Ten Years after Shelby County: The Effect of Ending Preclearance on Voting Rights

In a new article, Zuckerman Spaeder lawyers Bryan Thomson and Marty Himeles have analyzed the effects of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision ending the “preclearance” requirement for new voting standards, practices, and procedures in states with a history of discriminatory voting practices. The full article, titled Ten Years after Shelby County: The Effect of Ending Preclearance on Voting Rights, is available here.

In Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion held that preclearance was no longer required after nearly five decades of progress in securing voting rights. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg famously compared the elimination of preclearance and other voting-rights protections to "throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." 

Now, a decade later, Bryan and Marty have examined whether voters are getting wet. Their article explains the purpose of the Voting Rights Act and its various components, provides background on the Shelby County case, discusses the aftermath and the wave of restrictions on voting rights following the Shelby County decision, examines statistical data on voter registration and turnout, and offers a perspective on the legal gaps that need to be addressed to ensure that all Americans’ fundamental constitutional rights are protected. 

Read the full article for a deeper understanding of the systemic impact of the Shelby County decision.