|
''Shelby County v. Holder'', , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.〔''Shelby County v. Holder'', 570 U.S. ____ (2013) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】publisher=The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law )〕 On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.〔〔 The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title= Amy Howe, Details on Shelby County v. Holder: In Plain English (Case 12-399) )〕 == Background == Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, "an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution."〔 Section 5 of the Act contains a "preclearance" requirement that requires certain states and local governments to obtain a determination by the United States Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that changes to their voting laws or practices do not "deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group", before those changes may be enforced. Section 4(b) contains the coverage formula that determines which states and local governments are subject to preclearance under Section 5. The formula covers jurisdictions that, as of November 1964, November 1968, or November 1972, maintained a prohibited "test or device" as a condition of registering to vote or voting and had a voting-age population of which less than 50 percent either were registered to vote or actually voted in that year's presidential election. Section 4(a) allows covered jurisdictions that have made sufficient progress in ending discriminatory voting practices to "bail out" of the preclearance requirement.〔 The Supreme Court upheld the preclearance requirement and coverage formula as constitutional enforcement legislation under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment in ''South Carolina v. Katzenbach'' (1966).〔(''South Carolina v. Katzenbach'' ), 383 U.S. 301 (1966).〕 The preclearance requirement initially was set to expire 5 years after enactment, but amendments to the Act in 1970, 1975, and 1982 reauthorized Section 5; the 1970 and 1975 amendments also updated the coverage formula.〔 The Supreme Court upheld these reauthorizations as constitutional in ''Georgia v. United States'' (1973),〔''Georgia v. United States'', 411 U.S. 526 (1973).〕 ''City of Rome v. United States'' (1980),〔(''Rome v. United States'' ), 446 U.S. 156 (1980)〕 and ''Lopez v. Monterey County'' (1999).〔〔''Lopez v. Monterey County'', 525 U.S. 266 (1999).〕 In 2006, Congress reauthorized Section 5 for an additional 25 years, but it did not change the coverage formula from the 1975 version.〔 Shortly after the 2006 reauthorization, a Texas utility district sought to bail out from Section 5 preclearance and, in the alternative, challenged the constitutionality of Section 5. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in ''Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder'' that government entities that did not register voters, such as the utility district, had the right to file suit to bail out of coverage. Because this decision resolved the issue, the Court invoked constitutional avoidance and declined to address the constitutionality of Section 5. Justice Thomas dissented from this portion of the opinion and would have declared Section 5 unconstitutional.〔''Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder'', 557 U.S. 193 (2009). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-322.pdf〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Shelby County v. Holder」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|