Supreme Court Case: Shelby County Vs. Holders

Throughout America’s history the franchise has been withheld from different groups. This has been possible due to weakly written laws that do not provide adequate protections. In 1965 PL 89-110 was passed, this law, commonly known as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, finally provided real protections for minorities living in southern states. In recent years the language of the law was modified within the Supreme Court to take away the law’s primary power. In the following mock Congressional testimony we will go back to 1848, 13 years before the American Civil War, and provide evidence of why a law like PL 89-110 is necessary and commendable.

Nearly 100 years after the 15th amendment was ratified, vast disparities and blatant discrimination in voting process and practice were still pervasive, particularly in certain southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted by congress to address this enduring inequity. Section 5 of the VRA requires that states meeting criteria set out in section 4(b) of the act, must obtain federal “preclearance” before enacting any laws that affect voting. Section 4(b) provides the conditions for the preclearance requirement as state or jurisdictions where less than 50% of minorities were registered to vote in 1964.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting discrimination. With the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the Act from the Department of Justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. The prohibition of literacy test or other similar test or devices as a prerequisite to voter registration is one prevention. The requirement of jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide non-English ballots and oral voting instructions is another. Third is the prohibition of vote dilution, which is the remapping of districts to suppress the minority vote. The final provision was one of the most controversial of the Act. It established the federal oversight

Prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (for example, slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

In 1965, at a time of racial discrimination in America and the emergence of a strong Civil Rights Movement, congress enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits discrimination in voting. Congress could not end racial discrimination in voting by suing one jurisdiction, state, etc. at a time. Rather, Congress passed Section 5 of the VRA, which required states and local governments with a history of racially discriminating voting practices to get the approval of the U.S. Attorney General or a three-judge panel for the U.S. District Court for D.C. (“preclearace”) in order to make any changes to their voting practices. Section 4(b) said that the preclearance requirement applied to states and political subdivisions that used a “test or

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was put in to place in order to protect minority voters. The Act was gutted with the Supreme Court decision of Shelby v. holder in which SCOTUS repealed the law requiring states with a history of voting discrimination to have new voting rights laws to be cleared by the Justice Department. This stripping of a key part of the Voting Rights Act is completely unethical because it allows partisan politicians to make laws that discriminate against minorities with ease. Many states including Texas passed new voter laws that inhibit some minority voters for circumstances that they have no control

Holder case, instead of in an effort for the bill to pass. From The Washington Post in the Supreme Court Case Shelby County v. Holder “The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. Section 4 lays out the formulas for how the Justice Department enforces Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires that the states identified with a history of discrimination obtain approval from the federal government before they can make changes to their election law.” With the Supreme Courts ruling states such as "Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia in their entirety; and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota" are free to redraw districting maps, and make changes to election laws, without the approval of the Federal government, or Justice Department. I believe Congresswoman Jackson Lee introduced the bill in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shelby County v. Holder 2013 court case, due to her quote from The Hill in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shelby County v. Holder court case, where Congresswoman Jackson Lee says “"We cannot afford to sit back and watch our country move backwards — as legislators we must act," Jackson Lee said Wednesday. "[B]ased on the Shelby case and its rationale, it is clear that Voting Rights Act is needed more than ever."” That is why I believe in the title of the legislation H.R.75 – Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2015, Congresswoman Jackson Lee added the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. wife’s name Coretta Scott King, because the legislation is a response to the Supreme Courts ruling in Shelby County

(1962) this was a landmark decision that decided that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, therefore the federal courts had to intervene and decide redistricting cases. It resulted in the defendants being unsuccessful. This case said that the law upheld by the Tennessee Constitution regarding the establishment of districts was a violation of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. It has to do with the equal protection clause; this clause forces every individual citizen of the United States to be treated equally and without bias with regard to their pursuit of happiness. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow the government to infringe on the individual person’s rights to pursue a happy

A part of the Constitution that states that the Federal Government has the right to control and maintain jurisdiction over state laws. At the end of the trial, there was a 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal courts have the power to determine the constitutionality of a State's voting districts. Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion, stating that, “The plaintiffs' constitutional right to have their votes count fairly gave them the necessary legal interest to bring the lawsuit.” He also argued that the case did not involve a “political question“ that prevented judicial review. The court could determine the constitutionality of the case. The case was returned to the federal court.The concurring opinion was written by Justice William O. Douglas. He declared that if a voter no longer has “The full constitutional value of his franchise and the legislative branch fails to take appropriate restorative action, the doors of the courts must be open to

Justice Ginsburg wrote a 36-page dissent joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The first eight pages outline the extensive effort put forth by congress when researching, crafting and updating the 2009 version of the VRA. Justice Ginsburg argues that the question before the court ought to be whether or not congress acted appropriately within the authority granted under the constitution, namely the 15th amendment and the constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause as interpreted in McCulloch v. Maryland, “all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted” to address the issue of discrimination in voting with appropriate legislation. The justice argues that the majority does not follow established precedent or tests when determining the ruling in this case as set out by MuCulloch v. Maryland, Norwest Austin, Katzenberg, or City of Rome. Ginsburg uses these examples to contend that the majority is improperly evaluating the case and creating an entirely new precedent that ignores current case law. Instead of ruling on the constitutional breadth of authority provided by the rationality test and the 15th amendment, the majority has chosen instead to pass judgment on the language in the

Holder to be overturned, a new case with similar issues must be presented. Section 4(b) of the VRA was struck down, so Congress would need to reenact a similar provision that would serve as the preclearance formula for Section 5. A major issue in the Shelby County decision was the fact that the formula relied on data from 1965, and the Court did not want to punish states for old discriminatory statics. For a new case to be put before the Supreme Court, Congress would need to create a formula, similar to that of Section 4(b) that would take into account areas that have previously employed discriminatory measures in voting. Congress would also need to provide sufficient evidence proving racial discrimination still existed in the areas covered by the act. This way, the act would be covered by the congruence and proportionality standard, because the Court would be forced to look at the congressional record. This act would need to affect a state or county that was originally affected by Section 4(b), forcing it to receive preclearance from the Attorney General. The county would file suit at a district court, claiming that the provision was too similar to Section 4(b), and that it treated the sovereignty of the states differently. If the district court upheld the congressional provision, it would make for the perfect opportunity for the county to file an appeal, claiming that the district court’s opinion violated Shelby County v. Holder. The district court could rule based on the congruence and proportionality test, finding that Congress had valid evidence to enact the provision. For a case like this to conspire, the attorney general would need to be one of the parties involved, since it is the attorneys general’s responsibility to carry out Section 5 of the VRA. In this case the attorney general would be the defendant and the county would be the plaintiff. This new case would be the perfect vessel because if the district court ruled in

Justice Scalia argued that the question of whether same-sex marriage should be recognized is one for the state legislatures, and that for the issue to be decided by unelected judges goes against one of the most basic precepts of the Constitution: that political change should occur through the votes of elected representatives. In taking on this policymaking role, the majority opinion departed from established Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence to create a right where none exists in the Constitution. Justice Thomas joined in the dissent. Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the majority opinion stretched the doctrine of substantive due process rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment too far and in doing so distorted the democratic process by taking power from the legislature and putting it in the hands of the judiciary. Additionally, the legislative history of the Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments indicates that they were meant to protect people from physical restraint and from government intervention, but they do not grant them rights to government entitlements. Justice Thomas also argued that the majority opinion impermissibly infringed on religious freedom by legislating from the bench rather than allowing the state legislature to determine how best to address the competing rights and interests at stake. Justice Scalia joined in the dissent. In his separate dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote that the Constitution does not address the right of same-sex couples to marry, and therefore the issue is reserved to the states to decide whether to depart from the traditional definition of marriage. By allowing a majority of the Court to create a new

The Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 et seq., decision is important regarding the laws governing voting rights and their relationship to minority voters. Its implication and effects however does not end within the legal realms and dimensions but continues through to society, culture, and human rights. The Voting Rights Act initially established in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration protected “racial minorities” from biased voting practices. It was a huge stride in the civil rights movement and a victory over harmful, archaic, and biased voting practices and traditions.

The introduction of the voting right act into the American constitution represented justice for all American citizens, created equality irrespective of race, gender or social status and eliminated unnecessary impediments that prevented individuals from voting. The right to vote evolved from a privilege to an

The Supreme Court rulings led to a number of acts which helped the civil rights movement attain its goals. The first example is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On January 23rd, 1964, the 24th amendment stopped the poll tax, which initially had been introduced in eleven southern states after reconstruction to make it difficult for poor blacks to vote. On August 10th, 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, making it easier for Southern blacks to register to vote. Anything that could limit the number of people able to vote, for example - some states had used a literacy test, limited access to education, added poll taxes, and other such requirements that were used to restrict black voting – were all made illegal. The Act proclaimed that ‘No person, whether acting under colour of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.’ Although the Supreme Court was not directly involved, it can be suggested that it aided the rights movement by its early recognition for equality, leading to other intuitions to follow which eventually led to blacks having a say in how the country is ran.