What Happened: A Landmark Ruling and Its aftermath

In 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder fundamentally altered the landscape of voting rights in the United States.The Court struck down Section 4(b) of the voting Rights Act of 1965, which contained the formula used too determine which states and localities with a history of racial discrimination needed federal preclearance before making changes to their voting laws. This preclearance requirement,established to prevent discriminatory voting practices,had been a cornerstone of the Act’s enforcement for decades.

The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that the formula used to identify these jurisdictions was outdated and no longer reflected current conditions. The Court did not rule against the constitutionality of Section 5, which *required* preclearance, but by invalidating the formula for determining *where* preclearance was needed, it effectively gutted the provision.Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg, in a powerful dissent, warned that “throwing out your umbrella in a rainstorm” would likely lead to a resurgence of voting discrimination.

The Immediate and Subsequent Impact

Almost promptly following the Shelby County decision, states with a history of voting discrimination began enacting stricter voting laws. These included:

• Voter ID laws: Requiring specific forms of photo identification, which disproportionately affect minority voters and those with lower incomes.
• Reductions in early voting: limiting the number of days or hours for early voting, making it harder for working-class voters to participate.
• purges of voter rolls: Removing voters from registration lists, frequently enough based on inaccurate or outdated information.
• Restrictions on same-day registration: Eliminating the ability to register and vote on the same day.
• Changes to polling place locations: Closing polling places, particularly in minority neighborhoods, leading to longer lines and reduced access.

Several states, including Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia, implemented these changes. These actions led to legal challenges, but the absence of federal preclearance meant that these laws could go into effect while litigation was ongoing. The Brennan Center for Justice documented a surge in restrictive voting laws following the Shelby County ruling.

Data as of October 26, 2023, sourced from the Brennan Center for Justice.

What It Means: A Shift in Power and Access

The Shelby County decision represented a significant shift in the balance of power between the federal government and the states regarding voting rights. It removed a crucial safeguard against discriminatory voting practices and empowered states to regulate elections with less federal oversight. This has led to concerns about voter suppression and reduced access to the ballot box, particularly for minority voters, low-income voters, and students.

The ruling also highlighted the limitations of relying solely on litigation to address voting discrimination. While legal challenges can be effective in certain specific cases, they are frequently enough time-consuming and expensive, and the absence of preclearance allows discriminatory laws to remain in effect during the litigation process.