Afternoon round-up: Shelby County v. Holder
on Feb 27, 2013 at 5:30 pm
This morning, the Court heard oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, which ran for an additional seventeen minutes beyond the scheduled hour. Early reports on the argument overwhelmingly agree that the Court is poised to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, likely in a five-to-four decision. Lyle Denniston covered the oral argument for this blog. Tom suggests in his initial report that although the Court is unlikely to prohibit a preclearance provision, it is unlikely that Congress would have the political will to enact a new measure.
Additional reporting and analysis on the oral argument comes from Greg Storh of Bloomberg Businessweek, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press (via the Philadelphia Inquirer), Reuters, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, NBC News, Politico, Talking Points Memo, Roll Call, and The Huffington Post. Commentary on the oral argument comes from the editorial board of Bloomberg View, Cato@Liberty, and the Election Law Blog. In the first of this blog’s four guest posts on the oral argument, Elizabeth Wydra predicts that “the outcome of Shelby County will hinge on how the Justices answer the question Justice Elena Kagan asked toward the end of argument: who gets to decide when the problem of racial discrimination in voting is solved?” We expect three more posts, from Roger Clegg, Ellen Katz, and Abigail Thernstrom soon.
Tomorrow morning Cormac will have a round-up with additional coverage of this argument, plus the coverage of today’s other argument, American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, and today’s opinions.