Shelby County v. Holder
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Research shows that the changing of voter locations and reduction in voting locations can reduce voter turnout. A 2020 study found that the jurisdictions which had previously been covered by pre clearance massively increased the rate of voter registration purges after the decision.
About Shelby County v. Holder in brief
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices. Section 4 allows covered jurisdictions that have made sufficient progress in ending discriminatory voting practices to bail out of the preclearances requirement. The Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4 is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4, no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearancing unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula. Research shows that the changing of voter locations and reduction in voting locations can reduce voter turnout. There were also cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls and imposition of strict voter ID laws after the Shelby decision. A 2020 study found that the jurisdictions which had previously been covered by pre clearance massively increased the rate of voter registration purges after the decision. The ruling has made it easier for state officials to make it harder for ethnic minority voters to vote, says Donna Brazile, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of a book on voting rights and civil rights. The ruling also has led to increases in minority congressional representation and increases in minorities’ turnout, she says, but the effects have not been seen in the long-term.
The decision has also had a negative impact on the economy, she adds. It has had an impact on education, health care, the environment, and other areas of the economy that have been affected by the Act, she writes, and it has had a significant impact on women’s participation in politics and the economy. It has also led to a decline in the number of women in politics, especially in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a decrease in women’s representation in both houses of Congress. The court has declined to address the constitutionability of Section 5 because it invoked constitutional avoidance and declined to issue a ruling on this portion of the opinion. It would have declared Section 5 unconstitutional, and the opinion would have been a declaratory judgment that sections 4 and 5 are facially unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. It was reasonable for Congress to renew the course of enforcement in order to root out discrimination, says Bert Bert Bert, a lawyer for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Human Rights (LCRH) and a lawyer in Washington, D.C. The LCRH argues that Section 5 and Section 4’s coverage formula are constitutional enforcement legislation under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.