Citation

Carr CM, Schildkraut J, Rank A. Crim. Justice Stud. Crit. J. Crime Law Soc. 2017; 30(3): 276-288.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/1478601X.2017.1318343

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which included the preclearance formula for determining which state and local jurisdictions needed to obtain federal approval before changing their election laws and voting procedures, was unconstitutional. By requiring federal approval, this provision prevented historically repressive jurisdictions from enacting covert policies to hinder non-whites from voting. The ruling in Shelby County is problematic because methods in use across the country prevent non-white citizens from casting their ballots, leaving their interests unaddressed. As people of color hold different attitudes and views than whites towards specific criminal justice measures, contemporary barriers to the ballot have potential implications for criminal law and policy. Consequently, analyses of two contemporary methods of denying non-whites a voice in government are warranted: felon disenfranchisement and voter identification laws. After considering the disproportionate effects of these laws on non-white voting, the paper reveals the potential harm that may result from Shelby County if similar laws spread to jurisdictions no longer covered by the Voting Rights Act.

Language: en

Keywords

criminal justice system; Felon disenfranchisement; Shelby County v. Holder (2013); United States Supreme Court; voter ID laws; Voting Rights Act of 1965