Shelby County v. Holder
The Facts
Shelby County, Alabama sought a declaratory judgment that Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were facially unconstitutional. Section 5 required covered jurisdictions to obtain pre-approval ('preclearance') from the Justice Department or a D.C. federal court before implementing any changes to voting laws or procedures. Section 4(b)'s coverage formula identified jurisdictions based on voter registration and turnout data from 1964, 1968, and 1972. Congress reauthorized the Act in 2006 for 25 years, relying on an extensive legislative record of continued discrimination. Shelby County argued Congress exceeded its enforcement authority under the Fifteenth Amendment.
The Application
The Court found that Congress's decision to reauthorize Section 4(b)'s coverage formula in 2006 without updating the underlying data violated the congruence and proportionality requirement for enforcement legislation. Although Congress had compiled a substantial new legislative record of ongoing discrimination, it applied that record to justify a coverage mechanism based on voting statistics from 1964, 1968, and 1972, more than 30 years out of date. The Court held that this disconnect between the constitutional problem Congress sought to remedy and the outdated formula used to identify covered jurisdictions was not "appropriate legislation" under the Fifteenth Amendment, as the remedy was no longer congruent to current conditions. In addition, the formula violated the equal sovereignty principle by treating states unequally without adequate justification, since jurisdictions covered under the old data bore no necessary relationship to present-day discrimination.
The Conclusion
**Landmark 2013 ruling that ended federal preclearance as a practical matter.** States previously covered immediately began enacting voting changes without federal review. The decision is widely cited as a turning point in voting rights enforcement. Congress has been unable to pass a replacement coverage formula (the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act). Section 2's nationwide litigation framework remains intact but is slower and more costly than preclearance.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held 5-4 in 2013 that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. The formula that determined which states and jurisdictions had to obtain federal preclearance before changing voting laws. Was unconstitutional because it was based on decades-old data that did not reflect current conditions. The Court did not strike down the preclearance requirement in Section 5 itself, but without a valid coverage formula it became inoperable. The decision effectively ended the preclearance regime for covered jurisdictions, allowing them to change voting laws without prior federal approval.
Facts
Shelby County, Alabama sought a declaratory judgment that Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were facially unconstitutional. Section 5 required covered jurisdictions to obtain pre-approval ('preclearance') from the Justice Department or a D.C. federal court before implementing any changes to voting laws or procedures. Section 4(b)'s coverage formula identified jurisdictions based on voter registration and turnout data from 1964, 1968, and 1972. Congress reauthorized the Act in 2006 for 25 years, relying on an extensive legislative record of continued discrimination. Shelby County argued Congress exceeded its enforcement authority under the Fifteenth Amendment.
Issue
Whether Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, as reauthorized in 2006, exceeds Congress's authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by subjecting states to preclearance based on decades-old data that does not reflect current voting conditions.
Rule
Fifteenth Amendment, § 2 grants Congress authority to enforce the Amendment's prohibition on race-based denial of the right to vote by 'appropriate legislation.' Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder (2009) suggested the coverage formula raised serious constitutional concerns under the principle that all states retain equal sovereignty. Congress's enforcement power is remedial. It must be proportional and congruent to the constitutional violation being addressed.
Analysis
The Court found that Congress's decision to reauthorize Section 4(b)'s coverage formula in 2006 without updating the underlying data violated the congruence and proportionality requirement for enforcement legislation. Although Congress had compiled a substantial new legislative record of ongoing discrimination, it applied that record to justify a coverage mechanism based on voting statistics from 1964, 1968, and 1972,more than 30 years out of date. The Court held that this disconnect between the constitutional problem Congress sought to remedy and the outdated formula used to identify covered jurisdictions was not "appropriate legislation" under the Fifteenth Amendment, as the remedy was no longer congruent to current conditions. In addition, the formula violated the equal sovereignty principle by treating states unequally without adequate justification, since jurisdictions covered under the old data bore no necessary relationship to present-day discrimination.
Conclusion
**Landmark 2013 ruling that ended federal preclearance as a practical matter.** States previously covered immediately began enacting voting changes without federal review. The decision is widely cited as a turning point in voting rights enforcement. Congress has been unable to pass a replacement coverage formula (the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act). Section 2's nationwide litigation framework remains intact but is slower and more costly than preclearance.
Notes
570 U.S. 529 (2013). Struck down VRA Section 4(b) coverage formula. Section 5 preclearance inoperable without formula. Major companion: Abbott v. Lulac, Allen v. Milligan.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support