NBLSA Shelby County v. Holder Statement

The National Black Law Students Association (NBLSA) submitted a brief as amicus curiae in support of Congress’ decision to reauthorize the VRA, urging the Supreme Court to consider the real and substantial risk that the progress made in combatting voting discrimination will be lost if the protections of the VRA are invalidated. One of NBLSA’s purposes is to protect and encourage minority political participation.  Recent court decisions illustrate that without the protection of section 5, many of the covered jurisdictions would adopt practices that abridge minority voting rights. As the nation’s preeminent organization of Black law students, NBLSA is committed to exposing and fighting back against discriminatory practices in all jurisdictions, not just those covered by the VRA.  We lament the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby, but we recognize that there is still much work to do. This work begins by urgently pressing Congress to draft a pre-clearance formula that not only passes constitutional muster, but protects the right to vote for all.

Background of the case: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, and has upheld subsequent extensions by Congress. In 2006, Congress extended the law for another twenty-five years. In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, decided in 2009, the Court made it easier for covered areas to “bailout” of the law, but avoided the constitutional question, remarking only that the law “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” Shelby County is a direct effort to undermine the VRA.

For nearly half a century, the VRA has been one of the most effective pieces of American legislation, ending or preventing the adoption of countless discriminatory voting practices. Thus, NBLSA signed on to a brief in Shelby County as amicus curiae in support of Respondents, urging the Supreme Court to affirm the ruling of the D.C. Circuit upholding the constitutionality of section 5. The brief argues that there is a real and substantial risk that the progress made in combating voting discrimination will be eroded if section 5 is invalidated. The brief – authored by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) – asserts that Congress’s decision to reauthorize section 5 in 2006 was amply supported by the legislative record, and thus is entitled to deference from the Court. NBLSA agrees that, in renewing the Voting Rights Act, Congress gathered extensive evidence of a continuing need for prophylactic legislation that ensures that the right to vote is not abridged on account of race. Our own experiences in the most recent election inform us that, without section 5, there is a risk that much of the political and social progress made since the passage of the Voting Rights Act would be lost. Read the brief here.