort honors the legacy of civil rights pioneers who marched for equal representation after the Civil War (theusconstitution.org). It ensures that every eligible citizen can participate in the democratic process without facing unnecessary obstacles (senate.gov).

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.