When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Shelby County v. Holder - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder

    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 ...

  3. Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Voting...

    In 2013 the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder , invalidated the Voting Rights Act's coverage formula; several bills have been proposed to create a new coverage formula. In 2014, the Voting Rights Amendments Act was introduced in Congress to create a new coverage formula and amend various other provisions. [ 42 ]

  4. State Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Voting_Rights_Act

    [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 ...

  5. Analysis: John Roberts remains confounded by Donald Trump as ...

    www.aol.com/analysis-john-roberts-remains...

    Roberts’ pattern of favoring GOP interests has been entrenched by his decisions in such cases as the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder (gutting part of the Voting Rights Act) and the 2019 Rucho v.

  6. List of landmark court decisions in the United States

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court...

    Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (15 U.S.C. § 10303) is unconstitutional; its coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance

  7. List of jurisdictions subject to the special provisions of ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jurisdictions...

    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.

  8. Roberts Court - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_Court

    Shelby County v. Holder (2013): In a 5–4 decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. § 10303), which provided a coverage formula for section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10304), is unconstitutional. The latter section requires certain states and ...

  9. Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the...

    However, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which established the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, was no longer constitutional and exceeded Congress's enforcement authority under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Court ...