Voting Rights Act Of 1965 Analysis

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted by Congress to address the high amount of racial discrimination in voting. It was an evil which had been perpetuated in many different parts of the United States through unremitting defiance of the Constitution. In Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, it contains the coverage formula that helps determine which states and local governments are subject to the pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act contains the pre-clearance requirement that requires certain states and local governments to obtain a determination by the United States Attorney General, that changes made to their voting laws don’t deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a
Originally the pre-clearance requirement was set to expire five years after enactment, but amendments to the Act in the 1970s and 1980s reauthorized Section 5 and updated the coverage formula in Section 4(b). These reauthorizations occurred in Georgia v. United States (1973), City of Rome v. United States (1980), and Lopez v. Monterey County (1999). In 2006, Congress reauthorized section 5 for another 25 years, but the coverage formula stayed the same this time. Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 is a landmark United States Supreme Court case because it is in regards to the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent argued that Congress’ power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments encompasses legislative action such as the Voting Rights Act. She believes Congress does not have unlimited authority, but must show that the means taken rationally advance a legitimate objective. By holding section 4 unconstitutional, the majority’s opinion makes it impossible to effectively enforce section 5. According to her, in voting rights cases the court should defer to Congress, because they have been given sweeping powers to protect such rights. The court should only ask if the methods used by Congress to address the problem are rational, and not subject them to a tougher test. According to Ginsburg, “Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act with great care and seriousness, the same cannot be said of the court’s