2014•SMU Law ReviewOpen access

Unteachable: Shelby County, Canonical Apostasies, and a Way Forward for the Voting Rights Act

Kareem U. Crayton, Terry Smith

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

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.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Unteachable: Shelby County, Canonical Apostasies, and a Way Forward for the Voting Rights Act — Research Paper | ScholarLens