Case Summary
Issue:
Whether the 2006 Reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s remedial power under the Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?
Plaintiff:
Shelby County, Alabama
Defendant:
Eric H. Holder, Jr. in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
Amicus Curiae:
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
Section 5 of the Voting Right Act of 1965, Congress’s most intrusive involvement in State sovereignty, bars a “covered jurisdiction” from “enact[ing] or seek[ing] to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting, different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964” unless it submits that request for preclearance to the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia, and it is determined that such proposed enactment does not have “the purpose . . . [or] effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States, on account of race or color, or [language minority status], to elect their preferred candidates of choice[.]”
Section 5 still applies to the entire State of Alabama, including Shelby County, and was left unchanged when, in 2006, Congress reauthorized the VRA for another 25 years. In the last ten years, Shelby County has filed for preclearance numerous times, expended significant taxpayer dollars, time, and energy to meet its obligations, and has had at least one election delayed in order to ensure compliance with the preclearance obligation of Section 5.
In April 2010, Shelby County sued in the District of Columbia federal district court to challenge Section 5’s constitutionality. On September 21, 2011, the district court held that Section 5 is constitutional and does not exceed the power of Congress under the Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Shelby County appealed and in November 2011, MSLF submitted a friend of the court brief in support of Shelby County. On May 18, 2012, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 2-1 ruling, upheld the decision of the federal district court over a powerful dissent.
