U.S. Supreme Case Of Shelby County V Holder Case Study Samples

(Name of Professor)
U.S. Supreme Case of Shelby County v Holder
1.
Shelby County v Holder is a landmark case involving the Supreme Court ruling declaring the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly sections 5 and 4 (b), as unconstitutional. Section 5 of the said Act requires the local government to get a pre-clearance from the US Attorney General or three judges acting as a panel of the US District Court in Columbia prior to changing the laws on voting to ensure that the new law will not result in the denial of the right to vote on account of racial discrimination. Section 4 (b), on the other hand, identifies the covered local government and states where the provision of Section 5 is applicable. Shelby County in Alabama assailed the said provisions of the Voting Rights Act by filing a declaratory judgment with prayers for a permanent injunction to prevent its enforcement. The said provisions were re-authorized by Congress for 25 years more. Shelby County invoked that the re-authorization of the law is a violation of the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment and the protection against the denial of the right to vote on the account of racial discrimination under the Fifteenth Amendment. Upon petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, however, the said decision was overturned declaring it to be in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and consequently the Tenth Amendment.
2.
While assailing the constitutionality of the provision, Shelby County raised the issue that the renewal of the pre-clearance requirement will result in perpetuity. It can be noted that the original term of the pre-clearance restriction in the Voting Rights Act was only five years. However, the term was extended by the Congress for another year in 1970 and was subsequently extended for another seven years in 1975. It was when Congress re-authorized the same provision for another twenty five years, the Shelby County was prompted to challenge the constitutionality of such legislation. It contends that the Congress failed to provide evidentiary records that will justify the renewal of the provision of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, the petitioner invokes the issue that the Congress exercises independence in the determination of the constitutional significance of the records that it seeks to be admitted to make its own legislation valid. It also points out that the formula that it used in the determination of the coverage of the application of Section 5 is unconstitutional, arguing that it is flawed and no longer applicable to the current situations now. The Attorney General contends that the criteria used in the formula remain relevant because it gives specific areas that the Congress intends to be subjected to the pre-clearance requirements. Upon trial and after the arguments of both parties, the Federal District Court upheld the constitutionality of the said provisions. It ruled that the Congress presented evidence that suffices to provide justification on authorizing the extension of the pre-clearance requirement of the Section 5 provisions and the use of the coverage formula in Section 4(b).
3.
4.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeals that upheld the said provisions as constitutional. The higher court promulgated its decision providing that the Section 4 (b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional and that the Congress already exceeded its authority when it insisted to enforce the formula because it is in conflict with the federalism principle and the principle promoting the equal sovereignty of the states. The said formula is no longer viable and practical in the current time. Being outdated, the Supreme Court found that it is improper for the Congress to apply the 40-year old facts to which it depends it rationalization to justify its re-authorization in continuing the implementation of the assailed provisions. It has been further held by the Supreme Court that Congress cannot subject the states covered by the said provisions to a pre-clearance requirement based solely on the ground of a past discrimination that may no longer be present today. Consequently, when the Supreme Court held that Section 4 (b) is unconstitutional, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 becomes inoperative, unless the Congress create another coverage formula that is more applicable and practicable to the current times.
5.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the leading case of Shelby County v Holder is the fact that after the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the unconstitutionality of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Department of Justice will have the difficulty in finding a legal basis to challenge any potential discrimination against voting rights. While the higher court is amenable that voting discrimination continues to exist, it cannot allow sustaining the said provision owing to the lack of justification in using the old coverage formula that is already outdated and inapplicable to the current and future times. What the Congress can do perhaps is to make a new set of coverage formula that is more relevant to the current needs of exercising the civil rights to vote and voting discrimination. It is therefore safe to conclude that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is merely suspended and inoperative until the legislative body creates a new set of law that can replace section 4 of the said act that can help reinstate the said provision.