States retain authority to administer elections through registration, ballot, identification, and deadline rules. Constitutional review considers the burden imposed and the precise interests offered to justify it: severe burdens demand much stronger justification than reasonable, nondiscriminatory rules. A neutral administrative rule is not invalid merely because voting is fundamental, but a device adopted to exclude eligible citizens because of race implicates the Fifteenth Amendment and equal-protection principles.

Proof depends on the claim. A law that expressly conditions voting on race reveals the classification on its face. A neutral-looking registration rule with unequal effects ordinarily requires evidence of discriminatory purpose for a constitutional race-discrimination claim. Courts may examine the rule's history, sequence of adoption, departures from ordinary procedure, official explanations, and administration. A statutory Voting Rights Act claim can use a different proof structure, which is why the constitutional rule belongs here and the Act receives its own lesson.

Redistricting also contains distinct constitutional questions. A districting plan that intentionally sorts voters predominantly by race without sufficient justification raises an equal-protection racial-gerrymandering claim. Population equality concerns the weight of votes across districts. Partisan gerrymandering presents a different justiciability problem in federal court. Do not collapse all election disputes into "voting rights." Identify the actor, burden, classification, purpose, source, and remedy before choosing the constitutional standard.

Video lesson: Voting rights | Political participation | US government and civics | Khan Academy