PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 5, 2025
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025
This bill establishes new criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions must obtain preclearance before changes to voting practices may take effect. Preclearance is the process of receiving preapproval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making legal changes that would affect voting rights.
A state and all of its political subdivisions shall be subject to preclearance of voting practice changes for a 10-year period if, during the previous 25 years:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state;
10 or more violations occurred, at least 1 of which was committed by the state itself; or
3 or more violations occurred and the state administers the elections.
A political subdivision as a separate unit shall also be subject to preclearance for a 10-year period if three or more voting rights violations occurred there during the previous 25 years.
States and political subdivisions that meet certain thresholds regarding minority groups must preclear covered practices before implementation, such as redistricting.
States and political subdivisions must notify the public of changes to voting practices.
The bill authorizes DOJ to require states or political subdivisions to provide certain documents or answers to questions for enforcing voting rights.
The bill outlines factors courts must consider when hearing challenges to voting practices, such as the extent of any history of official voting discrimination in the state or political subdivision.
People & committees
Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7] · D–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 6, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.14 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.14 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.14 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.14 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would change how voters challenge racial and language-minority discrimination in voting. It would require federal approval before certain state and local voting changes take effect, expand public notice requirements, and let affected people bring additional enforcement lawsuits. Election officials would face new review and disclosure duties, while courts would apply new rules for voting-rights cases. These are proposed changes in the supplied introduced version, not established changes to law.
A violation of subsection (a) resulting in vote denial or abridgment is established if the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure— (A) results or will result in members of a protected class facing greater costs or burdens in participating in the political process than other voters;
ensure that no such covered practice is implemented unless or until the State or political subdivision, as the case may be, complies with subsection (c).
the State or political subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice in such State or political subdivision and on the website of the State or political subdivision, of a concise description of the change
an aggrieved person or (in the name of the United States) the Attorney General may institute an action in a district court of the United States, for a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction, or such other order as may be appropriate
For challenges alleging that an election district or representation system weakens a protected group's voting strength, plaintiffs would first have to establish three things: the group could form a majority in a geographically compact district represented by one member; its members generally vote together; and other residents generally vote together enough to defeat its preferred candidates. A protected group could include a politically cohesive coalition of different racial or language-minority groups.
To prevail in demonstrating that a representational, districting, or apportionment scheme results in vote dilution, a plaintiff shall, as a threshold matter, establish that— (A) the members of the protected class are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; (B) the members of the protected class are politically cohesive; and (C) the residents of that district who are not the members of the protected class usually vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable them to defeat the preferred candidates of the members of the protected class.
A class of citizens protected by subsection (a) may include a cohesive coalition of members of different racial or language minority groups.
Meeting those initial vote-dilution tests would not automatically establish a violation. Courts would then examine the overall circumstances, including discrimination history, racial divisions in voting, discriminatory election practices, access to candidate selection, discrimination that hinders political participation, racial campaign appeals, and minority representation in office. Courts could also consider officials' responsiveness and whether the challenged policy materially advances a valid, supported state interest.
Upon a plaintiff establishing the required threshold showing under paragraph (1), a court shall conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote dilution to determine whether there was a violation of subsection (a)
(A) The extent of any history of official voting discrimination in the State or political subdivision that affected the right of members of the protected class to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the political process. (B) The extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized. (C) The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the members of the protected class, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other qualifications, prerequisites, standards, practices, or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the members of the protected class. (D) If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the protected class have been denied access to that process. (E) The extent to which members of the protected class in the State or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination, both public or private, in such areas as education, employment, health, housing, and transportation, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. (F) Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals. (G) The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
a court may consider such other factors as the court may determine to be relevant, including— (A) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the protected class
a court shall consider whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in question was designed to advance and materially advances a valid and substantiated State interest.
A voting rule would violate the proposed vote-denial standard if it creates greater participation costs or burdens for a protected group and those burdens are at least partly linked to discriminatory social or historical conditions. The rule would need to be a but-for cause of the discriminatory result or perpetuate existing burdens or costs. Neither the number nor percentage of affected voters would decide the issue by itself, and the affected area could be smaller than the jurisdiction applying the rule.
(A) results or will result in members of a protected class facing greater costs or burdens in participating in the political process than other voters; and (B) the greater costs or burdens are, at least in part, caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that have produced or produce on the date of such challenge discrimination against members of the protected class.
In determining the existence of a burden for purposes of subparagraph (A), the absolute number or the percent of voters affected or the presence of voters who are not members of a protected class in the affected area shall not be dispositive, and the affected area may be smaller than the jurisdiction to which the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure applies.
The challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure need only be a but-for cause of the discriminatory result described in paragraph (1) or perpetuate a pre-existing burdens or costs.
Vote-denial cases would examine whether a practice amplifies past or present discrimination, without requiring a fixed number or combination of factors. Courts could not rely on a practice's age, its use elsewhere, or unsupported claims about preventing crime. Other voting methods would not count as a defense unless the jurisdiction simultaneously expands them to eliminate the disproportionate burden.
The factors described in subparagraph (A), individually and collectively, shall be considered as a means of establishing that a voting practice amplifies the effects of past or present discrimination in violation in subsection (a). (C) A plaintiff need not show any particular combination or number of factors to establish a violation of subsection (a).
The factors that are relevant to a totality of the circumstances analysis with respect to a claim of vote denial or abridgement do not include the following: (A) The degree to which the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has a long pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date. (B) The use of an identical or similar qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in other States or jurisdictions. (C) The availability of other forms of voting unimpacted by the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure to all members of the electorate, including members of the protected class, unless the jurisdiction is simultaneously expanding such other practices to eliminate any disproportionate burden imposed by the challenged qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. (D) Unsubstantiated defenses that the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is necessary to address criminal activity.
Intentional-discrimination claims would require proof of discriminatory impact, but discrimination would need to be only one purpose of the voting rule. An additional purpose of helping a political party would not excuse intentional discrimination. Plaintiffs would not also have to establish a violation under the separate vote-dilution or vote-denial results tests.
Discrimination on account of race, color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) need only be one purpose of a qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure to demonstrate a violation of subsection (a).
A qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure intended to dilute minority voting strength or to make it more difficult for minority voters to cast a ballot that will be counted violates this subsection even if an additional purpose of the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure is to benefit a particular political party or group.
Claims under this subsection require proof of a discriminatory impact but do not require proof of a violation pursuant to subsection (b) or (c).
The bill would prohibit voting changes intended to reduce, or having the effect of reducing, protected citizens' ability to participate in elections or elect preferred candidates. This rule against backsliding would apply to state and local actions taken on or after January 1, 2021. Final decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on applications or petitions for preclearance under Voting Rights Act section 5 would supersede this rule.
has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to participate in the electoral process or elect their preferred candidates of choice.
This subsection applies to any action taken on or after January 1, 2021, by a State or political subdivision to enact or seek to administer any such qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure.
final decisions of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia on applications or petitions by States or political subdivisions for preclearance under section 5 of any changes in voting prerequisites, standards, practices, or procedures, supersede the provisions of subsection (f).
For provisions governing continued court oversight and related enforcement, the bill would expand the listed violations beyond the 14th and 15th Amendments to include the Voting Rights Act and other federal laws prohibiting racial or language-minority voting discrimination. It would also replace wording limited to proceedings brought by the Attorney General or an affected person with wording covering actions in which any party seeks enforcement. The surrounding existing statutory provisions are not fully reproduced.
Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)) is amended by striking violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment and inserting violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment, violations of this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group,.
Section 3(a) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 10302(a)) is amended by striking violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment and inserting violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment, violations of this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group,.
by striking any proceeding instituted by the Attorney General or an aggrieved person under any statute to enforce and inserting any action under any statute in which a party (including the Attorney General) seeks to enforce
The proposed geographic coverage formula would look back 25 calendar years. Statewide coverage would require at least 15 voting-rights violations; at least 10 including at least one by the state itself; or at least three where the state administers the affected elections. A local jurisdiction would qualify separately after three violations. Coverage would generally last 10 years from January 1 of the qualifying year. A qualifying court judgment ending coverage would prevent older violations from triggering renewed coverage while that judgment remains effective. The Attorney General would update determinations annually, with publication making them effective.
(i) fifteen or more voting rights violations occurred in the State during the previous 25 calendar years; (ii) ten or more voting rights violations occurred in the State during the previous 25 calendar years, at least one of which was committed by the State itself (as opposed to a political subdivision within the State); or (iii) three or more voting rights violations occurred in the State during the previous 25 calendar years and the State itself administers the elections in the State or political subdivisions in which the voting rights violations occurred.
Subsection (a) applies with respect to a political subdivision as a separate unit during a calendar year if three or more voting rights violations occurred in the subdivision during the previous 25 calendar years.
(i) that begins on January 1 of the year in which subsection (a) applies; and (ii) that ends on the date which is 10 years after the date described in clause (i).
If a State obtains a declaratory judgment under subsection (a), and the judgment remains in effect, subsection (a) shall no longer apply to such State pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) unless, after the issuance of the declaratory judgment, paragraph (1)(A) applies to the State solely on the basis of voting rights violations occurring after the issuance of the declaratory judgment.
If a political subdivision obtains a declaratory judgment under subsection (a), and the judgment remains in effect, subsection (a) shall no longer apply to such political subdivision pursuant to paragraph (1), including pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) (relating to the statewide application of subsection (a)), unless, after the issuance of the declaratory judgment, paragraph (1)(B) applies to the political subdivision solely on the basis of voting rights violations occurring after the issuance of the declaratory judgment.
As early as practicable during each calendar year, the Attorney General shall make the determinations required by this subsection, including updating the list of voting rights violations occurring in each State and political subdivision for the previous calendar year.
A determination or certification of the Attorney General under this section or under section 8 or 13 shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Coverage counts would include specified court rulings, including certain preliminary relief, denied federal approval, Attorney General objections, and qualifying settlements or agreements. They would not be limited to final findings after trial. Withdrawn objections generally would not count unless withdrawn because the underlying law or practice changed; purely procedural objections would also be excluded. Separate discriminatory practices and separate discriminatory violations within a district map could count individually. Extending or modifying a qualifying agreement in place for at least 10 years would count separately.
Any final judgment, or any preliminary, temporary, or declaratory relief (that was not reversed on appeal), in which the plaintiff prevailed or a court of the United States found that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or raised a serious question with regard to race discrimination
In a final judgment (that was not been reversed on appeal), any court of the United States has denied the request of the State or subdivision for a declaratory judgment under section 3(c) or section 5, and thereby prevented a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting from being enforced anywhere within the State or subdivision.
A violation per this subsection has not occurred where an objection has been withdrawn by the Attorney General, unless the withdrawal was in response to a change in the law or practice that served as the basis of the objection. A violation under this subsection has not occurred where the objection is based solely on a State or political subdivision’s failure to comply with a procedural process that would not otherwise constitute an independent violation of this act.
A consent decree, settlement, or other agreement was adopted or entered by a court of the United States or contained an admission of liability by the defendants, which resulted in the alteration or abandonment of a voting practice
An extension or modification of an agreement as defined by this subsection that has been in place for ten years or longer shall count as an independent violation.
Each voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting, including each redistricting plan, found to be a violation by a court of the United States pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), or prevented from enforcement pursuant to subsection (c) or (d), or altered or abandoned pursuant to subsection (e) shall count as an independent violation. Within a redistricting plan, each violation found to discriminate against any group of voters based on race, color, or language minority group shall count as an independent violation.
Local jurisdictions within a covered state could seek an administrative exemption, called a bailout, subject to eligibility conditions covering the preceding 10 years and the application period. Conditions would address discriminatory practices, court judgments and settlements, federal observers, compliance with federal approval requirements, and constructive efforts to improve equal access. Jurisdictions on the Attorney General's eligibility list would temporarily avoid section 5 requirements while the application process remains available or unresolved. Applications would be due within 90 days; public objections would normally have a 90-day window, extended by 30 days during the first year. Justified objections would require denial, and objectors could seek specified judicial review. Other determinations would generally be unreviewable. The Attorney General could issue an exemption to an eligible applicant with no submitted or justified objection. A savings clause would preserve prior judicial bailouts for political subdivisions that have not since violated the stated eligibility requirements.
Any political subdivision included on such list is not subject to any requirement under section 5 until the date on which any application under this section has been finally disposed of or no such application may be made.
A political subdivision that submits an application under paragraph (3) shall be eligible for an exemption under this subsection only if, during the ten years preceding the filing of the application, and during the pendency of such application
no test or device referred to in subsection (a)(1) has been used within such political subdivision for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or in contravention of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2)
no final judgment of any court of the United States, other than the denial of declaratory judgment under this section, has determined that denials or abridgements of the right to vote on account of race or color have occurred anywhere in the territory of such political subdivision or that denials or abridgements of the right to vote in contravention of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have occurred anywhere in the territory of such subdivision and no consent decree, settlement, or agreement has been entered into resulting in any abandonment of a voting practice challenged on such grounds
no Federal examiners or observers under this Act have been assigned to such political subdivision
such political subdivision and all governmental units within its territory have complied with section 5 of this Act
have eliminated voting procedures and methods of election which inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process; (ii) have engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons exercising rights protected under this Act; and (iii) have engaged in other constructive efforts, such as expanded opportunity for convenient registration and voting for every person of voting age
Not later than 90 days after the publication of the list under paragraph (1), a political subdivision included on such list may submit an application
During the 90-day period beginning on the date that notice is published under paragraph (3), the Attorney General shall give interested persons an opportunity to submit objections
During the 1 year period beginning on the effective date of this subsection, such 90-day period shall be extended by an additional 30 days.
If the Attorney General determines that any such objection is justified, the Attorney General shall publish notice in the Federal Register denying the application for an exemption under this subsection.
each person that submitted such an objection may, not later than 90 days after the end of the period established under subparagraph (A), file, in the District Court of the District of Columbia, an action for judicial review of such determination
Except as otherwise explicitly provided in this subsection, no determination under this subsection shall be subject to review by any court
The Attorney General may issue an exemption, by publication in the Federal Register, from the application of the provisions of subsection (a) with respect to a political subdivision that— (A) is eligible under paragraph (2); and (B) with respect to which no objection under was submitted under paragraph (4) or determined to be justified under paragraph (5).
If a political subdivision was not subject to the application of the provisions of subsection (a) by reason of a declaratory judgment entered prior to the effective date of this subsection, and such political subdivision has not violated any eligibility requirement set forth in paragraph (2) at any time thereafter, then that political subdivision shall not be subject to the requirements of subsection (a).
A separate system would require advance federal approval for specified voting practices in any state or local jurisdiction meeting the relevant conditions. It would cover adding seats elected by the whole jurisdiction, or replacing single-member seats with at-large or multi-member seats, where the specified groups meet 20% population thresholds. Boundary changes reducing one group's voting-age share by at least three percentage points would be covered under the same thresholds. Redistricting would be covered where a group other than the largest represents at least 15% of the jurisdiction's voting-age population and its voting-age population grew at least 20% over the preceding decade.
Each State and each political subdivision shall— (A) identify any newly enacted or adopted law, regulation, or policy that includes a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or a standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting, that is a covered practice described in subsection (b); and (B) ensure that no such covered practice is implemented unless or until the State or political subdivision, as the case may be, complies with subsection (c).
to add seats elected at-large in a State or political subdivision where— (i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups each represent 20 percent or more of the political subdivision’s voting-age population; or (ii) a single language minority group represents 20 percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands located in whole or in part in the political subdivision
to convert one or more seats elected from a single-member district to one or more at-large seats or seats from a multi-member district in a State or political subdivision where— (i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups each represent 20 percent or more of the political subdivision’s voting-age population; or (ii) a single language minority group represents 20 percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands located in whole or in part in the political subdivision.
Any change or series of changes within a year to the boundaries of a jurisdiction that reduces by 3 or more percentage points the proportion of the jurisdiction's voting-age population that is comprised of members of a single racial group or language minority group in a State or political subdivision where— (A) two or more racial groups or language minority groups each represent 20 percent or more of the political subdivision’s voting-age population; or (B) a single language minority group represents 20 percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands located in whole or in part in the political subdivision.
Any change to the boundaries of election districts in a State or political subdivision where any racial group or language minority group that is not the largest racial group or language minority group in the jurisdiction and that represents 15 percent or more of the State or political subdivision’s voting-age population experiences a population increase of at least 20 percent of its voting-age population, over the preceding decade (as calculated by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent decennial census), in the jurisdiction.
Advance approval would also cover documentation or identification changes stricter than state law immediately before enactment. The provision additionally addresses federal-election identification requirements that do not permit a sworn statement of identity and eligibility as an alternative, either in person or with a mailed ballot. Its combination of newly adopted changes and requirements already in effect leaves their interaction uncertain. Reductions or distribution changes in multilingual voting materials would be covered when English materials receive no similar change.
Any change to requirements for documentation or proof of identity to vote or register to vote that will exceed or be more stringent than such requirements under State law on the day before the date of enactment of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025
if a State has in effect a requirement that an individual present identification as a condition of receiving and casting a ballot in an election for Federal office, if the State does not permit the individual to meet the requirement and cast a ballot in the election in the same manner as an individual who presents identification— (A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in person, by presenting the appropriate State or local election official with a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the individual’s identity and attesting that the individual is eligible to vote in the election; and (B) in the case of an individual who desires to vote by mail, by submitting with the ballot the statement described in subparagraph (A).
Any change that reduces multilingual voting materials or alters the manner in which such materials are provided or distributed, where no similar reduction or alteration occurs in materials provided in English for such election.
Under specified demographic conditions, advance approval would be required for reducing, consolidating, or moving voting locations; reducing Sunday in-person voting before an election; or banning food and nonalcoholic drinks for people waiting to vote. The food-and-drink provision would exclude distribution that violates prohibitions on spending to influence voting. The demographic conditions concern census tracts with qualifying groups at 20% of the local jurisdiction's voting-age population, or Indian lands where one language-minority group comprises at least 20% of the voting-age population.
Any change that reduces, consolidates, or relocates voting locations, including early, absentee, and election-day voting locations, or reduces days or hours of in-person voting on any Sunday during a period occurring prior to the date of an election during which voters may cast ballots in such election, or prohibits the provision of food or non-alcoholic drink to persons waiting to vote in an election except where the provision would violate prohibitions on expenditures to influence voting— (A) in one or more census tracts wherein two or more language minority groups or racial groups each represent 20 percent or more of the voting-age population of the political subdivision; or (B) on Indian lands wherein at least 20 percent of the voting-age population belongs to a single language minority group.
New reasons or information sources for removing registered voters would require advance approval if they would disproportionately remove members of qualifying racial or language-minority groups, with a statistically significant effect. The affected group must exceed 5% of the voting-age population, and additional 20% demographic thresholds must be met. For a statewide change qualifying only through particular local jurisdictions, the approval requirement would apply only to those jurisdictions.
Any change to the maintenance of voter registration lists that adds a new basis for removal from the list of active registered voters or that incorporates new sources of information in determining a voter’s eligibility to vote, wherein such a change would have a statistically significant disparate impact on the removal from voter rolls of members of racial groups or language minority groups that constitute greater than 5 percent of the voting-age population— (A) in the case of a political subdivision imposing such change if— (i) two or more racial groups or language minority groups each represent 20 percent or more of the voting-age population of the political subdivision; or (ii) a single language minority group represents 20 percent or more of the voting-age population on Indian lands located in whole or in part in the political subdivision; or (B) in the case of a State imposing such change, if two or more racial groups or language minority groups each represent 20 percent or more of the voting-age population of— (i) the State; or (ii) a political subdivision in the State, except that the requirements under subsections (a) and (c) shall apply only with respect to each such political subdivision.
For covered practices, preclearance means approval before implementation: a jurisdiction could obtain a federal court judgment that the practice has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect, or submit it to the Attorney General and receive no objection within 60 days. Earlier affirmative approval would be possible for good cause. Approval would not prevent later lawsuits. The Attorney General or an affected citizen could sue to enforce these duties before three judges. Annual population determinations would use specified federal methodology, and Census data used for them could not be challenged in court.
such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such covered practice neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, and unless and until the court enters such judgment such covered practice shall not be implemented.
the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within 60 days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within 60 days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made.
Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General's failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin implementation of such covered practice.
The Attorney General or any aggrieved citizen may file an action in a Federal district court to compel any State or political subdivision to satisfy the obligations set forth in this section. Such actions shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges under section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
As early as practicable during each calendar year, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of the Census and the heads of other relevant offices of the government, shall make the determinations required by this section regarding voting-age populations and the characteristics of such populations
the calculation of the population of a racial group or a language minority group shall be carried out using the methodology in the guidance promulgated in the Federal Register on February 9, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 7470).
any data provided by the Bureau of the Census, whether based on estimation from sample or actual enumeration, shall not be subject to challenge or review in any court.
For federal elections, officials would have to publish accessible notices within 48 hours of voting-rule changes that differ from the rules in effect 180 days before the election. Before the 30th day preceding the election, responsible jurisdictions would also publish polling-place and precinct information, including locations, hours, accessibility, assigned voters, machines, and paid and volunteer workers. Changes to that information would require notice within 48 hours, or as soon as practicable when made less than 48 hours before the election.
being different from that which was in effect as of 180 days before the date of the election for Federal office, the State or political subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice
shall be in a format that is reasonably convenient and accessible to persons with disabilities who are eligible to vote, including persons who have low vision or are blind.
A State or political subdivision shall provide the public notice required under paragraph (1) not later than 48 hours after making the change involved.
prior to the 30th day before the date of an election for Federal office, each State or political subdivision with responsibility for allocating registered voters, voting machines, and official poll workers to particular precincts and polling places shall provide reasonable public notice
(B) In the case of a polling place, the location, including the street address, and whether such polling place is accessible to persons with disabilities. (C) The voting-age population of the area served by the precinct or polling place, broken down by demographic group if such breakdown is reasonably available to such State or political subdivision. (D) The number of registered voters assigned to the precinct or polling place, broken down by demographic group if such breakdown is reasonably available to such State or political subdivision. (E) The number of voting machines assigned, including the number of voting machines accessible to persons with disabilities who are eligible to vote, including persons who have low vision or are blind. (F) The number of official paid poll workers assigned. (G) The number of official volunteer poll workers assigned. (H) In the case of a polling place, the dates and hours of operation.
not later than 48 hours after the change occurs or, if the change occurs fewer than 48 hours before the date of the election for Federal office, as soon as practicable after the change occurs.
Changes to electoral boundaries or the population participating in federal, state, or local elections would require demographic and election-data notices within 10 days. Required data would include voting-age population by protected demographic group, registration information, and specified election results from the preceding five years, with availability qualifications for some details. Compliance would be voluntary for local jurisdictions other than counties or parishes and municipalities or school districts with populations above 10,000.
Not later than 10 days after making any change in the constituency that will participate in an election for Federal, State, or local office or the boundaries of a voting unit or electoral district in an election for Federal, State, or local office
(A) The voting-age population, broken down by demographic group. (B) If it is reasonably available to the State or political subdivision involved, an estimate of the population of the area which consists of citizens of the United States who are 18 years of age or older, broken down by demographic group. (C) The number of registered voters, broken down by demographic group if such breakdown is reasonably available to the State or political subdivision involved.
the actual number of votes, or (if it is not reasonably practicable for the State to ascertain the actual number of votes) the estimated number of votes received by each candidate in each statewide election held during the 5-year period which ends on the date the change involved is made
if the change applies to only one political subdivision, the actual number of votes, or (if it is not reasonably practicable for the political subdivision to ascertain the actual number of votes) in each subdivision-wide election held during the 5-year period which ends on the date the change involved is made.
Compliance with this subsection shall be voluntary for a political subdivision of a State unless the subdivision is one of the following: (A) A county or parish. (B) A municipality with a population greater than 10,000, as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent decennial census. (C) A school district with a population greater than 10,000, as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent decennial census.
the term demographic group means each group which section 2 protects from the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2)
A person could not lose voting rights for failing to follow a change when the jurisdiction failed to meet the applicable transparency requirements for that change. The Attorney General could set notice formats. These transparency amendments would apply to changes made on or after expiration of the 60-day period beginning on enactment.
The right to vote of any person shall not be denied or abridged because the person failed to comply with any change made by a State or political subdivision to a voting qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure if the State or political subdivision involved did not meet the applicable requirements of this section with respect to the change.
The Attorney General may issue rules specifying a reasonably convenient and accessible format that States and political subdivisions shall use to provide public notice of information under this section.
The amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall apply with respect to changes which are made on or after the expiration of the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.
The replacement observer provision would permit assignments in political subdivisions subject to preclearance when the Attorney General judges them necessary to enforce the 14th or 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, or another federal law protecting citizens' right to vote. The bill would also add authority to use observers to enforce bilingual-election requirements and transfer specified observer-assignment and administrative responsibilities from personnel agencies to the Attorney General. The former observer provision is not supplied, so the replacement's full effect relative to existing law cannot be established here.
(a) Clarification of Authority in Political Subdivisions Subject to Preclearance Section 8(a)(2)(B) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10305(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
in the Attorney General's judgment, the assignment of observers is otherwise necessary to enforce the guarantees of the 14th or 15th Amendment or any provision of this Act or any other Federal law protecting the right of citizens of the United States to vote
the Attorney General certifies with respect to a political subdivision that— (A) the Attorney General has received written meritorious complaints from residents, elected officials, or civic participation organizations that efforts to violate section 203 are likely to occur; or (B) in the Attorney General’s judgment, the assignment of observers is necessary to enforce the guarantees of section 203
by striking United States Civil Service Commission in accordance with section 6 and inserting Attorney General in accordance with section 8.
by striking Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall assign as many observers for such subdivision as the Director and inserting Attorney General shall assign as many observers for such subdivision as the Attorney General
in subsection (c), by striking Director of the Office of Personnel Management and inserting Attorney General.
Affected people, as well as the Attorney General, would be expressly authorized to bring additional voting-rights enforcement actions. These amendments cover poll-tax enforcement, threatened or implemented violations of specified constitutional voting protections and federal discrimination laws, Voting Rights Act title II, and the 26th Amendment. The general enforcement language would exclude the new practice-based preclearance section, which has its own enforcement process. Some amendments would replace directions requiring Attorney General action with permission to sue.
by striking the Attorney General is authorized and directed to institute forthwith in the name of the United States such actions and inserting an aggrieved person or (in the name of the United States) the Attorney General may institute such actions.
Whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person has implemented or will implement any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure that would (A) deny any citizen the right to vote in violation of the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendments, or (B) would violate this Act (except for section 4A) or any other Federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group in the voting process, an aggrieved person or (in the name of the United States) the Attorney General may institute
Whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that a State or political subdivision has engaged or is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by a provision of title II, an aggrieved person or (in the name of the United States) the Attorney General may institute an action in a district court of the United States
An aggrieved person or (in the name of the United States) the Attorney General may institute an action in a district court of the United States, for a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction, or such other order as may be appropriate to implement the twenty-sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The Attorney General or any aggrieved citizen may file an action in a Federal district court to compel any State or political subdivision to satisfy the obligations set forth in this section.
Courts considering temporary preventive relief would have to grant it when a challenge raises a serious question about a violation of the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution and refusing relief would impose more hardship on the plaintiff than granting it would impose on the defendant. Courts would weigh whether the change displaced an earlier voting-rights remedy or settlement, occurred fewer than 180 days before the election, or lacked required notice. A jurisdiction's inability to enforce its election rules would not, by itself, establish irreparable harm supporting a pause of the court's order.
the court shall grant the relief if the court determines that the complainant has raised a serious question as to whether the challenged voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure violates this Act or the Constitution and, on balance, the hardship imposed on the defendant by the grant of the relief will be less than the hardship which would be imposed on the plaintiff if the relief were not granted.
the court shall consider all relevant factors and give due weight to the following factors, if they are present
Whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in effect prior to the change was adopted as a remedy for a Federal court judgment, consent decree, or admission
Whether the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in effect prior to the change served as a ground for the dismissal or settlement of a claim
Whether the change was adopted fewer than 180 days before the date of the election with respect to which the change is to take or takes effect. (iv) Whether the defendant has failed to provide timely or complete notice of the adoption of the change as required by applicable Federal or State law.
A jurisdiction’s inability to enforce its voting or election laws, regulations, policies, or redistricting plans, standing alone, shall not be deemed to constitute irreparable harm to the public interest or to the interests of a defendant
For court orders under the voting-rights laws listed in section 11, closeness to an election would not justify denying, suspending, or setting aside relief unless opponents prove serious compliance burdens or irreparable public harm by clear and convincing evidence. Courts would give substantial weight to expanding voting access and disregard a state's generalized interest in enforcing its laws. A request filed within 30 days of adoption or reasonable public notice of a policy, or more than 45 days before the election, would receive a presumption against timing-based harm.
In any action for equitable relief pursuant to a law listed under subsection (a), proximity of the action to an election shall not be a valid reason to deny such relief, or stay the operation of or vacate the issuance of such relief, unless the party opposing the issuance or continued operation of relief meets the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the issuance of the relief would be so close in time to the election as to cause irreparable harm to the public interest or that compliance with such relief would impose serious burdens on the party opposing relief.
the court shall give substantial weight to the public’s interest in expanding access to the right to vote. A State’s generalized interest in enforcing its enacted laws shall not be a relevant consideration in determining whether equitable relief is warranted.
Where equitable relief is sought either within 30 days of the adoption or reasonable public notice of the challenged policy or practice, or more than 45 days before the date of an election to which the relief being sought will apply, proximity to the election will be presumed not to constitute a harm to the public interest or a burden on the party opposing relief.
A reviewing court suspending or setting aside voting-rights relief would have to protect citizens who already acted in reliance on that order. It would need specific findings of public harm or serious burdens substantially outweighing public benefits. The original court's factual findings could be rejected only if clearly erroneous. These rules would reach the listed constitutional and statutory voting protections, including registration, overseas voting, accessibility, and disability-discrimination protections.
In fashioning a stay or vacatur, a reviewing court shall not order relief that has the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of any citizen who has acted in reliance on the order.
No stay or vacatur under this subsection shall issue unless the reviewing court makes specific findings that the public interest, including the public’s interest in expanding access to the ballot, will be harmed by the continuing operation of the equitable relief or that compliance with such relief will impose serious burdens on the party seeking such a stay or vacatur such that those burdens substantially outweigh the benefits to the public interest.
findings of fact made in issuing the order under review shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20301 et seq.), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 20901 et seq.), the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (52 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.)
any act or practice in violation of any Federal law that prohibits discrimination with respect to voting, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
Before filing a civil case, the Attorney General or a designated civil-rights official could demand relevant government voting records for inspection and copying, written answers, or both. A sworn certificate would have to identify the matter and legal provisions under investigation. Demands would preserve protections against disclosure available under federal civil discovery rules, set response dates at least 20 days after issuance, and seek inspection and copying rather than possession of original records.
the Attorney General (or upon designation by the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights) is authorized, before commencing a civil action, to issue a demand for inspection and information in writing to any State or political subdivision, or other governmental representative or agent
(A) the production of such documentary material for inspection and copying; (B) answers in writing to written questions with respect to such documentary material; or (C) both.
shall include a sworn certificate to identify the voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting, or other voting related matter or issue, whose lawfulness the Attorney General is investigating and to identify the civil provisions of the Federal civil rights statute that protects the right to vote under which the investigation is being conducted.
are not aimed at the Attorney General taking possession of original records, particularly those that are required to be retained by State and local election officials under Federal or State law.
may not require the production of any documentary material or the submission of any answers in writing to written questions if such material or answers would be protected from disclosure under the standards applicable to discovery requests under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
prescribe a return date for production of the documentary material at least twenty days after issuance of the demand
prescribe a date at least twenty days after the issuance of the demand for submitting answers in writing to the written questions.
Recipients of investigative demands would have to certify their responses or explain objections and withheld information. The Attorney General could seek enforcement in a federal court where the recipient is located. A recipient could ask the federal district court in Washington, D.C., to change or cancel a demand, but must file within 20 days after service or before the response deadline, whichever comes earlier. A challenge would not excuse compliance with uncontested portions.
must, with respect to any documentary material or any answer in writing produced under this subsection, provide a sworn certificate
provide the basis for any objection to producing the documentary material or answering the written question. To the extent that any information is not furnished, the information shall be identified and reasons set forth with particularity regarding the reasons why the information was not furnished.
the Attorney General may file, in a district court of the United States in which the State or political subdivision, or other governmental representative or agent, is located, a petition for a judicial order enforcing the Attorney General demand
may file in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a petition for an order of the court to modify or set aside the demand of the Attorney General.
must be filed within 20 days after the date of service of the Attorney General’s demand or at any time before the return date specified in the Attorney General’s demand, whichever date is earlier.
the State or political subdivision, or other governmental representative or agent, filing the petition shall comply with any portions of the Attorney General’s demand not sought to be modified or set aside.
The bill would define voting-age population as the population age 18 or older calculated by the Census Bureau under the most recent decennial census. Its definition of Indian lands would include tribal Indian country, specified Alaska Native lands, land containing a tribal government seat, and specified Census tribal or Alaska Native statistical areas. Other tribal terms would partly rely on definitions in existing law.
The term voting-age population means the numerical size of the population within a State, within a political subdivision, or within a political subdivision that contains Indian lands, as the case may be, that consists of persons age 18 or older, as calculated by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent decennial census.
The term Indian lands means— (A) any Indian country of an Indian tribe, as such term is defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code; (B) any land in Alaska that is owned, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, by an Indian tribe that is a Native village (as such term is defined in section 3 of such Act), or by a Village Corporation that is associated with the Indian tribe (as such term is defined in section 3 of such Act); (C) any land on which the seat of government of the Indian tribe is located; and (D) any land that is part or all of a tribal designated statistical area associated with the Indian tribe, or is part or all of an Alaska Native village statistical area associated with the tribe, as defined by the Bureau of the Census for the purposes of the most recent decennial census.
The term Indian tribe or tribe has the meaning given the term Indian tribe in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
For the bill's attorneys' fees amendment, a prevailing party would mean a party that obtains at least some requested benefit, presents a legally plausible claim, and shows the lawsuit significantly caused a change from the prior situation. A separate amendment would insert a reference to this bill's section 2(a) into another federal attorneys' fees statute; the supplied text does not reproduce that statute's full operation.
The term prevailing party means a party to an action that receives at least some of the benefit sought by such action, states a colorable claim, and can establish that the action was a significant cause of a change to the status quo.
Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting a provision described in section 2(a) of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025, after title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,.
For section 5 preclearance, the bill would replace older benchmark dates with an applicable coverage date. That date would be June 25, 2013, when the latest coverage determination was made on or before December 31, 2025; otherwise it would be the date of the latest determination. The bill also would delete specified parts of existing section 4(f), but those deleted provisions are not reproduced, so their substantive effect cannot be established from this bundle alone.
in subsection (a), by striking November 1, 1964 and all that follows through November 1, 1972 and inserting the applicable date of coverage
The term applicable date of coverage means, with respect to a State or political subdivision— (1) June 25, 2013, if the most recent determination for such State or subdivision under section 4(b) was made on or before December 31, 2025; or (2) the date on which the most recent determination for such State or subdivision under section 4(b) was made, if such determination was made after December 31, 2025.
Section 4(f) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 10303(f)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1), by striking the second sentence; and (2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
If a provision or its application were held unconstitutional, blocked, or otherwise unenforceable, the bill would direct that the remaining provisions and other applications remain unaffected. This clause would not itself determine how a court rules on any particular provision.
If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional or is otherwise enjoined or unenforceable, the remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions and amendment to any person or circumstance, and any remaining provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, shall not be affected by the holding.
The Attorney General would be required to make annual grants to applicant local jurisdictions with populations of 10,000 or fewer to help them comply with voting-change notice requirements. Applicants would have to provide information required by the Attorney General about their Voting Rights Act compliance. This section specifies neither grant amounts nor an appropriation.
The Attorney General shall make grants each fiscal year to small jurisdictions who submit applications under subsection (b) for purposes of assisting such small jurisdictions with compliance with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to submit or publish notice of any change to a qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice or procedure affecting voting.
To be eligible for a grant under this section, a small jurisdiction shall submit an application to the Attorney General in such form and containing such information as the Attorney General may require regarding the compliance of such small jurisdiction with the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
the term small jurisdiction means any political subdivision of a State with a population of 10,000 or less.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 6, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2025. These entries do not establish any later legislative outcome.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-06T08:06:02Z. 2025-03-05: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-03-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places outside competitive or formula allocation was identified after reviewing the supplied complete introduced text. Formal earmark status cannot be established without any relevant accompanying disclosures or reports; this conclusion does not extend to other versions or materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
Conditional exemptions from otherwise applicable duties were identified in the supplied introduced text. Classification as a targeted exception does not establish improper purpose or unjustified treatment.
Certain local governments would be exempt from mandatory demographic and election-data notices following changes to electoral boundaries or the participating electorate. Compliance would be voluntary except for counties and parishes, municipalities with more than 10,000 residents, and school districts with more than 10,000 residents. This gives smaller municipalities and school districts, and other local jurisdictions outside the listed categories, a reporting exemption within the bill's transparency policy.
Not later than 10 days after making any change in the constituency that will participate in an election for Federal, State, or local office or the boundaries of a voting unit or electoral district in an election for Federal, State, or local office
a State or political subdivision shall provide reasonable public notice in such State or political subdivision and on the website of a State or political subdivision, of the demographic and electoral data described in paragraph (3) for each of the geographic areas described in paragraph (2).
Compliance with this subsection shall be voluntary for a political subdivision of a State unless the subdivision is one of the following: (A) A county or parish. (B) A municipality with a population greater than 10,000, as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent decennial census. (C) A school district with a population greater than 10,000, as determined by the Bureau of the Census under the most recent decennial census.
Section 5 would provide a conditional administrative bailout for political subdivisions within states subject to statewide coverage. Subdivisions placed on the Attorney General's eligibility list would temporarily avoid section 5 requirements until their application is finally resolved or no application may be made; listing alone would not establish final eligibility or entitlement to an exemption. Eligible applicants could receive an exemption from section 4(a), subject to the objection process. Eligibility conditions apply throughout the preceding 10 years and the application period and address discriminatory practices, judgments and settlements, federal observers, preclearance compliance, and constructive efforts toward equal voting access. The section also preserves earlier judicial bailouts for subdivisions that have not subsequently violated its eligibility requirements. These are conditional exceptions to the bill's geographic-coverage policy.
After making a determination under subsection (b)(1)(A) that the provisions of subsection (a) apply with respect to a State and all political subdivisions within the State, the Attorney General shall determine if any political subdivision of the State is eligible for an exemption under this subsection, and shall publish, in the Federal Register, a list of all such political subdivisions.
Any political subdivision included on such list is not subject to any requirement under section 5 until the date on which any application under this section has been finally disposed of or no such application may be made.
Nothing in this subsection may be construed to provide— (i) that the determinations made pursuant to the creation of the list shall have any binding or preclusive effect; or (ii) that inclusion on the list— (I) constitutes a final determination by the Attorney General that the listee is eligible for an exemption pursuant to this subsection or that, in the case of the listee, the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (F) of subsection (a)(1) are satisfied; or (II) entitles the listee to any exemption pursuant to this subsection.
A political subdivision that submits an application under paragraph (3) shall be eligible for an exemption under this subsection only if, during the ten years preceding the filing of the application, and during the pendency of such application— (A) no test or device referred to in subsection (a)(1) has been used within such political subdivision for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or in contravention of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2); (B) no final judgment of any court of the United States, other than the denial of declaratory judgment under this section, has determined that denials or abridgements of the right to vote on account of race or color have occurred anywhere in the territory of such political subdivision or that denials or abridgements of the right to vote in contravention of the guarantees of subsection (f)(2) have occurred anywhere in the territory of such subdivision and no consent decree, settlement, or agreement has been entered into resulting in any abandonment of a voting practice challenged on such grounds; and no declaratory judgment under this section shall be entered during the pendency of an action commenced before the filing of an action under this section and alleging such denials or abridgements of the right to vote; (C) no Federal examiners or observers under this Act have been assigned to such political subdivision; (D) such political subdivision and all governmental units within its territory have complied with section 5 of this Act, including compliance with the requirement that no change covered by section 5 has been enforced without preclearance under section 5, and have repealed all changes covered by section 5 to which the Attorney General has successfully objected or as to which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a declaratory judgment; (E) the Attorney General has not interposed any objection (that has not been overturned by a final judgment of a court) and no declaratory judgment has been denied under section 5, with respect to any submission by or on behalf of the plaintiff or any governmental unit within its territory under section 5, and no such submissions or declaratory judgment actions are pending; and (F) such political subdivision and all governmental units within its territory— (i) have eliminated voting procedures and methods of election which inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process; (ii) have engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons exercising rights protected under this Act; and (iii) have engaged in other constructive efforts, such as expanded opportunity for convenient registration and voting for every person of voting age and the appointment of minority persons as election officials throughout the jurisdiction and at all stages of the election and registration process.
The Attorney General may issue an exemption, by publication in the Federal Register, from the application of the provisions of subsection (a) with respect to a political subdivision that— (A) is eligible under paragraph (2); and (B) with respect to which no objection under was submitted under paragraph (4) or determined to be justified under paragraph (5).
If a political subdivision was not subject to the application of the provisions of subsection (a) by reason of a declaratory judgment entered prior to the effective date of this subsection, and such political subdivision has not violated any eligibility requirement set forth in paragraph (2) at any time thereafter, then that political subdivision shall not be subject to the requirements of subsection (a).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 6, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI