Supreme Court Strikes Down Voting Rights Act Formula, Frees Nine States

View gallery

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, struck down the coverage formula at the heart of the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance system, effectively freeing nine states and dozens of local jurisdictions from having to obtain federal approval before changing their voting rules oyez +1. The ruling in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated Section 4(b) of the 1965 law, leaving the preclearance mechanism in Section 5 idle unless and until Congress writes a new formula oyez +1.

At issue was whether Congress could continue to single out certain states, mostly in the South, for special federal oversight using turnout and “tests or devices” data drawn from the 1960s and 1970s. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said “our country has changed” and faulted lawmakers for not updating the formula when they renewed the act in 2006, even as Black voter registration and turnout rates in many covered states matched or exceeded those of white voters oyez +1.

What the Court Changed – and What Remains of the VRA

By declaring Section 4(b) unconstitutional, the Court removed the trigger that determined which jurisdictions had to seek preclearance from the Justice Department or a Washington, D.C., court before altering election rules oyez. States including Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, as well as parts of others, were immediately released from that obligation naacpldf. Section 5 itself was not struck down, but without an operative formula it no longer applies anywhere by default oyez +1.

Other parts of the Voting Rights Act remain in force. Section 2, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting nationwide, still allows lawsuits against restrictive laws, but only after they take effect and often following lengthy, expensive litigation naacpldf +1. Legal analysts noted the shift from preventive review to case‑by‑case challenges as a major practical consequence, changing the balance of power between federal enforcers and state legislatures naacpldf +1.

A Deep Divide Over Discrimination and Deference

The majority framed the decision as a necessary correction to an outdated intrusion on state sovereignty, invoking a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” that disfavors treating states differently without evidence tied to current conditions oyez. Roberts argued that Congress must “ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy [voting discrimination] speaks to current conditions,” inviting lawmakers to craft a modern formula if they can assemble an adequate record oyez.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, joined by three liberal justices, accused the Court of discarding an umbrella in a rainstorm, saying that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet” rockthevote. She emphasized that Congress had compiled more than 15,000 pages of testimony and documentation in 2006, including hundreds of blocked voting changes, which in her view justified keeping the existing framework rockthevote +1.

Civil-rights organizations such as the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the ACLU condemned the ruling as gutting the country’s most effective voting-rights safeguard and warned that states would move quickly to implement restrictive measures naacpldf +1. Within hours, Texas announced it would enforce a strict voter ID law previously blocked under Section 5, underscoring how swiftly the legal landscape had shifted naacpldf +1. President Barack Obama said he was “deeply disappointed” and called on Congress to restore protections to ensure “every American has equal access to the polls” oyez.

The Bigger Picture

The Shelby County decision marked a watershed in federal oversight of elections, redistributing authority back to states and pushing future voting-rights battles into slower, reactive litigation under the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Whether Congress can—or will—agree on a new coverage formula remains unresolved, leaving the country to navigate intensifying partisan fights over access to the ballot without the preclearance tool that had defined federal voting-rights enforcement for nearly half a century.

Command Palette

Supreme Court Strikes Down Voting Rights Act Formula, Frees Nine States

What the Court Changed – and What Remains of the VRA

A Deep Divide Over Discrimination and Deference

The Bigger Picture