0

The History of the Shelby County v. Holder Decision

Description: Shelby County v. Holder was a landmark Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case was decided on June 25, 2013, by a 5-4 vote, with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Number of Questions: 5
Created by:
Tags: history law voting rights
Attempted 0/5 Correct 0 Score 0

What was the main issue in Shelby County v. Holder?

  1. The constitutionality of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

  2. The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a whole

  3. The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as applied to Shelby County, Alabama

  4. The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as applied to the entire United States


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The main issue in Shelby County v. Holder was the constitutionality of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states and counties with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws.

What was the Court's holding in Shelby County v. Holder?

  1. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional.

  2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional as a whole.

  3. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional as applied to Shelby County, Alabama.

  4. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional as applied to the entire United States.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional because it is based on an outdated formula that no longer reflects the current reality of voting discrimination in the United States.

What was the impact of the Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder?

  1. It made it easier for states and counties to change their voting laws without federal approval.

  2. It made it more difficult for states and counties to change their voting laws without federal approval.

  3. It had no impact on the ability of states and counties to change their voting laws.

  4. It made it impossible for states and counties to change their voting laws.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder made it easier for states and counties to change their voting laws without federal approval because it struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states and counties with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws.

What was the dissenting opinion's argument in Shelby County v. Holder?

  1. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is constitutional.

  2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is constitutional as a whole.

  3. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is constitutional as applied to Shelby County, Alabama.

  4. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is constitutional as applied to the entire United States.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The dissenting opinion argued that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is constitutional because it is a necessary and appropriate measure to prevent racial discrimination in voting.

What is the future of voting rights in the United States after Shelby County v. Holder?

  1. Voting rights will be more difficult to protect.

  2. Voting rights will be easier to protect.

  3. Voting rights will not be affected.

  4. Voting rights will be eliminated.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The future of voting rights in the United States after Shelby County v. Holder is uncertain, but it is likely that voting rights will be more difficult to protect because the Court's decision made it easier for states and counties to change their voting laws without federal approval.

- Hide questions