The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5
The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a momentous occasion for minority voters in the United States, and its positive effects could be measured immediately. However, when Section 4 of the VRA was declared unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the ability of the VRA to...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Association Française d'Etudes Américaines
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Transatlantica |
| Online Access: | https://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/7429 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832580660632485888 |
|---|---|
| author | Thomas L. Brunell Whitney Ross Manzo |
| author_facet | Thomas L. Brunell Whitney Ross Manzo |
| author_sort | Thomas L. Brunell |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a momentous occasion for minority voters in the United States, and its positive effects could be measured immediately. However, when Section 4 of the VRA was declared unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the ability of the VRA to continue its protection of minority voters was called into question. We argue that the VRA is still necessary and propose an administrative notification system that could fix the issues with Sections 4 and 5. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-fb6e6d84eee741339ee12afd187368fa |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1765-2766 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Association Française d'Etudes Américaines |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Transatlantica |
| spelling | doaj-art-fb6e6d84eee741339ee12afd187368fa2025-01-30T10:47:53ZengAssociation Française d'Etudes AméricainesTransatlantica1765-27662016-01-01110.4000/transatlantica.7429The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5Thomas L. BrunellWhitney Ross ManzoThe passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a momentous occasion for minority voters in the United States, and its positive effects could be measured immediately. However, when Section 4 of the VRA was declared unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the ability of the VRA to continue its protection of minority voters was called into question. We argue that the VRA is still necessary and propose an administrative notification system that could fix the issues with Sections 4 and 5.https://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/7429 |
| spellingShingle | Thomas L. Brunell Whitney Ross Manzo The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5 Transatlantica |
| title | The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5 |
| title_full | The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5 |
| title_fullStr | The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5 |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5 |
| title_short | The Voting Rights Act After Shelby County v. Holder: A Potential Fix to Revive Section 5 |
| title_sort | voting rights act after shelby county v holder a potential fix to revive section 5 |
| url | https://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/7429 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT thomaslbrunell thevotingrightsactaftershelbycountyvholderapotentialfixtorevivesection5 AT whitneyrossmanzo thevotingrightsactaftershelbycountyvholderapotentialfixtorevivesection5 AT thomaslbrunell votingrightsactaftershelbycountyvholderapotentialfixtorevivesection5 AT whitneyrossmanzo votingrightsactaftershelbycountyvholderapotentialfixtorevivesection5 |