Shelby County v. Holder
Why do Epstein and Walker describe the Court's decision in Shelby County as limited?
"In some respects the Court's decision in Shelby County was limited. *The decision did not strike down the nondiscrimination principles embedded in the Voting Rights Act. It did not reduce the opportunity for legal challenges to enacted state laws that might have a discriminatory impact on minority voting.* - "It did not even declare that preclearance requirements are unconstitutional.
Today, voter turnout ...
"Today, voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels," - Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices
Article 4
*Republican Government* Article 4 section 4 - we get to have our own representative democracy States want to decide how to run their own elections.
What do critiques say about this decision
- "Civil rights advocates... criticize the Court for eliminating the act's *most effective provisions*..." -"Without an effective preclearance requirement, *discriminatory laws can be challenged only after the laws go into effect*. -"Furthermore, given the sharp partisan divisions plaguing Congress, *the national legislature has been unable to agree on an acceptable, updated coverage formula, and there is little optimism that it will do so in the near future*"
What did the court strike down?
- The Court, however, did strike down the law's *coverage formula, finding it to be based on conditions of a previous era with limited contemporary relevance.*
Case facts
1. "Some of the 'exceptional conditions' imposed on states were *scheduled to expire after five years*" 2. "Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions. 3. "By 2009, "the racial gap in voter registration and turnout [was] lower in the States originally covered by §5 than it [was] nationwide." Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder (2009). Since that time, Census Bureau data indicate that African-American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by §5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent. 4. "At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act's extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. . . ."
This was a departure from ...
A departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that *a statute's disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem it targets*
coverage formula
Congress could have updated the coverage formula, but it didn't. Hence 4(b) is unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.
WHAT APPROACH TO CIVIL RIGHTS DID THE COURT TAKE IN THIS CASE? DID THE COURT RULE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIVIDUAL?
Conservative states' rights. The state governments.
Issue
Does The coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ... violate... the equal state sovereignty principle as articulated in Article IV's (4) republican form of government clause as well as the 10th Amendment?
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring:
He would strike down section 5 too.
RULE FOR when federal governmental policies/actions treating some states differently from other states infringe upon equal state sovereignty as protected by Article IV's republican government clause as well as the 10th Amendment:
If such a federal government policy or action *isn't sufficiently related to the problem that it targets*, Then the federal government policy or action is *unconstitutional*
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting
In the majority's view, "the very success of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy." In Congress's view, the continuance was needed to prevent backsliding. Congress was concerned about second-generation barriers to voting rights. Vote dilution, when adopted with a discriminatory purpose, cuts down the right to vote as certainly as denial of access to the ballot - "The sad irony of today's decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective". "The Court appears to believe that the VRA's success in eliminating the specific devises extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed. With that belief, and the argument derived from it, history repeats itself."
Amendment 10
Powers of the States and People The const is brief (does not address every issue) not prohibited by const/states then the power is reserved by the states. *This case is about the equal sovereignty clause* - 10th Amendment: all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. - *The Framers intended the states to keep for themselves the power to regulate elections*
Section 5 [of the 1965 Voting Rights Act]
Section 5 holds that no jurisdiction that qualifies under the coverage formula can implement any changes in voting procedures until the modifications are approved by the U.S. Justice Department or a federal three-judge district court in the District of Columbia. This is known as the *"preclearance"* requirement. The coverage formula and the preclearance requirement originally were seen as temporary measures that would expire in five years. - However, Congress extended the life of these provisions several times, the most recent being a twenty-five-year extension enacted in 2006
petitioner, plaintiff, year
Shelby County is petitioner, Holder is respondent. Shelby County is plaintiff, Holder is defendant. (2013)
JUDGMENT
Shelby County wins, and Holder loses. Reversed.
The 15th Amendment "is not designed
The 15th Amendment "is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, Congress - if it is to divide the States - must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past"
How did the court revise the coverage formula ?
The Court left to Congress the task of revising the coverage formula based on contemporary data and thereby reactivating the preclearance procedure
the majority's ban does uphold & section 5
The majority opinion upholds section 2's permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting. - The majority opinion issues no holding on section 5 itself. ("but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula").
The majority on Preclearence
The preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act violates the above principles. The Attorney General has 60 days to object to a preclearance request, longer if he requests more information. If a State seeks preclearance from a three-judge court, the process can take years - The Act only applies to nine states and several additional counties. PRINCIPLES - The majority emphasizes the Fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States - The Framers intended the states to keep for themselves the power to regulate elections,
15th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. - The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This decision gave states with Republican majority the power to ...
This decision gave states with Republican legislatures and governors the green light to pass voter suppression policies, including a. voter ID policies, b. policies to purge voters who haven't voted in recent elections, c. and partisan gerrymandering.
What is the case about?
Whether the renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the 14th and 15th Amendments, and therefore violate equal sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article IV of the Constitution (which guarantees the right of self-government for each state)
HOLDING
Yes, section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does violate equal sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and Article IV of the Constitution.
Section 2 [of the 1965 Voting Rights Act]
bans any standard, practice, or procedure that results in a *denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race*. This section applies nationwide. It allows lawsuits to be filed against jurisdictions that engage in unlawful, discriminatory acts.
Section 4 [of the 1965 Voting Rights Act]
creates a *coverage formula* for determining which states and political subdivisions will be subject to additional regulations. The formula is based on the previous use of racially discriminatory practices and low voter registration or turnout.
The Federal Government does not ...
however, have a general right to review and veto state enactments before they go into effect". Originalism: Constitution was written to allow state laws to take effect, subject to later challenge under the Supremacy Clause