Access Denied: Why the Supreme Court's Decision in Shelby County v. Holder May Disenfranchise Texas Minority Voters
Date
2013
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Texas Tech Law Review
Abstract
Aims to address SB 14's faults, and the more important issue of the need for judicial or executive oversight for potential statutory electoral changes. Part II of this Comment introduces a historical perspective of the events that led to the VRA's enactment. Part III introduces § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the requirements of § 5, and the other sections in the statute relevant to this issue. Part IV considers SB 14, its path through the Department of Justice and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and its eventual enactment. Part V traces the history of the VRA's various reauthorizations and a judicial history of § 5, including the Court's historical affirmation of the measure's constitutionality.
Description
Keywords
Tale of Silvia Citizen and the lost vote, Civil rights movement, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5's preclearance requirement, Strict voter identification, Senate Bill 14, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, Beer v. United States, City of Rome v. United States, Congruence and proportionality test, City of Boerne v. Flores, Lopez v. Monterey County, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, Shelby County v. Holder, Sovereignty of states, Voter discrimination
Citation
Angelica Rolong, Access Denied: Why the Supreme Court's Decision in Shelby County v. Holder May Disenfranchise Texas Minority Voters, 46 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 519 (2013-2014)