Homework answers / question archive / In the Shelby v Holder case, the Supreme Court, or at least under the Roberts Court has been extremely hostile to the idea of discrimination and voting rights

In the Shelby v Holder case, the Supreme Court, or at least under the Roberts Court has been extremely hostile to the idea of discrimination and voting rights

Sociology

Share With

In the Shelby v Holder case, the Supreme Court, or at least under the Roberts Court has been extremely hostile to the idea of discrimination and voting rights. In his opinion, Roberts writes, "Voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that." Yet he does not think the preclearance and the formula used is beneficial. Roberts acknowledges that voter discrimination in not purely a thing of the past. However, he goes on to explain that the court can only rule that the preclearance formula in Section 4 of the VRA is constitutional if there is enough justification for its existence. Roberts then uses some of Congress's findings from hearings on the 2006 VRA reauthorization to dispute that there is sufficient justification.^[1]

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a significant case challenging an Alabama congressional redistricting map under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Congressional district boundaries in every state are required to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301. Section 2 authorizes the federal government and private citizens to challenge discriminatory voting practices or procedures, including the diminishing or weakening of minority voting power, known as minority vote dilution.^[2]

This is the last section of the VRA that has any teeth, how do you think the Court would respond?