Shelby County v Holder

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision[1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.[2][3] On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5 to 4 vote that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.[2][3] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.[4] Some allege the ruling has made it easier for state officials to make it harder for ethnic minority voters to vote.[5] The Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional in a June 25, 2013 ruling.[2][29] The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder

As of June 2014 the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 was in limbo because there was no widespread support for amending the Voting Rights Act as it was by its reauthorization in 2006.[104] The House and Senate versions of the bill died in their respective Judiciary Committees.[105][106] The House introduced the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015 the next year.[107] It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on the day it was introduced, but did not move past the committee stage.[108] The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015[109] (H.R. 2867), a similar measure to the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015, was introduced on June 24, 2015, but died with the end of the 114th United States Congress.[110] The most recent legislative attempt, the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2017 (H.R. 3239), was introduced on July 13, 2017,[111] and again referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

In February 2019, congressional Democrats therefore introduced the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019[117] (H.R. 4 in the 116th Congress),[115] which would restore the Voting Rights Act's preclearance provision, requiring certain jurisdictions to secure federal approval before enacting voting changes.... On August 24, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a margin of 219–212.[4] On November 3, 2021, the bill failed to pass the Senate after falling short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture.[5] A second attempt to pass it on January 19, 2022 as part of a combined bill with the Freedom to Vote Act failed as well, where after again falling short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, a vote to exempt the bill from the senate filibuster rules also failed... They (Democrats) then attempted to change Senate rules to exempt both bills from the filibuster, but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema joined Senate Republicans in voting against the change.

• In a June 2021 editorial for the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a crucial vote for the bill to see passage in the 117th Congress, wrote "I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act."