Shelby County v. Holder, legal case, decided on June 25, 2013, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared (5–4) unconstitutional Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, which set forth a formula for determining which jurisdictions were required (under Section 5 of the act) ...
States. It analyzes the judicial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court examined the constitutionality of various provisions including Section 2, 3 and 4 of the Voting Rights Act.JORDAN, BRIAN F....
“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”—- RBG在Shelby County v. Holder一案中关于保护民众选举权的dissent的结束语。 ...
supreme courtconstitutionelection lawThis short piece analyzes the potential for bail-in suits under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. HEllement, MichaelSocial Science Electronic Publishing...
"The Geography of Racial Stereo- typing: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance after Shelby County." California Law Review 102.Elmendorf, Christopher S, and Douglas M Spencer. 2014c. "The Geography of Racial Stereotyping: Evidence and Implications for VRA Preclearance After Shelby County....
Finding Life in Hurricane Shelby: Reviving the Voting Rights Act by Reforming Section 3 PreclearanceJORDAN, BRIAN F.Ohio State Law Journal
The preclearance provision of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was rendered ineffective by the United States Supreme Court in 2013 in Shelby County, AL v. Holder. This provision required federal review of changes in the election policies and practices of state and local governments with ...
The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively enjoined the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. The Court deemed the coverage formula, which determines the jurisdictions subject to preclearance, insufficiently grounded in current conditions. This paper proposes a new, ...
stereotyping, polarized-voting, and population-size criteria would yield similar patterns of coverage, at least with respect to African Americans, and we show, ironically, that the new pattern of coverage would coincide with historic coverage under the "outdated" formula invalidated by Shelby County....
VOTING RIGHTS — VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 — WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS REFUSES TO SUBJECT STATE OF TEXAS TO PRECLEARANCE. — Perez v. Abbott, 390 F. Supp. 3d 803 (W.D. Tex. 2019)SuffrageVoting Rights Act of 1975 (U.S.)Shelby County v. Holder (Supreme Court case)...