While voter ID laws are debated in the legislative branch, the judicial branch has also re-examined voting protections in recent history. In the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case, the federal government argued that the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that certain states seek federal approval for changes to their voting laws based on previous issues with voter disenfranchisement was illegal. On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the clause specifying which states needed federal approval was unconstitutional and it was struck out of law. Within a year there was significant legislative change in states that were previously limited under the law. These changes have significantly affected access to polling locations and increased voting restrictions in minority communities, causing precipitous change in those communities’ ability to vote.

Document J

An excerpt from the Supreme Court Ruling on Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013).

Opinion of the Court (Roberts)

“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem. Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And §4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States—an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty …

There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions… Since that time, Census Bureau data indicate that African-American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six States…

The Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future… Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.

Dissenting Opinion (Ginsberg)

“The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has worked to combat voting discrimination where other remedies had been tried and failed. Particularly effective is the VRA’s requirement of federal preclearance for all changes to voting laws in the regions of the country with the most aggravated records of… discrimination against minority voting rights.

In [2006] … After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was the judgment of Congress that “40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.”

Document K

An excerpt from “Shelby County One Year Later”. Published June 24, 2014 by Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

“I. The Loss of Section 5 Has Removed an Effective Deterrent Against Harmful Election Law Changes

Immediately after Shelby County, one state moved forward with implementing laws that were previously blocked, two states moved forward with passed laws that may have been blocked, and one state passed new restrictive legislation:

Texas: On the very day of the Shelby County ruling, Texas officials announced they would implement the state’s strict photo ID law, which was previously blocked by Section 5 because of its racial impact.

North Carolina: Also shortly after the Shelby County decision, the state legislature passed a law that imposed a strict photo ID requirement, significantly cut back on early voting, and reduced the window for voter registration.

Alabama: After the Shelby County decision, the state moved ahead with its law requiring strict photo ID to vote. This law passed in 2011 and would have required preclearance.

Mississippi: Shortly following the Supreme Court’s ruling, state officials moved to enforce its photo ID law, which the state submitted for preclearance but was never allowed to implement.”