Skip to main content
Sojourners
faith in action for social justice
Sojourners
About
About SojournersEventsOur TeamWork With UsMediaWays to GiveInvite a SpeakerContact Us
SojoAction
OverviewTake ActionIssue AreasResourcesFaith-Rooted AdvocatesChurch Engagement
Magazine
Current IssueArchivesManage My SubscriptionWrite for Sojourners
Sections
LatestPoliticsColumnsLiving FaithArts & CultureGlobalPodcastsVideoLiberating The Word
Subscribe
MagazineRenewGift SubscriptionLiberating The WordCustomer ServiceNewsletters
Donate
Login / Register

SCOTUS: Key Section of Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional

By the Web Editors
 Supreme Court Building, Cameron Whitman / Shutterstock.com
Supreme Court Building, Cameron Whitman / Shutterstock.com
Jun 25, 2013
Share Full Article
Share As A Gift
Share a paywall-free link to this article.
This feature is only available for subscribers.

Start your subscription for as low as $4.95. Already a subscriber?

  • Link copied!
Share This Article
Share Options
  • Link copied!

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that targeted states with histories of racial discrimination, saying the formula for choosing the states subject to "preclearance" is "based on 40-year-old data." The court's decision states that Congress can revise the formula under which it decides which jurisdictions are subject to oversight: 

"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," the decision reads. 

Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.  Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2.  We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage  formula. Congress may draft another formula based on  current conditions. … 

Read the full decision HERE.

Image: Supreme Court Building, Cameron Whitman / Shutterstock.com

Did this article have an impact on you? Tell us how! Whether you’re moved to take action, have a question, or want to share a comment (good or bad), we value your feedback!

Tell Us What You Think!

We value your feedback on the articles we post. Please fill out the form below, and a member of our online publication team will receive your message. By submitting this form, you consent to your comment being featured in our Letters section. 

Please do not include any non-text characters, such as emojis or other non-standard content, into your submission.  It may cause errors in submitting the form.  Thanks!

Don't Miss a Story!

Sojourners is committed to faith and justice even in polarized times. Will you join us on the journey?
Confirm Your Email Address.
By entering your email we'll send you our newsletter each Thursday. You can unsubscribe anytime.
Supreme Court Building, Cameron Whitman / Shutterstock.com

Most Popular

  1. Midterms and Moral Rot in Trump’s America
  2. What Should Christians Do With a Blue Wave?
  3. What I’m Praying for After the Midterms
  4. The Bible Character That Most Resembles Trump
  5. Pope Leo Receives Freewheelin’ Midwesterner
Search Sojourners

Subscribe

Login Magazine Newsletters Liberating the Word
Follow on Facebook Follow on Bluesky Follow on Instagram Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Sojourners
Donate Products Editorial Policies Privacy Policy

Media

Advertising Press

Opportunities

Careers Fellowship Program Write For Sojourners

Contact

Contact Us Help Center
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2026