Seven Years On and Back in the News: Shelby County v. Holder
**On June 4, 2020 the Washington Supreme Court issued an open letter to the judiciary and legal community recognizing deep-seated and continuing institutional racial injustice and calling for action to address systemic inequities. The Washington State Law Library is dedicated to furthering the Court’s goal by publishing stories that highlight the historical context surrounding systemic racism and efforts to dismantle it.**
As states continue their primary election races ahead of the 2020 election, the news has been full of footage of long lines, closed precincts and broken equipment. These images have reignited interest in and conversation about a landmark United States Supreme Court case that was decided seven years ago today, Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). What is this famous case and why is it back in the news?
While the opinion was authored in 2013, the origins of the case date back to 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. History.com explains, the law “aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Voting Rights Act is considered one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.”
In 2006, Congress reauthorized the act for 25 years, prompting Shelby County, Alabama to file suit in Federal District Court, seeking judgment to declare Sections 4(b) and 5 unconstitutional. They also argued for a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court following the U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold the constitutionality of the two sections.
Oyez concludes that in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts,
“The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes current burdens that are no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question. The Court also held that the formula for determining whether changes to a state’s voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question.”
In a bench announcement, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the majority that race-based voting discrimination still exists and that the Voting Rights Act addresses the disregard for the dictates of the 15th Amendment. However, she strongly disagreed with the Court’s contention that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is based on old data and eradicated practices, so Congress was justified in retaining it. She further argued that preclearance for voting changes in covered jurisdictions was effective in preventing voting discrimination.
Justice Ginsburg saw the Court’s decision as a way to halt the progress of the Voting Rights Act. Included in her full 37 page dissent, she writes: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” 570 U.S. at 590.
Critics referred to the Court’s decision as a “gutting” of the Voting Rights Act, something they say can be demonstrated by the long lines and voter frustrations that we see in the media today. Indeed, a convergence of the consequences of Shelby County and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is highlighted this week with the And Still I Vote Week of Action to urge Congress to pass the HEROES Act, which includes provisions to ensure safe elections during the pandemic. (LE)
Resources
Shelby County v. Holder discussion and analysis:
∙ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: Shelby County v. Holder
∙ SCOTUS Blog: Shelby Commentary: What does the Court’s decision mean? and After Shelby County.
∙ To listen to the oral arguments and opinion announcement, click here.
∙ To view the case documents, including briefs, click here.
Voter rights, voter suppression and voter education resources:
∙ Brennan Center for Justice report Waiting to Vote: Racial Disparities in Election Day Experiences
∙ The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights Voting Rights page
Media:
∙ The Good Trouble Campaign and documentary film John Lewis: Good Trouble (available for viewing July 3, 2020)
∙ Fannie Lou Hamer Tells Her Story 1963
∙ LBJ Presidential Library Voting Rights Act media kit
∙ Brookings Institution Voting Rights after Shelby County v. Holder
Books in the Washington State Law Library collection:
∙ Uncertain Justice : The Roberts Court and the Constitution by Laurence H. Tribe, Library Main Reading Room KF 4550 T789 2014
∙ Colorblind Injustice : Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction by J. Morgan Kousser, Library Main Reading Room JK 1924 K68 1999
