Supreme Court Case: Shelby County vs. Holder
Supreme Court is the one responsible in the country to ensure that the constitution is implemented in the state. Therefore it ensures that everyone follows what the constitution states and therefore if they don’t obey they are referred to as lawbreakers. The Supreme Court takes a step to these lawbreakers by ruling according to the constitution upon their actions. It’s the role of the judicial body in the state to ensure that all the citizens are at peace and their rights are not violated at all. Therefore, in most instances, the Supreme Court may be passing ruling upon the cases either individual vs. individual cases, individual vs. the state, and many other categories of cases. Hence, the Supreme Court has the authority to make the decision and its ruling is perceived as the final in most of the states. Even though to some extent it may pass verdict which may affect the country in large and to some extent they may cause a fight in the state. It involves where the court may decide to pass a rule that is against the constitution of the country where they may overrule the country. For instance in the Supreme Court of United State rules this case of Shelby County vs. Holder where they overruled and its decision affects most of the people in the state since their right to vote is affected.
The ruling of this case by the Supreme Court has a negative long term impact in the United States. Its impact mostly affects the minority groups where most of them turn out their votes. It’s because, after the ruling of this case in 2013, there was a sharp decline of the people who voted from the minority group. The decline in the number of people who participate in voting for presidential in this year is highly influenced by the Supreme Court ruling. Therefore the ruling of the Supreme Court was that the coverage formula that is used in section 4 (b) of the constitution about the voting right is unconstitutional (Brown, Donathan, and Rodriguez, 124). The court gives this ruling by explaining that this formula of coverage used is old. The coverage formula is the one used to determine the jurisdictions that are under section 5 of the constitution. The ruling affects most of the people since it violates the voting right of most of the minority groups.
The verdict that the court provides is wrong since it led to a decline in the presidential election in 2013. Since 1965, some changes were made in the constitution to prevent discrimination on voting right in the United States. They ensure that every area is covered by this federal Act and as a result, the number of people participating in elections increased. The progress has been positive until 2013 when the ruling on Shelby County v. Holder is officially passed. The ruling brings more impact to the voting right since the local official can now close the polls and even change the voting laws without getting permission from the federal government. The judge gives this verdict explaining that the current time is not affected by racism and discrimination in voting as those past days and therefore the formula used is outdated.
Immediately after this ruling, many lawmakers from most the covered area come up with changes in voting rights which are disturbing. These changes have been even challenged in the federal court. Some of the changes that were made include the restrictive requirement of the voter’s identification document for one to vote.
Some of the areas which come up with these restrictions include Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas. The restriction led to denying those without ID their right of voting. Since they could not vote since they don’t meet their requirement. While in some areas there was direct discrimination on the voting of the minority. In these areas, they remove their voters’ rolls of thousands of eligible minority groups such as in Florida, Georgia, and Virginia.
The ruling brings a turnaround In all the coverage areas since most of the people had to register to acquire the ID so that they can vote. The ruling was wrong since people had to wait even for more than three hours or even months to get the right to vote. The right of people to vote is free to everyone and no one should go to the extent of using their resources to enjoy their rights. For instance, in Texas, they required a photo in the ID which costs most of the people to acquire it by then (Newkirk, 76). , Therefore, the right of the people who had not acquired the ID by the election time to vote is violated since they could not vote. Therefore, how can the right of people in a country be restricted? The citizens in this area should have their right and enjoy it freely without the need for more restrictions on the way they can enjoy it. It’s the role of the federal government to keep older during voting practices but it’s good every person who is willing to vote either with ID or not be allowed to vote.
Despite the chief justice Robert passing that there was no racial and discrimination effect in the right of voting; he does not follow the constitution yet he is the person responsible to ensure that the constitution is implemented in the state. The chief Justice is claiming that section 5 of the constitution is outdated and he goes contrary with it but the rule remains in the constitution. Therefore, this shows that part of the constitution is dead and it’s ineffective since no one can follow it or apply it. Therefore his ruling that the coverage formula is unconstitutional it’s wrong since the formula is still included in the constitution but he is breaking the rule of the constitution. According to the judicial body, they follow the constitution as their bases of making any verdict or taking any action so that to avoid being questioned. But he is going centrally with it in favor of the Shelby. Therefore, instead of solving a problem, he brings more problem which are practical procedures that are causing discrimination in the state. Since the formula still was preclearance, therefore, was protecting every person to vote with necessary following those procedures that were costly and time-consuming.
The ruling is favoring the state officials where it helps them to be easy for them to restrict the black and other racial-ethnic minority voters to vote. Since the preclearance is helping to increase the representation of minority groups as well as increasing their number in congressional. The ruling has led to the closing of many polling stations where most of them were the ones that we located in the African-American counties. Therefore, the closing and changing of the polling locations will lead to a decrease in people who turn out to vote. The ruling of the chief justice was, therefore, to intimidate most of the people mostly the minority group in most of the counties. Since most of the people could not travel to the new areas where the polling stations we reallocated hence they could not vote. The reallocation of them denies most of the African- American their right to vote.
The ruling of this case is threatening the promise to equal access to the ballot. Since this rule is a form of a discriminatory law that is hindering the minority group to vote. Therefore, the decision is making the voting right of the citizens to be so expensive. Since people in the state are significantly suffering, and they don’t have equal chances to vote. It diminishes the democracy of the country as well as the ideal of the state. The ruling is not right since it reminds people of what was happening before 1965 when the voting right was enacted. Therefore, there is a need for something to be done by the government to ensure that people are enjoying their democracy fully without any restriction. Hence need to come up with strong federal protection to Americans that will assure them of their protection upon their democracy.
Still, the ruling opens a gate where all the leaders could make changes in voting light without necessarily getting permission from the federal government. Therefore, the ruling of this case causes frustration to most of the political leaders, activists, and the legal communities by that year. The ruling of Chief Justice John Robert was wrong since even the president by that year Barrack Obama calls for a congress and he passes a ruling that every American should have equal access to the polling stations. This is a sign of disappointment and disagreement expression that the president is expressing.
The ruling causes Attorney General Eric Holder to react and express his disappointment also where he swears that the department of justice is going to take an action against that ruling. He is explaining that they will use all the available legal tools to ensure that no jurisdiction will take advantage of the Supreme Court ruling and start denying the eligible citizens their right to vote (Jesse, 256). The effect of the ruling causes also the Attorney General to request the Texas County to follow the ruling under section 3 that is not affected by the ruling passed by the court about the voting right. The ruling is not the right decision since it affects all the people in the State. Therefore, even the house of the majority is asking the house of congress to ensure that they put all the politics aside and ensure that the rights of people to vote are fully protected. The decision is a sign of disregarding the country’s history of discrimination on voting. Therefore, it is causing the committee from the house of the judiciary to task-specific actions of reviewing the voting data and look for solution upon that ruling.
The ruling is an indication of chief justice using unreliable information to make a decision. It’s so disappointing to realize that the court which is expected to give a solution to the society they are also not keen while making the decision. This makes them end up giving an unfair verdict that affects all the people involved. The research and investigation did by the chief justice show that; there has been a high decrease in several people who have been registering between the black and the white since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed. He uses the number of people who could not vote in the US since they are not citizens who could not even vote (Mark, 45). Therefore in his conclusion, he realizes that the rate of the white ho was voting as lower than that of the non-American people which was not true. Therefore, his ruling is not under the right bases of the ruling information. He decides without making thorough research and ensure that all people are at peace. Therefore, he thought that there is no need of following the ruling which is contrary to what was happening in real sense. He thinks that the ruling is just an old idea that has already passed but it was to ensure there is a full representation of the black in the country.
The ruling of this case also brings some changes to be introduced in different areas. For instance in Arizona. In Arizona, they state that every voter who is registered to vote using the forms from the federal government should also provide documents that will be used to prove their citizenship or otherwise their registration as voters will be invalid (Harr, 68). The rule leads to the effect where in this area people are restricted to vote in some areas. Since the rule is put in place that people registered using the federal registration forms they can only vote during federal elections but not during the state and local elections. Therefore, for the citizens to vote in the state and the local they are to provide proof of their citizenship. Where all these procedures required are not fair at all to the citizens who are located in this area. Since it’s a sign of harassing citizens who still have to enjoy their right of voting without necessarily providing so many documents.
In North Carolina, the right of most of the citizens has violated as well as the violation of section two of the constitution. Where after the ruling, the governor of this county signs into law H.B 589, which terminates the validity of the citizens to vote. Where this law is affecting the minority group and they could not exercise their right (Thurgood, 345). Therefore, this ruling in this county is criticized by many people where it’s found that the ruling was targeting the African- American group and therefore, it is proof that the government has acted with discrimination aim. Because of their aim that’s why they come up with a strict rule for voters so that they can discourage the minority people to participate in voting. Whereat the end they advocate for the ID requirement as well as some change to early voting.
In North Dakota, there is a high risk of voters being confused since they were required to include an address for their residential which they were forced to do it. People in this area are discriminated to their right since are required to have their ID which should contain some important information about the individual that is their names, residential address and as well as the date of birth. People are required to implement the changes while they are not given enough time to ensure that every individual fulfills their requirements (Coleman, 50). Where it’s not logical at all for the government to call for a change to be implemented in the country without giving its citizens enough time to ensure they fulfill the desires need. The secretary of this state announces on the website in a month that there is an ID requirement. Therefore, if the state did not have any other intention they could have ensured that all people have equal time to ensure they have their IDs with them. But for emergency passage of information and demanding that people should have them is a sign of unfairness to most of the people who cannot make it within the short period given.
There is the elimination of the Golden week in Ohio. It’s a period in which people in this area could register and vote the same day. They also made some adjustments to reducing the number of days in the early voting period. In this period they ensure that they have separate boils where the registrars could reject the absentee ballots which were there because of lack of information. Where this ruling is wrong and unfavorable to most of the people in Ohio. It’s the right of people to vote at the given period (Kennedy, 32). Therefore, the government should ensure that they pass the information about the adjustments that they may have done in the constitution. Therefore, it’s not the fault of the voter but it’s their fault for not passing the required information to all registered voters. Therefore, the registrar should accept all those absentee ballots since after reducing the days of early voting the voters are not at all informed about it.
For a democratic State, all citizens are involved in passing any changes in the constitution. Since democracy involves the ruling of the people, by the people and for the people, therefore, their rights are fully guaranteed for them to enjoy. In a democratic country, if there is a change the government ensures that they call for a congress and address the issue to all citizens so that they can fully participate in law-making (Charles, 89). But it’s so unfortunate that this ruling causes the democracy of people in the state to be affected. Since most people could make changes in the constitution whenever they feel without necessarily getting approval from the federal government. In a state where there is no approval of people in marking of law, therefore, no democracy in that state. As it’s witnessed that after the ruling of the Shelby County vs. Holder democracy is no more in most of the counties. Most of the people are humiliated by the rulings that most of the counties are coming up. Some of these rules are for the personal interest of most of the political leaders and others to discriminate against the minority group. Through this ruling, it becomes so easy for them to change the ruling without necessary taking all the procedures required. Hence, hindering citizens to exercise their democracy fully.
It’s through this case that bitterly disappoints the government since it reduces the ability of the federal government to fight with discriminatory changes in the state’s voting law. Forcing the government just to accept the voters being discriminated against and watching while the right of voters is violated. Therefore the federal government can no longer serve as a shield against disenfranchisement operations aiming the minority and the disadvantaged people in the country. Therefore it’s through this ruling that helps the state and the citizens to understand why it’s important to have the protection against the right to vote since it causes a high threat in the state. The ruling caused many changes in the country and affected most of the people. It’s at this stage where even those who citizens expect to be protected by them are highly discriminating them and at the same time they have no solution to the problem.
In conclusion, it is a serious issue once the ruling of the state can be made wrongly. Since the Supreme Court is the court which when it asses a ruling in the country it’s implemented by everyone. The Supreme Court is the one which is the eye of the government since it ensures that all rules in the constitution are implemented by every person. Most of the state is democratic that is people are involved in rulemaking or when a change is to be made in a constitution. Therefore during the ruling of the Shelby County vs. Holder case where the Chief Justice John Robert make an unfair ruling. Robert says that the coverage formula that was used to make the ruling in section 4 of the constitution is outdated, therefore, concluding that it’s unconstitutional. It’s the ruling of this case that causes the state to be unable to solve the problem of discrimination that was happening in the state. People could make a ruling that is denying people their right to vote. It’s in this era where most of the counties come up with new rules that were restricting people from voting. Where some were required to have the IDs so that they could vote.
Works Cited
Brown, Donathan L., and Amado Rodriguez. When Race and Policy Collide: Contemporary Immigration Debates. ABC-CLIO, 2014.
Bullock, Charles S., et al. The Rise and Fall of the Voting Rights Act. U of Oklahoma P, 2016.
Coleman, Kevin J. The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Background and Overview. CreateSpace, 2015.
Harr, J. S., et al. Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Learning, 2014.
Jones, Mark P. Voting and Political Representation in America: Issues and Trends [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO, 2020.
John F. Kennedy Street. Impacts of the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court’s Shelby ruling, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/research-insights/policy-topics/politics/impacts-voting-rights-act-and-supreme-courts-shelby-ruling
LDF, Thurgood M. Democracy Diminished: State and Local Threats to Voting Post-Shelby County, Alabama V. Holder. 2016.
Rhodes, Jesse H. Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights ACT. Stanford Studies in Law and Po, 2017.
Vann R. Newkirk II. How Shelby County v. Holder Broke America, 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/how-shelby-county-broke-america/564707/