Question

as examined in both the text and lecture, what did the u.s. supreme court rule in the case shelby county (alabama) v. holder (2013)?
a the court ruled that section 4 of the voting rights act, which identified mostly southern states of the old confederacy, was unconstitutional because these rules adopted in 1965 had not been changed in over sixty years.
b per shelby countys request, the court argued that section 5 of the voting rights act regarding pre - clearance was non - enforceable.
c the supreme court took the unprecedented move of declaring the voting rights act of 1965 unconstitutional.
d after alabama adopted its stringent anti - immigrant measure, the supreme court argued that the section 203, which pertains to foreign language ballot provisions, is unconstitutional.

Explanation:

In the case Shelby County (Alabama) v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Section 4 contained the formula for determining which states and localities were subject to pre - clearance (Section 5) of their voting changes. The Court held that the coverage formula in Section 4 was outdated as it had not been updated since 1965, while the pre - clearance requirement (Section 5) itself was constitutional if a new, updated coverage formula was created.

• Option A: Correct. The Court ruled Section 4 unconstitutional because the 1965 formula had not been updated in over 40 (not sixty) years (1965 - 2013 is 48 years). But the core idea of the unconstitutionality of Section 4 due to outdated formula is correct.
• Option B: Incorrect. The Court did not rule Section 5 non - enforceable. It said Section 5 was constitutional but could not be enforced without a valid Section 4 formula.
• Option C: Incorrect. The Court did not declare the entire Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional, only Section 4.
• Option D: Incorrect. The case was not about Section 203 and anti - immigrant measures. It was about Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Answer:

A. The Court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which identified mostly Southern states of the old Confederacy, was unconstitutional because these rules adopted in 1965 had not been changed in over sixty years.