Shelby County v. Holder offers three reasons for why the record Congress amassed to support the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was legally insufficient to justify the statute\u27s continued regional application: (1) the problems Congress documented in 2006 were not as severe as those that prompted it to craft the regime in 1965; (2) these problems did not lead Congress to alter the statute\u27s pre-existing coverage formula; and (3) these problems did not exclusively involve voter registration and the casting of ballots
This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court...
There are two ways to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County Alabama v. Holder: as a min...
In the aftermath of the 2016 elections there is ample data to examine trends in voter turnout across...
Shelby County v. Holder offers three reasons for why the record Congress amassed to support the 2006...
Decided on June 23, 2013, Shelby County v. Holder scrapped the coverage formula set forth in Section...
In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of ...
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed with the intention of providing all Americans with the equa...
Shelby County Invalidated the Section 5 Coverage Formula In Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 133 ...
The proposed Voting Rights Amendment Act of 20144 (VRAA)[...]’s new criteria defining when jurisdict...
The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a momentous occasion for minority voters in t...
Since Shelby County v. Holder, the country has grown accustomed to life without the full strength of...
As with other questions of constitutional law, the key to Shelby County is, “who decides?” Congres...
The United States Supreme Court effectively dismantled the pre-clearance provision of the Voting Rig...
My study of voting rights violations nationwide suggests that voting problems are more prevalent in ...
This paper begins with three major factors that set the stage for Shelby: first, a history of the VR...
This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court...
There are two ways to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County Alabama v. Holder: as a min...
In the aftermath of the 2016 elections there is ample data to examine trends in voter turnout across...
Shelby County v. Holder offers three reasons for why the record Congress amassed to support the 2006...
Decided on June 23, 2013, Shelby County v. Holder scrapped the coverage formula set forth in Section...
In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of ...
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed with the intention of providing all Americans with the equa...
Shelby County Invalidated the Section 5 Coverage Formula In Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 133 ...
The proposed Voting Rights Amendment Act of 20144 (VRAA)[...]’s new criteria defining when jurisdict...
The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a momentous occasion for minority voters in t...
Since Shelby County v. Holder, the country has grown accustomed to life without the full strength of...
As with other questions of constitutional law, the key to Shelby County is, “who decides?” Congres...
The United States Supreme Court effectively dismantled the pre-clearance provision of the Voting Rig...
My study of voting rights violations nationwide suggests that voting problems are more prevalent in ...
This paper begins with three major factors that set the stage for Shelby: first, a history of the VR...
This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court...
There are two ways to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County Alabama v. Holder: as a min...
In the aftermath of the 2016 elections there is ample data to examine trends in voter turnout across...