Statements (296)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:aftermath |
Increased state-level voting restrictions
|
| gptkbp:argument_against |
Protection of minority voting rights
|
| gptkbp:argument_for |
States' rights to regulate elections
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analyzed in law schools and legal studies
Used as a case study in law schools Frequently discussed in legal forums Relevant to ongoing discussions about voter suppression Criticized for undermining voting protections Implications for minority voting rights Continues to influence voting rights discussions Criticized for undermining minority protections Examined the effectiveness of federal oversight Potential for increased discrimination in voting Examined the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act. Critics argue it undermines voting protections. Ongoing discussions about voting rights. Potential for voter suppression. |
| gptkbp:case_legal_challenge |
Challenged federal authority over state elections.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
Documented in legal databases
12-96 No. 12-96 |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Impact on minority voter turnout Struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act Struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Invalidated the formula used to determine jurisdictions needing preclearance Influenced state legislation on voting rights Invalidated federal oversight provisions Shift in voting rights landscape Significant change in voting rights enforcement Increased state control over voting laws. Invalidated preclearance requirements. Invalidated the coverage formula in Section 4. Led to changes in state voting laws. Majority opinion criticized the formula used for preclearance. Struck down the formula for determining jurisdictions needing preclearance. Invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional |
| gptkbp:case_public_perception |
Public perception of voting rights issues changed
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Landmark case in voting rights history
Significant change in federal oversight of state voting laws Historical significance in American legal history Reevaluation of voting rights protections Landmark ruling on voting rights Marked a shift in voting rights jurisprudence. Reaffirmed states' rights in election laws. Significant for future voting rights litigation |
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:Constitution
Constitutional law case Supported by conservative legal groups Supported by conservative groups Supporters claim it restores state rights. |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Increased state-level voting restrictions
Potential for voter suppression Challenges to state voting laws increased |
| gptkbp:context |
Post-2008 election voting rights discussions
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Shelby_County,_Alabama
Eric Holder, Attorney General |
| gptkbp:date |
November 9, 2012
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 25, 2013 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Elena_Kagan
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Sonia_Sotomayor gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer Call for judicial restraint 4 justices against Judicial activism concerns Opposed by civil rights organizations Congress has the power to enforce voting rights Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan Critique of the majority's dismissal of evidence Critique of the majority's reliance on outdated data Concern over voter suppression Importance of federal oversight Argued it undermined protections for minority voters Call for legislative action Concerns over the politicization of voting rights issues Call for a renewed commitment to civil rights Call for unity in protecting voting rights Concerns over state laws affecting voting rights Consequences for voter suppression Critique of majority's reasoning Effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act Emphasis on the ongoing struggle for civil rights Historical context of racial discrimination Historical precedents of discrimination in voting Importance of the Voting Rights Act in modern context Impact on future voting legislation Importance of protecting minority voting rights Need for comprehensive voting rights protections Need for continued federal oversight Need for data-driven approach to voting rights Need for vigilance in protecting democracy Critique of the majority's interpretation of the Constitution Potential for increased voter disenfranchisement Precedent of federal intervention in voting rights Recognition of systemic racism in voting Recognition of the Voting Rights Act's success States' rights vs. federal oversight Concerns over the erosion of civil rights protections Concerns over the implications for future elections Call for bipartisan support for voting rights legislation Importance of judicial accountability in civil rights cases Concerns over the implications for minority representation Importance of public awareness on voting rights issues Importance of historical context in legal decisions Need for a robust federal response to voting discrimination Concerns over the role of the judiciary in civil rights Importance of maintaining federal standards for voting rights Recognition of the ongoing challenges in voting access Recognition of the Voting Rights Act as a landmark legislation Recognition of the role of the judiciary in protecting rights. |
| gptkbp:economic_policy |
Influenced public policy on voting access
Voting rights policy changes State vs. federal control of elections Debate on voting access |
| gptkbp:election |
5-4 decision
|
| gptkbp:future_prospects |
Changes in how elections are conducted
Potential for increased voter ID laws |
| gptkbp:government_response |
Calls for new voting rights legislation
|
| gptkbp:has_implications_for |
Civil rights protections
State sovereignty in elections Potential for voter suppression Federalism in voting rights |
| gptkbp:historical_context |
gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement
Post-Civil War amendments Part of ongoing debate over voting rights |
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
Landmark case in voting rights history
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Shelby County v. Holder
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Voting rights protections
Influenced future voting rights legislation Changed the way states are monitored for voting rights Increased state-level voting restrictions States no longer required to seek federal approval for changes to voting laws States no longer need federal approval for changes to voting laws States can change voting laws without federal approval Changes in voter ID laws Voting rights protections in certain states |
| gptkbp:implications_for_voting |
Increased state autonomy in voting regulations
|
| gptkbp:influenced_by |
Previous Supreme Court rulings on voting rights
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Shelby_County,_Alabama
Eric Holder, Attorney General |
| gptkbp:is_a_basis_for |
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:570_U._S._529_(2013)
Numerous subsequent court cases |
| gptkbp:is_debated_in |
Ongoing discussions about race and voting rights
|
| gptkbp:judged_by |
Judgment favored Shelby County.
|
| gptkbp:judges |
Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Constitutionality of federal laws
Analyzed in law reviews and journals Judicial review of federal laws Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan Constitutional review. Judicial scrutiny of voting laws Constitutional scrutiny of voting laws Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg |
| gptkbp:legacy |
Legacy of increased scrutiny on voting laws
Ongoing debates about voting access |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement
Preclearance requirement Challenges to voter ID laws Discussions on racial discrimination in voting |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Conservative judicial philosophy
Conservative interpretation of the Constitution Reflects conservative judicial philosophy Voting Rights Act amendments Federalism and state sovereignty Significant reduction in federal oversight. Influenced judicial approach to voting rights cases Rejection of the coverage formula Influence on lower court rulings Reevaluation of the Voting Rights Act Altered the landscape of voting rights. Conservative interpretation of the Constitution. State voting laws autonomy Voting Rights Act provisions. Part of the legal framework for voting rights Impact on judicial interpretation of the Voting Rights Act |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
gptkb:Equal_protection_clause Federalism concerns Constitutionality of preclearance requirement Constitutionality of preclearance provisions Ongoing legal debates about voting rights Equal protection clause violations Debate over federal vs. state authority Federal vs. state power in elections. Equal sovereignty of states |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Changed federal-state relations in election law
Significant impact on future voting rights legislation. Changed the landscape of voting rights law in the U. S. Struck down key provision of the Voting Rights Act |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Equal Protection Clause
|
| gptkbp:legal_scholarship |
Numerous articles and papers published
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:John_Lewis_Voting_Rights_Advancement_Act
gptkb:Voting_Rights_Advancement_Act Calls for new voting rights protections States enacted new voting laws after the ruling Attempts to restore federal oversight |
| gptkbp:material |
Challenge to preclearance requirements
Challenged the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. |
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
Extensive media attention
Extensive coverage in national media |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was struck down
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act struck down Increased state autonomy in election laws |
| gptkbp:political_impact |
Shift in political power dynamics
Shifted political dynamics in southern states Influenced political discourse on voting rights |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:South_Carolina_v._Katzenbach
gptkb:Bush_v._Gore gptkb:Katzenbach_v._Morgan Set a precedent for future voting rights litigation Influenced future voting rights legislation Future voting rights cases States no longer need federal approval for changes to voting laws Influenced future voting rights litigation Struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act Impact on future voting rights legislation Influence on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Influenced subsequent voting rights cases. States' rights in voting regulations Set a precedent for state voting law changes Influenced subsequent voting rights cases |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Chief_Justice_John_Roberts
5 justices in favor Criticism from civil rights groups Coverage formula outdated and unconstitutional Data used to justify preclearance is outdated States have changed since 1965 Struck down the formula used for preclearance Debate over voter ID laws and access to voting Legal challenges to state laws based on perceived discrimination Increased state-level voting law changes The Voting Rights Act was intended to be temporary The formula in Section 4(b) is outdated Federalism principles support state autonomy in elections The decision reflects changing demographics and political conditions Congress has the power to enforce voting rights but must use current data Shift in how voting rights are protected in the U. S. States should have more control over their voting processes Challenges to state voting laws increased after the ruling |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Mixed reactions from civil rights groups
Controversial decision Support from conservative groups Criticism from civil rights groups Controversial and polarizing decision |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Brnovich_v._Democratic_National_Committee
gptkb:Bush_v._Gore gptkb:United_States_v._Alabama Cases challenging state voting laws |
| gptkbp:related_to |
Voting Rights Act amendments
|
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Impact on minority voting rights
Impact on minority voter turnout Analysis of political polarization Extensively analyzed in legal studies Impact on grassroots movements Impact on minority representation Debated in legal and political circles Impact on future Supreme Court cases Debate on the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act Impact on political participation Debate on racial discrimination in voting Criticism from civil rights organizations Analysis of judicial activism Analysis of political accountability Analysis of state versus federal power Analysis of voter suppression tactics Critique of the majority opinion Debate on federalism and states' rights Discussion on civil rights legislation Discussion on judicial review Discussion on race and politics Discussion on the future of voting rights Examination of electoral access Examination of electoral integrity Examination of electoral reforms Examination of public policy responses Historical context of the Voting Rights Act Implications for future voting legislation Legal implications for state sovereignty Discussion on the role of the judiciary in democracy Support from conservative legal scholars |
| gptkbp:significance |
Significant for federalism and state rights
Significant change in federal oversight of state voting laws Reevaluation of federal oversight in voting rights Changed federal oversight of state voting laws Constitutional interpretation of federalism |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States gptkb:Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|