Shelby County V. Holder Supreme Court Case Analysis

In a Democracy it is important to have frequent elections where all adults have the availability to participate. Until recent history the United States had mechanism put in place where some groups of society had multiple obstacles. Mechanisms like poll tax and literacy tests were given to reduce the number of minority voters. Individuals were even disfranchised and had no capability to vote. Devices and mechanisms able to break the burden of disfranchisement had first began in 1965 when a group of peaceful marchers traveled to Selma, Alabama, to the state capital of Montgomery to push and promote legislation for the creation of new voting rights legislation. From this sparked the creation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Being called the most …show more content…
Each creating a broader scope for the act and expanding the definition of voting rights. The act was intended to be temporary and was not intended to be ongoing legislation. In 2013, changes towards the Voting Rights Act was put to the test in the case Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court case, splitting the court in a 5-4 decision ruling parts of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. In this essay I will articulate what the court majority did in their Shelby County decision. I will also discuss why I agree with the …show more content…
Holder court case the justices ruled that Section four is unconstitutional and that the methods used can no longer be used to give preclearance. The majority decision, given by Chief Justice John G. Roberts points to the past skepticism about needing to update the Voting Rights Act.4 First he states the act developed have an expiration date, and that time is well passed according to the majority decision. He also discusses the tenth amendment, giving powers to the states that are not specifically given to the federal government, was part of the main argument for the majority opinion because the justices thought that this removes authority from the states, who constitutionally should be treated equally.4 Second the chief justice points multiple times to the fact that times have changed since the historic 1965 case fifty years ago.4 He describes that in 1965 this part of the Voting Rights Act made sense and had a real purpose, but section four was developed with an expiration date for the quickly changing United States. Since the United States was changing it was necessary for Congress to completely change the Voting Rights Act, but failed to change section four. Lastly the decisions leaves Congress the obligation to change section five, based on the newly developed United States and modern times which may now consist of a growing Latino population. It is important to not that the Latino population was nearly nonexistent in political decisions done