How law, enforcement, and power have shaped women’s access to the ballot

Women’s right to vote in the United States is often described as a single milestone: the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. In reality, the history is more complex. It is a story shaped by expansion and exclusion, federal action and retreat, and ongoing debates over who enforces the right to vote.

Understanding this history matters because women’s access to the ballot has always depended not just on law, but on enforcement, political will, and the balance of power between states and the federal government — dynamics that continue to shape voting access today.

Before 1920: Voting as an exception, not a right

Before the 20th century, voting rights for women in the United States were uneven and highly dependent on geography. Most states barred women from voting entirely, but there were notable exceptions.

Several western states and territories — including Wyoming (1869), Utah (1870), Colorado (1893), and Idaho (1896) — granted women full voting rights before the passage of the 19th Amendment. These decisions were often tied to statehood efforts, frontier politics, and local reform movements.

Women also voted, briefly, in parts of the East. In New Jersey, property-owning women were legally permitted to vote from 1776 until 1807, when the state explicitly revoked that right. This early example illustrates how voting access could be granted — and withdrawn — through ordinary legislative action.

Even where women were legally permitted to vote, access was far from equal. Black women, Indigenous women, Asian American women, and immigrant women were frequently excluded through race-based citizenship laws, literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, and violence. Voting was not treated as a universal right, but as a privilege extended selectively.

This pattern established an enduring reality of U.S. voting law: rights extended without strong protection can be rolled back.

1920: The 19th Amendment — and its limits

In 1920, the ratification of the 19th Amendment prohibited states and the federal government from denying the right to vote on the basis of sex. It marked a historic expansion of democratic participation and capped decades of suffrage activism.

However, the amendment did not guarantee that all women could vote in practice. Across much of the South, Jim Crow laws continued to bar Black women from the polls through poll taxes, literacy tests, and voter intimidation. Native American women were not universally recognized as U.S. citizens until 1924, and many states continued to prevent them from voting for decades afterward. Asian American women remained excluded until changes to immigration and naturalization laws in the mid-20th century.

The 19th Amendment established a legal right, but it left enforcement largely to states that had long resisted inclusive voting. For many women, the promise of suffrage remained unrealized.

1965: The Voting Rights Act and federal enforcement

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 emerged from the civil rights movement, amid widespread and well-documented discrimination against Black voters across the South. Events such as “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama, exposed the limits of constitutional guarantees without federal enforcement.

Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Act targeted discriminatory voting practices directly. It banned literacy tests, authorized federal oversight of elections, and required jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. In 1975, Congress expanded these protections by requiring bilingual ballots in certain jurisdictions.

Although the Act was not written specifically for women, it transformed women’s political participation. Black women, Latinas, Asian American women, and other non-English-speaking women gained meaningful access to the ballot for the first time in many states.

The Voting Rights Act demonstrated a core lesson: voting rights depend on enforcement, not just recognition.

2013: Federal oversight is rolled back

In 2013, a Supreme Court ruling weakened one of the Voting Rights Act's most important protections. The decision eliminated the requirement that certain states and local governments obtain federal approval before changing voting laws.

While the Voting Rights Act itself remained in place, this advance review process was effectively disabled. Jurisdictions with long histories of voter discrimination could now change election rules unless those changes were challenged later in court.

The impact was swift. States moved to implement new voter ID requirements, cut back early voting, close polling places, and tighten registration rules. Many of these changes took effect before voters or courts could intervene.

2013 to present: A new phase of legal challenge

Since 2013, states have passed dozens of laws that make voting more difficult. As a result, access to the ballot now varies widely depending on where someone lives.

At the same time, the future of the Voting Rights Act itself is being tested. Courts are now weighing who has the authority to enforce it. For decades, private individuals and advocacy organizations have brought most voting rights challenges — often stepping in when federal oversight was limited or absent.

That enforcement role is now at risk. Pending court decisions — including cases before the Supreme Court in January 2026 — could restrict or eliminate the ability of private parties to bring these challenges. If enforcement is limited to the federal government alone, many discriminatory voting changes may go unchallenged in practice.

These developments matter for women because voting rules often collide with everyday realities: caregiving responsibilities, inflexible work schedules, transportation, documentation requirements, and economic constraints. When access to the ballot depends on navigating additional hurdles, women — especially women of color — are more likely to be affected.

Why it matters

Women’s voting rights in the United States have expanded through sustained advocacy and federal intervention — and contracted when enforcement has been weakened or withdrawn. This pattern underscores a central truth: voting rights are not automatic.

As new legal challenges and policy changes reshape the voting landscape, understanding this history helps clarify what is at stake. Rights that depend on enforcement can be strengthened — or eroded — by institutional choices.