Polixxy
← Back to bills

H.R. 14 · 119th Congress

John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025

Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7] (D-AL) · Introduced · 220 cosponsors

CommitteeGovernment Operations and Politics
Progress
25%
1
Introduced
A bill is formally introduced by a lawmaker; it is assigned an ID and sent to committee.
2
Committee
A smaller group of lawmakers reviews, debates, and edits the bill before it can advance.
3
Reported
After committee work, the committee releases a report and the bill can go to the full chamber for a vote.
4
House Vote
The bill has passed the full House of Representatives.
5
Senate Vote
The bill has passed the full Senate.
6
Passed Congress
Both the House and Senate have passed the bill; it moves to the President for final approval.
7
Sent to President
The bill has been sent to the President, who may sign it, veto it, or let a ten-day clock decide.
8
Became Law
The bill is now law — by the President's signature, by the ten-day rule when the President declines to sign, or by a two-thirds veto override.

Latest action

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

· from Congress.gov, as of August 8, 2026

Committees

Judiciary Committee

What this stage means

A smaller group of lawmakers reviews, debates, and edits the bill before it can advance.

Why this matters

Committees do the detailed work — they decide if a bill should move forward and shape its content. Most bills die here.

What can happen next

If approved, the committee reports the bill to the full chamber for debate and a vote.

Study this bill

AP Gov
Unit 3 · Civil Liberties and Civil RightsUnit 5 · Political Participation

The constitutional question

After Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck the Voting Rights Act's coverage formula as exceeding Congress's power over 'equally sovereign' states, can Congress revive federal preclearance with an updated formula based on recent violations — or does any geographic trigger now fail the test Shelby announced?

The strongest case for

Shelby County did not abolish preclearance — it struck a 1965 coverage formula as outdated and expressly left Congress free to write a current one, which is exactly what this bill does, keying coverage to violations from the last 25 years rather than the Johnson era. What followed 2013 is the evidence for why: within hours of the decision, formerly covered states announced restrictive changes that decades of preclearance had blocked. Case-by-case litigation runs years and cannot un-run an election conducted under an unlawful map or rule. The Fifteenth Amendment names Congress, not the courts, as the enforcer of the right to vote.

The strongest case against

Shelby County's holding rested on facts nobody disputes: the registration and turnout gaps that justified placing state election law under federal receivership in 1965 have closed, and treating states unequally requires current burdens commensurate with that extraordinary remedy. The bill's new formula counts violations partly generated by litigation campaigns from the same organizations lobbying for the bill — a trigger the covered states will argue is circular. Section 2 litigation remains fully available and demonstrably works (Allen v. Milligan redrew Alabama's map in 2023). Reviving preclearance nationwide-in-effect makes the federal government the permanent supervisor of a power the Constitution's structure leaves primarily to states.

Foundational documents in play

  • Letter from a Birmingham Jail

    The bill is named for John Lewis and descends directly from the movement King was defending from that cell.

  • U.S. Constitution

    The Fifteenth Amendment's Section 2 enforcement power is the entire constitutional basis for federal preclearance of state election changes.

Required cases in play

  • Shaw v. Reno (1993)

    Shaw governs when race may shape district lines — the tension between VRA compliance and equal protection runs through every preclearance fight.

  • Baker v. Carr (1962)

    Baker opened federal courts to election-structure claims at all; every voting-rights suit since walks through the door it opened.

Organizations supporting

Organizations opposing

This has happened before

The 117th Congress's version (H.R. 4) passed the House in August 2021 and died in the Senate when the filibuster held and two Democratic senators declined to carve out an exception for voting legislation. Versions have been introduced in every Congress since Shelby County; this one sits in the Judiciary Committee of a House whose leadership opposes it — the same agenda-control lesson as H.R. 40, applied to the second-heaviest unit on your exam.

Practice FRQ

SCOTUS Comparison. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would require federal approval before certain states change election laws. (A) Identify the constitutional amendment central to both this bill and Shaw v. Reno (1993). (B) Explain how Shaw's limits on race-conscious districting complicate compliance with a strengthened Voting Rights Act. (C) Explain one way Congress's enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment differs from the judicial remedies available in Shaw.

Sources: www.congress.gov · www.congress.gov

Action history

Every recorded action from Congress.gov — 3 total.

  1. House

    Introduced in House

  2. House

    Introduced in House

  3. House

    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.