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. Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

    [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.

  4. 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.

  5. Opinion: Yes, there is voter suppression in Tennessee. Here's ...

    www.aol.com/opinion-yes-voter-suppression...

    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 ...

  6. Voter identification laws in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws...

    However, in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the United States Supreme Court struck down section 4(b) of the Act, which contained the formula that determined, based on historic racial discrimination, which states were required to seek preclearance. The court ruled the section unconstitutional, finding that although the provision had been ...

  7. 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 ]

  8. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lost Her Battle to Save Voting Rights ...

    www.aol.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-lost-her...

    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 ...

  9. Timeline of voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights...

    Supreme Court ruled in the 5–4 Shelby County v. Holder decision that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section 4(b) stated that if states or local governments want to change their voting laws, they must appeal to the Attorney General. [65]