Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2012 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY 
GENERAL, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 12–96.  Argued February 27, 2013—Decided June 25, 2013 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address entrenched racial 
discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had 
been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting
and  ingenious  defiance  of  the  Constitution.”    South  Carolina  v. Kat-
zenbach,  383  U. S.  301,  309.    Section  2  of  the  Act,  which  bans  any
“standard,  practice,  or  procedure”  that  “results  in  a  denial  or 
abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race
or color,” 42 U. S. C. §1973(a), applies nationwide, is permanent, and 
is not at issue in this case.  Other sections apply only to some parts of 
the country.  Section 4 of the Act provides the “coverage formula,” de-
fining  the  “covered  jurisdictions”  as  States  or  political  subdivisions
that  maintained  tests  or  devices  as  prerequisites  to  voting,  and  had 
low  voter  registration  or  turnout,  in  the  1960s  and  early  1970s. 
§1973b(b).  In those covered jurisdictions, §5 of the Act provides that 
no  change  in  voting  procedures  can  take  effect  until  approved  by
specified  federal  authorities  in  Washington,  D. C.    §1973c(a).  Such 
approval is known as “preclearance.”

The coverage formula and preclearance requirement were initially
set to expire after five years, but the Act has been reauthorized sev-
eral  times.    In  2006,  the  Act  was  reauthorized  for  an  additional  25 
years,  but  the  coverage  formula  was  not  changed.    Coverage  still 
turned  on  whether  a  jurisdiction  had  a  voting  test  in  the  1960s  or
1970s, and had low voter registration or turnout at that time.  Short-
ly  after  the  2006  reauthorization,  a  Texas  utility  district  sought  to
bail  out  from  the  Act’s  coverage  and,  in  the  alternative,  challenged 
the  Act’s  constitutionality.    This  Court  resolved  the  challenge  on 
statutory grounds, but expressed serious doubts about the Act’s con-