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 ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
[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 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 ]
The bill was written in response to the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, which struck down the system that was used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to that requirement. [2] [3] On August 24, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a margin of 219–212. [4]
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. [66]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
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 ...