scholarly journals FEDERALISM, SUBSIDIARITY, AND VOTING RIGHTS: CRITIQUING THE SHELBY COUNTY DECISION THROUGH JOHANNES ALTHUSIUS AND CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-171
Author(s):  
Jonathan Rothchild
Keyword(s):  
Voting Rights ◽  
Social Teaching ◽  
Voting Rights Act ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Felon Disenfranchisement ◽  
Voter Identification ◽  
Shelby County ◽  
Theological Critique ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Basic Features

AbstractThis article develops a legal and theological critique of the Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder decision that dismantled portions of the Voting Rights Act. Defending the Voting Rights Act in light of four basic features of voting rights—access, participation, empowerment, and expression of conscience—I refute the Shelby decision in terms of its oversimplified notions of discrimination and its overly narrow construal of federalism as state sovereignty and equality. I draw upon Catholic social teaching's subsidiarity and Johannes Althusius's federalism to defend the individual and communal dimensions of voting rights. I examine post-Shelby developments, including voter-identification laws, and I argue that such laws are unfounded and have deleterious effects. I conclude by offering modest recommendations for a post-Shelby world, including continued roles for Congress and the Department of Justice, the use of intermediary organizations, and the rescinding of felon disenfranchisement laws.

After the Voting Rights Act

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe
Keyword(s):  
Attorney General ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Voting Rights Act ◽  
Voter Identification ◽  
Shelby County ◽  
The One ◽  
Voter Fraud ◽  
Voter Id ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses the legal battles over the issue on voting rights in Texas. The Voting Rights Act, with its preclearance requirements for the South, was adopted in 1965 and reauthorized in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006. A few days after the 2006 reauthorization, the municipal utility district (MUD), created in Austin, Texas, in the 1980s, sued the U.S. attorney general, claiming that it should be allowed the advantage of the “bailout” (from preclearance) provisions of the Act. Edward Blum was the man behind the lawsuit. The chapter examines the MUD case and the one that followed it, Shelby County v. Holder. It also considers the efforts of Republicans to prevent voter fraud in the state through voter identification, resulting in SB 14, or voter ID bill, in the Texas Senate.

Moving Forward or Backsliding: A Causal Inference Analysis of the Effects of the Shelby Decision in North Carolina

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 649-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Suzanne Gibson
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Regression Discontinuity Design ◽  
Voting Rights Act ◽  
Secondary Effects ◽  
Shelby County ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Democratic Vote ◽  
The Impact

The Voting Rights Act created a method of oversight called “preclearance,” which was designed to prevent changes in state and local voting laws that may negatively affect minority groups. Following the ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, however, preclearance is no longer enforced. This study assesses the impact of recently implemented local voting restrictions on turnout across various demographic and political subgroups in North Carolina. Unlike other states, preclearance in North Carolina was implemented at the county level. Two approaches to the regression discontinuity-design are used to estimate de facto minority disenfranchisement. This study finds that the removal of Section 5 preclearance negatively affected Democratic primary turnout, but did not affect Democratic vote share. Secondary effects resulting in the removal of Section 5 preclearance may be responsible for disproportionately lower levels of overall turnout in formerly covered counties in 2016. Ultimately, the data suggest minimal effects on minority turnout rates.

THE LAST STAND?

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond S. King ◽  
Rogers M. Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Voting Rights Act ◽  
Shelby County ◽  
To Come ◽  
Over Time

AbstractIn 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The ruling is part of longstanding efforts to maintain American institutions that have provided wide-ranging benefits to White citizens, including disproportionate political power. Over time, such efforts are likely to fail to prevent significant increases in political gains for African Americans, Latinos, and other minority citizens. But they threaten to foster severe conflicts in American politics for years to come.

Maximization, Whatever the Cost: Race, Redistricting, and the Department of Justice. By Maurice T. Cunningham. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001. 192p. $62.50.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 204-205
Author(s):  
Mark E. Rush
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Just In Time ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Voting Rights Act ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Cost

With the Supreme Court decision in Easley v. Cromartie, the 1990s round of redistricting litigation came to an end just in time for the new decade's round to commence. Looking back upon the Court decisions from the 1990s as well as the extensive scholarly commentary on them, anyone new to the field of voting rights in the United States might wonder how the Voting Rights Act, which was a straightforward attempt to remedy indisputably unjust political practices, could have given rise to the I-85 district in North Carolina.

Voter Purges After Shelby

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 687-692
Author(s):  
Catalina Feder ◽  
Michael G. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Voting Rights Act ◽  
Full Control ◽  
Shelby County ◽  
First Time ◽  
Election Laws ◽  
The U.S

In Shelby County v. Holder (570 U.S. 529 (2013)), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “coverage formula” in Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that determined which jurisdictions had to presubmit changes in their election policies for federal approval. This ruling allowed covered counties full control over their election laws for the first time in 40 years. We engage the question of whether counties that had previously been “covered” purged voters at a higher rate than noncovered counties after the coverage formula was struck down. We find increases in purge rate of between 1.5 and 4.5 points in formerly covered jurisdictions post- Shelby, compared with counties that had not been subject to preclearance. Most of the increase came immediately, as the effect in 2014 is substantively and significantly higher than that in 2016. These findings suggest that while counties may have aggressively purged voters in 2014—the first election after the coverage formula’s demise—they may have tempered this behavior thereafter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document