Shelby County v. Holder

Date: June 25, 2013

Citation: 570 US ‗‗‗ 2013

Issue: Voting Rights Act of 1965

Significance: In a 5–4 decision, the United States Supreme Court determined that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. This decision stated that the Act placed burdens on states that did not take into account current voting conditions.

Background

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 strengthened African Americans’ voting rights by removing barriers to voting equality for African Americans. In the South, some states had set up these barriers to prevent African Americans from voting, a right the Fifteenth Amendment had established during Reconstruction. These barriers included literacy tests and poll taxes. Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 set restrictions on jurisdictions in several states in the South and in states such as Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, and Idaho. These jurisdictions were identified as having less than 50 percent of the eligible voter population registered to vote in the 1964 presidential election. They would have to show that any change to voting laws or processes were not discriminatory. Any changes made to jurisdictions had to be approved by the U.S. Justice Department.

In 1970, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act were extended for five years. Subsequent extensions were added for different numbers of years. Racial disparity in voting decreased substantially within two decades of the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In 2006, Congress again reauthorized the Voting Rights Acts and extended it for twenty-five years. Just like previous extensions, election data was used as a basis for the reauthorization. However, the election data used was from 1964, 1968, and 1972. In 2009, in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, the Supreme Court ruled that the burdens placed on states were outdated and were not "justified by current needs."

In 2010, Shelby County, Alabama, asked the federal court to issue a permanent order to stop the enforcement of Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The county argued that Congress was not authorized to reauthorize Section 5 in 2006. It said the reauthorization was unconstitutional. In 2011, the U.S. District Court ruled that the Section was constitutional. Shelby County appealed this ruling. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in a 1–2 decision that it supported the ruling of the district court. Shelby County appealed, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

Opinion of the Court

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b), which delineates the formula used for identifying those jurisdictions subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing for the majority, cited the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states that are not specifically given to the federal government. He argued that the Voting Rights Act steers away from these basic states’ rights.

• Any racial discrimination in voting is too much, but our country has changed in the past 50 years. When taking such extraordinary steps as subjecting state legislation to preclearance in Washington and applying that regime only to some disfavored states, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes speaks to current conditions. The coverage formula, unchanged for 40 years, plainly does not do so and therefore we have no choice but to find that it violates the Constitution. (Berman 280)

Section 5 of the Act was upheld.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito joined in Roberts’ opinion. Justice Thomas joined the concurring opinion but contended that the majority opinion did not go far enough, saying that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should have been removed from the Act.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, wrote the dissent. She argued that the power of Congress to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments justified legislative actions such as that of the Voting Rights Act, specifically that Congress has the power to pass legislation to check potential corrupt practices by states. Further, that when Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, it had showed there was still a need for those jurisdictions cited in Section 4b that need to get preclearance.

Impact

The Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder had some significant implications. First, with Section 4(b) being ruled unconstitutional but Section 5 upheld, there is no longer any "coverage formula" that designates certain jurisdictions as being required to show any changes to election or voting laws or practices. Also, it has made it difficult for parties claiming discriminatory voting or election processes. African Americans in counties, such as Shelby County, that fell within the jurisdiction of Section 5 have experienced this challenge. For example, several lawsuits were filed after the Shelby County ruling from jurisdictions that used to be covered under Section 5. Other implications came from lawsuits that had been filed prior to the Shelby County ruling. These lawsuits focused on changes in election or voting laws but were dismissed.

On the other hand, new regulations and rules restricting access to polls have been proposed or put into effect that might not have been had the Shelby County decision not been made. Some of these laws include the requirement of photo identification at the voting booth and no same-day voter registration, among others.

Nearly one year after the Shelby County ruling, legislation called the Voting Rights Act Amendment (VRAA) was introduced and sent to committee. The goal of this legislation was to restore Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Critics of the VRAA have argued that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act still bans racial discrimination in voting even though it requires a time-consuming and lengthy legal process to thwart such discriminatory practices.

Bibliography

Amar-Dolan, Jeremy, and Zachary Zemlin. "Shelby County v. Holder." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 8 Jan. 2016. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-96>.

Berman, Ari. Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America. New York: MacMillan, 2015: 272–299. Print.

Brown, Jonathan, and Michael L. Clemons. Voting Rights Under Fire: The Continuing Struggle for People of Color. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2015. Print.

Lopez, Tom. "‘Shelby County’: One Year Later." Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. Brennancenter.org, 24 June 2014. Web. 8 Jan. 2016. <http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/shelby-county-one-year-later>.

May, Gary. Bending Toward Justice: The Voting Rights Act and the Transformation of American Democracy. New York: Basic Books, 2013. Print.

Persily, Daniel, and Thomas Mann. "Shelby County v. Holder and the Future of the Voting Rights Act." Brookings Institution. Brookings Institution, 9 Aug. 2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2016. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/08/09-shelby-v-holder-policy-mann>.

Shelby County v. Holder. 570 US ‗‗‗ 2013. Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the U.S., 2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2016. <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96‗6k47.pdf>.

"Shelby County v. Holder." The Leadership Conference. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights/The Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2016. Web. 8 Jan. 2016. <http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/shelby-county-v-holder.html>.

Tushnet, Mark A. Graber, and Sanford Evinson, eds. Oxford Handbook of the U.S. Constitution. New York: Oxford UP, 2015: 381–184, Print.