What did Shelby County v. Holder (2013) change about the Voting Rights Act?

Prepare for your Honors Voting and Elections Exam. Study with practice questions and detailed explanations. Ace your test!

Multiple Choice

What did Shelby County v. Holder (2013) change about the Voting Rights Act?

The main point is that the ruling struck down the Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula, which is the mechanism that determines which jurisdictions must seek federal preclearance before changing voting laws. By invalidating that formula, the Court effectively disabled the preclearance trigger in Section 5, weakening that enforcement because there’s no current formula to identify covered jurisdictions. The decision didn’t add nationwide preclearance, so D is not correct. It didn’t extend preclearance to more places, so A isn’t correct. It didn’t keep the coverage formula intact, so B isn’t correct. Congress could still pass a new, constitutional formula to restore preclearance, but as of the decision, Section 5 is not operable.

The main point is that the ruling struck down the Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula, which is the mechanism that determines which jurisdictions must seek federal preclearance before changing voting laws. By invalidating that formula, the Court effectively disabled the preclearance trigger in Section 5, weakening that enforcement because there’s no current formula to identify covered jurisdictions. The decision didn’t add nationwide preclearance, so D is not correct. It didn’t extend preclearance to more places, so A isn’t correct. It didn’t keep the coverage formula intact, so B isn’t correct. Congress could still pass a new, constitutional formula to restore preclearance, but as of the decision, Section 5 is not operable.

More practice questions