The impacts of the Supreme Court's Shelby vs. Holder decision, as measured in terms of black-white differences in voter registration rates, have been minimal.
The decision was rendered in 2013. The Court's opinion noted that six states were covered by the law in 1965: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. Thirty-nine counties in North Carolina were covered as well. This is laid out on page 4 of the opinion, which you can access over at the Brennan Center for Justice:
U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 elections show that the differences between black and white voter registration rates in these states were below the national average and that several states not originally covered by the law have much larger differentials.
Here are 2022 national figures for voter registration rates for all citizens by race:
White non-Hispanic alone - 73.2%
Black alone - 64.1%
White - black difference - 9.1 percentage points
Here are the 2022 figures for the six states that were originally covered in 1965, plus North Carolina:
Alabama
White non-Hispanic alone - 70.2%
Black alone - 63.6%
White - black difference - 6.6 percentage points
Georgia
White non-Hispanic alone - 72.2%
Black alone - 68.3%
White - black difference - 3.9 percentage points
Louisiana
White non-Hispanic alone - 71.4%
Black alone - 63.1%
White - black difference - 8.3%
Mississippi
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.3%
Black alone - 72.4%
White - black difference - 1.9 percentage points
North Carolina
White non-Hispanic alone - 63.5%
Black alone - 56.7%
White - black difference - 6.8 percentage points
South Carolina
White non-Hispanic alone - 67.9%
Black alone - 60.5%
White - black difference - 7.4 percentage points
Virginia
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.9%
Black alone - 72.7%
White - black difference - 3.2 percentage points
All seven states had smaller gaps between white voter registration rates and black voter registration rates than the nation as a whole.
Let's go a step further and look at the differences in several states that were not originally covered in 1965:
California
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.7%
Black alone - 64.6%
White - black difference - 10.5 percentage points
Colorado
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.3%
Black alone - 55.0%
White - black difference - 20.3 percentage points
Connecticut
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.0%
Black alone - 72.4%
White - black difference - 1.6 percentage points
Delaware
White non-Hispanic alone - 80.4%
Black alone - 66.3%
White - black difference - 14.1 percentage points
District of Columbia
White non-Hispanic alone - 88.9%
Black alone - 77.6%
White-black difference - 11.3 percentage points
Illinois
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.1%
Black alone - 61.4%
White - black difference - 13.7%
Minnesota
White non-Hispanic alone - 79.3%
Black alone - 67.0%
White - black difference - 12.3 percentage points
New Jersey
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.4%
Black alone - 66.3%
White - black difference - 8.1%
New York
White non-Hispanic alone - 70.0%
Black alone - 61.7%
White - black difference - 8.3 percentage points
Use this link and download Table 4b if you want to do a deep dive:
What does it tell you when Mississippi has a higher percentage of its black citizens registered to vote than Illinois (72.4% vs. 61.4%) and a much smaller difference in registration rates between black and white citizens (1.9 percentage points vs. 13.7 percentage points)? Which state seems to be more deserving of federal pre-clearance scrutiny when changes to voting laws and procedures are made?
My point is not to cast aspersions on Illinois or the other states that have worse than average white-black voter registration differences. The data suggests that there is no longer any justification for applying extra scrutiny to Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. They should be treated the same as any other state. That was the point made in the Shelby vs. Holder decision.
There are corrective mechanisms in place when states do things that run afoul of the law. We saw an example of this with Alabama's new congressional maps:
The impacts of the Supreme Court's Shelby vs. Holder decision, as measured in terms of black-white differences in voter registration rates, have been minimal.
The decision was rendered in 2013. The Court's opinion noted that six states were covered by the law in 1965: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. Thirty-nine counties in North Carolina were covered as well. This is laid out on page 4 of the opinion, which you can access over at the Brennan Center for Justice:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/shelby-county-v-holder-case-documents
U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 elections show that the differences between black and white voter registration rates in these states were below the national average and that several states not originally covered by the law have much larger differentials.
Here are 2022 national figures for voter registration rates for all citizens by race:
White non-Hispanic alone - 73.2%
Black alone - 64.1%
White - black difference - 9.1 percentage points
Here are the 2022 figures for the six states that were originally covered in 1965, plus North Carolina:
Alabama
White non-Hispanic alone - 70.2%
Black alone - 63.6%
White - black difference - 6.6 percentage points
Georgia
White non-Hispanic alone - 72.2%
Black alone - 68.3%
White - black difference - 3.9 percentage points
Louisiana
White non-Hispanic alone - 71.4%
Black alone - 63.1%
White - black difference - 8.3%
Mississippi
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.3%
Black alone - 72.4%
White - black difference - 1.9 percentage points
North Carolina
White non-Hispanic alone - 63.5%
Black alone - 56.7%
White - black difference - 6.8 percentage points
South Carolina
White non-Hispanic alone - 67.9%
Black alone - 60.5%
White - black difference - 7.4 percentage points
Virginia
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.9%
Black alone - 72.7%
White - black difference - 3.2 percentage points
All seven states had smaller gaps between white voter registration rates and black voter registration rates than the nation as a whole.
Let's go a step further and look at the differences in several states that were not originally covered in 1965:
California
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.7%
Black alone - 64.6%
White - black difference - 10.5 percentage points
Colorado
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.3%
Black alone - 55.0%
White - black difference - 20.3 percentage points
Connecticut
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.0%
Black alone - 72.4%
White - black difference - 1.6 percentage points
Delaware
White non-Hispanic alone - 80.4%
Black alone - 66.3%
White - black difference - 14.1 percentage points
District of Columbia
White non-Hispanic alone - 88.9%
Black alone - 77.6%
White-black difference - 11.3 percentage points
Illinois
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.1%
Black alone - 61.4%
White - black difference - 13.7%
Minnesota
White non-Hispanic alone - 79.3%
Black alone - 67.0%
White - black difference - 12.3 percentage points
New Jersey
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.4%
Black alone - 66.3%
White - black difference - 8.1%
New York
White non-Hispanic alone - 70.0%
Black alone - 61.7%
White - black difference - 8.3 percentage points
Use this link and download Table 4b if you want to do a deep dive:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-586.html
What does it tell you when Mississippi has a higher percentage of its black citizens registered to vote than Illinois (72.4% vs. 61.4%) and a much smaller difference in registration rates between black and white citizens (1.9 percentage points vs. 13.7 percentage points)? Which state seems to be more deserving of federal pre-clearance scrutiny when changes to voting laws and procedures are made?
My point is not to cast aspersions on Illinois or the other states that have worse than average white-black voter registration differences. The data suggests that there is no longer any justification for applying extra scrutiny to Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. They should be treated the same as any other state. That was the point made in the Shelby vs. Holder decision.
There are corrective mechanisms in place when states do things that run afoul of the law. We saw an example of this with Alabama's new congressional maps:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/05/court-throws-out-alabama-gop-congressional-map-for-violating-voting-rights-act-00113962
We've also seen how this works in New York:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/new-york-top-court-tosses-congressisonal-map-democratic-gerrymandering-rcna26138
To the extent that people are talking about Shelby v. Holder one hundred years from now, they'll be wondering what the fuss was all about.