What was the ruling in Shelby county v holder? What was the argument of the court? The dissent?

Answer 1

In the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in 2013 that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. This section established a formula to determine which jurisdictions were required to seek preclearance from the Department of Justice before making changes to their voting laws. The court argued that the formula was outdated and did not reflect current conditions, making it unconstitutional.

The majority opinion argued that the coverage formula used in the Voting Rights Act was based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s, and did not take into account the progress that certain jurisdictions have made in terms of voting rights. The court held that Congress must update the formula to reflect current conditions in order to continue enforcing preclearance requirements.

The dissenting opinion argued that the Voting Rights Act had been effective in combating discriminatory voting practices and that striking down Section 4(b) would weaken the law's ability to protect minority voters. The dissenting justices contended that the Voting Rights Act had been successful in promoting equal access to the ballot box and that Congress had considered and reauthorized the law in 2006 after a thorough review of the evidence.