Shelby County Alabama v. Holder Flashcards
15th Amendment
Sec. 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Sec. 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Dream Delayed
Republican Party abandoned Civil Rights commitment
•Pulled federal troops out after 1876
•Refused to reduce Southern states seats in the House under 14th Amendment Penalty Clause in 1880s and 1890s
Southern Democrats sensed an opening
rewrote constitutions to bar blacks from voting –> ex. constitutional convention of VA
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Sec. 2)
Section 2
•prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a “voting qualification…practice, or procedure… in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right… to vote on account of race,” color, or language minority status
Applies nationwide
Not challenged in this case
•But has subsequently been narrowed in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee(2021)
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Sec 4)
Section 4(b) contains a “coverage formula” •Determines which states and local governments may be subjected to the Act's other special provisions
A jurisdiction is covered by the formula if:
•Between 1964-1972, the jurisdiction used a “test or device” to restrict the opportunity to register and vote; and
•Less than half of the jurisdiction’s eligible citizens were registered to vote between 1964-1972; or less than half of eligible citizens voted in those presidential elections
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Sec 5)
Section 5 requires “preclearance”
•Before any change to an election law can take effect, a covered jurisdiction must seek federal approval.
•The covered jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race.
•Covered jurisdictions can apply for an exemption to preclearance.
Justifying Preclearance
Federal government has authority under the 15th Amendment to sue states for engaging in racial voter discrimination
Lawsuits can drag on
•If the law has taken effect, people have already lost the right to vote.
Preclearance based on a prediction that
•Certain places are likely to misbehave so let’s shorten the process
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Amendments)
Congress amended and reauthorized the law
•In 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006
•Coverage formula stayed the same, so covered jurisdictions stayed the same
A Republican president signed all those changes
•In 2006, the VRA passed 98-0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House
•Including 7 of 9 members of Congress from Alabama
Roberts’ basic logic
States don’t need federal permission to use police power
•Letting Congress veto proposed state laws rejected at Constitutional Convention
States enjoy “equal sovereignty”
•True when it comes to the Senate
•Principle taken out of context
Coyle v. Smith
•Congress passed legislation admitting OK as a state
Roberts’ basic logic (Coyle v. Smith)
Coyle v. Smith
•Congress passed legislation admitting OK as a state
•Legislation included a provision that the capital would be in Guthrieuntil at least 1913
•OK legislature in 1910 passed a law moving the capital to OKC
Supreme Court struck down the federal law’s provision
•Article IV: “[N]ewStates may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”
•“But what is this power? It is not to admit political organizations which are less or greater, or different in dignity or power, from those political entities which constitute the Union.”
Rule
“In Northwest Austin, we stated that ‘the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” And we concluded that ‘a departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that a statute’s disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets.’”
In that case
•A utility district sued because since it was not a political subdivision (state/city/county/etc.), it couldn’t apply for a preclearance exemption
Applying the rule
- Congress has not updated the coverage formula in 50 years
* Preclearance might still be justified, but we can’t know until Congress does its homework
Ginsburg dissent
“The question this case presents is who decides whether, as currently operative, §5 remains justi!able, this Court, or a Congress charged with the obligation to enforce the post–Civil War Amendments ‘by appropriate legislation.’ With overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, §5 should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against backsliding.”
Ginsburg dissent (Umbrella)
“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.”
•Not in excerpt
