Not only that, some observers blame it for the polarized electorate that has cable-TV talk show guests yelling at each other and groups protesting and counter protesting across the country.
It may deserve some of the blame if the country defaults on its debts over the brewing debt-limit impass.
How did this law's impact end up so backward to its goals?
The original aim was to maintain or even strengthen blacks' voting power by ensuring fair redistricting.
As the Jim Crow laws were struck down and blacks were no longer barred from casting their ballots, the next strategy was to divide them up into separate districts where they would be in the minority and have little influence on the election results. So Congress added provisions in Section 5 of the law that require ample "majority minority" districts where blacks have the critical mass to determine the outcome of elections.
Since blacks so reliably vote Democratic, where they were put on the district maps became the most visible tool in the partisan battle. When Democrats run the redistricting, they tend to distribute black voters across as many districts as the law allows so they'll help keep Democratic lawmakers in the statehouse majority.
Democrats ran every Southern state when Congress passed the law in 1965, so it served kept them from spreading the blacks so thin that they would never elect black representatives.
Those black legislators, in subsequent redistricting sessions, wanted to maximize the blacks in their districts to ensure re-election. Ironically, that aligned their interests with conservative Republicans who wanted as few blacks in their districts to improve their own re-election chances.
Over successive redistricting, this alliance of black Democrats and conservative Republicans intensified the phenomenon of packing blacks into as few districts as the law allows while leaving the majority of the districts to whites who vote conservative. By the 1980s, Republicans were winning control of legislative chambers in the South and gaining momentum in Congress.
"When Congressman John Lewis and then-Congressmen Newt Gingrich co-authored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to not strike down black districts, then you've got to wonder why they came together on this issue when they don't come together on other issues," said Edward Blum, author of The Unintended Consequences of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The result has been districts that are either lopsided in the Democrats' favor or in the Republicans' and few swing districts. Elections in such districts are decided in primaries and often become contests to see who can appeal to the party's voting base, the most ideological.
Incumbents who stray from the party line toward the middle of the road draw primary challengers who are more ardent.
The joke goes, the only thing in the middle of the road are dead possums.
Blum argues the Voting Rights Act should be eliminated.
"It would surely create greater competitive elections. That is something social scientists don't even question any more," said Blum, who's a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
Swing districts produce greater voter turnout and elect lawmakers with moderate voting records.
As it is, by grouping blacks together in majority-minority districts, they're almost guaranteed to have no influence in the Capitol. They may elect black Democrats to speak for them, but those Democrats are in the minority with no power.
At the same time, the white Republicans save ignore black concerns with impunity because the black vote in their districts is negligible.
Not all observers agree.
"Conventional wisdom has it that Republicans have benefitted in the South from manipulation of the Voting Rights Act. I don't think that's nearly so true," said Justin Levitt, a redistricting expert at Loyola Law School. The factors in the GOP's rise are more complicated.
Repealing the law would be a mistake, he said. It still serves a useful purpose, according to Levitt, as evidenced by the small number of communities that have won exemption from it by demonstrating 10 years without attempts to dilute black voting strength.
Congress apparently thinks there's still a need for the law because it reauthorized it in 2006, and some conservative, white southern Republicans like Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., argued for letting it die. So, it's going to be a factor in the redistricting that the Georgia General Assembly is about to engage in when the special session begins Aug. 15.
Not only that, it's likely to be a factor when the Democrats fight the resulting maps in court.
And partisan bickering is bound to continue for another 10 years.
Walter Jones is the bureau chief for the Morris News Service and has been covering state politics since 1998. He can be reached at email@example.com, (404) 589-8424 or on Twitter @MorrisNews.