Shelby County v. Holder: A Step Backwards for Voting Rights
To this day, the effects of the court case, Shelby County v. Holder (2013) cast a dark shadow on the voting rights established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Understanding the implications of this landmark Supreme Court case is crucial in comprehending the modern-day dynamics of electoral practices throughout the United States.
THE CASE
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was passed to ensure that American citizens have the right to vote no matter their race. In 2013, the case of Shelby County v. Holder erased a significant component of this civil rights law. The case began in 2010 with Shelby County, Alabama filing to declare a section of the act as unconstitutional. Sections 5 and 4b of the Voting Rights Act required that states and local governments with histories of racial discrimination obtain permission from the federal government to make changes to their voting laws. Specifically, Section 4(b) contained the convergent formula that determined which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance. Section 5 outlined the preclearance requirement that jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting practices were to be subject to. Shelby County thought this formula was outdated and no longer applicable to the current state of voting in the context of racial discrimination. They argued that singling out certain governments for preclearance based on historical measures violated equal sovereignty among the states and that Congress was exceeding its constitutional powers.
THE RULING
In a 5-4 decision, Section 4b was ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court deemed the two sections outdated and decided that governments with histories of discrimination would no longer need preclearance. Chief Justice John Roberts spoke for the majority opinion and claimed the VRA did not take into account recent improvements in voting rights. He also expressed concern surrounding equal sovereignty and singling out certain jurisdictions, rather than treating states equally. He famously states, “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
THE IMPACT
Immediately following the ruling, several states made significant changes to their voting laws. Texas announced the implementation of a highly restrictive voter ID law the same day as the ruling. This began a massive trend of strict voting policies, with Mississippi and Alabama enforcing photo ID laws soon after. The impact of this ruling has allowed countless discriminatory laws to be passed, suppressing thousands of voters. Voter ID laws come in many forms, but many require voters to have a government-issued photo identification such as a passport or driver's license. These laws can impose barriers and burdens on minority and low-income voters who are less likely to have these types of identification due to lack of ability to pay application fees, transportation, expenses, and time to obtain them.
Voter suppression significantly weakens the power of our democracy as it denies the American right and freedom to vote. Since the Supreme Court decision in 2013, many states previously covered by the VRA have implemented restrictive voter ID laws that disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters. These laws have been linked to decreased voter turnout, especially in marginalized communities. There continues to be a trend of restrictive voting laws in the country as we go into the 2024 election, making it increasingly important to address voter suppression and advocate for policies that promote equal access to the ballot box for all citizens.