Civil and Human Rights

U.S. Supreme Court decision to review Shelby County voting rights challenge draws national attention

By Kent Faulk

 

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday to hear its challenge, Shelby County Alabama, has quickly become synonymous with many southerners’ efforts to get out from under a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

 

The New York Times and the Washington Post are among the major national newspapers that have written stories about Shelby County’s challenge to section 5 of the act. That act requires many cities, counties and other local jurisdictions, mainly in the South, to be pre-cleared by the U.S. Justice Department before making any changes to voting or voting lines.

 

Other publications writing about the Supreme Court’s decision to take on the Shelby County case include the Christian Science Monitor and Mother Jones, which proclaimed in a headline “Supreme Court Appears Ready to Nuke the Voting Rights Act.”

 

The decision by the high court to review the Shelby County case was greeted with cheers from the county’s attorney, al.com reported. Southern communities have changed and no longer need such burdensome 1960s-style oversight from Washington, the attorney told al.com.

 

Doug Kendall, founder and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center wrote in The Blog on HuffingtonPost that the Voting Rights Act is still vital today.

 

For access to court briefs in the Shelby County Voting Rights case, go to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights website. That group in 2010 had intervened in the Shelby County lawsuit that is now in the hands of the high court.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
February 17, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.
Civil and Human Rights
January 13, 2025

CAC RELEASE: At Stanley Oral Argument, Questioning Focuses on Narrow Ground for Resolving Employment Discrimination Case in Favor of a Retiree with a Disability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Stanley v....
Civil and Human Rights
December 30, 2024

Top Contributor Essays of 2024

The Regulatory Review
The Regulatory Review is pleased to revisit our top regulatory essays of 2024, each authored by...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...