Shelby County V. Holder Case Analysis
Shelby County v. Holder 570 U.S. __ (2013) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning Section 5 and Section 4 of The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 forbids any state or district, that is an eligible voter discrimination area, from making any changes to their election process without federal permission. Section 4 labels a state or district as eligible if said state or district had a literacy test or any other unfair device in place as of November 1, 1964. Section 4 also clarifies how the Justice Department enforces Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act, so if Section 4 is found unconstitutional, then Section 5 can’t be kept either. The key issue was that Shelby County, Alabama claimed that Sections 5 and 4(b) were unconstitutional
…show more content…
Holder case can directly effect the very poor, low-income citizens, as well as certain minorities who may have come to the U.S. illegally or have not yet obtained U.S. citizenship. Following the Supreme Court ruling, many states began to pass changes that would shift voter registration times as well as add new identification requirements. State legislatures involved had these changes made in an effort to challenge voter fraud and shrink voting budgets. However, many believe that these changes will only limit the right to vote, which is what Section 5 helped to protect against in the first place. The poor and these specific minority groups may not own government-approved identification, and they may not be able to find enough time in their work schedule to take time off to vote come Election Day. This can also indirectly effect the regular voting citizens in the states where these new changes were passed. If a particular town or district in one of these states happens to have a large low-income or minority population, then voter participation in that area could drastically drop. This effects the regular voting citizens because it now puts more stress on them to get out and participate on Election Day in order for their town or district to get enough votes
Holder case can directly effect the very poor, low-income citizens, as well as certain minorities who may have come to the U.S. illegally or have not yet obtained U.S. citizenship. Following the Supreme Court ruling, many states began to pass changes that would shift voter registration times as well as add new identification requirements. State legislatures involved had these changes made in an effort to challenge voter fraud and shrink voting budgets. However, many believe that these changes will only limit the right to vote, which is what Section 5 helped to protect against in the first place. The poor and these specific minority groups may not own government-approved identification, and they may not be able to find enough time in their work schedule to take time off to vote come Election Day. This can also indirectly effect the regular voting citizens in the states where these new changes were passed. If a particular town or district in one of these states happens to have a large low-income or minority population, then voter participation in that area could drastically drop. This effects the regular voting citizens because it now puts more stress on them to get out and participate on Election Day in order for their town or district to get enough votes