Shelby County v. Holder
| Shelby County v. Holder | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 27, 2013 Decided June 25, 2013 |
|
| Full case name | Shelby County, Alabama, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 12-96 |
| Citations | 570 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior history | Petition denied, 811 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.D.C. 2011); decision affirmed, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012) |
| Holding | |
| Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XV; Voting Rights Act of 1965 | |
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), is a landmarkUnited States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.
On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, "an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." Section 5 of the Act contains a "preclearance" requirement that requires certain states and local governments to obtain a determination by the United States Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that changes to their voting laws or practices do not "deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group", before those changes may be enforced. Section 4(b) contains the coverage formula that determines which states and local governments are subject to preclearance under Section 5. The formula covers jurisdictions that, as of November 1964, November 1968, or November 1972, maintained a prohibited "test or device" as a condition of registering to vote or voting and had a voting-age population of which less than 50 percent either were registered to vote or actually voted in that year's presidential election. Section 4(a) allows covered jurisdictions that have made sufficient progress in ending discriminatory voting practices to "bail out" of the preclearance requirement.
...
Wikipedia