SCOTUS Gives Voting Rights The Ax!

Conservative wing of the Supreme Court struck down provision that prevents voter discrimination.

In a major decision, the conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act that advocated for Southern states to be monitored for scheming during elections.

The progressive movement is outraged by the decision. Many figured that the Supreme Court is now acting like a bunch of activists. The 5-4 decision once again proves that each decision made by the court will greatly affect everything.

In Shelby County v. Holder, the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Act and its formula for requiring preclearance as unconstitutional based on current conditions, saying it was rational and needed at the time it was enacted but is no longer necessary, notwithstanding the fact that Congress had nearly-unanimously reauthorized the Act in 2006. Preclearance itself was not struck down, but has no effect unless Congress passes a new formula.

That portion of the Act in question was designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring all state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures, no matter how small. In an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required.

Petitioner Shelby County, in the covered jurisdiction of Alabama, sued Attorney Genera Eric Holder in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C, seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The District Court upheld the Act, finding that the evidence before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify reauthorizing §5 and continuing §4(b)'s coverage formula. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. After surveying the evidence in the record, that court accepted Congress’s conclusion that §2 litigation remained inadequate in the covered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minority voters, that §5 was therefore still necessary, and that the coverage formula continued to pass constitutional muster.