• About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Download App
  • Virtual Summit
  • Benefit Hub for Subscribers Only
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • News
  • Culture
  • Mental Health
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Disability
  • Webinars
  • Podcast
Find/Post Jobs
  • Home
  • News
  • Culture
  • Mental Health
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Disability
  • Webinars
  • Podcast
No Result
View All Result
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good
No Result
View All Result
Home Social Justice Criminal Justice

Analysis of Shelby v Holder: the Downfall of the Voters Right Act of 1965

Allison RiggsbyAllison Riggs
April 7, 2019
in Criminal Justice, Politics
0
ADVERTISEMENT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on PinterestShare via EmailShare on Reddit

 

shelby

The Supreme Court struck a blow to efforts preventing racial discrimination in voting as a result of Shelby v Holder coming before the high court. In a 5-4 decision, the Court invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (the “coverage formula”), which determines which parts of the country are covered by Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 requires those “covered” jurisdictions (the jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination, and which continue to demonstrate discriminatory behavior) to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before making any change in law that would affect voting. The Court said the formula used to decide which parts of the country are “covered” is unconstitutional, so for now there are no covered jurisdictions. The Court has created a result in which Section 5 cannot be applied anywhere.

When the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 2006, Congress compiled thousands of pages of evidence that voting discrimination was still happening in the jurisdictions identified in the coverage formula. It was on this strong evidence that Congress decided to continue the application of Section 5 to the jurisdictions identified by Section 4.

Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion which ignored all of the evidence compiled by Congress in its 2006 decision reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the Chief Justice wrongly focused on the reasons that justified the coverage formula in 1965—reasons that were not the justifications used in 2006. The majority opinion repeatedly discussed the injury to equal state sovereignty created by having only certain jurisdictions be subject to Section 5. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress did not adequately connect the coverage formula to current political realities. This position makes no sense when viewed with the evidence of recent voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions. The Court also departed from its standard deference to Congress—the elected officials that are best equipped to determine what kinds of voting rights protections are still necessary.

Justice Ginsberg drafted a powerful dissenting opinion, pointing out the flaws in the majority’s reasoning. The dissent also lifted up some of the stories of devastating discrimination in voting, including the significantly higher rate of successful cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in covered jurisdictions. She pointed out the error of halting Section 5 protections because they have been so effective. Indeed, she noted that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Still, hope remains. The majority opinion noted that “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.” Section 5 still stands, but Congress must act quickly to enact a new coverage formula, as the Court suggests. Protecting the right to vote is a bipartisan goal, and voting rights advocates will be pushing Congress to do the right thing—to restore the Voting Rights Act and respect the right of every American to participate in the political process.

Read the Shelby v Holder Supreme Court Case in Full:

[gview file=”https://swhelper.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/12-96_6k47.pdf”]

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
ADVERTISEMENT
Previous Post

Voting Rights Act, Privileges, and Immunities of United States Constitution

Next Post

House Republicans Stripped Food Stamp Provisions from Farm Bill

Allison Riggs

Allison Riggs

Allison Riggs is a staff attorney focusing on voting rights and environmental justice. She has been with Southern Coalition for Social Justice since 2009. Her voting rights work over the last two years has been focused on redistricting, and she has litigated redistricting cases on behalf of State NAACP Conferences in Texas, Florida and North Carolina.

Related Posts

Hate Sites Using the Wider Abortion Argument to Spread Racism and Extremism
Health

Hate Sites Using the Wider Abortion Argument to Spread Racism and Extremism

June 29, 2022
In A New World, Social Work Leads the Way
Criminal Justice

In A New World, Social Work Leads the Way

June 14, 2022
Poverty, Racism and the Public Health Crisis in America
Criminal Justice

Poverty, Racism and the Public Health Crisis in America

November 26, 2021
How American Cities Can Promote Urban Agriculture
Environmental Justice

How American Cities Can Promote Urban Agriculture

November 24, 2021
The Covid Pandemic Increased Vulnerability to Forced Labor in Global Supply Chains
Criminal Justice

The Covid Pandemic Increased Vulnerability to Forced Labor in Global Supply Chains

November 23, 2021
How Environmental Policies Can Promote Economic Growth
Environmental Justice

How Environmental Policies Can Promote Economic Growth

June 24, 2022
Next Post
House Republicans Stripped Food Stamp Provisions from Farm Bill

House Republicans Stripped Food Stamp Provisions from Farm Bill

Wealth Inequality: Is the Government Controlled By The Elite?

Wealth Inequality: Is the Government Controlled By The Elite?

Leave Comment
ADVERTISEMENT
What Can Be Done To Solve The Foster Care Crisis?

Ending the Therapeutic Relationship: Creative Termination Activities

June 24, 2022
What Feelings Are In Your Heart: An Art Therapy Exercise for Kids

What Feelings Are In Your Heart: An Art Therapy Exercise for Kids

June 19, 2022
Want to Work With Children: 5 Skills and Qualities You Should Be Working On

Want to Work With Children: 5 Skills and Qualities You Should Be Working On

April 7, 2019

Connect With Us

Twitter
FlipboardInstagram
ADVERTISEMENT
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Instagram TikTok
SWHELPER | Social Work | Social Justice | Social Good

  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Buy Merch
  • Download App
  • Terms of Service
https://youtu.be/jWzjyPoSjtw

© 2022 Social Work Helper, PBC

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • News
    • Culture
    • Technology
    • Politics
    • Criminal Justice
    • Social Work
    • Education
    • LGBTQ
    • Technology
    • Disability
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Webinars
  • Virtual Summit
  • Career Center
  • Download App
  • Subscriber Benefit Hub
  • Subscribe
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Cart

© 2022 Social Work Helper, PBC

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Facebook
Sign In with Google
Sign In with Linked In
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Facebook
Sign Up with Google
Sign Up with Linked In
OR

Fill the forms below to register

*By registering into our website, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.
Go to mobile version