Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, nine states, mostly in the South, and parts of six others had to obtain approval from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before changing any voting rule. The coverage formula was based on voter registration and turnout data from the 1960s and early 1970s. Congress reauthorized the system for 25 years in 2006 without updating the formula, and Shelby County, Alabama, sued, arguing that the formula no longer reflected current conditions.

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, that the coverage formula was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data and burdened some states' equal sovereignty without current justification. The Court did not strike down Section 5 itself, but without a formula no jurisdiction was covered. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting, wrote that discarding preclearance because it had worked was like throwing away an umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

Several formerly covered states soon adopted stricter voter ID laws, reduced early voting, or closed polling places, some of which courts later blocked under Section 2 or the Constitution. Bills to restore preclearance with a new formula, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, passed the House but did not become law. Supporters of the ruling say it ended an outdated system that treated states differently based on old data, while critics say it removed the most effective protection against discriminatory voting changes.