Will SCOTUS hear Kinston, NC and Shelby County, AL cases, or will Constitutional issues “continue to fester”? The Shelby County case challenges Section 5 as it existed before the 2006 reauthorization, as well as Section 4(b), which lays out the formula for coverage under Section 5. The Kinston case challenges Section 5 as it now reads. Both petitioners note that Congress has taken no action in the three years since Northwest Austin v. Holder in response to the Constitutional concerns expressed by the Court in that 2009 opinion. Thus, Shelby County argues, a new assessment is necessary to judge “whether Section 5′s current needs justify its current burdens.” When Congress in 2006 renewed Section 5 for an additional 25 years, it imposed added requirements on state and local governments covered by that section. The challengers in the Kinston litigation argued that those new burdens prove even more convincingly that Section 5 is now unconstitutionally broad as it applies to the state and local governments that remain the only ones targeted by Section 5. . . . “This Court should grant review of both cases,” the North Carolina petition argued, in order “to facilitate a timely and definitive resolution of the exceptionally important question whether the 2006 version of Section 5 is facially valid.” In its petition, Shelby County said that Section 5 interferes directly in “the basic operation of state and local government,” which has the practical effect of barring “the implementation of more than 100,000 electoral changes unless and until they are pre-cleared by federal officials in Washington, D.C.” . . . Shelby County did not file its lawsuit after having a voting change vetoed by the Justice Department or by a federal court. Instead, it filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the 2006 renewal as written, so that, if this challenge succeeded, the law could not be validly applied in any factual situation. Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, tells AL.com, “This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to strike down an outdated and unnecessary portion of the Voting Rights Act that punishes some states for voting transgressions that are long gone.”
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court received two petitions to hear cases challenging the Constitutionality of certain sections of the Voting Rights Act and is expected to add at least one to its docket for next term.
Two challenges to “outdated” preclearance sections of Voting Rights Act
Will SCOTUS hear Kinston, NC and Shelby County, AL cases, or will Constitutional issues “continue to fester”? The Shelby County case challenges Section 5 as it existed before the 2006 reauthorization, as well as Section 4(b), which lays out the formula for coverage under Section 5. The Kinston case challenges Section 5 as it now reads. Both petitioners note that Congress has taken no action in the three years since Northwest Austin v. Holder in response to the Constitutional concerns expressed by the Court in that 2009 opinion. Thus, Shelby County argues, a new assessment is necessary to judge “whether Section 5′s current needs justify its current burdens.” When Congress in 2006 renewed Section 5 for an additional 25 years, it imposed added requirements on state and local governments covered by that section. The challengers in the Kinston litigation argued that those new burdens prove even more convincingly that Section 5 is now unconstitutionally broad as it applies to the state and local governments that remain the only ones targeted by Section 5. . . . “This Court should grant review of both cases,” the North Carolina petition argued, in order “to facilitate a timely and definitive resolution of the exceptionally important question whether the 2006 version of Section 5 is facially valid.” In its petition, Shelby County said that Section 5 interferes directly in “the basic operation of state and local government,” which has the practical effect of barring “the implementation of more than 100,000 electoral changes unless and until they are pre-cleared by federal officials in Washington, D.C.” . . . Shelby County did not file its lawsuit after having a voting change vetoed by the Justice Department or by a federal court. Instead, it filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the 2006 renewal as written, so that, if this challenge succeeded, the law could not be validly applied in any factual situation. Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, tells AL.com, “This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to strike down an outdated and unnecessary portion of the Voting Rights Act that punishes some states for voting transgressions that are long gone.”
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court received two petitions to hear cases challenging the Constitutionality of certain sections of the Voting Rights Act and is expected to add at least one to its docket for next term.