The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.
This part is very important. In the aftermath of Shelby County, Republican legislatures almost immediately passed as new series of Voter Restriction laws that would previously have been subject to preclearance and oversight, but no longer are. The primary intent being to reduce the number of votes cast by poor and minority voters, usually under the guise of anti-fraud measures in places where miniscule fraud has been proven to occur despite rather vigorous efforts to find fraud.
There have also been increased efforts to reduce funding for, and reduce the hours and number of locations of, polling stations. For similar reasons, and with similar expected outcomes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2016-04-13 10:32 am (UTC)This part is very important. In the aftermath of Shelby County, Republican legislatures almost immediately passed as new series of Voter Restriction laws that would previously have been subject to preclearance and oversight, but no longer are. The primary intent being to reduce the number of votes cast by poor and minority voters, usually under the guise of anti-fraud measures in places where miniscule fraud has been proven to occur despite rather vigorous efforts to find fraud.
There have also been increased efforts to reduce funding for, and reduce the hours and number of locations of, polling stations. For similar reasons, and with similar expected outcomes.