Delicate Balancing Act in the Verdict of County v. Holder - Essay Example

Federalism Module Module Number: Academic Year: Seminar Essay Question: The delicate balancing act in the verdict of County v. Holder Student Name/ Number: Federalism The case of Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. (2013) saw the delivery of a landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court in June 2013 on serious constitutional issue touching on the Fifteenth Amendment. The primary issue in the case concerned the legality of two sections of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 in respect of the Fifteenth Amendment: Section 5 of VRA, which obligates select states and local authorities to acquire federal approval before enforcing any amendment to their polling regulations or practices; and Section 4(b), which provides for the formula for determining which regions should conform to the preclearance requirement based on their past discriminatory practices in polling1. The June 25, 2013 verdict by a 5-to-4 vote stated that Section 4(b) is illegal because the formula for determining the voting restrictions is premised upon out-dated data tracing to the 1960s when VRA was enacted2. This, according to the Court, makes the data no longer viable to the needs of the 21st century society and; therefore, any reliance on the data is intolerable3. The Court noted that the provisions in their original statuses deviate from the constitutional values of federalism and autonomy of the lower levels of government4. Section Five remained intact after the ruling, but its efficiency was severely impaired by the elimination of Section 4(b)5. As such no state or local authority will be under the obligation to seek preclearance as specified in Section Five, unless Congress moves in with a new polling formula6. The ruling has far-reaching implications on American state of federalism, since it is construed as an infringement on state authority in managing its internal affairs with regard to voting rights. State autonomy and Federalism The primary concern shared by several Shelby County’s supporters is that the VRA has negative impacts on federalism and the autonomy of US’s states in relation to the management of polls7. Of particular concern was the supervisory authority over polls, which has been historically at the discretion of states8. While the proponents of the abolition of state authority with regard to polls contend that it is not unfettered, it is conceivable that the skewed limitations imposed on some states under the Act were a violation of state autonomy and puts the affected states on uneven footing with their bordering states and raises federalism issues9. The federal regulation of state voting laws in one jurisdiction and the lack of regulation in another have the potential to create inequality, which the case of Shelby County v. Holder failed to respond to and address. By contrast, owing to the fact that courts are only mandated to interpret laws, the Supreme Court decision was a clever move to avoid usurping powers that are not vested in courts10. The Court merely restated what is written in the constitution and what the VRA says about voting rights of American citizens. Owing to the superiority of the Constitution and Congressional power over all other law-making institutions in the country, the Supreme Court may have been right to emphasize on the superiority of the central government as espoused by the Reconstruction Era constitutional drafters in the 15th and 14th Amendments. The Constitutional Amendments The Fifteenth Amendment outlaws federal and state authorities from barring any citizen from taking part in a vote based on the individual’s protected qualities including; race, colour, and history of slavery11. It can be argued that VRA under §s 5, and 4(b) rightfully grants Congress the power to guarantee these rights by preventing any negative action by Southern States to pass discriminatory voting laws as was most likely to happen during the Reconstruction Era when the 15th Amendment became law. The Fourteenth Amendment also safeguards citizenship rights guarantees equal protection at the national level. The two Amendments limit the latitude of state authority and that of lower levels of government in a manner that makes it conceivable that federalism is a myth in the US12. Federalism is backed by case law, however13. Authorities Section Five of VRA is arguably anti-federalism. The Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder to leave it intact is a major setback in the fight for state autonomy as noted in the recent case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder 557 U.S. 193 (2009)14. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts voiced his concerns that Section Five had been overtaken by events and was now raising grave constitutional issues15. He added that by legitimizing federal involvement in delicate state and local law-making processes, federalism would have no meaning16. American case law therefore favours federalism17. The majority decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, seeking to retain the skewed voting rights laws contravenes the federal rule that lower jurisdictions should pass their own legislation and regulate themselves unless such regulations contradict federal laws or the Constitution18. However, a piece of legislation that allows the federal authorities to enjoy a wide latitude in law to void state regulations whenever they deem fit is not a proper exercise of federal power; the court’s decision to uphold the Congressional authority in the recent case also serves to deviate from the concept of federalism that has been set in most examples of case law19. Federalism is arguably a transformative concept that has been created by courts to respond to the needs of the America with regard to inter-governmental relationships and resource distribution despite the lack of clear words to support in in the Constitution20. The case of Shelby County v. Holder draws several parallels to McCullough v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819) with regard to the concept of federalism in the United States21. However, the former case does seem to create a delicate balancing act between state authority and national authority while the latter prefers a more powerful state22. The case of McCullough v. Maryland involved Congressional authority to license a bank, which created controversy as to which government was legally responsible for such actions23. In 1816 Congress set up the Second National Bank to regulate currency falling beyond the jurisdiction of state banks. Several states questioned the legality of the national interventions, and Maryland quickly passed a law including all of the financial institutions not licensed by the state within its tax dragnet24. It is arguable that state authority was allowed to suffice because Congress had not passed any law over the issue as a form of claim of its superiority over lower levels of government as was evident in Shelby County v. Holder25. In another case, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1 (1937) expanded the authority of the state government, but brought in the national government where there was an inter-state dispute in as much the same way as Shelby County v. Holder. Following its passage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Congress classified labor-management conflicts as directly associated with the movement of goods and services across states, and, thus, fell squarely at the discretion of the national authorities26. In this case, the dispute was between the National Labor Relations Board and Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., with the latter party facing charges of discriminating against workers protected by unions27. The Court decided that the law was enacted to police only industrial activities, which could hinder interstate commerce otherwise states were at liberty to operate freely28. By contrast, the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251 (1917) was a clear sense of victory for federalism. The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 outlawed the interstate ferrying of products of employers who depended on child labor. The Act was seen as a major hindrance to child employment, which precipitated the court case29. The court voided the law by establishing that production and commerce are two different things, therefore, Congress lacked the regulatory authority over the issue30. As such any authority not conferred on national institutions should be exercised by states as implied in the Tenth Amendment31. Generally, unlike statutory provisions which do not specify federalism, common law has worked to expand the authority of states in order to enhance their efficiency as long as their power does not overlap with those of the national government32. Conclusion Generally, the verdict in the case of Shelby County v. Holder raises serious constitutional issues about the power of federal and state government in enacting laws which seek to correct unequal voting rights within their respective jurisdictions. Whereas the case of prejudice that the VRA was enacted to correct may have legitimized such an overwhelming grant of authority to federal institutions, America has made tremendous progress towards equality with regard to voting rights. As such Section Five carries more costs than benefits. It infringes on the authority of states to enact voting laws that can best respond to their unique needs. On the other hand, the perceived limitation of federalism by the Supreme Court, in its observation that Congress should continue regulating voting rights within states is well within the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment. In light of this, federalism is merely structural rather than constitutional. As such, the Court verdict refreshed the memories of the American citizens that federalism is more theoretical than practical. Read More