I n t he 20, t he s co tus ruled in t he case shelby county, alabama v. Pdf chief justices yearend reports on the federal judiciary. In 2010, shelby county alabama sued the attorney general in the district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4b and 5 of the act are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. Holder, a major case decided by the united states supreme court in 20, declared section 4b of the voting rights act of 1965 unconstitutional, removing preclearance requirements for all jurisdictions unless the preclearance formula of section 4b is updated by congress. Holder the shelby county case argues that it should no longer be considered under section 5, but also that congress 2006 renewal of the act was.
Shelby county is challenging the constitutionality of the voting rights act vra, one of our nations most effective civil rights laws. Even for many who accurately predicted the result, the supreme courts 5 to 4 decision in shelby county v. Holder striking down a key provision of the voting rights act vra was remarkable. A specific judicial decision on a political process is the 20 shelby county v holder ruling which made the voting rights acts coverage formula in section 4b considered invalid. Shelby county argues that this extension was beyond congresss authority, and violated the tenth amendment and article iv of the constitution. Holder, a constitutional challenge to preclearance provisions of the voting rights act of 1965. On june 25, the supreme court released its decision in shelby county v. Holder 2 following the shelby county decision, states and local jurisdictions have been free to implement changes in voting without the preclearance process to determine whether those changes are racially discriminatory or harmful to language minorities.
Holder invalidating the preclearance formula in section 4, a key provision of the voting. Case summary shelby county, alabama v holder, attorney general. In a 54 opinion written by chief justice roberts, the court struck down section 4 of the voting rights act. Congressional authority to protect voting rights after shelby. The historical context of the enactment of the voting rights act to understand the courts reasoning, it is helpful to look briefly to the historical context surrounding the enactment of the voting rights act almost 50 years ago in 1965.
Oral argument audio home supreme court of the united states. Subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties committee on the judiciary tuesday, june 25, 2019 2. Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices. United states court of appeals, district of columbia circuit. The shelby county emergency management and homeland security office invites you to learn how to survive severe weather during tennessees severe weather awareness week, february 23 29, 2020. Holder and the future of the voting rights act nathaniel persily and thomas mann introduction e ven for many who accurately predicted the result, the supreme courts 5. The restoration of constitutional order 35 later revised that provision to more broadly outlaw any law or practice that results in the denial of the right to vote. Jun 25, 20 shelby county, alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that section 5 and section 4b are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. Trust deed release whereas, by the hereinafter described trust deeds, heretofore recorded in the registers office of shelby county, tennessee, certain real property was conveyed by the hereinafter. Holder is a landmark decision because it invalidated a way to combat jurisdictions that had a history of discrimination in voting. Shelby county the applicant does hereby make application to install. The supreme court has issued a ruling in a key voting rights case regarding the voting rights act and continued federal oversight of elections in states with a past history of discrimination. Section 4b of the voting rights act has a formula to identify any state or political subdivision that maintained tests or devices to suppress the minority vote as a covered jurisdiction, which under section 5 of the act must get approval from congress before changing their election laws shelby county, alabama a covered jurisdiction.
If your driveway is on a township road, you need to contact your township trustees to see how and if they provide this service. Preclearance may be a blunt instrument, but bailout is a sharpening stone. Alabama policy institute 402 office park drive, suite 300, birmingham, al 35223 205. While holder is the registered defendant, several other parties have also intervened as defendants such as the naacp, ldf and the aclu voting rights project.
State and local threats to voting postshelby county, alabama v. Holder james blacksher and lani guinier the supreme courts decision in shelby county v. These are the sources and citations used to research shelby county v. Subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties committee on the judiciary tuesday, september 24, 2019 2.
Shelby county, tn official website official website. Holder1 revitalizes the oldest and most demeaning official insult to. Supreme court declared 54 unconstitutional section 4 of the voting rights act vra of 1965, which set forth a formula for determining which jurisdictions were required under section 5 of the act to seek federal. Holder, held that section 4b of the voting rights act. Preclearance may be a blunt instrument, but bailout is a sharpening stone ryan emenaker shelby county v. Congressional authority to protect voting rights after shelby county v. Source document contributed to documentcloud by news documents the new york times. Petitioner shelby county, in the covered jurisdiction of alabama, sued the attorney general in federal district court in. Mccarthy the voting rights act of 1965 is possibly the most consequen.
Jul 10, 2018 five years to the day after shelby county v. This bibliography was generated on cite this for me on wednesday, march 30, 2016. Shelby county, alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that section 5 and section 4b are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. Our office is currently closed to the public until further notice, however our staff is available to answer any questions from 8. Holder, can independent commissions take the place of section 5 of the voting rights act. Since 1965, the vra has helped to secure the right to vote for millions of americans. Holder however, t hings t ook a t urn in 20almost 50 years lat er. Shelby county, alabama v holder, attorney general, et al. Democracy diminished state and local threats to voting. Continuing challenges to the voting rights act since shelby.
It found that section 4s formula, under which states and other jurisdictions needed preclearance, was unconstitutional. Holder, the court invalidated the formula that determined which states and localities, because of a history of discrimination, had to seek federal preclearance, or approval, from either the department of justice or a federal court before implementing any changes to their voting laws and procedures. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the attorney general. Holder, legal case, decided on june 25, 20, in which the u. Residential drive all purpose farmresidence drive field entrance for farm equipment ditch enclosure commercial drive. On february 27, 20, the united states supreme court heldoral argument in shelby county, alabama v. Striking down an act of congress is the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform. While holder is the registered defendant, several other parties have also intervened as defendants such as. Section 4b was a preclearance formula that considered a. Holder, officials from shelby county, alabama, petitioned the supreme court to rule on whether sections 4 and 5 of the voting rights act were constitutional the voting rights act was enacted in 1965 as a landmark piece of civil rights legislation. Holder on the 2016 general election is an initiative of the leadership conference education fund with the support of the aclu, the advancement project, asian. The voting rights act of 1965 was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, an insidious and pervasive evil. Shelby county, alabama, a covered jurisdiction, contends that when congress reauthorized section 5 in 2006, it exceeded its enumerated powers. Supreme court declared 54 unconstitutional section 4 of the voting rights act vra of 1965, which set forth a formula for determining which jurisdictions were required under section 5 of the act to seek federal approval of any proposed change to their electoral laws or procedures preclearance.
Supreme court gutted the most powerful provision in the voting rights act of 1965 a law widely regarded as the most effective piece of civil rights legislation in american history. Holder is a big middle finger to the conservative majority. Not surprisingly, in the few short years following the decision, voteridentification laws that make voting harder for poor people, people of color, and elderly people, have been moving forward in a. Aug 09, 20 even for many who accurately predicted the result, the supreme courts 5 to 4 decision in shelby county v. Litigation by geography and political subdivision 2 the authors would like to thank alaina mothershead, a university of utah undergraduate. The court upheld the validity of the act, as did the court of appeals for the d. Shelby county, alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that section 5 and section 4 b are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. Shelby county assessor of property our office is currently closed to the public until further notice, however our staff is available to answer any questions from 8. Rejecting equal sovereignty and restoring the constitutional right to vote shelby county v. Democracy diminished state and local threats to voting post. Holder and the future of the brookings institution. The voting rights act doesnt need to treat states equally zachary price shelby county v.
Shelby county is challenging the constitutionality of the voting rights act vra, one of. Holder argues that the extension was within congresss authority, and was necessary to counter regression in voting practices among states with a history of restrictions on minority voting rights. The right wing takes aim at section 5 of the voting rights act. State and local threats to voting post shelby county, alabama v. Continuing challenges to the voting rights act since shelby county v. Holder1 revitalizes the oldest and most demeaning official insult to african americans in american constitutional history. Subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties committee on the judiciary. Holder, one of the greatest pieces of civil rights legislation ever enacted fell. The right wing takes aim at section 5 of the voting rights act page 4 february 26, 20 the fifteenth amendment, congress chose to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. This ruling infringed on the voting rights of some individuals in various states, which. Voting rights cases on behalf of american indians116 a.
The voting rights act of 1965 vra is one of the most important, effective pieces of civil rights legislation ever passed. Holder frequently asked questions what is the voting rights act of 1965. United states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. Memphis, tn shelby county mayor lee harris proposes enacting a sixweek paid parental leave policy for shelby county government employees.
923 710 1417 244 446 506 1054 664 1060 1184 1236 609 499 57 119 210 1495 929 986 287 119 1094 414 971 1522 161 472 1136 265 1446 745 1239 1218