Which case invalidated the preclearance formula of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional?

Which case invalidated the preclearance formula of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional?

• A. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
• B. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
• C. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• D. Dickerson v. United States (2000)

Answer: (A)

The concept tested is how the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance regime was struck down because the mechanism that activates it was found unconstitutional. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court held that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Act is unconstitutional because it relies on outdated data and fails to reflect current conditions, effectively treating certain jurisdictions as subject to preclearance based on historical factors. Since there is no valid coverage formula, there is no enforceable trigger for Section 5’s preclearance requirement, so the preclearance regime cannot operate. The other cases involve different constitutional issues unrelated to voting rights preclearance: one addresses racial considerations in college admissions, another campaign finance, and another Miranda rights.

The concept tested is how the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance regime was struck down because the mechanism that activates it was found unconstitutional. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court held that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Act is unconstitutional because it relies on outdated data and fails to reflect current conditions, effectively treating certain jurisdictions as subject to preclearance based on historical factors. Since there is no valid coverage formula, there is no enforceable trigger for Section 5’s preclearance requirement, so the preclearance regime cannot operate. The other cases involve different constitutional issues unrelated to voting rights preclearance: one addresses racial considerations in college admissions, another campaign finance, and another Miranda rights.