Respuesta :
Shelby County v. Holder was a significant Supreme Court case in 2013 that dealt with a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA, which determined the formula for identifying jurisdictions that were required to seek federal preclearance before making changes to their voting laws or practices (under Section 5 of the VRA).
The Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder effectively invalidated the preclearance requirement for certain jurisdictions, stating that the coverage formula used in Section 4(b) was outdated and therefore unconstitutional. This decision had a substantial impact, as it meant that the federal government could no longer subject specific states and jurisdictions to preclearance without updating the formula.
As a result, some states and jurisdictions previously covered by preclearance requirements were able to make changes to their voting laws without federal approval, leading to concerns about potential voting rights implications. The decision prompted discussions and debates about the ongoing need for federal oversight to prevent discrimination in voting practices.
The Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder effectively invalidated the preclearance requirement for certain jurisdictions, stating that the coverage formula used in Section 4(b) was outdated and therefore unconstitutional. This decision had a substantial impact, as it meant that the federal government could no longer subject specific states and jurisdictions to preclearance without updating the formula.
As a result, some states and jurisdictions previously covered by preclearance requirements were able to make changes to their voting laws without federal approval, leading to concerns about potential voting rights implications. The decision prompted discussions and debates about the ongoing need for federal oversight to prevent discrimination in voting practices.
