The Disenfranchised Generation: How the Supreme Court’s Depletion of the Voting Rights Act Suppresses Youth Voter Engagement

At the center of American democracy, the 26th Amendment guarantees 18-year-olds the right to vote. However, Supreme Court-approved state voting rules have made it harder for young Americans to vote. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, which requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID showing the name, photograph, and expiration date. Acceptable IDs include an Indiana driver’s license, a state ID card, or certain federal IDs. However, most student IDs are not accepted because they often lack required features under state law.

The Court agreed that some groups were less likely to have a qualifying ID but held that the law was not an undue burden, recognizing the state’s interest in preventing fraud. For college students, this poses a practical issue because many attend out-of-state schools and may not have an ID issued by the state where they are voting. Even if students are legally eligible to vote where they attend college, they may still be unable to cast a ballot if they do not meet that state’s identification requirements. 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was designed to remove barriers to voting and prevent discrimination before it occurred. Congress passed it under its enforcement powers from the Reconstruction Amendments after widespread discrimination in voting, especially in the Jim Crow South, where literacy tests, poll taxes, and intimidation prevented African Americans from voting. The law was intended to protect the 15th Amendment by ensuring states could not restrict access to the ballot.

Under Section 5 of the VRA, certain states and local governments were required to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. Section 4(b) determined which jurisdictions were covered by using evidence of past discriminatory practices, such as literacy tests and low voter registration or turnout during the 1960s and 1970s. These were areas with documented histories of voter suppression, which is why they were subject to preclearance.

This system mattered because it prevented potentially discriminatory laws from taking effect before review. Without preclearance, voting laws are challenged only after they are implemented, placing the burden on voters rather than the government. For college students, who are often first-time voters with limited time or legal knowledge, this makes it more difficult to respond to restrictive changes.

This structure shifted power away from the states and toward the federal government by requiring federal review of changes to election laws. It was based on the idea that states with histories of discrimination could not be fully trusted to regulate elections without oversight. This system remained in place until Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (2013).

In Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (2013), the Court struck down the coverage formula in Section 4(b), holding that it was based on outdated data and no longer reflected current conditions. As a result, states previously covered by preclearance were no longer required to seek federal approval before changing voting laws.

In practice, this allowed states to implement voting rules without prior federal review. While earlier forms of de jure voter suppression, such as literacy tests and poll taxes, had been eliminated, newer restrictions emerged, including stricter voter ID laws, reductions in early voting, and polling place closures. These laws do not explicitly deny the right to vote, but they can still limit access in practice, creating de facto barriers.

These changes can affect college students because they often rely on early voting due to class schedules, may lack required identification in certain states, and can face reduced access when polling places are relocated or closed. Since many students are new voters and live away from home, these conditions increase the likelihood of encountering procedural barriers.

The Court continued this approach in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), which interpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits voting practices that result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race. The Court introduced factors to evaluate claims, including the magnitude of the burden, the availability of alternative voting methods, state practices elsewhere, and the state’s justification for the rule.

This framework changes how claims are evaluated because courts assess each factor separately rather than weighing the combined effect of multiple voting restrictions. As a result, legal analysis tends to focus on whether individual rules are justified rather than on how multiple rules together affect access.

For college students, this distinction matters because barriers often appear together. A student may face ID requirements, unclear residency rules, and limited voting time due to school schedules. While each issue may appear minor on its own, together they can significantly affect participation. Under the Court’s framework, each barrier is often evaluated independently, making it more difficult to show a systemic impact.

On its own, this reasoning raises the burden on voters challenging election laws. Under Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), it is not enough to show that a law affects access differently across groups; plaintiffs must show that the burden is substantial and unjustified under the Court’s factors. This increases the difficulty of challenging restrictive laws that operate through a series of smaller, combined barriers.

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) are connected in how they reshape voting rights enforcement. Shelby County eliminated preclearance, removing federal review before laws take effect. Brnovich raised the standard for challenging those laws after implementation. Together, they reduce protections at both the preventive and enforcement stages, making it more likely that restrictive voting laws remain in place once enacted.

For college students, different voting rules by state, including different requirements for identification, registration, and residency, mean access depends heavily on state policy rather than one standard rule. This variation reflects the broader shift created by Shelby County and Brnovich, in which federal oversight has been reduced, and states have greater control over election rules.

Congress, however, was directly addressed in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (2013), where the Court struck down the coverage formula but made clear that Congress has the authority to update it if it no longer reflects current conditions. Based on that reasoning, Congress could modernize the Voting Rights Act by creating a preclearance system based on current voting conditions rather than historical data. This could include triggering a review when states repeatedly change voter ID laws, reduce early voting opportunities, or close polling places in areas with large student or highly mobile populations.

Some states already use policies that address some of these issues. Automatic voter registration has been adopted in several states, and some jurisdictions expand early voting or accept broader forms of student identification. These examples show that access can be improved through some policy changes at different stages of the voting process.

These changes do not require restructuring the entire system. They reflect the idea that voting access should match how elections actually operate in practice. Recent Supreme Court decisions have changed voting rights in ways that are not always visible, but they affect how laws are enforced and challenged. For college students, this means participation often depends on their ability to navigate procedural barriers without strong systemic protections. If democracy is meant to ensure equal access, these barriers remain a significant concern.

Edited by Madeline Mielenz.

This article was reviewed and finalized by Gabi Fabozzi, Qizhen (Kiara) Ba, and Jasmine Lianalyn Rocha.