Final answer:
The Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), ruled that pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act were outdated and unconstitutional, releasing states from the requirement to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws.
Step-by-step explanation:
Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) that the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) were outdated and thus unconstitutional.
The court argued that these provisions, which required certain states and local governments to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws due to their history of discrimination, overstepped the federal government's authority and violated the Tenth Amendment.
Specifically, in a 5-4 decision, the justices found that the formula used to determine which states were subject to pre-clearance was based on data over 50 years old and did not address current conditions.
As a result, states that were previously under pre-clearance were able to implement changes to their election laws without prior approval from the federal government. This decision had immediate ramifications, with some states enacting laws that were seen to limit voters' rights and access to the polls.
The majority opinion held that the burden was on Congress to create a new formula that reflects current conditions should it decide to reinstate pre-clearance requirements.