Shelby County v. Holder is a seminal voting rights case that ultimately dismantled essential protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The case has had a devastating impact on voting rights and redistricting. The case was a challenge to the constitutionality of Sections 4(b) and 5 of the VRA. LDF vigorously defended the VRA’s constitutionality in the Supreme Court and in the lower courts.
On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States dealt its greatest blow to the Voting Rights Act, dismantling the heart of the VRA. The Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder ruling immobilized the preclearance process Section 5 that had for decades protected Black voters and other voters of color from racial discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b) coverage formula was unconstitutional, effectively rendering Section 5 inoperable. The Court held that the Section 4(b) coverage formula for determining which jurisdictions would be covered under Section 5 preclearance was out-of-date and unresponsive to current conditions in voting.
Section 4(b) of the VRA, is the coverage formula, authorized Congress to determine which jurisdictions should be “covered” and, thus, were required to seek preclearance before amending or passing new voting laws.
The Shelby County v. Holder decision immobilized the Section 5 preclearance process that required states, counties, cities, and towns with histories of racial discrimination in voting to submit all proposed voting changes to the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) or a federal court in Washington. These jurisdictions covered under Section 5 could not implement changes to their voting systems without pre-approval. For decades, preclearance protected voters and blocked discriminatory voting changes.
In April 2010, Shelby County, Alabama filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is widely regarded as the heart of the legislation. The LDF intervened in the case on behalf of Black residents of Shelby County whose voting rights were directly impacted by the county’s challenge. The lawsuit challenging Section 5 was filed by Shelby County less than one year after LDF successfully defended its constitutionality before the Supreme Court in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder.
In 2006, the City of Calera, which lies within Shelby County, enacted a discriminatory redistricting plan without complying with Section 5, leading to the loss of the city’s sole Black councilman, Ernest Montgomery. In compliance with Section 5, however, Calera was required to draw a nondiscriminatory redistricting plan and conduct another election in which Mr. Montgomery regained his seat.
Shelby County asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case following a May 2012 ruling by a federal court that upheld the constitutionality of Section 5. In rejecting Shelby County’s challenge, Judge Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, writing for the majority, ruled that Congress appropriately extended the protections of the preclearance requirement in 2006 for 25 more years: “After thoroughly scrutinizing the record and given that overt racial discrimination persists in covered jurisdictions notwithstanding decades of section 5 preclearance, we, like the district court, are satisfied that Congress’s judgment deserves judicial deference.”
On June 25, 2013, the Court issued its ruling that dismantled vital protections of the VRA. In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court justified its decision to dismantle voting rights protections by claiming that discrimination in voting had been sharply curtailed and voter protections like preclearance were no longer necessary. Since the Supreme Court rendered Section 5 inoperable and gutted the heart of the VRA, several states have embraced voter suppression. Many states previously covered under Section 5 enacted laws that severely restrict access to voting.
For nearly 50 years, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) required certain jurisdictions (including states, counties, cities, and towns) with a history of chronic racial discrimination in voting to submit all proposed voting changes to the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) or a federal court in Washington, D.C. for preapproval. This requirement is commonly known as “preclearance.”
Section 5 preclearance served as our democracy’s vital checkpoint that could halt discriminatory voting changes before they were implemented. It protected Black, Latinx, Asian, Native American, and Alaskan Native voters from racial discrimination in voting in the states and localities—mostly in the South— with the worst histories of racial discrimination in voting and redistricting. Since Shelby v. Holder dismantled Section 5, many of these states and jurisdictions can attempt to pass discriminatory voting policies that erode the rights of voters of color, and we are left without federal oversight.
The 2021 redistricting cycle was the first without Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in place to protect against discriminatory redistricting. By preventing discriminatory voting practices from going into effect, Section 5 blocked discriminatory redistricting plans, as well as myriad other discriminatory schemes, before their implementation. Because the Supreme Court significantly weakened these protections, the Shelby County ruling has had, and will continue to have, immense ramifications on redistricting and voting laws post-2020. Now, only a few jurisdictions that are covered by court orders are required to preclear their proposed redistricting plans and other voting laws. Without Section 5 and the pre-approval process in place, jurisdictions that were notorious for their racial discrimination in voting policies can attempt to pass discriminatory redistricting policies following the 2020 Census, and we are left without federal oversight.
