Richard Durbin (D-IL)
John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 44 Democratic cosponsors · See all 46 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4821)
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025 aims to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by revising the criteria for determining which states and political subdivisions are subject to Section 4 of the Act. It focuses on preventing vote dilution, denial, and abridgment, and promotes transparency in election-related changes. The bill also includes measures to protect election workers and polling places from interference and intimidation.
Yes· 3 of 30
- Scored +10
Does this protect the right to vote?
This bill directly aims to strengthen and protect voting rights for all citizens.
- Scored +9
Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice?
The bill focuses on preventing vote dilution and ensuring fair access to the ballot for all eligible voters.
- Scored +9
Does this make elections run better?
The bill aims to improve the fairness and integrity of the electoral process by preventing discriminatory practices and promoting transparency.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
By increasing federal oversight, the bill may somewhat reduce the autonomy of states in administering elections.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Revised Criteria for Determining Subject States and Subdivisions (Sec. 104): This could ensure that states and political subdivisions with a history of voting rights violations are subject to federal oversight, potentially preventing future discriminatory practices.
- Practice-Based Preclearance (Sec. 105): Requires states and political subdivisions to obtain preclearance for certain changes to voting practices, particularly those that could negatively impact minority voters, ensuring that these changes do not discriminate.
- Transparency Regarding Changes to Protect Voting Rights (Sec. 106): Requires states and political subdivisions to provide public notice of any changes to voting qualifications or procedures, polling place resources, and demographic or electoral district information, promoting transparency and allowing voters to stay informed.
- Clarification of Authority to Seek Relief (Sec. 108): Empowers aggrieved persons and the Attorney General to institute actions against poll taxes and other violations of voting rights, providing more avenues for legal recourse.
- Preventive Relief (Sec. 109): Makes it easier for courts to grant preliminary relief in cases where voting rights are challenged, ensuring that potential violations are addressed promptly.
- Relief for Violations of Voting Rights Laws (Sec. 111): Expands the scope of what constitutes a prohibited act or practice related to voting and ensures that proximity to an election is not a valid reason to deny equitable relief, strengthening the protection of voting rights.
- Protection of Tabulated Votes (Sec. 112): Prohibits officials from failing to tabulate, count, or certify votes, ensuring that every eligible vote is properly counted.
- Enforcement of Voting Rights by Attorney General (Sec. 113): Authorizes the Attorney General to demand information from states and political subdivisions to enforce voting rights laws, providing a powerful tool for investigation and enforcement.
- Election Worker and Polling Place Protection (Sec. 202): Establishes penalties for anyone who interferes with or intimidates voters, poll watchers, or election officials, protecting the integrity of the electoral process.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Changes to Political Subdivision Boundaries (Sec. 105): While intended to prevent discrimination, some changes to political subdivision boundaries could inadvertently disenfranchise certain voters or communities if not implemented carefully.
- New List Maintenance Process (Sec. 105): Changes to voter registration list maintenance processes could lead to eligible voters being wrongly removed from the rolls, particularly if these changes have a disparate impact on minority groups.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill's measures to combat vote dilution and denial are particularly beneficial for African Americans. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill's measures to combat vote dilution and denial are particularly beneficial for Hispanic Americans. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill's measures to combat vote dilution and denial are particularly beneficial for Native Americans, especially those on tribal lands. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill's measures to combat vote dilution and denial are beneficial for Asian Americans. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill's focus on preventing vote denial and abridgment helps low-income households who may face greater difficulty in complying with voting requirements. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill's accessibility provisions directly benefit people with disabilities. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — The bill aims to ensure fair representation for all age groups by protecting voting rights. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill aims to ensure fair representation for all income groups by protecting voting rights. Would retired people be better off under this? — The bill aims to ensure fair representation for all age groups, including retirees, by protecting voting rights. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill's protections are relevant for rural residents, especially in areas with significant minority populations. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill aims to ensure fair representation for all age groups by protecting voting rights. Would students be better off under this? — By improving voting access and preventing discrimination, the bill supports the civic engagement of students. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill's protections are relevant for urban residents. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — By improving voting access and preventing discrimination, the bill supports the civic engagement of young adults. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill supports the civic engagement of immigrants. Would men be better off under this? — The bill supports the civic engagement of men. Would women be better off under this? — The bill supports the civic engagement of women. Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill is likely to have little impact on billionaires. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill's protections could foster a more equitable environment, but do not directly address business owners. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill is likely to have little impact on high income households. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The bill is likely to have little impact on high net worth individuals. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill is likely to have little impact on ultra high net worth individuals. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill's protections are not race-specific but would help white Americans as well.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the right to vote? — This bill directly aims to strengthen and protect voting rights for all citizens. Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice? — The bill focuses on preventing vote dilution and ensuring fair access to the ballot for all eligible voters. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — This bill aims to strengthen voting rights and prevent discriminatory practices, which will help to improve racial equity. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The bill includes provisions to ensure polling places and voting information are accessible to persons with disabilities, which improves disability rights.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make elections run better? — The bill aims to improve the fairness and integrity of the electoral process by preventing discriminatory practices and promoting transparency. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill includes measures to promote transparency in election-related changes and polling place resources. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases federal oversight of state and local election practices to prevent discrimination. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — By increasing federal oversight, the bill may somewhat reduce the autonomy of states in administering elections.
- 7/29/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4821)
- 46 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Lisa Blunt RochesterDemocrat · Delaware
Maria CantwellDemocrat · Washington
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat · Nevada
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
John FettermanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona
John HickenlooperDemocrat · Colorado
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico
Maggie HassanDemocrat · New Hampshire
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Angus KingIndependent · Maine
Timothy KaineDemocrat · Virginia
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Patty MurrayDemocrat · Washington
Christopher MurphyDemocrat · Connecticut
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Jon OssoffDemocrat · Georgia
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Gary PetersDemocrat · Michigan
John ReedDemocrat · Rhode Island
Jacky RosenDemocrat · Nevada
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Charles SchumerDemocrat · New York
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Brian SchatzDemocrat · Hawaii
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Elissa SlotkinDemocrat · Michigan
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Raphael WarnockDemocrat · Georgia
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island
Mark WarnerDemocrat · Virginia
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts