Shelby County v. Holder Opinion for the Court filed by Judge Tatel – dissenting opinion by Senior Judge Williams begins on p. 64. In the related LaRoque v. Holder Opinion: “We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit today filed opinions in Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. In a 2-1 decision, the Court upheld that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as reauthorized by Congress in 2006, remains “congruent and proportional,” while Senior Circuit Judge Williams dissented that “without more evidence distinguishing current conditions in the covered jurisdictions from those in the uncovered ones, § 4(b)’s coverage formula appears to be as obsolete in practice as one would expect, in a dynamic society, for markers 34-to-59 years old.”
First Look at DC Circuit Opinions in Alabama’s Shelby v. Holder Section 5 Challenge
Shelby County v. Holder Opinion for the Court filed by Judge Tatel – dissenting opinion by Senior Judge Williams begins on p. 64. In the related LaRoque v. Holder Opinion: “We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit today filed opinions in Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. In a 2-1 decision, the Court upheld that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as reauthorized by Congress in 2006, remains “congruent and proportional,” while Senior Circuit Judge Williams dissented that “without more evidence distinguishing current conditions in the covered jurisdictions from those in the uncovered ones, § 4(b)’s coverage formula appears to be as obsolete in practice as one would expect, in a dynamic society, for markers 34-to-59 years old.”