Talk:Shelby County v. Holder

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives#Job description|House Majority Leader]] The anchor (#Job description) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

NPOV[edit]

This article is largely being used as an excuse for ideological axe-grinding by snooganssnoogans, who represents the worst kind of Wikipedia editor: a hard-core ideological partisan whose full-time job, seemingly, is to try to persuade readers to follow his way of thinking. Look at his user page. He has been in multiple edit wars for this kind of stuff -- exactly the kind of demagoguery that gives Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska Jack (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Heavens -- the third paragraph of the opening. There is already an "Impacts" section on this page. There is literally no reason to have this stuff in the overview unless you really, really want to persuade people that this was a bad decision. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be the place for that.Alaska Jack (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is tendentious. It is overtly hostile to the opinion. A clear example is the extensive quote from an obscure commentator about its deleterious effects. This should be made more even handed rather than serve as another example that bolsters the charge that wiki has a left wing bias. Sych (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as somehow a lack of democracy can be a good thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.7.227 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct unfettered democracy is only separated from mob rule by respect for rule of law, and still suffers from the problem of tyranny of the majority, so yes, a lack of complete democracy can be a good thing. To think otherwise is to be, intentionally or not, ignorant of history dating back to the Greek city-states of antiquity.

Impacts[edit]

The Impact section really drifts all over the place. For example,

Limiting access to voting is deeply embedded in America history. In began during the Fouding Fathers era of the United States and reached a peak point during the Jim Crow era in the Southern United States. The idea that disenfranchising legitimate voters was unethical gained momentum following the Civil rights movement era and the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965,

This needs to get to the point faster. The historical context for this case should be covered elsewhere.

but came to halt almost "two decades after the Bush v. Gore stalemate led to voting rules being viewed as key elements of election strategy, the issue is playing an extraordinary role in the midterm elections."[70]

Vague. Which midterm election? Now that this was a few years ago, can we now specify what the impact was in that election? Surely there are some objective facts that can be cited at this point (2021)?

In light of these development restrictions on registering and voting subsequent to the 2013 Shelby County ruling were made in most of the cases by Republicans.

This sentence is poorly written. I don't understand the meaning.

These restrictions are necessary to combat election fraud according to Republicans.

Vague. Which restrictions? I'm going to delete a few sentences that I think are odd and need rewriting.Palehose5 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sentences that need to be rewritten for clarity and specifics were taken out. The deleted sentences were originally written by me. I readded these sentences in order to rewritte them. After rewritting the deleted and readded sentences I hope this rewording and the following edit solve the above mentioned issues by Palehose5. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark[edit]

How can it be a landmark after one day? Isn't that a bit premature? Or "crystal ball"-ish? 216.8.164.187 (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over Lists of landmark court decisions and the discussion over on Talk:List of landmark court decisions in the United States, it does not appear that the term "landmark" has a universally agreed-upon meaning, or that the passage of time is a required element of it, but it seems clear at a minimum that a "landmark" case is one that creates or substantially alters significant legal doctrines. I would say that this case certainly does, but whether this characterization is valid really should be determined by reliable sources. The following reliable sources describe the decision as landmark:

I haven't seen any sources disputing this characterization. Also, to refute any "time passage" argument, one can also look to the plethora of sources that describe United States v. Windsor as a "landmark" decision as well. Thus, the "landmark" label appears appropriate at this time. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New "Arguments" section[edit]

I'd like to propose an "Arguments" section be added to the article, after the "History" section, to describe the arguments put forth by Shelby County (and associated parties) and the US (and associated parties). Ideally, it would describe in detail the arguments about the Congressional record for the 2006 reauthorization (especially the McCrary Report) as well as other arguments (the VRA laying at the intersection of both a fundamental right and a suspect class; as-applied vs. facial constitutional challenges; etc.). After this is constructed, the "Opinion" section can be updated with the Supreme Court's responses (if any) to the arguments. I'll some time into working on this next month, though I'm mostly tied down until then—but I thought I'd throw this out there as a suggestion now, in case anyone had any thoughts on the idea or would like to take initiative on it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Alabama section

I'm sorry, but this is a great example of one of the problems with Wikipedia. The Alabama section should not exist. Shelby County v. Holder took place in 2013. The Alabama district map was started after the 2010 census and completed in 2012. The map was completed in 2012. Precisely how was the map, finalized in 2012, a result a Supreme Court ruling that came in 2013? Anyone? By the way, the link provided actually states the map was created BEFORE Shelby County v. Holder. The article is locked though so it can't be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.108.229 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain consequences in intro[edit]

It's not clear in the intro what the consequences of this decisions are (at least not to me). Can someone add a sentence explaining this? Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's now two short sentences on the impact of the ruling. These can be elaborated on. This is an article I intend to work more on when I get the time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia's SB 202[edit]

Is it time to include Georgia's SB 202? Jasendorf (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]