Section 5 Of The Vra

In june 2013 in a huge blow to democracy the u s.

Section 5 of the vra. On june 25 2013 the united states supreme court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in section 4 b of the voting rights act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5 of the voting rights act shelby county v. 1973c prohibits covered jurisdictions from changing their voting laws without first getting preclearance from either the united states attorney general or a three judge panel of the district court of the district of columbia. Section 5 was enacted to freeze changes in election practices or procedures in covered jurisdictions until the new procedures have been determined either after administrative review by the attorney general or after a lawsuit before the united states district court for the district of columbia to have neither discriminatory purpose or effect.

The section covers states and counties that have a history of discriminatory voting practices or poor minority voting registration rates. Holder there are currently no states or jurisdictions which are required to comply with the preclearance directive under section 5 of the 1965 voting rights act. Section 5 of the vra codified at 42 u s c.

State and localities had to show that a voting change would not have a discriminatory effect on minorities before it could put it into place. Supreme court struck down the coverage formula used for section 5 of the vra which required jurisdictions with significant histories of voter discrimination to pre clear any new voting practices or procedures i e get federal approval from the department of justice and show that they do not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. Section 5 has blocked photo voter id laws prohibited reduced early voting periods in parts of florida and just tuesday barred new redistricting maps in texas.

The supreme court did not rule on the constitutionality of section 5 itself. It s the reason south carolina is in.