During recent Supreme Court oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a compelling defense of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, declaring that it “doesn’t need a time limit.” Her remarks addressed questions about whether race-based voting protections should remain permanent or be subject to expiration.
Section 2 prohibits voting practices or laws that deny or abridge the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The Court is currently examining whether this provision should continue indefinitely or include a sunset clause. Justice Jackson emphasized that Section 2 is not a permanent remedy but a tool to measure electoral fairness, helping courts and communities detect discrimination and take corrective action when necessary.
“The law acts like a tape measure,” Jackson explained. “It helps identify when voting opportunities are unequal, but it does not dictate the exact solution in every case.” Because of this monitoring function, she argued, Section 2 was intentionally left without a time limit by Congress, unlike other provisions of the Voting Rights Act which have explicit expiration dates.
During the hearing, some justices questioned whether continued race-based redistricting under Section 2 is necessary in light of reduced overt discrimination in some areas. Jackson countered that discrimination in voting remains a concern and that the law’s purpose is to ensure all citizens have equal access to the ballot, particularly minority communities that historically faced obstacles. Limiting Section 2 could make it harder to challenge maps or practices that dilute minority voting power.
Experts note that Jackson’s argument underscores a broader principle: certain laws are meant to monitor fairness continuously, not to act as temporary fixes. As long as disparities in electoral opportunity exist, Section 2 provides a legal mechanism to address them, ensuring that minority voters can elect candidates of their choice.
Her defense aligns with the original intent of the Voting Rights Act, passed to protect against racial discrimination in elections. By emphasizing the ongoing need for vigilance, Jackson reinforces the idea that civil rights protections must evolve alongside society and remain enforceable as long as inequality persists.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this issue could have far-reaching consequences for voting rights nationwide, affecting how districts are drawn, how minority voters are represented, and how states implement election laws. Justice Jackson’s insistence on the law’s permanent applicability highlights the importance of maintaining robust safeguards against racial discrimination in the democratic process.
Watch video below :
