Election Law Commons^™

What’S Past Is Prologue: The Effects Of Shelby County V. Holder In Georgia, Jane Delworth

SLU Law Journal Online

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down Section 4 and, by extension, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, created a clear path for discriminatory voting laws to take hold. This article explores how the Supreme Court decision paved the way for second-generation barriers to voting, which legally diminish the influence of minority voters and in some cases, effectively block their participation altogether. It also examines Georgia’s role as a key state advancing these second-generation barriers to voting, alongside proposed legislation aimed at preventing these discriminatory practices before they can impact voters.

The Looming Threat Of The Independent State Legislature Theory And The Erosion Of The Voting Rights Act: It Is Time To Enshrine The Right To Vote, Javon Davis

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

Over the last decade, the emergence of an imperial United States Supreme Court—currently armed with the largest conservative majority since the 1930s—has radically reshaped federal voting rights protections. During the litigation surrounding the 2020 election, however, an obscure threat reemerged. The fringe independent state legislature (“ISL”) theory is a potentially revolutionary constitutional theory that could lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement. Proponents of the theory, including Supreme Court Justices, posit, in part, that the United States Constitution vests state legislatures with plenary power to construct rules for federal elections—unbound by state constitutions and free from state judicial review.

Once a refuge …

The Consent Of The Governed And The Right To Access The Ballot, John D. Feerick

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

A New Voting Rights Act For A New Century: How Liberalizing The Voting Rights Act’S Bailout Provisions Can Help Pass The Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2017, Mario Q. Fitzgerald

Brooklyn Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Shelby County. v. Holder in 2013. Members of Congress have attempted to renew the VRA with an updated coverage formula through the Voting Rights Advancement Acts of 2015 and of 2017. Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans have not supported either bill. Even if passed in its current form, the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 (VRAA) for violating the principle of “equal sovereignty between the States” as set forth by the Court in Shelby County. Therefore, this note …

Section 2 After Section 5: Voting Rights And The Race To The Bottom, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Five years ago, Shelby County v. Holder released nine states and fifty-five smaller jurisdictions from the preclearance obligation set forth in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This obligation mandated that places with a history of discrimination in voting obtain federal approval—known as preclearance—before changing any electoral rule or procedure. Within hours of the Shelby County decision, jurisdictions began moving to reenact measures section 5 had specifically blocked. Others pressed forward with new rules that the VRA would have barred prior to Shelby County.

Navigating The Post-Shelby Landscape: Using Universalism To Augment The Remaining Power Of The Voting Rights Act, Jesús N. Joslin

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Voting Realism, Gilda R. Daniels

All Faculty Scholarship

Since Shelby County v. Holder, the country has grown accustomed to life without the full strength of the Voting Rights Act. Efforts to restore Section 4 have been met with calls to ignore race conscious remedies and employ race neutral remedies for modern day voting rights violations. In this new normal, the country should adopt “voting realism” as the new approach to ensuring that law and reality work to address these new millennium methods of voter discrimination.

Inventing Equal Sovereignty, Leah M. Litman

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder relied on the “fundamental principle” and “historic tradition” of equal sovereignty to hold one of the Voting Rights Act’s key provisions unconstitutional. Yet almost three years after Shelby County, and despite a recent wave of equal sovereignty challenges to major federal programs, the equal sovereignty principle remains largely unexamined. This Article seeks to provide some clarity—both to establish the contours of the equal sovereignty doctrine and to evaluate whether it is a sound rule of constitutional federalism. The principle of equal sovereignty, as initially articulated by courts and subsequently …

Election Law Federalism, Justin Weinstein-Tull

Michigan Law Review

This Article provides the first comprehensive account of non-Voting Rights Act federal voting laws. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—long the most effective voting rights law in American history—was disabled by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is in the crosshairs. As the Supreme Court becomes more hostile to race-based antidiscrimination laws like the Voting Rights Act, Congress will turn to race-neutral, election administration-based reforms to strengthen the right to vote. Indeed, many proposals for reform post-Shelby County have taken this form. The federal laws this Article examines—the National Voter …

The Law Of Democracy At A Crossroads: Reflecting On Fifty Years Of Voting Rights And The Judicial Regulation Of The Political Thicket, Franita Tolson

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rescuing Retrogression, Michael J. Pitts

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

What The Marriage Equality Cases Tell Us About Voter Id, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Two years ago, United States u. Windsor tossed out the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"). Thereafter, proponents of marriage equality secured dozens of notable victories in the lower courts, a smattering of setbacks, and last June, the victory they sought in Obergefell v. Hodges. During this same period, opponents of electoral restrictions such as voter identification have seen far less sustained success. Decided the day before Windsor, Shelby County v. Holder scrapped a key provision of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") while making clear that plaintiffs might still challenge disputed voting regulations under Section 2 of the VRA and the …

Who Should Be Afforded More Protection In Voting – The People Or The States? The States, According To The Supreme Court In Shelby County V. Holder, Tara M. Darling

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transformation: Turning Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Into Something It Is Not, J. Christian Adams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Voter Rights And Civil Rights Era Cold Cases: Section Five And The Five Cities Project, Paula C. Johnson

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

An “Equal Sovereignty” Principle Born In Northwest Austin, Texas, Raised In Shelby County, Alabama, David Kow

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Path Forward From Shelby County V. Holder, Janet W. Steverson

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Grandpa, Charles Walker

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Arc Of Injustice: Pre- And Post-Decision Thoughts On Shelby County V. Holder, Janai S. Nelson

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

A Fugitive From The Camp Of The Conquerors: The Revival Of Equal Sovereignty Doctrine In Shelby County V. Holder, Vik Kanwar

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

On The Repeal Of The Voting Rights Act And The Breadth Of The Long Counter Revolution, Ifetayo M. Flannery

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Backsliding: The United States Supreme Court, Shelby County V. Holder And The Dismantling Of Voting Rights Act Of 1965, Bridgette Baldwin

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Post-Shelby County Game, Steven R. Morrison

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

After Nfib V. Sebelius, When Does The Cost Of Voting Become An Illegal Poll Tax?, Andre L. Smith

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Toward A Fundamental Right To Evade Law? The Rule Of Power In Shelby County And State Farm, Martha T. Mccluskey

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Unmistakably Clear: Human Rights, The Right To Representation, And Remedial Voting Rights Of People Of Color, Matthew H. Charity

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Blinding Color Of Race: Elections And Democracy In The Post-Shelby County Era, Sahar F. Aziz

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward: How The Supreme Court’S Decision In Shelby County V. Holder Eviscerated The Voting Rights Act And What Civil Rights Advocates Should Do About It, Pamela Edwards

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Unseen Exclusions In Voting And Immigration Law, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Shelby, Race, And Disability Rights, Ravi Malhotra

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.