Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Voting Rights Act Case
Civil Rights Law Must Be Upheld in Order to Protect Minorities' Voting Rights, ACLU Says
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to review Shelby County v. Holder, a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
"As we have seen in a number of states this year, efforts to enact voting laws that target people of color and other groups are unfortunately far too common," said Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act helps eliminate such discriminatory and harmful practices. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize the vital role this civil rights-era law plays in protecting the fundamental right to vote and ensuring equal access to voting."
The ACLU had intervened in the case on behalf of four Shelby County voters and the Alabama State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in order to protect the minority vote. The Supreme Court took no action on Friday in Nix v. Holder, which also challenges the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. In that case, the ACLU intervened on behalf of residents of Kinston, N.C. and the North Carolina State Conference NAACP.
Since 1965, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been protecting racial and language minorities' access to voting. It requires jurisdictions like Shelby County and Kinston that have a history of discriminatory voting practices to obtain approval, or preclearance, before changing their election laws. Section 5 has been challenged in the past, but the Supreme Court has consistently upheld its constitutionality.
"When Congress last extended Section 5 in 2006," McDonald said, "it compiled an extensive record, and overwhelmingly concluded that it was still needed."
According to the congressional report, without Section 5 "racial and language minority citizens will be deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote, or will have their votes diluted, undermining the significant gains made by minorities in the last 40 years."
For more information about the Voting Rights Act, go to: /voting-rights/voting-rights-act-0.
For more information on the ACLU's work on voting rights, go to: /press-room-voting-rights.
Voting Rights
Shelby County v. Holder
Voting Rights
Shelby County v. Holder
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”