en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
2 corrections found
the Court removed the federal preclearance requirement for any Southern state alteration in voting policies
This misstates Shelby County v. Holder. The Court struck down the Voting Rights Act’s Section 4(b) coverage formula, not Section 5 itself, and preclearance had applied only to covered jurisdictions, including some outside the South.
Full reasoning
This sentence overstates and misdescribes Shelby County v. Holder.
What the Court actually did in Shelby County was invalidate Section 4(b)’s coverage formula—the formula used to decide which jurisdictions had to preclear voting changes. The Department of Justice’s summary of the decision states that the Supreme Court “did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 itself.”
It is also incorrect to describe the old rule as covering “any Southern state alteration.” Section 5 preclearance applied only to covered jurisdictions, not every Southern state, and the covered jurisdictions were not limited to the South. DOJ lists fully covered states such as Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, and later coverage also included Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in their entirety, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.
So the article turns a narrower, formula-based ruling about certain covered jurisdictions into a blanket statement about all Southern states and suggests the Court eliminated Section 5 itself, which it did not.
2 sources
- Civil Rights Division | About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court held it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b)... The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 itself.
- Civil Rights Division | About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act
Coverage included Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, and later Alaska, Arizona, Texas, plus parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.
the interpretation of section 2 as requiring the creation of majority-minority districts was unconstitutional
This overstates Louisiana v. Callais. The Court did not hold that Section 2 can never justify creating majority-minority districts; it held only that Section 2 did not require an additional majority-minority district in Louisiana’s map.
Full reasoning
This sentence turns a case-specific holding into a categorical constitutional rule.
In the official syllabus for Louisiana v. Callais, the Court’s holding was that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district in this case, so Louisiana lacked a compelling interest for using race to draw that district. The same syllabus also says the Court held that compliance with Section 2, as properly construed, can provide a compelling interest.
That is materially different from saying that “the interpretation of section 2 as requiring the creation of majority-minority districts was unconstitutional.” The Court did not announce a blanket rule that Section 2 can never require or justify majority-minority districts. It said Louisiana’s additional district was not required under Section 2 on the facts of this case.
So the Wikipedia sentence broadens the ruling beyond what the Court actually held.
2 sources
- Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
Held: Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district...
- Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
The Court now holds that compliance with §2, as properly construed, can provide such an interest.