Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Deciding Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Citation: 570 U.S. 529 (2013)
View on CourtListenerOverview
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark voting rights decision in which the Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, effectively invalidating the Section 5 preclearance requirement for states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting. The 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the coverage formula violated the principle of equal state sovereignty.
Facts of the Case
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required certain states and localities, predominantly in the South, to obtain preclearance from the Department of Justice or the D.C. District Court before making any changes to voting laws or procedures. Section 4(b) contained the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to Section 5. The formula was based on data from 1964, 1968, and 1972 election cycles.
Shelby County, Alabama, challenged the constitutionality of Sections 4(b) and 5 after the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The county argued that the coverage formula was outdated and that extraordinary federalism costs justified striking down the preclearance regime.
The Coverage Formula
The Court held that Section 4(b)’s coverage formula violated the constitutional principle of equal state sovereignty. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the formula was based on 40-year-old data and did not reflect current conditions. The Court noted that voter registration and turnout rates in covered jurisdictions had dramatically improved since 1965 and that the formula’s reliance on old data was not responsive to current needs.
The Court emphasized that the Voting Rights Act was an extraordinary remedy that intruded on state sovereignty. The principle of equal state sovereignty requires that the federal government not single out particular states for disparate treatment absent strong justification. The Court held that the justification for Section 5’s disparate treatment of states must be current, not historical.
The Effect on Section 5
By invalidating the Section 4 coverage formula, the Court made Section 5 preclearance inoperative. The Court did not strike down Section 5 itself, leaving Congress the option to enact a new coverage formula based on current data. However, Congress has not enacted a new formula, and Section 5 remains dormant.
The Court’s decision did not affect Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting nationwide and may be enforced through litigation. Section 2 claims may still be brought to challenge discriminatory voting laws.
Dissent
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, arguing that Congress had accumulated extensive evidence of ongoing voting discrimination when it reauthorized the Act in 2006. The dissent emphasized that Congress had the authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment through appropriate legislation and that courts should defer to Congress’s judgment about the need for preclearance.
Legacy
Shelby County dramatically changed voting rights enforcement in the United States. Within hours of the decision, several previously covered jurisdictions announced new voting laws, including voter identification requirements and polling place closures. The decision has been followed by extensive litigation over state voting laws and has prompted calls for new federal voting rights legislation, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.