Editing Voting Rights Act of 1965 (section)

====Coverage formula====
[[File:Us s5 cvr08.PNG|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Map depicting states and counties encompassed by the act's coverage formula in January 2008 (excluding bailed-out jurisdictions)|States and counties encompassed by the Act's coverage formula in January 2008 (excluding bailed-out jurisdictions). Several counties subsequently bailed out,<ref name=DOJsection4 /> but the majority of the map accurately depicts covered jurisdictions before the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Shelby County v. Holder]]'' (2013), which declared the coverage formula unconstitutional.]]
Section 4(b) contains a "coverage formula" that determines which states and local governments may be subjected to the Act's other special provisions (except for the Section 203(c) bilingual election requirements, which fall under a different formula). Congress intended for the coverage formula to encompass the most pervasively discriminatory jurisdictions. A jurisdiction is covered by the formula if:

# As of November 1, 1964, 1968, or 1972, the jurisdiction used a "test or device" to restrict the opportunity to register and vote; and
# Less than half of the jurisdiction's eligible citizens were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, 1968, or 1972; or less than half of eligible citizens voted in the presidential election of November 1964, 1968, or 1972.

As originally enacted, the coverage formula contained only November 1964 triggering dates; subsequent revisions to the law supplemented it with the additional triggering dates of November 1968 and November 1972, which brought more jurisdictions into coverage.<ref name=DOJsection4 /> For purposes of the coverage formula, the term "test or device" includes the same four devices prohibited nationally by Section 201—literacy tests, educational or knowledge requirements, proof of good moral character, and requirements that a person be vouched for when voting—and one further device defined in Section 4(f)(3): in jurisdictions where more than five percent of the citizen voting age population are members of a single language minority group, any practice or requirement by which registration or election materials are provided only in English. The types of jurisdictions that the coverage formula applies to include states and "political subdivisions" of states.<ref name=enfranchise />{{rp|207–208}} Section 14(c)(2) defines "political subdivision" to mean any county, parish, or "other subdivision of a State which conducts registration for voting."<ref>Voting Rights Act § 14(c)(2); {{uscsub|52|10310|c|2}} (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c)(2))</ref>

As Congress added new triggering dates to the coverage formula, new jurisdictions were brought into coverage. The 1965 coverage formula included the whole of Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia; and some subdivisions (mostly counties) in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina.<ref name=DOJsection4 /> The 1968 coverage resulted in the partial coverage of Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming. Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming filed successful "bailout" lawsuits, as also provided by section 4.<ref name=DOJsection4 /> The 1972 coverage covered the whole of Alaska, Arizona, and Texas, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.<ref name=DOJsection4 />

{{Anchor|Periodic renewal}}The special provisions of the Act were initially due to expire in 1970, and Congress renewed them for another five years. In 1975, the Act's special provisions were extended for another seven years. In 1982, the coverage formula was extended again, this time for 25 years, but no changes were made to the coverage formula, and in 2006, the coverage formula was again extended for 25 years.<ref name="DOJsection4" />

Throughout its history, the coverage formula remained controversial because it singled out certain jurisdictions for scrutiny, most of which were in the Deep South. In ''Shelby County v. Holder'' (2013), the Supreme Court declared the coverage formula unconstitutional because the criteria used were outdated and thus violated principles of equal state [[sovereignty]] and [[Federalism in the United States|federalism]].<ref name="shelby" /><ref>{{cite news |last1=Totenberg |first1=Nina |title=Supreme Court Weighs Future Of Voting Rights Act |url=https://www.npr.org/2013/02/27/173012038/supreme-court-weighs-future-of-voting-rights-act |access-date=March 13, 2021 |work=[[NPR|National Public Radio]] |publisher=[[NPR|National Public Radio]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201008132557/https://www.npr.org/2013/02/27/173012038/supreme-court-weighs-future-of-voting-rights-act |archive-date=October 8, 2020}}</ref><ref name="Liptak, A">{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act|author=Liptak, A.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 25, 2013|access-date=June 26, 2013}}</ref> The other special provisions that are dependent on the coverage formula, such as the Section 5 preclearance requirement, remain valid law. However, without a valid coverage formula, these provisions are unenforceable.<ref name="scotusblogplain" /><ref name="rolls back">{{cite magazine| url=https://swampland.time.com/2013/06/25/high-court-rolls-back-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965/ | title=High Court Rolls Back the Voting Rights Act of 1965 | magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | date=June 25, 2013| access-date=June 25, 2013 | author=Von Drehle, David|author-link=David Von Drehle}}</ref>