Shelby County v. Holder

2013-06-25

Headline: Court strikes down the Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula, blocking federal pre-approval of voting changes for certain states and shifting responsibility back toward Congress and local governments.

Holding: The Court held the Voting Rights Act’s decades-old coverage formula unconstitutional, invalidating that automatic preapproval scheme while leaving the nationwide ban on racial voting discrimination intact.

Real World Impact:

Stops automatic federal preapproval based on the old coverage formula.
Leaves the nationwide ban on race-based voting discrimination in place.
Allows Congress to write a new coverage formula tied to current conditions.

Topics: voting rules, federal oversight of voting, race and voting, Congress and elections

Summary

Background

Shelby County, a county in Alabama, sued the federal government challenging the part of the Voting Rights Act that listed which jurisdictions had to get federal permission before changing voting rules. That preapproval system was based on tests and turnout data from the 1960s. The county lost in lower courts; the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that selection formula still made sense.

Reasoning

The Justices asked whether the Act’s special rule for some States is still justified by current conditions. The Court explained that the extraordinary preapproval remedy was adopted for extreme, widespread racial discrimination in voting in the 1960s. Today, registration and turnout have improved, the old tests have been banned nationwide, and minority representation has increased. The Court concluded Congress relied on decades-old facts and therefore the statute’s geographic coverage is no longer a logical fit for current needs. The Court declared the coverage formula invalid but did not rule on the separate provision that enforces preapproval itself.

Real world impact

As a result, the list of places automatically required to obtain federal preapproval can no longer be enforced using that formula. The nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting remains in force. The opinion says Congress may draft a new coverage formula tied to current conditions if it wishes. The ruling leaves open further legal challenges and does not finally resolve every aspect of the preapproval mechanism.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas agreed and would also strike down the preapproval provision itself. Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing Congress made a careful, evidence-based decision in 2006 to keep the law in force.