From Selma to Shelby County: A Review of Ari Berman's, Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America

AbstractThis article develops a legal and theological critique of the Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder decision that dismantled portions of the Voting Rights Act. Defending the Voting Rights Act in light of four basic features of voting rights—access, participation, empowerment, and expression of conscience—I refute the Shelby decision in terms of its oversimplified notions of discrimination and its overly narrow construal of federalism as state sovereignty and equality. I draw upon Catholic social teaching's subsidiarity and Johannes Althusius's federalism to defend the individual and communal dimensions of voting rights. I examine post-Shelby developments, including voter-identification laws, and I argue that such laws are unfounded and have deleterious effects. I conclude by offering modest recommendations for a post-Shelby world, including continued roles for Congress and the Department of Justice, the use of intermediary organizations, and the rescinding of felon disenfranchisement laws.

Download Full-text

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary: Congressional Authority to Protect Voting Rights After Shelby County v. Holder

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.3470266 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Justin Levitt

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Civil Liberties ◽

Voting Rights ◽

House Committee ◽

Shelby County ◽

The U.S

Download Full-text

After the Voting Rights Act

America's Lone Star Constitution ◽

10.1525/california/9780520297807.003.0003 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Lucas A. Powe

Keyword(s):

Attorney General ◽

Voting Rights ◽

The State ◽

Voting Rights Act ◽

Voter Identification ◽

Shelby County ◽

The One ◽

Voter Fraud ◽

Voter Id ◽

The U.S

This chapter discusses the legal battles over the issue on voting rights in Texas. The Voting Rights Act, with its preclearance requirements for the South, was adopted in 1965 and reauthorized in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006. A few days after the 2006 reauthorization, the municipal utility district (MUD), created in Austin, Texas, in the 1980s, sued the U.S. attorney general, claiming that it should be allowed the advantage of the “bailout” (from preclearance) provisions of the Act. Edward Blum was the man behind the lawsuit. The chapter examines the MUD case and the one that followed it, Shelby County v. Holder. It also considers the efforts of Republicans to prevent voter fraud in the state through voter identification, resulting in SB 14, or voter ID bill, in the Texas Senate.

Download Full-text