Census & Voting
Reflecting on the Implications of Shelby County v. Holder, 10 years later
By Zaria Mariko Guignard and Yeibin Andrews
Ten years ago, on June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated a key section of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), shaking the foundation of voting rights in America. The decision rendered a crucial safeguard for marginalized communities ineffective, causing voter discrimination against communities of color to surge exponentially. For 10 years now, Asian American communities have been fighting back against the rise in discriminatory voting laws with a limited set of tools in our toolbox. To understand the gravity of the Shelby County v. Holder decision and the current state of the Voting Rights Act, we look back at the passage of the VRA and the collective fight to restore and strengthen it over the past decade.
Shelby County v. Holder
Enacted in 1965 with the aim of eliminating racial and language-based discrimination in voting laws, the VRA created protections for voters by establishing safeguards to prohibit state and local governments from depriving citizens of their equal right to vote. Before the VRA’s enactment, legal challenges against discriminatory voting practices often proved futile. Jurisdictions unwilling to change would merely substitute one discriminatory tactic for another whenever their practices were successfully challenged in court. In response, Congress introduced a safeguard within the VRA known as Section 5 preclearance. Section 5 mandated that specific jurisdictions with a documented history of discrimination must seek approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal district court in Washington, D.C., prior to implementing any changes to the jurisdiction’s voting laws. This preapproval process acted as a vital check to ensure that policy changes with the potential to infringe upon equal voting rights were not allowed to take effect.
In a narrow 5–4 decision released by the Supreme Court on June 25, 2013, the Court declared Section 4(b) of the VRA, which determines the jurisdictions covered by Section 5, unconstitutional.
The ruling asserted that the coverage formula was based on “decades-old data and eradicated practices,” disregarding an extensive Congressional record that showed previously covered jurisdictions persistently engaged in acts of voting discrimination.
This meant that while the Section 5 preclearance framework remained, there were no longer any jurisdictions covered — and thus jurisdictions previously covered were no longer required to submit voting law changes for preclearance.
Our Current Fight
Since 2013, Advancing Justice — AAJC and our partners have been fighting back against discriminatory voting laws, but the Shelby County decision has made it more difficult.
In particular, the decision has had a significant impact on the Asian American community, such as “disruptive changes to polling sites, voting systems, and redistricting plans” representing numerous setbacks to the community.
Not only do the implications of Shelby County leave Asian American voters at an even higher risk of voter discrimination, but it has a detrimental impact on Asian American representation in the political process. Practices such as discriminatory redistricting create less space for Asian American politicians to represent the community in political institutions. Changes to polling locations and voting procedures discourage voters from participating and increase voter apathy. Residual impacts of the decision have trickled down into the community, impacting voters at a local level. The preventative effect of preclearance has been lost as jurisdictions know they no longer need to submit their voting changes for approval prior to implementation, which has opened the floodgates to voting discrimination.
Ongoing lawsuits in Georgia and Arizona, both previously covered jurisdictions, are prime examples of the racially discriminatory voting policies our community is faced with and how we are actively combating them. In Arizona, House Bill 2492 and House Bill 2243 required strict proof of citizenship and in some cases criminal action if insufficient evidence of citizenship was provided. These provisions, in a state with one of the largest growing populations of Asian American voters, held a direct threat to the electoral power and perpetuated voter discrimination among communities of color. Barriers to accessibility, such as time commitment and money, would disproportionately impact voters of color. To fight against these bad bills, a lawsuit was filed in August of 2022 by Advancing Justice — AAJC in conjunction with a law firm, on behalf of the AZ AANHPI for Equity Coalition.
In Georgia, SB202 would create tight deadlines and prohibit proactive mailing for mail-in ballots, restrict access to drop-boxes, and enforce strict ID requirements. These policies undermine the electoral agency of Asian Americans in Georgia by making it harder for voters to cast their ballots. These policies are especially concerning after the record turnout of Asian American voters in the 2020 election, many of whom opted for mail-in ballots. In response to SB202, a lawsuit was filed by Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Atlanta, Advancing Justice — AAJC, and Advancing Justice -Asian Law Caucus in conjunction with a pro bono counsel in April of 2021. Most recently in December of 2021, a District Court judge found that AANHPI Voters can hold governmental institutions accountable for violating their voting rights.
In the years following the Shelby decision, numerous other obstacles to the polls became apparent, such as voter roll purges and long wait times. Research from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights indicated mass polling place closures in key states with higher percentages of voters of color. Following the 2013 decision, Texas has closed 750 polling locations since 2014. In Dallas County, which is predominantly people of color and saw a 51.9% growth in its Asian American population over the last decade, 74 polling locations have closed since the ruling. Communities of color continue to face disproportionate obstacles to accessing the polls, evident as ramifications from the Shelby decision continue to be felt nationwide.
Our Path Forward
For the last 10 years, Advancing Justice — AAJC has called on Congress time and again to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. We’ll continue to advocate for the VRA to be restored and modernized until all voters are protected from racially discriminatory voting laws. Alongside reinstating a geographic coverage formula for Section 5, Congress should introduce a complementary provision that specifically addresses the tactics employed by policymakers to suppress the voting power of communities of color. By modernizing the preclearance process, the VRA can effectively address the most problematic voting restrictions and prevent them from taking effect.
In the current political landscape, bad actors will continue to introduce voter suppression bills with the intent to manipulate the outcome of elections; therefore, we must have one of the most effective tools in safeguarding voting rights — a fully functional Section 5.
If you’d like to find out how you can get involved and learn more about the impacts of Shelby County v. Holder, please visit www.shelbyat10.org.
Zaria Mariko Guignard is the Census & Civic Engagement Program Manager at Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC.
Yeibin Andrews is the Census and Voting Intern at Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC.
Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC has a mission to advance the civil and human rights of Asian Americans and to build and promote a fair and equitable society for all. Visit our website at advancingjustice-aajc.org.
