A Relevant Supreme Court Case (Patreon)

Suppressing the Vote | Shelby County v. Holder

Make sure you are registered to vote: https://imvoting.com/ In episode 57 of Supreme Court Briefs, Shelby County, Alabama, thinks voter discrimination against African Americans in the South is totally over, man. Download Newsvoice for free here to support my channel: https://newsvoice.com/mrbeat Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.: https://sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/ Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Mr. Beat on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's Discord server: https://discord.gg/waK44fH Buy his Presidential Elections book? https://amzn.to/3fdakiZ Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music: "Beatbox Lighter" by Kwon Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96 Other sources used: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/how-shelby-county-broke-america/564707/ https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/shelby-county-v-holder https://ballotpedia.org/Shelby_County_v._Holder https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppression-elections.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/can-congress-salvage-rbg-voting-rights-legacy.html https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X20916426 Creative commons credits: Rivers Langley; SaveRivers Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Lorie Shaull from the Noun Project WyoFile Shelby County, Alabama April 2010 The county sues the United States Attorney General, who at the time was Eric Holder. Why? Well Shelby County said that parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were unconstitutional. You know, the law that Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others fought so hard to get passed to end voter discrmination that often targeted African Americans in the South? Shelby County had an issue with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain state and local governments to get clearance with the Attorney General if they wanted to change their election laws. Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act described a formula used to determine which governments would be subject to that preclearance requirement in Section 5. Shelby County was basically like, “we ain’t discriminating anymore, so why discriminate against us?” It argued Sections 5 and 4b of the Voting Rights Act were unconstitutional, and that the times had changed, so they were outdated anyway. Well, the judge, John D. Bates, sided with the Attorney General, saying that such requirements were still needed to fight discrimination. Oh you know that Shelby County went all up and appealed, but on May 18, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed with the lower court. So Shelby County appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear oral arguments on February 27, 2013. The Court had a lot to consider for this case. Obviously, the Voting Rights Act, but also the 14th Amendment, which protects everyone’s right to due process under the law, the 15th Amendment, which protects everyone from having their right to vote taken away based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” and finally the 10th Amendment, which reserves all rights not granted to the federal government to the states. Whew. The big question? Did state and local governments still have to follow Sections 5 and 4b of the Voter Rights Act? The Court said “no,” but boy this was a close one. On June 25, 2013, they announced they had sided with Shelby County by a vote of 5-4. The Court argued that Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was based on information that was more than 40 years old. The Court did NOT strike down Section 5, but without Section 4b, no jurisdiction could be subject to a preclearance, unless Congress established a new coverage formula. To this day, Congress has not done that by the way. The Court added that Congress can’t subject a state to preclearance simply based on past discrimination. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that federal protection was no longer needed. #supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt #apgov