 |
|
and SCOTUS has ruled parts of the act unconstitutional,
Posted on: August 31, 2025 at 18:05:55 CT
90Tiger STL
Posts:
166243
Member For:
23.53 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
yes.
The Supreme Court did not rule the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA) unconstitutional; instead, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), it struck down the law's coverage formula (Section 4(b)), which determined which jurisdictions were subject to federal preclearance under Section 5. This ruling eliminated the requirement for those jurisdictions to obtain approval for changes to voting laws, effectively ending the preclearance process.
What the Supreme Court did in Shelby County v. Holder
Struck Down the Coverage Formula:
The Court found the formula in Section 4(b) to be unconstitutional because it was based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s.
Ended Preclearance:
By invalidating the coverage formula, the ruling also invalidated Section 5 of the VRA, which mandated preclearance. This process had historically prevented discriminatory voting laws from being enacted in areas with a history of racial discrimination.
What the Supreme Court did NOT do
Did not rule Section 5 unconstitutional:
.
The Court specifically stated that Congress could create a new, updated coverage formula for Section 5.
Did not rule the entire VRA unconstitutional:
.
While a major blow to the law, other sections, such as Section 2, which prohibits discriminatory voting practices, remained in effect.
Impact of the Decision
Immediate implementation of restrictive voting laws:
.
Following the ruling, some jurisdictions that were no longer subject to preclearance implemented voter ID laws and other measures that had previously been blocked.
Intensified efforts to challenge discriminatory practices:
.
The focus shifted to Section 2 of the VRA, but recent Supreme Court decisions like Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) have made it more challenging to challenge discriminatory voting rules under Section 2.
The Supreme Court did not rule the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA) unconstitutional; instead, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), it struck down the law's coverage formula (Section 4(b)), which determined which jurisdictions were subject to federal preclearance under Section 5. This ruling eliminated the requirement for those jurisdictions to obtain approval for changes to voting laws, effectively ending the preclearance process.
What the Supreme Court did in Shelby County v. Holder
Struck Down the Coverage Formula:
The Court found the formula in Section 4(b) to be unconstitutional because it was based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s.
Ended Preclearance:
By invalidating the coverage formula, the ruling also invalidated Section 5 of the VRA, which mandated preclearance. This process had historically prevented discriminatory voting laws from being enacted in areas with a history of racial discrimination.
What the Supreme Court did NOT do
Did not rule Section 5 unconstitutional:
.
The Court specifically stated that Congress could create a new, updated coverage formula for Section 5.
Did not rule the entire VRA unconstitutional:
.
While a major blow to the law, other sections, such as Section 2, which prohibits discriminatory voting practices, remained in effect.
Impact of the Decision
Immediate implementation of restrictive voting laws:
.
Following the ruling, some jurisdictions that were no longer subject to preclearance implemented voter ID laws and other measures that had previously been blocked.
Intensified efforts to challenge discriminatory practices:
.
The focus shifted to Section 2 of the VRA, but recent Supreme Court decisions like Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) have made it more challenging to challenge discriminatory voting rules under Section 2.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
and SCOTUS has ruled parts of the act unconstitutional, - 90Tiger STL - 8/31 18:05:55