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 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 ...
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to voting rights established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), and specifically the applicability of Section 2's general provision barring discrimination against minorities in state and local election laws in the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v.
In its 2014 Shelby County v. Holder decision, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed jurisdictions with a history of suppression of minority voters to avoid continuing to abide by federal preclearance requirements for changes in voter registration and casting of ballots. Within 24 hours of that ruling, Alabama implemented a previously ...
Activists distribute pro-voting rights placards outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 27, 2013, as the Court prepares to hear Shelby County vs Holder. Justice Ginsburg’s ...
One v. Mukasey, which held that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is constitutional. [14] Less than four years later, Tatel also wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, again upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights. In a landmark voting rights decision, the Supreme Court eventually reversed his opinion ...
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.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), and his dissent in Young v. Community Nutrition Institute , 476 U.S. 974 (1986).) Although Chevron has come to stand for the proposition of deference to agency interpretations, Stevens, the author of the opinion, was less willing to defer to agencies than the rest of his colleagues on the Court.