Fact Check: Supreme Court's decision could further limit Voting Rights Act protections since 2013
What We Know
On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. This formula was crucial for determining which jurisdictions were required to seek federal approval, or "preclearance," before making changes to their voting laws and practices. The Court found that the formula was unconstitutional because it was based on outdated data, effectively releasing jurisdictions from federal oversight regarding voting changes (About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act).
The ruling had immediate and significant consequences. Without the preclearance requirement, states and localities were free to implement voting laws without federal scrutiny, leading to a wave of new laws that critics argue disproportionately affected voters of color. For instance, shortly after the ruling, Texas implemented a strict photo identification law, and North Carolina moved forward with a sweeping law that included multiple voting restrictions (Reflecting On the 10th Anniversary of Shelby County v. Holder).
Analysis
The claim that the Supreme Court's decision could further limit Voting Rights Act protections since 2013 is supported by substantial evidence. The Shelby County ruling fundamentally altered the landscape of voting rights in the United States by dismantling the preclearance mechanism that had been a cornerstone of the VRA for nearly five decades. This change has led to a significant increase in state-level voting restrictions, many of which have been criticized for their discriminatory effects on minority voters (Effects of Shelby County v. Holder on the Voting Rights Act).
The reliability of the sources used to support this claim is high. The information from the Department of Justice regarding the Shelby County decision provides a clear and authoritative account of the ruling's implications (About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act). Additionally, the Brennan Center for Justice, a respected non-partisan law and policy institute, has documented the negative effects of the ruling, noting that it has enabled states to enact laws that make it more difficult for people of color to vote (Effects of Shelby County v. Holder on the Voting Rights Act).
Critics of the ruling, including civil rights advocates, argue that the absence of federal oversight has led to a resurgence of discriminatory practices that the VRA was designed to combat. The examples of Texas and North Carolina demonstrate how quickly states moved to implement restrictive laws once the preclearance requirement was lifted (Reflecting On the 10th Anniversary of Shelby County v. Holder).
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim that the Supreme Court's decision could further limit Voting Rights Act protections since 2013 is True. The Shelby County v. Holder ruling effectively dismantled the preclearance requirement of the VRA, resulting in a significant reduction of federal oversight over voting laws in certain jurisdictions. This has allowed states to enact laws that may disproportionately affect voters of color, thereby limiting the protections originally intended by the Voting Rights Act.
