In Shelby County v. Holder, the State of Alabama challenged two provisions of the Voting Rights Act (“Act”) that regulated voting laws at the state level. Section Five of the Act required state and local governments with a history of voter discrimination to obtain preclearance from the federal government before implementing changes to their voting laws. Section Four set forth a coverage formula to identify states that would be subject to the preclearance requirement. In 2006, Congress voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize the Act for another twenty-five years. The Senate voted 98-0 in favor of re-authorization.
Alabama challenged the constitutionality of Sections Four and Five and argued, among other things, that current incidents of voter discrimination were no worse than in states that were not subject to the preclearance requirement. …show more content…
Put differently, the Court’s decision in Shelby County can – and should -- have lasting implications for a doctrine that was not even at issue: Article III standing. In situations where elected representatives are unable or unwilling to resolve matters that, among other things, implicate fundamental constitutional rights, the Court should intervene to protect citizens who lack recourse through the legislative process. As one court explained, “the judiciary must bear a hand and accept its responsibility to assist in the solution where constitutional rights hang in the