Shelby County v. Holder

Year

2013

Precedent

Coyle v. Smith (1911)- explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity, and authority"

Significance

Critics of the ruling said it would make it harder for black voters in the states affected by the voting act.

Question

Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceeds Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution?

Dissent

Justice Ginsburg dissented saying that discrimination still exists, therefore, the acts are both still needed. Second-generation barriers still prevent minorities from voting. Preclearance must be tested to see if its still effectively preventing discriminatory changes to voting laws. Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments encompasses legislative action such as the Voting Rights Act

Facts

Shelby County, Alabama, was a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 2006. As such, all voting changes in the county had to be precleared by either the attorney general of the United States or federal judges on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In 2010, county officials filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder, claiming that the preclearance formula (Section 4:(b) defines the eligible districts as ones that had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964 and less than 50% turnout for the 1964 presidential election.) and requirements (Section 5: prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without gaining official authorization. ) of the Voting Rights Act were unconstitutional. A federal district court rejected that claim, as did the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Shelby County appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States

Reasoning

The formula was based on outdated evidence and inconsistent with contemporary voting rights practice. Departs from basic principles of constitutional equality because it suspends changes to state election law until they have been precleared by federal authorities The Act only applies to nine states and isn't fair in that respect 50 years after the enactment of both Acts things have changed so much that it is unnecessary and outdated

Decision

Yes. (5-4) Ruled the preclearance formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion.