Shelby County v. Holder

133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act which included § 4 that targeted certain states and certain practices. The 'covered' jurisdictions were those States or political subdivisions that had maintained a test or device as a prerequisite to voting as of November 1, 1964, and had less than 50 percent voter registration or turnout in the 1964 Presidential election. Such tests or devices included literacy and knowledge tests, good moral character requirements, the need for vouchers from registered voters, and the like. In those jurisdictions, § 4 of the Act banned all such tests or devices. Section 5 provided that no change in voting procedures could take effect until it was approved by federal authorities in Washington, D.C. - either the Attorney General or a court of three judges. A jurisdiction could obtain such 'pre-clearance' only by proving that the change had neither 'the purpose [nor] the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.' Sections 4 and 5 were intended to be temporary; they were set to expire after five years. Congress passed three more extensions of these provisions with various provisions. The US Supreme court upheld each of these reauthorizations against constitutional challenge. In 2006, Congress again reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for 25 years, again without change to its coverage formula. Section 5 now forbids voting changes with 'any discriminatory purpose' as well as voting changes that diminish the ability of citizens, on account of race, color, or language minority status, 'to elect their preferred candidates of choice.' P sued the Attorney General, Holder (D), seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their enforcement. P sued the Attorney General, Holder (D), seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The District Court upheld the Act, and the D. C. Circuit affirmed. That court accepted Congress's conclusion that § 2 litigation remained inadequate in the covered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minority voters, that §5 was therefore still necessary, and that the coverage formula continued to pass constitutional muster. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.