key term - Shelby County v. Holder

Definition

Shelby County v. Holder was a 2013 Supreme Court case that struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which had required certain states and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before making changes to their voting procedures. The ruling had significant implications for the balance of power between federal and state governments.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Shelby County v. Holder decision effectively struck down the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, which had been in place for nearly 50 years.
2. The Court ruled that the formula used to determine which states and local governments were subject to the preclearance requirement was unconstitutional, as it was based on outdated data.
3. The decision shifted more power to the states, allowing them to make changes to their voting procedures without federal oversight.
4. Critics argued that the ruling undermined the Voting Rights Act and made it easier for states to implement voting restrictions that could disproportionately affect minority voters.
5. Supporters of the decision argued that it restored the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and that the preclearance requirement was no longer necessary.

Review Questions

• Explain how the Shelby County v. Holder decision impacted the balance of power between federal and state governments.
  • The Shelby County v. Holder decision struck down the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, which had given the federal government the power to oversee changes to voting procedures in certain states with a history of discrimination. This ruling shifted more power to the states, allowing them to make changes to their voting laws without federal approval. Critics argued that this undermined the federal government's ability to protect the voting rights of minority citizens, while supporters claimed that it restored the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government.
• Analyze the potential advantages and disadvantages of the Shelby County v. Holder decision in the context of federalism.
  • The Shelby County v. Holder decision can be seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage of federalism. On the one hand, the ruling restored more autonomy to the states, allowing them to make decisions about their voting procedures without federal oversight. This could be viewed as an advantage of federalism, as it gives states more control over their own affairs. However, critics argue that the decision undermines the federal government's ability to protect the voting rights of minority citizens, which is a key function of the Voting Rights Act. This could be seen as a disadvantage of federalism, as it limits the federal government's power to address issues of civil rights and racial discrimination that transcend state borders.
• Evaluate the long-term implications of the Shelby County v. Holder decision for the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
  • The long-term implications of the Shelby County v. Holder decision are likely to be significant for the balance of power between the federal government and the states. By striking down the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, the decision has shifted more power to the states, allowing them to make changes to their voting procedures without federal oversight. This could lead to a further erosion of federal authority in areas related to civil rights and voting, as states may be emboldened to implement voting restrictions that could disproportionately affect minority voters. At the same time, the decision has been criticized for undermining the federal government's ability to protect the fundamental right to vote, which is a core function of the Voting Rights Act. The long-term impact of the decision will likely depend on how Congress and the courts respond, and whether they are able to find a way to balance the principles of federalism with the need to protect the voting rights of all citizens.

Related terms

Voting Rights Act of 1965:

A landmark federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting and requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal approval before making changes to their voting procedures.

Preclearance Requirement: The provision of the Voting Rights Act that required certain states and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before making changes to their voting procedures.

Federalism:

The division of power between the federal government and state governments, with each level of government having its own sphere of authority.