Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4 ...
In 2006, the coverage formula was again extended for 25 years. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, meaning that no jurisdiction is currently subject to preclearance under the coverage formula.
[15] [16] Preclearance was the key feature of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before it was rendered inoperable by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder. Under the VRA, preclearance required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to receive approval from the federal government before implementing any changes to ...
In 2013, the court ruled 5-4 in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder that Section 4 of the act was unconstitutional. This meant that the nine states and other smaller divisions once subject to what ...
In 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder weakened the Voting Rights Act, leading to a wave of voter suppression laws. At least 19 states, including Tennessee, passed ...
In that Shelby County v. Holder decision, a conservative majority on the high court gutted the VRA by eliminating a key enforcement mechanism in the landmark law. That provision required states ...
[133]: 233 Between 1965 and the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder to strike down the coverage formula, the attorney general certified 153 local governments across 11 states. [151] Because of time and resource constraints, federal observers are not assigned to every certified jurisdiction for every election.
For the US Government to be able to prevent more restrictive laws from being passed without federal pre-clearance, it would need to find a new formula for the Voting Rights Act that would satisfy the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which is what the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was written to do. [23]