Shelby County v. Holder
570 U.S. ____ (2013) (2013)
Rule of Law:
A federal law that departs from the fundamental principle of equal state sovereignty by subjecting specific states to unique regulatory burdens must be justified by current needs, and its geographic coverage formula must be rationally related to current conditions, not historical data.
Facts:
- In 1965, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to address pervasive racial discrimination in voting.
- Section 4(b) of the VRA established a 'coverage formula' to identify jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices, based on their use of voting tests or devices and low voter turnout as of November 1964.
- Section 5 of the Act required these 'covered' jurisdictions to obtain 'preclearance' from federal authorities before implementing any changes to their voting laws or procedures.
- Shelby County, located in Alabama, was a jurisdiction designated for coverage under Section 4(b) and was therefore subject to the Section 5 preclearance requirement.
- Congress reauthorized the VRA multiple times, most recently in 2006 for an additional 25 years, without updating the core coverage formula, which continued to rely on data and practices from decades prior.
- By the time of the 2006 reauthorization, data showed that the racial gap in voter registration and turnout in the covered jurisdictions had significantly decreased, with African-American turnout in some covered states exceeding that of white voters.
Procedural Posture:
- Shelby County filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The suit sought a declaratory judgment that Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were facially unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement.
- The District Court upheld the constitutionality of the law and granted summary judgment to the Attorney General.
- Shelby County, the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, finding the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA to be constitutional.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which determines the states and localities subject to federal preclearance for voting law changes, violate the constitutional principles of federalism and equal state sovereignty because it is based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. While the preclearance requirement was a justifiable 'extraordinary' measure to combat the 'exceptional conditions' of 1965, its current burdens must be justified by current needs. The formula, which is based on 40-year-old data and eradicated practices like literacy tests, is no longer rationally related to current conditions. Voter registration and turnout disparities on which the formula was based have been erased, yet the law continues to treat states differently based on this outdated information, violating the fundamental principle of equal state sovereignty. Congress's failure to update the formula to reflect current realities renders it unconstitutional.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes, the coverage formula is unconstitutional, and Section 5 itself is also unconstitutional. The 'extraordinary problem' of pervasive and flagrant voting discrimination that justified the 'extraordinary measures' of Section 5 in 1965 no longer exists. The conditions in the covered jurisdictions have dramatically improved and can no longer be characterized as 'exceptional' or 'unique.' Because the historical justification for the intrusive preclearance requirement has vanished, Section 5 is an unconstitutional exercise of federal power.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
No, the coverage formula in Section 4(b) is constitutional. The Court errs by failing to give proper deference to Congress's judgment, which was based on a massive 15,000-page legislative record demonstrating the continued need for preclearance in the covered jurisdictions. The VRA's success is precisely why it remains necessary to prevent backsliding and combat more subtle 'second-generation' barriers to voting, like racial gerrymandering and vote dilution. Striking down the preclearance provision is like 'throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.' The record shows that discrimination remains concentrated in the covered jurisdictions, and the Act's bailout provisions provide a dynamic escape hatch for jurisdictions that have remedied their past practices.
Analysis:
This decision effectively invalidated the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act by striking down its coverage formula, fundamentally altering the landscape of voting rights law. It shifted the balance of power from the federal government back to the states in regulating elections, emphasizing the principle of equal state sovereignty. The ruling places the onus on Congress to draft a new formula based on current conditions, a politically challenging task that has not been accomplished. In the absence of preclearance, formerly covered jurisdictions can implement voting changes without federal approval, requiring plaintiffs to challenge discriminatory laws through more costly and time-consuming litigation under Section 2 of the VRA.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"