Shelby County v. Holder decision about preclearance?

• A. Increased the coverage formula in Section 4.
• B. Kept the Section 4 preclearance formula intact.
• C. Struck down the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, modifying how preclearance is applied.
• D. Declared preclearance unconstitutional in all cases.

Answer: (C)

Preclearance relies on a coverage formula that identifies which jurisdictions must obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act because it was based on outdated data and could not reliably reflect current conditions. With that formula invalidated, the mechanism that triggers preclearance under Section 5 can’t function under the existing law, so preclearance is effectively inoperative until Congress drafts a new formula. The Court did not declare all preclearance unconstitutional; it simply removed the trigger by invalidating the formula that identified covered jurisdictions. Congress could restore preclearance by creating a new, up-to-date coverage formula.