Unteachable: Shelby County, Canonical Apostasies, and a Way Forward for the Voting Rights Act
Kareem U. Crayton, Terry Smith
Abstract
Open-access reader
Kareem U. Crayton, Terry Smith
Abstract
Open-access reader
In this paper, we analyze the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which declared unconstitutional the coverage formula for Section 5 preclearance. We conclude that Shelby County is a radical departure not only from the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act jurisprudence but also from canons of statutory construction more generally. While the Court's decision has adverse implications for both separation of powers doctrine and minority voting rights, the authors propose an expeditious fix to the coverage formula that would likely pass constitutional muster.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In this paper, we analyze the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which declared unconstitutional the coverage formula for Section 5 preclearance. We conclude that Shelby County is a radical departure not only from the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act jurisprudence but also from canons of statutory construction more generally. While the Court's decision has adverse implications for both separation of powers doctrine and minority voting rights, the authors propose an expeditious fix to the coverage formula that would likely pass constitutional muster.
Key concepts: Supreme court, Voting, Jurisprudence, Law, Political science, Statutory law, Doctrine, Politics