Although the false dichotomy of to “renew or not to renew” 1 appeared to pervade the early discourse in the debate over reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act 2 (VRA), a bipartisan coalition has emerged to support a bill that would protect most of the key provisions of the Act while responding to several important Supreme Court decisions that have limited its scope. 3 This Essay attempts to explain why all appear to agree that neither expiration nor mere renewal of the VRA is acceptable from the standpoint of one who cares about the values of political participation, equal influence, democracy, and human dignity that undergird the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Changes in the political system since 1965, as well as judicial and executive interpretations that have altered the meaning and scope of the VRA, require, at a minimum, changes in the law to realize its original intent while adapting to meet present-day challenges. Although something more than this minimalist approach is sorely needed, political constraints and the shadow cast by the Supreme Court's federalism decisions appear to have prevented the realization of more transformative election reform as part of the reauthorization of the VRA.