Which case struck down the Voting Rights Act's coverage formula for preclearance?

• A. Roe v. Wade
• B. U.S. v. Lopez
• C. Shelby County v. Holder
• D. Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Answer: (C)

The key idea is the constitutionality of the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions must seek preclearance before changing voting laws. Shelby County v. Holder held that this coverage formula was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data and failed to reflect current conditions, striking at the mechanism that triggers preclearance. In other words, the Court said the way Congress defined who is covered is outdated and inconsistent with the principle of equal sovereignty among states. Because the formula could not be applied as written, the preclearance regime became inoperable until Congress crafts a new, up-to-date formula. The decision preserves the overall aim of protecting voting rights but requires Congress to rewrite the formula to restore preclearance. The other cases listed address different topics—such as abortion rights and the scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause—and do not involve the validity of the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance mechanism.