Notes (#’s are paragraphs)
Syllabus
1: The intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting. Its nationwide ban on prejudicial electoral practices is not here in dispute, but the practice of “Preclearance” it allows for, whereby certain states and other political subdivisions (those with a history of discriminatory voting procedures) must submit proposed changes of voting regulations to specified federal authorities for approval before they can be implemented.
2: The Voting Rights Act has been renewed multiple times, and the “coverage” and “preclearance” requirements, initially set to expire after five years, have been renewed with it. In 2006 the act was again renewed for another 25 years and a previously “covered” Texas utility district sought to change its status (to “bail out” of coverage), and in the alternative sought to deny the constitutionality of the law. [Argument in the alternative].
The dispute with the utility district was decided on statutory ground (a governmental entity that did not register voters was not subject to the law), but it paved the way for a constitutional challenge from a “covered” county that did register voters, Shelby County Alabama.
Wiki — Section 4(b) contains the coverage formula that determines which states and local governments are subject to preclearance under Section 5. The formula covers jurisdictions that, as of November 1964, November 1968, or November 1972, maintained a prohibited “test or device” as a condition of registering to vote or voting and had a voting-age population of which less than 50 percent either were registered to vote or actually voted in that year’s presidential election.[7] Section 4(a) allows covered jurisdictions that have made sufficient progress in ending discriminatory voting practices to “bail out” of the preclearance requirement.
Facial challenge
3.
Shelby County argued before the district court in Washington that sections 4 (coverage formula) and 5 (restrictions on changing electoral law) of the Voting Rights Act were facially unconstitutional (could not be applied in a constitutional manner.) but the District Court upheld the Act –because the protections delineated in section II continued to be under threat, Congress was justified in upholding the disputed provisions.
HELD [4-10]. [–?–]
Two fundamental principles contained in the constitution are –that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government are to be retained by the states — and that all states are to have with respect to each other equivalence before the constitution and law. These two principles the Voting Rights Act contravenes, giving to some states privileges not held by others, and power of the federal government over the internal governance of some states; and whereas in the past extraordinary conditions (namely, that citizens were impeded from exercising their right to vote on the basis of their race) made necessary this extraordinary abridgment of the rights of states, these conditions no longer obtain.
.i`` * ^ / . . . . . ` `~ 