Which case invalidated the preclearance formula that protected voting rights, reducing federal oversight?

Which case invalidated the preclearance formula that protected voting rights, reducing federal oversight?

• A. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
• B. United States v. Nixon
• C. Baker v. Carr
• D. Reynolds v. Sims

Answer: (A)

The main concept is the preclearance requirement under the Voting Rights Act and how the formula that determined which jurisdictions were covered was struck down. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b)’s coverage formula was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data and failed to reflect current conditions. Because the formula was invalid, the automatic preclearance mechanism of Section 5 could not be applied to any jurisdiction until Congress creates a new, valid formula. That effectively reduced federal oversight of voting changes in those covered areas, at least until Congress acts. The decision did not eliminate Section 5 itself, leaving room for a legislative fix. The other listed cases address entirely different issues—executive privilege in the Nixon case and apportionment/equal protection in the redistricting cases—so they do not pertain to federal oversight of voting rights.

The main concept is the preclearance requirement under the Voting Rights Act and how the formula that determined which jurisdictions were covered was struck down. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b)’s coverage formula was unconstitutional because it relied on decades-old data and failed to reflect current conditions. Because the formula was invalid, the automatic preclearance mechanism of Section 5 could not be applied to any jurisdiction until Congress creates a new, valid formula. That effectively reduced federal oversight of voting changes in those covered areas, at least until Congress acts. The decision did not eliminate Section 5 itself, leaving room for a legislative fix. The other listed cases address entirely different issues—executive privilege in the Nixon case and apportionment/equal protection in the redistricting cases—so they do not pertain to federal oversight of voting rights.