Voters in Wisconsin and Texas for the moment are protected from voting ID laws that would have affecting their ability to vote in the November elections.  

But activists say the lack of concise instructions on voting rights is creating a roller coaster of expensive lawsuits fighting legal changes and voter harassment. 

In 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in Shelby County v. Holder that a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had "no logical relation to the present day."

That provision involved states needing preclearance from the federal government if they wanted to make changes to the voting laws. The preclearance existed to voters in states where racial discrimination existed. The Supreme Court in its ruling said preclearance was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which gave states power to regulate elections.  

Since that decision a number of states have introduced voting laws that seem to unfairly target the elderly, minorities and the poor by requiring voter IDs, eliminating early voting et al., and civil rights groups have been fighting those laws in courts across the country from Ohio, North Carolina to Texas.

On Thursday following petition from the ACLU-Wisconsin,  the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Wisconsin from implementing a law requiring voters to present photo IDS. That decision from a lower court ruling that would have put the law in place for the November election, according to The Associated Press.

The Supreme Court issued a one-page order voiding the appeals court ruling pending further proceedings. There were three dissenting opinions on ruling, however -- Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- who said there was no indication the 7th Circuit had erred.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the law constitutional on Monday and was only overturned when the American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to block the ruling.

"Obviously we're thrilled that people are going to be able to vote in this election," said Molly Collins, associate director for the ACLU of Wisconsin.

What happens next is a formal petition has to be sent requesting the Supreme Court to take up the case within 90 days.

The photo ID law was passed by Wisconsin Republican lawmakers in 2011 and was intended to reduce election fraud by requiring voters to show ID to vote. The law came into effect in February 2012 for the primary, but legal challenges put it on hold. Democrats maintain no fraud exists and the law is an attempt to keep Democrat constituents who may lack ID -- the elderly, the poor, and minorities -- from voting. The ACLU and a coalition of supporters said the law was unconstitutional and a federal judge in Milwaukee agreed in April.

Wisconsin Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the decision, and a three-judge panel ruled last month that the state could implement the law.

"I believe the voter ID law is constitutional, and nothing in the Court's order suggests otherwise," Van Hollen said in an emailed statement to the AP.

The decision came on the same day that a federal court in Texas ruled in favor of the U.S. Justice Department's lawsuit against Texas's voter ID law. 

After the court decisions were issued in Texas and Wisconsin, Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights issued a statement, 

"Our democracy cannot adequately function when our right to vote is subject to a roller coaster of legal rulings just weeks before the election. Without clear consistent federal protections, we will be in a constant, chaotic and expensive battle to protect the right to vote until we restore the Voting Rights Act. Voter discrimination is still an entrenched reality across the country," Henderson said.

"But mounting lawsuit like those in Wisconsin and Texas would be unsustainable and untenable for most voters to replicate in their own communities. Congress failed to act to restore federal voting rights protections in 2014 and we're now facing the most unfair and disorganized election landscape in modern history. Without federal action, voters will be vulnerable and all to often excluded from our democracy.